Re: Photographers are the easiest target of orphaned works fraud
For most website, a smallish photo is all that is needed. It would be easy to grab a photo off another website, remove the EXIF info and then claim it is an orphaned work. So I do have some pity on them.
But it would be just as easy to fight that in court. And stripping the EXIF info would likely cause the judge to side with the plaintiff that your use of the photo was malicious infringement (because you went out of your way to strip the EXIF info.) If you just uploaded it with the EXIF intact, it would be easier to claim "I didn't know" and just pay the author for its use.
Then again...there are so many orphaned and neglected works out there due to Disney. Find a photo that isn't part of the GETTY collection from the 40s/50s and you likely have an orphaned work.
Did you just mix up Kate Mulgrew and Jane Seymour? I'm kinda confused.
Yup.
I know, they don't even look like each other...not by a long shot...but both shows were running around the same time, and on more than a few occasions when I would say something about Voyager -- someone would bring up that they liked her in Dr. Quinn, which always got me miffed. Jane Seymour is a great actress, but she isn't Kate Mulgrew (who I think was the best choice for that role in Voyager, unlike the choice of Avery Brooks for Deep Space 9 -- great actor, but poor actor for that role and I never really liked the character because he was too two-dimensional.)
Tongue was surely stitched in cheek for that one. I saw Dr Quinn maybe two or three times, and while it never appealed to me, it certainly didn't "suck".
The Star Wars Christmas Special on the other hand...
A sterile snapshot of a random brick wall built by a bricklayer is art. The brick wall? Not art. A photograph of a brick wall? Art. A painting of a photograph of a brick wall? Not art.
Can we just say that everything is made by the creator (flying spaghetti monster, may his noodley appendages protect you and keep you safe,) and thus, all art is derivative of his original work, and thus not subject to copyright and call it a day? That would make things a hell of a lot easier for everyone.
Artist A makes art.
Artist B takes Artist A's art, modifies it and sells it.
Artist A stops being able to sell his art.
Not saying you are making this statement...but why do copyright maximalists always deal in absolutes and always see this as a xor statement... In their eyes, if A = B, and A = 1, B can never equal 1...which makes no sense.
The world never works this way, not ever, never! Artist A makes an art, and sells it. Artist B takes the art, modifies it and sells it. Customers will find one or the other, enjoy it, and purchase it...thus both Artist A and Artist B get money for their work. And for some of us...we listen to the "artists like ..." suggestions, and buy both Artist A *AND* Artist B's work.
Hell, I see this all the time. I didn't know the band "Dream Theater" existed, until I started looking for more "Spock X" albums and the website I was on suggested that if I like "Spock X", I might like "Dream Theater" too. And surprise, surprise...I now own every Dream Theater album. Now neither has copied the other's work directly, but they both have elements that they share. In the copyright maximalist's world, either Spock X can exist, or Dream Theater, and so long as both exist, nobody can make money.
But is this a bad thing? Should we settle with version one (which could be bad), or should we allow others to improve on an original creative work to try to bring it to it's full potential? Why should we artificially limit the Universe of potential artistic creations?
Exactly...
Only the dark side deals in absolutes.
In the real world, both parties make money, and in some cases, if both works are commercially viable, both artists will be justly rewarded for their work. But we aren't talking about limiting the pool of artistic creations to make sure everyone gets their share when we are talking about the true intent of the industry...but to limit the artists so that they can be controlled and maximize the profits of the industry to the detriment of culture and reason.
Graduated in '99. Coursepacks were expensive (though tolerable.) Bought my last coursepack for Advanced Data Structures in Fall of '98 for $110 (which was over 500 pages in length.) Never spent more than that. Since the textbook for the class was about 400 pages long, and cost $218, I thought the coursepacks were a deal even though they were expensive, and I couldn't see why the textbook, which could be bought anywhere (in an older version, and we didn't even use that textbook much) for about $60-80,) was more than $100.
