Yeah, finding a way for them to be profitable is no-one's problem but their's. That a robust press may serve a valuable service does not give them the right to shake down others in order to keep the profits up, if they want the money to keep rolling in it's up to them to figure out how, without turning a symbiotic relationship into an unsupportable, parasitic one as they're attempting here.
They're welcome to try different methods to keep the money rolling in, what they aren't welcome to do is try and screw over everyone else in the process.
Ah but you see, if they can stop people from getting their news from that infernal 'internet' novelty then surely people will go back to buying physical newspapers, and their coffers will once more overflow with gold and jewels as people are once more forced to get their news from them or not at all!
"Unlike the Federal Communications Commission’s previous head, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is putting consumers first, not net neutrality.
Focus on strong net neutrality rules(and enforcing them) is 'putting consumers first'. The public benefits from companies not being able to pick and choose who gets special treatment and who doesn't, and instead being required to treat all traffic equally.
Protecting meaningful net neutrality rules is protecting the public, for his claim to make any sense you basically have to operate under the assumption that net neutrality is somehow bad for the public, which is just a wee bit absurd.
If they go the Belgium/'Incredibly stupid' route and simply rule that excerpts aren't allowed unless they're paid for, then TD could easily hand out a 'Anyone can link to any of our stuff for free' blanket permission, and the problem with regards to TD is bypassed.
If they go the Spain/'My head just exploded due to how unbelievably stupid this is' route and make the payments mandatory, such that sites cannot simply give permission then yeah, that could be a problem.
While the latter is without a doubt the more boneheaded choice out of a pair of incredibly stupid ideas, it is the one that isn't trivial to bypass, which means it's likely that that is the one the publishers are going to be pushing to have implemented should this stunning display of shortsighted greed be put into law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
There is a huge difference between disagreeable speech and illegal speech. What is truly illegal is a very small and narrow band of things. Calling someone an idiot isn't one of those things.
I have no idea what relevance that has to my comment, could you explain?
Nobody is suggesting they need to be judge and jury on every link.
In which case you might want to clarify your position, because this...
I think that sites should be in some ways responsible for what appears in their publication. Accepting outside comments and publishing them without review should create some peril.
... would seem to suggest that you think that sites should be liable if they don't review every user submitted piece of content before allowing it to be posted, are you saying that Google and similar services should not be similarly liable, and if so how are you determining what sites/services should be liable and which should not?
your torementor will likely not know what to do next.
'When in doubt, contempt of cop' would likely be the default step at that point, because clearly only a criminal would even think of invoking their rights or talking back to a cop, and the mere act of doing so is suspicious and grounds for say, locking someone in the back of a cruiser.
I have to wonder how many of the teachers in favor of this would be okay if the students turned the tables and started recording them. Just set up simple stands so that their phones were constantly recording every move and word the teacher makes, 'just in case'.
For some reason I can't imagine that going over very well.
Given the result of the 'investigation' I'd say that the absolute minimum that Munday should face as a penalty is 80 days in jail. Add on extra fines if the court feels that they're appropriate, but at the very least the cop should face what they imposed on someone else due to their gross negligence/indifference.
Re: Re: Re: Article is very inaccurate in substantial matters
"secondary" copyright infringement (really just copyright infringement) is not a criminal offense, it still is a civil one and willful conspiracy to commit copyright infringement (even not criminal in itself) gives rise to charges of a "conspiracy to defraud" which is then criminal.
Committing copyright infringement/'I am engaged in copyright infringement' = Civil offense.
Willful 'conspiracy' to commit copyright infringement/'I am going to commit copyright infringement with someone else' = Criminal offense.
What am I missing exactly? Both have, at their core, copyright infringement, yet adding one(or more) people to the equation jumps a civil offense to a criminal offense, and (seems to at least, otherwise why bother with the 'conspiracy to' label instead of saying 'They did X') remove the requirement to actually engage in the core crime.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
Hey now, Google is a big company, filled with smart people, I've no doubt that they absolutely could, with 100% accuracy, spot and delist any problematic or illegal sites/pages and remove them from their search results.
The only reason they don't of course is because they're too cheap and irresponsible to do so, not wanting to uphold their legal obligations by independently searching out and removing sites/pages that infringe on copyrights, and/or mean things people say.
Even if he was it wouldn't make it any better. 'Laughingly' joking about ruining someone's career because they did something you don't like wouldn't be funny from a random schmuck, when the president of the US does it though? Yeah, that goes from 'not funny' to 'indicator of a serious problem'.
