"What do you have against businesses segmenting their markets by territory and then trying to enforce it?"
What do you have against people reselling what they buy. If Costco legitimately buys watches, why should there be a law barring Costco from reselling them?
"And what if trademark and copyright are part of the toolset, so what?"
Agreed. It should not matter whether there are trademarks or copyrights involved. If you buy something, you should have the right to resell it.
Mike, I wish you wouldn't use the term "gray market goods." It implies there is something wrong with them. That the goods are not genuine. However, they're completely legit and are probably made in the exact same factory.
To me the headline should have been, "Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block First Right Sales of Imported Goods."
He does not simply pose a different point of view. He consistently poses a different point of view. Sometimes I agree with Mike. Sometimes I disagree with Mike. The Anti-Mike has never conceded a single one of Mike's points ever.
That makes him a troll. And if I had noticed it was him, I would not have responded to his comment. I've already wasted time responding to his nonsensical response.
"For the most part, it's used to get airplay for crappy acts with little or no hope to getting noticed."
Maybe you can provide some evidence to back that up. I won't hold my breath.
"It isn't how the system works, it's how corruption works."
Why is paying for a service corruption? Don't you think that people should have a right to contract for services?
If a musician wants to pay a radio to play its music, he should be allowed to do so. As you learn from the link I already provided, the reason people freaked out about payola during the 50s, even though it was quite common in the decades prior, was that it was being used to promote the evil of rock and roll.
"the artist doesn't get to make that choice, "fans" make that choice."
It's all fun and all to make up facts. But in this case we know for a fact that Novoselic does put his music on YouTube. So, once again, if he does not like it, he should stop doing it. And once again, he most certainly will not stop because even he admits that he benefits from it.
See how easy it is when you use the given and verified facts rather than argue from facts you've made up yourself?
That's the problem with the government giving out monopolies. The receivers never learn how economics are supposed to work in a free market.
If you open a restaurant and someone opens another one next-door to you. You don't ask the government to extend your property line to encompass your competitor to run him out of business. That's complete nonsense.
But in the wacky world of virtual monopolies, it's quite common. Let's go back to the 1800s. Back then in relation to music copyright only covered published music. I.e., the publication of sheet music. So when player pianos were invented, there was no infringement because they did not used published music.
However, instead of competing with player pianos, they went to Congress and had their monopoly extended to include both publication and performance. Then they hit up the manufacturers of piano rolls up for their cut.
And that's why the copyright industry constantly pushes their monopoly. Because they can and they always win.
"He's about to benefit from us linking to his article."
And I'm trying to understand why you did. The guy is an idiot and is highly inarticulate. In other words, he lacks any capacity to explain his bizarre opinions. The worst of both worlds. (At least the Anti Mike is articulate.)
Can you imagine spending an hour with this guy? I think I'd rather have an unnecessary root canal performed via my anus.
"if you own a website, and you inline link 300 pictures of child porn, are you a child pornographer? I would say that you are..."
You could be charged and convicted, but you would even if you merely linked them, i.e., not hotlinked them. Either way, you'd be distributing the illegal porn.
Think of it this way, if you pay someone to pick up drugs and then sell them, you're still a drug dealer even if you've never actually touched the drugs. Even if they were not in the same room with you. Even if they were not in the same state as you.
But with direct linking and hotlinking, you're never making the copy of the copyrighted material. So there is no infringement on your part.
To put it another way, our anti-porn laws are not analogous to our copyright laws, so I don't think this is relevant anyway.
I remember way back (not way back, but way back) when I was shocked to see an AMD based PC at Best Buy. Now I can find computers with Linux at Best Buy. I think Microsoft's decision is awesome. Stupid on their part. But awesome for everyone else.
There's this area of the law called contract law. In these mistaken price situations, the seller makes an offer, the buyer accepts the offer and makes a purchase, and then in some situations the seller validates the acceptance by charging the buyer's credit card and sending out a confirmation through an email.
That's a contract. And it pisses people off when after the acceptance has been accepted... and after the buyer has been charged.... suddenly the seller backs out.
"But do the people who support forcing the retailer to honor the deal in the first case support it in stories like this as well?"
Mike, when making an analogy, you should at least attempt to be analogous. Was it possible for Dell to honor those mispriced items? Sure. Was it at all possible for the buyer of the CD to honor his purchase? Nope.