I'd hate to be a student now-a-days...I am sure everyone is raping them. A friend of mine who is still in college said he took out a loan for this year in college that was over the cost of his car, but he is a graduate student, and they get screwed even more.
I loved Takeshi's Castle. Lets ensure that we can never have another good show like that one ok? Otherwise there will be no incentive to make the original Takeshi's Castle and I will be sad since I will have missed out.
I like the SpikeTV version (MXC). Derivative, but just as funny. Talk about wholesale copyright infringement (though MXC is actually joint owned by TBS and RC Entertainment.) The original (Takeshi's Castle) wasn't a comedy.
it will join the millions of other works in the public domain that are basically ignored, except for academic study.
Man, you are so right here. Back when I was in my first year of college, I argued with my English Lit professor about a bunch of books he made us read and write reports on (yeah, the first year of college here is much like high school...you have to get through it and then you can study what you want.)
He gave us the list of works from long dead authors, and I argued with him that you just cannot find those works any more, because they are along with the millions of other works in the public domain that are basically ignored.
Didn't work out so well for me...he still made me read those books, some guy named Homer wrote a bunch, and another guy named Shakespeare. And guys like Doyle, Twain, Dickens, Poe, Carroll, Verne, Wilde, Kipling, and Austen. Man, I couldn't find any of those books anywhere, so I thought the teacher was a jerk.
The public domain is so overrated. Nothing worthwhile in that collection. Jeesh, even hollywood knows that, as they don't even touch the public domain to pull any good current movies out of it. I mean, you can really only make one version of Romeo and Juliet or Tristen and Isolde before people get tired and move on...and Robin Hood sucked so bad they never even made that one into a movie.
Yup....the public domain is a waste. It should continue to be ignored like the cesspool it is.
Wow thats given me a great idea for a retelling about a Spaceship captain who gets lost in space on his way home. There'd be blue people and some sort of robot.
I think I saw that one already...something called Voyager or something like that. Good series, lasted like 8 years or something, but I hated the ending. The captain was a babe in like the 60s or 70s, but she also was a medicine woman in another shows set to the 1800s, and that show sucked, just like the ending of Voyager.
As with anything else, if you think the price is too high, don't buy it. But don't use price as justification for stealing a copy.
But they will use the fact that you didn't buy it to inform Congress that you are a dirty little pirate, because you didn't buy it, and they know it is worth an awful lot and they didn't get much for it, so obviously you stole it from them.
Price is not justification for infringing on anyone's copyright, and I find it difficult to believe that most people really think that it is. The entertainment industry would like to believe it is true, but that doesn't make it so.
Well, it looks like my next phone provider just stood up. Thanks everyone, we have a winner. Now if I could just get enough memory in the phone (a problem I've had all along.)
I've been hearing good things about the Galaxy...
Oh, and Sony....you can sit down. I have no intention of ever buying a Sony branded product ever again. The fact that I chose you in the past despite the fact that your competitors were offering a better product for less was a mistake that I am now regretting more than ever.
Maybe if the legitimate commerce was not being eroded by piracy, prices would come down. Maybe downward movement of prices would erode piracy. Maybe expansion of sites like Netflix and Hulu will chip away at both piracy and retail pricing. All of the issues are ripe for discussion. Piracy is under the microscope because it's illegal and legislation targeting is likely to pass and it appears to be deemed worrisome by freeloaders. Competition amongst legitimate sites will help to drive down prices, and coupled with reduced losses to infringement, pricing pressure will continue.
Thanks for proving my point...
Legitimate commerce is not being eroded by piracy, but by copyright maximalists and the industry that has a conflict of interest here.
If they didn't over-inflate the numbers of "losses" by piracy and looked at the real issue...that they aren't providing a product that people want for the price they are asking for it and in the format they are providing it, then there would be more effort to fix the problem. They automatically assume that since people aren't buying their product, they are stealing it...which has been shown, time and time again, to be untrue. Piracy is, as it always has been, a red herring. People who pirate videos would have done so regardless to whether other alternatives were available. And if someone doesn't buy what the industry is selling, then gosh darn it, they are stealing it (even though most consumers will go without.) Overvalue is what is driving this game, the industry overvalues their product, and then when the consumer doesn't meet their expectations, than the consumer "is a thief."
