Well, any regular reader knew what he meant, and maybe Mike will take more care to single out just the crazies in the future. (I can't speak for Mike). Mike has even said before that patents as an idea aren't bad, but they are no longer used as they were intended. That, I'd say, put him more in your camp than in those wishing to scrap the entire system.
Also, and I mean no disrespect, but this is the internet; grow thicker skin and things will work out smoother. :)
I understand your point, and agree. People like you shouldn't be lumped together with the patent extremists. However, people like you also need to be as vocal as the extremists, lest people forget you exist. In our defense, rarely do we get a pro-patent-system point-of-view here that isn't absurd beyond measure. It would be nice to hear a sane supporter's ideas on the matter.
I don't think you will find anyone that will support the patent you are asking about here.
As Mike said-- there is no 1st amendment issue when the dealings are between two private entities. Google is perfectly within the law to say "No boobs" just as they could say "no red shirts can be worn in an uploaded video".
I thought pornography had to depict acts of sex. So, it stands to reason that anything that has nudity but doesn't show people having sex should be fine.
Or, are we still in the camp where parts of the body are dangerous to children?
Why would it even warrant an apology? I don't understand. Do you expect an apology from the government every time some drunk plows his car into another car? I mean, without roads that would be much more difficult to pull off, right? Or maybe from Ford? No, all fault is placed on the driver, as it *should* be.
I am not familiar with Italian politics, but this just looks ignorant or shady. (I can't decide which.)
Think of the poor honey farmers that are hurt by the rampant hacking that goes on! After all, you wouldn't feed your grandmother live honeybees, so don't give her pirated music, either!
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
Is this going to be the next set of laws used to try and handicap internet profiteers?
If "internet profiteers" are handing out computers to children and then arbitrarily turning on the web cams to watch the children then, yes, they are probably going to get "handicapped".
It is commonplace to have laws that specifically disallow some type of action when dealing with children and allow it when dealing with adults. I feel that this is how this whole saga will play out. No more spying on unsuspecting children. I'm okay with that.
Furthermore, and slightly off-topic, using a web cam to track down a lost/stolen laptop is a piss poor method. Even if it had never been used, whoever came up with *that* brain child would need to be fired.
i my self have fallen for the "i'm a musician and you don't know what being a musician is like" line of thinking. the counter point make is pretty much always, "i'm the consumer, i'm the one with the money. if you want it sell something i want to buy." that's not really a constructive conversation.
I don't have any problem with that conversation, as written. It is the simple truth. If you've decided to become a musician to make money, then you have to produce something that I, the consumer, want, and sell it at a price I'm willing it pay. There is no getting around this. Even making up ridiculous laws saying I have to buy it at $0.99 because you say so doesn't stop the fact, as piracy shows. Since the trend is clear that more and more people are seeing "$0" as the acceptable price point, musicians (and other creative types) have to find a new way to survive in the market, or starve. That's life.
PS- When I type "you" in this little rant, I don't mean you personally, I mean "you" in the more general sense. :)
I don't think they should get a free pass on issues like this just because I like their service.
Now, I thought I was pretty quick to sign up, but maybe this button was missing before I got to it, however, it definitely *asked* me if I wanted to enable buzz.
Should a company be liable for its users inattention to detail?
You are obviously confused. Any harm that may come to content creators, either directly or indirectly, from this arrangement is *more* than made up by the boon to the corn farmers¡
It doesn't excuse the sloppy way it was implemented, but it makes showing damages a little difficult. What are they suing *for*? Certainly not their money back that they spent on gmail, amiright?
Re: Until we get laws with teeth, lawsuits are still a needed evil
Once they have it, they can do what they want, and if you don't like it, too bad.
By 'once they have it' you, of course, mean 'once you give it to them of your own free will' and by 'too bad' you, of course, mean 'take your business elsewhere'? Or did the government mandate gmail addresses for everyone while I wasn't looking?
Re: Re: Re: A mistake that shouldn't have been made perhaps?
