The funny thing about tracking content sales, is that it ignores all the artists who make money by selling scarcities and giving their content away for free. Are they not part of the music business?
Sadly, we will never know how much this leak costs them
Or profits them.
We all know that if they go on to make a hojillion dollars with Crysis 2, the shills will be back with "But, but, but they certainly would have made two hojillion dollars had it not been leaked first!"
Funny how "we'll never know" only comes up on the side of the debate interested in tallying "losses", isn't it?
There will be no western revolution, the powers that be are far too good at staying in control.
Part of that is that fact that our government grows by inches here and there (boiling a frog, etc), unlike smash-and-grab dictators in other countries.
The US government is like mold; it's disgusting, it's all-consuming, and it inexorably spreads outwards . . . just very, very slowly.
That may be, but isn't it true that the Citizen's United case opened the flood gates for anonymous spending by political action committees upon attack ads which are not directly sponsored or approved by the candidate?
If you mean "speech", then yes. It did allow for more of it. Why is this a bad thing, again? Because you don't like speech of a particular sort?
Political spending was at record levels
How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision? Most of the furor I've seen are over things that were perfectly acceptable before the decision.
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments.
"We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
That may be, but isn't it true that the Citizen's United case opened the flood gates for anonymous spending by political action committees upon attack ads which are not directly sponsored or approved by the candidate? Political spending was at record levels
How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision? Most of the furor I've seen are over things that were perfectly acceptable before the decision.
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments.
"We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
There was nothing wrong with the Citizens United decision. A group of people got together to pool their resources and make a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. The government stepped in and said, "No, you can't say bad things about Hillary this close to an election." The court slapped them down and said that just because it was a group of people and not an individual, that didn't mean they lose their right to free speech.
And somehow, that court ruling heralds the end of democracy? We need an amendment to make sure that the government can ban political speech it doesn't like? Yeah, that'll make our situation better . . .
Here's an important point that I try to re-iterate whenever possible, because the internet is awash with misinformation on the subject:
The Citizen's United did not allow corporations to donate any more money to candidates than they were already allowed to. It just prohibited the government from banning actual political speech merely because it came from a group of incorporated individuals. There's a big difference.
Doesn't have anything to do with "copying without permission". I don't need permission to cite someone else's research.
It has to do with dishonestly claiming those words as his own. I'm of the opinion that any "punishment" should be social in nature, and not legal. He'll lose credibility, and perhaps his suffer repercussions in his career.
The point is that the original author, in this narrow little area, is correct.
No, he's not "correct". He was either "wrong" (if he was intending to refer to the rape rate), or "misleading the public" (if he was using total rapes to prop up his argument).
The question isn't "increase in rapes per thousand" but "increase in rapes". Are there or are there not more rapes in the US today than 10 years ago?
Why in the world would that be "the question"? It makes no sense to make that comparison, as it doesn't tell you anything useful.
Snitches get stitches and all that crap plays heavily in many parts of the world.
In many parts of the world? Yes, I'm sure BulletStorm is prepped and ready to increase the rape rate in the Sudan. That's clearly the measuring stick we should be using . . .
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re:
study after study has shown that piracy, alone, is not damaging the industry.
Oh wait. How's that reading comprehension thing coming?
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re:
Because it wastes a ton of money and doesn't solve the problem of giving people a reason to buy?
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re:
[Citation Needed]
On the post: Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
Re:
Or profits them.
We all know that if they go on to make a hojillion dollars with Crysis 2, the shills will be back with "But, but, but they certainly would have made two hojillion dollars had it not been leaked first!"
Funny how "we'll never know" only comes up on the side of the debate interested in tallying "losses", isn't it?
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re: Re:
Part of that is that fact that our government grows by inches here and there (boiling a frog, etc), unlike smash-and-grab dictators in other countries.
The US government is like mold; it's disgusting, it's all-consuming, and it inexorably spreads outwards . . . just very, very slowly.
On the post: China's President Wants Greater Internet Censorship; Worried About Middle East Uprisings
Re: Re: Re:
It's not fair to the Western creators or those who toil in sweatshops, but it is effective.
So living under a dictatorship is good if China's economy is doing well, but disregarding IP law is bad for doing the same.
Nice to know you have your priorities straight there.
On the post: James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?
Re:
On the post: The Five Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed The Whistleblower Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notice something?
That may be, but isn't it true that the Citizen's United case opened the flood gates for anonymous spending by political action committees upon attack ads which are not directly sponsored or approved by the candidate?
If you mean "speech", then yes. It did allow for more of it. Why is this a bad thing, again? Because you don't like speech of a particular sort?
Political spending was at record levels
How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision? Most of the furor I've seen are over things that were perfectly acceptable before the decision.
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments.
"We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
On the post: The Five Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed The Whistleblower Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notice something?
How much of this political spending would have been illegal before the Citizen's United decision? Most of the furor I've seen are over things that were perfectly acceptable before the decision.
Many large corporations have interests in foreign countries and their governments.
"We must suppress free speech or the foreigners will take control of our government!"
On the post: The Five Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed The Whistleblower Bill
Re: Re: Come on American Citizens let’s fix our Government!
And somehow, that court ruling heralds the end of democracy? We need an amendment to make sure that the government can ban political speech it doesn't like? Yeah, that'll make our situation better . . .
On the post: The Five Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed The Whistleblower Bill
Re: Re: Re: notice something?
Here's an important point that I try to re-iterate whenever possible, because the internet is awash with misinformation on the subject:
The Citizen's United did not allow corporations to donate any more money to candidates than they were already allowed to. It just prohibited the government from banning actual political speech merely because it came from a group of incorporated individuals. There's a big difference.
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Re: Format Shifting?
That's the question, isn't it?
On the post: Long Time Academic, Regular Op-Ed Writer, Claims He Had No Idea He Was Supposed To Attribute Text He Plagiarized
Re: Let the hypocrite-fest begin
It has to do with dishonestly claiming those words as his own. I'm of the opinion that any "punishment" should be social in nature, and not legal. He'll lose credibility, and perhaps his suffer repercussions in his career.
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really got him there, AJ. Pat yourself on the back for that one.
On the post: How To Debunk A Fact-Free Fox News Fearmongering Piece About New Video Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he's not "correct". He was either "wrong" (if he was intending to refer to the rape rate), or "misleading the public" (if he was using total rapes to prop up his argument).
Ignorant or malevolent. Take your pick.
On the post: How To Debunk A Fact-Free Fox News Fearmongering Piece About New Video Game
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How To Debunk A Fact-Free Fox News Fearmongering Piece About New Video Game
Re: Re: Re:
Why in the world would that be "the question"? It makes no sense to make that comparison, as it doesn't tell you anything useful.
Snitches get stitches and all that crap plays heavily in many parts of the world.
In many parts of the world? Yes, I'm sure BulletStorm is prepped and ready to increase the rape rate in the Sudan. That's clearly the measuring stick we should be using . . .
Next >>