Hey, look! He's still too afraid to directly speak about his own spurious assertion! YOU are the one who launched with the punditry about cheap labor and food prices as they relate to illegal workers. You were expecting to be able to throw that out there without anyone bothering to see if you were full of crap. Which you were. And you have yet, once, to acknowledge that you pulled that overused meme out without giving it any critical thought or research, and your first (and sustained) reaction, in order to lamely try to save face, is to blame someone else for your own laziness.
Any reasonable person knows borders exist only for the slave trade
Speaking of lame, vague, baseless assertions. Hilarious.
Do you keep your front door closed in support of slave trade? No? Why do you? Be specific for once, instead of being afraid of your own shadow. And you don't have the intellectual horsepower to see why I just asked that question and where it must lead, should you show any sort of intellectual integrity, then don't worry, I'll walk you through it once you answer the question. Do you, or do you not lock your front door because of the slave trade? Just yes or no. More childish ad hominem instead of one of those too words will be an obvious "Yes, I lock my front door because of the slave trade."
In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.
In fast situations, humans react. It's that, or stand paralyzed with indecision while the other person's actions dictate the outcome. But describing cops - as a whole - as unthinking in the face of dangerous, quickly-evolving situations is absurd. You obviously don't know any.
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night".
No, you should be concerned about how few police would ever be hired to do that dangerous work if the city/county/state's official policy was their safety wasn't a priority. You won't have cops willing to "make sure members of the public go home safely" if they are told to back off on their own self defense even more than they are now. A cop got nearly beaten to death just the other day because, in the interests of not appearing willing and able to defend himself as he dealt with a dangerous situation, he was an easy victim instead of in control of the situation.
Police aren't roaming around looking to defend you. They enforce the laws - which means that most of the time that's after the fact of someone doing something bad to someone else. When the "someone else" is actually the cop, they are especially well suited to preventing that event, because in most cases they are armed and trained and granted the license to use force as needed.
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
The labels you use have nothing to do with the actions that have to be taken. There is no peace without laws that actually have consequence. And someone in the field has to actually be responsible for bringing law violators to an intersection with those consequences. If that's some vague bit of white-collar-style crime where one guy in a tie arrests another guy in a tie, that's much different than somebody who's tasked with walking up to a car with tinted windows during a traffic stop, having no idea if the person inside would rather kill him than face an open warrant and go back to jail.
The term "peace officer" is an old one. It refers to a civil position with the responsibility for keeping the peace as defined by law. People who break the law and thus the peace, are handled by such peace officers in their capacity to enforce the law... as opposed to a member of the military. That's the contrast: one armed person is military, and the other is civil. Think "war" vs. "peace" - military vs. civilian affairs. The fact that one of those labels has the word "peace" in it, dating way back, doesn't for a second mean that it's not a law enforcement position. That's its very nature.
So people who decide to live in a country illegally are not illegal? And you narrative about the impact of 4% of the illegal population on the cost of food is not false?
You won't be able to directly address either of those questions because that would require you to be specific, which you cannot do.
And where did I ever say you can displace anybody?
So, people can be anywhere they want except where you are, right? The fact that you're there means the thing you think they should be able to do should be limited by the things YOU want to do. No? If not, explain, specifically, what you actually mean. Does "being wherever they want to be" also grant them the entitlements paid for by the people who fund the "place they want to be?" Yes or no. Specifically.
No, I'm responding to YOUR misguided speculation that we will see higher food prices if illegals aren't picking crops. I pointed out that a well respected and neutral party (Pew Research) finds that only 4% of illegals are actually working in agriculture (in any capacity). You've been ignoring that fact, since it took the fun out of your vague, hand-wavy assertion about food prices, and now you're calling Pew's numbers speculative. What is your basis for that? Specifically.
As for the rest of your pointless ad hominem ranting, again - you're trying all of the usual juvenile theatrics in a vain attempt to distract anyone from noticing that you are unable to address the actual substance of assertion you made. And the more it's clear you won't (and of course can't), the more shrill you get in your attempts to change YOUR subject.
the employers are the tax evaders
To any extent they are, they should be in jail. That way they won't be in a position to run their businesses, create and sell food, or participate in the economy as they deal with vendors, customers, and others. Fine. Except no... casual labor is paid with the understanding that taxes are the obligation of the laborer. As a farmer, you don't without taxes from pay to an apple picker who's on your farm for three days, no more than you without taxes from your plumber, or the neighbor kid who cuts your grass. Again, you're exhibiting either stunning ignorance (in which case please don't do anything dangerous to the rest of us, like voting), or (far more likely) you're deliberately trotting out another deliberately false narrative in an attempt to distract, once again, from the BS you first spouted about food prices.
