1. Crucially, they didn't remove infringing material when put on notice. Instead, they just removed particular specified URLs.
Not all links are infringing, though. For example, imagine that if every time a video on Youtube got a take down notice, Youtube removed all copies of that video. How many official (and therefore non-infringing) videos would get removed?
It would be rather perverse if doing data de-duplication on identical files made someone guilty of contributory copyright infringement, given that the result would be fewer existing copies of the data than otherwise.
Really. It is just putting together two opposite meaning words
Anarchy is categorized by a lack of rulers\the state. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production are privately owned. There is no inherent contradiction.
Libertarianism fundamentally believes in government
Other than all those libertarians that don't fundamentally believe in government, you mean.
I do agree that the logical end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. That's the old joke:
Q: What the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? A: About six months!
The rest of your post amount to "Your views are extreme, therefore they are incorrect", which is simply an appeal to moderation, so I'm not certain exactly what it is I'm supposed to respond with.
Be mindful of how you use "libertarian". Most libertarians believe in a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military, and thus your statement is directed towards the wrong group. The group you're looking for is "anarchists".
Be mindful of how you use "privatize". Trading an unaccountable, public monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers for an unaccountable, private monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers is not true privatization.
As an anarchist myself, this is obviously not what we mean when we say we want to privatize police. Once the police are (a) voluntarily funded and (b) no longer given a government-backed monopoly on security services, then you can declare an anarchist nirvana.:)
"Listen, the government gave you a choice between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in the last election, so you can't complain that Goldman Sachs is raping your future!"
1. They are already "increasing the money supply". They simply don't have enough physical bills now to hand out all the digital money they are inventing.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.
My position here is complicated by the fact that I don't believe people should be forced to testify at all. But assuming voluntary testimony, have them enter into a contract beforehand.
The holder of a government clearance has agreed via a voluntarily contract not to reveal certain information that the government wants to keep secret. A regular citizen has no such obligation to keep government secrets, even today.
First, thank you for much better edge cases than the usual "fire in a crowded theater!" and "slander!". Yours are much more interesting to talk about.
The nuclear example is the easiest to dispose of, since it involves an actual property crime (essentially trespassing).
The others are trickier, but I think the distinction in question isn't about what they did or didn't say, but rather that they aided and abetted an actual property crime. For example, we prosecute the driver of the get-away car just as much as we prosecute the people who actually rob the bank at gun point. This isn't because driving people around is illegal or requires close scrutiny, but because they were knowingly a party to an actual property crime.
Or, for a similar example involving speech, imagine that I pull a gun on you in a darkened alley and say "Your money or your life." Obviously a crime, right? Now add that we happen to be actors in a movie and I am reading from a script when I do so. Obviously not a crime. That is to say, it's not the speech that makes such a thing a crime, it's the actual property crime behind it that does so.
From that perspective, we can see that slander and libel should not properly be considered crimes, since there is no property crime to back them up (you can't have a property right in your reputation, since that exists solely in the minds of others). It's the same with calling Mohammed a pedophile, telling the king of Thailand to piss off, or simply transmitting information to the public at large about how to build a bomb from household ingredients.
Oh and could you give us your address ? We would like to go to yours hours, neighbors, and family, and tell them how much a child porn producer you are. And when you scream libel, lies , we will again laugh at your face.
You can't have my address, but on the off-chance you manage to dig it up yourself, feel free to tell anyone you want anything you wish to about me, true or not. I stand by my position.
I should have been more clear, perhaps. "Consequences" meaning the logical consequences that flow from the stated position, not the consequences of the speech itself. I.e. if you say you believe in absolute freedom of speech, you can't back away when someone points out that such a position would make the distribution of child pornography legal. That's a logical consequence of believing in absolute free speech.
