"Exactly. Chinese and Japanese engineers outrank U.S. engineers. A TON of innovation is occurring in these regions. Just read slashdot articles on new advancements, note where these advancements are being made, hardly any new advancements occur from the U.S. anymore unless it's occurring at (publicly funded) universities or at taxpayer expense."
I think IBM and Intel would disagree. This could be the trend but it's probably not the current state.
"Not to mention, many/most Chinese don't speak English and so it's not like they sit around reading our patents to learn anything from them. If you believe that you are truly deluded. How, exactly, do they infringe on our inventions and what inventions have they infringed on?"
This isn't really true. Also, it's not like Americans / anybody sits around reading patents to learn anything from them, unless they are lawyers.
"Stop pretending that the Chinese don't and can't produce their own music to listen to, of course they can and, for the most part, they listen to it, just like any other country."
This seems to be trying to make a different point.
Content owners wasting their time policing the entire internet are the ones wasting time/money that could be better spent trying to understand their customer base.
And you seem to be making a line between intentional and unintentional/automated. The way the law is currently, the takedowns fall in the realm of intentional, automated, and anti-competitive.
I do agree with one thing, you cannot blame them for committing this shitty practice when they face almost no legal repercussions for it (and taking into consideration that they think it is good business practice, which probably couldn't be farther from the truth).
reminds me of the segment on the daily show where he clips to all the politicians claiming they didn't really know what SOPA would do to the internet because they weren't "nerds".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's how search engines already work - unless you want child porn or how to kill Danny
So would you have people manually filtering these sites (prone to all sorts of problems) or an algorithm (which would likely block TD for "child porn")? Who would write that algorithm? The government (prone to all sorts of problems) or a 3rd party?
Are you saying that information on child porn / suicide vests / meth labs / illegal activities should not be on the internet? How would you design these filters to work even remotely efficiently without censoring somebodies free speech? If you accidentally got blocked, would you have to apply to google to get unblocked, which would then require a review, and quite possibly lawyers.
Lets stop inventing useless work / industries and let law enforcement do their jobs. Unless you think that the current google is enabling child pornographers and suicide bombers (and thieves? you threw in theft with some other pretty outrageous crimes), in which case most people aren't going to take your complaints seriously. maybe relevant quote:
The internet doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Re: Re: Re: google - I don't think you understand what a law is or ethics
Wouldn't you rather law enforcement have the tools to quickly find all this art/porn to make it easier for them to find/prosecute them? Google/facebook are probably 2 of the FBI's most used tools. You aren't anti law-enforcement are you?
And don't kid yourself. These laws were written by lobby groups, who in no way represent the interests of the people, as in a democracy.
"If you make the music, it's your legal and moral right to market the music as you see fit."
Not sure about moral right, but piracy doesn't take away from your legal right to market your stuff however you want. If your business model as an artist involves no performances and you make no effort to connect with your fans, chances are you are doomed anyways. If your fans like you, they will support you.
the pirate bay just hosts torrents. The amount of overhead it would take to screen every submitted torrent and see if its for an artist that has "opted-in" would completely undermine the service.
There are other ways for musicians to make money than through touring (granted touring is the best way to establish your "brand").
"I honestly do not understand how these illegal filesharing operations are allowed to exist in ANY country."
TPB doesn't host files, but just to play along, how would you go about only shutting down illegitimate websites? Would you require them to police themselves? Just curious.
"How is Aereo any different than Netflix or Hulu? They are charging a fee to allow people to watch something they can see for free."
This is wrong (I think). Netflix pays for the rights to stream their movies, as most of them are not in the public domain. However, public broadcasts are public. I don't think all of these cases are the same at all (nor do I think any of the services should be illegal, but I think Aereo has the best case)
It really does come down to the length of the cable being relevant or not. You could say that Aereo is really just renting internet-accessible DVRs that are setup to record public broadcasts.
If the ruling doesn't go in their favor, it seems like the courts would be telling us we can't legally remote access a DVR that has public recordings, even if its my DVR, my recording, and a secure remote login.
Then how are penny auctions not getting shutdown? At least people playing online poker know more or less what their odds are (maybe), or more importantly they know that they ARE gambling. Penny auctions try to pass themselves off as legitimate auction sites but its more of a scam/gamble than anything else, with much poorer odds.
They think that a) eliminating piracy will increase revenue, and b) that they can eliminate piracy.
On what basis they think either is true really baffles me. Also, I don't know if it's a moral stand or a lawful stand. Depending on how the question is posed (if you insinuate theft or not for the most part), I'm guessing most of society doesn't think of piracy as truly immoral behavior.
