"judeg is also wrong about his bank analogy, if the bank (Mega Upload)existed to provide the criminal product, was doing the criminal activity, any one who has money there, would also be considered a criminal, and would have to prove, they were not a criminal, i.e. had not uploaded illegal infringement material, to recieve thier funds"
This is factually incorrect, on several points. Firstly, it has not yet been proven that any criminal activity has been committed. There has been no trail, and no conviction. Also, there is much evidence to suggest that this is a civil copyright case blown up into a criminal copyright case without any evidence of criminal copyright.
Secondly, even if the bank were criminal (for instance, set up as a laundering scheme), then the people who deposited their money without any knowledge of the crimes being committed by the bank are victims. It is, at least partially, their money being used to fund these crimes. They should have their money returned to them, once it is determined that they had nothing to do with what was going on behind the scenes.
Thirdly, and most importantly, they don't have to prove they are innocent. They must be presumed innocent, until proven guilty, in a court of law. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing on their part, their money must be returned to them.
Lastly, a file backup isn't always used as a file backup. I would go so far as to say (without any evidence to back this up) that there were people who were, in fact, using Megaupload to store their files, without having any local copy. Pictures of their children. Recordings of their families voices. Portfolios of their work. Archival footage that could be very valuable to them. If these things are not returned, then the Justice Department is doing a severe injustice to the people involved.
It is irresponsible and shocking that you would not consider the plight of innocent people. Is your hatred so great that you can actually justify their suffering in the name of your so-called Justice?
I might agree with you, if the person had waited until after the game was actually released to ask for help. There is a certain audacity here, however, that must be addressed.
When I was working for Apple, a man called our Apple Care technical support for help with his phone. He said he had use jailbreak software to get around the requirement to have AT&T as the service provider, and when he updated his phone, it overwrote the jailbreak software and disconnected him from his service provider.
When he was told he would have to get AT&T to turn the phone back on, he replied that he was living in Australia. There was no AT&T in Australia (at that time, I don't know whether there is now or not). The technician sympathized, but ultimately there was nothing he could do.
Now, the technician could have pointed out to him that he needed to redownload the jailbreak software, upload it to his phone and reinstall, but if this guy can't figure that out himself, he is an idiot who deserves to have a phone brick.
[i]If we discriminate against people with "bad" genes, we are directing the course of evolution. This might have unforseeable and undesirable consequences.[/i]
And if we don't discriminate against people with "bad" genes we are directing the course of evolution. Every time you choose a mate to have a child with (monogamous or polygamous), you are making a decision that directs the course of evolution. In fact, unless we put every woman's name into a hat and let the men randomly choose the name, then have a child with them, we are directing the course of evolution.
I don't disagree with the rest of what you have to say, but I wanted to point out the short-sightedness of this comment.
The point of the article is not that she did anything wrong in quoting Mike. It was that, while criticizing someone else for allowing other's to take their material, and saying that no one should ever allow others blanket permission to take their stuff, she took Mike's stuff.
According to copyright law, however, even if you have a blanket statement on your website saying, "Please, take this content and do what thou wilt with i," it doesn't matter. The material is still copyrighted and you did not request permission to use it.
On the other hand, using any material, even material you have been given permission to use, without attribution is plagiarism. Even though Mike has given permission to do that, it doesn't matter much.
The point here is, Lily Allen was criticizing a man for letting other people 'steal' or copy his material. She accused him of being selfish for not demanding that his material be bought, because it hurts everyone else in his distribution chain. While making this argument, she 'stole', or copied the material of someone who was also saying that anyone could take his stuff.
This is hypocrisy. Stating a belief or ethic while violating that ethic is rank hypocrisy.
We aren't discussing her lack of education, Kate. We are discussing the fact that she has put herself into a position where she is acting hypocritically.
Lily Allen feels that no one, ever, should ever copy anything put up by anyone else. No one should ever violate copyright, because it hurts the person who created it.
And then, possibly ignorantly, possibly not, she violated copyright and copied something made by someone else. Now, Mike has said it is fine to take his stuff and do things with it, but that is his choice. He has said it is okay. Lily Allen has said that is not okay. She has violated her own code of ethics.
Now, does that mean she did something wrong? Not as far as Mike is concerned. Hell, not even as far as I am concerned. But, as far as SHE is concerned, she has done something wrong. And that is what makes her a hypocrite.
Actually, that is part of the problem. Her utter ignorance of what she is parroting is making her look bad. If she would get a little educated, she might turn on her employers and maybe even make a little more money in doing so.
Unless, what you meant was that there are a lot of posts about the absurdity of patents and copyrights. In which case you would be correct. But I just read a little while ago a post about that guy who followed his GPS off a cliff. Nothing about copyrights or patents there.
Because copyright applies whether you are giving something away for free or charging for it. If you don't site the person or persons you got something from, it is called plagiarism(sp?). The fact is, it does not matter who she took it from, but that she took it while complaining about people who take things. It is hypocritical, and that is all that Mike wanted to point out.
Chronno S. Trigger: "Since people in Europe drive on the opposite side of the road than the US, wouldn't it be better to have a sign saying "Look Right"? You know, since when you step off the sidewalk the traffic is coming at you from the right. Maybe that's why the Americans are looking the wrong way when they start to cross the street, they're just following your signs."
That's a good point! They're trying to kill us, those sneaky europeans!
If they are making these laws for the consideration of blind people, doesn't it seem strange to you that blind people are 'walking across streets without a guide?'
At stop lights, they have been putting in those loud beeps that let the blind person know that it is safe to go across. Beyond that, blind people should not be walking across streets without a guide who will look both ways for them. Like, a seeing eye dog.
The idea of mandating car noises for silent cars so that blind people walking across the street don't get hit is similar to the idea of putting braille on drive through atms so that blind people can use them while driving.
Actually, another mike, they do. A legislator is only as effective as the last bill he introduced. A lot of these bills seem to be introduced with no expectation they will actually be voted upon or passed. They do it, so they can go back to their constituents, shrug their shoulders and say, "I tried."
Now, if they really do get passionate about something, they will try the same bill over and over and over again, year after year, trying to get it passed. They never give up, and they fight like the dickens not to get tossed out of office. Eventually, when you have such a persistent idiot running around, something he does will get voted in. Then, they will point to that and say, "See! See! You agreed with me on that! Now, agree with me on the next step!" And away we go.
It does my heart good to see a politician actually making sense, and a newspaper actually supporting him for making sense. What really bugs me is this: If the courts can see these things are unconstitutional, why can't the legislatures? We need the courts to give oversight, but that doesn't mean the legislatures should mosey along like a drunken hobo, while the courts hover about like a mother hen, guiding them on the right track. Good on the Governor for having the foresight to actually protect children.