Yea we can't expect a person to have to work continuously in order to earn a living! Unspeakable!
Either they get inifinite money for sitting at home alll dayx, or I'm taking my big retarded ball of idiot music execs and going home. And you poopyheads won't get any of our music at all!
Response from world: good riddance
So when you completely misrepresent the bill as "gosh golly shouldn't websites have to try not to infringe" then you find less objection? That's your best counter argument?
This bill is about government censorship of websites and the direction (and for the profit) of private companies. There's no weaseling out of that. Its just what it is.
You can argue that this censorship isvjustified for one reason or another, but an honest person cannot try to claim it is not censorship.
So when you completely misrepresent the bill as "gosh golly shouldn't websites have to try not to infringe" then you find less objection? That's your best counter argument?
This bill is about government censorship of websites and the direction (and for the profit) of private companies. There's no weaseling out of that. Its just what it is.
You can argue that this censorship isvjustified for one reason or another, but an honest person cannot try to claim it is not censorship.
So when you completely misrepresent the bill as "gosh golly shouldn't websites have to try not to infringe" then you find less objection? That's your best counter argument?
This bill is about government censorship of websites and the direction (and for the profit) of private companies. There's no weaseling out of that. Its just what it is.
You can argue that this censorship isvjustified for one reason or another, but an honest person cannot try to claim it is not censorship.
Um, citation needed.
Do you anything which remotely resembles evidence to back up this claim?
Somehow I doubt it.
I like the idea presented in this comment, and fell much the same way. "See what sticks"
You try to argue this, yet simultaneously suggest that YouTube makes editorial decisions about the videos available on its website?
Are you deliberatrly being a double-standard ass, or are you merely too stupid to recognize the problem?
If the "MAJOR" profits you allude are truly up for grabs, why does the industry not provide their own version or such services and collect the money themselves?
The truth is that nobody (or very few people) is really making all that much money.
Then the unauthorized sources are more than happy to fill in the gaps in market-availability for the product. They are nice enough to charge $0, too.
Funny, since people want that format, it might be interesting to, I don't know, try offering that format for a price...
And how does that help you at all? Maybe you should consider some new price points.
Don't you stooges have any actual work to do during the day? Maybe you'd be more profitable if you stopped paying so many lobbyists and spammers.
I don't think you know what circular logic is.
Mike is not actively leaving anything out, its just that the copycat may point out some new feature. Mike could implement that.
Yes, he can always do better if someone else is currently beating him with his own content. At the /very/ least, he could exactly duplicate the copycat site, but have the inherent advantage of being the original source.
Sounds like a complete moron.
And no, the punishment does not fit the crime. The internet is used for a whole hell of a lot thses days, downloading a few albums and movies is really a minor component.
If that happened, Mike would look at the other site and try to figure out why it was getting the traffic instead of him. Then he would make Techdirt better than the other site. Then ithe other site would lose its traffic, and Techdirt wins because it has improved.
Nice try though, assuming Mike would flip out and cry like so many other seem to believe is their only option.
I've started using it for italics when commenting from my phone. Accessing symbols for html is a pain in the ass. I can get at *stars*, /slashes/ and _underscores_ more easily.
Jesus Christ you are retarded.
Do you dissect the activities of RIAA/MPAA/xxAA submarine lobbyist effort this closely, too?
Because some of them (*ahem* Glazier) lied and cheated for real, rather than just in Fairyland in your head.
I hope you are equally enraged (or, more so) about that "small" issue.
But this is exactly the point: your school /already/ spends that money, except they are paying for "access" to the journals, rather than a publishing fee.
So you take the same money they pay for access now, get rid of that, and pay an open journal a publish fee instead. (You also get access -- its open.)
The school is no worse off (probably better off once economies of scale kick in past the threshold), and the world is better off with global access.
You see?
Re:
I don't think destroying user anonymity should be a prerequisite for safe harbours.
Why don't we just issue internet licenses, and you will have to sign in to every website with that? You'd love it.
But it won't happen. Go lick goat taint.