You've hit the nail on the head and quite squarely I might add! I'd like to add...
It is not entitlement on the behalf of the consumer - consumers have EXPECTATIONS that should be met to make them satisfied with their purchase in exchange for the amount of currency/time spent to acquire the product.
When I buy a song, or heaven forbid - one is given to me on Amazon, I EXPECT to be able to play that song anytime, anywhere, on any device I choose.
However, SOMEWHERE along the line a third party group who doesn't even make music and is not someone/something I EVER want to do business with has decided that I am NOT allowed to enjoy MY music anytime, anywhere, on any device I choose. In fact, they will even try to tell me it's not even mine in the first place!
Consumer + payment = ownership of product
{me} + (0.00 to infinity-1)= my ownership of said product
The equation doesn't even have a logical place for the 3rd party to become involved. The true sense of entitlement is in those who have decided that THEY must be paid for work someone else has performed that I have bought, regardless of the price I was able to obtain the item even if that price is zero.
When price=0, I am a freetard.
When price is beyond reasonable and I can still acquire the item for less elsewhere, I am a pirate.
The day I actually pay this unreasonable price and am happy with my purchase and exchange of money for goods and services, NEVER (infinity+1)!
"Less Tim, more Mike.The way Tim writes makes me now want to skip whatever item he is writing about."
Hey moron, your browser allows YOU to make that choice for YOURSELF!! The effing story is essentially about idiots exactly like you and the French gov't, who somehow seem to want to make decisions for other people regardless of how those other people feel about the subject!
If you don't like Tim's articles or writing, then quit reading them and commenting on them - DUH!
The amount of stupidity of both the French gov't and the comment you made has just sent me over my recommended daily allowance of "stupid drivel to listen to". Great, now I have to turn off the internet until tomorrow and it's not even noon here on the left coast - thanks a lot, jackwagon!
Then, why don't we simply create the RIAA.net now and tell the RIAA that it is the only place where you are guaranteed that you CAN'T get ANY content, not from the artists nor otherwise.
Then, we tell them, EVERYONE has been forced to use the new network. They will see no music or other content being shared on their RIAA.net and the piracy problem will be solved!
Next time try a reasonable or even fairly close analogy - these two simply don't cut it...
My towing service is explicit in its terms that the towing will be taken care of if I'm present whether I'm driving or not. The auto insurance industry is 30 years ahead of the content industry in knowing how and what people want and need. They also had no problem supplying this on the terms the customer desired at a somewhat reasonable price with several options.
The dentist scenario is fraud - we have those laws already on the books.
Ok you moron - I've listened to the drivel from the gaping mouth AC gang for so long that I really wish the "Troll Bill" would be passed and be so short sighted as to put you and your talk-out-of-your-ass type in jail with each other without food or water! Just leave you rot until you kill each other off - you really are that ridiculous that I wish some of your own kind would do you harm!
The damn producers of the content can't even tell/decide what material is infringing and you want some third party to figure this out?? Or, just because someone says it's infringing it should automatically be taken down without any proof or due diligence??
Here's a paper towel...wipe your face off when you pull it out of your ass! Jesus Christ on a cracker - I wish that the sheer stupidity that spews from you was physically painful so I could enjoy the sound of you screaming in agony!
Then wouldn't that obviously make it transformative since it's not even a copy, but just similar?
Of course I'm willing to bet that the actor only has a henna version of the not-even-close design, so in essence there is no copy of anything in reality - just a similar mark on someone else's face.
Please explain how someone might have a copyright on that?!
If you can come up with an absolutely 100% accurate method of determining which files are infringing then MAYBE you might have a valid point but you're still invading someone's privacy without proof or reason to suspect them of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
If you don't have a problem with an illegal search based on absolutely zero evidence then you may be living in the wrong country or you might change your mind if some nefarious person pointed their crooked finger and said "I think he's a criminal!" and you become the target of the witch hunt yourself.
