Kim Dotcom laying smack down on Obama, Biden, etc

[3rdnlng]

 

 

I'm still waiting for him to explain the US involvement in Syria which is prolonging the civil war.

 

Once he's done that hard hitting research then he can answer you

 

Do you always have to be so skeptical? JTSP had Tom on "ignore", how would you expect him to know what the Big Whiffer is thinking?

[truth on hold]

 

Doesn't matter where they're headquartered. They used US based infrastructure to move bits and bytes.

US has the ability to restrict access to any server anywhere in the world they want.

[4merper4mer]

Quite the opposite, actually. Open-source, and free-to-use shells with fee for additional service is the future. Markets respond quickly.

 

 

Actually, the current model is why we have long-term treatment solutions being developed rather than cures. It incentivizes keeping people sick in order to turn a perpetual profit on the maintenence of their medical issues. Revove that incentive, and you'll see a shift in business models.

 

From each according to their software writing medicine developing abilities....to each according to good f'in luck.

Edited May 9, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Yes, there's no cure for cancer or aids because it's more profitable to find the treatment than the cure.

 

I don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics because laws and precedent are on my side. Genius deserves to be rewarded and protected from pretenders, who do nothing but regurgitate crap they read and think they're savants.

Congratulations on your fallacious apeal to tradition. In continued defense of your position I expect you to embrace... Well... Pretty much every other single current US domestic policy.

 

 

 

From each according to their software writing medicine developing abilities....to each according to good f'in luck.

Says the guy lauding an artificial, government imposed monopoly on production.

[dayman]

Whaaa whaaa

[4merper4mer]

 

Says the guy lauding an artificial, government imposed monopoly on production.

 

Production? Nice.

 

And not allowing kids to steal tests is artificially inhibiting their ability to be the valedictorian right?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Production? Nice.

 

And not allowing kids to steal tests is artificially inhibiting their ability to be the valedictorian right?

Theft applies to tangible goods, not thoughts. Again, I haven't stolen anything by making the decision not to buy.

 

What you are talking about is imposing an artifically created government sanctioned monopoly; which is anti-capitalistic in every way imaginable.

[GG]

Theft applies to tangible goods, not thoughts. Again, I haven't stolen anything by making the decision not to buy.

 

What you are talking about is imposing an artifically created government sanctioned monopoly; which is anti-capitalistic in every way imaginable.

Please explain this monopoly thing you're talking about.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Please explain this monopoly thing you're talking about.

...

 

Natural scarcity is the single condition that led to the rise of, and continues to nessecitate, property rights. That scarcity is the thing that determines a natural market value.

 

What you describe is artificially created scarcity for the purpose of price fixing without competition. Or, a monopoly.

Edited May 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[4merper4mer]

...

 

Natural scarcity is the single condition that led to the rise of, and continues to nessecitate, property rights. That scarcity is the thing that determines a natural market value.

 

What you describe is articicially created scarcity for the purpose of price fixing without competition. Or, a monopoly.

 

You sound like a college kid reading from a book and repeating it.

 

Why should a teacher have a monopoly on the test material he or she thought up? That is an unfair monopoly. The teacher attempts to create scarcity by using an artificial monopoly to hold the information until test day. Taking the material from the teacher's computer is merely righting a wrong. Thus everyone gets 100 on every test, gets free music, software and medicine and we are all happy every day and we can join Mensa too because we're geniuses because we got 100 every time.

[TakeYouToTasker]

You sound like a college kid reading from a book and repeating it.

 

Why should a teacher have a monopoly on the test material he or she thought up? That is an unfair monopoly. The teacher attempts to create scarcity by using an artificial monopoly to hold the information until test day. Taking the material from the teacher's computer is merely righting a wrong. Thus everyone gets 100 on every test, gets free music, software and medicine and we are all happy every day and we can join Mensa too because we're geniuses because we got 100 every time.

That's... that's not only a terrible and invalid comparison, but it's also quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[4merper4mer]

That's... that's not only a terrible and invalid comparison, but it's also quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

 

b) You can't take someone else's book, or cd, or dvd without commiting a crime. Those are tangible goods. Making use of the intangible, however, is no crime at all.

