reginaldjcooper

Just be careful to not change your user-agent when doing this one, otherwise you would be committing a felony.

Apple's fucking emoticons. I had to jailbreak and install a whitelist specifically because of the emoticon SMS spam.

I did not know that. I still stand by nullification as a possible solution to marijuana possession charges or the more egregious "excessive downloading" felonies. But it would be horrific to watch it used by twelve racists to free actual murderers :(

Can you add "jury nullification" to the mass emails also? That's what I tell my friends and family about.

Evolution is so in line with reality, scientists have already made correct predictions about transitional fossils and where they would be found. The only choices are belief in evolution or rejection of reality.

Your example proves the exact opposite of what you think; natural selection works as we suspect. The environment changed, the creatures best suited for the new environment will survive.

> An analogy is not an equivalence. Please learn the difference.

It's an appeal to emotion by comparing it with something so different it barely makes sense, if you prefer to argue from emotion instead of reason, then by all means. Preventing you from emailing a .pdf or .mp3 is nothing like taking away all your basic human rights, treating you like you are subhuman, and forcing you to labor in the fields.

What rights should an author have with their work, then? When have you wanted to, but were unable to, share information that wasn't just "I want it for free"?

EDIT: Reflecting on it, this sounds confrontational, but I genuinely wish to know how copyright is impacting you. I hate all the patent trolls, I hate the patent system, I hate copyright trolls, so maybe I hate the copyright system as well, and just don't know yet.

What he did was unethical. But the idea that connecting to a URL you changed on a hunch could ever be a felony is outrageous.

Imagine if it had been comics published online. Because the server refuses to interact with your Chrome browser, you tell the website you are an IE. Because the "next" button is small, you use keyboard shortcuts to change the URL and view the next one. Without realizing it, you view a handful that weren't released yet. That's now a felony with a court precedent.

Physical analogies do not work regarding the internet. What happened is like he was given an address, he drove to it in a van, and a screen showed him his email. Then, he extrapolated that the buildings in the block he went to would do something similar, so he drove around to them in a car labeled 'VAN' and they showed emails.

First of all, it's completely ridiculous to compare copyright with slavery.

You were never going to express yourself in exactly that manner, so from a practical standpoint copyright isn't preventing you from doing anything at all. It's a good compromise; how else do we prevent publishers and software companies from grabbing up indie work and selling it without compensating the creator? I don't understand being totally against copyright.

The area where it's going wrong is that Disney and the labels have big interests in extending copyright to ridiculous lengths and strengthening it to the extent that it's an anchor dragging behind any startup that wants to compete in that industry. We should be able to share movies and books with our friends and families. In their perfect world, every viewer would pay a fee for every viewing.

Wasting man-years on reimplementing software is not a large enough problem to decide that authors no longer have any rights with their product.

I'd advise against it; the converse, pretending to the server that you are accessing from a mobile device, is apparently a felony.

That's a smokescreen. It's much better for the masses to be arguing over gay marriage than coming together and figuring out that maybe tax cuts for the wealthy were a bad idea after all.