Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
If you testify against a mobster/gangster, you have to do it in front of them. (You are afforded the right to face your accuser) so they already know what you look like if you are testifying against them.
Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
First, sorry about the "dumbass" remark, I misunderstood your point.
Second:
Put cameras in the courtroom, murders of witnesses go up
I could be wrong, but witness names are a matter of public record as is their testimony. They can be video taped entering and leaving the court room. There are actual, real live *people* in the court room, looking at the witnesses. Allowing cameras in the courtroom will do nothing to make witnesses more or less safe. This "harm for witnesses" line is nothing but a straw man. If someone wanted to do harm to a witness, they have the tool required to do so, and we already have laws in place against it.
The real "fear" here is that your next door neighbor probably won't take the time go down and request a transcript of the trial proceedings. He might watch a feed of it on the nightly news, though. These people are not afraid of being murdered, they're afraid of being found out that they are (in this case) homophobic bigots.
So now other people get to decide whether your works are released,against your permission and as long as they are "fans" it's all good right?
He said he was going to go after downloaders. (aka fans) Note that the downloaders are not the person who uploaded.
Therefore, he is attacking his fans who did nothing but accept a free offer for what they wanted, that is, to see the movie asap. Getting angry at his fans for being eager to see the movie seems a bit anti-fan, doesn't it?
I had to agree with everything you said until you went all retard on me and called it theft.
Perhaps beside the point, but the phrase "even if they happen to download them" doesn't mean "even if they accidentally download them", it means "regardless on whether or not they download them".
I bet if some of these same children could break into Stephen King's house to see his 30% completed manuscript because they just "can't wait" for the book to be published, they would.
I see your bet and raise you the fact that 100% of those that would want to read a 30% completed book will buy the book when it comes out.
That, my friend, is the point. The **fans** are the ones that care about an early release. If I don't like Mr. King's writing, I won't want it at 30%, or 50%, or 100%.
While it is not illegal to alienate your fans, it is a very bad business decision.
Do you understand now?
In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.
Which is fine if you have some argument about an unfinished work. (See above for why that's silly) However, the movie is question is/was ready to be seen, and was only delayed to add "hype" or whatever the marketing world wants to call it. Making your *paying* customers wait for a product that is complete only gives them a reason to pirate. If a movie was released as soon as it was done, these fans would just go out and see it.
I will neither confirm nor deny that I have seen this leaked copy, but if I were a betting man I'd bet my entire paycheck that this leaked copy was sent to a movie critic for award consideration purposes. Thus, it was leaked by someone who it was *given* to, and no one "accessed a storage device they shouldn't have".
Exactly. They are proposing a law that would allow Party A to terminate your services with Party B without any convictions, only allegations from Party A using an IP Address to "prove" you did it, and to top it off, the law is unenforceable.
All the while, getting kicked off the internet isn't going to make anyone buy more music, so the original "problem" isn't even solved.
What ever a sex offender is proven guilty of should happen to them. Doesn't matter what it is. Rape? They should be raped.
Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, my enraged friend.
It's also worth noting that there are several flaws in your (obviously) poorly thought-out plan.
1. A man solicits sex from a minor on the internet. His punishment is to be solicited for sex from a minor on the internet?
2. An 18 year old girl sleeps with her 17 year old boyfriend. Her punishment is to have a 19 year old boy sleep with her?
3. A poor fellow who cannot handle his drink is caught urinating in public thrice. His punishment is to.. I really don't know, be urinated on three times in private? (He might like it!)
Finally, regardless of the nature of the sex crime, in your world all sex offender would still get to stay on the internet.
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
;)
On the post: French Court Forcing Google To Remove Word 'Scam' From Google Suggest
Why
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re: Re: Re:
Hell, Facebook and a newspaper could do as much harm.
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
Second:
Put cameras in the courtroom, murders of witnesses go up
I could be wrong, but witness names are a matter of public record as is their testimony. They can be video taped entering and leaving the court room. There are actual, real live *people* in the court room, looking at the witnesses. Allowing cameras in the courtroom will do nothing to make witnesses more or less safe. This "harm for witnesses" line is nothing but a straw man. If someone wanted to do harm to a witness, they have the tool required to do so, and we already have laws in place against it.
The real "fear" here is that your next door neighbor probably won't take the time go down and request a transcript of the trial proceedings. He might watch a feed of it on the nightly news, though. These people are not afraid of being murdered, they're afraid of being found out that they are (in this case) homophobic bigots.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
So now other people get to decide whether your works are released,against your permission and as long as they are "fans" it's all good right?
He said he was going to go after downloaders. (aka fans) Note that the downloaders are not the person who uploaded.
Therefore, he is attacking his fans who did nothing but accept a free offer for what they wanted, that is, to see the movie asap. Getting angry at his fans for being eager to see the movie seems a bit anti-fan, doesn't it?
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
Perhaps beside the point, but the phrase "even if they happen to download them" doesn't mean "even if they accidentally download them", it means "regardless on whether or not they download them".
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets
A leaked copy will certainly lower your sales if your movie sucks. I think that is their *real* fear.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: until
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: Re: Re:
I see your bet and raise you the fact that 100% of those that would want to read a 30% completed book will buy the book when it comes out.
That, my friend, is the point. The **fans** are the ones that care about an early release. If I don't like Mr. King's writing, I won't want it at 30%, or 50%, or 100%.
While it is not illegal to alienate your fans, it is a very bad business decision.
Do you understand now?
In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.
Which is fine if you have some argument about an unfinished work. (See above for why that's silly) However, the movie is question is/was ready to be seen, and was only delayed to add "hype" or whatever the marketing world wants to call it. Making your *paying* customers wait for a product that is complete only gives them a reason to pirate. If a movie was released as soon as it was done, these fans would just go out and see it.
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re:
..until people realize how boring the legal system really is.
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
Dumbass.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: Bottom line
will be the day I put away me eye patch and me parrot, matey.
FTFY :)
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
If it is *given*, then it's not theft, (even by your twisted use of the word)is it?
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: Re:
I hope this clears things up for you.
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Obvious troll is obvious. We've gotten spoiled having TAM around.
That's my bad. :)
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re: How do you ban someone from the internet?
All the while, getting kicked off the internet isn't going to make anyone buy more music, so the original "problem" isn't even solved.
What could go wrong?
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re: Re:
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, my enraged friend.
It's also worth noting that there are several flaws in your (obviously) poorly thought-out plan.
1. A man solicits sex from a minor on the internet. His punishment is to be solicited for sex from a minor on the internet?
2. An 18 year old girl sleeps with her 17 year old boyfriend. Her punishment is to have a 19 year old boy sleep with her?
3. A poor fellow who cannot handle his drink is caught urinating in public thrice. His punishment is to.. I really don't know, be urinated on three times in private? (He might like it!)
Finally, regardless of the nature of the sex crime, in your world all sex offender would still get to stay on the internet.
Have a great day, danny boy.
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re:
You're still allowed to ride in a car.
Next >>