Surely it doesn't matter what the the actual reason internally in YouTube is, if the consequence is a strengthening of free speech?
But they didn't strengthen free speech. Or stand up to anyone. They said, "Dear IOC, did you really mean to issue that notice, a lot of people are saying it doesn't really infringe." IOC said, "Nope, sorry about that." Not a conflict for the ages.
Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this?
It had a misleading title, which caused the IOC to issue a takedown notice before it confirmed that the content matched the description. I would do the same thing, probably.
When the REMs impinging on the edge of my property exceed the REM levels known to be a problem, then there is a problem. This is not a tough thing to figure out.
I'd imagine it's quite hard to determine. What's the level, when 20 years leads to a 10% chance of cancer, assuming average outdoor times of 1 hr/day, peak outdoor times of 4 hr/day? And what happens when it is one Rad below that level, and you think that I'm going increase usage (you see me bringing a huge TV in) so it will be dangerous. Must you wait until you are actively hurt to stop me?
When it gets sticky, though, is when everyone zones things in such a way as to preclude finding a home if you want to fly a flag, raise a horse, experiment with chemistry, build a house with no windows. This is one of the factors that makes zoning a problem
It's not just zoning, but a lot of capitalist enterprises that end up where you cannot find desirable combinations. I agree that that's an issue, which is why I think that democratic as opposed to plutocratic control will lead to less bad results (although hardly perfect or desirable).
I don't have as much of a problem with rules that exist before you buy in, as long as you can find out about them. What I said, and exactly what I meant, was you move in, THEN they add a rule.
But the overarching rule is that a majority can change any rule (except for the majority rule). And, as you eloquently pointed out, property values are a risk. The addition of a new rule may you want to move, or lower proprty values, but so would the day-glow house or next-door reactor.
The main one is that unless there is no one living in a zoned area yet, then the zoning will step on people's liberties, even if they're not mine because I came in later.
Zoning may step on people's liberties, if they disagree with the zoning. Aren't you the one that arguing about potential negative consequences is no reason to restrict liberty? Like the liberty of a group of people to enact zoning laws?
Besides, the damage was likely done many owners ago, if it existed at all.
the air isn't yours, per se. It's a shared resource.
I agree with this. But a shared resource requires government control. At least to keep people from poisoning it. But why should air be treated differently from land? Why is land not a shared resource?
we've seen what happens when government gets control over speech
Better government than corporations. We've had better luck reigning in government.
I value liberty far more than comfort. You, apparently, do not feel the same way.
On the contrary, I value liberty greatly. Where we difer is on the conception of personal property. You view it as a right; I view it as an invention of society. I cannot get over the question of the original aquisition. The first person to get the land did not buy it, he claimed it. Other people cannot claim the same land, because he "saw it first". All your argumentation about owning the proceeds of your own labor are moot because I don't own the land, not because of the lack of matching the labor already put in that claim, but because I happen to be born centuries later than some guy. That hardly seems fair to me. That poisons all future transactions with that land. Hence, there can be no original "right" to the land, just a societal convience. And that's where I don't believe we have to protect too much. So, restrictions on loud music, paint colors, reactors, etc. are all added to maximize society's convience; the reason the property is privately owned.
I agree with you, that within a home, you should have lots of privacy. However, running a commercial lab has huge externalities (pollution, risk of explosion, possibly parking, etc). Hence, th
But if you're assumming that everyone who downloads and burns a cracked copy is therefore "able to circumvent DRM",
I am arguing that downloading a cracked copy IS circumventing the DRM, yes. They do circumvent it, albiet not by cracking it, but via tools other people develop.
then you're begging the question, because you're saying "DRM circumventers are pirates, therefore all pirates are DRM circumventers".
It's not begging the question. All pirates circumvent DRM. No person who cannot circumvent DRM is a pirate. Hence the sample is skewed, as far as DRM is concerned.
Surprisingly, people who successfully circumvent DRM are not forced to buy games, and instead pirate them. They find DRM annoying.
There is an obvious sample bias problem, as people not able to circumvent DRM (including downloading the work of other people), aren't pirates and wouldn't have respondeded.
