3 ms·
>following bureaucratic channels ...would have been slow and hence counterproductive. The courts will understand this to effectively be "we are a law unto ours
by lordlimecat 6y ago
>following bureaucratic channels ...would have been slow and hence counterproductive.
The courts will understand this to effectively be "we are a law unto ourselves". Those determinations are properly made by the mayor, governor, president, or legislative body-- not some random .org.
- shervinafshar 6y ago"random .org"? IA? That concludes our fun conversation from my point of view. We'll just have to wait and see.
- lordlimecat 6y agoYes, the IA has no special legal, regulatory, or advisory rights that i am aware of, which makes it in the eyes of the court just another .org. Whatever special role you or I think it plays in the world has zero bearing on the outcome of this case.
- shervinafshar 6y agoYou made your point very clear. Regretfully, I can not agree with your fervent enthusiasm for the law of the land in this case that this is an obvious and open-and-shut case of illegal conduct that one might very much want it to appear. This is based on the assessments of experts such as the Copyright Office on the case and the nuances reflected in it. As I said, we'll have to wait and see. I do look forward to it. In the mean time these are the tiny actions I'll be taking in support of IA (1) I double my donations to the IA and match donations of any friends and acquaintances, (2) the four conglomerate publishers are boycotted until further notice. And remember, the Internet always finds a way, if its short history has taught us anything.