It amazes me that there are people who confuse government control of the Internet (not what's happening) with government control of ISP's (what's actually happening). It's not like there's a subtle or confusing difference between the two, or this something that hasn't been discussed to death. It's a wonder you can tie your own shoes...
< \/>"I'll tell you to fuck off every day and twice on Sundays."
This is the attitude of the music industry that wants us to give them money! This is a "representative" of artists who claims to be working in their best interests, while crudely insulting anyone who disagrees with them from the safely of anonymity. Is it any wonder there is so little public respect or support for these people.
"The European Union should regulate Internet platforms in a way that allows a new generation of European operators to overtake the dominant U.S. players..."
So he doesn't just want European companies to be able to compete fairly (which they already can), he actually want's to make sure they beat the US companies via legislation. How can he not see the massive hypocrisy of wanting this outcome from anti-trust measures?
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
How did you make the leap from anti-trust to tax avoidance? They're two completely different issues. Google's tax avoidance is typical of many massive companies from all over the world, and they should ALL be dealt with the same way, but I don't hear you squawking about them.
"I think the Sheriff did the right thing based on the terrible attitude of the teen."
If you think this teen's actions rise to the level of "terrible" compared to the sort of things most teens do during a period of incomplete emotional growth, then you must be seriously lacking experience with actual teens.
It would appear it be that way if you assume that copyright laws are written by and for artists. But they're not. They're written by and for movie studios, record labels, book publishers, etc, not to mention their armies of lawyers, who all have a massive financial interest in stronger copyright laws and longer terms.
You can ask average_joe, out_of_the_blue and Slonecker what their financial interest is, but honest answers to that question are hard to come by.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:The evidence is that intellectual property is THEIR STUFF, not yours.
"How could what a person creates be anything other than THEIRS? It's self-evident as that you own your body."
Nearly the entirety of human history is proof that you are wrong.
"Creators are not obliged to take consumers into any account whatsoever."
If they have any desire to be given money for their creations, they absolutely do have to take consumers into account.
"If you don't want to take THEIR deal on their terms, you've no moral basis for forcing it on them."
If you want to talk about the terms of the deal, shall we have a discussion about the whole limited control for a limited time deal that was originally made? The copyright industry broke that deal years ago, so you can't get all upset about the public ignoring it too.
...for YEARS you've done nothing but complain when artist's rights are enforced and protected.
When you mean "artist's rights", what you're actually referring to is the rights taken from the artists by studios/labels/publishers and then exploited for maximum profits, using means that often directly harm both artists and the public in general. And you're surprised when people complain?
Re: Re: Time for Citizens arrest, let's show the cops how it's done.
Sure, the punishment described is hyperbolically over the top, but this was not a misunderstanding by any stretch of the imagination. Saying "nobody was seriously hurt" grossly understates the seriousness of the assault, which don't forget involved multiple armed adults against a teenager.
So basically the law is the law and you couldn't possibly hold an opinion that is contrary to what the law says.
Why don't you take some of the advice you regularly dole out to Mike and tell us what you think about the government taking peoples' property before there's even been a trial, let alone a guilty verdict. It's not a legal question.
"...all I was trying to say was that I believe both extremes---"everything must be owned" vs "everything must be completely unrestricted"---equally go too far, just not in the same way."
Claiming that "everything must be completely unrestricted" would indeed be going to far, if anyone was making that claim. This is a complete strawman.
The fact is, as Leigh mentioned, humanity's default position for millenia has been that everything created was what we now call public domain, and only very recently in our history did we decide to place restrictions on that. The real argument is about the extent of those restrictions, and there's a very strong feeling that copyright laws have gone too far and now act in opposition to the reasons they were introduced in the first place.