Re: Denial that Inmann has a superior Intellect and played people like a game
"Many a retard bought into the narrative"
"BUT Inmann is also a cunt that played you all"
"It hides the fact that Inmann played you all like little puppet fools."
Since enough effort has been placed on essentially blowing your diatribe out of the water in general, I'll just focus on your self-proclaimed superior intellect over the majority of people on this site and around the web who applauded Inmann.
As an internet professional for eighteen years, and one who has specialized in SEO for more than a decade, I am first and foremost, a marketing professional.
As a marketing professional, I applaud the Oatmeal and Inmann for most of what he has been able to accomplish through wit, intellect and marketing savvy.
As someone with an IQ of either 145 or 154 (depending on IQ methodology used), I find your rant laughable in the highest order.
Congratulations for representing intellectually inferior people everywhere through your finger-pointing. Because when one finger points out at the world, more are pointing inward.
"CRIMINAL KROUT"? "gitmo"? wow. You're both a racist and a stooge/lackey for government or the 20th century corporate machine - its so transparent it causes me to spit up my soup as I'm reading...
ah that's another tactic DOJ could use. Bring in Homeland Insecurity and claim MEGA is supporting terrorists by allowing the encryption prior to upload....
warez? whats warez? Never heard of it. #Innocent #NeverUsedWarez #ExceptWhenICouldntAffordAProgram #WhichMeansPiracyDoesntReduceRevenue #ButYouNeverHeardThatFromMe
this is why I need to read TechDirt 24x7. As soon as I read the article just now, I thought "yep - Carmen Ortiz will be given the case, and her "career thugs" will just slap a "clear attempt to circumvent copy protection" in there....
A worker typically works for a set agreed upon compensation. However they are part of a collective effort. A writer is typically a sole contributor. A worker negotiates compensation in advance. A writer cannot have such a luxury, and thus the risk is infinitely greater. Greater risk, greater reward potential.
Some workers can however, negotiate a percentage of stock ownership in the company, so they CAN potentially receive income forever after, from that work.
" You want to look away, but it's just so fascinating to watch everything come apart. "
Not for me. I don't see any carnage involving Gibbs, or Prenda. So to me it's just shear entertainment of the highest order.
Eventually, I HOPE there will be carnage involving Gibbs and Prenda. So I guess it's more like " a train wreck waiting to happen", and thus I'm salivating in anticipation of the moment it does.
setting aside the potential arguments as to whether CBS is in possession of something illegal, the reason big corporations in America aren't prosecuted is because they own the government for the most part.
I sure as hell do. Why should governments double-dip on already taxed income? They already tax us to death in some ways.
While I believe taxation is valid for public services, I think abuse of taxation principles is rampant. And used to allow governments to do stupid things, and profit a small fraction of society that DIDN'T earn that money. And since it was generated within MY family, I surely don't have any desire or willingness to bequeath it to those thieves.
Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
I'm not raising my hand. Just giving my own experience. It wasn't in a computer closet. It was sitting at a computer in front of me as I worked in customer service at a bank.
I noticed that some screens were amber, others green. Mine was green. I was like "hmmm". Noticed on the keyboard a function key to "settings".
Clicked that key. Oh cool - I've now left my customer service screen and been taken to a settings screen. Oh - look - there's a setting choice for the monitor. Click.
Oh - how awesome is that? An option to switch to amber. #WIN
Next thing I know, there's a couple guys in suits up at my supervisor's desk, talking conspiratorially, and looking up at me across the room.
And in the blink of an eye, they were at my desk. Grilling me. "How'd you change your monitor to amber?" "Why did you do that?" "Who gave you permission to do that?"
What? Huh? Uh...
Holy crap. Fortunately I was not fired. Nor prosecuted. The function key was, after all, ON my keyboard. It worked when clicked. The settings screen gave no warning about unauthorized access. No alarm went off at my desk. My computer didn't crash. The bank didn't collapse.
All these years later, and I wonder what would have become of me if even just one person "in authority" wanted to "make an example" of me.
Read my comments from this evening about the seven thousand five hundred hours it might take to create that product. Because the content that is copied, IS a product. Your unwillingness to accept or acknowledge that notion is tragic.
I do NOT agree with copyright maximalists. I think they are deplorable. I do, however, understand that which you are choosing to fantasize as non-existent.
"so why is that copyright people believe they can claim ownership over copies when they should be entitled only to the original?"
I answered this above but will do so here for emphasis. 5 hours a day, 300 days a year, 5 years to produce the book. That's seven thousand five hundred hours of the author's life. Gone. Forever. Given into the book. The original never sees the light of day, except as only one single copy, like the house. It is only the copies that provide that value to society.
So unless someone pays a compensation equal to that 7,500 hours of work (good luck pinning a number value to THAT), it is only through sale of copies that the author is compensated for that effort. And while the author poured that effort into the book, that is the equivalent of the "worker" working for a wage. And thus, that compensation received is the equivalent of the worker's paycheck.
So unless you think that someone who works 40 hours a week for a living should not have the right to pass their savings and investments on to their heirs, I'm confused as to why it's so difficult to grasp how a house and a copyright are not similar enough in regard to inheritance. (other than the notion that derivatives should be allowed under some situations that it is not currently).
I apologize for the "diatribe" reference. Late night. Very sick with a virus. Cranky.
Now - I DO believe that a house, and a written work, song, movie, etc. are NOT just art. BOTH provide value. BOTH were created (or bought). BOTH provide lasting benefits.
No, they don't both provide value or lasting benefits in the same exact way, yet they do both provide those things.
"A house benefits only its owner and occupants; a work of art benefits any who behold it."
Want to go that path? Okay. A house benefits society. Disease limitations, sanitary and noise limits, visual things others REALLY don't want to see, civility of interaction... The benefits to society are many beyond those examples.
"and whatever benefit is conferred upon the creator is wholly incidental to its value".
I care to highly disagree with this claim. Incidental to its value? How about the cost of creation? You seriously consider fair and just compensation for creation effort to be an incidental? It's a critical aspect of at least some significant portion of creative works.
Because creative works are not just "art". As I've stated in several other comments, copyright also applies to educational material, as just one example. And educational material is as and in some cases, significantly MORE important in what it offers than pure art for art's sake.
Read my other most recent comments regarding exclusivity. I offer NO claim to exclusivity, without limits. Instead, I am totally on the side of fair use, of certain forms of derivative works access, and other similar aspects of being able to benefit society that current screwed up copyright laws prevent.
As I've stated, Gatsby, to me, isn't such a big deal. Not all authors of copyrighted material had such a gilded path as Fitzgerald. Harry Potter ring a bell, as far as an author who had NOTHING before J.K. Rowling wrote that series?
So it's not based on place, or privilege. It's based on statistics. How many millions of books and journals and songs and movies and manuals have been written for all history? And of those, how many reached such mass appeal as to garner such financial gain (regardless of whether that came during or after the author's lifetime).
No - the "we can't know the real scale potential" premise doesn't wash for me.
YES, station in life CAN have an influence. However it is NOT a criteria required for success. And the whole "how much better would the world be WITHOUT copyright? In THAT regard, I'd argue it's not because of copyright. It's because copyright is flawed. Not in its length, but in its failure to allow for truly unique innovative derivation.
And please. Don't get me started on big pharma and their strangle-hold over drugs they've copyrighted so that they can charge unreasonable rates forever. Because that is a complete different case as compared to a book that costs $5 or $10 and for that small fee, one book CAN change a readers life forever.
I would argue (am arguing? :-) ) that there is no such thing as an accident on this planet. On a spiritual level, on a quantum consciousness level.
Read my comment a few minutes ago above where I suggest that a writer could potentially give up five years of their life to create that work. Thousands of hours. Gone. Never to be reclaimed. All the while their family suffers. So if profit comes from that (and effort/time is NO guarantee it will), THAT is something heirs and legacy should most definitely be entitled to.
and you're clearly entitled to that opinion (calling it a serious problem). ON my side of the view-screen into copyright, the only serious problem is that copy-restriction is abused all over the place in ways far beyond length and inheritance rights concepts.
Governments and corporations that abuse copyright is where I care to focus, because to me personally, that's they only real issue as far as human ethical concerns come into play.
correction to my comment: "So until it DOES pass into the public domain, non-copy-restriction holders (original or heir), to at least a certain degree, are the only rights holders commercially. And thus nothing is "restored" upon entry into public domain."
should have started with "So until it DOES pass into the public domain, copy-restriction holders (original or heir),"
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]
Re: Denial that Inmann has a superior Intellect and played people like a game
"BUT Inmann is also a cunt that played you all"
"It hides the fact that Inmann played you all like little puppet fools."
Since enough effort has been placed on essentially blowing your diatribe out of the water in general, I'll just focus on your self-proclaimed superior intellect over the majority of people on this site and around the web who applauded Inmann.
As an internet professional for eighteen years, and one who has specialized in SEO for more than a decade, I am first and foremost, a marketing professional.
As a marketing professional, I applaud the Oatmeal and Inmann for most of what he has been able to accomplish through wit, intellect and marketing savvy.
As someone with an IQ of either 145 or 154 (depending on IQ methodology used), I find your rant laughable in the highest order.
Congratulations for representing intellectually inferior people everywhere through your finger-pointing. Because when one finger points out at the world, more are pointing inward.
Job well done.
On the post: No, Kim Dotcom's New Mega Service Does Not 'Dismantle Copyright Forever'
Re: New mega site
On the post: No, Kim Dotcom's New Mega Service Does Not 'Dismantle Copyright Forever'
Re:
On the post: No, Kim Dotcom's New Mega Service Does Not 'Dismantle Copyright Forever'
Re: Re: Re: Nodes?
On the post: No, Kim Dotcom's New Mega Service Does Not 'Dismantle Copyright Forever'
Re: Re:
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some workers can however, negotiate a percentage of stock ownership in the company, so they CAN potentially receive income forever after, from that work.
On the post: Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is
Re: Poor Brett Gibbs...
Not for me. I don't see any carnage involving Gibbs, or Prenda. So to me it's just shear entertainment of the highest order.
Eventually, I HOPE there will be carnage involving Gibbs and Prenda. So I guess it's more like " a train wreck waiting to happen", and thus I'm salivating in anticipation of the moment it does.
On the post: Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is
Re:
On the post: Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is
Re: Gibbs next move
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Tom Dolan
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re:
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I sure as hell do. Why should governments double-dip on already taxed income? They already tax us to death in some ways.
While I believe taxation is valid for public services, I think abuse of taxation principles is rampant. And used to allow governments to do stupid things, and profit a small fraction of society that DIDN'T earn that money. And since it was generated within MY family, I surely don't have any desire or willingness to bequeath it to those thieves.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
I noticed that some screens were amber, others green. Mine was green. I was like "hmmm". Noticed on the keyboard a function key to "settings".
Clicked that key. Oh cool - I've now left my customer service screen and been taken to a settings screen. Oh - look - there's a setting choice for the monitor. Click.
Oh - how awesome is that? An option to switch to amber. #WIN
Next thing I know, there's a couple guys in suits up at my supervisor's desk, talking conspiratorially, and looking up at me across the room.
And in the blink of an eye, they were at my desk. Grilling me. "How'd you change your monitor to amber?" "Why did you do that?" "Who gave you permission to do that?"
What? Huh? Uh...
Holy crap. Fortunately I was not fired. Nor prosecuted. The function key was, after all, ON my keyboard. It worked when clicked. The settings screen gave no warning about unauthorized access. No alarm went off at my desk. My computer didn't crash. The bank didn't collapse.
All these years later, and I wonder what would have become of me if even just one person "in authority" wanted to "make an example" of me.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re:
I do NOT agree with copyright maximalists. I think they are deplorable. I do, however, understand that which you are choosing to fantasize as non-existent.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I answered this above but will do so here for emphasis. 5 hours a day, 300 days a year, 5 years to produce the book. That's seven thousand five hundred hours of the author's life. Gone. Forever. Given into the book. The original never sees the light of day, except as only one single copy, like the house. It is only the copies that provide that value to society.
So unless someone pays a compensation equal to that 7,500 hours of work (good luck pinning a number value to THAT), it is only through sale of copies that the author is compensated for that effort. And while the author poured that effort into the book, that is the equivalent of the "worker" working for a wage. And thus, that compensation received is the equivalent of the worker's paycheck.
So unless you think that someone who works 40 hours a week for a living should not have the right to pass their savings and investments on to their heirs, I'm confused as to why it's so difficult to grasp how a house and a copyright are not similar enough in regard to inheritance. (other than the notion that derivatives should be allowed under some situations that it is not currently).
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now - I DO believe that a house, and a written work, song, movie, etc. are NOT just art. BOTH provide value. BOTH were created (or bought). BOTH provide lasting benefits.
No, they don't both provide value or lasting benefits in the same exact way, yet they do both provide those things.
"A house benefits only its owner and occupants; a work of art benefits any who behold it."
Want to go that path? Okay. A house benefits society. Disease limitations, sanitary and noise limits, visual things others REALLY don't want to see, civility of interaction... The benefits to society are many beyond those examples.
"and whatever benefit is conferred upon the creator is wholly incidental to its value".
I care to highly disagree with this claim. Incidental to its value? How about the cost of creation? You seriously consider fair and just compensation for creation effort to be an incidental? It's a critical aspect of at least some significant portion of creative works.
Because creative works are not just "art". As I've stated in several other comments, copyright also applies to educational material, as just one example. And educational material is as and in some cases, significantly MORE important in what it offers than pure art for art's sake.
Read my other most recent comments regarding exclusivity. I offer NO claim to exclusivity, without limits. Instead, I am totally on the side of fair use, of certain forms of derivative works access, and other similar aspects of being able to benefit society that current screwed up copyright laws prevent.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's not based on place, or privilege. It's based on statistics. How many millions of books and journals and songs and movies and manuals have been written for all history? And of those, how many reached such mass appeal as to garner such financial gain (regardless of whether that came during or after the author's lifetime).
No - the "we can't know the real scale potential" premise doesn't wash for me.
YES, station in life CAN have an influence. However it is NOT a criteria required for success. And the whole "how much better would the world be WITHOUT copyright? In THAT regard, I'd argue it's not because of copyright. It's because copyright is flawed. Not in its length, but in its failure to allow for truly unique innovative derivation.
And please. Don't get me started on big pharma and their strangle-hold over drugs they've copyrighted so that they can charge unreasonable rates forever. Because that is a complete different case as compared to a book that costs $5 or $10 and for that small fee, one book CAN change a readers life forever.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read my comment a few minutes ago above where I suggest that a writer could potentially give up five years of their life to create that work. Thousands of hours. Gone. Never to be reclaimed. All the while their family suffers. So if profit comes from that (and effort/time is NO guarantee it will), THAT is something heirs and legacy should most definitely be entitled to.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Governments and corporations that abuse copyright is where I care to focus, because to me personally, that's they only real issue as far as human ethical concerns come into play.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
should have started with "So until it DOES pass into the public domain, copy-restriction holders (original or heir),"
Next >>