Okay, let me put it this way: there is a mechanism, known as 'elections,' that citizens CAN use to hold politicians accountable. If we don't, well, it's out fault. With corporations, there is no real way to hold them accountable.
Of course, we must disagree on this. Sorry, but reality is biased in the same way I am. Republicans ARE tools of the owning class. Wall Street DID screw up our country's economy. The CRA does NOT force anyone to do anything. Those are simple facts, not open for debate.
Okay, I get your point about quoting supports in regards to music now. But for this point to be valid, the musician in question must actually be a supporter of the politician in question.
If free speech trumps copyright, then copyright does not exist. If free speech trumps slander and libel, those cease to be crimes. If free speech trumps incitement to violence, no on can be held accountable for inciting violence. These are all unacceptable outcomes.
In short, free speech does not give you the right to commit crimes under the guise of free speech. You argue that it should. I argue that not only does it not, it should not.
It is asshattery to take someone else's art and use it in a way they disapprove of. But that was just the one example that you fixated on for a quick 'win.' There are many other examples where Republicans just took without paying, or changed the song. So your arguments may be rational and fact based, but you cherry picked your facts and thus your logic is based on false premises. Garbage in, garbage out.
Your 'logic' and 'rationality' exist only in your own mind. You've been quite emotional in your posts.
Read it. It does not force anyone to do anything. It's not a critical factor. You are parroting baqck right wing talking points without understanding the act in question. It's sad, because you even link to a very informative site, as if it proves your point, when in fact, it completely disproves it.
But, you know, I'm sure that for someone with your obvious handicaps, that is considered a good effort at an argument. Good job, sport. Yay! You're a winner!
There are no contradictions because copyright isn't a law. 'Congress shall make no law' doesn't apply to the Constitution itself, sorry.
The insults aren't random, by the way. Idiots who speak stupidity in public don't deserve a pat on the head, they deserve a kick in the ass as a lesson. I don't want stupidity spreading.
Only a few people constantly revise their world view based on new experiences. Most people settle for a static world view and edit their reality to fit it. You'll notice that when the ridiculousness of his position was pointed out, he disappeared. At this point, he has more than likely blocked it all out of his memory. This conversation never even happened.
Boo hoo, somebody doesn't like the choices on the menu. If the banks don't like it, they don't have to take the deal offered. It's voluntary.
Sure, I'd love to be able to dictate terms in every transaction I make, but that's not realistic. And the banks obviously weighed the pros and cons and found that complying was a better deal. Saying they were forced to make those loans is just ignorant of the way business is done. It's whining after the fact, buyer's remorse by proxy. This was Wall Streets fault, not the government. Get over it, your team screwed the pooch, but lucky for you, the grownups are now here to fix things, again. You're welcome.
So you've proven what, exactly? That republicans were legally entitled to play music publicly if they paid the fee? Who was ever debating that? Its a straw man, based on one of the many examples I gave. And just because it is legal doesn't make it ethical. It's an asshole move.
And, you know, THIS story is about someone changing a song for satire, which is still illegal, so, you know, you lose again, you limpdick fuckstained cuntflap.
Oh, see, now THAT is at least partly true, and much different than was originally claimed. But look at what really happened. Blaming the poor is ludicrous, simply laughable. Blame the real estate speculators. Blame the people who invented derivatives and credit default swaps. Blame the regulators who were asleep on the job.
Loans to the poor were a tiny part of the problem, but as always, the right wing wants to play blame the victim.
Citation needed. Fannie and Freddie had the lowest rates of foreclosure of any affected mortgage companies.
The bastards running corporations are accountable to no one. Even, apparently, their own shareholders. Politicians are accountable to those who elected them.
I never made a bad investment. But plenty of people were tricked and conned. That's part of the problem: what these banks were doing was illegal.
Stop blaming the victims and defending the indefensible. No one has the right to lie, cheat, and rob others. Systemic problems need to be solved, not swept under the rug. We need more regulation of Wall Street, and we will get it.
Do you really, actually not comprehend the fact that copyright is written into the US Constitution? Read Section I, Article 8, Clause 8. The free speech ammendment does not overturn the copyright clause. Your argument is simply laughable.
My example was about quoting your opponent's supporters...
