A Century Ago We Killed The Radio Commons; Don't Let The EU Do That To The Internet
from the a-history-lesson dept
As the EU gets set to vote on the EU Copyright Directive, it seemed like a good time for a little history lesson. Many people don’t know this, but in the early days of radio, it was not just considered a broadcast media. It was considered an open commons for anyone to use. The airwaves were the public airwaves, and the public was free to use them:
It?s easy to forget that the broadcasting airwaves are?and once were treated as?a commons, owned by citizens, not powerful media companies.
At the dawn of the broadcasting era, the free market prevailed. The government set no rules. The 1912 Radio Act authorized the federal Commerce and Labor Department to issue radio station licenses to U.S. citizens upon request. Which it did…
Admittedly, as that article notes, this created some amount of chaos, mainly because the spectrum got too crowded, and there was widespread interference between different signals that made the whole space a mess. Over time, laws were put in place to “regulate” the wild west, but what happened was we turned what had been an open commons into a locked up space where only giant media companies could prevail. The US, at the very least, decided that the way to deal with this wild west was to treat spectrum as a property right that could be “licensed.” And in doing so it set things up such that large broadcasters could collect many licenses and dominate markets.
What had been the open spaces of the public to use for a variety of creative endeavors turned into a locked down space for giant corporations.
While there are some notable differences, the attempt by the EU to pass Article 13 is truly an attempt to replay this unfortunate scenario nearly a century later. There was a good rationale for radio regulations in the past — dealing with all of the interference that made using radio difficult — and as one 1927 academic so succinctly put it: “highly annoying and almost destructive.”
But, of course, we lost something when we went from an open radio system for the public to use to one that was locked up among just a few corporations. And the wonderful thing about the internet was that we didn’t have the same limitations. There is no “interference” like there is with more limited radio spectrum. And while there are reasonable questions about companies dominating parts of the internet, others are not completely locked out as they were in radio.
Unfortunately, the entire design of the EU Copyright Directive is an attempt to do the same sort of thing to the internet: to lock it down. The EU Copyright Directive — in particular Articles 11 and 13 — are designed to make the internet a bland corporate broadcast medium dominated by a few giant companies. This dismisses the roots of the internet as a commons-based communications medium that anyone can use.
The very structure of Article 13 makes this clear. The demand that everything must be “licensed” on internet platforms makes no sense. Do you “license” content in order to communicate with your friends? Do you license a song to sing? Do you license it when you quote from a book? Licensing is not necessary for communication — it is only necessary for “broadcast.” This is the core problem that the legacy gatekeepers have with the internet. It’s a communications medium, and they come from the broadcast era. Their entire structure is built off of licensing to broadcasters. And rather than recognize that everything has changed, their only play is to try to shove the internet into a similar broadcast structure.
We killed off the open commons of radio nearly a hundred years ago. Hopefully the EU chooses not to do the same to the internet this year.
Filed Under: article 11, article 13, broadcast, commons, communications, copyright, creativity, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, gatekeepers, radio
Comments on “A Century Ago We Killed The Radio Commons; Don't Let The EU Do That To The Internet”
Hopefully some form of accountability will be brought to the Internet, that would be good. Disgusting sites like this one that do little except slander others with vile sexual images and disgusting language based on facial matter should be held accountable. There are “community standards” that are enforced in radio transmission, and the community benefits from those standards. That is, the hard working, law abiding, tax paying, children raising, church going, honest to goodness salt of the Earth American community. We hate sites like Techdirt, with their roving gangs of disgusting Internet Mobs promoting the theft of property without consequence.
No one would miss you if you were gone. In fact, many would celebrate. Not the “counter culture” that Techdirt represents of course. I’m talking about normal people. It’s time that hard working Americans and hard working Europeans put an end to the thievery and slander around every corner perpetrated by dishonest and disgusting anonymous and falsely named mobs like the ones here.
Re: Re:
"No one would miss you if you were gone"
I can think of at least one obsessive fiction writer who would miss the audience for his half-baked ramblings.
"Earth American community."
I also love the fact that you’re stupid enough to get nationalistic on an internationally read site, on a story about the EU.
But, hey, why let reality enter your head while you’re lying about the people you address here?
Re: Re:
disgusting language based on facial matter
you accused of a hair-lip?
Re: Re: Re:
I believe where he claims: "Disgusting sites like this one that do little except slander others with vile sexual images and disgusting language based on facial matter should be held accountable."
…he’s probably referring to his own earlier posts where he threatened rape and referred to "whore mouths".
It’s somehow typical copyright troll behavior – put up a post with incredibly offensive language…
…and then try to lambast the forum owner for allowing that type of comment to be posted.
It’s also blatantly dishonest and hypocritical but the time has long passed when you expected any copyright cultist to display civilized or even human behavior. You could probably string together most of his posts by just feeding googlebot a dictionary of bad language.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are part of Techdirt Counter-Intelligence, right, that uses advanced sophisticated mental and electronic algorithms and techniques to associate writing with writers, right?
You are an idiot!! You get it wrong ALL THE TIME!
Are you the head of Counter-Intelligence at Techdirt?
HAHA!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"Are you the head of Counter-Intelligence at Techdirt?"
I’m not sure whether the idea that a technology/culture blog has a "counter-intelligence department" belongs to the category of "delusional", "disturbing", or "demented"…or all of the above.
But if I may allow myself a minor comment, South Park is not the TV show you want to emulate if a debate was what you were after. Hell, pointing and going "HAHA" doesn’t even work for the third grade bully so what makes you think you’re lending your argument credibility here?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m sorry, my apologies, I thought you were the guy who posted above about “whore mouths”, right? Why do you think I am that guy? How did you divining that association? And who is delusional? You’re hearing voices that are not mine, but you think they are mine. Either you don’t think you need a basis to make this association, which means you’re nuts, or you think you have a basis to make that association, which also means you’re nuts (or at least wrong).
Admit it – you’re a comment tracking hound dog, right? Like on the Hobbit, one of those big ugly smelly dogs that sniffs out your prey, right? Who’s your master?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Comments like these are like the uncanny valley problem with realistic looking faces. They come close to sounding like a real human would write, but are off enough to set off the weird vibe that mentally sane people get when reading the ravings of lunatics.
Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's goal...
