Wow... So much wrong in this statement, each paragraph is a failed argument.
So, bob, really, just go away.
Let's see here, maximalists as a threat against the first sale doctrine? Check, the Supreme Court said "STFU, who cares about you? People can buy and sell what they want legally, stop trying to change that."
Copyright deniers? Wow, new term from the Copyright Apologists!
BTW, you wanna know how far back people were calling BS on Copyright?
"I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
That was in 1885, bob. Look it up sometime, maybe you might learn something.
Big Search? Who's that? You might want to clarify that, because you could mean Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, or any of those websites.
Why are they getting worse? Oh, I dunno, probably because of the DMCA. Oh hey, someone wants to find something, but can't because the DMCA took it down, even if it was legal.
And, bob, there's a reason why newspapers are failing. It's because 50%+ of them are behind paywalls. If I have to pay for news I can get for free elsewhere, why should I bother with it?
And drive people away from content creation? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! oh, wait, you're serious, let me laugh harder.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Oh, you so funny, Copyright Apologist bob. You so stupidly funny.
Might be funny, but it's also why people don't like going to court. Even if it's just the initial fees, 8600 is still a good chunk of change for most people.
I would like my broadband to be a bit faster, but I know that they're working on it, they announced last year that they're moving up to 100 mbps dl from 50 mbps, so, they're still way ahead of most of the rest of the country.
Instead of being used to fund the USPS, roads, bridges, schools, a mental health care system, etc...
We need to use the money to fund trillions of dollars into wars, treaties that screw the common folk over, laws that can make anyone a criminal, illegal extradition for people who are NOT criminals (Not talking about Kim Dotcom, he may or may not be a criminal, talking about Richard O'Dwyer here), not to mention that we need to do something about gun laws (which I agree with, but wouldn't it be better to make the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) Agency do their job?) which, apparently, means doing something about the guns, not the people. (Keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths)
On the post: White House Petition Launched To 'Recast Copyright For The Digital Age'
Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
On the post: White House Petition Launched To 'Recast Copyright For The Digital Age'
Re: Oh really?
So, bob, really, just go away.
Let's see here, maximalists as a threat against the first sale doctrine? Check, the Supreme Court said "STFU, who cares about you? People can buy and sell what they want legally, stop trying to change that."
Copyright deniers? Wow, new term from the Copyright Apologists!
BTW, you wanna know how far back people were calling BS on Copyright?
"I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
That was in 1885, bob. Look it up sometime, maybe you might learn something.
Big Search? Who's that? You might want to clarify that, because you could mean Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, or any of those websites.
Why are they getting worse? Oh, I dunno, probably because of the DMCA. Oh hey, someone wants to find something, but can't because the DMCA took it down, even if it was legal.
And, bob, there's a reason why newspapers are failing. It's because 50%+ of them are behind paywalls. If I have to pay for news I can get for free elsewhere, why should I bother with it?
And drive people away from content creation? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! oh, wait, you're serious, let me laugh harder.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Oh, you so funny, Copyright Apologist bob. You so stupidly funny.
On the post: Charles Carreon Has To Pay $46K In Legal Fees
This...
On the post: With Google Fiber On The Way, AT&T Fiber Customers Receive Free Boost To Connection Only 976 Mbps Slower Than Google's Connection
On the post: Oh Look, The Number Of People Employed In The Movie And Music Recording Business Just Hit An All Time High
Re: Re: According to OOTB -- you're close enough.
On the post: MPAA Starts Backing Away, Slowly, From Bogus Piracy Stats (But New Bogus Stats Are On Their Way)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone stole all the tea again.
On the post: MPAA Starts Backing Away, Slowly, From Bogus Piracy Stats (But New Bogus Stats Are On Their Way)
On the post: Uh Oh: US Postal Service Wants To Better 'Monetize' Its 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Umm
On the post: Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court
Re:
But if they take you to court and you try to use Fair Use as a defense, they suddenly say "it's not a legitimate defense".
On the post: Maryland The Latest State To Trample The First Amendment With Quixotic Attempt To Outlaw 'Cyberbullying'
Tsk...
Here, this is what I think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ZiRT8Nwkk - NSFW, harsh language.
On the post: Uh Oh: US Postal Service Wants To Better 'Monetize' Its 'Intellectual Property'
Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen
We need to use the money to fund trillions of dollars into wars, treaties that screw the common folk over, laws that can make anyone a criminal, illegal extradition for people who are NOT criminals (Not talking about Kim Dotcom, he may or may not be a criminal, talking about Richard O'Dwyer here), not to mention that we need to do something about gun laws (which I agree with, but wouldn't it be better to make the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) Agency do their job?) which, apparently, means doing something about the guns, not the people. (Keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths)
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I honestly don't care. I barely drink alcohol.
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's your problem.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even Obama and Clinton did pot when they were younger. And George W. Bush did other drugs when he was younger.
Just pointing it out.
"What could be better to the government than a drug-addled (and disarmed) populace?"
A populace that doesn't care what the government does because Survivor is on?
On the post: Hours After Google Announces Google Fiber In Austin, AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network There
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: @AC
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-without-even-realizing-it.html
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re:
In fact, most people commit at least 3 felonies a day.
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think marijuana is now legal in some states?
Next >>