Expansion of Netflix won't happen, certainly not while the industry is busy pulling the rug out from under Netflix and complaining to Congress that Netflix needs to be treated differently than Blockbuster (only because Netflix isn't owned by a media giant, while Blockbuster is.) It is sad, because as a subscriber to Netflix, I'd love to see them expand...but the industry won't let them. Why do Netflix users have to wait a month before receiving the latest movies while Blockbuster doesn't? Oh yeah, because Netflix is a necessary evil...something the industry would love to see disappear, but the money is too good at the moment. Netflix is only a faux legitimate site in their eyes, it is tolerated at the moment, but once the industry figures out how to cut them out, they will.
Piracy is only under a microscope because it makes it easier for the industry to pass anti-consumer laws and scream chicken-little, that allows them to line their pockets quicker and keeps their antiquated business policies, until Congress eventually figures out what everyone else already knows...they are greedy bastards that will maintain their stranglehold as a gatekeeper at all cost, customer be damned.
I'm no "freetard", as some ACs bandy about. I'm just a guy who tries to be wise with his spending money, and doesn't get why the rapid advancements of the past decade are not being leveraged to influence my buying decisions, or are outright seen as bad.
To them, you are a freetard, because you don't agree with their belief that you should be giving a significant part of your paycheck to them an a monthly bases for no work on their part. Hey, even artists here are called freetards by them...and it is the artist that is providing their livelihood. It doesn't matter to them that you are being entirely rational and they aren't.
I like your personal rules though...they are definitely true. The copyright maximalists here seem to think that number 3 doesn't exist in the equation, and that if you cannot buy it, you'll steal it. Which is funny, because they make it so difficult to legally purchase it that essentially they create the problem they wish to solve. But most of us follow 3 and don't buy their product (or obtain it through other means,) but since we aren't buying their product, they come to the illogical conclusion that we are obtaining it through other means because, hell, "millions of people should be buying the product (that we've made difficult to purchase and way to expensive, and it really wasn't a good product to begin with) and only a thousand people are, so that means that the other 900,000+ are stealing it" crap.
They overvalue their product, and then when we don't buy it and live up to their value, they think we stole it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you think up an idea right now...I'd say that there is close to 100% certainty that someone else already thought up the idea before. There is nothing new under the sun. And even if you happen to think up a completely new idea, it is most likely based on ideas that you learned from someone else.
It is why copyright cannot, and should not, be about ideas but implementation. And about that specific implementation. And since you built your implementation on a mixture of your own ideas and stuff that came before -- others should be able to come along and use your ideas in their implementations too.
Why is this such a hard concept for copyright maximalists to get? Oh yeah...greed at all costs. A little greed is good (for a capitalist,) but not at the expense of everything else.
People who compare app stores to retail chains are really only showing their ignorance of how applications work.
People who believe that app stores and retail chains are different are only showing their ignorance of how capitalism works.
At least it would be true if we got rid of anti-capitalist, government mandated monopolies of an infinite length and shifted so far to the right that the customer is always getting screwed. Or at least curtail them to the point to bring them in-line with the true ideals of a capitalist/consumerist society, where a customer can have some level of recourse to the current "bait-and-switch" model we have now. A company can lie all they want on the brocheur, but the moment the customer (sucker) buys, they have little if any recourse to return the product if it doesn't match the literature.
And as for your analogy...this is already done, for the most part, by ASPs. My ASP gave me thirty days to try out their service, providing me with a dedicated virtual machine to play with for 30 days before they started charging me for the service. So, analogy fail if you are trying to show that an application can't do it because ISPs don't do it, because I am hard pressed to find one now-a-days that doesn't.
