I love Blu-ray. It's all I rent from Netflix anymore, unless I know that the movie will likely never be released in Blu-ray. And anyone who seriously thinks that a streamed movie or an upsampled DVD is "as good" as a blu-ray either has a crappy TV or needs glasses.
But even I admit that any disc based movie format is dead. Well, maybe not dead. But at best niche. The movie industry will never have a runaway success like it did with the phenomenal growth and sales of DVDs.
But why should the kindle be limited to only what a book currently does? That makes no fricken sense. A book already does what a book does, it's cheap, it's portable, and the technology has been around for centuries.
My little discussion is about whether the kindle is cool. If you think a $400 book mimicking device is cool, you're an idiot. I think that if the Kindle is ever cool, it has to offer more than merely mimicking exactly what a book already does, at an exorbitant price.
"Can you shove a copy of harry potter into your shirt pocket?"
No, but I can shove it in my short's pocket. Portability problem solved. Are you a retard or what?
"Have you tried reading a novel on your netbook for more than 15mins? That headache you start to feel is the result of staring at that shitty LCD screen."
Have you considered those headaches might be caused by a something else, like maybe a brain tumor. That could explain your inability to make any sort of rational argument.
"spreading this FUD just makes you look the fool."
Exactly what fear, uncertainty, and doubt did I spread? That is what FUD stands for. Apparently you didn't know that because your accusation makes no fricken sense.
All I did was point out that the Kindle is not cool. The only cool thing you came up with is piracy. I guess that could be considered cool, but you don't need to spend $400 bucks on a piece of crap hardware to do it.
"no matter how cool a device the Amazon Kindle may be"
A hideous piece of hardware, filled to the brim with DRM, with a 1980's black and white screen, which is way too big to fit in your pocket, which costs a whopping 400 bucks, which does nothing unless you pay for it, which has a "limited" web browser, which is in search of a problem that does not exist (books are already portable and you can already read e-books on your multipurpose netbook, which costs only $250!)...
I could go on and on. Exactly how could the Kindle be considered a "cool device"? I'm really confused on this one.
"So, I think it would actually be quite reasonable for the singer to fight against the trademark being issued."
Why would it be reasonable? Even if the names were spelled the exact same way, the markets are completely different and there would never be any consumer confusion.
Remember those ghetto boxes, also called boom boxes, we used to use in the 80s through 90s? I have no doubt that they would be considered public performances in today's bizarro world.
Everyday the music industry is turning our world into something like a parody from the Onion. I can see the headline now... "Area man sued for not paying public license fee on his Boom Box"
What if you forgot to mention a geocities site you had back in the 90s. Could they then fire you for lying on your application because you failed to include it?!
I'll just say this, the background information I provided to my state's bar to get my law license was much less invasive than the procedure to become a janitor at the city hall in Bozeman, Montana
I personally would not even provide a list of places I write on the net. What I do on my free time is none of their business. But to ask for such a list along with login and password information... that's fricken insane! Lunacy. Asininity! (If, asininity is even a real word.)
It is my hope that this policy is derived from the utter ignorance of a single person. And once that person is set straight, some sanity will prevail. Of course hope and five cents will at best get you a nickel.
As I've written about previously, there's a bizarre sense of entitlement around nowadays. Aretha Franklin claims that she is entitled to money merely because she wore a hat. The producers of Britain's Got Talent want to be paid based on Boyle's amazing singing ability. And newspaper journalists want to be paid because "their" news articles become newsworthy.
In this situation we have a person who hosts a picture on his publicly accessible server and feels entitled to something merely because someone else linked to it. It's not enough that the linking is giving more attention to the picture, it's that the linker is somehow "stealing" or "taking credit" for the picture. And that it's somehow "unfair." (Which is simply nonsense!)
Get over it. If you don't want people linking to your pictures, don't fricken post them on the web. Problem solved.
When you hotlink you don't "take" anything. You're merely directing the viewer's browser to a particular server to access a particular file which was placed there by a person without any restriction.
When you hotlink, the hotlinked image is never transfered through your server. It goes directly from the host server to the viewer's computer. That's the same thing that happens with any link. So if hotlinking to an image is evil, then under your logic merely linking to an image is equally as evil.
Thanks for not equating hotlinking with either theft or copyright infringement, as others have done when posting this story. As I've written previously over at John Dvorak's blog, hotlinking is neither theft nor infringement.
I like NAB’s Dennis Wharton who had this to say in response the musicFIRST asinine request for the investigation:
If there's an FCC probe involving the music business, it ought to focus on claims from numerous artists -- from The Beatles to Prince to Cher -- that they were cheated out of royalties by their record labels.
Unfortunately, this won't end with Japan. Now the copyright industry will run around the rest of the world complaining how we need tough new laws to keep up with Japan.