Maybe I'm wrong, but we KNOW the lobbyists have done all they can to make it seem evil. Just like sharing books, journals, VHS, and cassette tapes will send us all to hell and destroy society.
I think we can also agree that content infringement is impossible to enforce without taking away almost all consumer privacy.
And if you agree with current piracy laws/penalties/collection methods, which run mostly like Mob shakedowns and making examples of .0001% of offenders by RUINING their lives with outrageous fees that in no way represent the damage they did to the party infringed, I doubt our ideas of "legitimate response" line up.
Again, you are talking about casual infringement, since there is no way to really prevent piracy without completely crippling the internet or removing all privacy.
Publishers have locked contracts with colleges and professors. They republish the calculus series books every year, and most of math hasn't changed in a LONG time. Same goes for practically all arts and sciences. I can think of very few subjects (design, web design, some CS, Material sciences) where the subject material has changed significantly, and even then only in certain areas.
You don't need new versions. What people would like is electronic copies. If that means major publishers go out of business so be it, since they are only in business due to horrible contracts and lobbying.
Your whole argument for shutting down these sites and supporting massively stupid legislation is to stop casual infringement, and because you mistakenly feel that every download or file transfer on the internet = lost revenue for some publisher/studio/record label/business.
Or the misplaced moral high-ground. There are tons of (legitimate) companies that earned a huge share of the market by not really doing anything to fight piracy (Think Engineering CAD / Audio recording software). They realized that most of the people infringing were amateurs or students and realized there was an opportunity to lock these people in to their platform as they transition to industry.
As for entertainment, there have been tons of suggestions of ways to recapture some audiences who casually infringe (the only area where there might be reclaimed revenues). As for textbooks, its tragic how hard the publishers will fight what is best for students and academia in order to line their pockets for the next decade.
I understand where you are coming from, but your first point I don't agree with. I don't believe strict enforcement (highly visible) has done anything to curb drinking and driving behavior. Most studies show that stricter enforcement leads to an increase in arrests, not necessarily a decrease in the behavior itself.
Your second point doesn't really follow with your argument. It's incredibly obvious that reducing advertising and affecting marketing for tobacco companies will decrease smoking rates. This isn't really analogous to stupid behavior in cars.
I agree to some extent. You don't need an incredible smart device to drive a high def tv. I currently own a "smart" 32 inch VIZIO, but the biggest problem is the services that the firmware has included with it (and to some extent the UI). I have a feeling those services are going to be rather locked up. A tablet or a smartphone has all the hardware needed to act as a ROKU like device for your tv, with the added benefit of actually having people develop applications for it (a more open platform).
I think the key is making the developing platform relatively open and convenient for 3rd party developers. The additional hardware required to make TVs "smart" is so cheap relative to the cost of the TV that they might as well add value.
You'd rather have been educated in the 18th century than in a public school today? I don't love the state of education in the US but your claim is an exaggeration.
How has paper money enabled the government to silently tax citizens? Do you mean the federal reserve system and inflation/deflation?
On the post: Why The Chances of China Joining ACTA Or TPP Are Practically Zero
Re: Re: Re:
I think IBM and Intel would disagree. This could be the trend but it's probably not the current state.
"Not to mention, many/most Chinese don't speak English and so it's not like they sit around reading our patents to learn anything from them. If you believe that you are truly deluded. How, exactly, do they infringe on our inventions and what inventions have they infringed on?"
This isn't really true. Also, it's not like Americans / anybody sits around reading patents to learn anything from them, unless they are lawyers.
"Stop pretending that the Chinese don't and can't produce their own music to listen to, of course they can and, for the most part, they listen to it, just like any other country."
This seems to be trying to make a different point.
On the post: EFF Argues That Automated Bogus DMCA Takedowns Violate The Law And Are Subject To Sanctions
Re:
And you seem to be making a line between intentional and unintentional/automated. The way the law is currently, the takedowns fall in the realm of intentional, automated, and anti-competitive.
I do agree with one thing, you cannot blame them for committing this shitty practice when they face almost no legal repercussions for it (and taking into consideration that they think it is good business practice, which probably couldn't be farther from the truth).
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: but... but...
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's how search engines already work - unless you want child porn or how to kill Danny
Are you saying that information on child porn / suicide vests / meth labs / illegal activities should not be on the internet? How would you design these filters to work even remotely efficiently without censoring somebodies free speech? If you accidentally got blocked, would you have to apply to google to get unblocked, which would then require a review, and quite possibly lawyers.
Lets stop inventing useless work / industries and let law enforcement do their jobs. Unless you think that the current google is enabling child pornographers and suicide bombers (and thieves? you threw in theft with some other pretty outrageous crimes), in which case most people aren't going to take your complaints seriously. maybe relevant quote:
The internet doesn't kill people. People kill people.