I, for one, am extremely interested in the "science" behind how God travels any distance in the blink of an eye, how He can start or stop earthquakes or how He can hear the voices of the entire human race, simultaneously, or instantly stop a virus from spreading, etc, etc...
You cannot. It's not scientific. Science is reproducible. Science is predictible. Science cannot answer the question of "what happened if the universe was created 5 seconds ago in this state." Science cannot answer the question of evolution vs. creationism... it can only offer a possibility if there was no divine interaction.
Science is great, it's useful in the real world. But it is beyond the realm of science to opine about religion.
Then you get a supreme being that is intentionally trying to make its existence seem unlikely or absurd, but still punishes you for all eternity if you do not believe in it.
That's a distortion in several ways. Many religions do not claim that unbelievers go to hell, or even that hell exists. Many others that believe in hell do not claim that mere disbelief is sufficent to go to hell, that an unethical life is also required.
Also, faith cannot be proven, else it is belief not faith.
the Chemist confined his work to his house, wasn't hurting anyone either; so the comparison is quite apt.
Except we aren't talking about him anymore. I don't defend what happened to him. I defend zoning laws in general.
do you want to outlaw fingers?
No, as I said before, it is a laugable strawman to claim my position is that.
Insurance is precisely the definition of gambling. Gambling is defined by taking a position of risk against an unknown outcome in order to benefit if you predict correctly
Insurance is a hedge on a bet that nature forces you to take. It cannot exceed the value of the property at risk (although I grant that valuation can be tricky in many cases). Is that a gamble, mayhaps. But unlike gambling, whose purpose is to increase risk and reward, hedging, such as insurance, is designed to reduce risk and reward both.
Radiation will do harm;
Now who is being terrified. Radiation is pouring into you right now. Some level will be harmful. At what stage of insufficent shielding of my reactor do you step in? What happens if my reactor puts out that level... unless I use my toaster and microwave at the same time? What if I swear that my reactor uses lead for shielding, but you see tons of empty play-doh containers in my trash the day I built it? What happens when I confide in you that the Flying Spagetti Monster confided in me that Play-doh is an acceptable substitute?
If there is a signed covenant between the neighbors that must be executed in order to buy, then yes, certainly.
Neat. So there was also a clause that let a group of X people impose additional clauses in the future without prior constent. And it was set up by the city/township before you bought your house. Or does your ownership precede the founding of he city?
: Because on the most practical level, if you decide you aren't, you'll get your ass handed to you on the one hand, and on the other, if you don't show respect for other people's property, they're not likely to show respect for yours, and now it comes down to who has the bigger gun. And no sensible person wants that.
And no sensible person wants the loudest music to determine what everyone on the block listens to. This argument seems to undermine your whole chain. I'll apply the same argument you make for your property rights to my property rights not to have you vibrate my air. Or do you see some difference?
My hands can tear off... "designated toilet zones"?
No to all your questions (although for the reasons you outlined, toilets are commonly confined to bathrooms.) That's a ludicrus strawman of my position. And, for the record, your hands cannot tear off my head.
What you're doing here is... No crime has been committed, you're outlawing things based on your imagination.
No, I'm using past experiences of myself and other people to prepare a probable vision of the future. See "Scientific Method". I'm not saying things have to be 100% safe, just that they cannot be 100% the other way. And there is a line.
A crime is committed when a law is violated, so, yes I suppose a law would be violated (a zoning law).
Insurance is, by definition, gambling.
Insurance is the antithesis of gambling. Gambling is increasing risk and reward. Insurance is decreasing it. It's merely a way to remove risks inherit in the universe.
What about it? If there's a band playing in your house, kick 'em out. If they're on your lawn, kick 'em off. If they're elsewhere, and you can still hear them, then go buy some insulation or a pair of earplugs. Maybe you should have bought more land so you could put some distance between you and them. Oh, wait. You want ME to buy the land, and then manage that land for YOUR convenience. For no compensation. In fact, strictly due to coercion. Let me think about that. Ok, I have: No. Next question?
