I can't decide if you are willfully ignorant or you really don't understand that phrase. "Promotion" means that in exchange for the government supporting your exclusive rights, you will do things that ultimately benefit the citizenship as a whole. You gain in the short term, everyone gains in the long term.
But folks like you seem to want it both ways. If you want to have an exclusive right to your content, you need to finance it privately, through your own income or through investors that agree to relinquish any rights to that content. You can't expect to receive public funding from colleges/universities or the government and also retain exclusive use of your content for a century.
I think it is the superset of crimes (encoded in lawbooks or not) that CBS and other content industry folks believe we all commit, of which infringement is a part. Affringement includes not watching commercials, not buying advertiser's products, submitting negative reviews of anything in their line-up, coughing on Les Moonves, and so on.
Perhaps, but they are the ones that said, "And yet, we're told that 'a single' is almost valueless. And that pisses us off."
The choice of those words imply that they a) don't understand the difference between price and value and b) believe that the price for singles should be much higher.
You're right that we cannot take the next step to conclude they think it should be higher because they are greedy, but their own words have pointed the discussion in this direction.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
You are needlessly obtuse if you think ad hominem applies to the final quote in your post. It might be non sequitur (A doesn't follow from B), but it is certainly not ad hominem (attack on the person).
You might want to study either logic or latin or both--your call.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
No, it's not a fair assertion, but you know that. It's ad-hominem at best. Personally, I don't own any firearms and am for more gun control, but throwing intellectual honesty out the window to try to accomplish your agenda helps no one.
My father owned guns, served on the front lines in Vietnam, and earned a bronze star. He also saved my son from drowning at clear risk to himself and worked tirelessly to feed the homeless every year.
You can shove your bigoted "coward" argument up your dumb, ignorant ass.
Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure that 95% of the populace wouldn't know that distinction. This is part of why the laws are so broken--if an average person finds themselves within the scope of the law on a daily basis, but does not intuitively understand how to comply with the law or even worse compliance is counter to their own common sense, something is very very wrong.
To be clear, this has been on many, many CDs for years. I just pulled two random CDs from my collection and "lending" was on one of them. My "O Brother, Where Art Thou" CD from 2000 says, "Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and..."
So I'm not sure we should blame Mumford and Sons for ignorance that has been prevalent across the industry.
Exactly. People so often blindly believe that if a politician says a regulation will do X or it is widely understood that a regulation is intended for X, that the regulation will directly affect X.
Sadly, our world is far too complex for this almost ever to be true. Anyone that is a student of economics and has spent some time understanding incentives or penalties, understands that it is difficult to move behavior in the exactly the direction that you want.
I'm certainly don't have any first-hand information, I've just experienced similar environments in my work with the federal government for the last thirty years.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said before, that "the job is hard" isn't an excuse--it's just in this case, everything I've read seems to support the idea that the industry gets its way almost always as long as it is simply persistent. That indicates a systemic failure, not just one of individual competence.
I bet those extra numbers were either superscript or subscript notations that had their formatting removed--it's just too coincidental that they are 1 and 2 respectively.
I think what the AC above was trying to say was not "the job is hard", but that examiners have virtually no systemic support for rejecting patents.
Meaning nothing in their ecosystem of regulations, process, or leadership give them the tools by which they can reject a patent and have the system help them defend that result.
If you work in an environment where you are accountable to make formal judgments of A or B, and NO ONE supports you or has your back when you choose B, AND everyone wants you to make the judgment in the shortest time possible, eventually you just learn to just pick A.
That's just it--it's ok to like the experience from physical books better. I do too.
And I know you both agree, the problem lies in trying to justify that somehow ebooks are fundamentally or innately flawed such that the human race should reject them universally.
Well, the bottom line is that it either is or it isn't. If you want to argue that infringement = theft, then you need to acknowledge that digital goods purchased by consumers are now the property of the consumer and subject to first sale rights, etc.
