I wonder if I should go on a rant about how the centralisation of the police force under Alex Salmond has helped create nonsense like this. And about how the Scottish National Party were up in arms when it was revealed how GCHQ was spying on MSPs, yet have been rather lacking of the same energy to protest about this.
Maybe I can find out if the cybernats have reached this far on the internet with their cultist affiliation with anything as long as you attach "because Scotland" to it.
"Man I always hated those misleading PSAs 'This is your brain' for example. I have seen a lot of things on drugs but I have never ever ever EVER... looked at an egg... and thought it was a fucking brain not once. I have seen UFOs flying through the sky, I have seen why we are all one consciousness and how life's but a dream and seen that kind of enlightenment but I have NEVER looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain. Now, maybe I wasn't getting good shit, but..."
You have to be real fucked up to imagine cutting off the ears and fingers and eyes of the artists that work for you and make you rich.
I find it amusing how groups call for people to have their real names online, and then also want the "right to be forgotten" when embarrassing stuff is said under those real names and can't be removed without broad-sweeping court orders (e.g. Google). You must identify yourself!...unless you don't want to!
Now we are being told that anonymity is something that tech companies now have to allow on top of every other regulation that was put beforehand, no matter how contradictory.
If we had been listened to, fools would have known that anonymity is the best defence against your embarrassing stuff online. And unless there's a court order forbidding your name from being mentioned - say in serious sex assault cases - people have the right to talk about your kerfuffles as much as they want and that includes search engines being subject to the right to be forgotten nonsense (Do people wanting false or outdated info that is embarassing to them removed also want false or outdated info that is reputationally convenient removed about them too? Of course they won't).
"We must now pass a law forcing Google to operate in our country and abide by this law because we hate Google so much."
"Get the fuck out Google. What, you're actually leaving? You see how much of a dick Google is, guys?!"
"Why can't anyone compete with Google? It's too damn powerful! Let's pass a law that attacks its competitors then!" While the competitors still have it rather difficult even when Google is no longer in the fucking country. Still Google's fault
Yes. Nazis did indeed have copyrights like anyone else. And it is precisely those copyrights that were used to prevent English translations of Mein Kampf from circulating in America - the result of which kept the West in ignorance of fascism and anti-semitism until Europe mutated into hell.
It is because they had copyrights that copyright must be removed from society.
I don't want to even begin to imagine what hell humanity would have gone through if either the Bible or the Koran were copyrighted. The Bible was forbidden from being translated from Hebrew to English, and Islamofascists to this day insist the Koran should only be recited in Arabic. These are de facto copyrights in a way. And should be met with nothing other than condemnation.
"Any selfies of you looking sad next to evidence of war crimes by Russian troops and paramilitaries in Eastern Ukraine may endanger your body by exposing it to bullets. Russia Today will subsequently publish a forged selfie of you showing how it was all your fault."
Property rights and moral rights (e.g. defamation protection and plagiarism protection) should not intersect precisely for this reason.
It would mean presidential candidates would have to put up a disclaimer saying the band doesn't support the campaign and the music is being used "unofficially". That seems to make perfect sense, regardless if copyright was involved. If this were an issue of, say, using Jeremy Clarkson's persona on Fiat cars without his permission it would be far clearer without the mess of including property considerations.
But again, because of the hijacking of these issues by copyright, this is not easy. It would be ridiculous if I "signed away" my right to sue a company I work for because of a dangerous slippery floor for example. Either civil rights are inalienable or they are not. Pre-emptive waivers are nonsensical and nobody would sign them in any other context.
This is exactly why I support abolishing copyright but keeping (most of) the moral rights stuff in a separate legal sphere. The property question can be solved through assurance contracts. The moral issues just need to stop being seen through the lens of copyright.
Why do people keep on claiming copyright protects the moral rights of the author?
In cases such as this one it clearly doesn't. No approval or endorsement was given by the band to the presidential bid, effectively slandering them. Yet a licence was given de jure. If anything, under the probable terms that were signed up with that copyright, the band most likely couldn't stop such a licence from being granted.
Copyright gets in the way of moral rights. On what other planet would it be seen as appropriate to sign away your right not to be defamed?
If I were a deluded Euro-worshipping German-speaker who was conducting an interview such as this, I'd certainly use every opportunity to prevent the English with their more stable, state-currency from laughing as much as possible.
Even if it means promoting a deliberate mistranslation with pro-Euro subtitles that were not accurate, where all other dissenting translations were stamped on using copyright law, or better yet preventing English translations entirely.
What gives you the right to say that English-speaking folk have no right to conduct journalism by researching the words of foriegn speakers?
Copyright grants the right to deny works even be read in a certain langugae AT ALL. That is a clear-cut profanity of freedom of expression: everyone forgets that freedom of expression is not just the right of someone to be heard but also the right of everyone to listen and to read.
DIE ZEIT could deny its English translation ENTIRELY if it wished too. Are you happy with that level of power copyright gives to somebody? Especially when the stakes over Greece are very high right now?
If the interview were funded through an assurance contract (e.g. crowdfunding) to cover the expenses and profit, something that doesn't need copyright to function, with the interview in the public domain there would be no problem and the journalists would carry on with their crucial profession *as well as journalists of other tongues.* Everybody wins.
It is you who is putting roadblocks to the journalistic profession.
Re: Re: "even [FOR 3RD TIME] pointing out that these operations exist will grab you a heaping helping of anonymous troll scorn."
This was my comment, I forgot I hadn't signed in.
And let me add, I am so sick to death of this mentality. As if the US controls the whole fucking world. As if IT is the source of fascism and not the most reactionary religious theocratic fascism the planet has ever seen in the form of the Islamic state.
How can people such as the above moron call themselves Leftists at all? "US doing a mission of 'liberation'? LOL! Suicide bombers resisting the Iraq occupation? THAT'S totally liberation! Like the march of the Minute Men!" As the Islamic fascists butcher and slaughter without any hint of empathy for Iraqis.
It doesn't get enough condemnation. Even the "right" of America doesn't come down hard enough on it. It persists and is expected to be taken at face value with no criticism among these circles. As if the US is 100% evil/worse than Hitler and that is the end of the conversation.
I wonder how history books will judge such armchair crackpots.
And I highly doubt everybody has forgotten the said links that were ordered to be removed.
And I highly doubt Google's links to THOSE links have been made to be removed either.
We're living in a wish-thinking world if we think this will do anything to attack piracy. If we've learned anything from the stupidity of the war on drugs, it is that if there is a majority demand in a black market, it will always cause a supply for that black market no matter how many times you attack the supply. Some conservatives think you should deter against the demand in the drug war by bringing in harsher punishments for possessers, but everyone knows deterrents are all talk if you can't enforce them. What bloody fool thinks you can enforce a deterrent against an infringing downloader?