Re: We Need to Aim for Perfection not this Crap Story
Wow, that's quite the Utopian vision you have there...
"The realities of automated transport preclude the scenarios depicted because if all the vehicles were automated then the school bus tragedy doesnt happen."
But we will never get to a point where ALL vehicles are automated. There are very few technologies that are completely eradicated by a newer technology, so there will always be human-controlled vehicles out there.
"You forget that the accidents are caused by humans who are not in their right mind and computers are always on the alert to do the right thing."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
"You sound unnecessarily angry, and a little irrational."
That's an amusing notion considering Leigh has been nothing but cordial and you're being consistently rude and insulting. You do sound like a grumpy old man whinging about how things have changed for the worse because you don't like it.
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Since you offer no counter-argument to the comparison to China instructing Google to globally delist all websites referencing Tiananmen Square, we can only assume you're perfectly ok with that. Or do you have some theory about how that's totally different.
I'm really curious to know what you would've done if you were questioned by the police and decided you didn't want them to see what was on your computer if they decided to look. You seem quite outraged by this guy's behavior, but would you have just left it all there? Really?
I do. Corruption is not an activity carried out by one party. The studios know exactly what they're doing and exactly how bad is is. This is just one of the many reasons that their moral arguments against piracy have absolutely zero weight.
Re: This is FINE, but if talking fascism START WITH GOOGLE.
In a post about political corruption, you once again bring up Google's tax avoidance. So not only are you off-topic, you accuse Mike of being selective while focusing on Google for doing the same thing as every large corporation on the damn planet, many for a heck of a lot longer. You take hypocrisy and obsession to new levels.
"Without respect to either of those, It's still going to be incredibly expensive for him, and he'll be in court over this for years."
Don't forget the other side of the equation: it's going to be incredibly expensive for the US taxpayer, whose legal representatives will also be in court over this for years, all at the behest of a few relatively small businesses in the content production industry. It's not like artists would ever benefit from any of this.
"Like I said, she was simply riding in a truck driven by her husband, last I checked that was perfectly legal."
I'm sure you think this is a clever comeback, but she was not arrested for "simply riding in a truck". That point is completely irrelevant.
"If you think it's a good idea to legislate morality, then accept without complaint when others force their version of morality onto you."
This is not a moral argument, at least not from me, it's an entirely practical one. It's based on the fact that it's highly likely a meth addict will eventually turn to violent crime to maintain their habit, and others will suffer as a result. There's no such thing as a casual meth user.
"The only question is whether leaking a *copyrighted* legal contract in the publc interest would ever be considered "fair use"? Probably not."
Why not? Mike explained pretty clearly why it absolutely is fair use: they're providing commentary, it's a matter of public interest, they're not selling the contract and there's no market to harm. Can you rebut any of these points?