False dichotomy. Laws in place to combat child porn does not have to, and should be, used to screw over the very group they're supposedly meant to be protecting. You don't protect children/teens by ruining their lives and/or hitting them with felony charges and jail time for what basically amounts to lousy decision making skills(otherwise known as the #1 thing teens everywhere are famous for).
No, see 'repercussions' would have been the police sending them home and receiving a stern talking to by their respective parents, maybe having their phones taken away until they can show some better decision making skills, or at least grow up enough that their brand of hormone-driven stupid wasn't a crime. Felony charges and ruining a life by forcing one of them(and why exactly aren't they both looking at that possibility?) on the sex-offenders list goes way beyond 'repercussions' in any reasonable or sane interpretation.
As for the 'well they shouldn't have broken the law', if the law said that jaywalking was punishable by 10-years in prison, and you got caught jaywalking, would that be okay? What if littering had a 20-year penalty, and you littered, accidentally or not, that'd be acceptable, right? Maybe make changing lanes without signaling a capital crime, that sounds like a reasonable punishment, doesn't it? Because after all, the law's the law.
The law as it stands is stupid, incredibly so, treating the two as both minors and adults, at the same time, with the worst of both categories. They're minors when it comes to the photos, and adults when it comes to the charges leveled against them. There's also the concussion-level facepalming stupidity regarding how someone, anyone, can be hit with felony level charges for possessing pictures of their own bodies.
It doesn't really matter how good the rest of the document might seem at first glance, if they end it by noting that it's merely meant to 'guide' agencies in how they should act, and doesn't actually restrict them in any way shape or form.
That's a loophole large enough to fly a blimp through, and you can be sure it's quite intentional. Make some nice sounding 'rules', but then make it so none of them are actually binding or need to be followed, giving them great PR without actually doing anything or requiring anything change.
That the company flipped out so heavily over such incredibly mild reviews makes it abundantly clear that they are not a company that should be trusted, ever. Someone that fanatical about covering up even slight criticism is someone who knows that they can't withstand honest scrutiny for one reason or another, whether terrible customer service, or shoddy products.
Even if they excelled in both service and product(which they obviously don't), the fact that they are this eager to go legal against their own customers means people are much better off, not to mention safer, buying elsewhere, and avoiding this particular company completely.
They did. Ultimately I'd say the police are more responsible here than the child of a mayor.
A child pretending to be an adult throwing a tantrum is to be expected, even if it's not desired. The police on the other hand specifically noted that they didn't believe the major had a valid claim, and that his order to them wasn't supported by law, yet they followed the order anyway.
"I was just following orders" has never been a valid excuse, yet that's exactly what the police did here.
Yeah, that they were able to refuse to offer the 'compulsory' licenses to a specific company makes it abundantly clear that the system is anything but compulsory. If anything it's a nicely set-up monopoly, force everyone to go to one place to get the licenses, and then use that position to extort as much as you can from them, or block them if you don't care for them.
If the IP owners fails to consider fair use when flagged they get strikes.
To which they would respond that they did consider fair use, every single time, forgetting to mention that the 'consideration' lasted exactly as long as it took them to click the box asserting such. That every single time their 'consideration' found that fair use didn't apply was a pure coincidence.
A requirement to 'consider' fair use is meaningless if they can simple claim that after careful 'consideration' nothing qualifies to their mind. There's no penalty for not accepting fair use after all, so why would they ever do so if they weren't forced to?
Yeah, I think it's gone well past the time where the solution is to 'encourage claimants to correctly identify thing that they actually own', unless by that you mean apply heavy penalties for getting it wrong.
'Not making fraudulent claims' should not be something to be proud of, it should be the default, companies need the hammer brought down on them, hard, if they intentionally or not make fraudulent claims through the system that ends up effecting other people, and the punishments need to be at the very least just as severe as those that are falsely accused because of their negligence.
It really makes you wonder why does Universal Music and the other record labels seem to hate the public so much? When those songs were recorded, everyone knew they'd be in the public domain now. That was a part of the deal. And it was certainly enough incentive to get the songs recorded at the time. So why are they so focused on continuing to block the public domain today?
Really? You actually need to ask? It's simple:
It provides competition, they cannot control it, and therefor cannot use it to extort money from others for it's use.
