Thread: News Week photo of Sarah Palin--Sexist or not?

Originally Posted by Slon

But there is. Stealing takes the physical property away from someone. Copying copies it without taking it away. They are fundamentally different in reality and covered by different types of laws legally.

What's your point?

From what I've read, copyright infringement is almost always only civil when there is only a download involved. However, shoplifting and similar crimes that have actual theft occurring (like burglaries and robberies), even without distribution, almost always have a criminal component (in addition to any civil violations).

The government requires that there be willful distribution (at least) and/or financial gain before a criminal case is brought. It's easy to see where this likely comes from. copyright infringement, unlike traditional theft, does not involve "stealing" in the traditional sense, but uses copying.

Slon, seriously, argue the semantics all you want, I really don't care...

Originally Posted by Steve

Slon, seriously, argue the semantics all you want, I really don't care...

This goes back to your earlier post:

It has to do with one magazine having such pathetic editorial standards that they would either steal a photograph from another magazine or, the best case scenario, they're unable to come up with an original idea.

Basically, copyright infringement isn't theft and it's not wrong, so I don't consider them "pathetic" for doing it. And if Palin told them to "fuck off," then they obviously couldn't take a picture of her themselves, now could they? In other words, in order to acquire this photograph, they could:

1. Pay for it and copy it into their magazines.
2. Hire a photographer to take it again and copy it into their magazines. May not be possible if Palin disagrees.
3. Copy an existing photograph into their magazines.

The third option, which would presumably be the most copyright-infringing one, would yield the same result as the other two (with perhaps minor variations in the second option), but would greatly cut costs. So, I don't consider them to be pathetic for that.

Originally Posted by Slon

Basically, copyright infringement isn't theft and it's not wrong, so I don't consider them "pathetic" for doing it.

That one sentence, and those few highlighted words, are all anyone needs to conclude that you really have no clue. None at all.

Copyright infringement is wrong, and I have two court judgements in my favor which tell me it is. I'll accept those outcomes before I accept anything you might have to say.

So, remain utterly fucking clueless; Not like it'll be the first time...

Originally Posted by Slon

This goes back to your earlier post:

It has to do with one magazine having such pathetic editorial standards that they would either steal a photograph from another magazine or, the best case scenario, they're unable to come up with an original idea.

Basically, copyright infringement isn't theft and it's not wrong, so I don't consider them "pathetic" for doing it. And if Palin told them to "fuck off," then they obviously couldn't take a picture of her themselves, now could they? In other words, in order to acquire this photograph, they could:

1. Pay for it and copy it into their magazines.
2. Hire a photographer to take it again and copy it into their magazines. May not be possible if Palin disagrees.
3. Copy an existing photograph into their magazines.

The third option, which would presumably be the most copyright-infringing one, would yield the same result as the other two (with perhaps minor variations in the second option), but would greatly cut costs. So, I don't consider them to be pathetic for that.

Slon, this is a really stupid post, even for you. If copyright infringement wasn't wrong, why would we bother to have copyright laws to begin with? Here's some info for you:
U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

Originally Posted by Steve

So, your position is that, since no one is identifiable right now as a potential viable candidate, Palin must be the one.

Got it.

Explain to me how that's an intelligent conclusion...

Well, why don't you tell me who they ARE going to vote for then

Go ahead, name one, I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Steve

I don't recall too many people doing that. The people talking about her being a heartbeat away from the Presidency were libs. Could you provide some examples of conservatives "touting her as the nation's savior"? I'd really like to see some of those.

I don't base my vote on who the VP candidate is on a ticket. I vote for who the Presidential candidate is. Period.

Rriiighhtt

Since she's run and lost and SINCE been revealed as a goddam idiot, well, you guys never really liked her in the first place.

Sour Governors anyone??

Originally Posted by John Drake

Well, why don't you tell me who they ARE going to vote for then

Go ahead, name one, I'll wait.

I don't know.

But I know it won't be Palin.

You and your fellow libs seem to believe that, since we're not saying "It'll be this guy", it has to be Palin. The ignorance of taking such a position is deep.

You guys don't seem to let that stop you, though...

Rriiighhtt

Since she's run and lost and SINCE been revealed as a goddam idiot, well, you guys never really liked her in the first place.

Sour Governors anyone??

So now we've gone from touting her as some savior to "never really liked"?

Pick an argument and stick with it. It'll make you look like you're someone worth having a discussion with.

Now, I asked you to back up your statement, and you've failed. I honestly didn't expect you to be that pathetically inept.

Let's see if you'll opt to continue to be inept:

Could you provide some examples of conservatives "touting her as the nation's savior"? I'd really like to see some of those.

Thanks so much...

