I don't think anyone understands the power of Asimov. He created the word "robot" based on his own influences in sci fi. He influenced people as disperse as Keiji Inafune, who created Megaman based on the three laws and the entire field of robotics wih his observations and stories.
But it's amazing how people don't understand that others don't build new stories in a vacuum. There's no evidence of this. Even Asimov would probably say the same thing.
“I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
— Isaac Asimov
Doesn't this also explain the insanity of copyright law right now? Where's the evidence that it's needed?
The district is horribly gerrymandered for a Republican nominee. Since he's close to my district, I've been paying attention.
Elaine Henderson is the Democratic nominee. There is NO information about her.
Richard Mack is a former sheriff who is an Oathkeeper Libertarian Republican. I'm sure he'd find this unconstitutional, but no one can get to him.
Then we have the Libertarian third party candidate, James Arthur Strohm... We won't get into the discussion on him. For the most part, the problem remains that some candidates just aren't that strong on certain issues. This is what's occurring in TX 21.
Ticket sales for 2011 are at a 16 year low. That is a horrible situation, and one that no increase in ticket prices will cover in the long run. Why discount the key issue? After all, this is one indicator that can be more directly connected to piracy, and people seeing the movies outside of the theater.
Ticket sales in the US have been stagnant most of the year. This indicates that people aren't interested in the movies coming out right now. Why try to link this to piracy? The decline was very accurately shown to be competition in people's time, and yet you have to stretch to find a link to piracy.
When a movie is available only a very limited number of screens, or with a very limited number of playing days, the audience for it will be forced into a very small window to see it. If a movie is only going to be in NY and LA, only at couple of screens in each, and only for the 3 day weekend, they should do very well on a per screen basis. If they didn't, they would have something serious to worry about.
Again, more people are staying at home and playing video games or creating content on Youtube. They aren't going to the box office. People aren't hearing the big box office ads that say "come see this movie" because people are finding the movies lacking. Are you sure you read the article?
That effect is amplified on "big movie" down weeks, when there are no new major releases, etc - this is often a time that indie films get a little screen time (because they can actually get them), and do there short one weekend "run and done".
And that's a problem. The movie theaters have become a Wal-mart with few niches for smaller documentaries or niche titles that might pull an audience. You get the same movies that everyone has already thought to be lacking such as Spiderman 4: The Reboot. This is a major problem with the experience. People don't want to watch a movie that isn't worth their time.
Since you are in denial that the number of customers served is important, it sort of makes the rest of your arguments and points rather meaningless
You seem to be in denial about the reason why people aren't going to the movies. Maybe you should research why the foreign markets are doing better for US movies, but people are looking for entertainment elsewhere. Hint: It's not piracy.
It's really becoming a problem in seeing judges who use faulty rulings like this. It really feels like these judges are using Constitutional avoidance to make this case drag out far longer than need be.
Am I the only one that thinks the judges in the US need to have a set of standards in dealing with Constitutional questions that seem to fly in the face of what they supposedly uphold?
Joe, you're studying to be a lawyer. You have no idea what economics are. You have no idea of the market for up and coming artists any more than Mike, Marcus, Zach, or me. Yet you are arguing like you know everything. I am more inclined to agree with others who know this topic more than you.
Re: Re: Two things to never do in your political career
Oh, the front page of the internet is already pissed. They now have an entire discussion about who to attack first. From the looks of it, Paul Ryan is the weakest link...
It's true. Japanese law works in reverse of US civil law. You are literally guilty until proven innocent. Prosecutors have abnormally high prosecution rates and have a lot of power in cases.
Japan has no Jury system, opting for panels of lay judges and one professional judge in most cases.
In the matter relating to Japanese prosecutors being extremely cautious, the paper found ample evidence for it. In Japan, 99.7% of all the cases brought to court resulted in conviction, while in the U.S. the figure is 88%. According to a cited research, in the U.S. the accused contest guilt in 22% of federal cases and 11% of state cases, while in Japan, the ratio is modestly less. The paper attributes this difference to greater predictability of the outcome in Japanese cases. This is due to two reasons. One is that it is the judge rather than the jury who determines the verdict. As judges "have seen it all before" and the lawyers on both sides "have seen them seeing it", as they can read the judge's previous ruling (which includes written reasoning for the previous verdict), the way that the judge thinks and argues is very predictable.