Re: Article is very inaccurate in substantial matters
So in essence, knowingly conspiring to violate copyright is what established criminality under conspiracy to defraud
Which strikes me as an absolutely absurd argument if true. Actually committing the copyright infringement only rises to the level of a civil offense. Planning on committing copyright infringement on the other hand is a criminal offense.
When planning on breaking the law carries a heftier penalty than actually breaking it, something has gone horribly wrong.
No sane person could think it's an impeachable offense if Trump is part owner of a hotel and someone who is a citizen of a foreign country stays there and pays their bill when they leave, which is what the arguments so far put forth amount to. The dishonesty of the new emoluments fans is laughable.
Yes, that sort of argument would be laughable, which is probably why it's not being made.
Rather(as Wendy summed up) the point raised is that Trump applied for the trademarks before. The request was shot down, every time. Fast-forward to the point where Trump announces his intent to run for president, he asks them to 'reconsider', and now suddenly the request is granted, where before it was refused time and time again.
The concern is that the trademark applications were granted not because of their validity, but because of his position, and that future trademark requests or even the current ones could be used as leverage against him. 'Oh, you did something we didn't like? Looks like we may have skipped a few steps on your trademark applications, we'll have to revisit those, double-check to see how valid they really are.'
President Trump appears to have thrown his support behind asset forfeiture
any recent forfeiture reform legislation would fall under this heading as it prevents law enforcement agencies from acting in the way they've become accustomed: seize first, convict later... if at all.
...so it's up to us Americans to make a billionaire's dreams come true. If that means having our cash, cars, and houses seized without accompanying criminal allegations, much less convictions, so be it.
Call it what it actually is please: Theft, Robbery-at-Badgepoint, or Stealing. 'Asset Forefeiture' makes it sound like a legitimate government action with things like 'limits' and 'constitutional protections afforded to the accused', which sharply contrasts to what's actually going on, wherein police and government agents steal anything that looks valuable simply because they can.
No matter how they like to dress it up as this awesome crime fighting tool, without a conviction to demonstrate guilt the only difference between being robbed by someone with a badge versus being robbed by someone without a badge is that you're not allowed to defend yourself against the former.
(Before someone points out that you can challenge having your stuff stolen by the police, yes technically this is true. After it's already happened. In a rigged system designed to make it as expensive and difficult as it can be, and where the 'guilt' of your former possessions has already been determined and where it's up to you to prove the 'innocence' of the stolen goods.)
You are aware that people can read right? As in they can easily read the filing and note that it's not even remotely close to what you claim it is? In particular, when Google asserts under penalty of perjury that they didn't pay anyone to write or comment about the case, I think I'm going to believe them over some AC making the same wild accusations as have been thrown about before.
That 'reality' thing you seem to have an issue with isn't quite as easy to change as you seem to think it is, simply repeating a lie isn't enough to make it true.
As a side note, if you're setting the bar that low, I'm curious, who are you 'whoring' for? Who owns your statements and is using you as a PR mouthpiece? Someone has paid you in the past for your work I'm guessing, and if that's all it takes to be a 'whore' for a company obviously someone owns you as well, and I'm curious as to who it is you're representing when you comment here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
Ah, well in that case you don't really have any grounds to complain then, as I noted above you're experiencing the best case scenario that would result from what you think should happen.
As such, even if it was something more than a simple issue with the spam filter(which you have yet to demonstrate) you're merely getting to enjoy what, according to your opinion, everyone should have to go through.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
Ah, I see, so TD is evil enough to frustrate some people by leaving their comment in limbo until they get to it, but not quite evil enough to just delete them entirely. Yes, makes perfect sense, truly Machiavellian.
So... no evidence then of anything more nefarious than what I've already said regarding a spam filter and how some IP addresses get caught up in it? Likely due to being marked as 'abusive/trolling/spam' enough times by other commentors/visitors that the filters just assume that it's so and treat it accordingly? Or using something like Tor which (to the best of my knowledge) always results in a comment being held? Just more assertions that it happens and you somehow know exactly why?
Regarding the 'How would you feel...', as a matter of fact I have had some of my comments caught by the system, and from what I've seen and experienced unless the comment is made during the weekend TD is generally quick to clear them, so 'a couple of days'? Not so much.
(As an aside, your comment reminded me of something I mentioned in my first reply during this back and forth, and just out of curiosity, what's your stance on sites being responsible for user comments/submissions?)