no, YOU'RE off topic
- Member for
- 3 years 16 weeks
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Sheeeeeiit. That's all you||
Sheeeeeiit. That's all you had to say.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||"Turnover-forcing." You keep||
"Turnover-forcing." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
|1 year 44 weeks ago||I'd say these first five||
I'd say these first five minutes took the chances from 2-10%.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||8 year olds, Dude.||
8 year olds, Dude.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Nicely done, sir.||
Nicely done, sir.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||http://www.hulu.com/watch/353|
|2 years 46 weeks ago||Illusions, dad. You don't||
Illusions, dad. You don't have time for my illusions.
|2 years 47 weeks ago||Everything's fine||
Advanced Metrics are useful, but not perfect. Satire is funny, even when the position it's arguing for isn't as strong as the position it's arguing against. Everything's fine.
|2 years 49 weeks ago||More NW perspective from||
More NW perspective from Wilbon:
|2 years 50 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|3 years 3 days ago||There were horses, and a man||
There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
|3 years 3 days ago||Yea, I stabbed a man in the||
Yea, I stabbed a man in the heart.
|3 years 3 days ago||Auburn message board||
Looks pretty fishy to me. The sources are flimsy, but I'm guessing this is where he got 12 EST from.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Kinsella puts forth an||
Kinsella puts forth an interesting argument. It seems to me, though, that a system for protection of IP based solely on contract would be a less efficient (more easily circumvented) way of accomplishing the same thing. If you're worried about semantics, I'm fine with not calling it intellectual property- it's not property and it's not scarce. (Jefferson and tapers and so on).
The idea is that we, as a society, want these things to exist. Without copyright, patent, trademark, etc..., authors, artists, and technologists have little incentive to create. I think we can agree that the current system fails in matching the required amount of incentive with the actual costs an author or technologist incurs in creating, but we do want art and music and technological progress, and we do need to incentivize their production.
Posner and Landes: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html
"Where widespread distribution is necessary to generate an adequate return to the author or where the work is resold or publicly performed, contractual prohibitions may not prevent widespread copying. Thus, the greater the potential market for a work, the greater the need for copyright protection."
Bill Patry on the matching problem: http://volokh.com/author/bill-patry/
|3 years 2 weeks ago||I know I'm not reading the chi of the board very well, but...||
This is not true. SOPA and PIPA require a threshold showing that the targeted site is dedicated to infringement. They do not enact a new notice and takedown system. A trivial instance of infringement (or several) will not meet that burden. These provisions should be tightened, as reddit argues, but even in their current state they would not allow for a slope as slippery as the one you (or they) describe.
I don't think SOPA/PIPA should be passed in their current form, mostly because all they do is provide new remedies- they do nothing to alter the current (problematic) system of liability.
You don't need to mischaracterize the bills, as so many have, to convince people that we can do better.
The following links are from a well-regarded pro-copyright blog written by a recent law school grad. I don't completely agree with his take, but he's done a reasonably faithful job of breaking down the bills. The truth probably lies somewhere in between the popular account and what he's arguing for here. If you're already convinced about SOPA (and about this post), I don't want you to get any more angry and yell "Internet Death" at me. You've got this one figured out, so go ahead and skip the links.
If you've got any interest in reading a discussion of the bills not provided by reddit, google, or wikipedia, well then you might want to give it a shot. Above all, please read the bills.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Is rivalrous-ness the core of property rights?|
|3 years 2 weeks ago||http://www.raizecollective.co|
|3 years 2 weeks ago||"Horrieous use of TOs"||
"Horrieous use of TOs"
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Novak's Dunk: Beast Mode||
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Well, we didn't make it easy||
Well, we didn't make it easy on ourselves but we kept fighting.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING ME||
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING ME
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Embed|
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Your Timeouts can't save you||
Your Timeouts can't save you from Novak
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Novak!||
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Please don't give up a three||
Please don't give up a three out of the timeout.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||THJ really steppin up.||
THJ really steppin up. If we don't start playing hard on defense he's gonna need to go truly HAM for us to pull this one out.
Encouraging news on Horford today. With Smot, Novak, and Morgan in perpetual foul trouble (even at home apparently), and McLimans being McLimans, we could really use Horford down the home stretch.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||MOAR Vogrich, less McLimans.||
MOAR Vogrich, less McLimans.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||He meant both those guys-||
He meant both those guys- Brian is nothing if not rational and knows this roster like the back of his hand. I'm thinkin he probably wants the best odds.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||From UMhoops: Perhaps||
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Nice effort. Need to get||
Nice effort. Need to get Timmy hittin his threes again, this is a rough slump.