Something in the public domain is something they don't have a monopoly on, which means anyone can sell it, use it, or give it away, all without having to ask them for permission, without having to pay them ridiculous sums simply because the choice is 'Pay us or go without'.
They hate the public domain because they can't control it(directly at least), and because it provides competition to the rubbish they offer. As their actions make crystal clear, as far as they're concerned copyright law is meant solely to benefit the parasites, and no one else. That it theoretically is meant to benefit the public is simply window dressing, a lie to trot out when they want the next retroactive expansion to the duration, and ignored completely otherwise.
Seems to me a good use for that $125K would be to donate it towards anyone running in opposition to the thin-skinned idiot pretending to be a mayor if he tries for re-election the next election.
Bet you could get a nice bit of mileage out of that much money, and using it against the child masquerading as an adult in a mayor costume would be ever so fitting. If the courts refuse to punish the ones actually guilty by forcing them to pay, then the least that can be done is taking the money pried from the taxpayers and using that to punish the guilty parties, even if indirectly.
Condescending attitude and insults, it's like you're trying to be just as bad as the troll you're criticizing.
The vast majority of Blue's arguments may be stupid, but you don't change minds by just saying 'That's stupid', you do it by explaining why a given claim wrong, so that other people can see and understand the topic being discussed when it is brought up later.
Another commenter replied to you in another thread noting that there have been some excellent discussions that originated as replies to troll posts, something that I have also seen myself, and if the 'price' of those discussions is humoring the trolls a bit, 'wasting' time showing why they're wrong in their claims, that's a perfectly acceptable trade to me.
Although, come to think of it, you may be right this time. He's got you and a few others on his team. Way to go! Aren't you proud of yourself?
Incorrect, I'm not on his side, I'm against yours. Far as I'm concerned you're both acting equally as bad with your spam and personal attack filled posts, with both of you posting the same crap over and over, and throwing insults at anyone who disagrees with you.
And yet here he/she is, right back to posting. Not only that, but since they now know you're going to flip out every time they post and someone responds, guess what, you just handed them even more motivation to do so. Congrats, I'm sure they'll stop any day now with that knowledge.
If you just wanna sit there and bitch about what I'm doing, guess where that leaves you?
The same position as you, except not? You're bitching and moaning that people aren't doing what you want, spamming the comment sections in the process. You don't fight spam by posting it, report their posts if you want, but enough with the spam insisting that everyone else follow suit. Some of us see nothing wrong with replying, not for the troll's sake, but for others who might read the comments posted.
Funnily enough, I'm sure Blue quite enjoys your antics, unlike those of us who are tired of them. They've got to get a real kick out of knowing that not only are they getting under your skin so much, but that they basically get two spam posts for the cost of one, theirs and yours.
I have no patience for liars or the intentionally dishonest, so I'd say I've got reason to be annoyed. It's a mild irritation at most though, verging on exasperation, so if that's really an 'accomplishment' for someone, I'd say they've got bigger problems than me being annoyed by dishonesty.
I like how in an effort to fight spam posts, you resort to spam posts. Report all his comments if you feel like it, but enough with the freakin' comments about how other people don't do the same.
There's also the part where you're just flat out wrong. Blue's been here for how many years? Clearly reporting his comments isn't stopping him from posting, or even notably slowing them down, so your tactic isn't doing squat other than adding yet more spam, making the problem worse, not better.
Why would he bother? He's banking on the targets not knowing better, for the scam his knowledge of the laws needs only be good enough that he can throw together a sufficiently 'official' looking threat letter.
When you never actually expect or want to take your 'case' to court where it can he challenged, you can pretty much make it up as you go along.
What an amazingly well thought out and presented comment. Really, your various points, all exhaustively cited and backed up by other sources, and your downright eloquently written arguments certainly convinced me of the rightness of your point, bravo.
This line again? Do you ever get tired of being dishonest, or is it a hobby for you?
Infringement does not equal theft, this is not a difficult concept. Copying does not equal taking. Likewise, as I pointed out in our last little chat, you do not actually want it to be treated the same in any sense but the emotional.
But hey, if that's how you think, by all means charge someone who infringes on a copyright with theft, see how well that goes for you.