On a side note, I am not positive that NAMELESS.ONE's (seemingly) random caps and returns, when combined with all his other posts printed in Arial font 20pt. on 8.5"x11" paper on a 9 by 9 square won't show us the face of Jesus when viewed from a distance. We'll have to wait until he's done with his masterpiece before we can truly judge.
I don't consider it wrong. No one *at all* is harmed by the reproduction of an infinite good. I know, what about so-called "lost sales"? I'm IP raping the artists' and their children!!
Well, you can't lose something you never had. Lost sales are when someone returns a good for a refund or if someone attempts to buy a good that is out of stock. If I decide to read a book from the library instead of buying a movie on iTunes, have they "lost" a sale due to libraries? No, they haven't.
Since at the very worst, copyright infringement is a net neutral action, and at best it is a net positive action, it stands to reason that it is not wrong.
A business exists to solve a problem. Media companies (Newspaper, books, music, movies, etc) need to realize that the problem they were (should be?) solving has changed.
In the days of yore, the problem was getting media to me. It was really a pain in the ass, getting a CD/Book/Movie/News from its creation, into my hands. Unfortunately for them, this is no longer a problem-- I can get my hands on all of this Media easily, cheaply and quickly. I don't need them to keep on solving that problem. It's gotten to the point that they are attempting to *stop progress* to keep this problem relevant.
Luckily for them, at the exact moment the old problem was solved, a new problem was born: Holy shit, there is a lot of Media out there.
Now, if someone were to go and find a way to sort through all the gigs and gigs of media and make sure that the stuff I want to see/hear (maybe with a customizable 'random' factor) got to me in a simple, elegant, *central* source-- hell yeah, I'd pay for that. Monthly. Forever.
Oh boy, you piled up so much wrong in that comment, it's amazing, really.
If you don't want to submit to the requirements for flying, don't fly.
Yes, instead take a train to Hawaii. I mean, hey, you didn't want a stranger to see you naked, you're probably a terrorist anyway.
As long as I can feel good about getting on a flight without worrying about the guy near the front with the funny accent.
Because people without accents are safer? Really? So, as long as someone forces you to do something in the name of 'perceived security', you're all good? You see where the trend is going, don't you? Man shoots through cockpit door = reinforced door; man hides bomb in shoe = remove your shoes; man hides bomb in underwear = they look at you naked; man hides bomb... in a 6 year old girl = ????
Yeah, you'd be okay with body cavity searches of children, then? Hey, in the name of 'perceived security', right, so it's all good?
Look, there is no such thing as prevention, TSA can only hope for deterrents
Notice the trend, though. Each new form of 'security' didn't make anything safer, because there is something after it. So, if looking at my naked body isn't actually going to *do* anything, I'll pass, thanks.
It's like a cheap car alarm, it won't stop your car from getting stolen if someone is determined to steel it.(sic)
Think back to the last time you heard a car alarm. Did you rush over to the potential crime scene, or call 911? Did you even bother to *look* at the car? No, you wished someone would turn off that damn noise.
So many people have died for the freedoms you are casually giving away to pretend to feel safe. It's so sad.
Oh? Since when? Is Apple's market share slipping? Are the App Store's numbers dropping? Are developers abandoning it for Android? Are customers leaving in droves?
The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO.
The answer to all those questions is a resounding not yet.
I dunno, moe, I think you're trying too hard. (Hopefully playing Devil's Advocate)
If the government creates a law that compels Party A to limit the speech of Party B, then, in effect, the government has limited the speech of Party B.
If a cop hires a civilian to break into my house and search it for evidence because he could not obtain a warrant, my 4th Amendment rights have still been violated.
This *could* be resolved if the burden of proof was raised to much higher than a mere accusation, in my opinion, but as it is it does appear to violate speech.
This does not even mention that all this speech is being repressed solely for a civil matter, which seems asinine when compared by weight. Speech > Business Model (imo, of course)
It's just it makes more sense that only those who are directly affected by the incorrect marking should claim liability.
If something is not under a patent, then it belongs to society. If someone falsely claims a patent on something, they have lied and said that it cannot be used by society, only by themselves. Thus, it stands to reason that all of society is directly affected if someone falsely claims a patent on something, yes?
Seriously, pal, lose that ridiculous signature. It makes it hard to take you seriously even when I agree with you, and I do with this topic. It's just that I don't care how many made up groups you're a director/president/vice chancellor of and it just makes you look like a pathetic old man trying to convince the rest of us that you're a "somebody".
Re: I can't speak for this one specifically, but...
Just saying that NBC would have figured it out on their own and dismissing this guys claim is pretty unfair.
I'm sorry, what? Adding "on the internet" does **NOT** make something new.
I've got a swell idea! Let's put movies... on the internet! No one will make that mental jump, amiright? Or, hey shopping for clothes... on the internet! Brilliant! Let's put the news... on the internet! Dating... on the internet! No, wait, radio... on the internet!
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: @42 @darkTHICKHELMET
On a side note, I am not positive that NAMELESS.ONE's (seemingly) random caps and returns, when combined with all his other posts printed in Arial font 20pt. on 8.5"x11" paper on a 9 by 9 square won't show us the face of Jesus when viewed from a distance. We'll have to wait until he's done with his masterpiece before we can truly judge.
It could happen.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
You sound like a basic economics textbook. Get a unique idea instead of regurgitating other people's points.
I fixed that for ya. :)
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
My bad.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: @42 @darkTHICKHELMET
You'd be angry dude's long lost, slightly more eloquent, anti-IP brother.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
It doesn't pass that "thought" (though I feel very little went into it) experiment because you set it up to fail. Let's do a little math, shall we?