I'm personally convinced that Salem NEVER burned an actual witch, even once. However, many people died because of the accusations of those who had no idea what the hell they were talking about but had the power to bring about the death of an innocent person.
I don't believe the RIAA is actually going to cause someone's death with their actions but perhaps ruining someone's life while they are still alive is an even worse fate.
Copyright and trademark law are virtually unchanged except for length of term in a couple hundred years and are obviously out of date, technology-wise.
Let's reform the laws to modern day standards then we'll all get together and decide if anything else even needs to be discussed.
"And the RIAA stopped punshing infringers in '07 or '08."
If you insist on standing by this total fabrication (yours or did you pirate this from someplace else on the web? Just asking...) you will find yourself in a cesspool that only contains a few outdated content industry execs and the law firms that they employ. Congratulations!
In the case of a California checkpoint the LAW REQUIRES this information to be published in advance and freely available to the public.
If that is what you have an issue with then you have an issue with the residents of my fine state who demanded this legal requirement.
If you don't live in California, why is it your concern at all?
Texting while driving will net you a ticket for $250 for the first offense and $500 for the second. The ironic part is that if you get that text while driving, then subsequently get pulled over for texting while driving, you'll end up with the DUI anyway! Good luck!
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re:
Sometimes free works given the circumstances and conditions. These circumstances and conditions are fairly prevalent on the internet.
So, why does free not work for you? There was a time in man's history when there was no currency, unbelievably it didn't kill off the species!
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re:
You've hit the nail on the head and quite squarely I might add! I'd like to add...
It is not entitlement on the behalf of the consumer - consumers have EXPECTATIONS that should be met to make them satisfied with their purchase in exchange for the amount of currency/time spent to acquire the product.
When I buy a song, or heaven forbid - one is given to me on Amazon, I EXPECT to be able to play that song anytime, anywhere, on any device I choose.
However, SOMEWHERE along the line a third party group who doesn't even make music and is not someone/something I EVER want to do business with has decided that I am NOT allowed to enjoy MY music anytime, anywhere, on any device I choose. In fact, they will even try to tell me it's not even mine in the first place!
Consumer + payment = ownership of product
{me} + (0.00 to infinity-1)= my ownership of said product
The equation doesn't even have a logical place for the 3rd party to become involved. The true sense of entitlement is in those who have decided that THEY must be paid for work someone else has performed that I have bought, regardless of the price I was able to obtain the item even if that price is zero.
When price=0, I am a freetard.
When price is beyond reasonable and I can still acquire the item for less elsewhere, I am a pirate.
The day I actually pay this unreasonable price and am happy with my purchase and exchange of money for goods and services, NEVER (infinity+1)!
On the post: Yes, Multiple People Come Up With The Same Joke; It's Not 'Stealing' And Not Even Copying
Re:
Nothing in this thread even remotely suggests anything about a broadcast or transmission of a digital copy of a song or movie.
Move your silly ass trolling to another thread please!!
Preferably just take it back under your bridge with you and call it a day!!
On the post: French Radio And Television Newscasters Say 'Au Revoir' To Facebook And Twitter
Re: Please?
Hey moron, your browser allows YOU to make that choice for YOURSELF!! The effing story is essentially about idiots exactly like you and the French gov't, who somehow seem to want to make decisions for other people regardless of how those other people feel about the subject!
If you don't like Tim's articles or writing, then quit reading them and commenting on them - DUH!
The amount of stupidity of both the French gov't and the comment you made has just sent me over my recommended daily allowance of "stupid drivel to listen to". Great, now I have to turn off the internet until tomorrow and it's not even noon here on the left coast - thanks a lot, jackwagon!
On the post: Censoring Begins At Home: Iran Announces Plans To Build Its Own Internet, Operating System
Re:
Then, we tell them, EVERYONE has been forced to use the new network. They will see no music or other content being shared on their RIAA.net and the piracy problem will be solved!
