You're citing as a source, a blog post by a user whose *only post* on medium is the post you're citing?
Who starts off the post by insulting celebrities, then moves on to complain about "Social Justice Warriors and Wankers," which is really a tirade against uppity black people?
And, who continues with prejudicial overgeneralizations like this: "Most Muslims, though, live in the Middle East or in places like Indonesia and Malaysia and Pakistan, where they treat non-Muslims with the same hate and violence and psychopathic homicidal delight that Middle Eastern Muslims reserve for my [Middle Eastern Christian] people."
Yeah, not convincing.
I absolutely agree that there is persecution of other religions in majority-Muslim countries, and that this is wrong, and that we in the West should do what we can to stop it.
But I do not see *anything* that Trump has done as helping that cause. And I certainly don't think this article helps anything, either.
Re: Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
> Try again? What, do I need to win the approval of every anonymous commenter in the tank for PK?
You do realize that I was ironically repeating the inane bullshit that you were spouting, right? As in, "That report was retaliation for the CO's STB comments. Try again."
Also, you're wrong:
> None of the documents you reference disclose the size of Google's payoffs.
The link that I posted showed which category Google is in as far as donation money is concerned (and, again, they are in the same category as AT&T and DirecTV). This would have earned them a "B" on the exact story you quoted.
Plus, you can always look at their form 990, where it is revealed that they got about half of their donation money from entities that donated less than 2% of their total donations. (If you really want to, I'll hunt this down, but really you should be searching this out yourself.) This is exactly the sort of numbers you see with a legitimate non-profit, and that you don't see with astroturf organizations.
That NYT article is interesting precisely because it describes what a 501(3)(c) is *not* supposed to be.
Still, it's a bit misleading to describe it as a "business model," since the goal of having a business model is to make a profit.
And, of course, there's no evidence that PK does this. For example, many of its "Platinum level" donors - the same level as Google - are companies who have been lobbying *against* the FCC's set-top box proposal. (Companies like AT&T and DirecTV.)
If PK is indeed trying to be a "pay-for-play lobbying group," these guys should get their money back.
It's funny that you're constantly seeking evidence for my claims but you're unwilling to accept anything but PK's own words.
Not true. I'm also willing to accept facts. So far you have provided none. You provide blind assertions based on nothing, and ad hominem attacks.
So far, you still have provided absolutely no evidence for the notions that:
Google saw Pallante, personally, as a "threat";
Google's being threatened by Pallante was the reason that PK "attacked" her by name; because
PK is Google's "puppet."
All three things are wild accusations, thrown around by conspiracy theorists who are running a smear campaign against Google (and others they disagree with). The fact that there's no evidence for any of this (and plenty of evidence against it, some of which I've posted) doesn't matter to them.
That's not how this game is played.
What game do you think you're playing, exactly? The one where you win political points through unsubstantiated smear campaigns?
> What's your point, that PK is Google's biggest critic?
My point is that PK is not a "Google puppet," as you put it.
That idea is a pure conspiracy theory, largely originating from people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is part of some conspiracy or other.
My advice: don't listen to them.
The fact that PK and Google agree on many (not all) positions is not evidence of a "conspiracy." It's easily explained by the fact that both the public **and** Google benefit from things like an open Internet, or less stringent copyright laws.
If you read the articles, the "multiple" sources all involve Chris Castle.
Castle is the person who started and runs the Artists Right Watch website. Castle is also the person behind Music Technology Policy. Though started by David Lowery, the Trichordist site now features more content by Chris Castle than anyone else - usually reposted verbatim from Music Technology Policy (almost certainly by Castle himself). These sources were the only ones quoted in the DMN story as supporting this conspiracy theory.
And, make no mistake, Castle is definitely a conspiracy theorist. He calls Eric Schmidt "Uncle Sugar," claims that the EFF and Public Knowledge are both "shills" of Google, and consistently repeats any anti-Google story that he sees (and never retracts them when they turn out to be false). He's the main person behind the claim that the DOJ advocated full-work licensing only because Renata Hesse recieved her marching orders from Google. (Never mind that all music users who submitted comments to the DOJ said unanimously that they believed they had always gotten full-song licensing... or that Google didn't even submit a comment). There are plenty of other examples.
Essentially, all of this is just Chris Castle sock puppetry. It's a telling failure on DMN's part that they fell for it, and are essentially helping to spread the impression that this is more than just one guy's conspiracy theory. Please, don't fall for it yourself.
(As a public service, I'm going to post this as a comment on the DMN story as well.)
Sure, people can get fooled by fake news. But what's really delicious is this:
"I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart," said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. "I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em' and stuff." Downey continued, "I think we did a good job though. I was shouting at them the whole time, calling them losers, telling them to get a job or go back home to mommy’s house; I got a bunch of high-fives from my fellow Trump supporters. It was a great time."
Someone on the Trump campaign read that paragraph, and said to themselves "yep, that's exactly what our supporters are like."
Well, except they aren't. That's kinda the whole point.
According to nearly every review I've seen, they're basically single-level maps that would shame even a beginning Half-Life modder, using stock (some claim stolen) assets developed by others, with counter-intuitive and unexplained game mechanics.
You certainly have a point if we're talking about AAA games (or even good indie games), but this ain't them.
Have you checked out Lowery's Trichordist site lately?
Unfortunately, yes. I need something to get me angry sometimes.
You're right, they're basically an anti-Google conspiracy site nowadays. But that's actually not so much that they're in "crazyland." Some people who write for that site (but not Lowery, AFAIK) are involved with pro-copyright astroturf groups, and they're deliberately pushing propaganda.
On example: Chris Castle used to head up Arts+Labs, an astroturf group originally started by telecom lobbyists that also supported SOPA and PIPA (and disbanded immediately after they failed). Another frequent contributor, Ellen Seidler (also of popuppirates.com and Vox Indie), is on the advisory board of Digital Citizen's Alliance, the main mover behind the Project Goliath debacle.
Still, they're good to read just to see what they're angry about, so that you can know what to actually support.
There has been an interesting development in the "100% licensing" debate.
After the DOJ ruled that the consent decrees required full-work licensing (called "100% licensing" by publishers and PRO's), BMI asked the rate court for a declaratory judgement that the DOJ was wrong.
And, now, Judge Stanton has sided with BMI, and ruled that the consent decrees do not require full-work licensing.
His reasoning is really convoluted. He takes a passage in the consent decree that is essentially a savings clause, and interprets it to mean that copyright infringement itself is not any part of the consent decree:
If a fractionally-licensed composition is disqualified from inclusion in BMI's repertory, it is not for violation of any provision of the Consent Decree. [...] It does not address the possibilities that BMI might license performances of a composition without sufficient legal right to do so, or under a worthless or invalid copyright, or users might perform a music composition licensed by fewer than all of its creators.