And this guy did not make a mistake to the seller's detriment. The seller did not rely on its own mistaken price in the same way that the buyers of the monitors relied on the low prices. The guy attempted to make the purchase solely to inform the seller of his or her mistake.
The more analogous example would be the seller mistakenly giving too much, i.e., raising the original offer with a higher counter offer. But that's not what happened here.
However, most people want a Hulu/DVR type solution. They want to conveniently watch their shows when they want, for free, without impediment.
I don't know which side will win. But I'm guessing that the content, cable, and satellite industries are going to use every dirty trick in the book to keep the money flowing.
Yeah, but he's not right. He might subjectivity like the sound of CDs more. But his mere opinion means nothing to the rest of us. Studies show that young people actually prefer the sound of MP3s.
He might love paying for useless artwork, but the rest of the world clearly does not. If we did, we would buy artwork. When was the last time you bought artwork? I never have.
And he seems so utterly ignorant about how to even use MP3s. The quote "thorough crappy PC speakers" is telling. First, PC speakers have improved a fricken lot since the 90s. Second, plenty of people access their MP3 collection through their receivers, surround sound systems, and the like.
Overall he has a very small view of the world. He accepts his view as "the "truth" despite it being purely subjective at best, and completely erroneous at worst.
If Edward Vox was the most "intelligent and well-educated on the subject" person you could find at Lion Music, I don't think the label stands a fricken snowball's chance in hell to survive the tremendous benefits the net has to offer.
I used to think you were ignorant and clueless. Now I'm guessing you're just a brilliant troll. So I bow down to you, Anti-Mike, king (or queen) of the trolls!
Let me get this straight. The movie studios are afraid to give out screener DVDs because it might lead to piracy which might lead to lost sales. So they come up with a highly expensive and utterly futile system, which because it is futile, is pointless. But because they came up with the system, they have to use it. But only they can't use it, because it's too expensive.
I can understand a major label pulling some crap like this. But this is allegedly an indie label. As anyone with a brain knows, the biggest obstacle facing a musician is not piracy. It's obscurity. The net helps to eliminate obscurity by allowing musicians to directly interact fans. It also helps music fans directly find new music.
If this label cannot find a way to use the net to help its artists find fans and vice versa, you're right Mike, it should go out of business. It's an epic failure.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re:
What do you have against people reselling what they buy. If Costco legitimately buys watches, why should there be a law barring Costco from reselling them?
"And what if trademark and copyright are part of the toolset, so what?"
Agreed. It should not matter whether there are trademarks or copyrights involved. If you buy something, you should have the right to resell it.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
To me the headline should have been, "Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block First Right Sales of Imported Goods."
On the post: Billboard Model Sues Filmmakers, Because Her Billboard Appears For 12 Seconds In The Movie
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He does not simply pose a different point of view. He consistently poses a different point of view. Sometimes I agree with Mike. Sometimes I disagree with Mike. The Anti-Mike has never conceded a single one of Mike's points ever.
That makes him a troll. And if I had noticed it was him, I would not have responded to his comment. I've already wasted time responding to his nonsensical response.
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you can provide some evidence to back that up. I won't hold my breath.
"It isn't how the system works, it's how corruption works."
Why is paying for a service corruption? Don't you think that people should have a right to contract for services?
If a musician wants to pay a radio to play its music, he should be allowed to do so. As you learn from the link I already provided, the reason people freaked out about payola during the 50s, even though it was quite common in the decades prior, was that it was being used to promote the evil of rock and roll.
"the artist doesn't get to make that choice, "fans" make that choice."
It's all fun and all to make up facts. But in this case we know for a fact that Novoselic does put his music on YouTube. So, once again, if he does not like it, he should stop doing it. And once again, he most certainly will not stop because even he admits that he benefits from it.
See how easy it is when you use the given and verified facts rather than argue from facts you've made up yourself?
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re:
Now people like you are claiming that the last 80s years have been a fluke and the money should flow the other way.
Here's a simpler idea. If Krist Novoselic does not like his music on YouTube, he should simply not use it. God, how fricken simple is that?!
And here's a clue. Krist Novoselic does not pull his music from YouTube because Google is providing a very valuable service for which he pays nothing.
He talks about how people should get paid for their work, maybe he should start paying Google for his use of YouTube.
On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'
That's the problem with the government giving out monopolies. The receivers never learn how economics are supposed to work in a free market.