The EU obviously doesn’t want us peasants to have such a mode of open communications and open information the internet gives us. They have either been bribed to not want us to, or they have this authoritarian ideology that peasants shouldn’t have the power given by the internet, only the rich and powerful. Both makes the Meps unlikely to listen to anyone against ruining the internet, because ruining the internet is exactly the point of the entire directive. The major powers, just as they did with open radio, have decided that the information age must end and to put us peasants back in our place, they must take away our rights…
Makes me sad, angry and scared…
Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's goal...
This put forth on a site that promotes the idea that if you “can’t compete with free then you can’t compete at all”. You do little here except promote the interests of big globalist organizations at the expense of actual individual content creators. What the EU is doing is protecting the best and brightest among us, and forcing existing businesses (like this one) to respect property rights that actually belong to other people.
Tell the truth – when Trump got elected, you lost your collective minds, and have not recovered, and may never recover. You imagine a totalitarian utopia that is contrary to the public good. You advocate censorship (as practiced above) and disgusting public attacks against legitimate opinions. In fact, you recently argued that you had NO ROOM for contrary opinions at all, that a SINGLE VIEW should be the ONLY VIEW, and you call that “Journalism”.
You are pathetic children with no understanding of history or society. You idea of legitimate debate is smearing shit in your hair and then wondering why people look at you strangely and on’t take you seriously. And I’m not exagerating – just look at how much SHIT is put forth in both the titles to articles, in the articles themselves, andin the comments. The Streisand effect, indeed. You invented it and you deserve the name recognition – you are disgusting and the sooner laws catch up to your illegal activities, the better.
Good bye and good riddance.
Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's goa
"You do little here except promote the interests of big globalist organizations at the expense of actual individual content creators"
Yet, here you are openly supporting something that is guaranteed to shut own smaller platforms and force everybody to publish through existing corporate platforms.
If only you’d discuss what everybody is stating about the facts, rather than just attacking them for pointing out reality.
"public attacks against legitimate opinions"
I’m sure you’ll link to one of those any minute. I certainly can’t think of one you’ve posted – all I see are childish tantrums and lies, such as the ones in the post I’m responding to here.
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's
Can you explain what you mean by “shut own smaller platforms” and “force everybody to publish through existing corporate platforms”?
It seems to me that artists are free to publish their own works under this directive, and can then stop the wrongful publication of their works by others. That’s a good thing, right? Creative artists keeping control of their own works for their own benefit. Or do you oppose that, because you want to steal other people’s work in return for nothing at all.
Acting responsibly and respecting other people’s property is a good thing from where I come from. You are from where, exactly? Russia?
Re: Re: Re:2 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the
"Can you explain what you mean by “shut own smaller platforms” and “force everybody to publish through existing corporate platforms”?"
The rules place a great burden on platforms to police community provided content, a burden that will cause plenty of services to shut down, move outside the EU or ban end user provided content. This naturally reduces the number of competing platforms available, forcing people to use things such as the major record labels or YouTube to publish rather than using a more open independent platform. New platforms are unlikely to come along to fill the gap as the burden to entry is now too large. So, only those like Google with the current ability to both follow new rules and fight the inevitable frivolous and false claims that will continue can offer a service. Everyone else will be shut out.
"That’s a good thing, right? "
Not if hundreds of thousands of artists who would have been unable to publish before the internet came along are again denied that possibility, based on the fiction that piracy will be stopped (it won’t).
"Or do you oppose that, because you want to steal other people’s work in return for nothing at all."
The fact that you still insist this is the only reason to object means that you are either not listening to what people are really saying, or you’re a slanderous liar.
Re: Re: Re:3 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly
I’m not trying to ignore what you are saying or to act in a slanderous fashion.
The “burden to entry” means that you shouldn’t publish stuff illegally, and your point is that burden is too high. Since the burden is high to actually make sure that content is not published illegally, then it’s OK to publish things illegally, that’s your point, yes?
I’m having trouble understanding your point. Who benefits from publishing things illegally, other than pirate sites like this one? This is the “Pirate Party” site that Wendy Cockcroft promotes, right? Pirate Party is the banner you fly under, right?
You advocate piracy, am I mistaking that?
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
"The “burden to entry” means that you shouldn’t publish stuff illegally"
No, that’s what you want it to mean. What it actually means is that lots of people not have to jump through a lot of red tape while doing things perfectly legally, and that cost will kill or cripple a lot of businesses.
You’re obsessing over pirates (most of whom will bypass most of these rules anyway). I’m talking about people doing legal and valuable things which you want outlawed.
"You advocate piracy, am I mistaking that?"
Yes, you’re deliberately lying to avoid what’s being said to you.
Re: Re: Re:5 Unfortunately, I think that this is
"lots of people not have to "
Erm, will have to…
Re: Re: Re:6 Unfortunately, I think that this
Nya Nya nya Nya Nya. Got you to reply to yourself. Pussy.
Re: Re: Re:7 Unfortunately, I think that
So, you admit you’re a liar who refuses to address the real concerns of people performing legal activity? Cool.
Re: Re: Re:8 Unfortunately, I think t
Well, now you are becoming interesting. You are taking on the voice of other people. You are someone who can “channel” what other people want and what other people think and what other people are concerned about. Wow. I’ve heard of people like you. “Channelers”. Mind Readers. Opinion Gatherers. WIse Ones. Old Souls. The Dali Lhama (sp?) Is it you, oh revered one?
Tell us, oh revered one, what are the real concerns of people performing legal activity? Stealing stuff and giving it away for free? Is that it? Are people really concerned that they should be able to publish any and all shit without even considering if it injures someone else?
Wow, a Mind Reader, kind of like X_MEN, right? The bald guy who could see everybody simultaneously through a big dish hooked up to his head. That’s you, right?
Re: Re: Re:9 Unfortunately, I thi
Nope, just stating my opinion both as someone who works in the industry and as a consumer of legally obtained media, based on my knowledge of things of how this will break things for people like me.
But, since your only response to genuine is making up childish lies, it’s probably too hard for you to deal with the fact that you’re supporting the destruction of the people you claim to want to protect.
Re: Re: Re:10 Unfortunately, I
And the reason that you can’t seem to express that in simple terms is … because it’s not true? Maybe? I support the destruction of worthless negative sites like this. I support the establishment of sites where legitimate authors of valuable material gain every advantage and incentive to create more valuable materials, including preventing others from publishing it. Duh.
Maybe if you understood how to actually create valuable material, you would come over to my side of the argument.
