37 ms·

The Democrats have long been best friends with the Entertainment Industry, but so what? The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex th

by cjensen 14y ago

The Democrats have long been best friends with the Entertainment Industry, but so what? The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex than pizza. He can suggest, plead, and implore, but someone else has to actually take the responsibility for the action and order something to occur. This is a discussion, not a Court of Law, so let me state my view clearly: Kim Dotcom created an extensive enterprise aimed specifically at violating copyrights while attempting to shield the enterprise with the minimum amount of "compliance" they could get away with. It's entirely possibly that his corporation broke no laws. Regardless of his possible legal innocence, the speculations of a sleezy businessman like Dotcom regarding the integrity of the Vice President is unworthy of consideration.

Karunamon 14y ago
> the speculations of a sleezy businessman like Dotcom regarding the integrity of the Vice President is unworthy of consideration. Textbook ad hominem. His business practices are completely irrelevant to the questions of impropriety raised and the illegal conduct of the authorities involved.
- cjensen 14y ago
  Ad Hominem applies to facts and reproducible reasoning. It does not apply to mere slander. Name one serious question of illegal conduct raised by Dotcom.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    The raid carried out by NZ authorities was declared illegal by a judge, for one.. Furthermore, "Kim Dotcom is a $negative_thing" is an adhom no matter how you slice it, when the question is "Do his claims have any merit". He could be a mother-stabbing father-raper, claims are still supposed to be evaluated on their merit, not their speaker!
- scott_s 14y ago
  Logical fallacies are all that are going on here - all of the evidence that has been presented is highly circumstantial. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened.
mattmanser 14y ago
While I'm all for decrying corrupt business practices there are far more worthwhile targets out there like Goldman Sachs but they've bought political immunity and worse still this case clearly shows the ugly side of insidious corruption in American politics regardless of your views on Kim Dotcom. His worse crime seems to have been not paying off the politicians. And cheering that on from the sidelines seems an odd choice for a rallying call against legalized corruption.
- cjensen 14y ago
  Somewhere, the MPAA is watching people who want to liberalize copyright law. Watching them tarnish the reputation of the entire liberalization movement by publicly cheering on an sleazy businessman whose picture and life history are repugnant to those who are uninformed on this issue. The MPAA could not have picked a better person to play the villain if they tried. They are very, very pleased with this outcome.
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    > an sleazy businessman whose picture and life history are repugnant to those who are uninformed on this issue. Can you point to some posts of this nature? All I've seen from the "uninformed" so far is heaps of support. (Which I actually find pretty funny, because while Dotcom may have landed on the right side of things by chance this time, he does seem pretty repugnant.)
    - cjensen 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
      - unimpressive 14y ago
        I'm well aware, the bit about him being unable to buy land in New Zealand because he couldn't pass the "good character" test is my favorite. My point was that the only comments I've ever seen on the web were mostly siding with Dotcom. Unless of course your point is that Hollywood is trying to win the sort of people who don't post to online discussions, in which case you have a point.
sown 14y ago
> The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex than pizza. He can suggest, plead, and implore, but someone else has to actually take the responsibility for the action and order something to occur. Although officially the office only has a couple of duties, a modern US VP has a bunch of roles and powers that are not outside of the law but not spelled out. Really, modern US VPs are kinda like co-presidents. VPs now get included in cabinet meetings, do negotiations with Congress or more. Kennedy put LBJ in charge of the space program. Rockafeller headed certain judicial inquiries. Nixon, when he was VP, sat in on the National Security Council. So, when Biden talks, is that Obama talking? Maybe. > Kim Dotcom created an extensive enterprise aimed specifically at violating copyrights while attempting to shield the enterprise with the minimum amount of "compliance" they could get away with. It's entirely possibly that his corporation broke no laws. That's no different than what other companies do, now. Sometimes they won't even go that far. :) Anyways, if the words “Obedience to the law is liberty” means anything, that has to include our leaders, too.
- cjensen 14y ago
  > So, when Biden talks, is that Obama talking? Maybe. Your reasoning fails here. An ATTORNEY does not just guess at who is ordering him to do something. An Attorney only obey an order from the VP if someone he reports to ordered him to, in which case the person who ordered him owns the responsibility for the action. And since the action is hardly a secret, that person knows and owns the action.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - cjensen 14y ago
      I apologize for my abrasiveness. I meant only to disagree. Much of your reasoning was excellent and though I did not acknowledge it, I especially agree with the point that many in the executive branch would feel that an instruction from the VP is to be obeyed. I felt that this point was so strong, that it required rebuttal in the specific case of an Attorney receiving instruction.
epoxyhockey 14y ago
The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex than pizza. Having the tie-breaking vote in the Senate is a very tangible power of the VPOTUS, especially when it is needed. I do agree that MU may be able to prove that it didn't break any laws, due to their minimal DMCA compliance. And, it is for that reason that higher powers in the US may have had to resort to illegal tactics to shut the website down. I also agree that Biden, if he was involved, would not actually take the responsibility for any actions. However, politicians are playing a game of public perception, and none of them want their names brought up when foul play is being exposed.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Ever since we decided that all senate votes are going to be 60-40, the vp's vote has become a lot less important.
- sxp 14y ago
  Tie-breaking votes haven't been used since the Carter administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast_by_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast...

