Re: Re: The content distribution companies could adopt BT to lower their distribution costs
Looks fine to me, based on the context of what he said outside of the small section you quoted.
It appears to me that he has a morality problem because of a political problem caused by the very industry fails to provide him with the same level of effort they provide others elsewhere. Same reason why region coding and DRM fails in the real world (as in it only screws the customers that play by the rules, and those that don't have no problem bypassing the restrictions.) In order to do the right thing, he has to go without, which doesn't seem right at all. Here is a customer, willing to go out of his way and travel to a foreign country to get the content, and the industry still screws him because he lives in a 3rd world country they don't care to provide to.
I like English Comedy, and love watching BBC Comedy shows. I buy DVDs, but like him, I get the shows two to three years after the fact (because I live in the US.) Sure, if I had the money to rent a satellite and get the channels beamed into my home, that would be great, but I cannot afford that. So I go without, because I play by the rules. Yet someone I speak to online regularly knows that I like English Comedy, and has offered to send me non-DRM and non-region encoded copies of BBC Comedy shows pulled off the air in England and sent to me via DVD for the cost of the DVD.
As far as I am concerned, AC is quite accurate in his dilemma, and instead of dismissing his comment off-hand with a flippant remark, the industry could instead look into his complaint and come up with some sort of paid-Hulu system (the pay needs to be reasonable,) and they'd go a long way to fixing the problem that most of the good guys out here have with their current business models.
The article mentions the PS3 Hack as a way to copy the games to a hard drive. I may be misunderstanding the whole point of PS3 JailBreak USB Dongles, but I understand that the reason they came into being is because Sony removed the OtherOS option from their firmware, and as a result, people started working on the jailbreak to allow them to return functionality that Sony removed. The fact that the jailbreak allows copying of games was just something that the USB dongle could do, but it wasn't the primary purpose of the dongle (which seemed to have more to do with getting the emulator functionality back which was removed by Sony.
The fact that nobody really tried hard to jailbreak the PS3 until after Sony removed the OtherOS functionality seems to back up this observation. I have a slim PS3, so I never had that functionality (and didn't care about updating my firmware,) but I know friends that got really upset since they used Linux on their PS3, while also playing purchased games and downloaded content online with friends, when Sony took that functionality away. A few of them had to go out and buy slims just to be able to update the firmware to play games while not updating the firmware on their thick machines.
If they take functionality away from my PS3, I'd be pissed to and would look for ways to restore the functionality I paid for that they took away afterwards. I am still waiting for the lawsuits...not sure why no one is suing them (or maybe they are, and I just haven't been paying attention.)
Then again, I don't understand the beef with jailbreaks and mods anyway, especially considering the fact that I own several XBOXs that Microsoft doesn't support any more...shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with a machine that Microsoft doesn't care about any more.
Re: Re: last statement holds true for corporations too>> Blockbuster
For me, I left blockbuster for netflix because they really didn't care much for their customers. I'd complain about problems, such as them sending the wrong disk, or a cracked disk...and it really appeared that they just didn't care. I understand they have no control over the postal system, but the postal system wasn't taking the DVDs out and switching them. They had no quality control and didn't really care.
I kept receiving obvious knock-offs of videos, like someone took the real movie and sent back a burned DVD instead, and they apparently just took the disk envelope and sent it off to the next customer without checking to see that the disk inside was correct. I don't think the postal service was doing this.
One interesting thing is that the International House of Pancakes restaurants are not located in any other country besides the United States.
IHOP has restaurants in Canada and Mexico.
I realize that you consider Canada the 51st state (given your statement about the World Series of Baseball,) but Mexico? If you said IHOP is only in America, I'd agree, but only in the US?
You can pretty much bet that the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Dept will soon be making a flyer saying anyone using the initials CP is a user of Child Porn, and some weird story about some guy who dressed up in a superman costume with a "CP" emboldened on his costume giving out candy to kids and having his picture taken with them at Comic Con.
No, I don't think he failed... I think he now understands how the legal system fails. They usually don't like smart people who use facts to make decisions or want to get as much information they can before making a decision and prefer people who make decisions based on emotion.
I am so tired of getting kicked off the jury panel during the voir dire process that I started asking the jury commissioner if they could just stop calling me in if they ask me to come in 20 times in a row and I never get on a panel. I am at 23 times called, and have never been a juror on a trial (I was an alternate once, but that was because they ran out of challenges and figured as an alternate, I'd never get a chance to deliberate, and they were correct.)
