Just wait until someone implements ".con", the pure phishing TLD. "Click here [www.microsoft.con] to get your latest Windows update!"

For what it's worth, the results as of right now have over 40% of Slashdotters being developers. Only 22% chose the "something else" option, which would include all the people you listed.

Actually, copyright can also cover artistic logos as well. The case involves copying a logo image, as opposed to, for example, creating a similar logo in order to confuse customers, which would definitely put it into the realm of trademark law.

I just checked to see if that's also disabled on the crazy lady's site, but apparently the site is now dead— along with her other ones. That's pretty funny.

I discovered it years ago. Unfortunately, my laptop doesn't have a middle button (and the both buttons simultaneously trick doesn't work on mine).

Normally I have an external mouse and keyboard attached to my laptop, but right now I've got my work laptop here and the mouse and keyboard are connected to it, and I'm Slashdotting on my home laptop. Although I'm starting to bring my laptop home frequently enough that it's worth my while to just install Synergy and share the keyboard, but I haven't done that yet.

I'm thinking of changing mine to "Honeypot". That outta make somebody think twice before trying to get in.

I love (in the ironic sense) when websites do that sort of thing. I was trying to do the right-click "open in new tab" to check out one of the links she provided without leaving her site, but got the ridiculous "respect copyright" message. I even tried copy/pasting the link, but the page doesn't allow highlighting of text either. So I had no choice but to leave her site (and I won't return).

You're confused about her claim. She's not going after Petapixel for using the same photo that she used, she's going after Petapixel for using the image of her "Schwager Consulting" logo. She definitely owns the rights to that.

Your argument is exactly right. The problem is that Topolsky should've had an argument like that. Instead, he just pressed on with his road analogy even after it had already failed to stop Emanual dead in his tracks, as he apparently assumed that it would.

Interesting link about Google's filtering of child pornography. Someone should tell Topolsky about that, because even in his follow-up blog post where he finally presented the coherent argument that he should have brought to the debate with Emanual, he claimed that Google only filters child pornography out of their auto-complete suggestions, not their search results. The link you provided says that they do much more than that.

In all fairness, he said many things just to get a laugh, and that was one of them. Another comment he made just a minute earlier, which was also made for a laugh, was actually even more interesting. The guy in the audience said "why isn't anyone in TV seeing that writing on the wall", and Ari responded "listen, nobody said any of us guys down south are geniuses."

Music will always be recorded, whether it's profitable or not. It's a promotional tool.

If there were no recordings of music, you'd have a chicken/egg conundrum. Nobody comes to your shows because they've never heard you, and they've never heard you because they've never been to one of your shows. People need to hear the music somewhere to become interested in it in the first place and want to go see the band live. To hear it, it needs to be recorded.

Even if recordings reach the point of never being sold and only given away, bands will still invest in them, just as they invest in any other promotional material. Besides, it's fun. I record stuff just because I want to, and I don't even give it away, let alone sell it. I don't need the promise of riches to make me want to make an album.

And that pretty much sums up the argument that Topolsky should've brought with him, rather than fumbling over his road analogy after it had already died in its tracks.

In the video I watched, Emanual absolutely had a counter argument.

Topolsky said "they (Google) aren't policemen, they don't police things" and Emanual responded "no, they decide when they want to police something and when they don't want to". He went on to discuss how Google is actively filtering child pornography, but refuses to actively filter copyright infringement. Topolsky had no response to that other than to mutter "I don't know" and then go back to the road analogy and talk about tearing up the road. However, using his analogy, Emanual was not arguing that the road be torn up, just that since the road is already being policed for one bad thing, then it should also be policed for other bad things.

The argument that Topolsky should have brought was that, first of all, Google doesn't filter child pornography, so Emanual's premise is wrong. Secondly, child pornography is always illegal (at least in the U.S where this debate was occurring), so any instance of child pornography is, by definition, an instance of illegal child pornography, whereas an instance of downloaded content is not necessarily an instance of illegally downloaded content, so the filtering is different. Basically, the nature of the content in question is that it must be self-policed.

There is no general correlation between a weak argument and being not wrong (or a strong argument, for that matter). There is just the fact that in this particular instance, the argument presented was a weak attempt to make a particular point. And while others are criticizing Emanual for simply bullying in response, if you listen, he actually made an argument in response which Topolsky failed to counter, despite it also being a weak argument.

I watched the video. I don't agree with Emanuel's perspective, and I hate to say this, but Topolsky got his ass handed to him. He presented a weak argument, and Emanual ripped it apart. Topolsky's not wrong, he just failed to bring a decent argument, and was basically laughed out of the room.