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re:
My towing service is explicit in its terms that the towing will be taken care of if I'm present whether I'm driving or not. The auto insurance industry is 30 years ahead of the content industry in knowing how and what people want and need. They also had no problem supplying this on the terms the customer desired at a somewhat reasonable price with several options.
The dentist scenario is fraud - we have those laws already on the books.
That's pretty effing weak, even for a troll.
FTFY - now back under the bridge, the sun is out!
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re:
The damn producers of the content can't even tell/decide what material is infringing and you want some third party to figure this out?? Or, just because someone says it's infringing it should automatically be taken down without any proof or due diligence??
Here's a paper towel...wipe your face off when you pull it out of your ass! Jesus Christ on a cracker - I wish that the sheer stupidity that spews from you was physically painful so I could enjoy the sound of you screaming in agony!
On the post: Singer's Ex-Boyfriend Demands Royalties For Inspiring Songs About Their Relationship & Breakup
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least now I have an idea of who the subject may have been for the first "moron" in a hurry test.
How much of an idiot do you have to be to ask an asinine question like "How exactly is IP itself any different now than 20 or 50 years ago?"?
Get back under your bridge AC' troll!
On the post: Is The Mike Tyson Tattoo On Ed Helms A Parody?
Re: Re: I was going to say that
Of course I'm willing to bet that the actor only has a henna version of the not-even-close design, so in essence there is no copy of anything in reality - just a similar mark on someone else's face.
Please explain how someone might have a copyright on that?!
On the post: The Only Eight Senators Who Think Extending The Patriot Act Deserves More Discussion
Re: Wyden?
On the post: RIAA Wants To Start Peeking Into Files You Store In The Cloud
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't have a problem with an illegal search based on absolutely zero evidence then you may be living in the wrong country or you might change your mind if some nefarious person pointed their crooked finger and said "I think he's a criminal!" and you become the target of the witch hunt yourself.
I'm personally convinced that Salem NEVER burned an actual witch, even once. However, many people died because of the accusations of those who had no idea what the hell they were talking about but had the power to bring about the death of an innocent person.
I don't believe the RIAA is actually going to cause someone's death with their actions but perhaps ruining someone's life while they are still alive is an even worse fate.
On the post: Bill Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth
Re:
It's called "Congress"!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's reform the laws to modern day standards then we'll all get together and decide if anything else even needs to be discussed.
"And the RIAA stopped punshing infringers in '07 or '08."
If you insist on standing by this total fabrication (yours or did you pirate this from someplace else on the web? Just asking...) you will find yourself in a cesspool that only contains a few outdated content industry execs and the law firms that they employ. Congratulations!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may be liable if his head explodes during the epiphany!
On the post: Bill Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth
Re:
On the post: FCC Commish-Turned-Lobbyist Can't See What All The Controversy Is About
Re: Re: Re:
Did she put forth legislation or make any decisions that would facilitate the merger?
If the answer is "Yes." to either question the the obvious answer would be "Yes, she should resign."
On the post: FBI: Customers Might Sue If They Knew Companies Were Helping With Wiretaps
Re: No big surprise.
On the post: Senator Schumer Wants To Censor Google & Apple; Displays Ignorance Of Law
Re:
If that is what you have an issue with then you have an issue with the residents of my fine state who demanded this legal requirement.
If you don't live in California, why is it your concern at all?
Texting while driving will net you a ticket for $250 for the first offense and $500 for the second. The ironic part is that if you get that text while driving, then subsequently get pulled over for texting while driving, you'll end up with the DUI anyway! Good luck!
On the post: Full Text Of The PROTECT IP Act Released: The Good, The Bad And The Horribly Ugly
Re: Re: Re: The internet routes around all obstructions ...
Glad to know that piracy is no longer an issue - maybe we can move on with the advancement of technology and society now!
Next >>