And obviously, speech will have consequences, even if they aren't legal ones. If you go to work and insult your boss, you might be fired. If I invite you over to my house, and you yell and swear at me and my family, I'll probably ask you to leave and not be your friend anymore. Those are consequences, but they don't involve violence, jail time, or censorship on the part of a government.
The person I was replying to stated that he had never seen anyone who said they supported absolute free speech and also understood and accepted the consequences of it. I stated that I support absolute free speech, and understand and accept the consequences of it. Now he can't say that any longer.
Your personal disagreement with me on my views is immaterial to the point and I'm not sure your style of "debate" is really going to change anyone's mind, but if that's the maximum level of discourse that you can mentally deal with, we can run with it I guess:
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the king!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the Prophet Muhammed!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves speaking out against the government!
To support otherwise makes you Hitler!
Look up the history of Hitler. How does that work for you??
It's not okay, but it also shouldn't be criminal. You can be opposed to someone doing something and also not want it to be criminalized (see: drug war).
But you said it should all be free... I'm confused...
Why? Because you wrongly assumed I would be outraged by your scenario? I am not.
So I reiterate: There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone. What else ya got?
I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it.
Then let me be the first:
There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone.
If the major oil players stopped production cold, you wouldn't have so much of a "brief period of instability" as say, "mass societal collapse and widespread starvation".
Whether Exxon by itself would be enough to trigger a collapse is a good question, but I'd say the consequences there would still be somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".
Well, yes. I think everyone must concede that the text of the section applies to the states and not the federal government. I was talking about interpretations stemming from the interplay of state and federal obligations related to money, not this passage by itself.
That is to say, you have a certain interpretation as to the meaning of the words, and are not completely unaware of the words.
In the future, it might be best to just lead with your interpretation instead of snark about "double-secret probation editions" of the constitution. It would be more conducive to productive conversation that way.
Slashdot Mirror
The political issues are about greed too.
Russia has a GDP roughly equivalent to Italy. They aren't exactly "the largest in the world".
Source? (And no, lack of evidence is not evidence)
Not all links are infringing, though. For example, imagine that if every time a video on Youtube got a take down notice, Youtube removed all copies of that video. How many official (and therefore non-infringing) videos would get removed?
It would be rather perverse if doing data de-duplication on identical files made someone guilty of contributory copyright infringement, given that the result would be fewer existing copies of the data than otherwise.
All of us anarcho-capitalists beg to differ.
Anarchy is categorized by a lack of rulers\the state. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production are privately owned. There is no inherent contradiction.
Other than all those libertarians that don't fundamentally believe in government, you mean.
All anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.
And is there really a "huge difference"? Libertarians want less government. Anarcho-capitalists simply want a little less than that.
But how many births are caused by excessive drinking?
I do agree that the logical end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. That's the old joke:
Q: What the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About six months!
The rest of your post amount to "Your views are extreme, therefore they are incorrect", which is simply an appeal to moderation, so I'm not certain exactly what it is I'm supposed to respond with.
"Nuh uh"?
Be mindful of how you use "libertarian". Most libertarians believe in a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military, and thus your statement is directed towards the wrong group. The group you're looking for is "anarchists".
:)
Be mindful of how you use "privatize". Trading an unaccountable, public monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers for an unaccountable, private monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers is not true privatization.
As an anarchist myself, this is obviously not what we mean when we say we want to privatize police. Once the police are (a) voluntarily funded and (b) no longer given a government-backed monopoly on security services, then you can declare an anarchist nirvana.
"Listen, the government gave you a choice between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in the last election, so you can't complain that Goldman Sachs is raping your future!"
Yes, that follows logically . . .
This may have been true of early pentile displays, but with increased resolution it hasn't been a problem in higher-end devices for quite some time.
1. They are already "increasing the money supply". They simply don't have enough physical bills now to hand out all the digital money they are inventing.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.
Repeat it all you want. I will still defend your right to do so.
I don't know why you thought I had never considered "people saying mean, untrue things about me" when formulating my position.
