SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
takyon
on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If you didn't get caught, did you really do it?
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @04:23PM
Like I said, that was the case with slavery, too. There were large financial liabilities associated with slavery in the South. That fact doesn't justify slavery.
Moral standing is everything in this discussion. Otherwise, it's just an example of "Those who own the guns make the rules".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:59AM
Like I said, that was the case with slavery, too. There were large financial liabilities associated with slavery in the South.
The financial liabilities of violating IP law scale with profit. If I make a billion dollars by illegally selling a song for which I don't have the copyright, I can be fined for the full amount of my profit and then some. That renders the effort unprofitable except for those with little to seize by a court. Meanwhile early 19th century slavers just had to cover the costs of their holdings. They were quite profitable.
That fact doesn't justify slavery.
If you're looking for a justification for slavery, you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't care about it since it is completely off topic and irrelevant.
Moral standing is everything in this discussion.
Of course, it's not.
Otherwise, it's just an example of "Those who own the guns make the rules".
And this is why. The rules were made by people with guns. Since, we have the example of the latter, we don't need to care whether it is an example of the former "moral standing" category.