If an illegal pays any income taxes (very unlikely, since almost half the country pays no income taxes), it's being done as part of another crime: identity theft. Because as illegals, they have no ability to interact legitimately with the IRS. This, of course, hasn't stopped the IRS from issuing billions in "refunds" to illegals and others filing fraudulent returns.
People have a right to be where they want
So, someone can kick you out of your place and move in? No? How will you stop them? Will you use force, or ask someone else (like the police) to do so on your behalf? What if the person who wants to kick you out puts up a violent, even lethal, fight and doesn't want to give up on kicking you out of your place? Will someone eventually have to resort to using violent force to stop them? Will they be doing that with clubs and machetes since you think they should't be allowed to have guns? Please explain in detail how your everyone-occupy-whatever-they-want scenario doesn't turn into simple law of the jungle. Specifically. I know, you hate specifics so much you have yet to ever use them, but go ahead and try - you might learn something about yourself.
Yep, more ad hominem and not a single word about the false-on-the-face-of-it premise of your original position. Quick! Look away! Anything but discussion of your original lie! Here, I'll help you:
What percentage will food prices go up if 4% of the illegal population is required to pay taxes? Please be specific.
Yup, more of you tap dancing. At least you're consistent. What happened after your initial comment about prices of food based on cheap illegal labor turned out to be BS, because your underlying premise about the number of illegals working in agriculture turned out to be wildly wrong? Did that take all the fun out of your concept, and really (really?) you're THIS stuck with nothing but juvenile ad hominem and ironically backwards smugness in lieu of trotting out another fake info meme?
Why make assumptions. All I have to do is look at the actual words you say. In order to avoid addressing the behavior of (for example) the Mexican government, and why opening the border would be a problem, you do what every lefty always does: quick! Ad hominem assault on the person who points something out, and more invocation of racism in order to distract. Hey, look over there! A racist! We can avoid any further discussion of the absurdity of my proposition because I have declared anyone who has a contrary position to be a racist!
For someone with with your exalted capacity for comprehension, you sure are completely incapable of directly addressing things. Funny about that. What we have is your hand-waving assertion that opening the border between two countries, one of which is corrupt right down to just about every post office, border guard, utility provider, and court will benefit the country that doesn't act that way. Now it's your turn to once again imply that anyone who makes observations about a government or society is actually talking about skin pigment. Go for it, you know you think that's the height of discourse when you'd like to avoid actually backing up your platitudes.
That's it! Play the race card! The first and last resort of everyone who pretends they can't tell the difference between genetics and culture. Normally I'd chalk that up to intellectual laziness, but in your case it's clearly just disingenuous BS aimed at avoiding the substance of the matter: opening the border "two ways" doesn't address what would actually happen. Because we're not in charge of what Mexico does. And they have a solid track record of being completely duplicitous on the matter (just like you!).
But go ahead, and try to make it about skin pigment. As usual, the biggest racists in the room are always the lefties.
For that matter, we should really lift everyone up, and completely avoid any sort of taxation on income, right? If it's lifting SOME people up to have them working without paying income taxes (even though they get to benefit from the things that the people who DO pay income taxes are buying for them), then it will lift everyone even higher if nobody pays, right? If prohibiting some people from working without paying taxes is bad, then we should lift the prohibition on working without paying taxes. Otherwise we just get more people not paying taxes, when we could just have everyone not paying taxes.
Yeah, that muddled mess makes just as much sense as your open border claptrap. "Both directions" means what... that WE allow people to travel freely to Mexico, and WE don't have any control over whether they overstay their visas there? That's already the case. Mexico, on the other hand, is absolutely draconian about illegal workers making money in that country. That's why one of their main industries is the expedited piping of other Central American illegals from south of their country to north of their country.
Regardless of your nonsense, here's a basic fact for you: Pew Research reports that only 4% of Central American illegals in the US actually work in agriculture. Your entire meme about food prices going up due to a sudden drop in cheap illegal labor is pure BS and you know it. Removing illegals from that sector would have only a very marginal impact on production costs or retail prices across the board. Please try another lefty meme talking point.
If I want free stuff, then what good would it do to pretend to be clueless?
