The American model employed by NASA and other US government entities is much better. Direct funding is more efficient. England used legal monopolies called 'letters patent' (from which patents get their name) hundreds of years ago to get funding without having a visible tax, because taxes were unpopular. It was a huge fucking mess, which is why they passed the Statute of Monopolies.
I'd disagree with both. I used to love reading until it became mandatory to do a large amount of reading. Then, it transformed from a stimulating hobby to a mundane chore, and I think I still haven't fully recovered from the damage the school system did to me. If you give children a genuine interest in reading and writing, that will foster plenty of both, and in a more engaging way. Reading 3 books that are actually interesting to the child is probably going to be more beneficial than having them read 30 books of varying interest. However, it could very well be that many of the children end up reading and writing more than they would be assigned anyway.
If you were on BBSs before the internet got big, that would seem to suggest that you didn't grow up in a world with social networking. The same is true for me. I'm speaking more about those for whom the ubiquity of social networking overlaps with teenage stupidity.
Even if they planned for the future, they probably aren't the type fit for a job. They are either actually squeaky clean, in which case they are probably very naive, or they are incredibly cunning, in which case they could be a real threat.
According to techdirt, he tweeted something like: "Fuck is one of the fucking words you can fucking put anywhere in a fucking sentence and still fucking makes sense."
Next time, RTFA, you niggerfaggot.
Networks are natural monopolies, which means that applying free market rhetoric to it is idiotic. The caps are abuse of that monopoly, and are an effective way to squelch competition in certain markets.
Inciting racial hatred is permitted under the 1st amendment. You can say, "I hate Jews, and you should hate Jews too." Inciting violence isn't, so long as the inciting is direct enough. "You should kill Jed in the conservatory with the candlestick." is illegal, but "All them chinks need an ass whooping" is fairly safe.
He's an asshole, but if the content of any of those tweets were breaking the law, it's probably in the best interest of the world to turn the UK to glass before that insanity spreads to the rest of the world.
You are talking about the FCC, not the FTC, and that matter of censorship is absolute bullshit. The Supreme Court sometimes forgets to do it's job in canning unconstitutional laws.
It can't be argued, but that doesn't mean that a good argument for it exists. Among stupid shit association football fans do all the time, this doesn't even show up on the radar.
You missed the part about being the only extant copy. No, there were no instances where MU had the only copy ever. People accidentally delete files. Hard drives crash. Data gets corrupted. Thus, the other copies not on MU could feasibly now be extinct.
Seriously do you think anyone would upload the one and only copy of some important data to a company that may well have been bankrupt the next day anyway, or had a server crash, or any number of things? You'd be batshit nuts to do that. What if the copy you uploaded was corrupt on the server?
Yes, you'd have to be an idiot to leave important data in 'the cloud.' However, most people ARE idiots.
This is backed up by the lack of requests from people to get their one and only copy of data back from Megaupload's server.
Where are you documenting this lack of requests? There isn't a clear party to ask that can actually do anything, and if there was, there could very well be users who don't know who that party is.
No, it shouldn't have, other than expecting the MPAA/RIAA to be consistently batshit crazy, but that's a risk associated with pretty much the whole internet.
One, you are assuming that using the service for illegal purposes means you aren't using it for legal purposes, and only 2 of the 2)s had clearly stated they had copies.
Again, just from the sake of probability, it's batshit insane to claim that out of the 25 PB of data, none of it was both legal and the only extant copy accessible to the uploader.
It's fund to make straw men and break them down, but really access to this data isn't a problem, you just file and the FBI can get it for you.
I doubt the FBI would actually comply, and even if they did, I would be wary of contacting the FBI even if I were completely innocent. It's like talking to cops, only much worse.
Why the hell should they make a system where they have to take complaints from third parties that are not experts on copyright and don't know if any permission was given? We know that companies have a history of uploading files themselves to make films appear 'viral', and there are lots of idiots that don't understand what fair use is, meaning that Google would waste a lot of time on false positives.
Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model. YouTube goes above and beyond what they should ever be required to do, and their current policies are unbalanced to the point that they have a chilling effect on clearly legitimate speech. That the MPAA et al are still asking for more and more is irrelevant.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality, because copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one, and practically speaking, there are no further benefits to the public that can arise from any strengthening of copyright, and a lot of benefits that would arise from weakening it or enfrocement.
If a law is stupid, it should not be obeyed. In fact, a law this dumb needs to be disobeyed. Belgians should take to the streets and read to groups of children in protest.
The real money is made in the crossroads of corporations and governments, so the key players don't get into one, but spend some time in both eventually.
Except there is harm done to one or more party. The buyer(s) that ends up buying the stock ends up paying a higher price than they would have if they had known the same information as the seller. We can pretty accurately nail down a specific victim(s) and a specific amount of harm inflicted.
"Should you be allowed to" is virtually never a valid question. We should be allowed to do everything except what we AREN'T allowed to do. Most reasonable rationales for why something should not be allowed are based off of harm caused or intended to be caused. If I stab you, that harms your body, so that is something we should not permit. There is no such harm with copying, so it shouldn't inherently be stopped like actual theft should.
