"Expect that if the gag order is lifted on the school we find out that he was getting smacked around by a few bullies on a daily basis and "built" this to "scare" them."
Bullshit, if that was the case, we would now by now from external sources (classmates, parents, etc.), unless you alredy know that he is "invisible" to the rest of the school because he has no friends and no one has ever interacted with him, at all.
Compare "Licenses and patents" to the "Indulgences" sold by the catholic church and then compare the right of gatekeeping/distribution with the monopoly to read and interpret scripture for the other half.
Finally, in order to even understand copyright you first need to blatantly ignore common sense, empirical evidence and the physical world.
And of course, the IP maximalists like religious enforcers/zealots operating under the same tribalistic mindset where you are either for or against, no middle ground, no nuances, nothing in between, etc., and of course trying to cause moral panic over thought or imaginary crimes and portraying any kind of dissent or critical view as immoral.
"I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?"
Then, why are they being so secretive? If defenders of such trade agreements assert that benefits outweight the adverse consequences, secrecy would not be the norm and the rest of the people would not need to depend on leaks to know whats going on.
"Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."
Irrelevant, this isn't about companies benefiting from more or less regulation, is about presenting actual trade agreements, laws, regulations that could possibly benefit all, not a minority composed by certain corporate interests who are unable to compete due to their outdated business models who seek more and stronger industrial protectionism regulations.
"The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely."
We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.
"I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."
I would say the same for the bought and paid shills from those corporate interests, but recent history tell me that they are being willfuly dishonest, so no, I dont feel sorry for you and your ilk.
Nah, he won't bother to prove anything, people like him, who keep seeing infringers as immoral egotistical thieves, are only capable of attacking the strawman they think is the correct depiction of online infringers, I wouldn't waste my time asking them to provide evidence of what they claim.
"You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid.You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid."
Just to clarify, I and many others object the moral argument regarding copyright issues because copyright has never been about morality but practical utility, is just a red herring meant to create moral panic and bringing the whole issue to a purely emotional level where someone can claim the moral high ground and make detractors look as the inmoral ones.
"The law here isn't evil. Rather, it's an attempt by the people (as a whole) to keep a small minority from ruining their lives by being able to protest and harm their enjoyment of life. Authorities did what they have to do to enforce the law and not give unfair advantage to one group or the other."
Lawful =/= ethically acceptable, and since we are not talking about copyright but currupt athorities who use the "free trade agreement" label to rig the game in favor of a minority made up of corporate players interested only in filling their pockets while ignoring the adverse consequences for the rest of the people, so it follows that using physical force to disband a peaceful protest with demonstrably harming techniques is questionable at minimum, since they are just excercizing their right to protest against a corrupt system, unless I live in a dictatorship, I can't see your point.
Get them while they're young... I agree, I don't think this is different than religious indoctrination.
They need to do this to secure their obsolete ideas and ensure they will prevail when their generation die off, they know more and more people are starting to call BS on their lies and propaganda, thats why they are targeting children.