Re: Re: Re:11 Unfortunatel
So you would like to censor sites which doesn’t adhere to your vision of the world then. Not a much of believer of free speech it seems.
And how do you propose to finance the establishment of sites where "legitimate authors" can publish their works if article 13 is implemented? You know, like paying for filters, licenses and employees that will handle all the vetting of content. Because why would someone use your site when they can use a multitude of platforms today already for free.
Perhaps you can get some financing by placing Google-ads on the site.. Oh, yeah.. I forgot, Google "steals" money from creators, so no Google-ads.. And no Google-indexing either.
It doesn’t matter how creative you are if the financial burden to be published foregoes self-publishing unless you sign away some of your rights to get published. Because that is the consequence of article 13.
Re: Re: Re:12 Unfortun
I’m missing your point. Let’s say I write music. Or I write books. Or I write programs. It’s really cheap for me to set up a site to market MY OWN materials, it’s not much money at all. I’d guess not even $100. If you get out of your whole “free” (bullshit) mindset, just put yourself in the place of some actual content creators with things to sell. It’s CHEAP to sell your own stuff on the Internet. You don’t need adds, you need good products and PAYING customers. And you need to STOP RIPOFF ARTISTS from STEALING YOUR STUFF FOR FREE.
Does that answer your question – the key is to have something valuable to sell, and then sell it, and not allow other people to steal it for free. Copying IS Theft. Comprendo?
Re: Re: Re:13 Unfo
"It’s really cheap for me to set up a site to market MY OWN materials, it’s not much money at all"
The website’s easy. It’s the reach that’s the problem. Something you’re demanding be removed from people who currently use the free tools that provide that for them.
Having a great site to sell your stuff is useless if nobody ever sees it – and the companies you’re trying to shut down are the ones that connect them to their audience.
Re: Re: Re:13 Unfo
Copying is not, nor ever will be theft and repeating it does nothing to make you look less insane. Every comment you make gets flagged by dozens of different people who understand rational thoughts and that you have none. If you find assholes everywhere you go, you are the asshole. Get a clue and stop posting on sites you claim to hate. If you hate something this much, stop letting it live rent-free in your head.
Re: Re: Re:13 Unfo
And I suppose you do not need Google or other search engines to index your site, or to use the social media sites or do anything to enable customers to find your site. Potential customers will just know what to type into the address bar to arrive at your site.
Having a good product is the easy part of making sales, getting it in front of customers on the other hand takes hard work, and better people skills than you exhibit here.
Re: Re: Re:13 Unfo
Yeah, you are missing the point entirely it seems. You didn’t specify it was ONLY your content you would self publish, you specifically said "authors" which means you NEED to have license agreements and content vetting and all what that entails.
How do you guarantee that any of authors doesn’t publish something they ripped off? That means YOUR site is liable for infringement, not the author doing the deed, unless you do the due diligence for every other author on the site. Either way you are paying for it one way or another.
Remember, just because an author has written a totally original text the book may still infringe someones copyright in totally non-obvious ways.
Also, how are your potential customers supposed to find you without exposure? Just wondering, because I’ve seen great products die because other lesser products had better exposure.
FYI, I’m not into the whole "free" mindset – I see the legal problems our company is going to have to deal with because we provide web publishing services to companies. These problems will lead to lost customers since we need to a) change our service, b) charge more for the service.
Tell me who in their right mind is willing to pay more for less? No, they will move to another service-provider that’s not burdened with a legal framework that makes it economically infeasible to run the service.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
"How do you guarantee that any of authors doesn’t publish something they ripped off?"
Yep, assuming that any of his words are intended to be a factual opinion, this is the thing he’s missing. Total self publishing possibly won’t be affected (assuming they’re not the target of false claims anyway). But, most people don’t self publish, they get others to do it for them. Those that do self publish almost never do things totally alone, they will use a YouTube or a Soundcloud or an Amazon as a platform, then an Instagram or Twitter to promote and a Google or a Facebook to help generate more traffic and so on.
If you make all of those platforms liable for what other people do, most will close or stop offering those kinds of services. Those that are left are either the old gatekeepers, or they are the companies large enough to withstand these attack. Everyone else will either have to commit everything to those platforms, or they will have to do everything alone and struggle to be noticed.
If he’s at all honest about wanting to protect artists’ freedom and income, he’s supporting the worst possible thing for that. If he’s honest about wanting to lessen Google’s influence, he’s actually supporting handing the keys to everything.
Re: Re: Re:8 Unfortunately, I think t
Hamilton was the original champion of replying to himself. He feels his position has been threatened.
Re: Re: Re:9 Unfortunately, I thi
Well thank you for noticing. You seem like a nice fellow. I was a little shallow to berate him for something I have done so many, many times. Maybe I was a little hungry and irritable, I can get like that somtimes.
Re: Re: Re:4
This is a willful misreading of his comments, and I am going to explain why.
Yes, the “burden to entry” ostensibly exists to ensure that platforms do as much as possible to prevent/prohibit third parties from uploading illicit copies of copyrighted works to said platforms. But to meet that burden, platforms will need to do one of three things: Hire enough people to police any and all uploads after they have been uploaded, hire enough people to police uploads before they are officially “published”, or implement an automated filter to prevent uploads from being published. All three options are expensive, and the burden of that cost can be prohibitive enough to keep platforms from either allowing third party uploads altogether or simply staying open.
Even if a platform manages to implement one (or more) of those systems, the chances of said systems hitting numerous false positives would be exceptionally high without another expensive addition to the system: a database of copyrighted works to which the filters, human or automated, can compare a third-party upload. And even that still does not account for the context of a given upload (it could be using an existing work under the principles of Fair Use) or blatantly false takedown claims by people who do not own any part of the upload in question.
The point about the “burden of entry” is not, as you claim, “it’s OK to publish things illegally”. The point is that the burden is so great — i.e., the costs of complying with Article 13 are so theoretically high — that smaller platforms engaged in currently legal activity will be forced to either stop all third-party uploads, geoblock the EU, or shut down altogether, and all so they can avoid being bankrupted. Larger platforms such as YouTube and Facebook will roll on because their corporate owners have the wealth necessary to keep those platforms in compliance; if and when their smaller competitors bite the dust (one way or another), those corporate platforms will have their power further entrenched.
