are you talking about Mike Masnick's article. remember that copyright infringement is not free speech. The speech is available - it's just stealing the revenue for yourself or avoiding a payment. The internet is a system - but speech is made by people, who work hard, and have the shit kicked out of them when people take their work for themselves. It's not much different from slavery, really - "work for me but i don't need to pay you" -- and Masnick is defending that as "free speech"?
i realize that Techdirt hates rules . . . but doesn't the idea of scammers hurting facebook help people understand the role of property? If everyone hates facebook, that's one thing, but if Facebook is hurt because someone is hurting users in their name, shouldn't Facebook be allowed to sue them? Shouldn't government step in and stop the criminals? This is damaging to everyone but the scammer.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by peopleagainsttheft.
Re:
are you talking about Mike Masnick's article. remember that copyright infringement is not free speech. The speech is available - it's just stealing the revenue for yourself or avoiding a payment. The internet is a system - but speech is made by people, who work hard, and have the shit kicked out of them when people take their work for themselves. It's not much different from slavery, really - "work for me but i don't need to pay you" -- and Masnick is defending that as "free speech"?
i realize that Techdirt hates rules . . . but doesn't the idea of scammers hurting facebook help people understand the role of property? If everyone hates facebook, that's one thing, but if Facebook is hurt because someone is hurting users in their name, shouldn't Facebook be allowed to sue them? Shouldn't government step in and stop the criminals? This is damaging to everyone but the scammer.