i was going to post the Hapi Djus commercial from Eurotrip and ask Primo if that was what he saw

but it's really R Rated and would get banned

.... Nno + 12 1/4....

stupid caps filter has ruined my funneh stock market joke!

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/397951_3176123487893_1409777748_3376931_1813952499_n.jpg

even if I agreed that Company X couldn't stay in business with these changes, or that Companies X Y and Z couldn't stay in business with these changes, that still doesn't mean Companies A B and C couldnt be started up doing just fine with those restrictions.  That's the thinking that got us TARP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21OH0wlkfbc

Vada a cazzo, bored-o!

Nope.

The network is responsibile for its programming

The newspaper is responsible for its pages

In the world of personal property, the ship is responsible for its sealed cargo -- if DEA finds a sealed container on board a ship of 10,000 sealed containers it is the shipper who gets fined too

all these precedents are to be overturned regarding intellectual property because of two things?

1) web never has accepted this general liability responsibility and
2) it has been too cheap to budget for it

If that is true of all current providers, the tech remains independent of them and their heirs will be more careful.  Accepting the worse case scenario that we'll "kill" all their business.

You have no privacy posting through any other entity Einstein, you can be banned from each and every Internet service provider singly and separately if you violate their Terms of Service.  Your posts through their service are totally accessible to them as part of that service.  That same scrutiny which they assert over EVERY SINGLE USER for their own benefit can be legislated to protect property from theft.

Perhaps you are unaware but there are many who go further than you have gone, and I am saying this is not your position here, but there are many who say if the producer of IP wants to enjoy protection of property it is to blame for piracy because it charges too much, and its content is too easy to steal to blame anybody else, and they should pay all the costs of enforcement, and that will keep enforcement at a minimum, and anyhow who wants to get rid of all piracy cause you can't.

In the face of such anarchy we either preserve property or say "well your right to property must be conditional on the enjoyment of most people of the opportunity to steal it"  to say, the right of the farmer to his fields is conditional on the pleasure of the high school BMX club, and there must be a "balance"

I say no balance.  And it's that view not either of ours which is really mob rule.

The fact that technology makes it possible to upload BenHur onto a website for instantaneous viewing by 5 billion people doesn't throw the whole law of intellectual property onto its head.  It doesn't create a conundrum for the law, since, the exact same technology would allow me to dress like Cobra Commander and upload a tirade to a TV or radio station from my bedroom. 

They would not instantaneously broadcast it as soon as it hit their server.

They are responsible to impose a delay.

A TV or radio station that didn't accept that responsibility would be shut down.

Websites are NO DIFFERENT. 

Take every argument you've raised in defense of this wonderful new technology and its fragile billion-dollar companies.  Now pretend we're arguing about child porn.  Do they hold up? Why not--I only changed t he content not the medium or the legal responsibilities.

"Imagine having to have a judge examine all videos going onto youtube to prevent infringement..."  I can imagine interns viewing all of them before putting them up for viewing.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/409472_177032519064348_100002728039237_223010_1527640174_n.jpg

internet piracy should be stopped with internet hackers

Who's jim caldwell

your credibility isn't helped by your animated gif of a fox drinking water while a bear dances