Because tha'ts the most common method we see of people trying to pretend they have no reason to feel guilty for ripping off work. They like the artists enough to want their work, but of course they know it's wrong to rip it off. So they either come up with elaborately whiny fake rants about the copyright system ("The copyright system isn't fair to artists, so until it's different, I'm going to show my support for artists by ripping them off!"), or they play dumb about what the artists they claim to like actually have to go through in order to create the entertainment they're in the mood to rip off. Because, you know, $1.99 is a lot.
It's about getting the free stuff, it's about a bunch of transparently lazy theatrics aimed at making you feel better about ripping off the stuff you want, including a spectacular display of pretending that things you know take thousands and thousands of hours to create are just some minor effort not worth meeting artist's requested price. So, here's the thing: you're not fooling anybody. Just admit you want to have the artists you like work for you for free, and that you want them to keep on creating stuff for you as you keep on ripping it off, because, you know, they're not working that hard, right? Yeah.
My point in the previous post is that "creative output" doesn't take years like you seem to think
You've never actually met many artists, have you? You've obviously never met someone who's worked on, for example, feature film. Or written an opera for a full orchestra. Or (I'll go back to him) someone like George Martin. Or perhaps something like Neal Stephenson's most recent novel, which he worked on for years in between other multi-year projects. Never mind. You're pretending to be clueless because you want free stuff. I get it.
Is your point really that people should write symphonies or produce movies or write novels in their spare time between gigs waiting tables? For that matter, why do you care? If someone wants to invest all of their time writing (for example) George Martin's books on the gamble that doing so will create a paying audience - that's his business, right? I know, you're going to be one of those people that says he should only be allowed to make money by reading his books out loud at books stores. Incredible. Buy his books, or don't. But don't rip them off.
Spoken like yet another lazy leech who's never actually worked on anything complex that it takes years to create. Typical.
There are very few artists who can actually live off their books or music even with copyright
And therefore you feel it's appropriate to rip them off? I see. They're not very successful, but you like what they create enough to want it... but since they haven't been hugely successful, the best thing to do would be to rip off their work. Because... that'll teach 'em! Now they're definitely want to create more of what you decided you like, and decided to rip off. Do you even listen to yourself?
I'm pretty sure the very small minority that is wildly succesful can do the same, if they stop with the coke and hookers for a few minutes.
I see. So in order to make yourself feel better about ripping people off, you have to spin up a bad TV-show quality fantasy about everyone who creates music, film, books, and the like? Hint: nobody is buying your junior-high-school quality fake world view as an excuse to avoid paying a couple bucks for music you want. You're just a lazy leech, and can't be honest about it.
you seem to think that if you create something, you're entitled to make money from it
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just think that lying about what someone says, even though everyone else can read what they just said, is somehow rhetorically useful?
I didn't say the artist is entitled to anything. I said that the guy who's proud of ripping them off is feeling entitled to what the artist creates. If the artist offers their work for sale, and nobody wants to buy it, then they can re-think their price, re-think what it is they're producing, re-think which audience they're trying to attract, or get into another line of work. The artist is the one risking their time and resources in advance, and making that gamble. The whiny entitled leech of an eleven year old who says "I can just rip it off for free" is the one we're talking about here.
Copyright isn't a guarantee of success
Who said it was? I didn't. You're propping up a nice little straw man there, Mr. Coward.
only an exclusivity agreement.
No, the agreement comes in the form of the license under which the work is published or otherwise traded/sold. The copyright is the device that assures the person who did the work that they have control over the authoring of that license, and some support from the courts if someone decides they don't like the terms, but they want to rip it off anyway.
Do you think there would be more or less of the stereotypical 'starving artists' in your Utopian, pirate-free fantasy?
Does it matter? I don't care if artists starve when they aren't being systematically ripped off by lazy leeches. If they can't make a living while in control of the licensing of their work, then they're not creating something good enough, or doing a good enough job either selling it or choosing a partner to help them do so. The problem with the pirates is that they're evidence of demand - they don't rip off crap they hate. They just want to screw somebody else who did the work. That's the real irony - they like the artist enough to want to read, listen to, or watch what that artist creates, but they think so little of the artist that they're willing to rip them off. Like I said - the sort of thing that comes with being a whiny entitlement leech, and a good indication of how few people actually understand what it takes to create the things they say they want.
And then, oddly, we have people like you who would rather lie about what someone just said than address the substance of the matter. Why is that? What do you achieve by pretending to argue against something nobody said? Maybe you should get some help with that.
I WANT it to go to court and I want them hit with copyright violation and have the plaintiff use the same calculation that the RIAA and MPAA uses and demand $4.6 billion in lost revenue as they shared the video with millions of people.
