There's a reason people get pissed at others trampling their lawn. Because they're TRAMPLING the LAWN!
I want to have some thing "nice." i.e. The way I want it, not the way you want it. The thing is, a lot of things could be had both ways or many ways but a few people catering to the "masses" TRAMPLE my way (my "lawn").
You may see this as "nit-picking" or semantics, but I have a problem with the phrase "the right to search". It may seem like a small difference in words but it is a huge difference in meaning.
I do not believe it is a right, ever. Officers may have the authority and legal grounds to conduct a search, they may be said to be 'in the right' or it may be permissible for them to conduct a search. But it is not their "right".
I know everyone can't be so fortunate but most human workers would be far happier being compensated for what they do vs. how much of it. I guess "piece work" is fine if there is easily weighed metrics for the "pieces" (F.E. assembly, or manufacturing, or splitting logs, whatever) But intellectual work is not easily weighed "per piece" you don't have the same control over item units per time units.
Furthermore I get really angry when I complete my assigned tasks on time or ahead of schedule and my reward is MORE WORK. If I complete my assignment as asked I deserve a break or more compensation.
Some companies do this! I do think they are required by law to allow a certain amount of time for these breaks and I don't know how often, but you clock out and a timer starts for the allotted time, if you don't clock back in by the allotted time you are considered "clocked out" (not paid) until you return.
I have seen warehouse/shipping facilities that have time clock readers at the restroom doors. A certain home improvement chain based in Wisconsin.
Has anyone ever shown proof that any damage was done? It is SPECULATED that files shared on the Internet translate in to lost sales. While I can understand the reasoning that doesn't make it fact. I am not ignorant enough to think that there are not people in the world who will choose something free over the same thing that costs money. I do object to the idea that I may be accountable to some Plaintiff's arbitrary claim of lost sales. Prove to me that if this file had never been shared on the Internet that you would have made even a single sale more than you did; you can't.
Most people are just not that interested, inclined, or able.
I think you underestimate the "users."
Just because you have to look far and wide to find someone with an ounce of technical savvy does not mean there are few of them. Also every year there is another generation of children who have never lived WITHOUT computers and technology. They don't have to learn technology, they're raised with it, it is part of their culture.
and that crapping on content producers (who are obviously having their legal rights infringed) smacks of the judge ignoring reality.
Content Producers
This term is key to many of these arguments about Art and Intellectual Property. Through ignorance or mis-information many people confusedly think this means the artists, the creators of the content. It does not, it literally means the producers, as in "Executive Producer" the investor who is trying to monetize the Art or Intellectual Property. My opinion is that these people generally get no sympathy to their dilemma because they have made a risky (vs. intelligent or even thoughtful) investment and lost and many of them are turning to strong arm legal tactics instead of innovation and new and possibly better ideas. And this seems to be where all the discussions break down. One group says 'this is unreasonable', and the other group says 'this is our RIGHT'.
Well, no, its not a right. You may have legal recourse, but that does not make it A right, and that does not make it right.
Why does it seem to be impossible to reach an agreement? Supply and Demand will set the price regardless of what the producers want the price to be. As many here have pointed out lately (paraphrasing); When you choose set unreasonable prices content-piracy and infringement WILL be your competition.
Based on the details given in the article I don't find this surprising.
I do feel that is it wrong to persecute the host company because it users choose to utilize it for questionable (if not illegal) purposes. They are the target because they are an easy target, and an easy "choke-point" to attempt to curtail illegal activity. And I understand the argument that some make saying that they are in business solely to support this illegal activity. But that is far too broad a statement. It may even be true that many file sharing sites would not be successful with out the illegal activity, but A) the site is not committing the activity and B) "infringing" files are not the only files that can be used on the sites.
Again the end users are choosing to use the site for what they choose. If they are in the wrong pursue them.
I know this is a hated argument but you don't (successfully) blame gun makers because people use their products to commit crimes.
Why is the tip jar anywhere near where customers can access it?
Around here when you leave a tip in a bar you leave it ON the bar and the barkeep collects it and puts it in the tip-jar. Also you don't F*ck with other people tip money.
This is sickening: "and medicines that might not ever have been invested in without patents."
It is repulsive to think that care, medical treatments, and medicines will not be developed because there is not money in it, with or without patents.
Don't get me wrong I think that doctors and nurses and care staff deserve to be well compensated for what they do, but it makes me nauseous to know that hospitals are corporations and what they care *most* about is profits.
On the post: Trolls Don't Need To Be Anonymous, And Not All Anonymous People Are Trolls
Re: All Speech ...
On the post: How Not To Make Music Social: The Way Spotify And Facebook Did It
Re: "GET OFF MY LAWN"
I want to have some thing "nice." i.e. The way I want it, not the way you want it. The thing is, a lot of things could be had both ways or many ways but a few people catering to the "masses" TRAMPLE my way (my "lawn").
