Also, I wonder if there's a possibility that the management team actually did this. The management team could have told the lawyer to get this done, and then when the backlash happened, denied everything and placed the blame on the lawyer.
I was having a conversation about this with a co-worker earlier. I felt like Title 2 was great, as I'm an avid follower of Techdir. However, I'm in need of some assistance for those a little more knowledgeable on the topic.
This co-worker has a tinfoil hat on and he is convinced this is the beginning of the end for freedom of speech on the internet. He believes the government will take complete control of the internet, and that it's turned the internet into a utility.
Is there a line of thinking that I could communicate back to him that this is a good thing? Until we see the rules we have nothing concrete, but some of this "sky is falling" discussion is ridiculous.
That's because the government has said the people can't read them, and that's what we get for having a big government. The people should be allowed to read everything the government creates. It's OUR government after all.
That's not how it works. The studios, along with you, made the INITIAL claim. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you FIRST. Not to mention there was an article a while ago that did actually show the numbers that the studios completely manifested.
While you state you haven't taken a position, you essentially have taken a position by calling it "murder". Murder, by most people's understanding, is an illegal killing of a person due to whatever reason. While the kid was in fact killed, we still don't have any proof as of yet that is convincing enough to say "Yes, it was cold blooded murder." It could legitimately be self defense in some manner. I find it unlikely that we'll even discover what truly happened in this particular case due to abysmal police investigation at the time.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Once you have people with this kind of power there becomes the problem of not "Can they be bribed" but really "How much will it take to bribe them?". I have a suspicion that content owners and people hailing the take downs finally found the "how much" to get ICANN to bow to their whims.
Why do you insist that Mike wants everything for free when almost all of his posts he makes demonstrates a way to make income. If someone truly wanted everything for free I seriously doubt he'd be giving suggestions on how to monetize this new market you and your posse seem completely incapable of understanding.
Example is bit torrent. It is pretty much a given that a large percentage of the traffic in bit torrent is pirated material.
Please CITE YOUR SOURCES. You shills continually come in here, demanding sources, laughing at every outside source given, and continually dodge/avoid every opportunity for you to actually legitimize your false claims.