Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the troll-responders dept
Well, this is a first. We've had one comment take first place in the voting for both funniest and insightful before, but I believe that this is the first time that the top two comments in both lists were the same (and yes, in the same order). Neat. Also odd, but worth noting. Both comments were from anonymous commenters (who says anonymous commenting is a bad thing?), both came on Friday and both came in response to comments to the same anonymous commenter who seems slightly unstable in his seething, angry, often incomprehensible rants against us. Anyway, the absolute consensus for both funniest and most insightful comment this week was on the story about the MPAA's bizarre response to Jimmy Wales suggesting that the industry's failure to provide what consumers want was crazy talk. The AC made the situation quite clear:Consumers: We would like to pay you for xThis is more accurate than you might imagine -- though the part about politicians actually understanding why the industry is having problems is a bit far-fetched.
Distributors: We don't want your stinking money.
-------------------
Distributors: We aren't making as much money as we think we should be making.
Politicians: How about we pass laws effectively tax people but give you the proceeds.
Distributors: That's not enough.
Politicians: Well what do you want?
Distributors: We're spending a fortune trying to enforce copyright against the vast bulk of the global population.
Politicians: Ah, so that's why you're making less money.
Distributors: Well strictly speaking no, but if you're willing to believe that against all evidence, then why not.
Politicians: How about we take over the vast bulk of those costs that you are currently wasting on ineffective recourse to the law to fix a problem that isn't actually affecting you?
Distributors: Well, that's something but we still get the feeling that you're not really trying.
------------------------------------------------
Consumers: WTF?
The comment that came in second place on both lists was in response to that same angry commenter, who insisted that I was wrong to suggest that a terms of use buried on the Olympics website somehow bound users not to link to the Olympics website, and demanded a full legal analysis for what is basic common sense. Before I could reply, this Anonymous Commenter succeeded in making the point clear:
By reading this comment you agree to be legally bound to immediately throw your computer out of the nearest window.As of the time I'm writing this (about 12 hours after the comment was made), that individual has not come back to comment. So, perhaps he was actually intellectually consistent for once and did, in fact, throw his computer out the window. I doubt it, though.
Moving on to editor's choice, we'll start with insightful, with another comment, this one from Jeremy Lyman, also in response to that same article about the MPAA's response to Jimmy Wales. Lyman pointed out that for all of the "services" the MPAA listed off as proof that they're responding to customer needs, the reality is a bit different.
Okay so we've got six studios with thousands of titles and we've got dozens of online streaming sources, lets match up which titles are on which services. Remember, the consumer has NO FRAKING IDEA why some shows are on some services but not on others.While we're on this theme, I'll also point to another Anonymous Coward's response on that same thread, pointing out that Jimmy Wales is in the UK, and every service the MPAA named does not provide the content he wants in the UK:
Connect the Title to the place you'd go you view it.
Psych-----------------Netflix
Terminator----------Amazon Streaming
Family Guy-----------Hulu
The Daily Show------HBO Go
All in the family------Vudu
Game of Thrones----Crackle
Shrek 3------------------UltraViolet
The Office--------------Epix
Batman Begins---------Mubi
Arrested Development----Torrent
It should not be this hard to figure out how to watch that you want to see. And I'm not subscribing to 10 different services even if I can figure it out. That's the barrier that Studios need to break down.
Hmmm...lets see, the guy is from London and the MPAA representative gave him the options below:If the MPAA wants to know why the online landscape pisses off so many people, they really need to spend some time reading and re-reading those two comments. But that won't ever happen.
Hulu:
Wikipedia quote:Currently, Hulu's content is only available in the United States and Japan with licensing reasons cited.
Hulu was planning on launching in the UK and Ireland in September 2009, but as of April 2010 these had been abandoned for the foreseeable future after failure to sign any content deals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu
HBO Go:
Quote:To access HBO GO℠, you must reside within the fifty states of the United States of America.
If you reside in this area and are still experiencing difficulties, please contact your television provider.
Source: www.hbogo.com
Not available in the U.K.
Vudu:
Only available in the US.
Owned by Walmart.
UltraViolet:
Authentication scheme, not a delivery of media or services.
Wikipedia quote:UltraViolet does not store files, and is not a "cloud storage" platform. The rights for purchased or rented content are stored on the service. UltraViolet only coordinates and manages the licenses for each account, but not the content itself. The content may be obtained in any way, in its standardized multi-DRM container format.