Okay, now replace band with reactor. I don't particularly want to insulate it; I have lead shielding. You should get some too. And a suit to go outside with. I just sit inside and watch TV, so I'm fine.
No, wait, you bought a tiny little urban patch of grass and concrete and now you think you somehow *also* bought the right to tell the neighbor what they may do.
Yup, I jave a tiny patch of land in a subdivision. And yup, when it was all one big plot, limitations were placed on what you could do, what color you could paint your house, etc. And then my neighbors bought their house. They should live with those conditions that were on the property when they bought it, or go elsewhere, right?
You know where I'm going with this, right?
My guess is to self-contradiction without being able to explain why.
Is it really "reasonable people" who are disagreeing?... tell you what you can do on your own property.
Yes, it's really only you who are disagreeing. And via volume but not argumentation. Your last statement brings up the question of what makes it "your" property. I never agreed to any private ownership of land on your part. Why should I be bound by it? Why should I be bound in what I claim as my property by what you or the government says I can or cannot do on it because "you own it"?
Okay, your statement is void of all meaning in that case. "Eating ice cream could be actionable" if in eating the ice cream I do not fix the fence whose malrepair created an attractive nusceince that caused a child to drown. So you're right, if the company says it will do X, and doesn't do X, that is actionable. And in this case X does equal "maximize long-term financial gains". But the way you stated it you implied it is an inherit obligation of all companies, which is not the case.
Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.
What affects you or your property is not some guiding principle you can appeal to, but a term who's interpertation is up in the air. Your science experiments, if dangerous (say you are trying to find a more energy-dense fuel then gasoline), certainly can blow up my house. Why should I assume that risk? And they lower my property values certainly, because other people want to be compensated for that risk. It could raise my insurance premiums.
Suppose you paint your house day-glow orange. Well, it doesn't seem dangerous, but on the other hand, again, it lowers my property values. I have to look at an ugly eyesore (assuming I have line of sight).
What about loud music? Foul odors? Constantly having 30 people over and taking up all the street parking?
It's all a matter of degree, and reasonable people can disagree. Anyone who claims to "know" the right solution is full of crap.
Shareholders can take managers to court if they willfully reduce the value of the company's shares.
It depends on why. Yahoo! reduced the value of their shares by refusing Microsoft's offer. The board is supposed to run the company, which is seens as more than total market value (or market value per share.) There is also a web of relationships, etc. If the managers willfully move against the companies best interest it is actionable, but just because most companies value stock price, doesn't mean all do. Microsoft withheld dividends, valuing a warchest. If American Apparel (assuming it is publically traded) started making t-shirts in Indonesia, even if the stock price went up, shareholders could sue. Because they invested in a company defined first and foremost by a mission statement to revitalize inner cities.
If the corporation's management fails to move the company in the direction the investors desire, it could be actionable.
Again, this part is false. It is only actionable if the investors were made to invest under false pretenses. A company could say that it cared more about rights than liability or profit, and live up to that, perfectly legally. It has nothing to do with your phrasing, and everything to do with the end result.
And you are right, I'm basing this on US law, as evidenced in Supreme Court rulings involving a Deleware corporation. The fact that it was the US Supreme Court makes me believe it was a federal issue.
(Now, when you manage to code-up an OS that implements this ideal 100%, then you can start being snide.)
I did! It doesn't talk to any hardware at all, including the CPU or RAM. It is the single most reliable piece of software ever. And, since there's no hardware, the entire system needed to run it is under the GPL! Take that less free, less robust OS's, like Linux.
. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.
They are required to accurately represent the business to the shareholders. But if they said "Google/YouTube will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second", then they would have to live by that standard. I don't know what the rules on changing the nature of the company are, but stockholder value does not have to be the overriding concern. In fact, in some cases it cannot be (see the Microsoft offer to Yahoo!).
You can't compartmentalise bits and pieces of liberty like that.
Sure you can. Economic liberty has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and just as little to do with freedom of religion. Why are they interconnected? And what's incorrect about hte phrase "economic sphere"?
No, liberty is not measured in terms of number of product choices.
