Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment
"...if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. This is cliche, but true."
Except there has never been a serious argument about outlawing guns. It's simply never been on the table for anyone other than the rabid gun nuts looking for a strawman to attack. Bringing it up removes any chance of your comment being taken seriously.
"Just because there are risks, i.e., piracy, why shouldn't they do anything to mitigate those risks?"
Nobody has ever said they shouldn't do anything, but it's pretty damn clear that what they are doing now is not working. You seem to be suffering from the MPAA's special kind of insanity, where they do the same thing over and over and expect the results to change. Don’t you think it's time they tried something completely different?
There have been dozens of independent studies done over the years making a very strong case that piracy costs company's a lot less than they claim, and actually help them a lot more than they'd admit. Platforms like iTunes and Netflix overwhelmingly prove that people will pay for reasonably priced content that is offered in a convenient, consumer-friendly method. This is something the MPAA's member studios have failed spectacularly at. A bit of common sense would suggest that diverting a significant amount of the money and time spend on anti-piracy efforts into meeting consumer's widespread pleas for better content provided the way people actually want could well provide a nett benefit for everyone (except maybe IP lawyers...). Piracy will never go away entirely, but who cares if everyone is getting more of what they want.
"You won't understand unless you have kids of your own."
You seem to have completely missed the point of the article, which didn't make any comment on the appropriateness of swearing in public. You don't need to have kids to understand how ridiculous the police's actions were.
Your loss really. YouTube has tons of amazing content, not because of YouTube/Google, but because of it's users. The platform deserves much criticism, but ignoring it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
"So like I said, if the choice was between copyright as it stands now, or no copyright, I'd be for no copyright, as the deal has been broken, and I don't see why the public should have to hold up their end of the bargain, when the other side isn't."
The massive scale of copyright infringement in all areas of creative work all over the work shows that your feelings are becoming very commonplace.
At this point we've all had this conversation with you at least a dozen times, so it's not worth wasting time and effort on anything other than insults. Other regulars have a pretty good handle on Mike's opinion on copyright, but unfortunately it's not the 'gotcha' answer you so desperately want, so you just keep on keeping' on...
"As we've covered, police have claimed that non-disclosure agreements with the manufacturers (such as Harris Corp.) prevent them from getting a warrant to use the devices. The DOJ, somewhat famously, had a whole plan for how to mislead judges about the use of these devices..."
These two points should have judges absolutely apoplectic and gunning for any prosecutors who they suspect of using evidence gained by a Stingray device.
"...where is the balance for where he his right to his opinion is being held down?"
He has the right to say those things if he wants, but he doesn't have the right to be a law enforcement officer and say those things. This shouldn't really even have to be questioned. Your thought process bothers me...
"It's not much different from slavery, really - "work for me but i don't need to pay you" "
You mean like recording contracts that result artists earning pennies on the dollar from music sales? Or Hollywood accounting that results in movies with massive revenues making no profit on paper? Not much different to slavery right?
"I wonder if these people would understand "public domain" if we explained it to them as "the public owns the copyright"."
It might help some, but it would still be a bad idea because you're trying to educate someone with incorrect info. If it's in the public domain it simply has no copyright, either because it's expired or it never existed.