Doesn't work like that.
I doubt the guy who made the video registered is work with the US Copyright Office before publishing it. As such, he can only use a court to force the infringing party to stop infringing, and can only expect to be paid his demonstrably customary rate for the material. Considering he probably makes a buck or two here and there, at best, for letting YouTube run ads before/on his material, there's no there, there. If, however, he did register the work, he then has the option of pursuing punitive damages in federal court. But he'd better be able to show a lawyer, in advance, that he's going to be able to collect a big pile of money - because that's an expensive exercise. If the work is registered, he can communicate that fact to CNN, and perhaps get an OK settlement from them instead of going to all that trouble. But given the usual pattern with most such posted video, it's almost a guarantee that he didn't register the work. So, mostly, he can send the infringing parties an invoice for his customary revenue from such material. If he's a hobbyist, that would amount to roughly $0.
I wonder if you'd have the courage to sit across the table from one of your pet art slaves and say, "I really like the first two books in your series. Can't wait to rip off the third one, too. So, get back to work! Create the entertainment I want, and try to be quick about it. I'm itching for some more free stuff. Thanks for being so creative there, Mr. Entertainment Slave!"
The same conversation with the thousand people it takes to risk huge amounts of money and spend years making a movie, please.
And the same conversation between you and a dozen musicians who fronted their own cash and time and gathered off and on in different studios around the world over the course of months or years to make a recording to which you feel entitled. Would you look them each in the eye and tell them you like their work so much that you wanted your own copy of it, but, of course, screw them - you know how to rip it off, and they shouldn't expect your appreciation in the form of, you know, any financial rewards from you for their risk and trouble. But, please do make more music, which you'll rip off later, as soon as they wrap up their next project.
Doesn't affect me
Oh, I get it. You're an eleven year old girl with an acute entitlement complex brought on by your looming daddy issues. This makes more sense now.
Are we sure they're not making predictions about the next generation of Kardashians? They're definitely anthropogenic. Maybe we could bury them under millions of black plastic balls.
Did she just set up her federal account to forward it to her automatically or did she start also telling people (lots of people), "Please send it to hillary@clintonemail.com?
She never HAD a federal account. When she was appointed to that job, State's IT people told her they would set one up and that she should use it, but she told them not to. Simple as that. She's the boss. And yes, she simply told everyone she dealt with to use her personal address, and told her many subordinates to pass that word along. Once she's sent something, or been in a CC chain, that's it - everyone's contact list has her, and that's that. State IT people said they told her more than once how risky it was, but they couldn't force their department's chief to change things so her regular correspondence would be part of the official system. Sounds ridiculous, but it's how she wanted it - the Clintons are reflexively secretive, and seek to avoid transparency at all costs. This may actually, for once, prove to be some rules-don't-apply-to-us behavior that actually comes back to haunt her more than just some fleeting media coverage she can brush off as a vast right wing conspiracy.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.
False on the face of. Enough so that there's no explanation for you saying that other than you know you're deliberately lying.
The inspectors looked at a tiny sample of the mail she cherry-picked, and in just a few dozen, found material that was already graded "Top Secret," and would have been obviously such to anyone with any experience - let alone the person who is the nation's top appointed diplomat and the executive in charge of all of our foreign affairs, someone who is briefed daily on highly sensitive material. We're talking about emails with satellite imagery, etc. Your "retroactive" meme is the worst sort of BS because even you know it's not true, but you're repeating it anyway.
It was never legal for her to keep Top Secret records in the manner she did (let alone burn them to thumb drives to hand to her non-government, non-cleared personal lawyer to keep).
Regardless, ample federal rules AND laws were in place during her tenure, and on the day she left, requiring her to hand ALL of her communications over to the DoS archivist so THAT office could decide what was official and what was personal. She didn't do this. Instead, she waited until years after she left, and cherry-picked the records herself, in direct violation of the very policies under which she fired some of her own subordinates while she was in charge of that department. But forget all of that deliberate rule and policy breaking on her part - her handling and retention of classified (TS, no less) material the way she did it is a direct violation of laws in place LONG before she took that job. Long before her husband was even Gov of Arkansas. Of course you know all of this, and you're just a shill trying to change the subject.
You keep pasting in that same comment, but you still don't even know what you're talking about. Keeping top secret communications in your personal possession, in a computer in your house, and handing copies of that to your lawyer to carry around on thumb drives, has NEVER been permitted. It's a federal felony. But you just keep on pasting in your Hillary campaign shill text every chance you get - that will change the facts, right?
