A summary of the matter is: a) Drop sued for not making money or not is sued by
art. 72, clause a) , b) Drop not be sued for proprietary software or the music of Britney Spears: a Drop they are sued by the same commendable enterprise of Horacio Potel, that is, because users rose
books; c) Drop demand it be necessary participant
. Of course this is an issue of press freedom is as if a great newspaper accused by Argentine Classified item 59, which should generate more damage than the links they publish taringueros d) to Drop it is being sued for failing to secure enough for its users e) Drop it is suing for
link to content that is elsewhere. Listen well this:
link to content that is hosted elsewhere . That is, for committing the crime of making a practice that bloggers do constantly, which is link to content hosted elsewhere.
Now, suddenly, many tech blogs "serious" decided not to defend Drop Many users said scared "me in files but never to the level of what a user does Drop "(?). Other bloggers just as" famous "commenting that" Portal users are upset because they can not use the Internet ".
Beyond
the sum of fallacious arguments that exhibit some (since processing Drop does not say that it is unlawful to make money, and the issue of money is not being discussed), it seems that the main issue here is simpler than you might think: the eternal dichotomy between blacks fucking
and
intellectual elites, who want to be with the workers but provided that they take other wines, listen to other music and read other newspapers.
There is a bias toward the average user to Drop: Use Windows all pirated, do not know Linux, you can not speak or write (that is, in other words, a Hoygan
) is someone who "does not handle the Internet" (because it does not know the gadgets
nor
apps or extensions that are in fashion), low waste only "commercial" and does not respect anything, and come to the event within a gorilla extreme example, the user's Drop these defenders of "sharing is not a crime" can accuse him of that even respects the intellectual property because postea links to download proprietary software. We all know also that users of Drop are only children between 13 and 17 who already streak will happen when they make a tit for the first time (the same prejudice Botbol runs for siblings).
This amount of bias is a bit what you read in some posts, either from the main articles or from the comments. Nobody denies that Matías Hernán and could have got someone to give them a hand in drafting the press releases, but it's fine for what they are, ie real people who grasped the meaning of this demand means for all: the demand is not only against them but against the Internet as we know, an Internet free, open and collaborative. Open mean, yes, open to make money. Than just the usual Megacorp (such as Google and Microsoft) that can make money, but also to Botbol the world are able to fulfill the dream of the boy to be paid for being in a forum.
The problem is that we like to defend Horacio Potel, because they are professors of philosophy, educated people who brings a social benefit to the world and can speak French. Part of this nonsense of the idiosyncrasies of Argentina, where our own tilinguería IP only allows us to see the tree not the forest.
And we like good corpora. The difference with Google is that Google captured the entrepreneurial spirit of the time, and as she has to plead with broad shoulders who is put in front, we think that Google, the litigation, also defends our freedom of expression. The Botbol the world, however, defend their interests only, never our freedom of expression. If Google is going to issue and loses to Virginia da Cunha we think "we lost all, but if Botbol will lose their case and we think that, at least, not bad," because they are making money. " When Google says it stands the same freedom of speech censorship in China, we go to sleep with a clear conscience, feeling protected. Now, when we are called to defend Botbol the Internet for all, we kill with laughter.
course, always applying the principle of double standards
, and add, double standards
bourgeois, who always sent his wife to be an educated woman in bed to go with wild whoppers twenty minutes . Or in other words, he told us to defend Potel Potel was good because it is an educated lady, and defend the Botbol was bad because I shoes lurex and whips to go out for battle.
historical reminder is needed. The generation of intellectuals who grew up in the heat and the attacks of the Liberating Revolution of 1955 identified, almost like a brand design, a mistake made by his parents, let the soldiers turned to Perón because they thought it was "the only way to get it out off. " Hold-o-complicit silence silence with the breakdown of democratic continuity and was opening the door for all the horrors that would follow, where the same middle class that celebrated in the '55 had to mourn the demise of many of their children , mistakenly or not, tried to correct the mistakes of the ban and the removal of Perón. In a simplification, Montoneros and Videla are equally children of '55.
Of course, history is neither linear nor is repeated and the intention is not to compare those who do not want to defend Drop with the military that went against its civilian population in the '55 dropping bombs on the Plaza. It is simply to highlight that in more than one occasion, by the bias of "those niggers who know nothing," the intellectual elite end making mistakes, and serious mistakes that cost us at least Many civil liberties.
