3 ms·

What this demonstrates: Years of unethical, overtly extortionary and often illegal copyright trolling isn't enough to trigger disbarment. (Not even criminal cha

What this demonstrates: Years of unethical, overtly extortionary and often illegal copyright trolling isn't enough to trigger disbarment. (Not even criminal charges but a loss of license. In one state.) It's years of copyright trolling so incompetent that judges began pushing back. Plus another period of angering those judges with non-compliance. What this hints at: When copyright is on the table, unethical, extortionary and illegal trolling usually flies just fine.

codedokode 3y ago
The whole system where a person can lose a license and permission to work for arbitrary reasons is unfair. The license should prove that the person has necessary knowledge and should not be used as a mean to punish someone for his views or for being too smart to profit from unfair laws. If you want to punish people, there is criminal code.
- cvoss 3y ago
  Knowledge of how to do X isn't the only relevant qualification for being licensed to do X. In fact, I'd argue it's not even the primary qualification. Something else underlies it: the ability to be trusted to do X without causing damage or harm. Take an example from another licensed practice: operating a vehicle on public roads. Knowledge, skill, and being of age are enough to elicit an initial trust from your local authorities. But if you violate that trust by, say, willfully disregarding a red light, your license may be revoked, not because you forgot what red lights mean, or because you stopped being skilled at using your brakes, but because your holding of this license is now demonstrated to be a threat to public safety. The objective of a licensing system is to protect others from harm before it happens. The threat of losing a license is a good deterrent, and better, often, than the threat of criminal punishment, precisely because it's easier to invoke. (You called it "for arbitrary reasons", which is false, by the way.)
- noSyncCloud 3y ago
  >arbitrary reasons Uhh... Did we read the same article?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

codedokode 3y ago

The whole system where a person can lose a license and permission to work for arbitrary reasons is unfair. The license should prove that the person has necessary knowledge and should not be used as a mean to punish someone for his views or for being too smart to profit from unfair laws. If you want to punish people, there is criminal code.

cvoss 3y ago
Knowledge of how to do X isn't the only relevant qualification for being licensed to do X. In fact, I'd argue it's not even the primary qualification. Something else underlies it: the ability to be trusted to do X without causing damage or harm. Take an example from another licensed practice: operating a vehicle on public roads. Knowledge, skill, and being of age are enough to elicit an initial trust from your local authorities. But if you violate that trust by, say, willfully disregarding a red light, your license may be revoked, not because you forgot what red lights mean, or because you stopped being skilled at using your brakes, but because your holding of this license is now demonstrated to be a threat to public safety. The objective of a licensing system is to protect others from harm before it happens. The threat of losing a license is a good deterrent, and better, often, than the threat of criminal punishment, precisely because it's easier to invoke. (You called it "for arbitrary reasons", which is false, by the way.)
noSyncCloud 3y ago
>arbitrary reasons Uhh... Did we read the same article?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]