If the goal of Article 13 is to stop Google from becoming an even greater power, Article 13 will fail miserably in that regard. But if the goal of Artlcle 13 is to stop Google’s competitors from ever being able to gain a foothold (or even exist) by making the burden of preventing even a single act of copyright infringement too much for those competitors to bear, Article 13 will succeed in spectacular fashion. Mass-scale copyright infringers — “pirates”, if you will — cannot and will not be stopped by Article 13 because they already ignore the law. Article 13, like DRM, will only affect those who already perform currently legal actions; it will neither slow nor stop existing “piracy” in any meaningful sense.
[Oh, I can’t wait to see how you willfully misread this.]
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Deep Breath. Deep Breath. Deep Breath.
Open your mind. Consider all the businesses in the world. Channel them, maybe you can do that. Then consider each one individually. Consider what value they bring their customers. Consider them as individuals, each one, and what they take in, and what they give back, and how much they keep, and what they produce. Farmers, for example. Hot dog vendors in big cities. Yard cutters, crop pickers. All of them. Put them all in your mind simultaneously.
Now consider the relative value of those few businesses that make their living hosting Internet content. Consider what real value they bring to the world, in stark and simple terms. Consider what sites like this cost the world, the constant flow of defamatory disgusting gang rape style commenting attacks on innocents. Include this one site as you consider them all.
So, who do you want to protect? If a single site like this one defames even ONE innocent citizen or business, you have to discount it’s value to society greatly. If it defames many, and in a disgusting and shameful way, I think it deserves to go way far below the farmer, the hot dog vendor and the crop picker. In fact, no one wants such a business to operate other than the owner, it has very little positive value at all to anyone else.
So if Article 13 makes this kind of business more difficult, and that results in less public gang commenting rapes of innocents, then the world will be a better place.
Not misread, I think.
Deep Breath. Deep Breath.
Re: Re: Re:6
You appear to have an unhealthy obsession with the idea of gang rape.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Come on, it does kind of fit Techdirt though, don’t you think? I’ve seen it a thousand times. Maybe it’s Tag Team Comment Wrestling, maybe it’s Gang Rape, whatever. It’s when you and PaulT and other “lifers” with tens of thousands of comments work together to reinforce a particular point against a single newbie. Happens all the time. Tag Team Comment Wrestling, if you like, or pick another name. It is the modus operandi of this site, you would agree with that, wouldn’t you? Coordinated attacks of long timers against individuals. You guys even have a secret meeting place to coordinate your attacks, right?
Re: Re: Re:8
You are not a newbie, Hamilton. And neither are the other trolls we have grown so used to over the years. That they use fake names or remain anonymous is meaningless; as with you, their specific rhetorical styles give away their identities. We “reinforce a particular point” because you and the other trolls willfully misread posts written by others with far more of an ability to put together a coherent argument and respond with misinterpretations and otherwordings in an attempt to shove words in our mouths that did not first come from us.
If you cannot stand the idea of people with more experience in crafting good arguments outdoing your drivel, leave. You will not be treated any differently because you have an obsession with rape…
…and an obsession with conspiracy theories about people on a tech blog coördinating their comments for…reasons.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You are such a transparent liar. This tech blog coordinates it’s comments for … wait for it. … big suspense. .. why do they do it? ….. For Money? Really? This is actually a money making business posing as a blog? OMG. Money, yeah, that’s it. It’s not sex, that’s for sure.
Reasons == Money
Tell me I’m wrong. Of course you will, because your money depends on LYING! beautiful, no, you capture both sides of the obviously fraudulent argument without any effort at all, after all your years of practice and deceit.
And by the way, you almost NEVER recognize my writing – you have called me every name, as have others. It’s so easy to fake you guys out.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
If your actions are dishonest, doesn’t it also mean that you are a dishonest person?
Re: Re: Re:11
It does, but he won’t ever admit as much.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
I don’t believe it is dishonest to choose a voice to present a point. The point is still the point, even if I use caps in a particular way or choose some common phrase of another anonymous writer or bring up something from another thread. I am already anonymous, sometimes I am synonymous with another writer, my points are still my points. What’s wacky is how you try to associate who is speaking with the value of what they are saying. That’s really dishonest. Address the issue, not the speaker. Only totalitarian assholes have to resort to smearing the speaker instead of addressing the issue he raises.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
He is too insane to recognize his own warped mental gymnastics are not anywhere close to reality.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"Maybe it’s Tag Team Comment Wrestling, maybe it’s Gang Rape, whatever."
Well, there has been exactly one comment made promoting gang rape. It was made by a copyright cultist who argued suspiciously like you keep doing.
I guess by "tag team comment wrestling" you refer to the commenters all not letting you forget what you’ve been saying around here?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Were you that unable to get Noam Chomsky on the jury? Maybe you should have tried more cocksucking, Hamilton. You’d be a superstar at that given your experience. Or does that only apply if the recipient wears the Fran Drescher mask?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
This was part of the “gang rape” culture I was speaking to above. Disgusting sexual references combined with other diversions and denials, again and again, over and over, for years on end. Techdirt legacy.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Your boy John Smith personally advocated anal rape of everyone he didn’t agree with.
What is it with copyright fanatics and throwing stones in their glass houses?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
If this site provides no value to anyone other than the owner, then GET THE HELL OFF THIS SITE, as it has no use to you…
Oh wait, you value being an obnoxious gang commenting raper (is that gang raping commenter?? same thing), and so this site is OF VALUE to you in performing your gang comment raping…
So your very existence here proves your own statements false and show that you are just obnoxious lying internet troll (what would you do if all the sites you gang comment/rape are turned off? You would have no value left in the world.. probably best to end it all now).
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You could make the world a better place in the manner, and reduce the insults and bad language by the simple expedient of disconnection yourself from the Internet.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
"I’m having trouble understanding your point. Who benefits from publishing things illegally, other than pirate sites like this one? This is the “Pirate Party” site that Wendy Cockcroft promotes, right? Pirate Party is the banner you fly under, right?"
Aside from the obvious straw man about "this site" being a "pirate site" and the rest of your false assumptions, outright lies, and implied slander – let’s answer your question for the benefit of anyone who isn’t a troll:
You may find pirate party members posting against article 13. Here, among other places since we tend to be interested in online technology and culture, which is what this site is all about. Those are the ones who would like to change the legal landscape, after all, and are concerned with issues other than simply copying files.
Most actual pirates, however, won’t give a flying fuck about Article 13 since – in case someone repossessed your brain lately – article 13 can’t impact or affect piracy, pirate index sites, or any other venue pirates use online.