In the real manufacturing-based world, outside of the Intellectual Property fantasy world, this is the norm, not the exception. I've seen this on a regular basis when dealing with companies that sell real hardware. They realize that they have no control over the resale of their products, so they work within this confine to make sure that even if someone buys used hardware, they buy their used hardware and often they are involved in the resale by offering resources to help folks sell used hardware.
An example of this is a fireplace insert that I bought a couple years ago. I looked all over the place to find one that was in my price range, and I just wasn't finding anything new that I could afford. Two companies had resources available that listed those wishing to buy used fireplace inserts, and they used those resources to find me a fireplace insert. They offered a warranty for their product even though I was buying it used. I compared the two companies, then contacted the person who was selling the product I wanted and the company installed it for me in my home and gave me a warranty on the product exactly the same that I would have gotten with a new one.
The car resale model is another example, where companies make quite a bit on the resale of cars. The refurbished model in computers is another...I have several refurbished computers and a couple refurbished consoles that cost me considerably less than the new models.
I've purchased quite a few things used from companies that have bought back their products and resold them to those who cannot afford their new products, and often they will provide warranties comparable to their new models.
Realize that the ban is on text, email, and web, but I think a follow on question is why would you purchase a Blackberry if you could only use it as a phone? After all, if you cannot text, email, or web from a smartphone, is it really a smartphone, and why would anyone spend the ridiculous prices (full disclosure: the only way you are going to get my crackberry is if you pry it from my cold, dead hands,) to by a Blackberry if they can only use it to make phone calls. I'm sure most of us would go back to using a free flip phone if all we could have was phone calls.
Re: Namco is right, but in a rather ham-handed way.
Companies *SHOULD* learn that it is not right to teach programmers that sharing is illegal. Sharing is how all programmers learn (show me a half way competent programmer that didn't learn how to program with "Hello World" examples.) Yes, using open source or something you have permission to use is optimal, but how many programming books have "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" on them, yet we borrowed code from them all the time as part of learning how to program, and only recently has this become wrong in the eyes of publishers.
Companies *SHOULD* also learn the value of goodwill, and if I ran Namco, I'd be looking to offer students more material to learn from, because they will soon be my best employees. But the difference is that I am forward thinking enough to realize that my future profits as a company are based on the small pool of "infringers" that currently exist, instead of thinking that my ability to afford yet another mansion now is more important than the future of my company.
Companies *SHOULD* also learn that the law should apply evenly to all people (and not just people and not companies (which shouldn't be people in the eyes of the law anyway.)) Why are companies going after kids for trademark infringement when companies like Disney can copy movies wholesale from Japanese animators (who, unlike the lawyers in the American system, view such blatant copyright infringement as flattery.) If a company copies something, they should have the same (relative) outcome that those they sue who copy their works.
While this is a trademark case, and not a copyright case (the lawyer is an idiot if he thinks he can fight the copyright aspect here, an idea cannot be copyrighted,) the DMCA is pretty clear that educational use. This cease and desist should be filed in the circular file cabinet where it belongs.
what one group or another wants will differ greatly from country to country and based on economic needs. one of the points of any treaty is that it sometimes goes against what you would consider your own apparent best interests, in order to deal with the greater good.
Interesting question. Whose greater good are we talking about here, the greater good of a relatively small and very rich multinational group of Intellectual Property Maximists or the greater good of a much larger population who believes that Intellectual Property Maximists have gone way too far and are now asking for rights that damage or destroy the rights and freedoms of others without due process?
I am not a pirate (though I suspect that the music and movie industries would claim I was one because of my attitudes towards infringement.) I do not use torrents to traffic in music or movies, though I do own an ipod (which has mp3s on it from my CDs, which according to the music industry is piracy.) If these Intellectual Property Maximists get their way through ACTA and other treaties, and they should suddenly decide that music on an ipod is illegal, and that there is no legal way to obtain music for an ipod, does that mean that I am now guilty of copyright infringement and should be put into jail? Our jails are way too full now, yet these guys have the gull to say that we should be thrown in jail for space shifting our music from CDs to an ipod where we can easily use them. 99% of the population will be in jail, without free access to resources to buy music, is that a world the RIAA and MPAA really want? Seems to me like the greater good is exactly the opposite of what ACTA and the Copyright Maximists are pushing.