Epix:
Owned by Viacom (via Paramount Pictures), Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Lionsgate.
Wikipedia quote:Epix offers a companion video on demand service. In order to access online on-demand program content, subscribers must have a digital cable television receiver.
Only available in the US.
EpixHD quote:Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.epixhd.com/" on this server.
Quote from MUBI:amazing independent, international and classic movies and visit our curated cinemas. Stream for $1.99/film or an unlimited number with a $5.99/month subscription
I don't know about you guys, but I don't think it has Game of Thrones in there either.
Crackle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackle
Owned by Sony doesn't have the rights to show anything in the UK from HBO.
HBO owned by Time Warner.
Game of Thrones produced by HBO which in the UK have an exclusive contract with Sky Atlantic which may or may not show Game of Thrones ont their Sky Go(go.sky.com) website.
So there is not that much places to watch a show because studios keep making "exclusive" deals with other companies and so, those things keeps getting fragmented and nobody will sign up for 10 services to watch everything, I think they will just pirate that crap instead, which is the way to go me thinks.
Anyway, moving on to editor's choice for funny comments, I'll start with Torg's comment in response to a ridiculous column that suggested the failure of ACTA was a "cultural disaster." Torg explained why:
Cultural disaster is when the Visigoths overrun our borders and advance towards the capital, raping and killing any men, women or children that cross their path.And, finally, we've got Chris-Mouse responding to the fact that Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee don't seem at all interested in engaging with the public:
Rome didn't have copyright, and look what happened to them. We have to learn from history!
There's a lobby group called 'The Public'? How much did they contribute to my campaign fund?Not enough, apparently. Not enough.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Before you could reply? Angry? LMAO! Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why? Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says. Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong. Two years, and you won't even debate me on the merits even once. What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
~Fairies make the flowers grow.
~Fairies maintain a trillion dollar a year business.
~Telling Fairy tales is theft.
~Quoting Fairies violates their property.
~Fairies always believe the sky is falling.
The last one is pretty much true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody and I mean nobody respects copyrights not even you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why would Mike debate you when you've already been facepwnd in the wtfbbq and run off with your tail between your legs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Starting to get it?
A debate requires that the two people engaged have some commitment to actually listening to one another with minds a whole lot more open than a rusty steel leg hold trap which, given what you bring here pretty much eliminates you.
OK, the law is on your side. Has that stopped piracy?
No.
Will it?
No.
Does that negate studies that clearly show that when an artist's material is pirated that sales through "traditional" channels increase?
No.
Does that mean the travesty we now know as copyright is a good thing and comes anywhere near close to its original states goals in the UK or US other than to make more money for distributors of the work than the creators in the vast, vast majority of cases?
No.
You've got the law on your side. Bully for you.
Does that make the law right?
No.
It just means that it's time for the citizenry to fight harder to get copyright and patent law to more reflect their unoriginal goals than the corrupt steaming mass of filth they've become.
And it takes a few more Courts like the Supreme Court of Canada to make it clear to maximalists that the user/consumers of material covered by copyright have rights too.
A ruling, by the way, that doesn't condone piracy one little bit except that maximalists having nothing better to complain about and far less educated on the law and the issues than they'll ever be, revert to screaming "It's MINE" and "you can't do that.....it's PIRACY!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At one time, "the law" was on the side of slavery too. So it's OK as long as its "the law" right? If (when) the US Govt starts taxing it's citizens to the tune of 50-90% of their income to pay for their grossly irresponsible spending and utter lack of ability to control the debt, are you going to be all "it's ok because it's THE LAW" then too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
....who will probBbly argue the law is on their side. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Noone here could have said it better. I'm glad we finally agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's link to a few of your recent comments, shall we?
First off, this one.
And how about this one
I think most people can reasonably make the statement that you are angry. I won't even go digging for the comment from a couple weeks ago about how you think I'm going to get cancer and die soon.
Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why? Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says. Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong.
Okay. As I said right here, I have no problem debating people who act like grown ups and are able to have a debate. Clearly, that is not you. Note that the two comments I highlighted above are just from the past couple *days*. I can go back months and point to many more of the same. What I do *not* see as I go back through your comments is *any* indication that you ever had anything substantive to say that does not involve childish name calling, temper tantrums or the like.
And, since you asked me to "prove you wrong" I will do so. I have no problem debating detractors.
