I don't think this author is very progressive in his thinking. From the article: Amazon also offers a 70 percent royalty option for books over $2.99, but Crawford chose the lower royalty (35%) “because you can opt out of Kindle Lending"
This is a guy who would rather make half as much money on each sale rather than let someone who bought the book 'lend' it to someone else. I very much doubt he is going to see this as an opportunity or advertising.
You might think that, if you believed that copyright wasn't completely broken. However, people get sued for the ideas all the time. Like this.
I really think you are relying on semantics. The idea/expression dichotomy expressed in copyright law means ideas in a totally abstract way. The censorship of copyright is applied to ideas that have been expressed.
The system limits the dissemination of the expression of ideas. Tell me that's wrong.
The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law.
There is already a system for enforcement in place. They want new ones. New horrible overreaching entirely unworkable and completely useless ones. They actually believe that if they are given the entire resources of the US (and others) government, they can win this war on piracy! Just like we won the war on drugs! Except the property is intangible and near impossible to track. Hmm..
If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.
I've tried that. I just get a form letter back. If I ever have a few spare million dollars to hire lobbiest, you can bet I'll do just that.
Please don't play dumb.
Why not? Don't you want someone to play with?
Adapt or die, as you would say.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!111! Repeating back thing that we say is not the same thing as understanding them. (Ha ha ha!!! I'm still laughing at this one!!! :D )
ICE could claim that the web domain is a property, and that property has committed a crime (by linking to piracy)
It's an interesting argument. The main flaw that I see (and I hope that someone in authority to make these determinations sees it too) is that there is no law suggesting that linking is a crime. At least not yet. So no crime has been committed by the domains that have been seized.
You can jerk yourselves off all you like with assertions of Constitutional violations, but until a court says it- it just doesn't matter.
Dude. You have weird proclivities if you associate constitution discussions with sexual arousal, even if it's indirectly.
Anyway, you're argument is: "It's not unconstitutional unless a court says it is." I'm going to give your analysis all the attention it deserves. Wow. That's dumb. Read your statement yourself and see if you can find out where you went wrong.