You have no idea what you're talking about. Wait: you actually do, so you're just lying. Why? What do you think you're going to achieve by lying, just like she is?
Slashdot Mirror
Any reasonable person knows borders exist only for the slave trade
Speaking of lame, vague, baseless assertions. Hilarious.
Do you keep your front door closed in support of slave trade? No? Why do you? Be specific for once, instead of being afraid of your own shadow. And you don't have the intellectual horsepower to see why I just asked that question and where it must lead, should you show any sort of intellectual integrity, then don't worry, I'll walk you through it once you answer the question. Do you, or do you not lock your front door because of the slave trade? Just yes or no. More childish ad hominem instead of one of those too words will be an obvious "Yes, I lock my front door because of the slave trade."
In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.
In fast situations, humans react. It's that, or stand paralyzed with indecision while the other person's actions dictate the outcome. But describing cops - as a whole - as unthinking in the face of dangerous, quickly-evolving situations is absurd. You obviously don't know any.
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night".
No, you should be concerned about how few police would ever be hired to do that dangerous work if the city/county/state's official policy was their safety wasn't a priority. You won't have cops willing to "make sure members of the public go home safely" if they are told to back off on their own self defense even more than they are now. A cop got nearly beaten to death just the other day because, in the interests of not appearing willing and able to defend himself as he dealt with a dangerous situation, he was an easy victim instead of in control of the situation.
Police aren't roaming around looking to defend you. They enforce the laws - which means that most of the time that's after the fact of someone doing something bad to someone else. When the "someone else" is actually the cop, they are especially well suited to preventing that event, because in most cases they are armed and trained and granted the license to use force as needed.
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
The labels you use have nothing to do with the actions that have to be taken. There is no peace without laws that actually have consequence. And someone in the field has to actually be responsible for bringing law violators to an intersection with those consequences. If that's some vague bit of white-collar-style crime where one guy in a tie arrests another guy in a tie, that's much different than somebody who's tasked with walking up to a car with tinted windows during a traffic stop, having no idea if the person inside would rather kill him than face an open warrant and go back to jail.
... as opposed to a member of the military. That's the contrast: one armed person is military, and the other is civil. Think "war" vs. "peace" - military vs. civilian affairs. The fact that one of those labels has the word "peace" in it, dating way back, doesn't for a second mean that it's not a law enforcement position. That's its very nature.
The term "peace officer" is an old one. It refers to a civil position with the responsibility for keeping the peace as defined by law. People who break the law and thus the peace, are handled by such peace officers in their capacity to enforce the law
You won't be able to directly address either of those questions because that would require you to be specific, which you cannot do.
And where did I ever say you can displace anybody?
So, people can be anywhere they want except where you are, right? The fact that you're there means the thing you think they should be able to do should be limited by the things YOU want to do. No? If not, explain, specifically, what you actually mean. Does "being wherever they want to be" also grant them the entitlements paid for by the people who fund the "place they want to be?" Yes or no. Specifically.
You offer only speculation
No, I'm responding to YOUR misguided speculation that we will see higher food prices if illegals aren't picking crops. I pointed out that a well respected and neutral party (Pew Research) finds that only 4% of illegals are actually working in agriculture (in any capacity). You've been ignoring that fact, since it took the fun out of your vague, hand-wavy assertion about food prices, and now you're calling Pew's numbers speculative. What is your basis for that? Specifically.
As for the rest of your pointless ad hominem ranting, again - you're trying all of the usual juvenile theatrics in a vain attempt to distract anyone from noticing that you are unable to address the actual substance of assertion you made. And the more it's clear you won't (and of course can't), the more shrill you get in your attempts to change YOUR subject.
the employers are the tax evaders
To any extent they are, they should be in jail. That way they won't be in a position to run their businesses, create and sell food, or participate in the economy as they deal with vendors, customers, and others. Fine. Except no ... casual labor is paid with the understanding that taxes are the obligation of the laborer. As a farmer, you don't without taxes from pay to an apple picker who's on your farm for three days, no more than you without taxes from your plumber, or the neighbor kid who cuts your grass. Again, you're exhibiting either stunning ignorance (in which case please don't do anything dangerous to the rest of us, like voting), or (far more likely) you're deliberately trotting out another deliberately false narrative in an attempt to distract, once again, from the BS you first spouted about food prices.
If an illegal pays any income taxes (very unlikely, since almost half the country pays no income taxes), it's being done as part of another crime: identity theft. Because as illegals, they have no ability to interact legitimately with the IRS. This, of course, hasn't stopped the IRS from issuing billions in "refunds" to illegals and others filing fraudulent returns.
