I guess if one says it is not censorship enough times he/she might actually come to believe what they say. Self-delusion, however, is generally not something to which people should aspire.
It's not self-delusion nor is it censorship, my friend. The comment is still there and Blue has not been prevented from spouting more of his crap in any way, shape or form.
Do you also claim that newspapers who place letters to the editor on page 6 instead of the front page are engaging in censorship also? Same concept, but instead of a single mouse click you have to leaf through a few printed pages instead.
so you can choose to use an unfinished jet aircraft? or a bridge, that is UNFINISHED.
Dude, your analogies comparing physical objects with negotiations are lame.
If you really need some sort of analogy, try this:
You are purchasing a house, but you are not allowed know what property you are buying, the purchase price, the interest rate of the loan or the amount of closing costs until you finish signing the papers.
Anyone reasonable who wanders in should take note: Your "free" to agree with Techdirt's spin, otherwise entirely not wanted.
Not true. Plenty of people come here who argue their opposing points of view in a rational and respectful manner and they are respected in return.
However, you and darryl are not here for a respectful discussion, you are here to troll, preach and ignore rebuttals. You have no one to blame but yourself if your reputation precedes you now and nobody gives a shit what you have to say anymore.
I've seen these public consultations before and they tend to try to guide the people towards their way of thinking.
I'm sure that the corporations who will benefit from this the most will be pressuring their employees to comment in the company's favor also. It will be flowery rhetoric that basically boils down to: "This is a good thing for the company, therefore it's also good for your continued gainful employment with us...". I've experienced this type of pressure when I worked for an energy company going through the deregulation years.
You know, I've always wondered why the links go through bit.ly... When the full url is given too. Why just on this one daly "feature"?
Mike and Michael explained this decision in this thread from awhile ago (which you might have read if you spent more time reading this site other than criticizing every little thing that you don't like):
But I think the real secret is how does one get Google to list this site at top of searches? Even over the original source.
By spending many years becoming a reliable, trustworthy source that users click on after doing a Google search. It's not some nefarious plot Blue, it's called building a web reputation and it's reflected in Google's search algorithms.
Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
OOTb has a couple similar characteristics but cannot approach the epic troll capability of Prokofy Neva.
It's kind of funny, I was thinking about this earlier today when I stumbled across one of Prokofy Neva's comments on another article and I attempted to find some sort of writing style comparison software to compare Blue's and Cathy's writings.
My Google-foo failed me though and I got sidetracked with some actual work, so I didn't get very far.
Music may be art, but rap isn't music. Most rap is despicable. You know how many people associate Muslims with terrorism? Same principal applies to rap. Some may call it stereotyping, and that's OK. But facts are facts....sometimes they're hard to accept.
Déjà vu! I've heard this type of argument before....
But, come on, "code cave" sounds both cool and ominous. Like a geekier Bat Cave!
Sounds like the basement at any big tech corporation to me.
You know, that dark place downstairs where they keep the really good programmers. They slide pizza under the door every now and then and let them out into the sunlight on weekends to keep them happily coding along.
Every time I look for answers from Mike all I find is: "It's broken! Big problem!"
Like I said above - if you are looking for someone to give you an one-size-fits-all plan for success than you are a bona fide idiot.
The idea of Step 2 was never for Mike (or anyone) to fill in what YOUR Step 2 is, that's YOUR job, not anyone else's. It's simply a platform for kicking around ideas with like-minded individuals.
Not sure what your problem is with Step 2 really, if you don't like, don't use it. It's that simple. To use Step 2 as something to attack Mike with just demonstrates YOUR insecurities with new ideas and shows how weak your arguments against this site really are.
You completely skip over that the Step 2 site is a FAILURE and that is SURELY due to Mike's lack of vision AND execution.
Step 2 cannot be a failure because it's not a black & white, win or lose kind of thing. It's a forum to kick around ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. If even one person used the information gleaned there to further their own success then it's most definitely not a failure by anyone's standard.
And if you are looking for someone to tell give you a one-size-fits-all plan to achieve success than you are a bona fide idiot. Every person, every business and every endeavor is unique and has it's own unique challenges. Step 2 provides a platform to discuss these challenges with other like-minded individuals.
I'm 100% positive in my belief that you, Blue, are the least most qualified person in the world to determine whether Step 2 is a success or not.
In order to initiate an enforcement proceeding on must first register their "work" with the Copyright Office. No registration? No lawsuit.
Also not true. If you register a copyright prior to infringement you are entitled to statutory damages and attorney's fees. Without registration you are only entitled to actual damages, but you can still file a lawsuit for infringement.
Notice removed as requirement in 1995, but failure to use it forecloses certain remedies. One is that without such a notice you cannot cut off an innocent infringer d3fense.
Actually, the requirement was removed with the Copyright Act of 1976 and the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act. It's optional for any work created on and after March 1, 1989.
As for the innocent infringement defense, that doesn't negate a finding of infringement at all, although it may be effective for reducing the punishment for infringement, it's really an uphill battle for the defendant to prove regardless of whether is there is a copyright notice or not.
Not necessarily as their is an additional requirement, among others, that the work exhibit some modicum of creativity. An objective standard for what constitutes creativity has never, to my knowledge, been recited in case law, but it remains a legal requirement nevertheless.
That standard is the the work has to have a "minimum of creativity". Everything I listed would qualify. What wouldn't qualify would be a phone book or a list of ingredients for a recipe (ie: a database of facts, per the Feist ruling).
Moreover, no matter what the standard, a necessary condition of being able to prevent/limit the use of a work preserved under copyright is that of formal registration, and an optional one that enhances remedies pre-registration is the use of formal notices of copyright on each work.
Formal registration and/or copyright notices have not been required since the Copyright Act of 1976.
As I noted the standard is not a high bar, but in practical terms the vast majority of what some may wish to consider an original work of authorship (whether or not it really is) are of such a nature that enforcement is merely a theoretical possibility and nothing more.
It's not just a theoretical possibility - it's hard coded in copyright statutes and case law. Pretty much everything is copyrighted at the moment it's fixed to a tangible medium and that most certainly includes your daily emails and whatnot. Everyone IS a creator these days, there is no distinction between a "professional creator" and someone who creates stuff within the scope of their daily lives in the eyes of copyright law.
People create content and utilize content, but this statement is largely irrelevant. Copyright law is directed to original works of authorship, and while the legal standard for what constitutes a work of authorship is not as rigorous as some may prefer, the simple matter is that most of the day to day content that people prepare are hardly within the scope of the term "original work of authorship".
Original Work Of Authorship A standard for copyright protection. Under copyright law, a work is considered original, if it owes its origin to the author -- that is, it is the result of independent effort, and not the result of copying.
There is nothing in that definition that infers anything about the "significance" or "relevance" of a work.
The only requirements are:
- It's fixed in a tangible medium - That it's original and not a copy - That it's not a "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery"
That covers daily emails, doodles on a napkin, post-it notes on the fridge and the snowman your kids made on the front lawn. All covered by copyright the moment they created.