 

It's not the fault of the consumer that the purveyors of art media have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.

 

It's not the fault of the test taker that the purveyors of tests have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's not the fault of the test taker that the purveyors of tests have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.

You can keep talking complete nonsense, taking things wildly out of context, and acting like a fool; but it won't change the poor construction of your argument, or the fact that you're wrong. Your failure to address what property rights are, the need for them, real vs. artificial scarcity, and monopoly is telling.

[4merper4mer]

You can keep talking complete nonsense, taking things wildly out of context, and acting like a fool; but it won't change the poor construction of your argument, or the fact that you're wrong. Your failure to address what property rights are, the need for them, real vs. artificial scarcity, and monopoly is telling.

 

It also won't change the license agreement on the outside of CDs describing how the "intangibles" they contain may and may not be used, nor the licenses signed and violated for source software nor the "monopolistic" patent laws that are laws nonetheless. If you want to debunk the analogy of the taking of intangible test material go ahead and debunk it.

 

Hint: "You're a big stupid head" is not a good argument.

[dayman]

What are you two even debating at this point?

[TakeYouToTasker]

It also won't change the license agreement on the outside of CDs describing how the "intangibles" they contain may and may not be used, nor the licenses signed and violated for source software nor the "monopolistic" patent laws that are laws nonetheless. If you want to debunk the analogy of the taking of intangible test material go ahead and debunk it.

 

Hint: "You're a big stupid head" is not a good argument.

This is the problem with the internet.

 

Every moron with an opinion thinks their horseshit needs to be thouroughly disected and comprehensively debunked via peer review before it can be declared invalid.

 

It appears that one of those morons doesn't realize that a) law /= moral, right or economically beneficial, and b) that shrink-wrap EULA's generally have not been held up in court.

Edited May 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[4merper4mer]

This is the problem with the internet.

 

Every moron with an opinion thinks their horseshit needs to be thouroughly disected and comprehensively debunked via peer review before it can be declared invalid.

 

It appears that one of those morons doesn't realize that a) law /= moral, right or economically beneficial, and b) that shrink-wrap EULA's generally have not been held up in court.

 

Let's see if I have this straight.

 

The test analogy is wrong because:

 

A - I'm a stupid head and

 

B - You think you're smart because you know the acronym EULA and have attempted to partially address one component of the argument with vague references and qualifiers like generally while ignoring the analogy completely. You have also managed to ignore the fact that not all EULAs are shrink wrap and the fact that patents and copyrights exist. But I forgot point A which is that I'm a stupid head.

[GG]

...

 

Natural scarcity is the single condition that led to the rise of, and continues to nessecitate, property rights. That scarcity is the thing that determines a natural market value.

 

What you describe is artificially created scarcity for the purpose of price fixing without competition. Or, a monopoly.

 

Now how does this bizarro definition fit within the application of monopoly in copyright violations of US laws?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Now how does this bizarro definition fit within the application of monopoly in copyright violations of US laws?

So... your argument is that US copyright laws exist in their current form, and therefore any philisophical arguments naming these laws as bad are invalid?

 

That logic seems suspect terrible.

 

Let's see if I have this straight.

 

The test analogy is wrong because:

 

A - I'm a stupid head and

 

B - You think you're smart because you know the acronym EULA and have attempted to partially address one component of the argument with vague references and qualifiers like generally while ignoring the analogy completely. You have also managed to ignore the fact that not all EULAs are shrink wrap and the fact that patents and copyrights exist. But I forgot point A which is that I'm a stupid head.

If you can't figure out on your own why the test analogy is bad, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

 

You also can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that just because a law exists doesn't make it a good, wise, or just law.

Edited May 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

So... your argument is that US copyright laws exist in their current form, and therefore any philisophical arguments naming these laws as bad are invalid?

 

That logic seems suspect terrible.

 

 

No, I'm trying to find out who's a monopoly in this case and who's engaging in monopolistic behavior? Speaking of moronic logic.