Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 369 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#351

Post by jonny_eh »

_2d30 wrote: post #334
throwaway894345 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the parent’s objection to ISPs and copyright cartels is precisely that they are so frequently (and to such a large degree) unjust. FWIW, I don’t think the parent’s objection was subtle about that point, I’m frankly not sure how it was overlooked.

Frankly, I don't see how you can't parse that their point, as written, is "I'm on the side of bad guy A because bad guy B is worse than bad guy A" which is completely orthogonal to "A is in the right and B is in the wrong".

I said "allow it". It was mainly about my feelings. I can feel what I want. It also just so happens that Cox was in the right and Sony Music was in the wrong.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#352

Post by jibal »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #280
jibal wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize I'm in the minority but I side with whomever I think is right under the law, regardless of my (sometimes extreme) feelings about the parties and even about the law.

A case only reaches the Supreme Court if there is confusion over who is right under the law. The Supreme Court decision itself is not a definitive guide to which side is right under the law, as they’ve overturned themselves multiple times. So how do you decide which party to side with?

I just told you: I side with whomever I think is right under the law.

And your first sentence is not remotely true--or rather, it is quite conceptually confused. Whose "confusion" are you talking about? Not mine, generally. There are of course disagreements about which side is right under the law, but often those disagreements are a result of bad faith--take just about every case Trump has ever appealed up to the SCOTUS. And many of the decisions made by the current crop of right wing ideologues on the Court are made in bad faith, especially Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, in that order of corruption. Many of the "disagreements" are based on bogus "textualism" and "originalism" frameworks that are applied completely ad hoc and hypocritically and were invented by conservatives solely in order to provide them with a basis for making rulings based on their ideology (the historical record is quite clear on this).

Anyway, the point was that I decide based on my view of the law, not who the parties are. Since you seem to completely miss the point, have poor reading comprehension, and are just adding muddle, I won't comment further.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#353

Post by GoblinSlayer »

sethaurus wrote: post #336
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.

Why not, people are different and principles can account for that. It might mean that your alignment isn't fully lawful.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#354

Post by GoblinSlayer »

convolvatron wrote: post #323
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

doesn't that undermine the entire reason to have laws? if they are really just excuse to punish our enemies and reward our friends, why even bother with the pretense of a trial?

Laws protect interests of the ruling class. If interests are insufficient reason, then what is sufficient?

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#355

Post by snapcaster »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #339
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

Its "valid" to do anything in this context weirdo, it isnt like a veridical thing! "It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand." Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?

Wow you got my demographics and political opinions wrong entirely! We almost certainly vote for the same people. I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principles while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#356

Post by snapcaster »

jdlshore wrote: post #322
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

Some people think that justice should be blind, and that’s long been an ideal in the US.

I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principle of equality while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#357

Post by snapcaster »

sethaurus wrote: post #336
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.

Are you pro or anti touchdown? Do you support or oppose winning? Is supporting my allies winning and enemies losing wrong?

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#358

Post by snapcaster »

Eisenstein wrote: post #320
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.

The "blind" ones are people like you! doing everything in good faith against people who aren't and fundamentally oppose you and your existence. Foolish!

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#359

Post by snapcaster »

convolvatron wrote: post #323
snapcaster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

doesn't that undermine the entire reason to have laws? if they are really just excuse to punish our enemies and reward our friends, why even bother with the pretense of a trial?

The reason we have laws is to protect the powerful from mobs right?

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#360

Post by [deleted] »

snapcaster wrote: post #355
beepbooptheory wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its "valid" to do anything in this context weirdo, it isnt like a veridical thing! "It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand." Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?

Wow you got my demographics and political opinions wrong entirely! We almost certainly vote for the same people. I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principles while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

[deleted]
Post reply on HN