I have no idea what happened to the second half of my posting, but here I go again...
Producers and TV broadcasters contracting in good faith for airtime, how is that not payola? Payola for radio is when musicians pay for airtime. From some reason no one has ever explained to me, that's illegal. But when it happens on TV, it's called advertising and is perfectly legal.
"You aren't being very clear as to which laws you are suggesting should be removed."
God, do you have any understanding about how pronouns work? We're talking about payola, so when I use "it" it means payola.
"However, it's not a free market because of local gov't granted spectrum monopolies."
You're assuming your conclusion Explain why musicians and labels contracting with radio broadcasters in good faith for airtime, and vice versa, is not a free market. The only thing keeping musicians, performers, labels, and broadcasters from doing exactly that are laws against payola. Those laws, those payola laws, are the only thing interfering with a free market. Remove the payola laws and a free market would be created.
"If the ISP can stonewall and not provide customer data"
The ISP is not stonewalling. It's following the law. If the music industry wants to obtain user information from an ISP it has to do it via a subpoena issued through a court. But the music industry cannot be bothered with that. It thinks it's above the law and that everyone should bow down and do its work for it. I'm glad ISPs are following the law and are no capitulating to this BS.
"especially since they may only be sharing a tiny fragment of a file based on the way BitTorrent works."
I've made the same argument before. Let's assume you download a 1 gig file from bittorrent. You're sharing it at the same time, but you're sharing bits to everyone in the cloud. Even if you upload the entire 1 gig of the file back to the net, one person did not get it. Hundreds of people only received pieces of your entire upload. In fact, unless you're the original seeder, I'd guess it'd be impossible for anyone one person to receive the entire file only from you.
So the question remains, is sharing an unusable portion of a copyrighted file a violation of copyright. The fact that it's unusable is important. It's not like someone is downloading 20 minutes of a movie in sequence from you. Sharing 20 full minutes from a movie might be infringement. Nope, what the person is sharing from you is essentially useless bits and pieces of data. Does anyone have a copyright on the sequences of bits you're sharing? Probably not.
But of course, in some countries merely offering for share is infringement. And of course downloading the original file could be infringement itself, too. But for some reason they're going after the sharers, not the downloaders.
As pointed out here many times, copyright does not protect ideas. For example, the idea of a TV show about an innocent person on the run from the law who helps people each and every week, only to escape in the nick of time to start off in a new town the next week, has been done numerous times: The Fugitive (TV show), the Hulk (70s TV show), Renegade, Kung Fu, The Pretender, just to name a few.
Despite all of these shows using the same basic idea, i.e., the identical underlying plot, absolutely no one "owns" the idea or the plot.
In the same way, no one owns the idea of a boy wizard.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Blu-Ray Still Not Catching On
But even I admit that any disc based movie format is dead. Well, maybe not dead. But at best niche. The movie industry will never have a runaway success like it did with the phenomenal growth and sales of DVDs.
On the post: Amazon Kindle DRM Strikes Again: You Don't Really Own Your eBooks
Re: Re:
But why should the kindle be limited to only what a book currently does? That makes no fricken sense. A book already does what a book does, it's cheap, it's portable, and the technology has been around for centuries.
My little discussion is about whether the kindle is cool. If you think a $400 book mimicking device is cool, you're an idiot. I think that if the Kindle is ever cool, it has to offer more than merely mimicking exactly what a book already does, at an exorbitant price.
"Can you shove a copy of harry potter into your shirt pocket?"
No, but I can shove it in my short's pocket. Portability problem solved. Are you a retard or what?
"Have you tried reading a novel on your netbook for more than 15mins? That headache you start to feel is the result of staring at that shitty LCD screen."
Have you considered those headaches might be caused by a something else, like maybe a brain tumor. That could explain your inability to make any sort of rational argument.
"spreading this FUD just makes you look the fool."
Exactly what fear, uncertainty, and doubt did I spread? That is what FUD stands for. Apparently you didn't know that because your accusation makes no fricken sense.
All I did was point out that the Kindle is not cool. The only cool thing you came up with is piracy. I guess that could be considered cool, but you don't need to spend $400 bucks on a piece of crap hardware to do it.
On the post: Amazon Kindle DRM Strikes Again: You Don't Really Own Your eBooks
A hideous piece of hardware, filled to the brim with DRM, with a 1980's black and white screen, which is way too big to fit in your pocket, which costs a whopping 400 bucks, which does nothing unless you pay for it, which has a "limited" web browser, which is in search of a problem that does not exist (books are already portable and you can already read e-books on your multipurpose netbook, which costs only $250!)...
I could go on and on. Exactly how could the Kindle be considered a "cool device"? I'm really confused on this one.