Here's me debating Jonathan Taplin: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience.shtml
Here's me debating Steve Tepp:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-hu man-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml
I assume you are not going to claim that you are somehow a more accomplished or more knowledgeable individual than those two, are you?
Fact is -- and yes, it's fact -- I have no problem debating someone who I disagree with, when the time and place is right, if they can act like they're older than 12 years old. You have not demonstrated the ability to act older than 12.
Let's be clear: you are an anonymous commenter on a website, where you regularly attack with ad hominems, you've asked me to "fuck off and die" you call me a "lying shit" more times than I can count. And I can't recall you ever making a single substantive point.
Let me be 100% clear: I don't debate you because I don't know and don't give a fuck who you are, but more importantly, because you have shown no reason to "debate" you. I've proven you wrong. I debate detractors all the time. I don't debate you not because I'm worried about some anonymous, unstable, individual who has a *massive* sense of entitlement and self-worth -- but because you can't act like a reasonable adult. Act like an adult, and maybe someone here will treat you like one.
What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.
One of us stands behind our words. One of us does not. I've already proven you wrong.
I don't know who you are, but I do know that you're the one spewing all sorts of anonymous and very personal attacks on me.
I have a two year old child. There's a very simple lesson that we know from raising him: when he throws a tantrum, you don't "debate" him, you quickly and firmly explain to him what the situation is and then you ignore him.
That's what I'm doing with you. If that means treating you like a two year old, well, look in the mirror, skippy. You've earned that level of "respect."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That anyone posts in response to your vulgar ramblings is a privilege, not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just like darryl's response to the guy who paid Rupert Murdoch three times for access to his empire's content, and pointed out that it wasn't quite fair. darryl called the guy an idiot for doing things legitimately.
We're idiots if we pay for content and scumbags if we don't. Regardless of whether we actually peruse said content; the laws/IP addresses/lawyers/random number generator said we're guilty and so we must be.
Fortunately most people aren't this atrocious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read this ...
http://www.hephaestusproject.com/blog/2012/01/25/why-internet-trolls-are-a-good-thing/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need(in a bad way) serious psychiatric and social assistance. Hell, I would rather debate Lamar Smith or Chris Dodd. At lease they could be counted on to bring basic social etiquette to the table. My eleven yr old and hell, even my 6 yr old, can produce better reasoned arguments and refrain from name calling. Please seek professional help. I am seriously worried about the level of harm you can do to yourself and anyone near you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for proving yet again, you're stupid just like the folks who believe in the Mayan calendar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the first time these copyright maximalists, are having all their schemes and machinations trounced. To them, these defeats, are outside their belief system, and unprecedented. The unruly masses have risen up, and they do not have a target to blame, attack, or propagandize against. You, Techdirt, Michael Geist, the EFF, Google, Wikipedia are convenient surrogate targets for their blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second - you really do not understand what is happening in the world do you? If you look at what I have written here and elsewhere you will see I am balls accurate when it comes to predicting future trends. This rising up of the masses against ACTA-SOPA-etc is just the beginning of a much larger social change that is occurring worldwide. Don't be surprised if in five to ten years mandatory worldwide licensing, shortening of copyright lengths, and registration is required of all copyrighted material.
Third - And most important. Take Wil Wheaton's advice "Don't be a dick" or in your case stop being one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be the one running. You asked Mike why he doesn't debate you, and he told you. Instead of responding to a single one of his points, you try to brush it off.
"ROFLMAO haha yeah whatever" (we can all hear the sobs behind those keystrokes, friend)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I bet his tears taste like sour grapes (not that I really want to find out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He has debated others and would bebate you if you bring up something relevent to the techdirt article you commented on.
But you're too much of a child for that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I will repeat my original comment, which addressed your fallacious assertion:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120714/02175519699/funniestmost-insightful-comments -week-techdirt.shtml#c147
That you choose to ignore the response and continue throwing around ad hominems only serves to bolster what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I repeat.
Here's me debating Jonathan Taplin: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience.shtml
Here's me debating Steve Tepp:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-hu man-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml
You're a liar.
Stop posting excuses and actually start being open, human, and awesome. You know, stop sucking.
Let me be pretty clear here: you're telling me to "fuck off and die" telling me that I'm going to die soon from being a "slimey liar" and a "lying sack of shit," and you're complaining that I'm not awesome to you?
