It's virtually impossible for Google to adhere to the various legal standards of every single country in the world. What is not legal in France is legal in the U.S. If your country deems Google's search to be illegal, take actions to prevent your citizens from accessing it. You cannot enforce your rules on every other country.
If this guy thinks the blog entry hurt business opportunities, this document of his is exponentially damaging as it will be forever available for the rest of his life. Seriously, not only is he basically illiterate, but it really backs up the whole "scam artist" comment on the blog. hehe
I use Netflix because I am happy with the service and the amount of streaming content. Off the cuff remarks, especially ones that ring true despite being unflattering, have no effect on the quality of my service.
Seriously, he should add "thin skinned" to his assessment of U.S. citizens.
Cap and Bill will never make if off the ground in the U.S. for one reason: Internet ads. If people are going to have caps on their usage that can cost them $$ they are going to take every measure available to block 100% of ad content that tries to get delivered to them. Sure there are people who use AdBlock now, but multiply that by millions and watch ad revenues plummet, and then watch sites that depend on ad revenue have to cut back or shut down.
It can happen in other countries, but we all know the U.S. is the world's leading consumer and advertisers do not want us shutting them out in massive quantities.
You are exactly correct. If their goal was actually reducing uncompensated file sharing it would cut into their income. To increase their own income, they need a constant increase in violations. Tell people where to go, then shake them down for money after they go there.
On Facebook there are pages such as the Anti-Christian Sentiment, and There Is No God. You have no calls from the Pope to block Facebook. No threats to kill anyone. In fact, they get relatively no attention.
The difference is tolerance. One of the Islamic pages I found was "There is No God But Allah". Some followers of Islam want to enforce respect for their religion onto the rest of the world while at the same time offering no such respect to any other religion. Demand tolerance, but do not give it.
The most vocal Muslim responses to pointing this out are almost always near unreadable rants composes of juvenile insults and threats. This is what the rest of the world sees: intolerance, hypocrisy, hatred and violence.
No matter what an actual religion teaches, it will be judged by the actions of its followers.
I think the ban of Facebook is just a show. The number of pro-Islamic/anti-everything else pages on Facebook is my evidence. By banning Facebook, they are cutting themselves off from a global recruitment tool. It's nothing more than using the international news agencies as your advertising department.
They will continue to try and control Facebook. Who knows, Facebook might be as spineless as Viacom and give in. But the ban on Facebook will be short and temporary because every day they block it, is a day they can't use it to connect with new members and spread their messages of intolerance to the rest of the world.
Maybe you just need to adjust your perception? Mike's just this guy, you know? He writes a blog. He writes his opinion about subjects that interest him. That's it. All this "superior to us all" stuff just might be in your head. We all have opinions. Mike set up a place to talk about his. You can do the same. It's nothing special, millions of people have done it. :)
I agree with your suggestion about adding a Mobile link. However you invite aggressive responses by making your point with irrelevant jabs. If your original comment had been factual only without the flame bait, your point would be better received.
Imagine if I get drunk and wreck my car, killing myself. Who should my family sue? The store for selling alcohol to people? The government for allowing alcohol to be legal? The company that makes the beer? What about the car company? Or the dealer that sold me my car? Or the gas station that I fueled up at last? Maybe the city for maintaining the streets that allowed me to go buy the beer in the first place?
Maybe sue them all. They are all to blame. Certainly not me. I died. I must be a victim.
Unless Second Life agreed to forever host their virtual properties on their servers, all Second Life has to do is make it so people can download whatever "code" they own. They can then stand by the claim that the customers still own their virtual property and proceed to host new property under the new rules.
This reduces the value of a DVR. Fewer people will buy equipment they know will likely be limited even further over time. Companies that make DVRs will lose money. Electronics stores that sell DVRs will lose sales. People will lose their jobs because companies will have to cut back to compensate for the job losses.
The government will have to step in and make it a requirement that if you own a television you MUST also have a DVR (even though you cannot record anything interesting) in order to save the failing DVR business.
No matter how you look at it, the consumers will eventually foot the bill.
I publish a paper listing the best prostitutes and where to find them?
Give directions to crack houses?
Have a website detailing all of the criminal services available in town and where to get them?
I am not directly involved in these activities, just reporting on them. What if I also sent this information to the police, doing my civic duty and such?
Obviously I'm not reporting on crime. My business model depends on it. If I make any money from my publications, does that make me an accessory?
I'm not a lawyer so I cannot answer my pondering, but I think our responses depend heavily on how we view the crimes involved.
If I published a list that detailed all the best places for you to go to abduct children (parks where the parents don't seem to be as vigilant, school grounds with less security, etc) there would be outrage and people advocating criminal action against me.
Some feel just as strongly about intellectual property. Personally, I think IP laws have bloated far out of balance and need to be changed. This is why I would think a site like RLSLOG is not a problem.
I realize this is only my own moral point of view however. Others may vary.
When I was a child, there was no Internet. Kids still bullied each other. Teen girls still got pregnant. Kids smoked behind school buildings. Kids still skipped school to do things that distracted them from their "future".
You cannot eliminate behaviors by eliminating something that is not the source of the behaviors. The choices children make are learned first at home.
Social networking sites are not a cause. They are not a symptom. At best they are just a tool. A child can misuse any tool, whether it be a gun, a car, a phone, a hammer or a social networking site. The difference is how you teach them about using it.
Be an authority in your child's life without being an authoritarian and you will do good by them.
Exactly. If I could wait and pass on the theater experience, will waiting another 28 days really bother me? My patience won't suddenly vanish. If it was so very important that I experience a movie as soon as possible, I would have gone to the theater.
I subscribe to Netflix. Netflix offers me things other than new releases. I'm not going to go out and buy DVDs just because the studios want me to do so. I'm not going out and spending money with Blockbuster just because they get new releases earlier. I'm definitely not going to subscribe to Direct-TV.