Realize this probably won't get added to the list, but a question I'd first ask is who is paying the negotiators (under whose payroll are they performing their duties) and what sort of safeguards are in place to assure that they aren't being bribed or illegally influenced by interested third parties?
If they are sworn employees of the Federal Government to act as negotiators for ACTA, then by law they must be fair and impartial and show no undue influence to any party (within the US.) When they were hired, they raised their hand and swore that they would protect and defend the constitution of the United States and would not withhold or deny the constitutional rights and freedoms to any person in the US (which includes a vast part of the United States whose freedoms may be withheld or denied by the ACTA in its current form.) Of course, being sworn in doesn't guarantee that they will live up to this, because I believe Senators/Representatives/Presidents all get sworn in using the same exact verbiage and they routinely break it (and some of them end up in jail for doing so.)
Everything I have read, however, makes these folks negotiating on ACTA look like non-government lobbyists though, which should be illegal. No private parties should be involved in negotiating treaties between States. It is one thing if it is Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter who is along for the ride to help due to their knowledge, experience, and notoriety (but the negotiators should all be sworn officers of the government,) but it is not right if the negotiators are paid lobbyists from industry groups who are not sworn officers of the US and have no requirements to protect and defend the constitutional rights of all parties within the US.
he last thing we need to do is overload them with more non violent criminals who aren't doing anything unethical, especially since this might contribute towards converting them to true criminals.
At the risk of going all Ayn Rand in this discussion, I am not entirely certain that this isn't their (the copyright maximalist's) goal to begin with. After all, if the "pirates" are all behind bars, then there isn't an active group of individuals out there standing against their maximalist attitudes. Of course, since some politicians view anyone who doesn't have a maximalist view as a terrorist or revolutionary, it might just be easier to build a small city on an island somewhere and move all the maximalists there instead of putting everyone else in jail.
Of course, they may just be thinking that if they get rid of the most obnoxious "pirates" everyone else will go along.
Personally, I tend to agree with Overcast above...by making this criminalization of non-commercial infringement, we've targeted the behavior that causes the least amount of damage over the behaviors that cause the most amount of damage (commercial infringement.) If I am a member of a criminal organization who is selling knock-offs of copyrighted works, I pay the fine and move on, or better yet, go into hiding and allow others to take the fall for it. If I am Viacom, and am infringing copyright for works I downloaded off of Youtube and then placing them on my website where I get ad revenue without permission from the producers, I say sorry and remove the offending content when I get caught, but if I am joesixpack and I download a copy of the A-Team off the internet, I get 5 years in a federal prison, where I get to learn from the experts how to truly be a criminal. Guess the real answer is to go into business infringing on other people's content...as you don't get jail-time that way.
Without IP laws creativity and music and art would die, no one would ever create anything, and the consumer will suffer. We need 95 year copy protection terms to prevent this.
Nice try, but you still don't have him beat. Thanks for playing. A couple hints to become better: you gotta post either entirely in lowercase or uppercase letters, and inflate 95 years to 1,000 years before you're reaching at his level. Plus it helps to throw in a personal attack against Mike and accuse us all of being in his payroll.
Hitch-hiking needs to be outlawed because it creates confusion in the marketplace; people will think they should get taxi rides for free.
hitchhiking /is/ against the law...
But not because it creates confusion, but because of the safety issues involving stopping on a highway to pick up a perfect stranger. Only a shill believes that all laws exist to protect their dying business models.
Hitchhiking laws (in California at least) are in the same category as drunk-in-public laws. It is against the law to be drunk in public because you are a danger to yourself (mostly) and others. With a punishment of spending a night in the drunk tank (in most cases) the crime is more a method of keeping a potential victim of more serious crimes from danger by prohibiting the behavior. Hitchhiking laws were enacted because some hitchhikers, and some of those who picked up hitchhikers, liked raping or murdering the other person. By outlawing hitch-hiking, they hoped to stop the rapes and murders by keeping the potential victim of more serious crimes from danger by prohibiting the behavior.
But not quite as far as you routinely do, so your record is still safe. No need to persuade the competition away from reaching, because it'd take a whole lot of them a lot longer to go where you have already been.
You said it...well played. The only thieves here are the copyright maximalists (ASCAP) who are destroying the incentive for people to create music.
