Removing something would make some sense if factually wrong. Which is not the case. And even so it shouldn't be removed from Google. When somebody is selling illegal stuff online you remove the goddamn operation from existence, not the site that provides information about it much less the freaking search result provided by whatever mechanism because, tad-daaa, when the physical thing ceases to exist then the results will also vanish, otherwise they'll just keep popping up one way or another. But it takes another level of censorship and idiocy to remove factual things OTHER people wrote about that involved someone that misbehaved.
The judicial documents, are they public in the UK (as they are here and in the US it seems)? If so, are they removing those too? If so, can we agree that this is a very bad thing in terms of jurisprudence and transparency?
Obscurity and censorship, do we really want to go down that hole? Why don't you remove historic stuff from the net to protect people from the Goebbels, [insert other similar names here] family for instance? I'm waiting.
If it is what I think it is I've seen it before and the scent is only perceptible in the first few days of use. And I'd rather have fart sounds around than a kid crying out of boredom. Which is totally understandable in long flights. On a plus side they don't get entertained by the same thing for long at that age, unless it's some kids cartoon/movie they watch over and over and over.
Well, you can choose from a quite awesome array of candidates:
- Crazy ass, filthy rich, racist - Crazy ass, rich, somewhat racist, fries bacon in his guns - Crazy ass, rich, uses gmail or something for Govt issues, has issues with Monicas - Crazy ass, rich, ignorant, at least likes latinos - Etc
All of them come with handy surveillance state and totalitarianism extras for your despair.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
Much like many political and social systems were born an died along the history of mankind. But I still think there can be a way to make a truly decentralized system that will keep the internet running. We talk about facebooks and googles as if they are the only solutions out there but there are others. It's just that people still don't value privacy enough to go for these.
I'd say this case is more about ignorance than corruption. Whereas when considering those INSIDE the government it's more corruption and possibly a topping of totalitarianism than ignorance. Still both can walk side by side at times.
I don't think anyone is trying to stop things from entering the culture. Rather, I think that the common mistake is to assume that having something enter into the culture can only happen when the author or creator is effectively stripped of their rights. That is not the case at all.
You know, copyrights are not "rights", they are a privilege, an exception to normality that the Congress opted to grant creators in order to provide diffusion of knowledge while providing incentive (ie: financial) to increase such knowledge production. That said, it's not a common mistake. Believing utter draconian punishments and never ending copyright terms actually are common mistakes in the industry and some creators side.
As an example, we as a people didn't need to have endless playback of the Ed Sullivan show for it to enter into our culture.
Indeed but make it unavailable and all it takes is a few generations for it to be completely forgotten. Which incidentally is happening with some older movies rotting in the studios' vaults. You also use other readily available and famous shows as examples but please, provide more obscure ones. Provide examples that aren't available in our digital 'piratey' libraries.
A book being protected by copyright and having the author decline to to new editions printed doesn't suddenly rip it out of the culture.
As I said, give it enough time and it will vanish. Either because the copies will eventually spoil/rot or because lack of access will eventually isolate it to the library where there is a copy of it. Unless others build upon it but this also needs dissemination of the original.
Culture isn't about having your personal copy.
Indeed. It's about diffusion.
You and I can talk about a TV show we both watched last night (OTA, example) or a sports competition we enjoyed on TV or in person.
Unless, of course, the copyrights holders decide they won't make it available or will charge outrageous prices for it. Then you may have watched and I didn't. And you can't even recommend for me because I'm not in a cable plan that has them or won't see it until somebody decides it's time to milk more money out of it with a reprise.
Progress could happen if something is shared only with a very small group, or only one person - or for that matter, if a new book by an author is never distributed because the author chooses not to release it, but uses that book as inspiration for their next great work, have we not seen progress?
Indeed. Before the printing press this was the case. Then knowledge started to spread like wildfire and we saw tremendous progress. Copyright has NOTHING to do with it.
To suggest that progress is only made when a bread and circuses mentality is satisfied is to entirely miss the point. Progress does not have to occur only in the public eye.
And yet when things were more disseminated we saw a tremendous boon in progress as a whole. Even the MAFIAA relied heavily in the lack of copyrights in their beginnings or in the public domain to make awesome new stuff (which they readily locked down).
Re: [Crickets.] You too thoroughly distracted the 13-year-olds with prior item of sex with school-teacher!
But being able to get away with a taking, and difficulty of beyond-reasonable-doubt prosecution isn't a standard you'd want followed if were YOUR STUFF being taken and enjoyed without return.
You must be new to Techdirt. Mike has repeatedly said TD articles are public domain or as public as they can be. Which is precisely contrary to your assertion since nobody has to pay to build upon material from TD. So your point?
Even considering NNTC that has no network there, wouldn't it be profitable in the long term to get more people interested and then bring fiber there? I mean NNTC probably sees this. The initial investment may be steep but once they actually get there small expansions to cover more area are much less expensive. But Windstream has infr much closer to this guy and chose to ignore him because the investment would probably drop their immediate-term profits.
And this is the problem with a pure profit focused society: we can't seem to accept earning less now to triple it in 10, 15 years and make shitloads more of money overall.