Thing is, your comments get voted down. And people seem to keep visiting my site. Guess what, sparky? People seem to think that you're a jackass and I am being "open, honest and awesome."
And the fact that you won't even debate me or others only strengthens that opinion. You can dish it out (and boy are you a petulant asshat at times), but you can't take it. Glass houses and all that, Mikey.
I repeat.
Here's me debating Jonathan Taplin: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience.shtml
Here's me debating Steve Tepp:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-hu man-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml
You're a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've seen my response. You ignore it, but you've seen it. Everyone else can read them.
I assume, as you've done in the past, you'll now throw a temper tantrum. I will point people to this thread if you do, and they can see what kind of person you are, which explains why you never identify yourself. Perhaps, some day, when you start acting like an adult, people will take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Fuck off and die" and "why are you a lying sack of shit" is not a substantive debate topic, and it shows that you are no one worth talking to. I've answered you here. The answer is clear. Everyone can see it.
I am done with this thread not because I am afraid to debate you, but because there is nothing to debate, and it is a waste of time to continue to point out why there's nothing to debate with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike still has no idea who you are, and none of the TD readers have any idea who you are, so exactly how was your privacy disrespected?
Are you basically admitting that you're terrified of having your completely anonymous comments connected together and held up against your other completely anonymous comments? Coward indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My guess is that the only scissors you've been allowed near are the ones with rounded edges from kindergarten, without the blades, because the greatest danger you're posing right now is to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, if you want to be debated, perhaps you can take a hint from Mike's comments thus far. Show us who you are and give him a reason to debate you. Pissing and moaning, like you've done so far, is certainly not going to make Mike want to debate you. Why would he? It'd be like debating a child, which you've so far acted like. Heck, he gave examples of people he's debated, actual people with actual reputations. Yet, you want him to drop everything to debate some moron (that'd be you) who refuses to take even a single still anonymous name and have his comments be linked, all the while insulting Mike and the other people comment on this site. Yeah, I wouldn't debate a douche like you either. More power/respect to Mike for not wasting his time on an idiot like you.
Now, perhaps you can do us all a favor, since you're privacy has been "violated" and you feel so horrible about what Mike did and are pissed that he refuses to debate you... perhaps you can fuck off. Your righteous indignation is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the fact that you're acting like a dick/an idiot and are better off being ignored. So, since you're not going to get your way, move on already. Geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A) Incapable of a real debate.
B) Insane, and dangerously so.
C) Utterly obsessed with Mike.
D) A proven douche bag.
E) A proven hypocrite.
F) A very hateful person.
G) A very childish person.
H) Unable to backup anything he says.
I) Intellectually dishonest.
J) Paranoid.
K) A coward of the lowest order.
The fact that he believes Mike invaded his privacy by cross referencing posts with IP addresses speaks volumes about his true state of mind. Only someone who has a very low IQ would fail to grasp just how easy it is to figure out which comments are his. They stick out like a sore thumb painted neon orange and oozing puss. He just says the same hatefully moronic things over and over repeatedly, all of which having nothing to do with what one would expect from a person who was honestly seeking a reasoned copyright debate.
If he spent half as much energy on his own business as he does here, it wouldn't be failing as badly as it is. The fact that he spends pretty much all his time on Techdirt waiting for that next article says a lot really. He's hooked on Mike just as badly as an addict is on meth. The best thing we could all do is simply mark his drivel using the report button and ignore him. Just like any other troll, he feeds on all this attention. Ignore him and he starves. At this point I feel we'd actually be doing him a favor considering just how negative is addiction has become. I wouldn't be surprised if he fantasizes about killing Mike too. Based on his posts, he sounds like the type. Sadly enough, it can and does happen. This makes it doubly important that we all do our best to ignore him from now on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can be anything from paranoia to being lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lazy ... LOL ... The man can type a wall of nonsense, but can not type in a 1-20 letter name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So true lol. I'm not surprised he didn't reply either. I'm sure he knows it all comes down to credibility. Mike has it, the coward doesn't. If he signed up using his real name and was willing to have all the posts he makes attributable to him, I'm sure Mike would be more than happy to answer his questions and publicly debate him. Until such time he is just a troll, one who is clearly terrified that his chosen position is wrong and fears being called out on it when the evidence of that fact becomes undeniable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He does not respond to ad hominim or full retard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He does not have to respond to people who go full retard or is just name calling with no real point to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is your name Johnny Snow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before Who Could Reply?