Netflix has more and more stuff available to stream. That is what I like. I don't want to bother with shipping little discs back and forth or paying $20 for a disc I may only watch once.
I am perfectly comfortable with what I am spending and have no intentions to change that just to support some business model I'm not interested in using.
It's only stupid if as a pro venue if there is not enough interest to make it profitable. Just because it doesn't interest *some* people is not enough to consider it stupid. If that was the case, every sport would be stupid: Nascar (where the only reason you watch is to see an accident, well I'm sure some people are entertained by watching cars drive in a circle for hours), golf (quietly watching someone hit a ball every 10 to 15 min, awesome), even big sports like basketball/baseball/football do not interest everyone.
Pro video gaming has a market, and it's a profitable business, which is why it exists. Which is exactly the same for any pro entertainment.
On the post: Was A French Court Correct In Blaming Google For Its Google Suggest Suggestions?
Standards
On the post: More Stories Of People Arrested For Making Joke Threats On Social Networks
I wonder
On the post: Law Student Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Blog Posts
haha
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Seriously, he should add "thin skinned" to his assessment of U.S. citizens.
On the post: Time Warner Cable Boycotting Epix Movie Channel Because It Did A Deal With Netflix
Re: Re:
It can happen in other countries, but we all know the U.S. is the world's leading consumer and advertisers do not want us shutting them out in massive quantities.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Politicians To Advertise File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Obvious Incompetence
On the post: Pakistani Court Orders All Of Facebook To Be Blocked Over Page It Doesn't Like
The Difference
The difference is tolerance. One of the Islamic pages I found was "There is No God But Allah". Some followers of Islam want to enforce respect for their religion onto the rest of the world while at the same time offering no such respect to any other religion. Demand tolerance, but do not give it.
The most vocal Muslim responses to pointing this out are almost always near unreadable rants composes of juvenile insults and threats. This is what the rest of the world sees: intolerance, hypocrisy, hatred and violence.
No matter what an actual religion teaches, it will be judged by the actions of its followers.
I think the ban of Facebook is just a show. The number of pro-Islamic/anti-everything else pages on Facebook is my evidence. By banning Facebook, they are cutting themselves off from a global recruitment tool. It's nothing more than using the international news agencies as your advertising department.
They will continue to try and control Facebook. Who knows, Facebook might be as spineless as Viacom and give in. But the ban on Facebook will be short and temporary because every day they block it, is a day they can't use it to connect with new members and spread their messages of intolerance to the rest of the world.
On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Android ?
On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Android ?
But I think you know this already.
On the post: Police Say Facebook Is Liable In Man's Death, Because He Was At A Flashmob Organized On Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point
Maybe sue them all. They are all to blame. Certainly not me. I died. I must be a victim.
On the post: Lawsuit Questions Whether Or Not Second Life Users Really 'Own' Their Virtual Land
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
Re: What about the DVR makers
/fixed It's 3:30am. I should be sleeping. :)
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
What about the DVR makers
The government will have to step in and make it a requirement that if you own a television you MUST also have a DVR (even though you cannot record anything interesting) in order to save the failing DVR business.
No matter how you look at it, the consumers will eventually foot the bill.
On the post: Is Just Talking About Infringing Content Infringing?
I publish a paper listing the best prostitutes and where to find them?
Give directions to crack houses?
Have a website detailing all of the criminal services available in town and where to get them?
I am not directly involved in these activities, just reporting on them. What if I also sent this information to the police, doing my civic duty and such?
Obviously I'm not reporting on crime. My business model depends on it. If I make any money from my publications, does that make me an accessory?
I'm not a lawyer so I cannot answer my pondering, but I think our responses depend heavily on how we view the crimes involved.
If I published a list that detailed all the best places for you to go to abduct children (parks where the parents don't seem to be as vigilant, school grounds with less security, etc) there would be outrage and people advocating criminal action against me.
Some feel just as strongly about intellectual property. Personally, I think IP laws have bloated far out of balance and need to be changed. This is why I would think a site like RLSLOG is not a problem.
I realize this is only my own moral point of view however. Others may vary.
On the post: Middle School Principal Tells Parents To Ban Facebook And Spy On Text Messages
My thoughts
You cannot eliminate behaviors by eliminating something that is not the source of the behaviors. The choices children make are learned first at home.
Social networking sites are not a cause. They are not a symptom. At best they are just a tool. A child can misuse any tool, whether it be a gun, a car, a phone, a hammer or a social networking site. The difference is how you teach them about using it.
Be an authority in your child's life without being an authoritarian and you will do good by them.
On the post: DirecTV Pays Studios To Help Confuse Customers Further
On the post: DirecTV Pays Studios To Help Confuse Customers Further
Netflix has more and more stuff available to stream. That is what I like. I don't want to bother with shipping little discs back and forth or paying $20 for a disc I may only watch once.
I am perfectly comfortable with what I am spending and have no intentions to change that just to support some business model I'm not interested in using.
On the post: Match-Fixing Scandal Hits South Korean Video Games
Re: Re:
On the post: Match-Fixing Scandal Hits South Korean Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Stupid
"Yes. I know you are the lead for our cancer cure team, and you are so close to finding the cure, but we are going to have to let you go."
"Wha...why??"
"We have learned that you play fantasy football. You cannot possibly be part of the team that will cure cancer."
"Oh why oh why did I have to throw away my life with stupid fantasy football!!!?? Now millions will die because of my selfish choices!"
On the post: Match-Fixing Scandal Hits South Korean Video Games
Re: Re: Re:
Pro video gaming has a market, and it's a profitable business, which is why it exists. Which is exactly the same for any pro entertainment.
Next >>