by cjensen 14y ago

Karunamon 14y ago

> the speculations of a sleezy businessman like Dotcom regarding the integrity of the Vice President is unworthy of consideration. Textbook ad hominem. His business practices are completely irrelevant to the questions of impropriety raised and the illegal conduct of the authorities involved.

cjensen 14y ago
Ad Hominem applies to facts and reproducible reasoning. It does not apply to mere slander. Name one serious question of illegal conduct raised by Dotcom.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  The raid carried out by NZ authorities was declared illegal by a judge, for one.. Furthermore, "Kim Dotcom is a $negative_thing" is an adhom no matter how you slice it, when the question is "Do his claims have any merit". He could be a mother-stabbing father-raper, claims are still supposed to be evaluated on their merit, not their speaker!
scott_s 14y ago
Logical fallacies are all that are going on here - all of the evidence that has been presented is highly circumstantial. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened.

mattmanser 14y ago

While I'm all for decrying corrupt business practices there are far more worthwhile targets out there like Goldman Sachs but they've bought political immunity and worse still this case clearly shows the ugly side of insidious corruption in American politics regardless of your views on Kim Dotcom. His worse crime seems to have been not paying off the politicians. And cheering that on from the sidelines seems an odd choice for a rallying call against legalized corruption.

cjensen 14y ago
Somewhere, the MPAA is watching people who want to liberalize copyright law. Watching them tarnish the reputation of the entire liberalization movement by publicly cheering on an sleazy businessman whose picture and life history are repugnant to those who are uninformed on this issue. The MPAA could not have picked a better person to play the villain if they tried. They are very, very pleased with this outcome.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  > an sleazy businessman whose picture and life history are repugnant to those who are uninformed on this issue. Can you point to some posts of this nature? All I've seen from the "uninformed" so far is heaps of support. (Which I actually find pretty funny, because while Dotcom may have landed on the right side of things by chance this time, he does seem pretty repugnant.)
  - cjensen 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
    - unimpressive 14y ago
      I'm well aware, the bit about him being unable to buy land in New Zealand because he couldn't pass the "good character" test is my favorite. My point was that the only comments I've ever seen on the web were mostly siding with Dotcom. Unless of course your point is that Hollywood is trying to win the sort of people who don't post to online discussions, in which case you have a point.

sown 14y ago

> The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex than pizza. He can suggest, plead, and implore, but someone else has to actually take the responsibility for the action and order something to occur. Although officially the office only has a couple of duties, a modern US VP has a bunch of roles and powers that are not outside of the law but not spelled out. Really, modern US VPs are kinda like co-presidents. VPs now get included in cabinet meetings, do negotiations with Congress or more. Kennedy put LBJ in charge of the space program. Rockafeller headed certain judicial inquiries. Nixon, when he was VP, sat in on the National Security Council. So, when Biden talks, is that Obama talking? Maybe. > Kim Dotcom created an extensive enterprise aimed specifically at violating copyrights while attempting to shield the enterprise with the minimum amount of "compliance" they could get away with. It's entirely possibly that his corporation broke no laws. That's no different than what other companies do, now. Sometimes they won't even go that far. :) Anyways, if the words “Obedience to the law is liberty” means anything, that has to include our leaders, too.

cjensen 14y ago
> So, when Biden talks, is that Obama talking? Maybe. Your reasoning fails here. An ATTORNEY does not just guess at who is ordering him to do something. An Attorney only obey an order from the VP if someone he reports to ordered him to, in which case the person who ordered him owns the responsibility for the action. And since the action is hardly a secret, that person knows and owns the action.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - cjensen 14y ago
    I apologize for my abrasiveness. I meant only to disagree. Much of your reasoning was excellent and though I did not acknowledge it, I especially agree with the point that many in the executive branch would feel that an instruction from the VP is to be obeyed. I felt that this point was so strong, that it required rebuttal in the specific case of an Attorney receiving instruction.

epoxyhockey 14y ago

The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex than pizza. Having the tie-breaking vote in the Senate is a very tangible power of the VPOTUS, especially when it is needed. I do agree that MU may be able to prove that it didn't break any laws, due to their minimal DMCA compliance. And, it is for that reason that higher powers in the US may have had to resort to illegal tactics to shut the website down. I also agree that Biden, if he was involved, would not actually take the responsibility for any actions. However, politicians are playing a game of public perception, and none of them want their names brought up when foul play is being exposed.

tedunangst 14y ago
Ever since we decided that all senate votes are going to be 60-40, the vp's vote has become a lot less important.
sxp 14y ago
Tie-breaking votes haven't been used since the Carter administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast_by_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast...