they profited from the record label system to get them introduced to listeners worldwide, and got them exposed.
You can't have it both ways. If people are pirating a musician's music to the extent that he is complaining about not being paid, then he is already "exposed" and could use a business model based on his popularity.
If a band is complaining that they aren't well-known enough to rely on those business models, then piracy isn't a problem for them.
Yet here we are, with TD trying to suggest a new "use it or lose it" law
"Suggesting"? Reading is apparently too hard for you, so I'll spell it out plainly:
Scotland is the one who drafted the law as if IP is real property. TD is merely "reporting" the unintended consequences that the law already on the books could have, not "suggesting" a new law.
You're welcome. Let me know if you have any more trouble comprehending the written word.
you are using the First Amendment to justify someone yelling fire in a theatre.
He's using knowingly false words to incite the immediate threat of panic in a crowd of people in such a way as to likely cause physical injury or death?
An unauthorized website is a website that Nike has not allowed to sell their products
Which is who? Or did you mean that you have to get permission from Nike before you can sell their stuff? If so, where did you hear such nonsense?
If you see a pair of jordan's for $10
Did he actually buy them for $10? What if he bought them for $100 and they were counterfeit? Can he still be sued? What if the seller claimed they were used? Is $10 still too little for a used pair of Nikes?
Are you still an idiot who spouts off ignorant garbage on the internet? Wait, I know the answer to that last one . . .
Can we change the "Anonymous Coward" tag to "Anonymous Troll"?
unauthorized website
What is an "unauthorized" website? Any website not affiliated with Nike directly? Amazon? Is eBay "authorized"?
If the price is to good to be true then it is!
How good does it have to be to be too good to be true? Tell you what: You give me data on the "too good to be true" price point for anything and everything sold over the internet, so I can make sure I don't get a frivolous lawsuit dumped on me (If you want, you can be topical and start with a list of all Nike shoe models and their respective price points). Thanks, anon troll!
Long story short he messed up and bitched about it.
Long story short, you either forgot your sarcasm tags or you're an idiot of epic proportions. I won't say publicly which one I'd put money on.
This is the nature of trademark law: if you don't actively defend your trademark, you lose it.
Oh god, not this "I heard someone mention my company name in public once so I HAD to sue them to keep my trademark!" BS again. It crops up so often and it's so bogus. Nothing requires Nike to file frivolous lawsuits against innocent people to avoid losing their trademark. That's just asinine and I wish people would stop propagating it.
But as you say, a clearance doesn't automatically give you access rights to all information at that level. Why did this guy need to have access to [i]every[/i] secret diplomatic cable?
It isn't like a classified network is one big database where you just log in and type "gimme everything marked 'SECRET'" and the computer returns you a zip file.
There aren't two sides, there is only one: The "Big Government" side.
Despite running on a platform of unprecedented transparency, Obama has doubled-down on Bush's terrible record. Not only does his administration deny more FOIA requests than Bush, but he's pushing for the power to use unmanned drones to assassinate US citizens overseas (Bush is probably sitting around in his ranch going, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?")
Though in general I disagree with most of what you post, I do have to say that your summary of the legal issues facing Mr. Manning is a good one.
Intent, in the legal realm, is generally about whether or not you intended to do the deed in question, and not about whether or not you thought you were doing the right thing.
If he did what he is alleged to have done, there is no question he intended to do it.
The only part I'd nitpick is this. I'd change it to "rights-based society" or somesuch, since democracy just means that people generally vote to do bad things as a collective, instead of individually.
Placing Pvt Manning in solitary is hardly torture. I suggest you read about the conditions in which Japan, Korea, and North Viet Nam held American prisoners and compare.
Using bad behavior by others to justify ours? Pathetic.
At best Pvt Manning violated many regulations concerning classified documents any one of which could result in many years in prison.
Allegedly.
I have never heard such a ridiculous lie. Unless they have forgot how to use the internet, he has given our secrets to them.
He didn't sell them, though. In other words, he wasn't trying to sell out his country for personal gain, like he very well could have by shopping the data around. That gives him a much stronger case for whistle-blower status (although he'd have to explain exactly what he thought he was blowing the whistle on, since the huge cable dump was unlikely to be related to anything he knew about personally).
If you're talking about the Citizen's United ruling, you're misreading it.
The court decided that the government couldn't exercise prior restraint in stopping the release of a political film merely because the people who made it had incorporated. This was a major victory for free speech, and was not accurately represented by any of the diatribes I saw after the ruling.
On the post: UK Man Convicted Of A Crime For Letting Drivers Know They Should Slow Down To Avoid Speed Camera
Re:
"Justice" for a new era.