Free speech should not trump copyright
Not normally, but in case of political speech — yes, I think, it should trump everything. This thread has some good examples already. Here are more — all of them mock Obama and the Democrats using the artwork of Shepard Fairey, himself a copyright thief in your book.
Once you put any limit (however seemingly reasonable) on political speech, you are on a very slippery slope...
(That said, I'm wondering, where the heck is the copyrights-are-evil brigade, that's so quick to denounce "MafiaAA" on this forum — for their attempts to enforce copyrights. I wonder, if the said brigade are holding their fire (rather than tearing you apart), because this is about RepubliKKKans...)
Quote your opponnant, quote his supporters, the issue is the same. I find it humorous that you would use such a transparent ruse to wiggle out of a discredited position. Do you expect people not to notice?
Political speech can not trump certain things, such as direct incitement to violence, slander or libel, or copyright (if copyright is to work as all as outlined in the US Constitution) and of course the devil is in defining 'political speech.'
The 'copyright is evil' brigade don't exist except in certain people's imaginations. The issue is more complex and nuanced than that. But keep up that whining martyr complex, I'm sure it will earn you converts to the party.
No. Two separate issues. You do not need to use my art to express yourself, unless you are commenting or parodying it, which are protected. So, you can exercise your free speech without needing to use my works. Stopping you from using my works does not stop you from saying what you want to say.
You can read the act, too. I just put up that pic to show the democrats and Clinton really had no choice, the republicans made sure it was a done deal. I also linked to the act itself in other posts. It does not do what people claim it does, and it was not pushed through by democrats.
I never try to hide my biases. I make them crystal clear.
Did they lie to you and say, "Oh, don't worry about that ARM, your house will appreciate so much value by the time it kicks in, you can refinance using the profits!" because that's what they said to folks they pushed these loans on.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, let me put it this way: there is a mechanism, known as 'elections,' that citizens CAN use to hold politicians accountable. If we don't, well, it's out fault. With corporations, there is no real way to hold them accountable.
Of course, we must disagree on this. Sorry, but reality is biased in the same way I am. Republicans ARE tools of the owning class. Wall Street DID screw up our country's economy. The CRA does NOT force anyone to do anything. Those are simple facts, not open for debate.
Okay, I get your point about quoting supports in regards to music now. But for this point to be valid, the musician in question must actually be a supporter of the politician in question.
If free speech trumps copyright, then copyright does not exist. If free speech trumps slander and libel, those cease to be crimes. If free speech trumps incitement to violence, no on can be held accountable for inciting violence. These are all unacceptable outcomes.
In short, free speech does not give you the right to commit crimes under the guise of free speech. You argue that it should. I argue that not only does it not, it should not.
It is asshattery to take someone else's art and use it in a way they disapprove of. But that was just the one example that you fixated on for a quick 'win.' There are many other examples where Republicans just took without paying, or changed the song. So your arguments may be rational and fact based, but you cherry picked your facts and thus your logic is based on false premises. Garbage in, garbage out.
Your 'logic' and 'rationality' exist only in your own mind. You've been quite emotional in your posts.
I really don't care if people listen. And I'm not sure you're correct in your assessment: I keep insulting the fuck out of you and you keep listening.
You don't have to use someone else's art to make your own original points, but you obviously do if you are critiquing that art. It's not complicated.
Read it. It does not force anyone to do anything. It's not a critical factor. You are parroting baqck right wing talking points without understanding the act in question. It's sad, because you even link to a very informative site, as if it proves your point, when in fact, it completely disproves it.
But, you know, I'm sure that for someone with your obvious handicaps, that is considered a good effort at an argument. Good job, sport. Yay! You're a winner!
There are no contradictions because copyright isn't a law. 'Congress shall make no law' doesn't apply to the Constitution itself, sorry.
The insults aren't random, by the way. Idiots who speak stupidity in public don't deserve a pat on the head, they deserve a kick in the ass as a lesson. I don't want stupidity spreading.
Only a few people constantly revise their world view based on new experiences. Most people settle for a static world view and edit their reality to fit it. You'll notice that when the ridiculousness of his position was pointed out, he disappeared. At this point, he has more than likely blocked it all out of his memory. This conversation never even happened.
Boo hoo, somebody doesn't like the choices on the menu. If the banks don't like it, they don't have to take the deal offered. It's voluntary.