One loophole this opens is that you can "borrow" an app as long as you return it within the trial period.
In the real world, this happens quite often. Ever check out an electronics store right after a superbowl or some other sporting event?
A lot of people "borrow" equipment. If companies in the real world don't like this, they model their policies to avoid this (not allowing returns after major sporting events for non-broken equipment, or charging a restocking fee.) It is about time that the mythical world of Intellectual Property was brought more in line with Capitalism.
I am personally tired of buying software only to find out that it doesn't offer what I want or doesn't match what the box said it would do...which is why I rarely buy commercial software any more. With Open Source, Shareware, etc., I can try the software before I buy it, or choose to support the Open Source community behind the software in the case of Open Source. Especially since you can't return commercial software, even if it doesn't match your expectations or doesn't even work (in the case of DRM, I have quite a few programs I bought which I cannot use and cannot return.)
This was the last straw that got me to dump e-music. I was a happy user, until they changed their system to not allow redownloads, because somehow they magically knew whether the download completed successfully or not.
However, I downloaded several songs after they instituted this change, and ended up repaying and redownloading them because somehow they got corrupt during the initial download (one was a 130k file, when it was supposed to be several mb, so it looked like the download failed.) Add to it their crappy software that routinely blew-up, and it was nothing but fail. Now, of course, I go without, or download music I like from the band's website directly, but I know others that dropped e-music and went back to torrents and piracy.
Yet another painful example of the company greed (in this case, the company accepting bad licensing from the majors to "access" their material,) driving the customer away...but this is status quo for copyright maximalists, who would rather see the world burn than treat their customers well.
I have read innumerable piracy advocates say: "More education, not laws, are needed." Then when education is tried they say: "Stop educating! You have no right!"
I hear read innumerable anonymous cowards say: "Mike and his website are all about piracy." But then when those who come here to honestly discuss the issues, the trolls come in here and say: "Mike and his website are all about piracy."
Yawn.
Innumerable piracy advocates, like anonymous cowards, exist of a large sample of people, each with differing goals and perspectives. Some may be pushing for more education, while others see that the industry is so corrupt and ignorant of the consequences of their laws and so greedy that they will say anything to keep the money flowing at all costs to come up with correct, accurate education of the issues.
Except they used the music industry's instruments and tools. Any music they brought home from that day would belong to the music industry and would lead to the confiscation of all music related equipment. If found that the student shared their music with friends and family they would be sued for $1.2 billion per offense.
At least the kids are getting a complete experience in what it takes to be a label-owned musician. We normally get upset when the labels propagandize by lying and not showing the whole picture in their rants, but it sounds like this label took it to heart and fixed their propaganda so that the kids realize the true value (or lack thereof) for joining their label.
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Photographers are the easiest target of orphaned works fraud
But it would be just as easy to fight that in court. And stripping the EXIF info would likely cause the judge to side with the plaintiff that your use of the photo was malicious infringement (because you went out of your way to strip the EXIF info.) If you just uploaded it with the EXIF intact, it would be easier to claim "I didn't know" and just pay the author for its use.
Then again...there are so many orphaned and neglected works out there due to Disney. Find a photo that isn't part of the GETTY collection from the 40s/50s and you likely have an orphaned work.
On the post: How Putting James Joyce's Ulysses Into The Public Domain Will Breathe New Life Into Joyce's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup.
I know, they don't even look like each other...not by a long shot...but both shows were running around the same time, and on more than a few occasions when I would say something about Voyager -- someone would bring up that they liked her in Dr. Quinn, which always got me miffed. Jane Seymour is a great actress, but she isn't Kate Mulgrew (who I think was the best choice for that role in Voyager, unlike the choice of Avery Brooks for Deep Space 9 -- great actor, but poor actor for that role and I never really liked the character because he was too two-dimensional.)
Tongue was surely stitched in cheek for that one. I saw Dr Quinn maybe two or three times, and while it never appealed to me, it certainly didn't "suck".
The Star Wars Christmas Special on the other hand...