Nor is it a binary thing.
if I was a prison warder I could offer a very broad range of products in exchange for cigarettes; in that context, it would not mean my prisoners have attained liberty.
They would have more liberty than they would if you did not offer them choices. And certainly, within an economic sphere, there is not much more liberty that you have. Just how you can make and spend money.
And, yes, a communist country would increase liberty by opening more factories.
We're discussing economic liberty. There aren't that many dimensions, and extents in each one.
Free markets also aren't intended to be perfect or efficient. They're intended to be free as in liberty. Once you realise the goal is NOT to artificially engineer a supposedly "optimal system", a lot of other cogs fall into place.
Well, optimization or efficency lead to more goods being distributed in toto. Which means more choices exist in toto. So libery gets increased, because choice is increased.
Free markets rely on the myth of the well-informed consumer.
Correction, the myth of free markets leading to the efficency relies on, among other things, the myth of the well-informed consumer.
If a person feels, and the key word here is feels, that they have enough information to make a decision regarding the way they spend their money - they spend. That's it. Free market working.
The presence of trade in the short term does not disprove a market failure.
There may be a correlation to how much data is available to how much research is done by a consumer, but it doesn't actually force anyone to do more research.
Right, but the existence of tools to help correlate that data, especially free and easy ones, certainly increases the likelihood that consumers will.
You can have lower food costs or you can have ethanol, NOT BOTH.
Three problems with that statement. 1) Fuel prices are one of the biggest costs in food production. 2) The price of foreign sugar is not a component in US food costs, it's already not used because it's too expensive due to a sugar tariff. 3) Right now we are using corn to make ethanol. If we use sugar to make ethanol (its more efficent), and corn syrup as a sweetener (more efficent), we are better off than the status quo. So both prices drop from the current price point.
One other point you seem to miss is that neither food or fuel operates under the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't give them DRM free music would you? They're pirates after all!
But they didn't strengthen free speech. Or stand up to anyone. They said, "Dear IOC, did you really mean to issue that notice, a lot of people are saying it doesn't really infringe." IOC said, "Nope, sorry about that." Not a conflict for the ages.
It had a misleading title, which caused the IOC to issue a takedown notice before it confirmed that the content matched the description. I would do the same thing, probably.
That's because it was both offensive and not funny. Bad combination.
But yes, the crowd seemed warmer on TV than the first-hand reports imply.
What are you being prevented from doing that you want to do?
I'd imagine it's quite hard to determine. What's the level, when 20 years leads to a 10% chance of cancer, assuming average outdoor times of 1 hr/day, peak outdoor times of 4 hr/day? And what happens when it is one Rad below that level, and you think that I'm going increase usage (you see me bringing a huge TV in) so it will be dangerous. Must you wait until you are actively hurt to stop me?
It's not just zoning, but a lot of capitalist enterprises that end up where you cannot find desirable combinations. I agree that that's an issue, which is why I think that democratic as opposed to plutocratic control will lead to less bad results (although hardly perfect or desirable).
But the overarching rule is that a majority can change any rule (except for the majority rule). And, as you eloquently pointed out, property values are a risk. The addition of a new rule may you want to move, or lower proprty values, but so would the day-glow house or next-door reactor.
Zoning may step on people's liberties, if they disagree with the zoning. Aren't you the one that arguing about potential negative consequences is no reason to restrict liberty? Like the liberty of a group of people to enact zoning laws?
Besides, the damage was likely done many owners ago, if it existed at all.
I agree with this. But a shared resource requires government control. At least to keep people from poisoning it. But why should air be treated differently from land? Why is land not a shared resource?
Better government than corporations. We've had better luck reigning in government.
On the contrary, I value liberty greatly. Where we difer is on the conception of personal property. You view it as a right; I view it as an invention of society. I cannot get over the question of the original aquisition. The first person to get the land did not buy it, he claimed it. Other people cannot claim the same land, because he "saw it first". All your argumentation about owning the proceeds of your own labor are moot because I don't own the land, not because of the lack of matching the labor already put in that claim, but because I happen to be born centuries later than some guy. That hardly seems fair to me. That poisons all future transactions with that land. Hence, there can be no original "right" to the land, just a societal convience. And that's where I don't believe we have to protect too much. So, restrictions on loud music, paint colors, reactors, etc. are all added to maximize society's convience; the reason the property is privately owned.