People have a right to be where they want
So, someone can kick you out of your place and move in? No? How will you stop them? Will you use force, or ask someone else (like the police) to do so on your behalf? What if the person who wants to kick you out puts up a violent, even lethal, fight and doesn't want to give up on kicking you out of your place? Will someone eventually have to resort to using violent force to stop them? Will they be doing that with clubs and machetes since you think they should't be allowed to have guns? Please explain in detail how your everyone-occupy-whatever-they-want scenario doesn't turn into simple law of the jungle. Specifically. I know, you hate specifics so much you have yet to ever use them, but go ahead and try - you might learn something about yourself.
Yep, more ad hominem and not a single word about the false-on-the-face-of-it premise of your original position. Quick! Look away! Anything but discussion of your original lie! Here, I'll help you:
What percentage will food prices go up if 4% of the illegal population is required to pay taxes? Please be specific.
Yup, more of you tap dancing. At least you're consistent. What happened after your initial comment about prices of food based on cheap illegal labor turned out to be BS, because your underlying premise about the number of illegals working in agriculture turned out to be wildly wrong? Did that take all the fun out of your concept, and really (really?) you're THIS stuck with nothing but juvenile ad hominem and ironically backwards smugness in lieu of trotting out another fake info meme?
Why make assumptions. All I have to do is look at the actual words you say. In order to avoid addressing the behavior of (for example) the Mexican government, and why opening the border would be a problem, you do what every lefty always does: quick! Ad hominem assault on the person who points something out, and more invocation of racism in order to distract. Hey, look over there! A racist! We can avoid any further discussion of the absurdity of my proposition because I have declared anyone who has a contrary position to be a racist!
For someone with with your exalted capacity for comprehension, you sure are completely incapable of directly addressing things. Funny about that. What we have is your hand-waving assertion that opening the border between two countries, one of which is corrupt right down to just about every post office, border guard, utility provider, and court will benefit the country that doesn't act that way. Now it's your turn to once again imply that anyone who makes observations about a government or society is actually talking about skin pigment. Go for it, you know you think that's the height of discourse when you'd like to avoid actually backing up your platitudes.
That's it! Play the race card! The first and last resort of everyone who pretends they can't tell the difference between genetics and culture. Normally I'd chalk that up to intellectual laziness, but in your case it's clearly just disingenuous BS aimed at avoiding the substance of the matter: opening the border "two ways" doesn't address what would actually happen. Because we're not in charge of what Mexico does. And they have a solid track record of being completely duplicitous on the matter (just like you!).
But go ahead, and try to make it about skin pigment. As usual, the biggest racists in the room are always the lefties.
For that matter, we should really lift everyone up, and completely avoid any sort of taxation on income, right? If it's lifting SOME people up to have them working without paying income taxes (even though they get to benefit from the things that the people who DO pay income taxes are buying for them), then it will lift everyone even higher if nobody pays, right? If prohibiting some people from working without paying taxes is bad, then we should lift the prohibition on working without paying taxes. Otherwise we just get more people not paying taxes, when we could just have everyone not paying taxes.
... that WE allow people to travel freely to Mexico, and WE don't have any control over whether they overstay their visas there? That's already the case. Mexico, on the other hand, is absolutely draconian about illegal workers making money in that country. That's why one of their main industries is the expedited piping of other Central American illegals from south of their country to north of their country.
Yeah, that muddled mess makes just as much sense as your open border claptrap. "Both directions" means what
Regardless of your nonsense, here's a basic fact for you: Pew Research reports that only 4% of Central American illegals in the US actually work in agriculture. Your entire meme about food prices going up due to a sudden drop in cheap illegal labor is pure BS and you know it. Removing illegals from that sector would have only a very marginal impact on production costs or retail prices across the board. Please try another lefty meme talking point.
A secure border is cheap, compared to not having one.
But it also won't be anywhere near the cost of hiring a lawyer.
If I want free stuff, then what good would it do to pretend to be clueless?
Because tha'ts the most common method we see of people trying to pretend they have no reason to feel guilty for ripping off work. They like the artists enough to want their work, but of course they know it's wrong to rip it off. So they either come up with elaborately whiny fake rants about the copyright system ("The copyright system isn't fair to artists, so until it's different, I'm going to show my support for artists by ripping them off!"), or they play dumb about what the artists they claim to like actually have to go through in order to create the entertainment they're in the mood to rip off. Because, you know, $1.99 is a lot.