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can we just say that everything is made by the creator (flying spaghetti monster, may his noodley appendages protect you and keep you safe,) and thus, all art is derivative of his original work, and thus not subject to copyright and call it a day? That would make things a hell of a lot easier for everyone.
On the post: Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat
Re: Re:
And sometimes the crook has a badge.
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re:
Artist B takes Artist A's art, modifies it and sells it.
Artist A stops being able to sell his art.
Not saying you are making this statement...but why do copyright maximalists always deal in absolutes and always see this as a xor statement... In their eyes, if A = B, and A = 1, B can never equal 1...which makes no sense.
The world never works this way, not ever, never! Artist A makes an art, and sells it. Artist B takes the art, modifies it and sells it. Customers will find one or the other, enjoy it, and purchase it...thus both Artist A and Artist B get money for their work. And for some of us...we listen to the "artists like ..." suggestions, and buy both Artist A *AND* Artist B's work.
Hell, I see this all the time. I didn't know the band "Dream Theater" existed, until I started looking for more "Spock X" albums and the website I was on suggested that if I like "Spock X", I might like "Dream Theater" too. And surprise, surprise...I now own every Dream Theater album. Now neither has copied the other's work directly, but they both have elements that they share. In the copyright maximalist's world, either Spock X can exist, or Dream Theater, and so long as both exist, nobody can make money.
But is this a bad thing? Should we settle with version one (which could be bad), or should we allow others to improve on an original creative work to try to bring it to it's full potential? Why should we artificially limit the Universe of potential artistic creations?
Exactly...
Only the dark side deals in absolutes.
In the real world, both parties make money, and in some cases, if both works are commercially viable, both artists will be justly rewarded for their work. But we aren't talking about limiting the pool of artistic creations to make sure everyone gets their share when we are talking about the true intent of the industry...but to limit the artists so that they can be controlled and maximize the profits of the industry to the detriment of culture and reason.
On the post: How Putting James Joyce's Ulysses Into The Public Domain Will Breathe New Life Into Joyce's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least it wasn't the Star Wars Christmas Special...that show sucked.
On the post: Obscure(ish) Academic Fair Use Case Has Potential For Wide-Ranging Impact
Coursepacks
I'd hate to be a student now-a-days...I am sure everyone is raping them. A friend of mine who is still in college said he took out a loan for this year in college that was over the cost of his car, but he is a graduate student, and they get screwed even more.
On the post: Can 'Reality' Be Copyrighted?
Re:
I like the SpikeTV version (MXC). Derivative, but just as funny. Talk about wholesale copyright infringement (though MXC is actually joint owned by TBS and RC Entertainment.) The original (Takeshi's Castle) wasn't a comedy.
On the post: How Putting James Joyce's Ulysses Into The Public Domain Will Breathe New Life Into Joyce's Work
Re:
Man, you are so right here. Back when I was in my first year of college, I argued with my English Lit professor about a bunch of books he made us read and write reports on (yeah, the first year of college here is much like high school...you have to get through it and then you can study what you want.)
He gave us the list of works from long dead authors, and I argued with him that you just cannot find those works any more, because they are along with the millions of other works in the public domain that are basically ignored.
Didn't work out so well for me...he still made me read those books, some guy named Homer wrote a bunch, and another guy named Shakespeare. And guys like Doyle, Twain, Dickens, Poe, Carroll, Verne, Wilde, Kipling, and Austen. Man, I couldn't find any of those books anywhere, so I thought the teacher was a jerk.
The public domain is so overrated. Nothing worthwhile in that collection. Jeesh, even hollywood knows that, as they don't even touch the public domain to pull any good current movies out of it. I mean, you can really only make one version of Romeo and Juliet or Tristen and Isolde before people get tired and move on...and Robin Hood sucked so bad they never even made that one into a movie.
Yup....the public domain is a waste. It should continue to be ignored like the cesspool it is.
