So to be clear, you're not okay with Sony asserting its legal rights because such rights happen to be associated with copyright law. I guess this means you would deny Sony the right to proceed in an action against this user of excerpts from its music portfolio.
Oh, abso-freaking-lutely. I would go farther. I would assert that Sony should lose their copyright as a penalty for this abuse of the legal system. Maybe then they would use caution and thought before threatening or taking legal action.
You just don't understand how Washington works. Fortunately the code has been leaked:
public class Washington extends Republic implements corruption{
private Discussion backRoomDealings;
private Discussion jobOffers;
private Discussion retreat;
public Discussion lunch;
public Discussion pressReleases;
private Funding bribe;
private CorporatePocket pocket;
public Funding donation;
public Servent politician;
public boolean passed = false;
public Lobbying getInfluence(Servent politician){
Lobbying sucessfulLobbying = true;
The truth is that we've already taken back copyright because IP maximalists have abused it for decades(centuries?). We are just now getting around to making those changes a part of law.
It's the old camel analogy. You know the one. Let a camel stick his nose in your tent and soon you'll have the whole camel. In this case, it was our idiot elected servants who let the camel in and now the owner of the tent is using a stick to beat it back outside again.
Stop whining. It's your own fault. Stay out of my tent.
The result would be the internet running the world at the lowest common denominator level of law.
Because the lowest common denominator is always something to aim for, right?
Your ideas are completely untenable and shows an absolute lack of comprehension of the reality of a worldwide internet. You should really step back and think of a few flaws in your own argument before you hit submit. You might just rethink a few things. Like:
How many lawyers versed in how many different countries laws will your company have to have on retainer to figure out what laws you are breaking?
How many of those countries are you offering a service which is legal until someone else (completely separate from you and without your knowledge) does something illegal with it? How do you control the actions of millions of users? (Keep in mind that BILLIONs of dollars have been unsuccessfully thrown at the question.)
Why is it so unreasonable for someone to just be responsible for obeying the laws of the country they are in, but it's reasonable for someone to be responsible for obeying all laws everywhere?
Why are internet storage lockers more liable than their physical world equivalents?
I really think you should ask yourself some of those questions. If you already have, just acknowledge that you want to kill the world wide internet and replace it with smaller intranets that don't inter-operate with incompatible jurisdictions.
This is what I was going to post. Asking for social networking should already be illegal based solely upon the information available in most profiles and any company that is doing this is opening itself up for legal and/or civil action.
.com's are not for exclusive US use. They are international in nature, as are .org, .net, and .info. The US claiming jurisdiction over them is just moronic.
"SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims."
Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and "donations")
Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!
So you admit that JB could possibly be prosecuted criminally for his little YouTube videos, and your defense is that the judge possible might give him a light sentence? That might be the lamest argument I've read here all day. And I read *TWO* OotB posts!
I can see both civil and criminal actions coming from it.
Wow, that's what it looks like in your crystal ball? Nice thought.
However, using hindsight, I hereby predict that no such actions will result from filing froudulant and false SOPA claims, as none have arisen from false DMCA claims.
Techdirt has already received many false DMCA claims. Right now, he has the power to reject them. The same cannot be said for SOPA where the decision to reject or defend is made by a 4th party who has a very real disincentive to reject it.
But you know this. Your goals are to spread disinformation, libel, and fud. You should be a spelunker. Your natural coat of slime would enable you to squeeze through some very tight places.
Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infringement and theft
So to be clear, you're not okay with Sony asserting its legal rights because such rights happen to be associated with copyright law. I guess this means you would deny Sony the right to proceed in an action against this user of excerpts from its music portfolio.
Oh, abso-freaking-lutely. I would go farther. I would assert that Sony should lose their copyright as a penalty for this abuse of the legal system. Maybe then they would use caution and thought before threatening or taking legal action.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can even remove drm from your post and it's still true.
Re: Finally, it's a bit silly to argue that all lobbying is "corruption."
