Re: Re: Re: Now if only they would protect the artists' work with the same fervor
You know exactly what Kim Dotcom was doing. You just won't admit it because you're a pathetic weasel.
Yes, I know what he was doing, and I'm perfectly comfortable with him being tried in a court of law for it. I just think that we should wait until a court finds him guilty (or not guilty) before we assume as much.
There's a difference between you and me, it appears. You dislike the Constitution, due process and such things because you have an emotional response to Dotcom (and, it appears, to me). I would prefer to let logic, evidence and due process lead the way.
I notice that you still don't answer my question. I wonder why? You have been doing this for many years on the site. You snidely insist that things are obvious, but you never present evidence, merely emotion. It's hard to see how that's even remotely convincing.
Yes, the way you made money under the old system is dying. We've offered to help you adapt. I'll even help you for free. But you choose to insult us all instead. Very odd choices you make.
I have no idea what that means. But, I'm still waiting for you to point out where I made the claim. I've never been particularly impressed by Dotcom and his business model, but unlike you, I can see nuance, and am much more worried about US gov't overreach here and what it will do to plenty of online services.
Anyway, once again, I'll ask if you would be so kind as to point out where I've ever argued that Dotcom was some sort of "poor unsuspecting entrepreneur." I'll wait.
Fair use has long-standing precedent in the US, which is a common law country. Many of the countries in the TPP are not common law countries, which is somewhat tantamount to the case-by-case analysis required for something as flexible as the fair use doctrine. Many countries (see Japanese copyright law for instance) have a large laundry list of very specific exceptions that end up being as broad if not more broad than US fair use.
Blah blah. This is a favorite talking point of the anti-fair use crowd and it's easily debunked. Plenty of other common law concepts have shown up in trade deals with non-common law countries. This article here debunks the myth:
In fact, civil law countries have long wrestled successfully with open-ended principles in international agreements. For example, copyright’s idea/expression dichotomy is similarly developed by common law, and yet we’ve inserted that into the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, both of which have numerous civil law signatories. If inserting principles interpreted through common law into trade agreements would cause the international IP system to grind to a halt, it would have happened twenty years ago
Are you claiming to be morally superior? How do you measure that, exactly? How do you explain it here on Techdirt when Mike himself repeatedly points out that moral argument are invalid?
This is a deliberate misquote. I have *never* claimed that moral arguments are invalid. Not at all.
What I said, and still believe, is that morality questions involve situations where you need to pick winners and losers. In situations where *everyone* can be better off, then there is no moral question to be dealt with -- and that's why I think making *copyright* into a moral debate doesn't make sense: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061115/020157.shtml
Nowhere do I say that all moral arguments don't make sense. I'm just saying that if you have a situation in which everyone can be better off, there is no "moral" argument that everyone should be worse off.
Re: Re: Re: Not sure what all the hubbub is about...
To my point. The public will have their say before congress votes on it and Obama signs it.
Bullshit. The only say is a after the deal can no longer be changed.
True democracy should require a chance to debate the merits of the various aspects of the agreement -- not a "take it or leave it" on the entire thing. Let us see what's being negotiated so people can point out the real problems with the pieces of it so that it can be fixed. And then people can agree to support the final product.
There is no good reason whatsoever for keeping it secret. I note that you didn't respond to my points, you just moved onto another talking point. What a hack.
I'm not exactly making up the figure of $10, it's from your podcast.
So is your argument that everyone should be ordered to be given more than $10 per hour?
In real human terms, i.e, feeding and clothing yourself; the question should not be "Is it more than 0?" but rather "Will it put cheese in my fridge?"
Are you arguing for basic income? We had a whole podcast on that as well. Or are you arguing for something different?
For you it's a novelty to use your phone to get your car parked, for the poor guy (actually wouldn't there need to be two, or does he walk to your car?) who has to settle for whatever fraction of the $15 it costs it's a shitty wage.
If it's a shitty wage, then there are alternatives in the job market for him. I spoke to both of the drivers that I used, and they actually seemed to like it -- noting that for both of them it was a flexible way for them to make a little extra cash (one was a semi-pro athlete and the other was an actor). And, no, it's not two. For Luxe, at least, they all use boost board scooters to get to and from pickups.
People died to get workers the projections they have and it fucks me off to see outfits like Uber try to erode these rights to make a buck. It fucks me off listening to people like you champion this shit because it's "on a computer".
Really? Look, I know the history of labor fights. I have a degree in labor relations. I spent years studying this shit. Don't tell me that I don't understand the history of this stuff, because I can almost guarantee I know it better than you do.
And I think you're totally wrong. Uber doesn't "erode" these rights in any way. You're being totally misleading if you believe that.
And I don't find it interesting because "it's on a computer" but because *it's happening* and all your whining doesn't change that. And, from a pure resource allocation standpoint, it seems to be making better, more efficient use of resources -- which is a good thing, even for those of you who don't seem to understand the most basic economics.
It's OK for you to sit in one state and watch what happens in another, I don't have that luxury - where I live Uber is working on our central government to get laws changed.
Finally, the way I understand it and the way the media has protrayed it, the only thing this bill gets rid of is the 215 provision for bulk telephone/telephony collection and adds accountability to these formerly secret courts by requiring them to declassify some of the documents processed by this court
No, that's wrong. It flat out forbids using selectors that would lead to bulk collection.
Why does that matter one way or the other? (Besides, he's technically only a billionaire on paper, but so what?) Do you not think that people can become wealthy themselves while also providing useful goods and services?
While I doubt it occurs to a greedy fuck like yourself, there is a certain point where one is rich enough and scrounging in the dirt for nickels is less satisfying and has less utility than taking care of those who helped you amass such tremendous wealth.