This is nothing more than a smear campaign by a copyright maximalist hoping to keep their bread and butter (the poor musician that they've treated as slaves) from realizing that there is a better way.
Now if only there was an organization that could take this evidence that ASCAP (the parasite) doesn't care about musicians (the hosts) welfare and only is in this for the money, and make the musicians aware of it...oh yeah, Creative Commons, EFF, and Public Knowledge, the same groups that the ASCAP is complaining about to their congresscritters.
Whoisip will only give you the isp, and if I understand correctly copyright holders have to (and have) filed lawsuits to get that information.
The webserver records each IP address accessing the site, and Mike can run a whois against the IP address.
While most private users will have the name of their ISP returned in a whois query, many businesses maintain their own whois information, and thus will have their own information returned by a whois query. It depends who manages the IP address space and who asked for the IP addresses to begin with, and how they set up their whois info.
In the case of a private citizen accessing the internet through an ISP, since the ISPs info appears in the whois query, in order to find out who was using the IP at that time requires the ISP to go back through their records and figure it out, which takes a subpoena. If the whois returns the name of the industry's biggest lawfirm associated with the IP address a particular Anonymous Coward is using to post their messages from, then it is a pretty good bet that the lawfirm is in some way associated with them. It is possible that these are false flags or hackers, but doubtful.
My favorite was "Pathetic downloading scum, Idiots with no thought foR the poor movie mAkers Trying to makE an honest Buck dont AnY.body Care anymOre M.akes me sick to the stomach
V10 A10 needs subtitles"
And you aren't a real commenter...you are just a moron with an opinion (and a very overpaid shill for the industry.)
"You're a legend, Bill!"
Just because the material isn't produced and distributed by the companies you represent or work for doesn't make them any less of a content creator under the law. Anyone who produces original content, even if they are just morons with a camera, are just as able under the law to produce and distribute their content how they see fit, and if they don't want Viacom to take their content off Youtube and distribute it on Viacom's own site, then under the law, they have just as much right to avoid having it done as Viacom has. You may look at content as an "us vs. them" attitude, but for the most part the law does not agree with you (albeit the law isn't perfect because the morons with cameras probably don't have the money to go after Viacom for infringement.)
You might not think very highly of the morons, but that is most definitely a judgement call, and "You ain't got no pancake mix." Some of us love the morons with cameras.
I love that he released it for free all over the net just to make a point.
I love the fact that after he released it for free on the internet, he made the whole CD available in music stores for me to go buy (I have purchased several copies, and I know friends who have done the same)...and held a concert where I lived so I could pay him $40 to come and sing it for me in person along with a 1,000 of my best friends (who also paid $40 each to see him perform.)
And all along, I am thinking, man TAM is absolutely right, we need much stronger protections against musicians (like Weird Al or Radiohead) releasing their music or allowing their music to be traded online because quite frankly, musicians releasing their music for free online never results in them getting more money from concert sales or CDs from customers who would not otherwise have heard about them. Those lost sales aren't free advertising, they are the signs of the coming apocalypse. TAM is here to protect the musicians from being profitable (darn short term greed,) by dismissing such a well developed business model of screwing your customers and musicians, and destroying culture by locking it up behind expensive (and price-fixed) CDs and requiring radio stations (which represent a musician's biggest avenue for exposure) to pay to play music. Yes, I have seen the failure in my thought process, and will submit to TAMs awesome reasoning.
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
Re: Re: The content distribution companies could adopt BT to lower their distribution costs
It appears to me that he has a morality problem because of a political problem caused by the very industry fails to provide him with the same level of effort they provide others elsewhere. Same reason why region coding and DRM fails in the real world (as in it only screws the customers that play by the rules, and those that don't have no problem bypassing the restrictions.) In order to do the right thing, he has to go without, which doesn't seem right at all. Here is a customer, willing to go out of his way and travel to a foreign country to get the content, and the industry still screws him because he lives in a 3rd world country they don't care to provide to.
I like English Comedy, and love watching BBC Comedy shows. I buy DVDs, but like him, I get the shows two to three years after the fact (because I live in the US.) Sure, if I had the money to rent a satellite and get the channels beamed into my home, that would be great, but I cannot afford that. So I go without, because I play by the rules. Yet someone I speak to online regularly knows that I like English Comedy, and has offered to send me non-DRM and non-region encoded copies of BBC Comedy shows pulled off the air in England and sent to me via DVD for the cost of the DVD.