But of course those who believe digital goods are the same thing as physical objects don't want to acknowledge this inconsistency.
It isn't illegal per se. However, if it can be shown that more than reasonable efforts have been made to serve and that service is being deliberately refused, the judge in the case can take further actions. Perhaps Mr. Carreon feels confident in his ability to thumb his nose at a judge, but in general it does not work in your favor.
On the post: MIT Should Make All Its Research Open Access In Honor Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MIT Should Make All Its Research Open Access In Honor Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Administration Considers Joining Publishers In Fight To Stamp Out Fair Use At Universities
Re: Re:
But folks like you seem to want it both ways. If you want to have an exclusive right to your content, you need to finance it privately, through your own income or through investors that agree to relinquish any rights to that content. You can't expect to receive public funding from colleges/universities or the government and also retain exclusive use of your content for a century.
On the post: Dish Turns CBS' Actions Against It; Touts Its Revoked 'Best In Show' Status With A Damning Footnote
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it.
On the post: Confusing Value And Price, Choir Demands £3000 Per Download
Re: Re: Re:
The choice of those words imply that they a) don't understand the difference between price and value and b) believe that the price for singles should be much higher.
You're right that we cannot take the next step to conclude they think it should be higher because they are greedy, but their own words have pointed the discussion in this direction.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
You might want to study either logic or latin or both--your call.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
My father owned guns, served on the front lines in Vietnam, and earned a bronze star. He also saved my son from drowning at clear risk to himself and worked tirelessly to feed the homeless every year.
You can shove your bigoted "coward" argument up your dumb, ignorant ass.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re:
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
So I'm not sure we should blame Mumford and Sons for ignorance that has been prevalent across the industry.
On the post: California Looking To Protect You From The Scourge Of Airlines Not Mentioning Privacy Policies You Don't Read
Re: Re:
Sadly, our world is far too complex for this almost ever to be true. Anyone that is a student of economics and has spent some time understanding incentives or penalties, understands that it is difficult to move behavior in the exactly the direction that you want.
On the post: Remember When You Couldn't Patent Math? Good Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said before, that "the job is hard" isn't an excuse--it's just in this case, everything I've read seems to support the idea that the industry gets its way almost always as long as it is simply persistent. That indicates a systemic failure, not just one of individual competence.
On the post: MPAA To USTR: More Shutdowns Like Megaupload, Please
On the post: Remember When You Couldn't Patent Math? Good Times
Re: Re: Re:
Meaning nothing in their ecosystem of regulations, process, or leadership give them the tools by which they can reject a patent and have the system help them defend that result.
If you work in an environment where you are accountable to make formal judgments of A or B, and NO ONE supports you or has your back when you choose B, AND everyone wants you to make the judgment in the shortest time possible, eventually you just learn to just pick A.
On the post: Homeless Man Who Got Free Boots From Cop Now 'Wants His Cut' Of YouTube Attention
Re: Re: Response
His post, is simply saying in response to the guy's statement about pie, that he did get a piece of the pie--he got shoes.
Since we're throwing around stawmen here, you obviously believe the homeless guy got shafted. Exactly what do you think the guy should get?
On the post: Author Andrew Piper: Turning Pages Is Important, Therefore Reading Ebooks Isn't Reading
Re: Re: We all have a little luddite in us.
And I know you both agree, the problem lies in trying to justify that somehow ebooks are fundamentally or innately flawed such that the human race should reject them universally.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Decides That Purchased Ebooks Are Only Yours Until Your Credit Card Expires
Re: Cognitive dissonance
But of course those who believe digital goods are the same thing as physical objects don't want to acknowledge this inconsistency.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Decides That Purchased Ebooks Are Only Yours Until Your Credit Card Expires
Re: Re: the 'T' word
/sarc
On the post: Charles Carreon Finally Gets Served
Re: Re:
On the post: Cause For Concern: 'Experimental' Patches Applied To Ohio Voting Machines Without Certification
Re:
Next >>