Second: Did you see the blog about the lady whose abusive ex-husband ended up being an automatic follower on Buzz?
I don't understand your point. She obviously emailed this man enough for Google to auto add him, so it's not like he suddenly learned of her existence. Further, even before the "fix", Google *showed* you who was being auto followed and who was following you. Next to that picture was the words "block" and "follow back".
This is a non-issue. If a person really feels that strongly about this, stop using the *free* service Google provides, and go elsewhere.
On the post: Guy Who Makes Simple Caller ID App For Android Forced To Shut Down Due To Patent Threat
Re: Re: Re: patent supporter
Also, and I mean no disrespect, but this is the internet; grow thicker skin and things will work out smoother. :)
On the post: Guy Who Makes Simple Caller ID App For Android Forced To Shut Down Due To Patent Threat
Re: patent supporter
I don't think you will find anyone that will support the patent you are asking about here.
I bet I can find at least one. :)
On the post: Microsoft Uses DMCA To Force Cryptome Offline
FYI
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re:
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re:
Or, are we still in the camp where parts of the body are dangerous to children?
Humans are an odd bunch.
On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences
Re:
I am not familiar with Italian politics, but this just looks ignorant or shady. (I can't decide which.)
On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Re: Except...
I don't think you know what indisputable means.
On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
I only know because I was going to correct someone on it and decided to look it up first.
More info here. :)
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re:
Remind me again what the sole purpose of patents is?
On the post: Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?
Re:
Flamewar averted?
On the post: School Spying Scandal Gets Even More Bizarre: Student In Question Was Disciplined For Eating Candy
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
If "internet profiteers" are handing out computers to children and then arbitrarily turning on the web cams to watch the children then, yes, they are probably going to get "handicapped".
It is commonplace to have laws that specifically disallow some type of action when dealing with children and allow it when dealing with adults. I feel that this is how this whole saga will play out. No more spying on unsuspecting children. I'm okay with that.
Furthermore, and slightly off-topic, using a web cam to track down a lost/stolen laptop is a piss poor method. Even if it had never been used, whoever came up with *that* brain child would need to be fired.
On the post: Are People Resentful Of Content Creators?
Re: hate the middlemen
I don't have any problem with that conversation, as written. It is the simple truth. If you've decided to become a musician to make money, then you have to produce something that I, the consumer, want, and sell it at a price I'm willing it pay. There is no getting around this. Even making up ridiculous laws saying I have to buy it at $0.99 because you say so doesn't stop the fact, as piracy shows. Since the trend is clear that more and more people are seeing "$0" as the acceptable price point, musicians (and other creative types) have to find a new way to survive in the market, or starve. That's life.
PS- When I type "you" in this little rant, I don't mean you personally, I mean "you" in the more general sense. :)
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Re: Re: Re:
Now, I thought I was pretty quick to sign up, but maybe this button was missing before I got to it, however, it definitely *asked* me if I wanted to enable buzz.
Should a company be liable for its users inattention to detail?
On the post: Australian Copyright Agency Paid Itself More Than It Distributed To Content Creators
Clarification
You are obviously confused. Any harm that may come to content creators, either directly or indirectly, from this arrangement is *more* than made up by the boon to the corn farmers¡
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Re:
Any information they have on you, you gave them. Maybe if you don't trust Google then don't use their services?
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Re: Free Service Doesn't Excuse
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Re: Until we get laws with teeth, lawsuits are still a needed evil
By 'once they have it' you, of course, mean 'once you give it to them of your own free will' and by 'too bad' you, of course, mean 'take your business elsewhere'? Or did the government mandate gmail addresses for everyone while I wasn't looking?
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Re: Re: Re: A mistake that shouldn't have been made perhaps?
I don't understand your point. She obviously emailed this man enough for Google to auto add him, so it's not like he suddenly learned of her existence. Further, even before the "fix", Google *showed* you who was being auto followed and who was following you. Next to that picture was the words "block" and "follow back".
This is a non-issue. If a person really feels that strongly about this, stop using the *free* service Google provides, and go elsewhere.
Next >>