As far as I am concerned, AC is quite accurate in his dilemma, and instead of dismissing his comment off-hand with a flippant remark, the industry could instead look into his complaint and come up with some sort of paid-Hulu system (the pay needs to be reasonable,) and they'd go a long way to fixing the problem that most of the good guys out here have with their current business models.
On the post: Game Developers Can Beat Piracy By Copying Their Actual Competition
The article mentions the PS3 Hack
The fact that nobody really tried hard to jailbreak the PS3 until after Sony removed the OtherOS functionality seems to back up this observation. I have a slim PS3, so I never had that functionality (and didn't care about updating my firmware,) but I know friends that got really upset since they used Linux on their PS3, while also playing purchased games and downloaded content online with friends, when Sony took that functionality away. A few of them had to go out and buy slims just to be able to update the firmware to play games while not updating the firmware on their thick machines.
If they take functionality away from my PS3, I'd be pissed to and would look for ways to restore the functionality I paid for that they took away afterwards. I am still waiting for the lawsuits...not sure why no one is suing them (or maybe they are, and I just haven't been paying attention.)
Then again, I don't understand the beef with jailbreaks and mods anyway, especially considering the fact that I own several XBOXs that Microsoft doesn't support any more...shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with a machine that Microsoft doesn't care about any more.
On the post: ACTA Negotiators Refuse To Set Up More Timely Meeting For Consumer Advocates
Re: Re: last statement holds true for corporations too>> Blockbuster
I kept receiving obvious knock-offs of videos, like someone took the real movie and sent back a burned DVD instead, and they apparently just took the disk envelope and sent it off to the next customer without checking to see that the disk inside was correct. I don't think the postal service was doing this.
On the post: IHOP Sues IHOP; Trademark Battle Pits Pancakes vs. God
Re:
IHOP has restaurants in Canada and Mexico.
I realize that you consider Canada the 51st state (given your statement about the World Series of Baseball,) but Mexico? If you said IHOP is only in America, I'd agree, but only in the US?
On the post: School Agrees To Pay Student $33,000 After Teacher Dug Through Her Phone To Find Private Nude Photos
Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMG NAKED BOOBIES!!
On the post: Juror Using iPhone To Look Up Definition Of 'Prudence' Leads To Mistrial
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am so tired of getting kicked off the jury panel during the voir dire process that I started asking the jury commissioner if they could just stop calling me in if they ask me to come in 20 times in a row and I never get on a panel. I am at 23 times called, and have never been a juror on a trial (I was an alternate once, but that was because they ran out of challenges and figured as an alternate, I'd never get a chance to deliberate, and they were correct.)
On the post: Rather Than Whine About Used Markets, Why Not Enable Them Yourself?
IMHO, This is the Norm
An example of this is a fireplace insert that I bought a couple years ago. I looked all over the place to find one that was in my price range, and I just wasn't finding anything new that I could afford. Two companies had resources available that listed those wishing to buy used fireplace inserts, and they used those resources to find me a fireplace insert. They offered a warranty for their product even though I was buying it used. I compared the two companies, then contacted the person who was selling the product I wanted and the company installed it for me in my home and gave me a warranty on the product exactly the same that I would have gotten with a new one.
The car resale model is another example, where companies make quite a bit on the resale of cars. The refurbished model in computers is another...I have several refurbished computers and a couple refurbished consoles that cost me considerably less than the new models.
I've purchased quite a few things used from companies that have bought back their products and resold them to those who cannot afford their new products, and often they will provide warranties comparable to their new models.
On the post: United Arab Emirates And Saudi Arabia Banning Blackberry Usage
Re:
On the post: NAMCO Demands Takedown Of Pacman Game Created By Kid Using MIT's Scratch Programming Language
Re: Namco is right, but in a rather ham-handed way.
Companies *SHOULD* also learn the value of goodwill, and if I ran Namco, I'd be looking to offer students more material to learn from, because they will soon be my best employees. But the difference is that I am forward thinking enough to realize that my future profits as a company are based on the small pool of "infringers" that currently exist, instead of thinking that my ability to afford yet another mansion now is more important than the future of my company.
Companies *SHOULD* also learn that the law should apply evenly to all people (and not just people and not companies (which shouldn't be people in the eyes of the law anyway.)) Why are companies going after kids for trademark infringement when companies like Disney can copy movies wholesale from Japanese animators (who, unlike the lawyers in the American system, view such blatant copyright infringement as flattery.) If a company copies something, they should have the same (relative) outcome that those they sue who copy their works.