Article 13 is not anti-pirate legislation. The only way it could be is if somehow youtube and vimeo were primary filesharing hubs.
And they’re not, actually. In the filesharing community anyone asking how to find movies on youtube is just going to be looked at for a while. Then most will laugh and someone will kindly point out that the requester should simply use a torrent index and a bittorrent client like everyone else.
Neither of which will be touched by anything in the copyright directive, article 13 or no article 13.
Article 13 will raise the bar for any legal uploader. Pirates don’t give a shit because pirates don’t upload to streaming services – or more appropriately, no streaming services article 13 can touch.
Article 13 will also encourage anyone providing a legal platform to gtfo of europe because the only such platforms which can afford to not geoblock the EU entirely will be those who can either give the EU as a whole the finger, or those who have 60-100 million USD to use to develop a contentid filter.
That sort of overhead won’t be "small" platforms.
We have at least one national government (germany) which has spoken clearly on the filter requirement of article 13 and the inescapable logic is pretty clear; Article 13 will make any platform accepting user uploads too expensive to profit from in the EU.
Re: Re: Re:5 Unfortunately, I think that this is
Tell me again who fucking cares except bullshit sites that upload shit that they shouldn’t?
Tell me again what these sites bring as value to anyone other than themselves?
Name some names, be specific. You guys wave your arms about the end of the world, I’m assuming it’s about you, and you just don’t want to be obvious about it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Unfortunately, I think that this
"Tell me again who fucking cares except bullshit sites that upload shit that they shouldn’t?"
You mean every site on the internet which operates legitimately and allows user uploads?
You calling EVERY interactive site online "bullshit" only indicates your own lack of reason and rationality.
"Tell me again what these sites bring as value to anyone other than themselves?"
That’s like asking what fucking use language is. Assuming we find any use in being able to communicate two ways rather than having a completely unidirectional flow of information.
"Name some names, be specific. You guys wave your arms about the end of the world, I’m assuming it’s about you, and you just don’t want to be obvious about it."
That statement makes as much sense as someone refusing to accept that a nuke will be harmful unless all the victims who will be killed by it going off are named.
No, "we" guys aren’t waving our arms much. People who are politically interested do care because they’re seeing a clear and present danger of the entire online environment in the EU being crippled.
People who aren’t that politically interested – most pirates, for instance – don’t bother. Article 13 won’t affect them and if anything will only harm legitimate users to the point where pirate methods will have to become the norm.
Ordinary internet users, otoh…now this will impact every last one of those. We’ll all have to go through torrent index sites for entertainment rather than youtube. No skin off my nose, but I suspect that may not have been the result you were looking for, Baghdad Bob.
Re: Re: Re:7 Unfortunately, I think that
Oops, I think you avoided the question – I asked you to name some reputable sites that would be harmed, and you couldn’t do it. That’s -2 points for your argument.
Instead you refer to the “entire online environment”, wow, another -1 for stupid generalities.
Then predicting what Article 13 will or won’t do in the future without a crystal ball – -1 for diversion.
Calling me a name as a replacement for an argument, uh oh, I think that’s another -1, and at -5, you are fully disqualified from the debate.
You’re a loser. Your arguments are demonstrably stupid. My arguments are good. We need to protect copyright owners more than bullshit websites that insist on violating valid copyrights.
I win.
Re: Re: Re:8 Unfortunately, I think t
If ALL sites that handles UGC needs to implement filters and hire extra personnel to handle the administrative side of licensing, some of them will not be able to keep operating even if they have never infringed any copyrights.
And if you really need names of sites that will suffer harm, here is a few: Wikipedia, flickr, imgur, Bandcamp, Soundcloud, Slack, Discord, Twitch.
You sound like a truculent child.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
Web sites that accept UGC are not publishers, they are distribution channels that anybody can use to publish. To make them responsible for validating what is or is not infringing, or to act as police for legacy publishers, is to force them to decide what individuals can and cannot publish.
Why should somebody else decide whether your creation can be published when the resources to do so are almost free? Why should they be held responsible for you illegal actions should you upload content to which you do not own the copyright? Why should the law make providing a service dependent on the owner of that service preventing it being used for illegal purposes?
Re: Re: Re:2 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the
Sounds like somebody has well and truly thrown their toys out of the baby buggy. Looks like a big panic, with gross insults thrown in for good measure, in case article 13 is thrown out. I refer you to: Socrates – “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Sounds just like a little Trumpite. That’s HIS technique.
Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's goa
I thought your campaign promised to toss Hilary in jail. And to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
Two years later, not only have you decided to cripple your own military for your own pet project (because why pay men on active protection duty when you can fund a whopping big canvas for tasteless graffiti instead), you managed to get Manafort and Cohen sent there in her place instead.
Nice job scoring in your own goal.
And Shiva Ayyadurai still didn’t invent email.
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's
Well, you sound like you figured out who I am, after all this time. I’m Trump! Yes, my campaign did endorse the “will of the people”, which included sending Hillary to jail. Now as a practical matter, I don’t think she should go to jail for those things she did while serving as a public official, unless she took a lot of money under false pretenses – such as the Clinton Foundation. Her Emails? Bad, but no jail, unless she took money, IMHO.
I never heard of Manafort or Cohen before the “Russia Collusion”, which they (apparently) had no part of, at all, ever. Tell me the truth – if Mueller came after you, he could find something to put you n jail too, right? Would you admit to that, or continue your ridiculous defense of the indefensible?
About Mexico paying for the wall, let’s just build it and then see what happens. You never know! Let’s just wait and see. They’ll pay, just watch.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the
We’ve been watching for two years. Your team is firing blanks. Your bluff was called and you fucking failed to deliver.
Carrying on Shiva Ayyadurai’s torch and wailing at this site, this "insignificant cesspool" that you somehow continue to fail to destroy, is all that you’ve been reduced to. I defecate in your general direction in case you might fertilize something and offer some positive contribution to the world but you can’t even do that right.
Have an Article 13 vote.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the
"I never heard of Manafort or Cohen before the “Russia Collusion”, "
Oh, you hear that, guys? Some random asshole on the internet had never heard of them, so their documented crimes don’t matter and they magically weren’t directly involved with Trump’s campaign.
"if Mueller came after you, he could find something to put you n jail too, right? "
Not on the level of the guys you’re defending, no.