On the post: Katy Perry (Singer) Wants To Stop Katie Perry (Designer) From Selling Katie Perry Branded Clothing
Why would it be reasonable? Even if the names were spelled the exact same way, the markets are completely different and there would never be any consumer confusion.
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Everyday the music industry is turning our world into something like a parody from the Onion. I can see the headline now... "Area man sued for not paying public license fee on his Boom Box"
On the post: City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords
Re: So...
What if you forgot to mention a geocities site you had back in the 90s. Could they then fire you for lying on your application because you failed to include it?!
I'll just say this, the background information I provided to my state's bar to get my law license was much less invasive than the procedure to become a janitor at the city hall in Bozeman, Montana
On the post: City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords
It is my hope that this policy is derived from the utter ignorance of a single person. And once that person is set straight, some sanity will prevail. Of course hope and five cents will at best get you a nickel.
On the post: Record Labels Continue 'Negotiating Through Lawsuit'
The music industry does not enter into these "deals" for the mutual benefit of the parties. It sues and enters into these deals for two reasons.
First, to destroy any music related business model which could interfere or compete with their business model.
Second, in case the new business model somehow succeeds, the music industry gets a cut for doing nothing.
Either way, the current music industry succeeds, even as they are circling the drain.
On the post: Retail Stores Still Trying To Blame eBay For Shoplifting
On the post: Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking
Yet another example of entitlement
In this situation we have a person who hosts a picture on his publicly accessible server and feels entitled to something merely because someone else linked to it. It's not enough that the linking is giving more attention to the picture, it's that the linker is somehow "stealing" or "taking credit" for the picture. And that it's somehow "unfair." (Which is simply nonsense!)
Get over it. If you don't want people linking to your pictures, don't fricken post them on the web. Problem solved.
On the post: Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking
Re:
When you hotlink, the hotlinked image is never transfered through your server. It goes directly from the host server to the viewer's computer. That's the same thing that happens with any link. So if hotlinking to an image is evil, then under your logic merely linking to an image is equally as evil.
On the post: Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking
On the post: Recording Industry: Radio Is Piracy, But Not Playing Our Music Is A Federal Offense
On the post: Japan Makes Private Copying Illegal
On the post: Court Orders iiNet To Hand Over Sample Records Of Customers
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Recording Industry Changes Its Own Story
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea what happened to the second half of my posting, but here I go again...
Producers and TV broadcasters contracting in good faith for airtime, how is that not payola? Payola for radio is when musicians pay for airtime. From some reason no one has ever explained to me, that's illegal. But when it happens on TV, it's called advertising and is perfectly legal.
On the post: How The Recording Industry Changes Its Own Story
Re: Re: Re: Re:
God, do you have any understanding about how pronouns work? We're talking about payola, so when I use "it" it means payola.
"However, it's not a free market because of local gov't granted spectrum monopolies."
You're assuming your conclusion Explain why musicians and labels contracting with radio broadcasters in good faith for airtime, and vice versa, is not a free market. The only thing keeping musicians, performers, labels, and broadcasters from doing exactly that are laws against payola. Those laws, those payola laws, are the only thing interfering with a free market. Remove the payola laws and a free market would be created.
"but that isn't the payola system either.
On the post: Court Orders iiNet To Hand Over Sample Records Of Customers
Re:
The ISP is not stonewalling. It's following the law. If the music industry wants to obtain user information from an ISP it has to do it via a subpoena issued through a court. But the music industry cannot be bothered with that. It thinks it's above the law and that everyone should bow down and do its work for it. I'm glad ISPs are following the law and are no capitulating to this BS.
On the post: Court Orders iiNet To Hand Over Sample Records Of Customers
I've made the same argument before. Let's assume you download a 1 gig file from bittorrent. You're sharing it at the same time, but you're sharing bits to everyone in the cloud. Even if you upload the entire 1 gig of the file back to the net, one person did not get it. Hundreds of people only received pieces of your entire upload. In fact, unless you're the original seeder, I'd guess it'd be impossible for anyone one person to receive the entire file only from you.
So the question remains, is sharing an unusable portion of a copyrighted file a violation of copyright. The fact that it's unusable is important. It's not like someone is downloading 20 minutes of a movie in sequence from you. Sharing 20 full minutes from a movie might be infringement. Nope, what the person is sharing from you is essentially useless bits and pieces of data. Does anyone have a copyright on the sequences of bits you're sharing? Probably not.
But of course, in some countries merely offering for share is infringement. And of course downloading the original file could be infringement itself, too. But for some reason they're going after the sharers, not the downloaders.
On the post: JK Rowling Accused Of Plagiarizing Harry Potter... Yet Again
Despite all of these shows using the same basic idea, i.e., the identical underlying plot, absolutely no one "owns" the idea or the plot.
In the same way, no one owns the idea of a boy wizard.
Next >>