With a car-copying-machine:
Without a car-copying-machine:
Now, explain to me how the car company is better off with $0 and no customers than with $30,000 and 50 people driving their cars?
I'll wait. :)
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Just hold on a second...seriously..
I don't consider it wrong. No one *at all* is harmed by the reproduction of an infinite good. I know, what about so-called "lost sales"? I'm IP raping the artists' and their children!!
Well, you can't lose something you never had. Lost sales are when someone returns a good for a refund or if someone attempts to buy a good that is out of stock. If I decide to read a book from the library instead of buying a movie on iTunes, have they "lost" a sale due to libraries? No, they haven't.
Since at the very worst, copyright infringement is a net neutral action, and at best it is a net positive action, it stands to reason that it is not wrong.
In my opinion, anyway.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: @5 @12 @17 @18 @20
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: @darkhlemet
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Very subtle.
I see what you did there, you made a copy of "ahead of", you didn't steal it. Brilliant!
:)
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Problem solving and you.
In the days of yore, the problem was getting media to me. It was really a pain in the ass, getting a CD/Book/Movie/News from its creation, into my hands. Unfortunately for them, this is no longer a problem-- I can get my hands on all of this Media easily, cheaply and quickly. I don't need them to keep on solving that problem. It's gotten to the point that they are attempting to *stop progress* to keep this problem relevant.
Luckily for them, at the exact moment the old problem was solved, a new problem was born: Holy shit, there is a lot of Media out there.
Now, if someone were to go and find a way to sort through all the gigs and gigs of media and make sure that the stuff I want to see/hear (maybe with a customizable 'random' factor) got to me in a simple, elegant, *central* source-- hell yeah, I'd pay for that. Monthly. Forever.
On the post: TSA Admits That Body Scan Machines Can Record Images
Re: Given a choice.
If you don't want to submit to the requirements for flying, don't fly.
Yes, instead take a train to Hawaii. I mean, hey, you didn't want a stranger to see you naked, you're probably a terrorist anyway.
As long as I can feel good about getting on a flight without worrying about the guy near the front with the funny accent.
Because people without accents are safer? Really? So, as long as someone forces you to do something in the name of 'perceived security', you're all good? You see where the trend is going, don't you? Man shoots through cockpit door = reinforced door; man hides bomb in shoe = remove your shoes; man hides bomb in underwear = they look at you naked; man hides bomb... in a 6 year old girl = ????
Yeah, you'd be okay with body cavity searches of children, then? Hey, in the name of 'perceived security', right, so it's all good?
Look, there is no such thing as prevention, TSA can only hope for deterrents
Notice the trend, though. Each new form of 'security' didn't make anything safer, because there is something after it. So, if looking at my naked body isn't actually going to *do* anything, I'll pass, thanks.
It's like a cheap car alarm, it won't stop your car from getting stolen if someone is determined to steel it.(sic)
Think back to the last time you heard a car alarm. Did you rush over to the potential crime scene, or call 911? Did you even bother to *look* at the car? No, you wished someone would turn off that damn noise.
So many people have died for the freedoms you are casually giving away to pretend to feel safe. It's so sad.
On the post: Apple Reminds Everybody That It Controls The iPhone Ecosystem
Re: Re: Re: crap
The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO.
The answer to all those questions is a resounding not yet.
FTFY.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Key phrase
If the government creates a law that compels Party A to limit the speech of Party B, then, in effect, the government has limited the speech of Party B.
If a cop hires a civilian to break into my house and search it for evidence because he could not obtain a warrant, my 4th Amendment rights have still been violated.
This *could* be resolved if the burden of proof was raised to much higher than a mere accusation, in my opinion, but as it is it does appear to violate speech.
This does not even mention that all this speech is being repressed solely for a civil matter, which seems asinine when compared by weight. Speech > Business Model (imo, of course)
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Would Curtail Lawsuits Against Those Who Falsely Claim Patent Protection
Re: glacial pace
Explain to me again how making the government granted monopolies make more sense is un-american, again?
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Would Curtail Lawsuits Against Those Who Falsely Claim Patent Protection
Re:
If something is not under a patent, then it belongs to society. If someone falsely claims a patent on something, they have lied and said that it cannot be used by society, only by themselves. Thus, it stands to reason that all of society is directly affected if someone falsely claims a patent on something, yes?
On the post: CyberDefender Threatens Consumer Advocate With Defamation Claim
Re: Complaints Prima Facie Evidense
You remind me of a peacock in a suit.
On the post: Results From Dungeons & Dragons Online Going Free: Revenue Up 500%
Re: Re: Re:
Free is a business model that will get their foot in the door for me. Let's hope it doesn't suck.
On the post: Hollywood Threatens To Stop Selling DVDs In Spain In A Push To Increase Unauthorized File Sharing?
Re: And another thing ...
On the post: Because NBC Could Never Have Figured Out How To Put TV Shows On The Internet By Itself...
Re: I can't speak for this one specifically, but...
I'm sorry, what? Adding "on the internet" does **NOT** make something new.
I've got a swell idea! Let's put movies... on the internet! No one will make that mental jump, amiright? Or, hey shopping for clothes... on the internet! Brilliant! Let's put the news... on the internet! Dating... on the internet! No, wait, radio... on the internet!
On the post: YouTube Motions Highlight How Entertainment Industry Lawsuits May Have Slowed Useful Platforms
Re: Re: Re: whats the link to the survey?
Next >>