*Sigh* I like to come here to read the intelligent articles and often insightful and hilarious comments.
And then there's YOU.
I guess as far as trolls go, you're not bad, because you certainly end up sucking all the air out of this room and I can't believe the intelligent contributors herein continue to fall for your schtick.
It's old, it's tired, it's lame, and it's the oldest trick in the cyber-world but it sure still works.
Yep, 12-year old name calling, diatribe, ad hominem attacks, distortion and dodging the point, I think I'd call you the Anonymous Coward Troll.
What I hate about it is that the conversation strays so far from topic and of course becomes all about you, which is the point of any troll, instead of about the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An the point was addressed thusly:
And the only thing you had to say to that was:
Where you hilariously engage in an 'honest open awesome debate' by posting 'your wrong and I have sources but I'm not sharing them' and then having the suggesting, in your re to a post debating the merits of your post, that everyone else is running away from debate while actively avoiding a debate because 'what's the point.' If you don't see the point in actually debating by posting your sources and making actual points then why do you keep asking for debate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not enough, apparently. Not enough.'
so much truth, so few words!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The PUBLIC?
And then who knows what they might do! They might even remind the likes of Barclays Bank and others to stop screwing around with their money, loaned to them in deposit accounts and remember who it belongs to. Radical stuff there! Can't have that!
They might tell we nobles and barons that we can't have a war on endlessly borrowed money unless we actually have to declare that there is one instead of a "police action" stuff like that! Can't do that either..it would cramp our style! You mean we'd actually tell Outer Slobbovia that our troops near the border aren't having an exercise but will invade in the next 48 hours if they don't let us use the washrooms and, by the way, write the same IP laws we have?
You're NOT serious are you?
WHAT?
You are????????
DADDDDYYYY...the peassants are saying bad things and bullying me!!!...DADDDDDDDDYYYYY!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Takes 2 to do the debate tango
Personally I would love nothing more to have a 1 on 1 mike vs AC cagematch on IM/IRC/whatever that thing mikes been using for interviews is called. Maybe find a truly neutral 3rd party moderate, ideally whoever is behind yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ , and let them strike out any logical fallacies so no time is wasted on them. Too often "debates" on these issues end up with shouting matches, a real moderated debate style debate with all the hyperbole and logical fallacies stricken from the record would be most pleasing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And hell
Before you could reply? Angry? LMAO! Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME?
-citation needed. if it's happened so many times it shouldnt be too hard to go back and find some for instance of what you're talking about.
Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why?
-i would call this "begging the question." also, again, citation needed.
Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says.
-ad hominem
Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong. Two years, and you won't even debate me on the merits even once.
- here's some counter-examples to your claims.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120713/14013119695/lord-finesses-lawyers-now-using-copyr ight-to-stifle-dan-bulls-criticism-his-lawsuit-against-mac-miller.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/b log/wireless/articles/20120709/11412719631/south-korea-gives-mobile-operators-permission-to-ignore-n et-neutrality-surcharging-blocking-voip-services.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/ 18134119613/acta-failure-inspires-most-clueless-column-ever.shtml
now as for mike failing to respond personally to you, i can't search for instances of that because you happen to be an AC. although, i believe the burden of proof is on you. please provide some articles where you made a comment which was not responded to (or responded to unsatisfactorily). Also, please keep in mind, if someone else responds to your comment in a manner which mike deems satisfactory it would kind of be pointless for him to post the same point over again.
What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.
-ad hominem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And hell
And that's exactly why people like this remain unregistered AC's. That last thing they want is for you to be able to track their comments and hold them to something they've said before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And hell
But Mike's not a pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And hell
You can purchase a legitimate copy of every bit of content on earth but if you didn't support SOPA you must be a filthy thieving pirate scumbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of which...
More cries from the 'so called content industry' at large against piracy and a trumped up need for more annoyingly invasive DRM to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speaking of which...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speaking of which...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of which...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exclusive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exclusive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called cable, satellite TV, FIOS, IP TV... you know how it works. Thanks for clearly identifying a problem and how the current distribution systems fix that for you.
Can you explain it to Mike now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You asked me to explain it to me? Somehow, I don't think so.