I agree with you, that within a home, you should have lots of privacy. However, running a commercial lab has huge externalities (pollution, risk of explosion, possibly parking, etc). Hence, th
Some translate it as "thou shalt not murder", as in unlawful killing. Makes a big difference as to internal hypocracy.
It's not ironic. It's one of the stated goals.
I am arguing that downloading a cracked copy IS circumventing the DRM, yes. They do circumvent it, albiet not by cracking it, but via tools other people develop.
It's not begging the question. All pirates circumvent DRM. No person who cannot circumvent DRM is a pirate. Hence the sample is skewed, as far as DRM is concerned.
Surprisingly, people who successfully circumvent DRM are not forced to buy games, and instead pirate them. They find DRM annoying.
There is an obvious sample bias problem, as people not able to circumvent DRM (including downloading the work of other people), aren't pirates and wouldn't have respondeded.
You cannot. It's not scientific. Science is reproducible. Science is predictible. Science cannot answer the question of "what happened if the universe was created 5 seconds ago in this state." Science cannot answer the question of evolution vs. creationism... it can only offer a possibility if there was no divine interaction.
Science is great, it's useful in the real world. But it is beyond the realm of science to opine about religion.
That's a distortion in several ways. Many religions do not claim that unbelievers go to hell, or even that hell exists. Many others that believe in hell do not claim that mere disbelief is sufficent to go to hell, that an unethical life is also required.
Also, faith cannot be proven, else it is belief not faith.
Except we aren't talking about him anymore. I don't defend what happened to him. I defend zoning laws in general.
No, as I said before, it is a laugable strawman to claim my position is that.
Insurance is a hedge on a bet that nature forces you to take. It cannot exceed the value of the property at risk (although I grant that valuation can be tricky in many cases). Is that a gamble, mayhaps. But unlike gambling, whose purpose is to increase risk and reward, hedging, such as insurance, is designed to reduce risk and reward both.
Now who is being terrified. Radiation is pouring into you right now. Some level will be harmful. At what stage of insufficent shielding of my reactor do you step in? What happens if my reactor puts out that level... unless I use my toaster and microwave at the same time? What if I swear that my reactor uses lead for shielding, but you see tons of empty play-doh containers in my trash the day I built it? What happens when I confide in you that the Flying Spagetti Monster confided in me that Play-doh is an acceptable substitute?
Neat. So there was also a clause that let a group of X people impose additional clauses in the future without prior constent. And it was set up by the city/township before you bought your house. Or does your ownership precede the founding of he city?
And no sensible person wants the loudest music to determine what everyone on the block listens to. This argument seems to undermine your whole chain. I'll apply the same argument you make for your property rights to my property rights not to have you vibrate my air. Or do you see some difference?
No to all your questions (although for the reasons you outlined, toilets are commonly confined to bathrooms.) That's a ludicrus strawman of my position. And, for the record, your hands cannot tear off my head.
No, I'm using past experiences of myself and other people to prepare a probable vision of the future. See "Scientific Method". I'm not saying things have to be 100% safe, just that they cannot be 100% the other way. And there is a line.
A crime is committed when a law is violated, so, yes I suppose a law would be violated (a zoning law).
Insurance is the antithesis of gambling. Gambling is increasing risk and reward. Insurance is decreasing it. It's merely a way to remove risks inherit in the universe.
Okay, now replace band with reactor. I don't particularly want to insulate it; I have lead shielding. You should get some too. And a suit to go outside with. I just sit inside and watch TV, so I'm fine.
Yup, I jave a tiny patch of land in a subdivision. And yup, when it was all one big plot, limitations were placed on what you could do, what color you could paint your house, etc. And then my neighbors bought their house. They should live with those conditions that were on the property when they bought it, or go elsewhere, right?
My guess is to self-contradiction without being able to explain why.