You just don't understand how Washington works. Fortunately the code has been leaked:
public class Washington extends Republic implements corruption{
private Discussion backRoomDealings;
private Discussion jobOffers;
private Discussion retreat;
public Discussion lunch;
public Discussion pressReleases;
private Funding bribe;
private CorporatePocket pocket;
public Funding donation;
public Servent politician;
public boolean passed = false;
public Lobbying getInfluence(Servent politician){
Lobbying sucessfulLobbying = true;
if (politician.isCorrupt() && backRoomDealings.schedule(politician)){
try{
politician. add(jobOffers);
politician.add(bribe);
pocket.add( politician);
return sucessfulLobbying;
}catch(NotEnoughOffered yet){
getInfluence(politician);
}
}else{
& nbsp; try{
politician.add(donation);
po litician.add(lunch);
politician.add(retreat);
pock et.add(politician);
return successfulLobbying;
}catch(NotEnoughOffered yet){
getInfluence(politician);
}
}
}
public void passLaw(){
Law proposedLaw;
//maybe implement this as multi-threaded...
while(proposedLaw != passed){
for(Servent politician : congress){
getInfluence(politician);
}
}
& nbsp;}
public boolean isABribe(){
if (donation > 0 && politician.HadDiscussionWith() == true){
return true;
}else{
return false;
}
}
}
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But your piracy hits the average musician you claim to be angry was lied to and cheated on by the labels. Nice double uppercut on the muso.
Um no. It doesn't. That's kind of the point.
Re: Big Search is the anti-democratic evildoer here
I don't know about Mike, but I'm all for destroying corporate democracy. Keep your corporate out of my democracy. err Republic. Whatever.
Can you use a different name?
You give Bob's everywhere a bad one.
The truth is that we've already taken back copyright because IP maximalists have abused it for decades(centuries?). We are just now getting around to making those changes a part of law.
It's the old camel analogy. You know the one. Let a camel stick his nose in your tent and soon you'll have the whole camel. In this case, it was our idiot elected servants who let the camel in and now the owner of the tent is using a stick to beat it back outside again.
Stop whining. It's your own fault. Stay out of my tent.
Your logic is not the same as our Earth logic
The result would be the internet running the world at the lowest common denominator level of law.
Because the lowest common denominator is always something to aim for, right?
Your ideas are completely untenable and shows an absolute lack of comprehension of the reality of a worldwide internet. You should really step back and think of a few flaws in your own argument before you hit submit. You might just rethink a few things. Like:
How many lawyers versed in how many different countries laws will your company have to have on retainer to figure out what laws you are breaking?
How many of those countries are you offering a service which is legal until someone else (completely separate from you and without your knowledge) does something illegal with it? How do you control the actions of millions of users? (Keep in mind that BILLIONs of dollars have been unsuccessfully thrown at the question.)
Why is it so unreasonable for someone to just be responsible for obeying the laws of the country they are in, but it's reasonable for someone to be responsible for obeying all laws everywhere?
Why are internet storage lockers more liable than their physical world equivalents?
I really think you should ask yourself some of those questions. If you already have, just acknowledge that you want to kill the world wide internet and replace it with smaller intranets that don't inter-operate with incompatible jurisdictions.
Re: Re: Re:
A wooden pitchfork. Stylish and deadly.
Re:
This is what I was going to post. Asking for social networking should already be illegal based solely upon the information available in most profiles and any company that is doing this is opening itself up for legal and/or civil action.
Re:
They probably found out that it was written by a Mormon.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Existential...
"Yeah, there's a huge hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and a blank spot in the Manhattan skyline."
Both of which could have been prevented if only we had been in the habit of humiliating the elderly prior to the attacks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
.com's are not for exclusive US use. They are international in nature, as are .org, .net, and .info. The US claiming jurisdiction over them is just moronic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims."
Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and "donations")
Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!
Re: Re: Re:
The principles have been developed to be flexible and subservient to its primary mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_social_policies_are_not_a_suicide_pact
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
Re:
Have a cookie, troll.
So you admit that JB could possibly be prosecuted criminally for his little YouTube videos, and your defense is that the judge possible might give him a light sentence? That might be the lamest argument I've read here all day. And I read *TWO* OotB posts!
Re: Re: Mastercard?
they reliably manage within a few seconds at the checkout counter to determine whether I've enough numbers in my account
Because the SOPA take downs should be processed instantly by a machine, amirite?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can see both civil and criminal actions coming from it.
Wow, that's what it looks like in your crystal ball? Nice thought.
However, using hindsight, I hereby predict that no such actions will result from filing froudulant and false SOPA claims, as none have arisen from false DMCA claims.
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt has already received many false DMCA claims. Right now, he has the power to reject them. The same cannot be said for SOPA where the decision to reject or defend is made by a 4th party who has a very real disincentive to reject it.
But you know this. Your goals are to spread disinformation, libel, and fud. You should be a spelunker. Your natural coat of slime would enable you to squeeze through some very tight places.
(untitled comment)
Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.
Re: Re:
It's so hard to tell, isn't it? When you can't tell if a troll is a parody or not what does that say about the earnest trolls?