Provide "evidence" to sensationalism and non-sensical wingnut talking points?
Ok then, how about you simply express why you think this amendment is a good idea?
Thus far all you have contributed to this discussion is childish insults. Although I doubt it, it is possible you you might have an opposing viewpoint which deserves consideration, so let's hear it, Skippy.
The first amendment carefully only protects legal speech. It's one of the reasons first amendment arguments are a non starter in piracy cases, as the underlying piracy negated the first amendment protections.
To me that argument is ass backwards. As it is, copyright is already engaging in a first amendment balancing act that requires Fair Use to keep it from being declared unconstitutional. When you then use something that's already on such dubious footing to decide what gets first amendment protection in the first place, is like putting the carriage in front of the horse, in my opinion.
Publicity rights creates a set of speech which is not "free", and in certain circumstances as a result not protected by the 1st.
I don't think we should have publicity right laws.
But I will note that Lowery is upfront and honest about what he believes.
The problem is that Lowery seems to believe that the tech sector owes him something because he had a couple of songs that made the charts way back in the 90's.
Our first experience with Lowery on Techdirt was him swearing up a storm in the comment section and demanding that Mike give him equal exposure on a platform Mike created and pays all the bills for. Fun times:
The 1st Ammendement has no guarantee of "anonymity".
While not actually articulated in the Bill of Rights, the right to anonymity has always been in integral part of our Free Speech rights. Our courts have consistently upheld the right throughout our history, the most recent being in 1995:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. [...] It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
Haha. Mike Masnick doesn't know what a "front group" is. Totally hilarious.
Apparently, you are the one who doesn't know what a "front group" is.
Here is SourceWatch's opinion of the Copyright Alliance:
The Copyright Alliance is a 501(c)(4) front group created and operated by associates of former Sen. Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma) and his lobbying firm, The Nickles Group, LLC. Formed in 2007, the Copyright Alliance claims to represent a broad cross-section of copyright stakeholders, with an emphasis on the interests of creative individuals such as photographers, visual artists, songwriters and performers; however, the makeup of its board, the corporate backgrounds and political connections of its founders and staff members, and its advocacy track record reveal that its true purpose is to promote the interests of prominent telecom and entertainment corporations. Strong evidence revealing the Copyright Alliance to be a front group for Nickles is found in the form-990 tax returns and financial reports to the Department of Labor filed by member organizations which show that dues and contributions are being sent directly to the Nickles Group LLC offices at 601 13th Street NW, Suite 250 North, Washington, D.C. 20005 Source
If you are running a Linux distro with the GNOME desktop you should check out the program I wrote. It creates GNOME Network Manager OpenVPN connections from the free VPN server list provided by the VPN Gate Project.
Any artist or creator that happens to be aware of you dislikes you.
I am a creator and I think most of Mike's arguments are spot on the target.
I also happen to think it's pretty silly for people to blame the messenger. Mike didn't create your problems, he has only written about them. As a matter of fact, Mike has attempted, many, many times to offer up solutions for creators to earn more only to be called "Pirate Mike" because those solutions aren't "the way we have always done things".
It's really fairly simple: "The world is always changing, so adapt or die." That axiom never changes.
Both of you either need to prove your position or just be quiet.
I've never stated any position on this at all, so I'm not sure what I would need to prove. All I've stated is that what you have thus far put forth as proof doesn't actually prove what you are claiming.
You, on the other hand, have asserted your position, so the responsibility falls to you back up your claims. That's how a debate between adults works.
$118M in patent royalties in 2014 for UC alone and 86 new startups. Hard enough?
Not really. Without a comparison, that "86 new startups" number is meaningless. Without the patents, there might have been 200 new startups using UC's knowledge and all of them would be employing people and paying taxes too.
Interesting choice of words to describe a blog with 3/4 of a million unique readers a month, but whatever.
But if you can only tolerate sychophants who blow smoke up your backside and echo your worldview...
As a casual observer of this entire exchange, I will say that if I was serving on a jury concerning this, you would most definitely lose the case. You have backed up your assertions with very little supporting evidence and the evidence you have supplied doesn't really back up what you are claiming.
Talk is cheap. Hard verifiable facts are what actually sways people.
Justice is served, but at the same time all parties can avoid the time and effort to take it through the full court system.
While I agree that plea bargains are pretty much a necessary evil with our overburdened court systems, I cannot consider them to be "justice" while prosecutors are allowed to coerce defendants with threats of astronomical sentences. Defendants are basically agreeing to plea bargains while under duress, which is supposed to be a huge no-no with our legal system.
...you should worry about what kinds of activities you would be encouraging and supporting by operating a TOR exit node.
Warning! reductio ad absurdum ahead:
...you should worry about the kinds of speech you would be encouraging and supporting by advocating First Amendment rights for everyone.
Also, it seems to me that Tor exit nodes fall dead center within the definition of an ISP in regards to Section 230 safe harbors. Do you have an argument as to why they shouldn't be protected by Section 230?
When you consider the volume and scale of the violations...
Wouldn't that indicate that the business model we've enshrined in law as "copyright" needs a major overhaul in this day and age where everyone walks around with copying machine in their pocket?
If you want the masses to respect copyright, then perhaps we need to change our copyright laws in ways that will create that respect. With copyright terms beyond my great-grandchildren's lives, the lack of public domain replenishment and unfathomable penalties, it's no wonder that many do not respect copyright laws.
... hashes could be used effectively for this issue...
As far as I know, no one has developed a hash algorithm that can determine whether the use of a particular file is Fair Use or not. Apparently you are using a very liberal interpretation of the word "effectively".
And, of course, the report confirms that Google receives millions of actual legitimate takedowns, but you don't care about that.
I don't care about the legitimate takedowns myself.
The legitimate takedowns are not prior restraint of speech. The bogus takdowns, on the other hand, can and usually are unconstitutional prior restraint (IMHO, IANAL), being that the DMCA is law backed by the might of the US government.
The First Amendment should always trump copyright law when they collide, if you ask me.