"About Mexico paying for the wall, let’s just build it and then see what happens."
You’re happy to enter into a project that will cost the country many billions of dollars, cause massive upheaval to millions of Americans (for example, the government needing to seize the land required to build on), is already known to be less effective than other, cheaper means of reaching the same end, and do so in the vague hope that someone else will shoulder the costs at the end of it?
That does sound like the amount of thought you put into your article 13 comments, so I’m not surprised.
Re: Re: Re:3 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly
Now who is being dishonest? “Less effective than other, cheaper means”? You are either a liar or delusional if you think building a wall at the border of a country is expensive. It’s MUCH CHEAPER than letting Criminals and Drugs and Gang Members into the country. Do you even consider the Americans who are KILLED by people that cross the border illegally?
Are you Russian and is your name Ivan? Or Igor? Or Alexander?
I had a relative named Alexander, but he wasn’t Russian, like you.
Ok, now I’m laughing at your expense. But you are funny, really.
“Documented crimes” – what – tax evasion? Oooohh my god. Someone cheated on their taxes. Solitary confinement is normal in your country for such things, right Comerade? You would be fine with a single Totalitarian National Government, right? That’s what you’re after, isn’t it, comerade?
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
"“Less effective than other, cheaper means”? "
Yes. It doesn’t deal with most of the real problems, and costs a huge amount of money.
"You are either a liar or delusional if you think building a wall at the border of a country is expensive"
The cost of the wall is estimated to be around $60 billion. That doesn’t take into account the inevitable budget overruns, maintanence or staffing (if it’s not manned it’s useless).
That sounds expensive to me.
https://www.cato.org/blog/cost-border-wall-keeps-climbing-its-becoming-less-wall
"“Documented crimes” – what – tax evasion? "
You have no idea what these people actually did, do you? You didn’t even cover the actual convictions, let alone the deeds they’re known to have done outside of what came up during trial.
Maybe you should read and learn some things before mocking people for supplying you with correct factual information.
Re: Re: Re:5 Unfortunately, I think that this is
Trump projects don’t “overrun”. They come in under budget and ahead of schedule.
Re: Re: Re:6 Unfortunately, I think that this
Because he refuses to pay contractors and doesn’t mind delivering a substandard end result?
Re: Re: Re:7 Unfortunately, I think that
You’re arguing out of your arsehole. Trump has a track record of getting great things done. Not one or two. A life filled with a plethora of gargantuan projects with nearly miraculous results. Not every one, of course, and no life is without little hiccups. But come on! You want to compare your life to his? I think not. (But then, you never know what kind of crazies you might find on the internet).
Re: Re: Re:8 Unfortunately, I think t
"Trump has a track record of getting great things done"
Yes, by refusing to pay contractors and other shady crap, like I said. Then, when his businesses go bankrupt (as many have), he ensures that it’s his poor employees and suppliers who take the hit while he makes money on the collapse.
It says a lot about your character that you think this is good.
Re: Re: Re:9 Unfortunately, I thi
I’m sorry, are you a holy man? You want to say that you hold yourself to a higher standard than Donald J. Trump, one of the most investigated and public and transparent humans that have ever graced the office of the POTUS?
You are morally superior to him, right, holy man? Are you wearing a robe, or some special insignia? Maybe long black leather boots that you click together in Morse code?
Can I get an “amen”, as long as you insist on preaching to me?
Re: Re: Re:10 Unfortunately, I
Yeah, letting his boyfriend Kim building another nuke site under his watch, after their pinky promise, was an absolutely crowning achievement.
Re: Re: Re:11 Unfortunatel
This branch of paid propaganda is difficult for me to comprehend. It’s similar to when the New Yorker had a picture of Trump kissing Putin in a homosexual style image.
With all the demands of Trans and Gay and (whatever sexual orientation), how is everybody OK with this homophobic line of insults? Who pays for this?
Isn’t this hate speech against gays?
I don’t get it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Unfortun
Being gay does not suddenly mean that you’re protected from criticism on grounds of stupidity and incompetence.
Trump can identify as an attack helicopter for all I care. If he fails to deliver people are going to call him out on it. And not only did he fail to deliver, he spent months on a dish that got sent back to the kitchen.
You lose, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:10 Unfortunately, I
"You want to say that you hold yourself to a higher standard than Donald J. Trump"
Everyone should hold themselves TO a higher standard than that horror of a man, although for some reason he’s managed to get people like you to look past reality when seeing him.
If you meant to say do I consider myself to be OF a higher standard than him? Sure I do, but then I have more respect for what my cat left in the litter tray this morning than I do for him.
Re: Re: Re:11 Unfortunatel
Well, thank you for putting that in perspective. It’s good that you are not shy about your feelings, I so hate it when people try to be nice or rartional or reasonable when in fact they are loony and proud of it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Unfortun
I so hate it when people try to be nice or rartional or reasonable when in fact they are loony and proud of it
Self-loathing’s a bitch, ain’t it Hamilton?
Re: Re: Re:10 Unfortunately, I
Transparent?
Is that why he refuses to release his tax returns. Is that why multiple people of his administraiotn have gone to jail.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
"You are either a liar or delusional if you think building a wall at the border of a country is expensive."
Projected cost: 59 billion USD.
This is not expensive to you?
"It’s MUCH CHEAPER than letting Criminals and Drugs and Gang Members into the country."
So unless they bring a normal fucking ladder they’ll be stumped?
Or, you know, know how to dig which is why a normal method employed by drug smugglers is by simply driving a tunnel under the border.
"Do you even consider the Americans who are KILLED by people that cross the border illegally?"
By far less than the amount of americans killed in random shootings involving…other americans. Perhaps spending 59 billion dollars on ordinary law enforcement might help with both issues you refer to.
For someone so willing to scream about communists you are somehow sadly deficient in knowing your enemy. Or you would know that the only other nation to build and successfully utilize a wall to prevent egress or entry was the DDR – and in order to make that work they almost instantly found the wall itself was fucking useless. They needed several layers of barbed-wire fences, around-the-clock canine patrols and in some areas, automated shotguns and landmines to keep people from crossing it.
There are probably a number of old communists – most of the people of the old DDR alive today – who are laughing their heads off at this idea you have of a wall as a solution.
Because until you add 24-hour dog patrols, selbstshussanlagen, and landmines on it, that "wall" isn’t even a speedbump as long as mexico still has the technology required to produce ladders and ropes.
