Ok AC, you are a moron. Your logic fails miserably given that (1) he specifically said "LIMITED PROPERTY RIGHTS", not property rights in general. (2) Unless you are a fat, bedridden slob suffocating on your own fat rolls I think that you, like every other human that lives, knows that many things are good, but even good things still require moderation. (3) By your logic breathing is good, so why don't you breathe more and more, keep on doing that faster and faster, after all breathing is good for you, more must be better. I will watch as you hyperventilate and collapse.
Moderation is key here, like many other things in life laws, of any type, require moderation and limitation. Laws are good, fine I can accept that. More laws are better, this is where we run into a problem that is a case by case determination. You must ask yourself several questions.
The first question is what are you trying to accomplish with law? Is the current law not accomplishing this? If not why and will more laws be both effective and provide the greatest benefit for all or is there another way to accomplish our goals without more laws that has a better effect?
If law is the only option then lets look at one more thing before creating a new law. Is what we are trying to accomplish, our goal, to the larger benefit of all, which is the group we are trying to serve when writing law? Or is this goal designed to only benefit a small group and will actually cause more harm than good to the group as a whole that we are trying to serve being lawmakers (all the people)?
I think if more people considered these things first we would have less laws and more people working on real solutions and real problems and humanity would benefit greatly. But common sense and solid logic and reasoning seems to escape many of those involved in making laws.
So basically the news organization is going to chop off its hand to spite its finger, how nice. They have decided to get rid of a significant source of traffic, which will reduce opportunities for revenue. Thus, they will have to find a new way to replace that lost source that previously didn't cost them anything.
Isn't this a bit like charging people for recommending your company to others? The absurdity of it. And news organizations wonder why they are dying? This is just another sign of the oncoming epic failure and collapse of the mainstream media. But if they are really this stupid then I say let them fail. THEY are not too big to fail. Maybe we can get rid of most of these idiotic talking heads we see on TV and the plagiarism in the newspapers and get back to real reporting.
Unfortunately I still have a year left on my contract. But once that is up I am out and going to get an Android phone. I have had it with the dropped calls and the difficultly making calls (from time to time).
If they do this to me (and I am definitely a heavy user, streaming Pandora all day) I won't pay it and I will switch carriers in a heartbeat.
OK, so I personally hate eBay and PayPal (owned by eBay) for their ever more aggressive anti-consumer actions that stifle legitimate sellers and buyers in return for more crap volume, but I have to agree with Mike on this.
This is like suing Cisco for building routers that may or may not end up transmitting pirated software across the internet in their given lifespans. Or suing rubber makers for supplying the rubber used to make the tires on the vehicles that are used to smuggle drugs.
But then again isn't that true of many of these new attacks by copyright holders?
So if kids can get punished for it, why don't insurance agents? Seems only fair, especially since they should know better. (OK, I am stopping here with the stupid commentary).
This reminds me of an episode of sliders where they slid into a dimension where the tabloids wrote about the truth while the mainstream media made up all their stories (like the tabloids of our world). Things certainly seem to be looking more and more like the world in that episode.
Says who? Cost is cost in any industry at any time of day. If your most expensive cost comes from charging for a distributed product then you may actually free up more revenue to be available as profit.
I bet your local gas station cut some costs when they started letting customers fill up their own personal cups from the soda fountain instead of from plastic cups the station provided. And that even helped the environment a bit.
Jeeze dude, you had me fooled for a moment. Yikes, I need to step out of the office more often to get a good dose of sanity injected back into my life.
Actually it is very simple, it involves hooking up the bomb to the phone ringer. Call the phone from another phone and boom, the bomb goes off. Simple, easy, and can be detonated from anywhere on the planet.
Plus since when did silly things like laws stop criminals and terrorists?
I have been a subscriber of Netflix for years and I love it. That combined with RedBox, Hulu, Torrents, and other online video sources I have been seriously considering getting rid of cable TV. I only have two problems, my TV doesn't work so well with my computer even though it is a plasma and my two roommates are no where near as computer savvy as I am so that would piss them off. But when I get a place without roommates I will be kicking cable TV to the curb.
This will of course make the net neutrality discourse right now even more important.
Where childish lawsuits (lawsuits against those that attack those that tell the truth) are dismissed automatically. In this dream those that file said lawsuits are then imprisoned for a year on their first offense, just to make them think about it. On the second offense they get 5 years, then 10, then 20. Then people may actually reconsider filing frivolous lawsuits. Aahh, but tis a dream!
I agree with you on most points, but as for the forefather's reaction... Yeah they would be even more ignorant of how the internet works than the sheriff is.
No offense to our forefathers. Though if you really look at history our forefathers were essentially glorified tax evaders and businessmen looking to share less of their profits. What they did for everyone turned out to be wonderful, amazing, very brave, very ingenious (in their success and the design of the new government), and certainly warrants great respect, remembrance, and honor. However, despite what most people imagine their intentions were not entirely honorable and selfless and they certainly didn't have hearts as pure as superman's (I know, an odd reference given the context). I used to imagine them this way until I got older and gained a more mature perspective on them. But enough with that silly rant...