While this is a trademark case, and not a copyright case (the lawyer is an idiot if he thinks he can fight the copyright aspect here, an idea cannot be copyrighted,) the DMCA is pretty clear that educational use. This cease and desist should be filed in the circular file cabinet where it belongs.
On the post: Questions For ACTA Negotiators
Re:
Interesting question. Whose greater good are we talking about here, the greater good of a relatively small and very rich multinational group of Intellectual Property Maximists or the greater good of a much larger population who believes that Intellectual Property Maximists have gone way too far and are now asking for rights that damage or destroy the rights and freedoms of others without due process?
I am not a pirate (though I suspect that the music and movie industries would claim I was one because of my attitudes towards infringement.) I do not use torrents to traffic in music or movies, though I do own an ipod (which has mp3s on it from my CDs, which according to the music industry is piracy.) If these Intellectual Property Maximists get their way through ACTA and other treaties, and they should suddenly decide that music on an ipod is illegal, and that there is no legal way to obtain music for an ipod, does that mean that I am now guilty of copyright infringement and should be put into jail? Our jails are way too full now, yet these guys have the gull to say that we should be thrown in jail for space shifting our music from CDs to an ipod where we can easily use them. 99% of the population will be in jail, without free access to resources to buy music, is that a world the RIAA and MPAA really want? Seems to me like the greater good is exactly the opposite of what ACTA and the Copyright Maximists are pushing.
On the post: Questions For ACTA Negotiators
Another Question...
If they are sworn employees of the Federal Government to act as negotiators for ACTA, then by law they must be fair and impartial and show no undue influence to any party (within the US.) When they were hired, they raised their hand and swore that they would protect and defend the constitution of the United States and would not withhold or deny the constitutional rights and freedoms to any person in the US (which includes a vast part of the United States whose freedoms may be withheld or denied by the ACTA in its current form.) Of course, being sworn in doesn't guarantee that they will live up to this, because I believe Senators/Representatives/Presidents all get sworn in using the same exact verbiage and they routinely break it (and some of them end up in jail for doing so.)
Everything I have read, however, makes these folks negotiating on ACTA look like non-government lobbyists though, which should be illegal. No private parties should be involved in negotiating treaties between States. It is one thing if it is Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter who is along for the ride to help due to their knowledge, experience, and notoriety (but the negotiators should all be sworn officers of the government,) but it is not right if the negotiators are paid lobbyists from industry groups who are not sworn officers of the US and have no requirements to protect and defend the constitutional rights of all parties within the US.
On the post: EU Pushing For Criminalizing Non-Commercial Infringement In ACTA
Re:
At the risk of going all Ayn Rand in this discussion, I am not entirely certain that this isn't their (the copyright maximalist's) goal to begin with. After all, if the "pirates" are all behind bars, then there isn't an active group of individuals out there standing against their maximalist attitudes. Of course, since some politicians view anyone who doesn't have a maximalist view as a terrorist or revolutionary, it might just be easier to build a small city on an island somewhere and move all the maximalists there instead of putting everyone else in jail.
Of course, they may just be thinking that if they get rid of the most obnoxious "pirates" everyone else will go along.
Personally, I tend to agree with Overcast above...by making this criminalization of non-commercial infringement, we've targeted the behavior that causes the least amount of damage over the behaviors that cause the most amount of damage (commercial infringement.) If I am a member of a criminal organization who is selling knock-offs of copyrighted works, I pay the fine and move on, or better yet, go into hiding and allow others to take the fall for it. If I am Viacom, and am infringing copyright for works I downloaded off of Youtube and then placing them on my website where I get ad revenue without permission from the producers, I say sorry and remove the offending content when I get caught, but if I am joesixpack and I download a copy of the A-Team off the internet, I get 5 years in a federal prison, where I get to learn from the experts how to truly be a criminal. Guess the real answer is to go into business infringing on other people's content...as you don't get jail-time that way.
On the post: EU Pushing For Criminalizing Non-Commercial Infringement In ACTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing someone
Nice try, but you still don't have him beat. Thanks for playing. A couple hints to become better: you gotta post either entirely in lowercase or uppercase letters, and inflate 95 years to 1,000 years before you're reaching at his level. Plus it helps to throw in a personal attack against Mike and accuse us all of being in his payroll.