It’s good to hear you are laughing "at our expense". We’re laughing too.
You really need to put a hat out, Baghdad bob, or a patreon account. The clown act should not go unrewarded.
Re: Re: Re:5 Unfortunately, I think that this is
I won’t bother to critique your argument, please simply refer to the critique above, all the same results apply.
I have a challenge for you. A rhetorical duel, if you like. SIngle shot. I will explain why Trump will win in 2020, who will vote for him and why. Then you pick an alternative candidate, anyone you like, and you explain who will vote for him/her/it and why.
Ok? Ready? 10 Paces, you start. Pick an alternative to Trump, ANYONE declared or undeclared, and explain who will support him/her/it, and their reasons for doing so. Scared, Scary Devil?
Re: Re: Re:5 Unfortunately, I think that this is
Even better, as I recall in the 80s the Berlin Wall acted as a monument to why we should hate and fear the communists. It was ineffective at its primary purpose, but acted as a great target as to why we were fighting the cold war against them. Its fall was the great symbol of the West "winning" that war.
Now the Trumpers want to erect something similar, but much, much larger, and expect people to worship them for it… It’s bizarre.
Re: Re: Re:6 Unfortunately, I think that this
You are comparing a wall WITHIN a country to a wall BETWEEN countries.
Are you OK?
Re: Re: Re:7 Unfortunately, I think that
No, the wall divide 2 countries, blocking off the city that was technically part of West Germany from the area outside that was within East Germany. It’s far more complicated than that, of course, but the exact details are probably beyond you.
Also, if that barrier failed, why do you think that a far longer and more porous wall would work? Trump magic pixie dust?
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
USA today just had a news article about a recent death of a cop by an illegal immigrant. The comments were in uproar and said the wall would have stopped it and death to all liberals for wanting that cop dead for not wanting the wall. Well when you actually read the article, he went through an ICE checkpoint and had the proper work visa. He only overstayed his visa. So maybe that same money should be spent on finding those that overstay their visas rather then some pointless wall.
Re: Re: Re:4 3.4%
Re: Re: Re:2 3.4%
Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's goa
There you are ignoring that Mike and his band of authors create content for free, and distribute it via this site. Mike has stated on many occasions that anyone can copy and republish this site if the wish, yet that has not resulted in people doing that to any extent that damages the viability of the site. Yet here you are obsessing over piracy and claiming that it destroys businesses and that draconian measures must be taken to stop it.
I know which viewpoint makes sense, and it is not yours.
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's
What am I ignoring? That this site makes money secretly and does not disclose any of their projects, customers, fees, relationships, contracts or really anything at all about the actual business model? Am I ignoring that by all appearances, this is a “hit for hire” site, that focuses on individuals, often involved in a lawsuit, to shamelessly promote some unknown, unspoken, secret, denied, concealed and absolutely corrupt propagandist message for hire? Am I ignoring the constant concealment of your motives while you attack others in totally one sided disgusting gang rape style commenting? That’s the most common theme here – a coordinated gang rape institution by commenters that have been incarcerated here for years, often with tens or hundreds of thousands of documented comments. Lifers. Gang raping newbies, that happen to stop by here to give an opinion.
Am I ignoring that? Yes, well, mostly I am.
The piracy position is one of your paid positions, I’m sure. Maybe Red Hat is your customer, I don’t know, and you won’t say, soI won’t even ask.
But does anyone really doubt that you are getting paid to do this? And have you ever said a single word about where your money comes from?
I think not. Not then, not now, and not ever. Who wants to run such a shitty and corrupt business, I mean, besides you’all. It’s the last kind of business that the law should protect. If article 13 helps put people with this kind of corrupt business model out of business, I think I’ll fly to Europe and vote for it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your obvious mental illness, for starters.
Re: Re: Re:2 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the
Are you dumb enough to think that anyone who steps off a plane can directly vote in articles placed before the European Parliament?
Wait, you’re a Trump support, you probably are that stupid. No wonder you think Article 13 is positive, you’ve lost contact with reality.
Re: Re: Re:3 Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly
I collect on on-going metric of how stupid Techdirt Lifers (like you) are – it’s my “irony detection metric”. I say something outrageous, that any reasonable adult would understand was intentionally outrageous. Such as personally flying to vote on Article 13, for example. Outrageous. Then I wait to see if anyone catches on.
Check my posts, this is a real thing.
You are at 17%. One in six. Five times out of six you don’t get it all, and get involved in arguing a completely ridiculous point.
KowJai?
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
It’s no less stupid than anything else you post, so it’s hard to tell.
Re: Re: Re:5 Unfortunately, I think that this is
Yes, you have made it abundantly clear that your world view excludes even the most obvious cues – like humor. 10 to 1 you have no idea how to tell a joke, and couldn’t think of one if you tried, and if you could it would fall flat and never be funny or memorable.
Humorless. Probably a spinster too. Those things go together, often. Nasty, cold and without any grip on humor more subtle than childish insult or reference to feces.
Re: Re: Re:6
I bet people laughed when you said you were going to be a comedian.
Well, no one’s laughing now.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’m laughing. And I am special. I even have a top secret security clearance, which means I am US Government Approved. My laughs are worth two of your laughs. Maybe more.
Re: Re: Re:8
3.4%, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
That’s 3.4% out of 4, right? Which is like an “A” but not an “A+” in humor, right? Maybe a “B+” at the worst. I’m funny, right? Admit it. I’ve made you laugh a LOT of times, right? Come on! Give it up!
Re: Re: Re:10
No, and your rhetorical trick will not work on me.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
And for this you get another thanks and a chuckle, reading Hamilton opine about how Shiva was totally going to win against TD is just all sorts of funny given how it actually worked out.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Nah. The funniest part was when Hamilton got on his knees and sucked cocks for Shiva, begging people not to vote for the fake Indian. Remember how that turned out?
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Why was this truth censored?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Seeing that number, and being reminded what it was from never fails to get a smile and/or laugh from me, so thanks for that.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Thank you, Hamilton, for being one of the best arguments against Article 11 and Article 13 I’ve ever seen. You’re very effective at displaying what type of person and what type of logic is needed to be in support of these articles.
If a reasonable person were on the fence, your posts are a great way to get them on the right side of things.
Company! Salute!
