4 ms·

Last i checked rosa parks did something illegal too. Not all laws need to be followed. And just because some people will beleive anything doesnt make this bel

by waheoo 6y ago

Last i checked rosa parks did something illegal too. Not all laws need to be followed. And just because some people will beleive anything doesnt make this belief any less relevant or important.

phkahler 6y ago
Rosa Park took a personal risk. People at IA are risking the archive.
sukilot 6y ago
No, she didn't! Rosa Parks launched a boycott to protest a bus system that was so racist that even the horrific Jim Crow laws weren't enough for bus drivers who kicked off black people (and police officers who arrested them) who had a legal right to their seats. Other protests broke the law with sit-ins.
- mburns 6y ago
  Rosa Parks was arrested and convicted for breaking a city law.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Dont bother, these people have no intention of coming back and changing their minds. They made them up long ago.
- justincredible 6y ago
  I agree with what she did, so it couldn't have been illegal.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
You may feel that the dismantling of copyright is an issue on par with civil rights. However, that sentiment is rare, and isn't supported by any plain reading of the constitution, unlike racial equality. IA's not going to be setting any precedents in the defense of the lawsuit. They are going to be handed a swift, expensive, and one-sided defeat.
- waheoo 6y ago
  The sentiment that blacks are equal was rare once too. I find your understanding of this rather contrived given that your constitution has nothing to do with me. Your ip laws on the other hand, well, they stretch far and wide around countries that would rather have nothing to do with you. I would prefer, if youre going to refute my claims, you at least acknowledge them. Like, the fact ip law had a net benefit to society when they were conceived. But have since been twisted and applied dishonestly. Can anyone tell me what the real damage would be if we limited copyright terms to one year? And what would be the real benefit to society at large to freely access information?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    What you're talking about isn't the same as what I'm talking about. I'm dealing with the idea that there's a precedent setting end to IA's decision. There isn't. They don't have a snowball's chance in a supernova of winning this case. It's was just dumb. Your concerns about the effect of America's IP laws is a totally different issue. Your government presumably either believes that IP law is a net benefit today, or else wants something else that america had enough to hold their nose and make a deal. There are some political steps you can take to try to reverse that scenario but I'm afraid IA's actions here have no bearing on that. They can't possibly help you at all. As to the rest of what you said, does it have merit? I don't know. What I do know is that IA will be worse off after this lawsuit is done.

by waheoo 6y ago

Last i checked rosa parks did something illegal too. Not all laws need to be followed. And just because some people will beleive anything doesnt make this belief any less relevant or important.

phkahler 6y ago

Rosa Park took a personal risk. People at IA are risking the archive.

sukilot 6y ago

No, she didn't! Rosa Parks launched a boycott to protest a bus system that was so racist that even the horrific Jim Crow laws weren't enough for bus drivers who kicked off black people (and police officers who arrested them) who had a legal right to their seats. Other protests broke the law with sit-ins.

mburns 6y ago
Rosa Parks was arrested and convicted for breaking a city law.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Dont bother, these people have no intention of coming back and changing their minds. They made them up long ago.
justincredible 6y ago
I agree with what she did, so it couldn't have been illegal.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

You may feel that the dismantling of copyright is an issue on par with civil rights. However, that sentiment is rare, and isn't supported by any plain reading of the constitution, unlike racial equality. IA's not going to be setting any precedents in the defense of the lawsuit. They are going to be handed a swift, expensive, and one-sided defeat.

waheoo 6y ago
The sentiment that blacks are equal was rare once too. I find your understanding of this rather contrived given that your constitution has nothing to do with me. Your ip laws on the other hand, well, they stretch far and wide around countries that would rather have nothing to do with you. I would prefer, if youre going to refute my claims, you at least acknowledge them. Like, the fact ip law had a net benefit to society when they were conceived. But have since been twisted and applied dishonestly. Can anyone tell me what the real damage would be if we limited copyright terms to one year? And what would be the real benefit to society at large to freely access information?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  What you're talking about isn't the same as what I'm talking about. I'm dealing with the idea that there's a precedent setting end to IA's decision. There isn't. They don't have a snowball's chance in a supernova of winning this case. It's was just dumb. Your concerns about the effect of America's IP laws is a totally different issue. Your government presumably either believes that IP law is a net benefit today, or else wants something else that america had enough to hold their nose and make a deal. There are some political steps you can take to try to reverse that scenario but I'm afraid IA's actions here have no bearing on that. They can't possibly help you at all. As to the rest of what you said, does it have merit? I don't know. What I do know is that IA will be worse off after this lawsuit is done.