I think you make the point perfectly yourself when you say that me being curious why you're asserting the definitions you are makes you question my motives. Surely, then, you understand why I'm curious of your motives, if you're curious of mine?
It's really quite interesting that you've ended the conversation this way. You clearly want to assert your own definition of "censorship" across conversations, but also want anyone who doesn't understand to...die mad pondering over your motivations. Forgive me, but does that sound particularly cohesive to you? This odd sort of flippant end to conversations has never made particular sense to me--I'd rather have thought it a clear signal that you weren't participating in good faith, but you seem quite happy with it.
I asked you a "why" question and you responded with a "what" answer. I understand the distinction you are trying to make and am asking why you are insisting on it.
Why do you hold that censorship means total suppression of speech? That's certainly not at all the way it was discussed in my long-gone years of j-school. In much the same way that you can have a monopoly in a five-player market, you can have censorship (or, as often argued here, just-as-impactful chilling effects) when a megacorporation or publisher or HR department polices speech on "their" communication platform.
I don't have a blog where I post content meant to "analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow".
Mike Masnick does, though, which is why I thought this feedback might be useful to him. But thanks for the snark!
"It doesn't take into account all of the other aspects of the music business -- nearly every single one of which has been growing during this same period."
While I agree with you completely here, it's a little odd to see a statement like this made without any kind of citation or link to more information/proof. I think a chart like the one you presented loses much of its power and context without another chart that shows the rest of the music industry. Numbers and data from the non-RIAA industry would make this post much more relevant to mainstream thought, which I'm hoping is your endgame.
I, for one, am not compelled by "centuries of law." In fact, one of the central problems with the legal system is, in fact, that the sheer volume of context it enshrines REQUIRES the presence of a person trained specifically and at length to handle legal matters. Which is to say, the layman is assumed not to understand the laws he is expected to follow. At its core, this premise is nonsensical.
If jurors can't be trusted to research information, they can't be trusted to make meaningful decisions. Those bars are set equally high.
If anything, the public's voice should drown out the voice of groups such as "Access Copyright." Who stands to gain more--a tiny number of corporates, or the public itself?
I have always held that corporations and profit-oriented groups should not have a place at the table when it comes to lawmaking. Lobbying and interest-written laws are an unacceptable perversion of the legal system and our respective countries--our very lives.
The point is that he cannot enter the text of the works he seeks to site into a published work of his own, in what virtually anyone would consider to be a perfectly acceptable way.
If we do not know if the law is suppressing Gann's expressions, and Gann doesn't either, the law has failed totally and become useless. For there to be a question concerning such a basic point is laughable. And if the only way to find out is to initiate a suit, at the cost of one's self or the opposing party...this is even less acceptable.
Hmmm. This article reminds me of fourth grade, where our class was unanimously told to stop writing in cursive and only turn in print because it was harder to read cursive.
Every teacher I had that required handwritten assignments espoused the same rationale. As a consequence, I never learned to write in cursive with anything approaching practical speed. And I'll certainly never conceivably NEED cursive, unless you count signatures, so...
I would do the same thing in Toshiba's situation. I wouldn't sue on behalf of my customers as you seem to think they should be doing. That would be senseless.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by unimpoachable.
Re:
I think you make the point perfectly yourself when you say that me being curious why you're asserting the definitions you are makes you question my motives. Surely, then, you understand why I'm curious of your motives, if you're curious of mine?
Re:
It's really quite interesting that you've ended the conversation this way. You clearly want to assert your own definition of "censorship" across conversations, but also want anyone who doesn't understand to...die mad pondering over your motivations. Forgive me, but does that sound particularly cohesive to you? This odd sort of flippant end to conversations has never made particular sense to me--I'd rather have thought it a clear signal that you weren't participating in good faith, but you seem quite happy with it.
Re:
I asked you a "why" question and you responded with a "what" answer. I understand the distinction you are trying to make and am asking why you are insisting on it.
Re:
Why do you hold that censorship means total suppression of speech? That's certainly not at all the way it was discussed in my long-gone years of j-school. In much the same way that you can have a monopoly in a five-player market, you can have censorship (or, as often argued here, just-as-impactful chilling effects) when a megacorporation or publisher or HR department polices speech on "their" communication platform.
Re: Re: Re:
Are you familiar with the concept of prior restraint?
Re: Maybe it's something else...
So they genuinely ARE afraid of collaboration?
Partially Subverted
Without tax law--
Oh, wait...
Re: Re:
I don't have a blog where I post content meant to "analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow".
Mike Masnick does, though, which is why I thought this feedback might be useful to him. But thanks for the snark!
"It doesn't take into account all of the other aspects of the music business -- nearly every single one of which has been growing during this same period."
While I agree with you completely here, it's a little odd to see a statement like this made without any kind of citation or link to more information/proof. I think a chart like the one you presented loses much of its power and context without another chart that shows the rest of the music industry. Numbers and data from the non-RIAA industry would make this post much more relevant to mainstream thought, which I'm hoping is your endgame.
Re: Re: Re: (by Ima Fish)
I, for one, am not compelled by "centuries of law." In fact, one of the central problems with the legal system is, in fact, that the sheer volume of context it enshrines REQUIRES the presence of a person trained specifically and at length to handle legal matters. Which is to say, the layman is assumed not to understand the laws he is expected to follow. At its core, this premise is nonsensical.
If jurors can't be trusted to research information, they can't be trusted to make meaningful decisions. Those bars are set equally high.
Public Good
If anything, the public's voice should drown out the voice of groups such as "Access Copyright." Who stands to gain more--a tiny number of corporates, or the public itself?
I have always held that corporations and profit-oriented groups should not have a place at the table when it comes to lawmaking. Lobbying and interest-written laws are an unacceptable perversion of the legal system and our respective countries--our very lives.
@ Doctor Strange
The point is that he cannot enter the text of the works he seeks to site into a published work of his own, in what virtually anyone would consider to be a perfectly acceptable way.
If we do not know if the law is suppressing Gann's expressions, and Gann doesn't either, the law has failed totally and become useless. For there to be a question concerning such a basic point is laughable. And if the only way to find out is to initiate a suit, at the cost of one's self or the opposing party...this is even less acceptable.
Funny you mention it...
Hmmm. This article reminds me of fourth grade, where our class was unanimously told to stop writing in cursive and only turn in print because it was harder to read cursive.
Every teacher I had that required handwritten assignments espoused the same rationale. As a consequence, I never learned to write in cursive with anything approaching practical speed. And I'll certainly never conceivably NEED cursive, unless you count signatures, so...
This isn't upsetting
I would do the same thing in Toshiba's situation. I wouldn't sue on behalf of my customers as you seem to think they should be doing. That would be senseless.