"Aereo is already defeated because this will never fly."
Ignoring your language butchery, what's your rationale behind claiming this won't work when you've been saying all along this is what they should've done? If theypay the fees, they're no longer 'stealing' (your word) the content, so what's your problem now?
"Aereo is trying to get itself reclassified as a cable company because it couldn't survive as a copyright thief."
Anybody using the term "copyright thief" has convincingly demonstrated their ignorance of both copyright and theft.
"Anyone who has absentmindedly allowed a battery to discharge will still have several options, according to Heathrow officials. They can use airport "charging points" to bring their devices back to life or stash them in stowed luggage. They can also mail the device to themselves..."
So if your electronic device is deemed too suspicious to be allowed into the plane's cabin, they give you the option of putting it somewhere else on the plane, or put it on another plane! How is this safer?!
"As usual Massnick completely misses the mark with his arguments."
Pot, kettle, etc...
"...a consumer's disapproval of the price does not allow them to pirate the music/movie/book/etc... They are still legally and morally obligated to compensate the content rights owner in accordance with the terms of service."
Nothing in the above article claims otherwise. You're completely missing the mark yourself by implying otherwise. The only "free" music discussed is that which is given away.
The rest of your comment is just stating the blindingly obvious. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with that...
I'm curious to know what broadcaster you work for or are in some way affiliated with. Because there is absolutely nobody who benefits from this ruling, or would defend it so rigorously, other than the broadcasters (and lawyers I guess).
Most disgustingly, it's the public who lose the most, the very people who are supposed to benefit first and foremost from copyright law. A useful service killed, others immediately targeted, innovation chilled, content harder to access. The very antithesis of copyright's supposed intent.
"Because that gives free reign to any idiot to go around flying in residential areas without regards to privacy or safety..."
For all your righteous indignation you seem to have missed that the FAA has not done anything to prevent that from happening. All they done is said you can't profit from flying in residential areas without regards to privacy or safety. It's a stupid ruling because it does nothing a allay any of the genuine concerns of drone use, but bans some genuinely beneficial uses for no good reason.
Scalia specifically compared this case to the Sony Betamax case because of the ramifications for innovation and content markets. If this loss makes you so happy it would seem like you think Sony should've lost too, so I hope you've never owned a VCR and any other similar technology, because that would make you both incredibly hypocritical and ignorant.
These are very important stories that should be told and discussed widely, other wise this sort of thing will continue to happen and probably get worse. You're free to not read stories that are quite obviously about police misbehavior from the title. Your ignorance will be to your own detriment.
So Mr. Policeman, do you think you're a good cop or a bad cop? And if you think you're a good cop, (a) what are you doing about the bad cops, and (b) why not a single word of criticism for the extraordinarily heinous cop behavior described in this story?
On the post: Aereo: Okay, Fine, If You Say We Look Like A Duck, We'll Quack Like A Duck
Re:
Ignoring your language butchery, what's your rationale behind claiming this won't work when you've been saying all along this is what they should've done? If theypay the fees, they're no longer 'stealing' (your word) the content, so what's your problem now?
"Aereo is trying to get itself reclassified as a cable company because it couldn't survive as a copyright thief."
Anybody using the term "copyright thief" has convincingly demonstrated their ignorance of both copyright and theft.
On the post: James Clapper Issues Non-Denial Denial Of Greenwald's Story About Surveillance Of Muslim-Americans
Re: What does he have to deny?!
Then provide a list of the lies and your sources. Sounds like it should be pretty easy.
On the post: Keurig Begins Demonstrating Its Coffee DRM System; As Expected, It Has Nothing To Do With 'Safety'
Re: Re: Nothing beats the Aeropress
Then she's doing it wrong. Probably using the wrong grind.
On the post: DHS Cites 'Credible Threat' As Reason For Forcing Travelers To The US To Hand Over Powered-Up Devices To Airport Security
Classic security theatre
So if your electronic device is deemed too suspicious to be allowed into the plane's cabin, they give you the option of putting it somewhere else on the plane, or put it on another plane! How is this safer?!
On the post: Taylor Swift's View Of The Future Of Music Is Actually Not That Far Off
Re:
Pot, kettle, etc...
"...a consumer's disapproval of the price does not allow them to pirate the music/movie/book/etc... They are still legally and morally obligated to compensate the content rights owner in accordance with the terms of service."
Nothing in the above article claims otherwise. You're completely missing the mark yourself by implying otherwise. The only "free" music discussed is that which is given away.
The rest of your comment is just stating the blindingly obvious. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with that...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
That's a nice platitude but spending money is not considered speech.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
How does restricting the flow of money limit free speech?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Most disgustingly, it's the public who lose the most, the very people who are supposed to benefit first and foremost from copyright law. A useful service killed, others immediately targeted, innovation chilled, content harder to access. The very antithesis of copyright's supposed intent.
On the post: Google Starts Disappearing Part Of The Internet In Europe
Re:
On the post: FAA Says Drones May Be Used For Fun... But Not For Profit
Re:
For all your righteous indignation you seem to have missed that the FAA has not done anything to prevent that from happening. All they done is said you can't profit from flying in residential areas without regards to privacy or safety. It's a stupid ruling because it does nothing a allay any of the genuine concerns of drone use, but bans some genuinely beneficial uses for no good reason.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re:
On the post: College Pulls Support For Students' Parodic Musical Because It *Imagines* Disney Might Sue It
Re: Low hanging PR fruit
"Include a letter giving them your permission to put on the show."
Not 'permission', that's not required! Give them encouragement, and an assurance no lawyers will be involved.
On the post: Six Officers Charged In Police Pursuit That Ended With 137 Shots Being Fired At Suspects In A Little Over 20 Seconds
Re: Re:
On the post: Chicago Cops Being Sued After Being Caught On Tape Physically And Verbally Abusing A Massage Parlor Employee
Re:
On the post: Chicago Cops Being Sued After Being Caught On Tape Physically And Verbally Abusing A Massage Parlor Employee
Re:
On the post: Chicago Cops Being Sued After Being Caught On Tape Physically And Verbally Abusing A Massage Parlor Employee
Re:
On the post: Former NSA Lawyer Asks Google To 'Forget' All Of Techdirt's Posts About Him
Re: Again
On the post: Former NSA Lawyer Asks Google To 'Forget' All Of Techdirt's Posts About Him
Re: WTF, Tim
Next >>