The problem really boils down to a combination of ignorance and trying to blame someone else for a problem. Most people seem have this mystical view of the internet. They view it as sudo-magic where anything and everything is possible. Both in what people do with it and the extent it can be controlled. Until the majority of policy-makers understand that things are not that simple and that the internet is not some form of magic, we will continue to see these types of stories.
No, the government will just steal it from them one way or another. The government legalized theft a long time ago. At least theft by the government. Of course that has been extended to politicians and big businesses (that bribe said politicians). But I digress.
On the post: Former Musician Now Lawyer Comes To Terms With What's Happening To His Music Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pizza Analogy
Moderation is key here, like many other things in life laws, of any type, require moderation and limitation. Laws are good, fine I can accept that. More laws are better, this is where we run into a problem that is a case by case determination. You must ask yourself several questions.
The first question is what are you trying to accomplish with law? Is the current law not accomplishing this? If not why and will more laws be both effective and provide the greatest benefit for all or is there another way to accomplish our goals without more laws that has a better effect?
If law is the only option then lets look at one more thing before creating a new law. Is what we are trying to accomplish, our goal, to the larger benefit of all, which is the group we are trying to serve when writing law? Or is this goal designed to only benefit a small group and will actually cause more harm than good to the group as a whole that we are trying to serve being lawmakers (all the people)?
I think if more people considered these things first we would have less laws and more people working on real solutions and real problems and humanity would benefit greatly. But common sense and solid logic and reasoning seems to escape many of those involved in making laws.
Quality over quantity people!
On the post: Vancouver Olympics Demands All Copyrights And Royalties From Musician Just To Hear Her Song
Just boycott the idiots!
On the post: UK Aggregator NewsNow Dumps Newspapers After They Demand Payment To Link To Stories
So what your saying is...
Isn't this a bit like charging people for recommending your company to others? The absurdity of it. And news organizations wonder why they are dying? This is just another sign of the oncoming epic failure and collapse of the mainstream media. But if they are really this stupid then I say let them fail. THEY are not too big to fail. Maybe we can get rid of most of these idiotic talking heads we see on TV and the plagiarism in the newspapers and get back to real reporting.
On the post: Musician Chases Down Google Street View Car To Promote His Music
Awesome Promo Idea
On the post: AT&T's Bait And Switch On iPhone Unlimited Service: We Screwed Up, So Now You Have To Pay More
Re: Frakin' frakers!
If they do this to me (and I am definitely a heavy user, streaming Pandora all day) I won't pay it and I will switch carriers in a heartbeat.
On the post: French Courts Continue To Penalize eBay For Actions Of Users
Hate Ebay
This is like suing Cisco for building routers that may or may not end up transmitting pirated software across the internet in their given lifespans. Or suing rubber makers for supplying the rubber used to make the tires on the vehicles that are used to smuggle drugs.
But then again isn't that true of many of these new attacks by copyright holders?
On the post: Facebook Photos Coming Back To Haunt Users In Surprising Ways
Re: Re: Re:
So if kids can get punished for it, why don't insurance agents? Seems only fair, especially since they should know better. (OK, I am stopping here with the stupid commentary).
On the post: Facebook Photos Coming Back To Haunt Users In Surprising Ways
Re: Re:
I think I got in trouble for doing that as a kid...
On the post: Facebook Photos Coming Back To Haunt Users In Surprising Ways
Re:
On the post: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
Re: Re:
On the post: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs
Re:
I bet your local gas station cut some costs when they started letting customers fill up their own personal cups from the soda fountain instead of from plastic cups the station provided. And that even helped the environment a bit.
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Results From Our CwF+RtB Business Model Experiment
Christmas Planning
Anyways, awesome experiment!
-Pjerky
On the post: Why Do Some Politicians Want To Ban You From Putting New Software On A Prepaid Mobile Phone?
Re: Counter-Terrorism?
Plus since when did silly things like laws stop criminals and terrorists?
On the post: Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing'
Block this idiot's site.
On the post: Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?
I have been a Netflix subscriber for years
This will of course make the net neutrality discourse right now even more important.
On the post: Patent Troll Tracker Case Settled... So When Can Frenkel Start Blogging Again?
I have a dream...
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
Re: Welcome to the digital age.
No offense to our forefathers. Though if you really look at history our forefathers were essentially glorified tax evaders and businessmen looking to share less of their profits. What they did for everyone turned out to be wonderful, amazing, very brave, very ingenious (in their success and the design of the new government), and certainly warrants great respect, remembrance, and honor. However, despite what most people imagine their intentions were not entirely honorable and selfless and they certainly didn't have hearts as pure as superman's (I know, an odd reference given the context). I used to imagine them this way until I got older and gained a more mature perspective on them. But enough with that silly rant...
The problem really boils down to a combination of ignorance and trying to blame someone else for a problem. Most people seem have this mystical view of the internet. They view it as sudo-magic where anything and everything is possible. Both in what people do with it and the extent it can be controlled. Until the majority of policy-makers understand that things are not that simple and that the internet is not some form of magic, we will continue to see these types of stories.
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
Re: Re: Florida never smelled right
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
Re:
Next >>