Secondly, Japanese trials before the institution of the current lay judge system, were discontinuous. The defense and the prosecutor would first gather in front of the judges and present the issue. Then, the court would enter recess and both sides would go back to prepare their case. As they reconvened on different dates, they would then present each case which the judges examined, the court would be put in recess again and each side would go back to gather further evidence. Some complex trials took years or even a decade to conclude which is impossible under jury system. During the questioning of evidence, judges were explicit about their opinions by the way they questioned the evidence, which gave greater predictability about the final verdict.
For this reason, the prosecutor is far more likely to bring in the case where conviction is assured and the accused is far more likely to settle.
Best way to learn the Judicial game of Japan? Phoenix Wright answers the questions best. It's a parody of the judicial system and how it criminalizes people in the worst way. Phoenix Wright is a fun game, no doubt. But understand what it shows as the problems of finding justice in the system. Wealthy prosecutors, judges who don't care, and an impossible turn around. Hell, another problem is how a defense attorney is unable to effectively cross examine the police. Whatever the police say is a gospel truth. Does that sound familiar?
The other problems are that Japan still hasn't come to terms with sexual crimes, which are heavily biased against women:
Furthermore, in the context of the division of women into sexualised and non-sexualised groups, a victim of sexual assault must be from the group of non-sexualised women to be perceived as a true victim; rape of sexualised women is commonly trivialised (Burns, 2005: 31). Paradoxically, however, by admitting to the rape, women are admitting to sexual contact and therefore placing themselves within the devalued group of sexualised women (Burns, 2005: 19). If a woman has been the target for a sexual assault, she is assumed to be part of the group sacrificed for the protection of more deserving women, and therefore less deserving of protection.
So there are a lot of problems in Japan and its judicial system. The fact is, it's a joke. It's not about justice when you have such a high bar to prove your innocence.
On the post: EA: We Have Never Taken A Position, Either Way, On SOPA Or PIPA
Re: Setup
On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain
Re: Re:
I don't think anyone understands the power of Asimov. He created the word "robot" based on his own influences in sci fi. He influenced people as disperse as Keiji Inafune, who created Megaman based on the three laws and the entire field of robotics wih his observations and stories.
But it's amazing how people don't understand that others don't build new stories in a vacuum. There's no evidence of this. Even Asimov would probably say the same thing.
Doesn't this also explain the insanity of copyright law right now? Where's the evidence that it's needed?
On the post: Hollywood Union Members Sign Petition Asking MPAA & Hollywood Unions To Stop Supporting PIPA/SOPA
Re: Hell
On the post: Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt Writers Favorites Of The Week... And Year
Re: Wait....
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, let's nitpick the definition of censorship when SOPA actively encourages the censoring of platforms to speech.
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Re: Re: Is Lamar an AC?
The district is horribly gerrymandered for a Republican nominee. Since he's close to my district, I've been paying attention.
Elaine Henderson is the Democratic nominee. There is NO information about her.
Richard Mack is a former sheriff who is an Oathkeeper Libertarian Republican. I'm sure he'd find this unconstitutional, but no one can get to him.
Then we have the Libertarian third party candidate, James Arthur Strohm... We won't get into the discussion on him. For the most part, the problem remains that some candidates just aren't that strong on certain issues. This is what's occurring in TX 21.
On the post: US Box Office Revenue Finally Drops; But Not Because Of Infringement
Re:
Ticket sales in the US have been stagnant most of the year. This indicates that people aren't interested in the movies coming out right now. Why try to link this to piracy? The decline was very accurately shown to be competition in people's time, and yet you have to stretch to find a link to piracy.
When a movie is available only a very limited number of screens, or with a very limited number of playing days, the audience for it will be forced into a very small window to see it. If a movie is only going to be in NY and LA, only at couple of screens in each, and only for the 3 day weekend, they should do very well on a per screen basis. If they didn't, they would have something serious to worry about.
Again, more people are staying at home and playing video games or creating content on Youtube. They aren't going to the box office. People aren't hearing the big box office ads that say "come see this movie" because people are finding the movies lacking. Are you sure you read the article?
That effect is amplified on "big movie" down weeks, when there are no new major releases, etc - this is often a time that indie films get a little screen time (because they can actually get them), and do there short one weekend "run and done".
