FWIW, I actually think Eli and Mercatus do some really good work on a variety of issues, especially around copyright and patent law. But on this I think he's wrong.
Amusingly, I'm working on another post about something Eli wrote that I think is really good, concerning software patents. But just because you're right in one area, doesn't make you right in all areas.
Like hey guys, isn't it great there's all this money for libraries and trees and parks because of AirBnB? I don't see how someone takes that as entitlement.
I'd agree if they were just promoting the tax money. But they aren't. In each case they're saying "hey do more for us" with that money. That's the entitlement. Like each billboard suggests that the city/libraries are *misspending* the money somehow.
Re: Re: Luddite movement was social protest against emerging mercantilism not against machines as such.
I will admit, there's a delicious irony to the misuse of the term Luddite in a post about how the internet makes us smarter. Because, you know, one could just look up the term on the internet and dispel their ignorance.
1. I have a degree in labor relations, which included many, many, many semesters of labor history, including digging more deeply into the original "luddites" than you'd care to imagine (though it was interesting).
2. I didn't use the term "luddites" I used the term "neo-luddites" which is a generally accepted term for modern anti-tech thinkers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism).
The post was perfectly accurate. The comment is from someone who thinks that he knows things about me when he really, really does not (it's kind of funny how far off from the truth he is...).
Re: who exactly is sponsoring this bill? (and others like it)
I find it hard to believe that the "tech experts" in DC (with a few exceptions, Sen. Wyden) would actually draft such a bill? So.. let's do a little brainstorming here? Who stands to profit off of this type of bill?
Main support is coming from US Chamber of Commerce... and some support from defense industry/contractors. Basically, big old companies want this so they can get immunity for sharing info in the hopes that the gov't will help "protect" them from online threats, and contractors want this because they want to sell the gov't "cybersecurity" nonsense.
I'm not wild about this idea of selling the crowd sourcing that elevates comments. I see the comment rating buttons as a way of sorting comments by quality, something that shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder lest you damage the system.
The *voting* remains the same. Anyone can vote funny or insightful (or report). But the first/word last word is separate from the voting.
His interview on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC was pretty disastrous.
I like Larry, but he doesn't seem to do well in interviews. I also fear that he takes criticism very, very personally at times and it causes him to change strategies frequently. I'm probably guilty of the same thing as well, so I understand it, but I'm not running for President. :)
The death of any innocent in a theater of war is tragic, but inevitable
You conveniently ignore the fact that much of this is happening *outside* "a theater of war." Or, hell, the fact that Congress never actually declared war. But, details.
This is not to excuse or seek to minimize the tragic nature of innocent deaths (BTW...I despise the term collateral damage, which should actually be the untimely deaths of non-combatants), but people delude themselves into thinkin that war can be conducted in a precision manner. Look at WW2 for example. It has been estimated that approximately 60M persons were killed during that war, with about two civilian deaths for every combatant death.
You do realize that the situations are wholly different, right? And you're being incredibly misleading in pretending they are the same. This isn't about casualties that happen due to specific battles or bombing runs. These are the US government deciding to assassinate someone... and then missing.
Of course, it does not help in the least that reliable HUMANINT resources being supplanted by an undue reliance on SIGNINT because "boots on the ground" is not politically palatable to those who want to act tough and be perceived as such without dirtying their hands in what war actually entails...overwhelming violence, the likes of which I deeply wish was something none of us ever had to see and experience.
And yet, all of the evidence suggests that these kinds of drone assassinations are only increasing the likelihood of overwhelming violence.
Look, I know you're a military loyalist through and through, but your desire to defend a campaign of botched assassinations is just ridiculous.
According to the inducement theory wouldn't that mean Xerox is guilty as well? After all they made available the technology - and a solution - to enable the broad copying of copyrighted books?
No. They didn't go around advertising the fact that this was a way to get around copyright law. Auroros did. The ruling in the Grokster case basically says that you're not guilty of inducement if your product can be used for infringement (even if you know it's used for infringement) if you didn't actively encourage such use. However, if you do... then you're guilty of inducement. Xerox did not. Auroros did.
Moreover, it's even harder to claim fair use when sbnation appears to intentionally crop out all of the on screen graphics AND adds their own watermark to the video... The process looks pretty intentional to edit the video to their benefit. It would be a pretty difficult argument to claim fair use under the circumstance.
Doesn't that increase the argument that it's transformative?
There is little fair use argument in posting on twitter as commercial promotion of your commercial website. The intent isn't just to share (it's not a private tweet) but to encourage retweets and "going viral". They are extracting commercial value from it, so fair use here is really quite a long shot argument. It's not educational, it's not to review the broadcasting techniques - it's to extract commercial benefit.
Your fair use analysis is way off. 1. Commercial benefit does not remove fair use. It may decrease the likelihood, but plenty of fair use is for commercial benefit *especially* 2. when it comes to media. You said it's not "educational" but the statute notes: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" Note that news reporting is there (before educational uses).
Note: most news reporting fair use is absolutely "for commercial benefit."