On the post: US Gov't Strategy To Prevent Leaks Is Leaked
Re: Re: BETTER IDEA
On the post: Case Study: How Dave Matthews Band Has Embraced The Modern Music Industry In Extraordinarily Profitable Ways
Re: Re: Re:
You can't have it both ways. If people are pirating a musician's music to the extent that he is complaining about not being paid, then he is already "exposed" and could use a business model based on his popularity.
If a band is complaining that they aren't well-known enough to rely on those business models, then piracy isn't a problem for them.
On the post: Did Scotland Accidentally Create A 'Use It Or Lose It' Copyright Law?
Re:
"Suggesting"? Reading is apparently too hard for you, so I'll spell it out plainly:
Scotland is the one who drafted the law as if IP is real property. TD is merely "reporting" the unintended consequences that the law already on the books could have, not "suggesting" a new law.
You're welcome. Let me know if you have any more trouble comprehending the written word.
On the post: Two Courts Disagree On Whether Or Not A Website Can Be Forced To Remove User-Created Defamatory Content
Re:
He's using knowingly false words to incite the immediate threat of panic in a crowd of people in such a way as to likely cause physical injury or death?
That's an "interesting" position . . .
On the post: Judge's Ruling Says: Go Check Out The YouTube Video, Which 'Speaks For Itself'
I Love Kozinski
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re:
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re:
Which is who? Or did you mean that you have to get permission from Nike before you can sell their stuff? If so, where did you hear such nonsense?
If you see a pair of jordan's for $10
Did he actually buy them for $10? What if he bought them for $100 and they were counterfeit? Can he still be sued? What if the seller claimed they were used? Is $10 still too little for a used pair of Nikes?
Are you still an idiot who spouts off ignorant garbage on the internet? Wait, I know the answer to that last one . . .
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re:
unauthorized website
What is an "unauthorized" website? Any website not affiliated with Nike directly? Amazon? Is eBay "authorized"?
If the price is to good to be true then it is!
How good does it have to be to be too good to be true? Tell you what: You give me data on the "too good to be true" price point for anything and everything sold over the internet, so I can make sure I don't get a frivolous lawsuit dumped on me (If you want, you can be topical and start with a list of all Nike shoe models and their respective price points). Thanks, anon troll!
Long story short he messed up and bitched about it.
Long story short, you either forgot your sarcasm tags or you're an idiot of epic proportions. I won't say publicly which one I'd put money on.
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re: Nike has a point
Oh god, not this "I heard someone mention my company name in public once so I HAD to sue them to keep my trademark!" BS again. It crops up so often and it's so bogus. Nothing requires Nike to file frivolous lawsuits against innocent people to avoid losing their trademark. That's just asinine and I wish people would stop propagating it.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re: Re: Democracy
Merely being a democracy is no guarantee of freedom. It needs to be a rights-based democracy to have any lasting chance of upholding justice.
I strongly agree with Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re: Re: Re:
But as you say, a clearance doesn't automatically give you access rights to all information at that level. Why did this guy need to have access to [i]every[/i] secret diplomatic cable?
It isn't like a classified network is one big database where you just log in and type "gimme everything marked 'SECRET'" and the computer returns you a zip file.
On the post: Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
Despite running on a platform of unprecedented transparency, Obama has doubled-down on Bush's terrible record. Not only does his administration deny more FOIA requests than Bush, but he's pushing for the power to use unmanned drones to assassinate US citizens overseas (Bush is probably sitting around in his ranch going, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?")
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
Intent, in the legal realm, is generally about whether or not you intended to do the deed in question, and not about whether or not you thought you were doing the right thing.
If he did what he is alleged to have done, there is no question he intended to do it.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re: Re:
The only part I'd nitpick is this. I'd change it to "rights-based society" or somesuch, since democracy just means that people generally vote to do bad things as a collective, instead of individually.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re: Solitary is torture???
Using bad behavior by others to justify ours? Pathetic.
At best Pvt Manning violated many regulations concerning classified documents any one of which could result in many years in prison.
Allegedly.
I have never heard such a ridiculous lie. Unless they have forgot how to use the internet, he has given our secrets to them.
He didn't sell them, though. In other words, he wasn't trying to sell out his country for personal gain, like he very well could have by shopping the data around. That gives him a much stronger case for whistle-blower status (although he'd have to explain exactly what he thought he was blowing the whistle on, since the huge cable dump was unlikely to be related to anything he knew about personally).
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
False dichotomy much?
"Either we torture him, or we'll have to throw him parties with hookers and cocaine! Is that what you want your taxes going towards? HUH?*"
*Incidentally, the answer is yes, but only if I'm invited.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
That's some great satire there. You sound just like your average Amer'cun!
On the post: Iceland Considers Revoking Visa/MasterCard Licenses For Wikileaks Ban
Re: Re: Re:
The court decided that the government couldn't exercise prior restraint in stopping the release of a political film merely because the people who made it had incorporated. This was a major victory for free speech, and was not accurately represented by any of the diatribes I saw after the ruling.
Next >>