And that's a problem. The movie theaters have become a Wal-mart with few niches for smaller documentaries or niche titles that might pull an audience. You get the same movies that everyone has already thought to be lacking such as Spiderman 4: The Reboot. This is a major problem with the experience. People don't want to watch a movie that isn't worth their time.
Since you are in denial that the number of customers served is important, it sort of makes the rest of your arguments and points rather meaningless
You seem to be in denial about the reason why people aren't going to the movies. Maybe you should research why the foreign markets are doing better for US movies, but people are looking for entertainment elsewhere. Hint: It's not piracy.
On the post: Retroactive Immunity From The Gov't For Warrantless Wiretapping Deemed Constitutional
Struggling here...
Am I the only one that thinks the judges in the US need to have a set of standards in dealing with Constitutional questions that seem to fly in the face of what they supposedly uphold?
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: The reason...
Link
Link
On the post: US Mainstream Media Refuses Op-Ed About TSA Eroding Civil Liberties... But Pravda Publishes It
Re: Re:
Read British media.
FTFY.
American media is too heavily corporatist to even be trusted to tell a good story.
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA killed kerosene sales
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stick with law analysis, please.
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I weighed in here.
Chris Rhodes did some good commentary here.
Aaron Silvenis weighed in here.
Basically, our AC is debunked 3 ways from Sunday.
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder what exactly these pirate sites are when the USTR can't even find 20...?
On the post: How Firefly Fans Made One University's Campus Safe For Free Speech
Re: Re: Two things to never do in your political career
Anyone want some popcorn?
On the post: How Firefly Fans Made One University's Campus Safe For Free Speech
Two things to never do in your political career
Never piss off a Firefly fan.
Never piss off the internet.
I wonder if Congress will take notes?
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Japanese Supreme Court Says Developer Of File Sharing Software Not Guilty Of Infringement Done By Users
Re: Re:
Japan has no Jury system, opting for panels of lay judges and one professional judge in most cases.
Pay very close attention to the conviction rate:
In the matter relating to Japanese prosecutors being extremely cautious, the paper found ample evidence for it. In Japan, 99.7% of all the cases brought to court resulted in conviction, while in the U.S. the figure is 88%. According to a cited research, in the U.S. the accused contest guilt in 22% of federal cases and 11% of state cases, while in Japan, the ratio is modestly less. The paper attributes this difference to greater predictability of the outcome in Japanese cases. This is due to two reasons. One is that it is the judge rather than the jury who determines the verdict. As judges "have seen it all before" and the lawyers on both sides "have seen them seeing it", as they can read the judge's previous ruling (which includes written reasoning for the previous verdict), the way that the judge thinks and argues is very predictable.
Secondly, Japanese trials before the institution of the current lay judge system, were discontinuous. The defense and the prosecutor would first gather in front of the judges and present the issue. Then, the court would enter recess and both sides would go back to prepare their case. As they reconvened on different dates, they would then present each case which the judges examined, the court would be put in recess again and each side would go back to gather further evidence. Some complex trials took years or even a decade to conclude which is impossible under jury system. During the questioning of evidence, judges were explicit about their opinions by the way they questioned the evidence, which gave greater predictability about the final verdict.
For this reason, the prosecutor is far more likely to bring in the case where conviction is assured and the accused is far more likely to settle.
Best way to learn the Judicial game of Japan? Phoenix Wright answers the questions best. It's a parody of the judicial system and how it criminalizes people in the worst way. Phoenix Wright is a fun game, no doubt. But understand what it shows as the problems of finding justice in the system. Wealthy prosecutors, judges who don't care, and an impossible turn around. Hell, another problem is how a defense attorney is unable to effectively cross examine the police. Whatever the police say is a gospel truth. Does that sound familiar?
The other problems are that Japan still hasn't come to terms with sexual crimes, which are heavily biased against women:
Furthermore, in the context of the division of women into sexualised and non-sexualised groups, a victim of sexual assault must be from the group of non-sexualised women to be perceived as a true victim; rape of sexualised women is commonly trivialised (Burns, 2005: 31). Paradoxically, however, by admitting to the rape, women are admitting to sexual contact and therefore placing themselves within the devalued group of sexualised women (Burns, 2005: 19). If a woman has been the target for a sexual assault, she is assumed to be part of the group sacrificed for the protection of more deserving women, and therefore less deserving of protection.
So there are a lot of problems in Japan and its judicial system. The fact is, it's a joke. It's not about justice when you have such a high bar to prove your innocence.
Next >>