Wow. Just... wow. You accuse me of oversimplifying, in that massive wall of text that demonstrates you completely missed (or are deliberately ignoring) the context in which I made the two posts that you're trying to invent a contradiction between? Dude, grow some reading comprehension already! The other one was not about this particular election; it was about the clear pattern that our political system has been following for decades now. The pattern that allowed me to predict years before the 2016 election even got started that our next president would be whichever Republican most successfully presented himself as the antithesis of Obama, and that he would end up being even worse than Obama. And can anyone deny that that's exactly what happened?
I don't think anyone sane likes that. It's completely insane. The idea that someone who caused no quantifiable damage should be held liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars of imaginary "statutory damages" flies in the face of justice.
I'd be just fine with jailing pirates, or even taking the Captain Phillips approach. People like that are literally terrorists and deserve whatever happens to them. ...wait. You're talking about copyright infringers, aren't you? Nevermind.
What good intentions? It's been pretty clear since the beginning that it was driven principally by malice and the desire to harm American tech companies.
This is good news. It does seem that momentum is on the good guys' side, for the moment at least.
This would be a good time to start pushing back, to remind lawmakers that there are other, more important stakeholders in the whole process, and try and get some of the existing bad laws repealed.
> and even Kathleen Jameson, whose 2008 book on right-wing media, Echo Chamber, informs the authors' work in Network Propaganda, has adopted the thesis that the Russians probably made the difference for Trump in 2016.
Bah. There were two people who made the difference: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Clinton lost a campaign that most people assumed was hers for the taking when she slandered roughly half of American society, claiming that everyone not aligned with her agenda was a part of a "basket of deplorables" full of racists, sexists and whatnot. This disgusting comment was received with all the disgust it deserved, swaying a lot of undecided voters to reject her.
At the same time, Trump had a much more persuasive message, claiming that he would "make America great again," which was exactly the right thing to say at exactly the right time. Voters who spent the entire Obama administration being told that the economy was in recovery and things were getting better, while the evidence of their own eyes down on Main Streets throughout the country told them otherwise, were drawn by this message of hope.
Of course, that's not how it's turned out since he took office, but it really is the best explanation for why the election turned out the way it did.
So, please, European bureaucrats: let's just leave Article 13 in the trash pile where it belongs.
That would be a good start. But what we really need to do is not just reject bad legislation that would make the current copyright abuse regime worse, but push back and start repealing and reversing the foundations of the copyright abuse regime itself.
Some principles are timeless. The modern version is "we do not negotiate with terrorists," but it means basically the same thing. If you let someone make you a victim, if you legitimize it, they learn that you're willing to be a victim and they keep coming back for more.
Meh. He has a point. Why wouldn't they want an excuse to reject returns? Rule of Acquisition #1: Once you have their money, never give it back.
In an ideal world, the axis would run from "up" (making the world a better place) to "down" (making things worse). The Left and the Right both tend to be pretty neutral on this axis, with about half of each side's contentious pet issues being helpful and the other half harmful. Libertarians, on the other hand--particularly of the Ayn Rand variety--tend to be almost purely "down", combining the worst aspects of liberalism and conservatism into one big putrid package of evil.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini
Huh? The current FCC has about as much gravitas as a clown who just got a Pai in the face.
Yes, and most normal people recognize libertarianism for what it is: an extreme-right viewpoint that worships the rich, hates public services, hates it when workers organize, and, for all their fancy words about liberty, doesn't actually believe in any freedom you can't afford, meaning the "utopia" they dream of is a horror that sane people would consider an authoritarian nightmare in which they are the abusive overlords being the master over the undeserving plebs who are obviously unworthy by virtue of having less money than themselves.
Ordinary compliance is obeying the law in letter and spirit. Malicious compliance is strictly obeying the letter of the law in an attempt to subvert the spirit of the law. As I said, that's not necessarily a bad thing, particularly when the spirit of the law in question is itself malicious.
Wow, apparently you just failed the Turing Test! o_0
Fascism mostly arose as a direct response to the threat of socialism. If those dirty commies were going to create a system where the state owns all private enterprise, the response was obviously to create a counter-system where private enterprise owned the state instead and kept the "proletariat" in line. Hence Mussolini's famous quote about a better name for fascism being "corporatism." This is a pattern that's very familiar to students of history: something bad happens, and people react by coming up with something even worse, developing something just as extreme but in the opposite direction. (Heck, it happened twice as a response to Communism alone, in Europe with fascism and in America with the toxic philosophies of Ayn Rand!) Just look at how many stories Techdirt has covered where people respond to something bad online (piracy, child pornography, terrorist content, etc) with calls for massive censorship and wide-reaching extrajudicial takedowns with no regard for the collateral damage. It's the same principle over and over, being applied in new and different ways. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
...huh?
If this is "a left-leaning publication," how do you explain the extreme-right conspiracy nuttery constantly being posted by Tim Cushing?
So, you're twisting my words into something I never said--and in fact specifically denied in another comment, since far too many people around here apparently have no sense of nuance--and dodging my question at the same time.
Par for the course in a discussion like this, it seems. eyeroll
The article says how it's "supposed to" work out: with Google being forced to pay European news companies. That's been pretty obvious, with little in the way of room for alternate interpretations, from the start.
This is actually a bit surprising to read, because I remember the author of Darths & Droids, a screencap webcomic that reimagines Star Wars as a tabletop gaming campaign that went totally off the rails, commenting on how friendly Lucasfilm had always been and how they felt safe using Star Wars screencaps because Lucasfilm had a long history of being tolerant and welcoming of fan works. So I'm kinda confused now...