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Slon, this is a really stupid post, even for you. If copyright infringement wasn't wrong, why would we bother to have copyright laws to begin with? Here's some info for you:
U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

Slon is, near as I can figure, a follower of Max Stirner. Never thought I'd actually find a real one. I don't believe even Stirner took himself seriously.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Slon, this is a really stupid post, even for you. If copyright infringement wasn't wrong, why would we bother to have copyright laws to begin with? Here's some info for you:
U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

Are you serious? Are you actually implying that the US government only makes laws against things because they are wrong? Does this mean you agree with every single US law ever passed?

I'm curious, then. Is it wrong to produce, sell and consume alcoholic beverages? At one point, Prohibition existed in the US. Then it stopped existing. Did it stop being wrong or something? Did it start being right?

Originally Posted by Steve

That one sentence, and those few highlighted words, are all anyone needs to conclude that you really have no clue. None at all.

Copyright infringement is wrong, and I have two court judgements in my favor which tell me it is.

Court judgments determine what is legal and what is illegal, not what is right and what is wrong.

I'll accept those outcomes before I accept anything you might have to say.

Can you answer the question I addressed to Mrs. M? Do you agree with every law that currently exists?

So, remain utterly fucking clueless; Not like it'll be the first time...

Once again, the courts decide legality (and sometimes matter of fact), not morality.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Slon is, near as I can figure, a follower of Max Stirner. Never thought I'd actually find a real one. I don't believe even Stirner took himself seriously.

Sorry, I don't know that much about him.

Originally Posted by Steve

I don't know.

But I know it won't be Palin.

You and your fellow libs seem to believe that, since we're not saying "It'll be this guy", it has to be Palin. The ignorance of taking such a position is deep.

You guys don't seem to let that stop you, though...



So now we've gone from touting her as some savior to "never really liked"?

Pick an argument and stick with it. It'll make you look like you're someone worth having a discussion with.

Now, I asked you to back up your statement, and you've failed. I honestly didn't expect you to be that pathetically inept.

Let's see if you'll opt to continue to be inept:

Could you provide some examples of conservatives "touting her as the nation's savior"? I'd really like to see some of those.

Thanks so much...

So lemme see, you guys are just going to write in "some conservative, but not Palin" in 2012

And I could probably find articles where John McCain said she would make a great President. I mean, I really do think he had to have actually said it ONCE but since you've decided to "win" the argument by your usual method of turning into Captain Literal and demanding I supply you with the exact words I used as a rhetorical example, well what's the use anyway

Originally Posted by Slon

Are you serious? Are you actually implying that the US government only makes laws against things because they are wrong? Does this mean you agree with every single US law ever passed?

I'm curious, then. Is it wrong to produce, sell and consume alcoholic beverages? At one point, Prohibition existed in the US. Then it stopped existing. Did it stop being wrong or something? Did it start being right?

Court judgments determine what is legal and what is illegal, not what is right and what is wrong.


Can you answer the question I addressed to Mrs. M? Do you agree with every law that currently exists?


Once again, the courts decide legality (and sometimes matter of fact), not morality.

I'm done indulging the ignorance which permeates your posts, Slon.

"Right" and "wrong" is subjective. "Legal" and "illegal" are not. Often. "wrong" and "illegal" endup being shared attributes.

When someone downloads and uses one of my photos without my permission, that's illegal, and I go after them. Usually, the offender knows what he has done and is quick to provide compensation. Then there are people like you, who end up getting dragged into court by people like me, because they think that their moraltiy should rule the day.

And they leave being informed otherwise...

Originally Posted by John Drake

So lemme see, you guys are just going to write in "some conservative, but not Palin" in 2012

And I could probably find articles where John McCain said she would make a great President. I mean, I really do think he had to have actually said it ONCE but since you've decided to "win" the argument by your usual method of turning into Captain Literal and demanding I supply you with the exact words I used as a rhetorical example, well what's the use anyway

Drake, if this argument is to be "won", then I've already done so, and I've done so thanks to the arguments that you've offered. I didn't have to "beat" you, you beat yourself. You continue to promote this idiotic idea that Palin is going to be the nominee because conservatives aren't saying who will be the nominee.

You said that conservatives saw her as some sort of savior, yet you've been a complete failure at showing a single instance of that happening.

Libs need to believe that Palin is going to be the nominee, only because libs truly believe that Palin is probably the only conservative that Obama could hope to beat following his ass-fucking of the country.

As I've said, I hope liberals continue to be ignorant enough to keep doing that...

Originally Posted by Slon

Sorry, I don't know that much about him.

Yet another example of Drake speaking without the benefit of knowing what he's talk about.

Color me unsurprised...