On the post: How Putting James Joyce's Ulysses Into The Public Domain Will Breathe New Life Into Joyce's Work
Re: Re:
I think I saw that one already...something called Voyager or something like that. Good series, lasted like 8 years or something, but I hated the ending. The captain was a babe in like the 60s or 70s, but she also was a medicine woman in another shows set to the 1800s, and that show sucked, just like the ending of Voyager.
What were we talking about again?
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: Re: Re: capitalism
But they will use the fact that you didn't buy it to inform Congress that you are a dirty little pirate, because you didn't buy it, and they know it is worth an awful lot and they didn't get much for it, so obviously you stole it from them.
Price is not justification for infringing on anyone's copyright, and I find it difficult to believe that most people really think that it is. The entertainment industry would like to believe it is true, but that doesn't make it so.
On the post: While Sony Sues Modders, Samsung Sends Them Devices To Mod Faster
Hmmm...
I've been hearing good things about the Galaxy...
Oh, and Sony....you can sit down. I have no intention of ever buying a Sony branded product ever again. The fact that I chose you in the past despite the fact that your competitors were offering a better product for less was a mistake that I am now regretting more than ever.
Just remember, Ericsson is owned by Sony.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving my point...
Legitimate commerce is not being eroded by piracy, but by copyright maximalists and the industry that has a conflict of interest here.
If they didn't over-inflate the numbers of "losses" by piracy and looked at the real issue...that they aren't providing a product that people want for the price they are asking for it and in the format they are providing it, then there would be more effort to fix the problem. They automatically assume that since people aren't buying their product, they are stealing it...which has been shown, time and time again, to be untrue. Piracy is, as it always has been, a red herring. People who pirate videos would have done so regardless to whether other alternatives were available. And if someone doesn't buy what the industry is selling, then gosh darn it, they are stealing it (even though most consumers will go without.) Overvalue is what is driving this game, the industry overvalues their product, and then when the consumer doesn't meet their expectations, than the consumer "is a thief."
Expansion of Netflix won't happen, certainly not while the industry is busy pulling the rug out from under Netflix and complaining to Congress that Netflix needs to be treated differently than Blockbuster (only because Netflix isn't owned by a media giant, while Blockbuster is.) It is sad, because as a subscriber to Netflix, I'd love to see them expand...but the industry won't let them. Why do Netflix users have to wait a month before receiving the latest movies while Blockbuster doesn't? Oh yeah, because Netflix is a necessary evil...something the industry would love to see disappear, but the money is too good at the moment. Netflix is only a faux legitimate site in their eyes, it is tolerated at the moment, but once the industry figures out how to cut them out, they will.
Piracy is only under a microscope because it makes it easier for the industry to pass anti-consumer laws and scream chicken-little, that allows them to line their pockets quicker and keeps their antiquated business policies, until Congress eventually figures out what everyone else already knows...they are greedy bastards that will maintain their stranglehold as a gatekeeper at all cost, customer be damned.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re:
To them, you are a freetard, because you don't agree with their belief that you should be giving a significant part of your paycheck to them an a monthly bases for no work on their part. Hey, even artists here are called freetards by them...and it is the artist that is providing their livelihood. It doesn't matter to them that you are being entirely rational and they aren't.
I like your personal rules though...they are definitely true. The copyright maximalists here seem to think that number 3 doesn't exist in the equation, and that if you cannot buy it, you'll steal it. Which is funny, because they make it so difficult to legally purchase it that essentially they create the problem they wish to solve. But most of us follow 3 and don't buy their product (or obtain it through other means,) but since we aren't buying their product, they come to the illogical conclusion that we are obtaining it through other means because, hell, "millions of people should be buying the product (that we've made difficult to purchase and way to expensive, and it really wasn't a good product to begin with) and only a thousand people are, so that means that the other 900,000+ are stealing it" crap.
They overvalue their product, and then when we don't buy it and live up to their value, they think we stole it.
