As I was reading this, I was like, Wait. I have that app, and it's already free. Then I read, "Well, that's nice... other than the fact that Tweetdeck is already free."
I caught this article, too, and it's a very interesting read. Another important aspect of it is your classic "We can work on this as long as we Wang because we have truckloads of money" case. It's interesting how people can be in such denial that cash WILL eventually run out if you don't sell something.
This is a really crappy situation for the guy, and I understand not wanting to take the time and energy fight the charges, but I can't feel incredibly sorry for him if he's not going to even *try* to stand up for his rights.
I don't really believe this guy actually believes he has a legit copyright claim to his name. Looks like it's just a ditch, shot-in-the-dark effort to keep reporting on him to a minimum.
"People are breaking the TOS agreement because they didn't fully understand it, have gotten banned for doing so and you are supporting them?"
No, actually that's not the case at all. He's referring to cases in which people have NOT broken any TOS agreements but still get banned. This happens fairly often, and Google has been really bad about following up with those who were wrongly banned.
Actually, you're right. I wouldn't mind, honestly. I'm comfortable with my actions, and if people take them the wrong way, I really don't care. I have a history of being difficult to embarrass.
Nothing said they aren't selling music; they just said that they don't have any _physical_ CDs, and their music is available online for free. They likely have mp3s or something like that of their music on a website, aside from their YouTube videos, which are obviously free.
Don't know about royalties -- I don't know the laws of such things. But I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't paying any royalties.
Good for them. Australia is notorious for requiring video games to be censored. It is ridiculous that they feel they have to protect their *adult* population as well as the kids.
I haven't taken the time to read the above comments, but without giving this TOO much thought, this is how I see it: I think this philosophy can be good depending on its context.
If you're talking about government oversight, it's one hundred-percent BAD. It leads ultimately to fascism. Let's get that out of the way.
If you're talking everyday morality or practicality, though, I think it can be good advice. If you're doing something you'd be ashamed of others knowing you did, one of two problems probably exists with your action: Either (1) you shouldn't be doing what you're doing, or (2) you're embarrassed about who you are, which is not morally improper but psychologically unhealthy.
As to the practicality of the statement, it makes sense in that virtually anything you do can be discovered by the world -- just by the nature of the society in which we live. Therefore, if there's something you don't want people to know you've done, you probably shouldn't do it because there's a good chance someone will find out.
On the post: Interscope And Best Buy Team Up To Give You A Free Twitter Application For Free (With Purchase)
On the post: Behind The Scenes Of The Duke Nukem Vaporware Party And Demise
On the post: UK Digital Economy Bill Section 124H Would Give Ability To Silently Censor Websites
On the post: Smart Customer Service Lessons: Responding Faster To Complaints About Your Competitors
On the post: Sing Along: Karaoke Night With 14 Songs Costs Tucson Restaurant... $49,000 In BMI Fees
That.
On the post: Plurk Overplaying Hand After Microsoft Code Copying; Meanwhile Status.net Says 'Take Our Code, Please'
Put out advertisements explaining that your code is so awesome that Microsoft tried outright stealing it.
Problem solved.
On the post: Canadian Record Labels Get Indie Record Store Owner To Plead Guilty... For Getting Rare CDs
On the post: FCC Hires Law Professor Who Believes Broadcast Indecency Laws Are Unconstitutional
... Oh crap, remember "change" last time?
On the post: Lawmaker, Convicted Of Raping Foster Kids, Claims Name Is Copyrighted So You Can't Report It
I don't really believe this guy actually believes he has a legit copyright claim to his name. Looks like it's just a ditch, shot-in-the-dark effort to keep reporting on him to a minimum.
Quintessential "Barbara Streisand Effect" moment.
On the post: North Face Didn't Get The Message; Sues South Butt
Re: Why does he need a license?
On the post: Is Google Going Too Far In Latest Advertising Bans?
Re: Funny
No, actually that's not the case at all. He's referring to cases in which people have NOT broken any TOS agreements but still get banned. This happens fairly often, and Google has been really bad about following up with those who were wrongly banned.
On the post: Schmidt's 'Don't Do Stuff You Want To Keep Private' Sounds Like 'If You Aren't Doing Anything Wrong...'
Re: Re: Politics vs. Morality vs. Practicality
On the post: Pomplamoose: Making A Living Without A CD Or A Label
Re:
Don't know about royalties -- I don't know the laws of such things. But I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't paying any royalties.
On the post: The Difference Between Innovation And Invention... In Two Minutes With A Whiteboard
Re: Re: Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
On the post: The Difference Between Innovation And Invention... In Two Minutes With A Whiteboard
Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
Seriously?
On the post: Game Developer Won't Edit 'Aliens vs. Predator' To Appease Australian Censors
On the post: Schmidt's 'Don't Do Stuff You Want To Keep Private' Sounds Like 'If You Aren't Doing Anything Wrong...'
Politics vs. Morality vs. Practicality
If you're talking about government oversight, it's one hundred-percent BAD. It leads ultimately to fascism. Let's get that out of the way.
If you're talking everyday morality or practicality, though, I think it can be good advice. If you're doing something you'd be ashamed of others knowing you did, one of two problems probably exists with your action: Either (1) you shouldn't be doing what you're doing, or (2) you're embarrassed about who you are, which is not morally improper but psychologically unhealthy.
As to the practicality of the statement, it makes sense in that virtually anything you do can be discovered by the world -- just by the nature of the society in which we live. Therefore, if there's something you don't want people to know you've done, you probably shouldn't do it because there's a good chance someone will find out.
On the post: US Laws Don't Apply In Case Involving Yahoo's China Subsidiary Handing Over Info To Gov't
Re: Re:
On the post: US Laws Don't Apply In Case Involving Yahoo's China Subsidiary Handing Over Info To Gov't
On the post: Let Them Sing... About Copyright?
Re:
Oh? So every business exists in a vacuum?
Next >>