I don't disagree with that. I actually agree that the wealth accumulation by some in this country is obscene and problematic. But I don't see what it has to do with anything I said. You dislike Travis because he's amassed a lot of paper wealth. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with the situation with drivers.
Let me guess Masnick, I imagine the people who work for you, coincidently, are also "independent contractors". You don't pay the employer share of payroll taxes or contribute toward their health insurance, I'd wager.
You imagine incorrectly. Most of my staff are fully employed (and, in fact, most have some equity as well, such that I actually don't own all that much, as I've spread it around much more generously than most -- perhaps too much). Not only that, but I have the fun of dealing with different regulations in multiple states and *countries* because the full time staff is distributed.
That said, we do have *some* contractors and freelancers, but they're only those who clearly fall into such categories.
So, perhaps, rather than being a total jackass with your assumptions (nearly all of which have been wrong) you could step back off your high horse, and think that maybe I'm not the caricature you've built up in your head.
You sound like one of those Teabaggers who claim that raising the minimum wage is a "job killer". Yet the historical data since the 1930's demonstrates that increases in the minimum wage have had no real effect on job creation at all.
You should stop using your talking points.
I support a minimum wage. Not everyone fits into your neat little buckets.
I love your podcast and it gives me an opportunity to listen to other techies talk about tech issues and other such things. I just had a request. Can you guys add your podcast as a torrent?
Hmm. I'll see... not sure.
I was also wondering if you will dedicate another podcast to talking about the recently passed "USA Freedom Act" that supposedly reforms the patriot act but, anyone who is techologically inclined knows this couldn't be farther from the truth with the exception in the bill of declassifying *some* of the formerly secret fisa courts documents.
We've written about it plenty. Not sure we'll do a podcast on it for a variety of reasons. Also, I disagree with the "supposedly." It does, very much, reform the PATRIOT Act, but (as we've noted), it does so only a little bit when much more is needed.
I'll ignore the silly insults and just get to this point:
That years of fine tuning the regulation of the transport industry -because public safety - means nothing if it stands in the way of disruption from silicon valley.
That's ridiculous and not our point at all. Rather, the point -- as I've explained many times before -- is that those "finely tuned" regulations are often not finely tuned at all, but rather used to limit supply in order to jack up prices way beyond reasonable.
And, more importantly, the entire point of most of those regulations was because of information asymmetry. So, yes, you had to be concerned for public safety, but that's mainly an issue when you have a one-off interaction -- i.e., when you'll never deal with the driver again. But the thing that's really interesting about these new services is that they do away with that information asymmetry by allowing passengers to rate drivers, thereby leading to a safer/better overall experience *without the need* for the regulatory burden on top.
Every Uber experience I've had has been world's better than every taxi experience. And often it has been less expensive.
So the argument that it's "having the lower strata of society" serving the "higher strata" of society is also a load of hogwash. Increasing the supply has made things much cheaper so that many more people are able to use these kinds of transportation services as well... and it's enabled more people to work.
Your talking points are not just stale, but they're wrong.
Well, for starters there'd be more money for lower wage workers who tend to spend it (creating economic activity) than it going to the wealthy who tend to sit on it- despite the trickle-down lies told by Gov. Brownback (KS) and his ilk.
You honestly think that if the costs to Uber go up, it'll lead to more money for the drivers? There's nothing to support that at all. In fact, it will mean a lot less for most drivers, because they won't be working for Uber any more. It may mean more for a few, but it may not be much more, because the costs of Uber will rise, there will be fewer drivers and utilization will likely drop, making the service less useful for many people.
I don't see how that helps drivers unless you don't understand how non-zero sum situations work.
Independent contractors are also denied the right to bargain collectively which means it's "my way or the highway" for workers.
Sure they can bargain. They can also work (or threaten to go work) for one of the many, many competitors out there. There's a giant marketplace right now for these kinds of workers, and if Uber treats them like shit, they can shift to others. My friends who have tried out some of these services note that the recruitment efforts are *crazy* right now, with many promising bonuses and the like to get them to try working for other services. In other words, it looks like the companies don't have market power right now like you think they do.
Could that change in the future? Possibly. But let's deal with that reality other than your fantasy.
I really dislike corporations throwing their weight ($) around to the detriment of working people and so should the rest of you.
Again, how do you figure? If they are declared as employees, that means Uber would likely drop a huge percentage of current drivers -- meaning they'd now make nothing. How does that help those "working people"? By removing a way they can earn money today? Is that what you really want?
More corporate fuckery as far as I'm concerned and it's discouraging to see so many here rush to the misguided defense of 1%ers.
Has nothing to do with defending the 1%ers. In fact, I'd argue quite the opposite. If you define Uber drivers as employees, the price goes up, and the utility of Uber for everyone goes down. That includes drivers who are making money from it today, as well as people who use it to get around.
Yes, it also would help Uber, but it's a piss poor argument to say that we should hate on big companies just because they're big... even if it harms everyone else. Here the interests are aligned.
The measure of success is whether the typically misnamed "Freedom Act" will actually change anything the TLA agencies do. The NSA will still get everything they want - they just have to get the ever compliant FISA Court to approve. The FBI will still write their own warrants, er, National Security Letters. Of course these aren't warrants, they're infinitely better since they don't need meddlesome judges and may come with a permanent gag order. It goes on and on, but this was a wasted opportunity and we ended up with little more than political theater.
I disagree. Is this reform weak? Yes. But it is still reform, and some of the elements are important and useful. But, you are right that it's not nearly enough. Don't be cynical and reject it just because we didn't get everything. Just keep fighting to get more.