Love the sarcasm though.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re: Re:
hitchhiking /is/ against the law...
But not because it creates confusion, but because of the safety issues involving stopping on a highway to pick up a perfect stranger. Only a shill believes that all laws exist to protect their dying business models.
Hitchhiking laws (in California at least) are in the same category as drunk-in-public laws. It is against the law to be drunk in public because you are a danger to yourself (mostly) and others. With a punishment of spending a night in the drunk tank (in most cases) the crime is more a method of keeping a potential victim of more serious crimes from danger by prohibiting the behavior. Hitchhiking laws were enacted because some hitchhikers, and some of those who picked up hitchhikers, liked raping or murdering the other person. By outlawing hitch-hiking, they hoped to stop the rapes and murders by keeping the potential victim of more serious crimes from danger by prohibiting the behavior.
On the post: EU Pushing For Criminalizing Non-Commercial Infringement In ACTA
Re: Re: Knowing someone
But not quite as far as you routinely do, so your record is still safe. No need to persuade the competition away from reaching, because it'd take a whole lot of them a lot longer to go where you have already been.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re:
This is nothing more than a smear campaign by a copyright maximalist hoping to keep their bread and butter (the poor musician that they've treated as slaves) from realizing that there is a better way.
Now if only there was an organization that could take this evidence that ASCAP (the parasite) doesn't care about musicians (the hosts) welfare and only is in this for the money, and make the musicians aware of it...oh yeah, Creative Commons, EFF, and Public Knowledge, the same groups that the ASCAP is complaining about to their congresscritters.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re:
The webserver records each IP address accessing the site, and Mike can run a whois against the IP address.
While most private users will have the name of their ISP returned in a whois query, many businesses maintain their own whois information, and thus will have their own information returned by a whois query. It depends who manages the IP address space and who asked for the IP addresses to begin with, and how they set up their whois info.
In the case of a private citizen accessing the internet through an ISP, since the ISPs info appears in the whois query, in order to find out who was using the IP at that time requires the ISP to go back through their records and figure it out, which takes a subpoena. If the whois returns the name of the industry's biggest lawfirm associated with the IP address a particular Anonymous Coward is using to post their messages from, then it is a pretty good bet that the lawfirm is in some way associated with them. It is possible that these are false flags or hackers, but doubtful.
On the post: New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed... By 200 Downloaders?
Re: Re: best comment on the article:
V10 A10 needs subtitles"
PIRATEBAY.COM. for the win.
On the post: Viacom In Denial Over Court Smackdown In YouTube Case
Re: Re: Wait a damn minute...
"You're a legend, Bill!"
Just because the material isn't produced and distributed by the companies you represent or work for doesn't make them any less of a content creator under the law. Anyone who produces original content, even if they are just morons with a camera, are just as able under the law to produce and distribute their content how they see fit, and if they don't want Viacom to take their content off Youtube and distribute it on Viacom's own site, then under the law, they have just as much right to avoid having it done as Viacom has. You may look at content as an "us vs. them" attitude, but for the most part the law does not agree with you (albeit the law isn't perfect because the morons with cameras probably don't have the money to go after Viacom for infringement.)
You might not think very highly of the morons, but that is most definitely a judgement call, and "You ain't got no pancake mix." Some of us love the morons with cameras.
On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love the fact that after he released it for free on the internet, he made the whole CD available in music stores for me to go buy (I have purchased several copies, and I know friends who have done the same)...and held a concert where I lived so I could pay him $40 to come and sing it for me in person along with a 1,000 of my best friends (who also paid $40 each to see him perform.)
And all along, I am thinking, man TAM is absolutely right, we need much stronger protections against musicians (like Weird Al or Radiohead) releasing their music or allowing their music to be traded online because quite frankly, musicians releasing their music for free online never results in them getting more money from concert sales or CDs from customers who would not otherwise have heard about them. Those lost sales aren't free advertising, they are the signs of the coming apocalypse. TAM is here to protect the musicians from being profitable (darn short term greed,) by dismissing such a well developed business model of screwing your customers and musicians, and destroying culture by locking it up behind expensive (and price-fixed) CDs and requiring radio stations (which represent a musician's biggest avenue for exposure) to pay to play music. Yes, I have seen the failure in my thought process, and will submit to TAMs awesome reasoning.
Next >>