It is silly but whenever an incident does occur the same people complaining about airplane security overkill start screaming about the government not doing enough to protect them.
The only problem with that thinking is, in my opinion of course, it isn't realistic only in that people with the technical know-how will - eventually - make it so the common man can do it too, in the form of a easy to use program that automates the brunt of the work.
OR he's calling out blatantly dishonest characterizations, presumtions, charicatures like the one you present for example. PRIVACY IS HIDING. EVERYBODY USES PRIVACY - in its leal and social constructs. NOTHING TO HIDE IS A LOGICAL IMOSSIBILITY therefore, IMO of course. [see sig]
Um... really? If he asks, the it ISN'T obvious - even if HE knew, OTHERS DON'T know better - either way, lingual sloppiness can't be justifiesd where it counts.
Wait, who says we'd need to be bound by Miocrosoft's implementation - especially if browsers like Firefox support many implementations, not just one or another?>
When it comes to the idea tat P2P is nt exclusive from legal - and legal stuff can / is shaed, that is kinda irrelevant, as it doesnt really prove otherwise.
So... people who don't want others to know they get rectal exams post-age-50-whatever shouldn't have them?
That's what the logic says. Not wanting others to know != said thing being wrong, you idiot.
Respectfully, courts can make decisions that are reversed - I think it is ignorant to take a ruling as ironclad proof of an idea when it is capable of being contradicted later on.
You idiot. Nobody is entitled to profit. They're entitled to a fair chance to try and profit, that's how every business works - music and movies should be no different.
"Oh no, I can't reply to actual arguments, so I'll just make stupid strawmen and pray I won't actually be called out on them"
If you're seriously getting on your high horse after making a quote like that, you're really asking for it. There is nothing intelligent about making it, or acting like you will be wrongly downmodded for it.
.. the fuck does Left or Right have to do with it? If the book is overpriced, and you want it, naturally one option is to look for it cheaper, which is what people do - and with legally obtained goods like books, usually, you can LEGALLY RESELL them. Maybe I missed something, feels like a lot was missed here though.
But at least Spock was smart enough to know the difference between a trivial distinction and a real one, unlike you.:P Seriously though, they are different, established by logic, and how the law works, no matter how much sticking-your-finger-in-your-ear-NANANANAing you do.
*sigh* We're talking factual matters, not bad article titles. Stop trying to paint false hypocrisy as others continue to try - it isn't working, unless your goal is to look dumb.
Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
But all of that doesn't address the key point being made: ANY duration including a creator's lifetime is BY DE FACTO going against the intent of copyright - ABSOLUTE CONTROL for a LIMITED TIME - the fact that there was a limited time before it went back to the public for anybody to freely use whenever/however would spur innovation and creation BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SIT ON THEIR ASSES OFF OF ONE WORK for the entirety of their lifetime.
Ummmm... no. It being April 1st meens to apply skepticism, but to also keep in mind articles that are brought up on cases BEFORE April 1st, whether posted the night before, or updated ones from months ago.
Actually no, you ASSUME they are meant PURELY to facilitate piracy. IF they intend on hosting legit media, and have means of dealing with illegal content, then they're existing for means other than purely being there for piracy, shithead - take your smugness and shove it up your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Proof?
The only problem with that thinking is, in my opinion of course, it isn't realistic only in that people with the technical know-how will - eventually - make it so the common man can do it too, in the form of a easy to use program that automates the brunt of the work.
OR he's calling out blatantly dishonest characterizations, presumtions, charicatures like the one you present for example. PRIVACY IS HIDING. EVERYBODY USES PRIVACY - in its leal and social constructs. NOTHING TO HIDE IS A LOGICAL IMOSSIBILITY therefore, IMO of course. [see sig]
Um... really? If he asks, the it ISN'T obvious - even if HE knew, OTHERS DON'T know better - either way, lingual sloppiness can't be justifiesd where it counts.
Wait, who says we'd need to be bound by Miocrosoft's implementation - especially if browsers like Firefox support many implementations, not just one or another?>
When it comes to the idea tat P2P is nt exclusive from legal - and legal stuff can / is shaed, that is kinda irrelevant, as it doesnt really prove otherwise.
Irrelevant. The prior art is substantial enough to invalidate it. :D
So... people who don't want others to know they get rectal exams post-age-50-whatever shouldn't have them? That's what the logic says. Not wanting others to know != said thing being wrong, you idiot.
*ahem* I and countless others - mostly ACs like yourself - already hold prior art to your patent. Invalidated. :D
Respectfully, courts can make decisions that are reversed - I think it is ignorant to take a ruling as ironclad proof of an idea when it is capable of being contradicted later on.
That assumes, however, that privacy is only physical, which IMO is why that argument ***generally*** is / can be tenuous.
You idiot. Nobody is entitled to profit. They're entitled to a fair chance to try and profit, that's how every business works - music and movies should be no different.
"Oh no, I can't reply to actual arguments, so I'll just make stupid strawmen and pray I won't actually be called out on them" If you're seriously getting on your high horse after making a quote like that, you're really asking for it. There is nothing intelligent about making it, or acting like you will be wrongly downmodded for it.
Again, no it isn't - people really talk like that in this debate, on this subject matter.
.... NO, just no. PEOPLE ACTUALLY talk like that SERIOUSLY, combined with the fact that sarcasm doesn't travel well online, how is it obvious?
.. the fuck does Left or Right have to do with it? If the book is overpriced, and you want it, naturally one option is to look for it cheaper, which is what people do - and with legally obtained goods like books, usually, you can LEGALLY RESELL them. Maybe I missed something, feels like a lot was missed here though.
So what, if you're not good looking it shouldn't mean having to put up with strip searches of any kind by our govt. especially. Really.... ~_~
But at least Spock was smart enough to know the difference between a trivial distinction and a real one, unlike you. :P Seriously though, they are different, established by logic, and how the law works, no matter how much sticking-your-finger-in-your-ear-NANANANAing you do.
*sigh* We're talking factual matters, not bad article titles. Stop trying to paint false hypocrisy as others continue to try - it isn't working, unless your goal is to look dumb.
Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
But all of that doesn't address the key point being made: ANY duration including a creator's lifetime is BY DE FACTO going against the intent of copyright - ABSOLUTE CONTROL for a LIMITED TIME - the fact that there was a limited time before it went back to the public for anybody to freely use whenever/however would spur innovation and creation BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SIT ON THEIR ASSES OFF OF ONE WORK for the entirety of their lifetime.
Ummmm... no. It being April 1st meens to apply skepticism, but to also keep in mind articles that are brought up on cases BEFORE April 1st, whether posted the night before, or updated ones from months ago.
Actually no, you ASSUME they are meant PURELY to facilitate piracy. IF they intend on hosting legit media, and have means of dealing with illegal content, then they're existing for means other than purely being there for piracy, shithead - take your smugness and shove it up your ass.
If all you have to rely on are absurd hypotheticals, and hypothetical hypocrisy, you're sunk. Now sod off.
Well, YES it IS April 1st, BUT serious shit has, ironically, been reported on that day too.