It's about getting the free stuff, it's about a bunch of transparently lazy theatrics aimed at making you feel better about ripping off the stuff you want, including a spectacular display of pretending that things you know take thousands and thousands of hours to create are just some minor effort not worth meeting artist's requested price. So, here's the thing: you're not fooling anybody. Just admit you want to have the artists you like work for you for free, and that you want them to keep on creating stuff for you as you keep on ripping it off, because, you know, they're not working that hard, right? Yeah.
My point in the previous post is that "creative output" doesn't take years like you seem to think
You've never actually met many artists, have you? You've obviously never met someone who's worked on, for example, feature film. Or written an opera for a full orchestra. Or (I'll go back to him) someone like George Martin. Or perhaps something like Neal Stephenson's most recent novel, which he worked on for years in between other multi-year projects. Never mind. You're pretending to be clueless because you want free stuff. I get it.
Really? You're that clueless?
Is your point really that people should write symphonies or produce movies or write novels in their spare time between gigs waiting tables? For that matter, why do you care? If someone wants to invest all of their time writing (for example) George Martin's books on the gamble that doing so will create a paying audience - that's his business, right? I know, you're going to be one of those people that says he should only be allowed to make money by reading his books out loud at books stores. Incredible. Buy his books, or don't. But don't rip them off.
Create art and go play it.
Spoken like yet another lazy leech who's never actually worked on anything complex that it takes years to create. Typical.
There are very few artists who can actually live off their books or music even with copyright
And therefore you feel it's appropriate to rip them off? I see. They're not very successful, but you like what they create enough to want it ... but since they haven't been hugely successful, the best thing to do would be to rip off their work. Because ... that'll teach 'em! Now they're definitely want to create more of what you decided you like, and decided to rip off. Do you even listen to yourself?
I'm pretty sure the very small minority that is wildly succesful can do the same, if they stop with the coke and hookers for a few minutes.
I see. So in order to make yourself feel better about ripping people off, you have to spin up a bad TV-show quality fantasy about everyone who creates music, film, books, and the like? Hint: nobody is buying your junior-high-school quality fake world view as an excuse to avoid paying a couple bucks for music you want. You're just a lazy leech, and can't be honest about it.
you seem to think that if you create something, you're entitled to make money from it
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just think that lying about what someone says, even though everyone else can read what they just said, is somehow rhetorically useful?
I didn't say the artist is entitled to anything. I said that the guy who's proud of ripping them off is feeling entitled to what the artist creates. If the artist offers their work for sale, and nobody wants to buy it, then they can re-think their price, re-think what it is they're producing, re-think which audience they're trying to attract, or get into another line of work. The artist is the one risking their time and resources in advance, and making that gamble. The whiny entitled leech of an eleven year old who says "I can just rip it off for free" is the one we're talking about here.
Copyright isn't a guarantee of success
Who said it was? I didn't. You're propping up a nice little straw man there, Mr. Coward.
only an exclusivity agreement.
No, the agreement comes in the form of the license under which the work is published or otherwise traded/sold. The copyright is the device that assures the person who did the work that they have control over the authoring of that license, and some support from the courts if someone decides they don't like the terms, but they want to rip it off anyway.
Do you think there would be more or less of the stereotypical 'starving artists' in your Utopian, pirate-free fantasy?
Does it matter? I don't care if artists starve when they aren't being systematically ripped off by lazy leeches. If they can't make a living while in control of the licensing of their work, then they're not creating something good enough, or doing a good enough job either selling it or choosing a partner to help them do so. The problem with the pirates is that they're evidence of demand - they don't rip off crap they hate. They just want to screw somebody else who did the work. That's the real irony - they like the artist enough to want to read, listen to, or watch what that artist creates, but they think so little of the artist that they're willing to rip them off. Like I said - the sort of thing that comes with being a whiny entitlement leech, and a good indication of how few people actually understand what it takes to create the things they say they want.
And then, oddly, we have people like you who would rather lie about what someone just said than address the substance of the matter. Why is that? What do you achieve by pretending to argue against something nobody said? Maybe you should get some help with that.
I WANT it to go to court and I want them hit with copyright violation and have the plaintiff use the same calculation that the RIAA and MPAA uses and demand $4.6 billion in lost revenue as they shared the video with millions of people.
Doesn't work like that.
