From a linked article: Of course, a coat hanger doesn't have a Monster Cable lifetime warranty, so if your coat hanger breaks, you'll have to go out and buy another coat hanger.
At least they're trying to campaign to convince former users to come back -- instead of trying to pass laws to force them. You know, like certain other industries prefer to do.
That could still happen, and I wouldn't want to bet against it, but that is one bright spot about this campaign. No matter how much it sucks otherwise.
I take a DVD to Europe, I can't play it because of regional encoding.
Yep, but even worse. I've told this story here before but I think it's worth repeating. I have a 20yo movie on Laserdisc, but no working player. I wanted to show it to a friend. Turns out I can get it on VHS or region 2 DVD (I live in region 1). Nobody ever made a region 1 DVD.
I sure as heck didn't want to buy an inferior quality VHS tape, especially since there was a good chance it was old stock and might have deteriorated to unplayability.
How is it benefiting anybody for me not to be able to buy a DVD of a 20yo movie? How does it fail to compensate the "rightful owner" if I buy an out-of-region DVD? How does it compensate the "rightful owner" if I don't buy it because I can't play it?
My solution was to buy the region 2 DVD, use up one of the region changes on an old DVD burner, rip it and play it back on my computer. Worked a treat.
Of course what I did was illegal. By ripping it to my computer I defeated the copy protection and STOLE A COPY THAT I WAS NOT ENTITLED TO. The movie company is now out thousands of dollars due to my selfish act of piracy and theft.
Right?
Yeah. This is the preposterous end result of the MPAA's obsessive need to control every single jot and tittle of distributing their content. People cannot get what they want even when they're willing to pay extra for it, and everybody loses.
One of these days I'll pick up another laserdisc player and transfer all my content to DVD. Another act of piracy! In fact, dozens! Because I only paid for that content once! But there's no copy protection to defeat so it's probably legal. This week. But think of the millions the studios will be out!
(Oh, and I'm probably also guilty of failure to pay thousands in public performance fees because I showed it to somebody else. At home, true, but he's a "member of the public". And besides, he paid for the pizza, so I guess that means I charged him admission.)
You didn't fix anything, you broke it. All I see on that page regarding the transaction are "buy OS X" and "purchase OS X" from the app store. I see nothing that says or implies that you are purchasing a license.
Oh, and I don't understand what "It is action" means in this context.
Nevertheless, AC@9:17 is having trouble with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Those "protections for criminals" are intended to protect the innocent and assure that even the guilty are given a fair hearing. AC appears to assume that anybody who needs such protections is ipso facto a criminal. This then suggests that the only purpose for a trial is to figure out just how guilty the person is so as to conjure up a suitable punishment. Like, death by dismemberment for jaywalking.
I occasionally indulge myself in being a grammar, spelling, or punctuation Nazi myself. Usually I grit my teeth and go on with my life, but once in a while I succumb. Especially if it's in an article and not, say, in a comment. But when I do, I usually make sure that I actually know what I'm talking about.
For example, I looked this up before I posted this comment:
"Insanity: doing the same thing in hoping for a different result."
So let's say -- hypothetically -- that I want to shut somebody up. So I hit him over the head with a baseball bat. Because in this hypothesis I'm an angry, violent person (in real life I'm a nice guy).
So as a result this victim starts screaming.
Well, obviously that wasn't the result I wanted. So I hit him over the head again.
According to the misquote you just misquoted, hitting him over the head a second time and expecting it to shut him up is insane, because the first time he actually got louder. And yet, I think most people understand that repeated blows will actually have a cumulative effect. Eventually the guy will be silent.
On the post: Monster Cable Blames 'Rogue Sites' Rather Than Its Own Business Practices For 'Stealing Good Will'
Re:
On the post: Monster Cable Blames 'Rogue Sites' Rather Than Its Own Business Practices For 'Stealing Good Will'
*snerk*
On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead
A bit of perspective, though...
That could still happen, and I wouldn't want to bet against it, but that is one bright spot about this campaign. No matter how much it sucks otherwise.