Yes, it's really only you who are disagreeing. And via volume but not argumentation. Your last statement brings up the question of what makes it "your" property. I never agreed to any private ownership of land on your part. Why should I be bound by it? Why should I be bound in what I claim as my property by what you or the government says I can or cannot do on it because "you own it"?
Okay, your statement is void of all meaning in that case. "Eating ice cream could be actionable" if in eating the ice cream I do not fix the fence whose malrepair created an attractive nusceince that caused a child to drown. So you're right, if the company says it will do X, and doesn't do X, that is actionable. And in this case X does equal "maximize long-term financial gains". But the way you stated it you implied it is an inherit obligation of all companies, which is not the case.
What affects you or your property is not some guiding principle you can appeal to, but a term who's interpertation is up in the air. Your science experiments, if dangerous (say you are trying to find a more energy-dense fuel then gasoline), certainly can blow up my house. Why should I assume that risk? And they lower my property values certainly, because other people want to be compensated for that risk. It could raise my insurance premiums.
Suppose you paint your house day-glow orange. Well, it doesn't seem dangerous, but on the other hand, again, it lowers my property values. I have to look at an ugly eyesore (assuming I have line of sight).
What about loud music? Foul odors? Constantly having 30 people over and taking up all the street parking?
It's all a matter of degree, and reasonable people can disagree. Anyone who claims to "know" the right solution is full of crap.
It depends on why. Yahoo! reduced the value of their shares by refusing Microsoft's offer. The board is supposed to run the company, which is seens as more than total market value (or market value per share.) There is also a web of relationships, etc. If the managers willfully move against the companies best interest it is actionable, but just because most companies value stock price, doesn't mean all do. Microsoft withheld dividends, valuing a warchest. If American Apparel (assuming it is publically traded) started making t-shirts in Indonesia, even if the stock price went up, shareholders could sue. Because they invested in a company defined first and foremost by a mission statement to revitalize inner cities.
Again, this part is false. It is only actionable if the investors were made to invest under false pretenses. A company could say that it cared more about rights than liability or profit, and live up to that, perfectly legally. It has nothing to do with your phrasing, and everything to do with the end result.
And you are right, I'm basing this on US law, as evidenced in Supreme Court rulings involving a Deleware corporation. The fact that it was the US Supreme Court makes me believe it was a federal issue.
I did! It doesn't talk to any hardware at all, including the CPU or RAM. It is the single most reliable piece of software ever. And, since there's no hardware, the entire system needed to run it is under the GPL! Take that less free, less robust OS's, like Linux.
Mostly true statements. However, this is false:
They are required to accurately represent the business to the shareholders. But if they said "Google/YouTube will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second", then they would have to live by that standard. I don't know what the rules on changing the nature of the company are, but stockholder value does not have to be the overriding concern. In fact, in some cases it cannot be (see the Microsoft offer to Yahoo!).
Sure you can. Economic liberty has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and just as little to do with freedom of religion. Why are they interconnected? And what's incorrect about hte phrase "economic sphere"?
Nor is it a binary thing.
They would have more liberty than they would if you did not offer them choices. And certainly, within an economic sphere, there is not much more liberty that you have. Just how you can make and spend money.
And, yes, a communist country would increase liberty by opening more factories.
We're discussing economic liberty. There aren't that many dimensions, and extents in each one.
Well, optimization or efficency lead to more goods being distributed in toto. Which means more choices exist in toto. So libery gets increased, because choice is increased.
Correction, the myth of free markets leading to the efficency relies on, among other things, the myth of the well-informed consumer.
The presence of trade in the short term does not disprove a market failure.
Right, but the existence of tools to help correlate that data, especially free and easy ones, certainly increases the likelihood that consumers will.
Three problems with that statement. 1) Fuel prices are one of the biggest costs in food production. 2) The price of foreign sugar is not a component in US food costs, it's already not used because it's too expensive due to a sugar tariff. 3) Right now we are using corn to make ethanol. If we use sugar to make ethanol (its more efficent), and corn syrup as a sweetener (more efficent), we are better off than the status quo. So both prices drop from the current price point.
One other point you seem to miss is that neither food or fuel operates under the free market.