PS, I agree with the commenter above. You seem to have totally missed the point, and actually helped make the point even stronger with your response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Worse, they will "cut the cable" and then subscribe to multiple services and end up paying more to people who aren't paying to use the content (you know, that Mega download pass), and away they go.
It's self defeating, but they can sit back in their hipster glasses and post facebook updates claiming to be a cool kid because they "cut the cord".
Yeah, I just don't get it, right?
Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even read the article?
point 1 - "all the distribution systems" - when only 1 is needed.
point 2 - that STILL DON'T SUPPLY THE MARKET!
You are barely coherent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, just an example, with Viacom acting like a whining and crying spoiled brat for not getting any more money from DirectTV's costumers (when are they going to whine to Dish and everyone else about that?), many DTV subscribers might start looking for other sources to make up for the loss channels, which might include illegitimate methods. Viacom is driving away these viewers from their shows over their spoilage and they will continue their whining because they are the ones who made these people find other sources to fix their Viacom-related needs. Yes these other sources could be illegitimate sites, but if Viacom wants these people back (and I HIGHLY doubt that), they need to win them back by making an agreement with DTV and issuing out a deal that's fair with everyone. If they can't get everyone back, then they need to compete against these sites instead of playing the "Whining about Piracy" card they are overplaying.
I know I might be missing my point, but I will say this: you can't be clueless if you are thinking. The only way you can be clueless if you aren't listening or reading to everything. Now if you excuse me, I need to go get a pair of Kamina-styled "cool kid" glasses and log onto Facebook to chat about my awesome "piracy" lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe we should call for the government to create a compulsory license that would force the opening of the market to real competition on that distribution front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe as a gesture of goodwill congress should pass the TV and movie compulsory license act, forcing distributors of any sort of video to license their offerings to whomever wants them, you know like it happens in music and patents under FRAND and RAND.
Unless of course you really want to have to deal with piracy on the pirates terms on the pirates fields.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or you could make it available over the web for a reasonable price.
Hmmm. I wonder which one better serves your customer base?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:
It's called bittorrent, usenet, cyberlockers... you know how it works. Thanks for clearly identifying a problem and how the current underground distribution systems fix that for you.
Can you explain it to legacy industries now?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter how much services there are, if you give "exclusive rights" through a contract to anyone in effect there is only one place to get anything, so that crap about how many digital services there are just seems hallow void of any meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I can type these words and milliseconds later an upside down person in Oz can see them. We can instantly get content anywhere on the globe (or close to it). But they still like to pretend the old charts and old regions are the best way to do things.
To help keep these regions from doing anything with each other they created a huge mess of collection societies and rules and they did this so well they actually have stopped themselves from releasing content without having to pay themselves via 4 middlemen collecting fees.
Until they figure out the world is completely connected, and there is no benefit in pretending the people in Oz will avoid hearing the spoilers for new content and will pay an extra premium price because they had ship electrons very far, and invert them at the same time.
The first step would be to dismantle their own tangled web, and they worry they would lose money by not getting 15 shots at each and every dollar of income. Think of the market as the entire globe, not semidivided pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burn in hell Hollywood you'll never see another penny from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MUBI seems to offer one single film per day, which is hardly a useful service.
Crackle has 36 films, all of which look like crappy straight-to-dvd offerings. The only one they offer which I've heard of before is "Cruel Intentions 2", which was abysmally bad. They have 21 TV shows. Most are crappy animated shows I've never heard of. They do have Dilbert and the Three Stooges, which are good quality. But that's hardly enough to call it a good or useful service.
Are those really all the legal offerings which currently exist? I subscribe to Sky Go, Netflix and Lovefilm's streaming service, and have access to on-demand services for the free-to-air channels, but all that gives me access to only a tiny fraction of the things I'd like to see. On the rare occasion when something I want to watch is available, it's always a couple of seasons behind (e.g. The Office US on Neflix up to S5, on torrent up to S8).
IF YOU GIVE ME WHAT I WANT I WILL GIVE YOU MONEY. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a) the population of the USA is about 300 million and
b) there are about 3 billion people connected to the web
then there must be people connected who aren't in the USA.
There's a lot of these people, and they could be customers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the most liberal use of the "report" button...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amazing..
Maybe pretty soon everyone will think it's all a bunch of crap anyway and just move onto something else. Sort of like having 20 vendors fighting each other over trying to sell you a ticket to get in, and you and your friends end up getting bored and walking away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]