On the post: Yes, Multiple People Come Up With The Same Joke; It's Not 'Stealing' And Not Even Copying
No New Ideas
It is why copyright cannot, and should not, be about ideas but implementation. And about that specific implementation. And since you built your implementation on a mixture of your own ideas and stuff that came before -- others should be able to come along and use your ideas in their implementations too.
Why is this such a hard concept for copyright maximalists to get? Oh yeah...greed at all costs. A little greed is good (for a capitalist,) but not at the expense of everything else.
On the post: Taipei Orders Google & Apple To Offer 7-Day Free Trials Of All Apps Offered Via App Markets
Re:
People who believe that app stores and retail chains are different are only showing their ignorance of how capitalism works.
At least it would be true if we got rid of anti-capitalist, government mandated monopolies of an infinite length and shifted so far to the right that the customer is always getting screwed. Or at least curtail them to the point to bring them in-line with the true ideals of a capitalist/consumerist society, where a customer can have some level of recourse to the current "bait-and-switch" model we have now. A company can lie all they want on the brocheur, but the moment the customer (sucker) buys, they have little if any recourse to return the product if it doesn't match the literature.
And as for your analogy...this is already done, for the most part, by ASPs. My ASP gave me thirty days to try out their service, providing me with a dedicated virtual machine to play with for 30 days before they started charging me for the service. So, analogy fail if you are trying to show that an application can't do it because ISPs don't do it, because I am hard pressed to find one now-a-days that doesn't.
On the post: Taipei Orders Google & Apple To Offer 7-Day Free Trials Of All Apps Offered Via App Markets
Re: I'm not so sure this is a bad thing
In the real world, this happens quite often. Ever check out an electronics store right after a superbowl or some other sporting event?
A lot of people "borrow" equipment. If companies in the real world don't like this, they model their policies to avoid this (not allowing returns after major sporting events for non-broken equipment, or charging a restocking fee.) It is about time that the mythical world of Intellectual Property was brought more in line with Capitalism.
I am personally tired of buying software only to find out that it doesn't offer what I want or doesn't match what the box said it would do...which is why I rarely buy commercial software any more. With Open Source, Shareware, etc., I can try the software before I buy it, or choose to support the Open Source community behind the software in the case of Open Source. Especially since you can't return commercial software, even if it doesn't match your expectations or doesn't even work (in the case of DRM, I have quite a few programs I bought which I cannot use and cannot return.)
On the post: Another Artificial Market Created Thanks To Copyright: Download Insurance?
Re:
However, I downloaded several songs after they instituted this change, and ended up repaying and redownloading them because somehow they got corrupt during the initial download (one was a 130k file, when it was supposed to be several mb, so it looked like the download failed.) Add to it their crappy software that routinely blew-up, and it was nothing but fail. Now, of course, I go without, or download music I like from the band's website directly, but I know others that dropped e-music and went back to torrents and piracy.
Yet another painful example of the company greed (in this case, the company accepting bad licensing from the majors to "access" their material,) driving the customer away...but this is status quo for copyright maximalists, who would rather see the world burn than treat their customers well.
On the post: British Labels Propagandizing To Children
Re:
I hear read innumerable anonymous cowards say: "Mike and his website are all about piracy." But then when those who come here to honestly discuss the issues, the trolls come in here and say: "Mike and his website are all about piracy."
Yawn.
Innumerable piracy advocates, like anonymous cowards, exist of a large sample of people, each with differing goals and perspectives. Some may be pushing for more education, while others see that the industry is so corrupt and ignorant of the consequences of their laws and so greedy that they will say anything to keep the money flowing at all costs to come up with correct, accurate education of the issues.
On the post: British Labels Propagandizing To Children
Re: Re: Copyrighted for sure
At least the kids are getting a complete experience in what it takes to be a label-owned musician. We normally get upset when the labels propagandize by lying and not showing the whole picture in their rants, but it sounds like this label took it to heart and fixed their propaganda so that the kids realize the true value (or lack thereof) for joining their label.
Next >>