Sure, I'd love to be able to dictate terms in every transaction I make, but that's not realistic. And the banks obviously weighed the pros and cons and found that complying was a better deal. Saying they were forced to make those loans is just ignorant of the way business is done. It's whining after the fact, buyer's remorse by proxy. This was Wall Streets fault, not the government. Get over it, your team screwed the pooch, but lucky for you, the grownups are now here to fix things, again. You're welcome.
So you've proven what, exactly? That republicans were legally entitled to play music publicly if they paid the fee? Who was ever debating that? Its a straw man, based on one of the many examples I gave. And just because it is legal doesn't make it ethical. It's an asshole move.
And, you know, THIS story is about someone changing a song for satire, which is still illegal, so, you know, you lose again, you limpdick fuckstained cuntflap.
Oh, see, now THAT is at least partly true, and much different than was originally claimed. But look at what really happened. Blaming the poor is ludicrous, simply laughable. Blame the real estate speculators. Blame the people who invented derivatives and credit default swaps. Blame the regulators who were asleep on the job.
Loans to the poor were a tiny part of the problem, but as always, the right wing wants to play blame the victim.
Citation needed. Fannie and Freddie had the lowest rates of foreclosure of any affected mortgage companies.
The bastards running corporations are accountable to no one. Even, apparently, their own shareholders. Politicians are accountable to those who elected them.
I never made a bad investment. But plenty of people were tricked and conned. That's part of the problem: what these banks were doing was illegal.
Stop blaming the victims and defending the indefensible. No one has the right to lie, cheat, and rob others. Systemic problems need to be solved, not swept under the rug. We need more regulation of Wall Street, and we will get it.
Do you really, actually not comprehend the fact that copyright is written into the US Constitution? Read Section I, Article 8, Clause 8. The free speech ammendment does not overturn the copyright clause. Your argument is simply laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
Read it and get back to me when you actually understand it. If you can explain how it applies in this case, I'll be pretty impressed.
My example was about quoting your opponent's supporters...
Not normally, but in case of political speech — yes, I think, it should trump everything. This thread has some good examples already. Here are more — all of them mock Obama and the Democrats using the artwork of Shepard Fairey, himself a copyright thief in your book.
Once you put any limit (however seemingly reasonable) on political speech, you are on a very slippery slope...
(That said, I'm wondering, where the heck is the copyrights-are-evil brigade, that's so quick to denounce "MafiaAA" on this forum — for their attempts to enforce copyrights. I wonder, if the said brigade are holding their fire (rather than tearing you apart), because this is about RepubliKKKans...)
Quote your opponnant, quote his supporters, the issue is the same. I find it humorous that you would use such a transparent ruse to wiggle out of a discredited position. Do you expect people not to notice?
Political speech can not trump certain things, such as direct incitement to violence, slander or libel, or copyright (if copyright is to work as all as outlined in the US Constitution) and of course the devil is in defining 'political speech.'
The 'copyright is evil' brigade don't exist except in certain people's imaginations. The issue is more complex and nuanced than that. But keep up that whining martyr complex, I'm sure it will earn you converts to the party.
Section I, Article 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. Copyright isn't a law, it's part of the Constitution. To quote Nelson Muntz, "Haha!"
That's not at all what I said. Of course you could publish parts of the article as part of a critique or parody, that is already protected use.
Republicans also steal from Republican artists.
No. Two separate issues. You do not need to use my art to express yourself, unless you are commenting or parodying it, which are protected. So, you can exercise your free speech without needing to use my works. Stopping you from using my works does not stop you from saying what you want to say.
The Democrats are merely influenced by the plutocrats. The Republicans are owned by them.
You can read the act, too. I just put up that pic to show the democrats and Clinton really had no choice, the republicans made sure it was a done deal. I also linked to the act itself in other posts. It does not do what people claim it does, and it was not pushed through by democrats.
I never try to hide my biases. I make them crystal clear.
Did they lie to you and say, "Oh, don't worry about that ARM, your house will appreciate so much value by the time it kicks in, you can refinance using the profits!" because that's what they said to folks they pushed these loans on.
Nothing in this bill has anything to do with a bailout, why would you repeat such a lie?
Except the whole thing is voluntary, so your point is moot. If the banks don't care how the Federal Government rates them, they have no problem.