On the post: Will California's Governor Outlaw Police From Searching Mobile Phones Without A Warrant?
"Right to Search"
I do not believe it is a right, ever. Officers may have the authority and legal grounds to conduct a search, they may be said to be 'in the right' or it may be permissible for them to conduct a search. But it is not their "right".
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
Furthermore I get really angry when I complete my assigned tasks on time or ahead of schedule and my reward is MORE WORK. If I complete my assignment as asked I deserve a break or more compensation.
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
RE: clock out for bathroom breaks
I have seen warehouse/shipping facilities that have time clock readers at the restroom doors. A certain home improvement chain based in Wisconsin.
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re: Re: Completely Effective
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
Has anyone ever shown proof that any damage was done? It is SPECULATED that files shared on the Internet translate in to lost sales. While I can understand the reasoning that doesn't make it fact. I am not ignorant enough to think that there are not people in the world who will choose something free over the same thing that costs money. I do object to the idea that I may be accountable to some Plaintiff's arbitrary claim of lost sales. Prove to me that if this file had never been shared on the Internet that you would have made even a single sale more than you did; you can't.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: just not that interested, inclined, or able.
I think you underestimate the "users."
Just because you have to look far and wide to find someone with an ounce of technical savvy does not mean there are few of them. Also every year there is another generation of children who have never lived WITHOUT computers and technology. They don't have to learn technology, they're raised with it, it is part of their culture.
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
Re: Content Producers
Content Producers
This term is key to many of these arguments about Art and Intellectual Property. Through ignorance or mis-information many people confusedly think this means the artists, the creators of the content. It does not, it literally means the producers, as in "Executive Producer" the investor who is trying to monetize the Art or Intellectual Property. My opinion is that these people generally get no sympathy to their dilemma because they have made a risky (vs. intelligent or even thoughtful) investment and lost and many of them are turning to strong arm legal tactics instead of innovation and new and possibly better ideas. And this seems to be where all the discussions break down. One group says 'this is unreasonable', and the other group says 'this is our RIGHT'.
Well, no, its not a right. You may have legal recourse, but that does not make it A right, and that does not make it right.
Why does it seem to be impossible to reach an agreement? Supply and Demand will set the price regardless of what the producers want the price to be. As many here have pointed out lately (paraphrasing); When you choose set unreasonable prices content-piracy and infringement WILL be your competition.
On the post: MPAA So Thrilled With Zediva Ruling, It Offers To Help The Court Spread It
Re: Hotfile Ruling
I do feel that is it wrong to persecute the host company because it users choose to utilize it for questionable (if not illegal) purposes. They are the target because they are an easy target, and an easy "choke-point" to attempt to curtail illegal activity. And I understand the argument that some make saying that they are in business solely to support this illegal activity. But that is far too broad a statement. It may even be true that many file sharing sites would not be successful with out the illegal activity, but A) the site is not committing the activity and B) "infringing" files are not the only files that can be used on the sites.
Again the end users are choosing to use the site for what they choose. If they are in the wrong pursue them.
I know this is a hated argument but you don't (successfully) blame gun makers because people use their products to commit crimes.
On the post: MPAA So Thrilled With Zediva Ruling, It Offers To Help The Court Spread It
Re: the ruling against ....
I welcome your opposing opinion but if you won't even try to support it then I won't credit you any credibility.
On the post: MPAA So Thrilled With Zediva Ruling, It Offers To Help The Court Spread It
Re: "the wire between my DVD player and my TV is 10 feet..."
No, wrong.
This is not "to many people", this is to a single individual renter (who *MAY* be viewing with family and/or friends).
If you choose to speak inaccurately you choose to spread FUD.
On the post: DailyDirt: Contrary To Popular Belief, Diamonds Aren't Forever
Diamonds burn
http://www.chemicool.com/elements/carbon.html
On the post: Woman Kicked Out Of A Restaurant For Complaining About Bartender On Twitter
Re: Semi related note
Why is the tip jar anywhere near where customers can access it?
Around here when you leave a tip in a bar you leave it ON the bar and the barkeep collects it and puts it in the tip-jar. Also you don't F*ck with other people tip money.
On the post: Clear & Concise Explanation Of The Problem With Patents
Re:
This is sickening:
"and medicines that might not ever have been invested in without patents."
It is repulsive to think that care, medical treatments, and medicines will not be developed because there is not money in it, with or without patents.
Don't get me wrong I think that doctors and nurses and care staff deserve to be well compensated for what they do, but it makes me nauseous to know that hospitals are corporations and what they care *most* about is profits.
[ifdown DANDER]
Next >>