My position here is complicated by the fact that I don't believe people should be forced to testify at all. But assuming voluntary testimony, have them enter into a contract beforehand.
No criminal penalties attached to any of those.
The holder of a government clearance has agreed via a voluntarily contract not to reveal certain information that the government wants to keep secret. A regular citizen has no such obligation to keep government secrets, even today.
First, thank you for much better edge cases than the usual "fire in a crowded theater!" and "slander!". Yours are much more interesting to talk about.
The nuclear example is the easiest to dispose of, since it involves an actual property crime (essentially trespassing).
The others are trickier, but I think the distinction in question isn't about what they did or didn't say, but rather that they aided and abetted an actual property crime. For example, we prosecute the driver of the get-away car just as much as we prosecute the people who actually rob the bank at gun point. This isn't because driving people around is illegal or requires close scrutiny, but because they were knowingly a party to an actual property crime.
Or, for a similar example involving speech, imagine that I pull a gun on you in a darkened alley and say "Your money or your life." Obviously a crime, right? Now add that we happen to be actors in a movie and I am reading from a script when I do so. Obviously not a crime. That is to say, it's not the speech that makes such a thing a crime, it's the actual property crime behind it that does so.
From that perspective, we can see that slander and libel should not properly be considered crimes, since there is no property crime to back them up (you can't have a property right in your reputation, since that exists solely in the minds of others). It's the same with calling Mohammed a pedophile, telling the king of Thailand to piss off, or simply transmitting information to the public at large about how to build a bomb from household ingredients.
You can't have my address, but on the off-chance you manage to dig it up yourself, feel free to tell anyone you want anything you wish to about me, true or not. I stand by my position.
I should have been more clear, perhaps. "Consequences" meaning the logical consequences that flow from the stated position, not the consequences of the speech itself. I.e. if you say you believe in absolute freedom of speech, you can't back away when someone points out that such a position would make the distribution of child pornography legal. That's a logical consequence of believing in absolute free speech.
And obviously, speech will have consequences, even if they aren't legal ones. If you go to work and insult your boss, you might be fired. If I invite you over to my house, and you yell and swear at me and my family, I'll probably ask you to leave and not be your friend anymore. Those are consequences, but they don't involve violence, jail time, or censorship on the part of a government.
The person I was replying to stated that he had never seen anyone who said they supported absolute free speech and also understood and accepted the consequences of it. I stated that I support absolute free speech, and understand and accept the consequences of it. Now he can't say that any longer.
Your personal disagreement with me on my views is immaterial to the point and I'm not sure your style of "debate" is really going to change anyone's mind, but if that's the maximum level of discourse that you can mentally deal with, we can run with it I guess:
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the king!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the Prophet Muhammed!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves speaking out against the government!
To support otherwise makes you Hitler!
Look up the history of Hitler. How does that work for you??
Is that more to your liking?
It's not okay, but it also shouldn't be criminal. You can be opposed to someone doing something and also not want it to be criminalized (see: drug war).
Why? Because you wrongly assumed I would be outraged by your scenario? I am not.
So I reiterate: There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone. What else ya got?
Then let me be the first: There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone.
If the major oil players stopped production cold, you wouldn't have so much of a "brief period of instability" as say, "mass societal collapse and widespread starvation".
Whether Exxon by itself would be enough to trigger a collapse is a good question, but I'd say the consequences there would still be somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".
Well, yes. I think everyone must concede that the text of the section applies to the states and not the federal government. I was talking about interpretations stemming from the interplay of state and federal obligations related to money, not this passage by itself.
I wasn't making an argument one way or the other; I was clarifying what the AC was talking about. Your snark is appreciated, however.
That is to say, you have a certain interpretation as to the meaning of the words, and are not completely unaware of the words.
In the future, it might be best to just lead with your interpretation instead of snark about "double-secret probation editions" of the constitution. It would be more conducive to productive conversation that way.