Re: Re: Re: Re: How EXACTLY does the comment by " JustShutUpAndObey" get the "First Word" linkage above when that person has no visible profile?
Techdirt Insiders get First/Last Word credits with purchases. Some packages include monthly replenishes of credits. They can be used on any comment from anybody, including non-registered AC's and even their own comments if they wish. It's all laid out here in plain English for anyone to read:
Any oligarchs or nefarious 'powers that be' in our system hold their grip on power mostly through manipulation of the public narrative.
Nope, not at all. It's done through the manipulation of campaign funding.
If you really want to instigate change in the government, it will need to start with campaign funding reform. Unfortunately, those who actually have a say on such things are the very same ones who benefit from such things. It's an uphill battle.
That if Google were forced to do such unethical acts it would cause "very public, mass resignations of Googlers". Except it didn't.
The paragraph you quoted from was in reference to the rumor that Google gave total access to their data to the NSA. I also believe that such an egregious violation of the users privacy wouldn't have been done without a single peep from all of the engineers and coders that would have known about it.
Google were forced to be unethical, and the mass resignation is absent. Google were forced to be mum about it, and the mass resignation is absent. They resisted, but complied. Quietly.
I'm not sure I would classify complying with court orders concerning a limited number of users as "unethical". What other option would be available? Google resisted as best they could to preserve the privacy of their users.
Re: Taylor Swift says it's not for her but those starting; Masnick nuances that away claiming 3-months not paid doesn't matter.
He argues that Apple shouldn't have to pay during those crucial first 3 months.
No he didn't, moron. As a matter fact, Mike states the complete opposite in the article:
Let me start out this post by noting a key thing: from the beginning, it was stupid that Apple had negotiated a deal with record labels in which copyright holders would not be compensated with royalties for the three-month "trial period" of Apple's new streaming music program. It clearly should have agreed to pay the royalties, and it was a really short-sighted move to push for a deal without royalties.
Stating that those three months don't actually amount to much in reality is completely different than saying Apple shouldn't have to pay the royalties.
Unfortunately it is Java based (ugh!), but it has some nice heuristics functionality which will cause your search results to become more relevant the more you use it. All peers are equal, it cannot be censored and isn't controlled by any single entity.
- None have yet answered "I made it, therefore I own it" as the rational common law basis of copyright...
Bullshit. I myself have rebutted that on many occasions. That you choose to ignore that which goes against your notions is your problem.
Modern copyright has rejected the "natural right" aspect in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). The natural right aspect of copyright has been rejected for good reasons. The Lockean property rights you seem to refer to work well with physical property, but copyright extends these rights unnaturally beyond the point of sale. For example, I make a chair from wood on my land. It's my resources and my labor and therefore I own the property rights to that chair. When I choose to sell that chair to someone else I transfer ALL of my property rights to that chair. Copyright extends property rights unnaturally beyond that transaction point. The copyright holder still retains property rights to the work (which effectively removes rights from purchaser) beyond the sale. That is why copyright can never be based on a "natural right" since it's a very unnatural concept to begin with.