Reply With Quote
EU Internet czar piles on, says SOPA is bad news
"speeding is illegal too, but you don't put speed bumps on the motorway."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...ag=mncol;posts
I think the statement was as clear as it was bull .
Anything else you said that you want to claim you didn't say?
I still haven't seen in this thread a quote from a Supreme Court justice (or any justice, really) "that stated purpose for copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible".
But thanks for posting a quote that recognizes that intellectual property is actually different from tangible property.
BTW, if you actually read what you post, you'll realize that's not a Supreme Court justice.
EU Internet czar piles on, says SOPA is bad news
"speeding is illegal too, but you don't put speed bumps on the motorway."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...ag=mncol;posts
Soon people will meet in basements to share software,music,and films you can't stop human behavior if you could, we would not have access Alcohol .
we would not have access Alcohol. how true. stick-toit-iveness beats all.
Right now some amateurs in they're mother's basements are ready to pick up the slack.
Apparently Lamar Smith, sponsor of the SOPA bill has been using someone else’s photos without proper accreditation which violates the licensed use of the photo (copyright violation).
Read below:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...om-2648232.php
I wonder if it would have been possible under SOPA or PIPA to have Lamar Smith's website shutdown and his finances (campaign?) frozen?
Last edited by Useruser666; 01-20-2012 at 04:58 PM.
Sorry you don't like what Justice Woodbury says.
This is a sorry, desperate troll job to save what little face you think have left after everything that has flown in it, or you are just flat stupid.Anything else you said that you want to claim you didn't say?
It is very clear I meant copyright law in general. I did not that say or imply that there is a specific law that says "the purpose is to make IP a tangible asset."
To wit:
just lol wow.....The basic purpose of IPR is to guard the rights of an author for his work and simultaneously permit the general public to view his creativity. IPR law also puts time limits on the rights given to these authors so that a balance is maintained. Intellectual property, like any other form of property can become a material of trade, can be owned, sold as well as bought.
http://www.articlesbase.com/intellec...ia-219402.html
It's physically impossible to make an idea tangible. Already admitted it. Already clarified it. Already posted Justice Woodbury's quote making a very crystal clear metaphor comparing IP to tangible property.I still haven't seen in this thread a quote from a Supreme Court justice (or any justice, really) "that stated purpose for copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible".
Desperate troll is desperate.
Duly noted.BTW, if you actually read what you post, you'll realize that's not a Supreme Court justice.
Correct le is Massachusetts Circuit Court Justice.
I was talking about this statement:Sorry you don't like what Justice Woodbury says.
There's no need to get depressed for being wrong, IMO.
So what you're saying is that you didn't mean what you wrote. If you didn't mean that perhaps next time you shouldn't write it. Then there would be nothing to correct!
I still don't see a copyright mandate or law that states that the purpose of it is to make intellectual property tangible (unlike the Copyright mandate that I posted, which clearly doesn't establish such purpose).To wit:
just lol wow.
Oh wait, you really didn't mean what you wrote.
So the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws isn't to make intellectual property tangible. Got it.
Justice Woodbury isn't wrong, he's just not saying what you think he's saying.
What Justice Woodbury is saying is that Intellectual Property should be afforded similar protections (through copyright law) that tangible property is afforded through other laws. That they're comparable, doesn't mean they're actually equal (from a legal standpoint, they're certainly not) and ultimately, it's irrelevant to the point at hand, since it doesn't addresses the actual purpose of Copyright, which is clearly established in the Cons ution.
This ElNono vs Blake is Epic!
Lamar Smith is lucky he didn't pass the law that would shut down his own website! Busted!
http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith...right-violator
True, it's scientifically impossible.So the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws isn't to make intellectual property tangible. Got it.
Keep tooting your horn over that victory.
I think the metaphor comparing IP to tangible property is crystal clear. I also think the explanation I copied/pasted explains what I really meant to say works fine as well.Justice Woodbury isn't wrong, he's just not saying what you think he's saying.
What Justice Woodbury is saying is that Intellectual Property should be afforded similar protections (through copyright law) that tangible property is afforded through other laws. That they're comparable, doesn't mean they're actually equal (from a legal standpoint, they're certainly not) and ultimately, it's irrelevant to the point at hand, since it doesn't addresses the actual purpose of Copyright, which is clearly established in the Cons ution.
If you want to read it a different way, at this point it would not shock me.
Troll be trolling.Not trolling, IMO (maybe a bit, but you can't play saint here either)
Will doTrue, it's scientifically impossible.
Keep tooting your horn over that victory.
How can someone with over 40,000 posts be considered a TRoll?
I lost respect for you esse.
Will do
I shall edit my 2012 political poster of the month list.
Catching me saying that copyright law can perform God-like magic was neat.Will do
Please do.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...r-good/242853/
Next up: It's as bad as (maybe worse than) SOPA.
pick some issue that is morally so urgent and overpowering, that Congress is willing to throw the cons ution under a bus, and voters will applaud them for it.
Like terrorism or child molestation.
throwing rights away is very dangerous territory, folks
hopefully some of our judges still have their heads screwed on straight
Makes me ing sick that these pieces of would actually use the "child molestation" card to try and convince people to pass this useless, intrusive, legislation.
"Protect the children" has always been the avenue to cram like this through. Sad, but frankly, what can we do?
Some things definitely go overboard, like innocent family photos of naked kids. I wonder how a screening of the 1963 movie Cleopatra would go over these days?
it would flop again. how is the dvd doing?
piss and moan about it the rest of our lives, most likely
I don't know, but I watched it on Netfix a few weeks ago. In the 60's, there was no immoral thoughts of showing naked babies. , I even remember seeing... was it National Geographic program... showing topless women, on regular broadcast TV.
As I think about it, it was the 1959 movie Solomon and Sheba I watched that had Sheba's newborn child shown naked.
I like to watch those classic movies at times. Netflix is great for that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
