It's what Masnick *doesn't* criticize Google for that gave him away as their shill.
Oh, you mean because Mike's isn't jumping on your bandwagon to crucify Google because your industry is lagging behind the times? Yeah, that proves nothing.
Well, that, and Google legal filings...
Get some new material dude. That's been refuted more times that I can count, yet you still can't let it go. I guess your inclination to cling to a incorrect, outdated notions puts you right at home in a industry that does the same.
I'm pretty sure the labels are no angels, but you're suggesting that they didn't play any part in promoting artistes. That's what I find rather ridiculous on every level.
Actually, promoting is one of the things the legacy labels are still good at and should be focusing their resources on to survive.
The difference now is that they now longer hold a monopoly on distribution and artists need not sign over all their rights in order to be promoted.
The legacy labels should (IMHO) be transitioning over to selling their promotion services to artists on a contractual basis. This would benefit the artists greatly by leveraging the huge promotional potential of the labels while still retaining control of their own destinies.
It is? That's news to me. Now I know Mike has made a trip or two to Washington to speak out against some really, really stupid ideas, but I wouldn't consider that heavy lobbying by any stretch of the imagination.
...and draws conspiracists...
It's not a conspiracy theroy if it's the truth.
..because of their bias against (insert authority)...
By my observation, Techdirt doesn't have bias against authority at all, they have a bias against stupidity. It's not really Techdirt's fault if a lot of people in authority positions do stupid things.
...and very strong anti-IP angling...
Yes, because IP that holds back human innovation is stupid.
in that game, It is you on the wrong side. You are a Sample Troll using legal gamesmanship to steal from hard working artists!
Eroding Fair Use isn't a real smart idea, regardless of which side you are on.
Fair Use helps keep copyright from running afoul of the First Amendment protection on Free Speech in the US.
Erode it too far and copyright in it's current form could be found unconstitutional. The First Amendment would trump the copyright clause because the First Amendment is very specific limitations of governmental power, whereas the copyright clause only states that "[...]Congress shall have Power To[...]" and isn't actually a requirement.
What Linux really needs (IMO) is to get to the point where a search for how to do something in Linux easily and quickly turns up instructions for how to do it without opening a terminal.
Yeah, I'll agree with you there.
While I am comfortable using the terminal and command lines (my first real computer learning experiences were with a computer with IBM PC-DOS 1.1 back in the early 80's), I tend to do most things on Debian with the GUI interfaces too and when I need to search for how to do something I usually end up parsing the terminal commands into the GUI world and use those tools instead. Nautilus to move and copy files and to change permissions. Synaptic instead of apt-get for packages. And so on.
This weekend I will be installing Linux and the weekend after that...and the weekend after that...and the weekend after that...
Huh. To be honest, that scenario has been more prevalent with Windows for me. My laptop has been running Debian AMD64 for a couple of years now. The times I've had to reinstall Debian were because I was messing around and mucked up something in the /root directory as a superuser. I also had to reinstall when I migrated to 64-bit and another time when I reduced my Windows partition to less then a quarter of my hard drive space to give more to Debian.
There is one aspect when dealing with malware on a GNU/Linux that is far superior to Windows.
By keeping my /root and /home directories on separate partitions I can reload (or change) my entire OS in an hour or so without losing my settings, data or custom tweaks.
I have no clue how much time I've spent in my life reinstalling Windows installations because of infections or whatnot and then having to find and reinstall every program I use again, but it's definitely time I could have spent on more productive endeavors.
So you really, truly don't accept that anyone else's actions can have a detrimental effect on a person, no matter what they do to them?
That's not what I said at all. All sorts of things have detrimental effects on people all the time. I'm just not going to jump up on the Blame Game Bandwagon for an individual's personal decision.
Solicitation of suicide has a pretty high legal bar. It needs (I believe, IAMAL) to involve specific instructions to a specific individual. Just saying "you should kill yourself" wouldn't pass the sniff test. I'm not sure about the case of the anonymous woman, but I can guarantee the ADA in Swartz's case didn't do anything like that.
My argument is, creating the conditions for a crime (or self-harming event) to take place is equivalent to criminal solicitation and should be treated as such. Let that slide and you have all sorts of crazy stuff going on and the people responsible getting away with it.
I disagree. That slope is way, way too slippery. What's next? Blaming the victims in a school shooting because they were once said something mean to the shooter? Blaming a rapist's mother because she spanked him when he was young? I mean, seriously, isn't there enough of that shit going on already these days? Everything is someone else's fault and nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
Your argument appears to be, "People live in an emotional and social vacuum. They make decisions free of outside influence, nor can any influence be brought to bear upon them." That is not true.
That's not my argument nor what I believe. I just think blame should be placed where it belongs.