No great investigations into Google? We know that they have used every tax dodge and offshoring option possible to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Many major tech companies have done similar things...
You should be careful which way your deflections are headed.
Corporate tax dodging isn't limited just to tech companies you know. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Disney also does the exact same things reduce their tax liabilities.
Not me. Just another industry as far as I'm concerned. My problem is when their business model conflicts with my inalienable rights.
You loved Fight Club and the scene where he destroys the corporate art (even though this was a Hollywood movie). Fight the power!
Never watched Fight Club, sorry.
So tell me more of this golden age of music we now live in. Should I buy the new Pitbull CD? Or one of these GREAT new pop country bands? Black Veil Brides? So much great new music out there... and NONE of these performers lip sync at the Grammys, on Saturday Night Live, or in their concerts.
Ok, now you are coming off as some sort of snob who feels that his own interpretation of art is the only measuring stick that matters. Most intelligent people realize that art is subjective. One man's garbage is another man's masterpiece.
Mike asked three distinct questions - which you have ignored. Makes me wonder why.
When the meaning of "fair use" is intentionally misapplied to support enablement of piracy, of course the MPAA objects.
Taking Australia as an example, what they were looking to implement was very similar to the US' fair use doctrine, so how is that "intentionally misapplied to support enablement of piracy"? Please explain.
But the MPAA has not changed its stance.
I agree. The MPAA has always disliked the concept of fair use. What MPAA spin doctors put out there is completely different story though.
I'm glad you love Beyonce too.
Ummm, no. You are either being sarcastic or your reading comprehension needs some work.
Because the result of the demise of the music industry through piracy means no more bands, no more albums & CD's, no more good music. You get crappy singles from pop icons.
What a complete load of horseshit. More music being created right now then any other time in history. More opportunities for more musicians to make decent livings than ever before. One isn't required to win the "A & R Lottery" to participate anymore.
I'm not looking to wade into the middle of this discussion, but there are two things I would like to point out:
1) I notice that you STILL didn't answer Mike's individual points. Lots of weaseling around, but no definitive rebuttals.
2) None of the crap Beyonce puts out even remotely compares to the music I like, but that's simply my opinion and means nothing. Just like your high opinion of Beyonce's crap means nothing, so why bring it up in the first place?
Not only would Boies' argument fail because of Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) which mirrors this case pretty closely, it wouldn't even stand up to the Exclusionary Rule for evidence in a criminal case against Sony if something was found in the emails to incriminate them. Evidence obtained illegally by an unrelated third-party is admissible in court.
Is it just me or does any else see the irony with Blue going off on full page rants about pirates and people gaining from other's hard work on a platform provided to him by the hard work of someone else?
So you equate regulations to govern Internet service with laws designed to protect us from physical harm.
I wouldn't say "equate" because, like I said, I try to look at specifics. I would say similar to electricity or water, though. Internet has become a necessity to survive these days.
Government shouldn't regulate activities unless there is a compelling reason.
I set that bar fairly high, sounds like you set a fairly low threshold.
No, I just happen to think that us allowing monopolistic internet providers to write the rules for themselves is not a good idea that we should allow to continue. Just like we don't let the electric or the gas companies do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Where are your facts homey? Is that the best you can do?
Facts for or against what? You still have not actually articulated what it is you think somebody has gotten wrong here.
Now that you've had your ten minutes worth of internet fame do you feel important?
Lol. If fame is what I was looking for, I wouldn't have been using such an arbitrary moniker for the last 4 years or so.
Just because you have the freedom of speech to mock doesn't mean you should abuse it.
I'm not sure would I call it abuse, personally. I do firmly believe that incorrect or incompetent speech should be countered and corrected with more speech, though.
By the way I don't think Henley would gives a rats ass about what you think or anyone else on this website, just my opinion.
You are probably right, but that doesn't really matter at all. Counter arguments and critiques, like this article, are really targeted at those who might be fooled into thinking Henley's arguments have some sort of merit.
I rest my case....
Once again, you need to actually make some sort of case before resting it.
Yes, we've heard this before. Liberals are smarter than the rest of us and liberals in government are smarter than everybody. If only we turned everything over to the government, we'd have paradise on earth.
You never heard that shit from me. I refuse to look at things as simply Red vs Blue or Liberal vs Conservative (or whatever other useless labels you feel like using) because, IMHO, that is what idiots do.
Not all government is bad, but limited government is best.
Maybe, maybe not. There is quite a bit of government "interference" that I am happy we have. Some examples are child labor laws, highway safety laws, food & water quality laws, etc.
Amen! I've been posting similar comments to largely deaf Tech Dirt ears. Many Tech Dirt articles point out how inept and corrupt government officials are, but on net neutrality they seem to believe that, in this case, government interference will be a good thing.
It's because most of Techdirt readers are intelligent enough to have the ability to analyze the individual issues on their individual merits as opposed to lumping everything under "government interference is always bad!" umbrella.
Some governmental interference is good, some is not. It requires critical thinking to discern which is which for yourself.
Re: Re: More big government power grabbing by the Dems
It's even more idiotic when you realize the "32 oz soda" thing being referred to was initiated by NYC's Mayor Bloomberg, who won his first two terms as a Republican and later switch to being an Independent.
Oh my Gwiz or should I say Peterpan. If you want an intelligent debate why don't you get the facts straight.
Lol at the ad hom. The most inept arguments usually start with insults.
Care to point out what facts I actually got wrong somewhere?
In other words Don Henley does have a legit complaint and should be able to sound out without being trashed for it.
First, off I don't think Henley's complaints are legit at all. My opinion is that they are laughable, silly and just plain incorrect.
Secondly, you are completely incorrect when you say that anyone has the right to "sound out without being trashed for it". Sure, you have the right to sound out about something, but you do not, I repeat, do not, have any right against someone else rebutting, correcting or even mocking you for what you've said.
After all I was exercising my freedom of speech and it obviously bothers you.
I didn't see it that way. You exercised your freedom of speech (on a platform provided to you via Mike's efforts, no less) and Mike exercised his freedom of speech to criticize what you said. You seem to be the one bothered by it to me.
Sorry brother man but you've been punked.
Not at all, one needs to have actual arguments to win a debate. You seem woefully unequipped to engage in this sort of intellectual sparring.
Getting synergy effects by scewing results on the search engine to make a dime on the dollar is pretty problematic if you have a "reasonable expectation" of the results being "relevant and unbiased".
I agree that could be troublesome, what I don't agree with is government interference to try and "fix" it. That's something the market will correct on it's own. If Google's search results keep pointing me to only Google products, I would simply choose another search engine. Google has to maintain their "reasonable expectation of the results being relevant and unbiased" in order to maintain their largest resource, which is eyeballs on ads.
It all equals a "lost sale" as far as I'm concerned. I've purchased laptops which included the "Microsoft tax" and a Windows OS because it was actually cheaper than a preloaded Linux or "no OS" device. Not anymore.