On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Re: Re: Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
I've got a copy of his piece on the Shakers, but I haven't seen Prohibition. I guess I should bittorrent a copy from the Pirate Bay and watch it!
*runs away very fast*
(Seriously, now you have me interested. Looks like it's available from Amazon...)
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Re:
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Re: Who Establishes Ownerhip?
Yep, but even worse. I've told this story here before but I think it's worth repeating. I have a 20yo movie on Laserdisc, but no working player. I wanted to show it to a friend. Turns out I can get it on VHS or region 2 DVD (I live in region 1). Nobody ever made a region 1 DVD.
I sure as heck didn't want to buy an inferior quality VHS tape, especially since there was a good chance it was old stock and might have deteriorated to unplayability.
How is it benefiting anybody for me not to be able to buy a DVD of a 20yo movie? How does it fail to compensate the "rightful owner" if I buy an out-of-region DVD? How does it compensate the "rightful owner" if I don't buy it because I can't play it?
My solution was to buy the region 2 DVD, use up one of the region changes on an old DVD burner, rip it and play it back on my computer. Worked a treat.
Of course what I did was illegal. By ripping it to my computer I defeated the copy protection and STOLE A COPY THAT I WAS NOT ENTITLED TO. The movie company is now out thousands of dollars due to my selfish act of piracy and theft.
Right?
Yeah. This is the preposterous end result of the MPAA's obsessive need to control every single jot and tittle of distributing their content. People cannot get what they want even when they're willing to pay extra for it, and everybody loses.
One of these days I'll pick up another laserdisc player and transfer all my content to DVD. Another act of piracy! In fact, dozens! Because I only paid for that content once! But there's no copy protection to defeat so it's probably legal. This week. But think of the millions the studios will be out!
(Oh, and I'm probably also guilty of failure to pay thousands in public performance fees because I showed it to somebody else. At home, true, but he's a "member of the public". And besides, he paid for the pizza, so I guess that means I charged him admission.)
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
Really? Not sure? Sounds like weasel-wording to me. I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't.
Of course, first the constitution has to get close enough to scrute.
On the post: Everything Old Is New Again: 7 Years Ago Someone Else Tried To Sue WiFi Hotspot Operators Too
Starting 2:46. I keep wanting to post this sketch every time I read about one of these protection rackets.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Re:
Oh, and I don't understand what "It is action" means in this context.
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re:
It was probably a typo. I've made that particular one myself. And this forum doesn't let you go back and make corrections.
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't aware the sidewalk was a private place. Did you read his entire message, or just the bits you wanted to argue with?
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...Sorry, now I'm just getting sarcastic.
On the post: Massive Hike In Fees For Venues Playing Music In The UK
Re:
http://www.dollars2pounds.com/
On the post: NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
Re: Re: Re:
Quite right, "insight" is a homophone (and a noun). The correct word is "incite".
Nice catch.
On the post: As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change
Re:
I occasionally indulge myself in being a grammar, spelling, or punctuation Nazi myself. Usually I grit my teeth and go on with my life, but once in a while I succumb. Especially if it's in an article and not, say, in a comment. But when I do, I usually make sure that I actually know what I'm talking about.
For example, I looked this up before I posted this comment:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dive
P.S. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
On the post: As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So let's say -- hypothetically -- that I want to shut somebody up. So I hit him over the head with a baseball bat. Because in this hypothesis I'm an angry, violent person (in real life I'm a nice guy).
So as a result this victim starts screaming.
Well, obviously that wasn't the result I wanted. So I hit him over the head again.
According to the misquote you just misquoted, hitting him over the head a second time and expecting it to shut him up is insane, because the first time he actually got louder. And yet, I think most people understand that repeated blows will actually have a cumulative effect. Eventually the guy will be silent.
How does that work? Are we all insane?
On the post: Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement... But Don't Seem To Care
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement... But Don't Seem To Care
Re: Re:
Qrpelcgvat guvf fragrapr vf n srybal.
Doesn't matter what the content is nor how pathetic the attempt to encrypt it, it's protected from decryption.
On the post: Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement... But Don't Seem To Care
Re:
Next >>