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
I like that. It reminds me of when I was a boy, and my older sister (she was in high school) had a boyfriend in West Point and we went for a visit. There I was, walking along with my sister (I think she was 17) and a whole group of uniform wearing serious looking young men with weapons suddenly turned their head left and saluted my sister on that same order “Company! Salute!”. Wow, I remember that like it was yesterday. Do you think they were sexist? I’m not sure about today’s standards. But in any case, that’s for the salute! I’ve seen it done before and it always feels good!
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"And I am special."
Oh, I have no doubt of that. Just not in the way you’re thinking.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I’m sorry but if you actually have a top secret clearance, it was issued by your mom and only valid in her house. No agency in the world would give someone like you a top secret clearance. You have so many mental issues you could start a band and play every role. It will fail as all of your arguments do since your viewpoint is only possible if we were to stick our heads up your ass, like yours already is.
Re: Re: Re:6 Unfortunately, I think that this
Fact is, is that’s it’s hard to tell when your being satircal because your satirical comments are just as stupid as your serious comments.
In addition, humor isn’t a good indicator when nothing you say is humoress.
Re: Re: Re:4 Unfortunately, I think that this is exac
That’s a great deal more than Shiva got.
Re: Re: Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly the EU's goa
Why does the word "you" appear so often in this post?
It's only about two months until the next EU election...
If Article 13 or whatever it’s called now can’t be stopped, maybe work towards its repeal early?
Keep records of whom voted for it, advertise to get them OUT of the government, and if they go to work for a big media company right after they’re ousted, be sure to bring up that bribery and corruption when demanding the repeal.
Re: It's only about two months until the next EU election...
that won’t do shit. As far as I can tell the EU has no mechanism to repeal laws, merely make new ones that can replace old ones.
And this is where the entire idea of "repealing" dies. The Parliament can not propose laws, only the commission can. The parliament is merely a pseudo-democratic fig leaf that occasionally can prevent a law from being enacted. That is it. It has no further power than that.
It is the commission that wants this law and they will do fuck all to help getting rid of it.
Re: Re: It's only about two months until the next EU election...
Britain should tell the EU: We’ll hold a new Brexit referendum and potentially stay in the EU after all, but only if you make yourselves actually democratic, not have all laws he proposed by an undemocratic commission in the pocket of big business and have them unable to be repealed, only overridden.
A better analogue is what happened after the Invention of the printing press, where incumbent authorities did everything in their power to control what was printed, because they felt that their power was under threat. They failed miserably leading to the chaos and wars that started with the reformation and lead to the overthrow of the power of the church and monarchies.
Re: Re:
Overthrow the Leftist Church! Yay! No more “immoral” walls! No more children voting! Yay!
“ The demand that everything must be "licensed" on internet platforms makes no sense. ”
That’s not the demand.
Why are you a pathological liar, Masnick?
Remember, karma is really going to get you. Just watch.
Re: Re:
From your mouth to God’s ear. Godspeed.
Karma is catching up with Chelsea, that Mike shared a stage with, right? Proud recipients of ridiculous leftist awards, side by side in public, arm in arm even.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/09/25/canada-recognizes-chelsea-manning-as-a-traitor-wont-let-her-into-the-country/
Re: Re: Re:
Actually it’s worse than that now, right? Is he/she still in jail? Is Mike next?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47501763
Re: Re:
How’s that Fox Rothschild defense fund coming along, bro?
Re: Re:
Having actually read several parts of article 13, it is actually a implied demand. But a demand just the same. The only pathological liar I see is you unless your completely unable to understand what is being said in article 13. I am glad it is happening in the EU and not the US though. I work in the IT field in the US. It is going to be a nightmare for people in the same position as me in EU. I see several outcomes or a combination of them.
Re: Re:
“ The demand that everything must be "licensed" on internet platforms makes no sense. ”
That’s not the demand.
From the text itself:
Under Article 13, any internet platform will be under severe pressure to only allow "licensed" content or face crippling fines. It is very much the plan behind Article 13. Your insults not withstanding.
Re: Re:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn’t just contradiction.
It is becoming very apparent that there exist very little understanding here concerning what is the internet is and how it interacts with people.
The Radio Common, no law, no control, each person for them self, transmit anything at any time on any frequency was the system was the first radio system.
Normal communication at the time was by Morris code, voice modulation not producing understandable results most times.
Things had became crowded before the Titanic. If you could not get a clear channel you simply keyed the transmitter for a continuous until every one else departed because after all your message was important and there’s was not. False callings of sinking ships, SOS, were so common that there were dozens a night. All for the sake of your being more important than every one else.
Then the Titanic struck an ice berg. The messages went out. Other ships were 40, 50 miles away 6 to 8 hours time. That is 6 to 8 hours if the messages had been heard. They were not. They were keyed off the air. People simply did not hear the messages and those that did hear did not believe because of the notorious actions of many operators screaming false SOS’s in the previous decade.
The results major loss of life that did not have to occur.
I am beginning to get the opinion that the managers of this site are simply simple Silicon Valley f*** tarts with no knowledge of anything except their own greed.
Re: Re:
You appear to have missed the part of the article that said this:
I’m not sure what the veracity is of your claim that the Titanic’s SOS was ignored due to previous radio operators crying wolf (you have provided no sources). However, I suspect this was not a major reason for the passage of the Radio Act of 1927, as the Titanic went down in 1912.
One additional word of advice: if you want to go the "insults and condescension" route, you really should learn basic English grammar, syntax, spelling, and sentence structure first.
Re: Re:
How to miss the point by being pedantic. Also, the major loss of life in the Titanic sinking was more directly caused by racing through fog in an area known for icebergs, and not enough lifeboats, as none of those hips would have arrived in time to take of the passengers.
Uncontrolled radio use makes radio useless in many cases, while at worst uncontrolled Internet use may slow things down slightly, but it remains useable.
Re: Re: Re:
Did you expect a copyright fan to look at a tragedy and think that the biggest loss was life instead of potential sales?
Re: Re:
I am beginning to get the opinion that you are just a fuck tart with no knowledge of anything except their made up and unprovable bullshit.
Best day Ever
Well the Meuller report has dropped and no more convictions, Gosh you all must be so sad that President Trump did not collude with Russia to win the 2016 election.
Now maybe we can move on to FISA abuses, not that the Democrates care, what you sow you reap…
It’s ok, you may have a shot in 2024, but I doubt it
AWESOME day
Fuck article 13 and the EU.