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: Re: Re: google - I don't think you understand what a law is or ethics
And don't kid yourself. These laws were written by lobby groups, who in no way represent the interests of the people, as in a democracy.
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's how search engines already work - unless you want child porn or how to kill Danny
Coming from the guy who uses child pornography to push his really bad argument, this is just funny.
"You are either with the child pornographers, or you support our really bad ideas on internet regulation"
On the post: As BPI Tries To Block The Pirate Bay From The UK, Dan Bull Explains Why Musicians Should Block BPI
Re: Dan Bull Sh*t
Not sure about moral right, but piracy doesn't take away from your legal right to market your stuff however you want. If your business model as an artist involves no performances and you make no effort to connect with your fans, chances are you are doomed anyways. If your fans like you, they will support you.
On the post: As BPI Tries To Block The Pirate Bay From The UK, Dan Bull Explains Why Musicians Should Block BPI
uhh
There are other ways for musicians to make money than through touring (granted touring is the best way to establish your "brand").
"I honestly do not understand how these illegal filesharing operations are allowed to exist in ANY country."
TPB doesn't host files, but just to play along, how would you go about only shutting down illegitimate websites? Would you require them to police themselves? Just curious.
On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?
Re: Not about the length of the cord
This is wrong (I think). Netflix pays for the rights to stream their movies, as most of them are not in the public domain. However, public broadcasts are public. I don't think all of these cases are the same at all (nor do I think any of the services should be illegal, but I think Aereo has the best case)
On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?
It seems like Aereo has a good case
If the ruling doesn't go in their favor, it seems like the courts would be telling us we can't legally remote access a DVR that has public recordings, even if its my DVR, my recording, and a secure remote login.
On the post: Feds Continue Crackdown On Poker... By Seizing The Wrong Bodog Domain
If you're going to make online gambling illegal
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Re: Off topic
On what basis they think either is true really baffles me. Also, I don't know if it's a moral stand or a lawful stand. Depending on how the question is posed (if you insinuate theft or not for the most part), I'm guessing most of society doesn't think of piracy as truly immoral behavior.
Maybe I'm wrong, but we KNOW the lobbyists have done all they can to make it seem evil. Just like sharing books, journals, VHS, and cassette tapes will send us all to hell and destroy society.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Entitlement
And if you agree with current piracy laws/penalties/collection methods, which run mostly like Mob shakedowns and making examples of .0001% of offenders by RUINING their lives with outrageous fees that in no way represent the damage they did to the party infringed, I doubt our ideas of "legitimate response" line up.
On the post: Wale: I Just Want To Make Music & Give It To Fans For Free... They'll Support Me
Re:
On the post: Why Ebook Portal Library.nu Differed From Other Filesharing Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Publishers have locked contracts with colleges and professors. They republish the calculus series books every year, and most of math hasn't changed in a LONG time. Same goes for practically all arts and sciences. I can think of very few subjects (design, web design, some CS, Material sciences) where the subject material has changed significantly, and even then only in certain areas.
You don't need new versions. What people would like is electronic copies. If that means major publishers go out of business so be it, since they are only in business due to horrible contracts and lobbying.
On the post: Why Ebook Portal Library.nu Differed From Other Filesharing Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or the misplaced moral high-ground. There are tons of (legitimate) companies that earned a huge share of the market by not really doing anything to fight piracy (Think Engineering CAD / Audio recording software). They realized that most of the people infringing were amateurs or students and realized there was an opportunity to lock these people in to their platform as they transition to industry.
As for entertainment, there have been tons of suggestions of ways to recapture some audiences who casually infringe (the only area where there might be reclaimed revenues). As for textbooks, its tragic how hard the publishers will fight what is best for students and academia in order to line their pockets for the next decade.
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...NOT make the bad choice.
Your second point doesn't really follow with your argument. It's incredibly obvious that reducing advertising and affecting marketing for tobacco companies will decrease smoking rates. This isn't really analogous to stupid behavior in cars.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suing Google For Third-Party Android Apps That 'Promote Piracy'
Secondary drug dealers
On the post: Smart TVs: Not Such A Smart Idea
Re: The article presupposes...
I think the key is making the developing platform relatively open and convenient for 3rd party developers. The additional hardware required to make TVs "smart" is so cheap relative to the cost of the TV that they might as well add value.
On the post: Romney Campaign's Finance Co-Chair Accused Of Being SLAPP-Happy
what?
How has paper money enabled the government to silently tax citizens? Do you mean the federal reserve system and inflation/deflation?
Next >>