Ah yes, straight to the insults, that's certainly a convincing argument.
But hey, I've got a few minutes to burn, so here:
'This is a cheap shot that is beneath you. Techdirt has always been an OPINION site. We express our opinion. Always have. We've never suggested that the site is some sort of bogus "objective reporting of both sides" of a story, because we think anyone doing that is misrepresenting the truth. We present our opinion.'
There, that was Mike stating pretty clearly that TD is a site for opinions, nor 'journalistic reporting', and hence has no requirement for both sides to present their take on something(and in fact he notes that be doesn't believe that such is always a good thing).
Now then, if you can, go ahead and provide a quote where he states the opposite.
Yup. If you don't remove links to infringing instances of a file, then you're supporting and encouraging piracy. If you do remove links, then you're supporting and encouraging piracy and trying to hide it.
If you need any more indication that the 'trial' he would get should he wind up in the US would be nothing but a pre-determined one, this would certainly be a prime example. They've already determined that he's guilty, now it's just a matter of twisting the law until it does what they want.
In your eagerness to brush this off, you seem to have missed the fact that Paypal's half of the story was included in the source article, making contacting them for 'their side of the story' redundant.
You are also mistaken in claiming that this is a 'journalism' site, it isn't, and in fact Mike has stated this fact repeatedly and consistently. It's a site for analysis and opinions, and as such there's no absolute need to get every side of the story before writing up an article. But hey, if you want to go the extra mile, and contact Paypal for their statement on the matter, feel free.
So I'm curious, do you honestly not know better, or are you assuming we don't?
The FCC's actions have nothing to do with 'taking over the internet', the purpose for the change was to apply some much needed regulations to the companies that provide access to it, and keep them from using their monopoly/duopoly positions to their own advantage, at the price of their 'customers'.
At some time a person like myself could come up with an idea that is absolutely ground breaking. If at any time a big business uses my idea then the time I spent on creating the innovative idea deserves compensation.
If it can be shown with a certainty that the company did in fact use your idea for their product, then yeah, you should deserve a cut of the profits. However, if they came up with the idea on their own, with no input from you, then no, you do not deserve compensation, because you had nothing to do with it.
People, and companies, should not be punished for having an idea just because someone else had if before them. Independent invention really needs to be more widely applied, the idea that more than one person can have a given idea, and it's wrong to give ownership of it to whoever happens to have it first, as to do otherwise puts a huge freakin' tollbooth on innovation, not to mention is based upon an idea that is flat out wrong.
Open Jihad can only be defeated in the physical world when it has been defeated in the world of ideas. Unfortunately our leaders make no apparent effort to do this.
Probably because they have no interest in doing so. Perpetual war, while terrible for the average person(increased taxes to cover military budgets, and money spend on the military rather than local concerns like education if nothing else), is excellent for those that can use it to make obscene amounts of money providing the guns and gear, and those that can use the never-ending conflict to justify their attempts to grab more and more power for themselves.
It would probably be quite safe to say, that while very few citizens want a war, very few governments don't.
The fanatics themselves? Don't bother, you aren't going to get anywhere with them, as like you said, they want one thing, and it's not peace on any other terms than theirs. For them, a measured, precise military response is pretty much the only way you can deal with them, because nothing less will stop them.
However, you can make it a hell of a lot more difficult for them to replenish their numbers, and it doesn't involve shooting them up. Rather, the 'weapons' in that particular fight are more along the lines of humanitarian aid, providing clean water, food for those that need it, medical treatment, access to education, and stuff like that.
Make the fence sitters your friends, and supporters of your side, and they are much less likely to listen when the nutjob comes calling, talking about how horrible life is and if they want to get anywhere they're going to have to take it from those around them.
Any system of 'oversight' which does not include the ability for those providing the oversight to order those that they are investigating to provide the required information, with hefty, real penalties for refusal, is in the end utterly useless oversight.
If the ones you're supposedly providing 'oversight' over can respond to your requests with 'Eh, we'll maybe get around to it at some point', and there's nothing you can do about it other than ask again, then they're the ones in charge, not you.
Peace officers who are identifiable by portable video recording system data shall have unrestricted access to the data while it is retained and must be permitted to make copies.
While the first half is bad, this part is much worse. With this in play, they'll be able to 'legally' demand people who record them to hand over their cameras/phones so they can make a 'copy', and it doesn't take a genius to know what will happen to the original at that point.
There's also the problem of getting the camera/phone back, I can see the police taking a good week to get around to 'copying' the relevant data, just to make it clear that if you record them, you're losing your stuff for as long as they can get away with it.
And finally, when they steal- oh I'm sorry 'borrow for evidence preservation purposes' someone's phone, if that phone happens to be encrypted, this would allow them to demand that the owner provide the password to decrypt it, and at that point it's not will they go browsing through everything on the phone, but how soon.
Actually what I'd say is the largest reason not to do a massive data-dump is because it would be less effective, and would in fact play right in to the government's hands.
A huge amount of info would be far too much for people to keep track of, whereas releasing it piecemeal allows people to properly grasp what's been released.
Additionally, releasing everything all at once removes the possibility/ability to catch the government out on their lies, where they will deny something, often based upon a previous leak, only to have their counter-claims shown to be a lie by a latter leak/post.
Finally, by releasing the information piecemeal, you maintain interest in it. If everything is released all at once, the reaction may be greater in the short term, but the government just has to weather it for a bit before people move on to something else. Releasing bits and pieces over time keeps the pressure on, and maintains interest, as there's constantly something new to read about and examine.
What Title II does is allow Monopolies to exist but regulates them in return.
You mean like what we currently have, minus the regulation part?
Regulations that will bar any new comers from popping up and keep the existing players as the only players for decades to come.
And again, like what we already have, with ISP written laws locking out any potential competition from even developing in multiple areas/states?
The FCC by law is an independent agency and does not have to answer to the Congress or the White House for their actions.
Given how blatant numerous members of congress are in their support for major companies, the ISP/cable companies included, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If congress was put in charge of putting together the rules and regulations for ISP's and what they could and could not do, then it would be no different than if the ISP's themselves were writing them.
Now see, while secrecy of the text isn't good, it's not nearly as apocalyptic as some, yourself included, have tried to make it out to be. Why? Because that's how it's been for years. They didn't suddenly decide to hide everything because they knew the public wouldn't go for it, from everything I've read that's been the rule for a good number of years now.
Personally, for me the fact that the people who've been throwing out such laughable fearmongering over the whole mess(Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly) continue to oppose it seems like a pretty good indication that whatever is in there, it's more aligned with the public than corporations. We still have to wait to see the details, but at this point at least the signs seem to be good.
The fact that the two who've been trying their best to derail or delay the vote on them are now throwing giant fits, in what are either childish tantrums, or delaying actions(though what for I don't know), would seem to bode well and indicate that the rules are more public friendly than corporation friendly.
Apple may deserve a bit of a black-eye for their past actions, but the problem is that if this ruling stands, you can bet that the troll will take it and go after others as well, with their now very full wallet backing their efforts.
"We got half a billion dollars out of Apple, what makes you think you'll fare any better in court? No, you'd better pay up unless you want to be sued into the ground."