Slashdot Mirror
The American model employed by NASA and other US government entities is much better. Direct funding is more efficient. England used legal monopolies called 'letters patent' (from which patents get their name) hundreds of years ago to get funding without having a visible tax, because taxes were unpopular. It was a huge fucking mess, which is why they passed the Statute of Monopolies.
I'd disagree with both. I used to love reading until it became mandatory to do a large amount of reading. Then, it transformed from a stimulating hobby to a mundane chore, and I think I still haven't fully recovered from the damage the school system did to me. If you give children a genuine interest in reading and writing, that will foster plenty of both, and in a more engaging way. Reading 3 books that are actually interesting to the child is probably going to be more beneficial than having them read 30 books of varying interest. However, it could very well be that many of the children end up reading and writing more than they would be assigned anyway.
Hookers, blow, and maple syrup?
If you were on BBSs before the internet got big, that would seem to suggest that you didn't grow up in a world with social networking. The same is true for me. I'm speaking more about those for whom the ubiquity of social networking overlaps with teenage stupidity.
Even if they planned for the future, they probably aren't the type fit for a job. They are either actually squeaky clean, in which case they are probably very naive, or they are incredibly cunning, in which case they could be a real threat.
Employers are going to have to get over it, because practically everyone will have similar histories.
According to techdirt, he tweeted something like: "Fuck is one of the fucking words you can fucking put anywhere in a fucking sentence and still fucking makes sense."
Next time, RTFA, you niggerfaggot.
If Comcast can do this, the networks clearly aren't congested, and thus the caps are just abuse of the monopoly.
Networks are natural monopolies, which means that applying free market rhetoric to it is idiotic. The caps are abuse of that monopoly, and are an effective way to squelch competition in certain markets.
Inciting racial hatred is permitted under the 1st amendment. You can say, "I hate Jews, and you should hate Jews too." Inciting violence isn't, so long as the inciting is direct enough. "You should kill Jed in the conservatory with the candlestick." is illegal, but "All them chinks need an ass whooping" is fairly safe.
He's an asshole, but if the content of any of those tweets were breaking the law, it's probably in the best interest of the world to turn the UK to glass before that insanity spreads to the rest of the world.
You are talking about the FCC, not the FTC, and that matter of censorship is absolute bullshit. The Supreme Court sometimes forgets to do it's job in canning unconstitutional laws.
It can't be argued, but that doesn't mean that a good argument for it exists. Among stupid shit association football fans do all the time, this doesn't even show up on the radar.
Yes, you'd have to be an idiot to leave important data in 'the cloud.' However, most people ARE idiots.
Where are you documenting this lack of requests? There isn't a clear party to ask that can actually do anything, and if there was, there could very well be users who don't know who that party is.
No, it shouldn't have, other than expecting the MPAA/RIAA to be consistently batshit crazy, but that's a risk associated with pretty much the whole internet.
Again, just from the sake of probability, it's batshit insane to claim that out of the 25 PB of data, none of it was both legal and the only extant copy accessible to the uploader.
I doubt the FBI would actually comply, and even if they did, I would be wary of contacting the FBI even if I were completely innocent. It's like talking to cops, only much worse.
How about this article, which lists multiple users making the claim you say doesn't exist by name: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/01/megaupload-wasnt-just-for-pirates-angry-users-out-of-luck-for-now.ars
Your claim is fucking ridiculous. There are 25 PB of data. It's nearly impossible for there not to be significant amounts of legitimate data on there.
Why the hell should they make a system where they have to take complaints from third parties that are not experts on copyright and don't know if any permission was given? We know that companies have a history of uploading files themselves to make films appear 'viral', and there are lots of idiots that don't understand what fair use is, meaning that Google would waste a lot of time on false positives.
Why does one need to be altruistic to not be evil?
Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model. YouTube goes above and beyond what they should ever be required to do, and their current policies are unbalanced to the point that they have a chilling effect on clearly legitimate speech. That the MPAA et al are still asking for more and more is irrelevant.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality, because copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one, and practically speaking, there are no further benefits to the public that can arise from any strengthening of copyright, and a lot of benefits that would arise from weakening it or enfrocement.
I like that you phrased the aforementioned behavior as 'civil disobedience.' I'm going to have to remember that one.
If a law is stupid, it should not be obeyed. In fact, a law this dumb needs to be disobeyed. Belgians should take to the streets and read to groups of children in protest.
The real money is made in the crossroads of corporations and governments, so the key players don't get into one, but spend some time in both eventually.
Except there is harm done to one or more party. The buyer(s) that ends up buying the stock ends up paying a higher price than they would have if they had known the same information as the seller. We can pretty accurately nail down a specific victim(s) and a specific amount of harm inflicted.
"Should you be allowed to" is virtually never a valid question. We should be allowed to do everything except what we AREN'T allowed to do. Most reasonable rationales for why something should not be allowed are based off of harm caused or intended to be caused. If I stab you, that harms your body, so that is something we should not permit. There is no such harm with copying, so it shouldn't inherently be stopped like actual theft should.