If you open a restaurant and someone opens another one next-door to you. You don't ask the government to extend your property line to encompass your competitor to run him out of business. That's complete nonsense.
But in the wacky world of virtual monopolies, it's quite common. Let's go back to the 1800s. Back then in relation to music copyright only covered published music. I.e., the publication of sheet music. So when player pianos were invented, there was no infringement because they did not used published music.
However, instead of competing with player pianos, they went to Congress and had their monopoly extended to include both publication and performance. Then they hit up the manufacturers of piano rolls up for their cut.
And that's why the copyright industry constantly pushes their monopoly. Because they can and they always win.
On the post: Game Marketer Insists That Every Downloaded Copy Of Modern Warfare 2 Is Stolen By Immoral Thieves
And I'm trying to understand why you did. The guy is an idiot and is highly inarticulate. In other words, he lacks any capacity to explain his bizarre opinions. The worst of both worlds. (At least the Anti Mike is articulate.)
Can you imagine spending an hour with this guy? I think I'd rather have an unnecessary root canal performed via my anus.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re:
You could be charged and convicted, but you would even if you merely linked them, i.e., not hotlinked them. Either way, you'd be distributing the illegal porn.
Think of it this way, if you pay someone to pick up drugs and then sell them, you're still a drug dealer even if you've never actually touched the drugs. Even if they were not in the same room with you. Even if they were not in the same state as you.
But with direct linking and hotlinking, you're never making the copy of the copyrighted material. So there is no infringement on your part.
To put it another way, our anti-porn laws are not analogous to our copyright laws, so I don't think this is relevant anyway.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
On the post: Why Does Microsoft Limit Netbooks?
On the post: Guy Buys $3 Billion CD-ROM
That's a contract. And it pisses people off when after the acceptance has been accepted... and after the buyer has been charged.... suddenly the seller backs out.
"But do the people who support forcing the retailer to honor the deal in the first case support it in stories like this as well?"
Mike, when making an analogy, you should at least attempt to be analogous. Was it possible for Dell to honor those mispriced items? Sure. Was it at all possible for the buyer of the CD to honor his purchase? Nope.
And this guy did not make a mistake to the seller's detriment. The seller did not rely on its own mistaken price in the same way that the buyers of the monitors relied on the low prices. The guy attempted to make the purchase solely to inform the seller of his or her mistake.
The more analogous example would be the seller mistakenly giving too much, i.e., raising the original offer with a higher counter offer. But that's not what happened here.
On the post: Finnish Indie Record Label Says It Won't Sign Any New Bands Unless The Gov't Stops Piracy
Re: Re: Geesh
I bow before you Alan Gerow, King of the Sarcasm!
On the post: The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet
However, most people want a Hulu/DVR type solution. They want to conveniently watch their shows when they want, for free, without impediment.
I don't know which side will win. But I'm guessing that the content, cable, and satellite industries are going to use every dirty trick in the book to keep the money flowing.
On the post: Finnish Indie Record Label Says It Won't Sign Any New Bands Unless The Gov't Stops Piracy
Re: Geesh
Yeah, but he's not right. He might subjectivity like the sound of CDs more. But his mere opinion means nothing to the rest of us. Studies show that young people actually prefer the sound of MP3s.
He might love paying for useless artwork, but the rest of the world clearly does not. If we did, we would buy artwork. When was the last time you bought artwork? I never have.
And he seems so utterly ignorant about how to even use MP3s. The quote "thorough crappy PC speakers" is telling. First, PC speakers have improved a fricken lot since the 90s. Second, plenty of people access their MP3 collection through their receivers, surround sound systems, and the like.
Overall he has a very small view of the world. He accepts his view as "the "truth" despite it being purely subjective at best, and completely erroneous at worst.
If Edward Vox was the most "intelligent and well-educated on the subject" person you could find at Lion Music, I don't think the label stands a fricken snowball's chance in hell to survive the tremendous benefits the net has to offer.
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
My brain hurts!
On the post: Finnish Indie Record Label Says It Won't Sign Any New Bands Unless The Gov't Stops Piracy
If this label cannot find a way to use the net to help its artists find fans and vice versa, you're right Mike, it should go out of business. It's an epic failure.
On the post: Time For 'Israelification' Of U.S. Airports?
Re: Re:
Next >>