I doubt the guy who made the video registered is work with the US Copyright Office before publishing it. As such, he can only use a court to force the infringing party to stop infringing, and can only expect to be paid his demonstrably customary rate for the material. Considering he probably makes a buck or two here and there, at best, for letting YouTube run ads before/on his material, there's no there, there. If, however, he did register the work, he then has the option of pursuing punitive damages in federal court. But he'd better be able to show a lawyer, in advance, that he's going to be able to collect a big pile of money - because that's an expensive exercise. If the work is registered, he can communicate that fact to CNN, and perhaps get an OK settlement from them instead of going to all that trouble. But given the usual pattern with most such posted video, it's almost a guarantee that he didn't register the work. So, mostly, he can send the infringing parties an invoice for his customary revenue from such material. If he's a hobbyist, that would amount to roughly $0.
It get everything I want, when I want, for free.
I wonder if you'd have the courage to sit across the table from one of your pet art slaves and say, "I really like the first two books in your series. Can't wait to rip off the third one, too. So, get back to work! Create the entertainment I want, and try to be quick about it. I'm itching for some more free stuff. Thanks for being so creative there, Mr. Entertainment Slave!"
The same conversation with the thousand people it takes to risk huge amounts of money and spend years making a movie, please.
And the same conversation between you and a dozen musicians who fronted their own cash and time and gathered off and on in different studios around the world over the course of months or years to make a recording to which you feel entitled. Would you look them each in the eye and tell them you like their work so much that you wanted your own copy of it, but, of course, screw them - you know how to rip it off, and they shouldn't expect your appreciation in the form of, you know, any financial rewards from you for their risk and trouble. But, please do make more music, which you'll rip off later, as soon as they wrap up their next project.
Doesn't affect me
Oh, I get it. You're an eleven year old girl with an acute entitlement complex brought on by your looming daddy issues. This makes more sense now.
hotter, higher, trashier
Are we sure they're not making predictions about the next generation of Kardashians? They're definitely anthropogenic. Maybe we could bury them under millions of black plastic balls .
Did she just set up her federal account to forward it to her automatically or did she start also telling people (lots of people), "Please send it to hillary@clintonemail.com?
She never HAD a federal account. When she was appointed to that job, State's IT people told her they would set one up and that she should use it, but she told them not to. Simple as that. She's the boss. And yes, she simply told everyone she dealt with to use her personal address, and told her many subordinates to pass that word along. Once she's sent something, or been in a CC chain, that's it - everyone's contact list has her, and that's that. State IT people said they told her more than once how risky it was, but they couldn't force their department's chief to change things so her regular correspondence would be part of the official system. Sounds ridiculous, but it's how she wanted it - the Clintons are reflexively secretive, and seek to avoid transparency at all costs. This may actually, for once, prove to be some rules-don't-apply-to-us behavior that actually comes back to haunt her more than just some fleeting media coverage she can brush off as a vast right wing conspiracy.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.
False on the face of. Enough so that there's no explanation for you saying that other than you know you're deliberately lying.
The inspectors looked at a tiny sample of the mail she cherry-picked, and in just a few dozen, found material that was already graded "Top Secret," and would have been obviously such to anyone with any experience - let alone the person who is the nation's top appointed diplomat and the executive in charge of all of our foreign affairs, someone who is briefed daily on highly sensitive material. We're talking about emails with satellite imagery, etc. Your "retroactive" meme is the worst sort of BS because even you know it's not true, but you're repeating it anyway.
Shill.
It was never legal for her to keep Top Secret records in the manner she did (let alone burn them to thumb drives to hand to her non-government, non-cleared personal lawyer to keep).
Regardless, ample federal rules AND laws were in place during her tenure, and on the day she left, requiring her to hand ALL of her communications over to the DoS archivist so THAT office could decide what was official and what was personal. She didn't do this. Instead, she waited until years after she left, and cherry-picked the records herself, in direct violation of the very policies under which she fired some of her own subordinates while she was in charge of that department. But forget all of that deliberate rule and policy breaking on her part - her handling and retention of classified (TS, no less) material the way she did it is a direct violation of laws in place LONG before she took that job. Long before her husband was even Gov of Arkansas. Of course you know all of this, and you're just a shill trying to change the subject.
You keep pasting in that same comment, but you still don't even know what you're talking about. Keeping top secret communications in your personal possession, in a computer in your house, and handing copies of that to your lawyer to carry around on thumb drives, has NEVER been permitted. It's a federal felony. But you just keep on pasting in your Hillary campaign shill text every chance you get - that will change the facts, right?
You have no idea what you're talking about. Wait: you actually do, so you're just lying. Why? What do you think you're going to achieve by lying, just like she is?