"Why are you trying to restrict artists rights? Why are you anti-choice?"
Explain to the class how any artists rights are being restricted? Explain how any artists choices are being taken away? If you're going to make silly claims, at least explain your reasoning behind them.
"There won't be any fairness or balance in the "reporting.""
Still struggling with the definition of an opinion blog I see. I know you're a simple, black-and-white kinda guy, so the concept may confuse you, but every time you make a snide comment about "reporting" you just make yourself look a little stupider.
Yes, I do see how digital content works completely differently to physical goods. Judging by yet another failed analogy, you clearly don't. Slap some name-calling on the end and it's just like listening to a whining, ignorant teenager.
And this is how we know you're not in any position of responsibility at a company that provides goods or services to customers, because that is about the stupidest response you could ever give to a potential customer who's money you want.
"Didn't really think that one all the way through, did you Sparky?"
Sure I did, but I also dismissed that as irrelevant. My point was that both sides of the argument invent or redefine terms to describe the other side. Do you really think copyright infringement compares in any way to "an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea"?
"Actually, the laws of copyright don't change because of the delivery method."
Are you kidding? There have been extraordinary efforts to change copyright law because of the delivery method, i.e. the internet. DMCA, ProIP, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA, etc. The problem is that the current and proposed laws do not reflect what is actually happening in the real world and what people actually think about those laws. When that happens, laws should change to reflect those societal changes.
"TD definition of innovation: any process Google comes up with to make themselves more money via exploiting others."
TD definition of innovation: a process anyone comes up with to make themselves more money by providing a service the people really, really want to use. FTFY.
"Copyright is never going away."
I bet they said the same thing about prohibition and slavery too. Laws that people don't respect and simply stop following do eventually go away. Respect for current copyright laws is falling all around the world, and I see no reason to think that will change unless copyright laws are massively revised in the near future.
"And protecting people from corporate robber barons like Google is why."
Ask people who they think the real "robber barons" are. Google, who provide a range of very useful and very popular web services, or legacy music labels, film studios and book publishers, who have stretched and contorted copyright law into something completely different to what is was originally intended to be and is massively incompatible with modern technology and societal attitudes.
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
"Umm, yeah, Mike, shipments are NOT employees, you don't use the same units NOR same scales. Geez."
So are you going to apologise to Mike for completely misunderstanding the valid criticism of the two different scales? Or would that make your head go all 'splodey?
"My suggestion is that we woudl go from a steady flow of significant moving forward innovation, to more of a trickle, as companies and developers are more likely to put their money on very small incremental improvements on existing things, rather than working hard to move things forward in a more dramatic fashion."
I'm curious to know what your basis is for making this crazy claim, because it goes completely against human nature and basic economics. Assuming they're meeting a real market demand, companies that "move things forward in a more dramatic fashion" will always be in a better market position than competitors that only make "very small incremental improvements on existing things".
The iPod is a good example of this. There were other MP3 players available, but the iPod was so different and so much better that it quickly achieved market dominance. The only product that could eventually surpass it was the iPhone, which was similarly so much better than any other smart phone that it came to dominate its own segment. Note that these two products emerged before Apple unfortunately turned full-on patent warrior.
"The only way Dotcom can win this thing is on a technicality. On the merits, he's toast."
The merits? You mean like the way the FBI can't or won't present enough evidence to convince a NZ court to proceed with extradition? That they can't even show a court of law that there might be a case to answer? What exactly are these merits you claim to understand better than the courts?
Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
"What injustice? It's an insult to the real victims around the world to use the word "injustice" to describe the fact that some Hollywood studio won't let you watch their movie without paying for it."
Nobody have ever stated that's it's an injustice that Hollywood won't let you watch their movies without paying for it, because in case you haven't noticed, they're completely incapable of stopping people from doing that. It may be stupid on their part to try to control how people consume content, but nobody's ever said it's an injustice. You made that up all on your own.
As usual you're completely missing the actual injustices that people are complaining about, things like the massive abuses of copyright law by rightsholders, the erosions of basic human rights in a completely ineffectual attempt to stop copyright infringement, and the massively disproportional influence a relatively tiny industry has on government decision-making.
"...criticizing Dodds for doing what he's paid to do strikes me as somewhat wrong-headed..."
Criticising Dodds for stating completely bogus stats as facts, lying about the actual state of the industry, and scolding politicians for not following through with what the MPAA "paid" them for is not wrong-headed, it's completely justified.
The title was a satire of the book's title with reference to the 9/11 attacks. It has nothing to do with 911 degrees, nor is that even mentioned anywhere. Really, you just failed to understand this one.
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain to the class how any artists rights are being restricted? Explain how any artists choices are being taken away? If you're going to make silly claims, at least explain your reasoning behind them.
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re:
Still struggling with the definition of an opinion blog I see. I know you're a simple, black-and-white kinda guy, so the concept may confuse you, but every time you make a snide comment about "reporting" you just make yourself look a little stupider.
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
See how that works?"
Yes, I do see how digital content works completely differently to physical goods. Judging by yet another failed analogy, you clearly don't. Slap some name-calling on the end and it's just like listening to a whining, ignorant teenager.
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
And this is how we know you're not in any position of responsibility at a company that provides goods or services to customers, because that is about the stupidest response you could ever give to a potential customer who's money you want.
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually that's what Joe copied, not what he said.
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
On the post: Pandora: We're Helping Artists Make Millions & We'd Like To Keep Doing That
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure I did, but I also dismissed that as irrelevant. My point was that both sides of the argument invent or redefine terms to describe the other side. Do you really think copyright infringement compares in any way to "an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea"?
On the post: The French Pigeons Are Revolting -- And That's Good
Re: Re: Re:
Legislation will never "address piracy". Why wouldn't you oppose legislation that won't do what it's supposed to do?
On the post: Court Says Case Against Megaupload Can Continue, Despite Not Being Able To Serve The Company
Re: Re: Re:
Are you kidding? There have been extraordinary efforts to change copyright law because of the delivery method, i.e. the internet. DMCA, ProIP, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA, etc. The problem is that the current and proposed laws do not reflect what is actually happening in the real world and what people actually think about those laws. When that happens, laws should change to reflect those societal changes.
"Nice try, but a total fail of an analogy."
I didn't make an analogy...
On the post: Pandora: We're Helping Artists Make Millions & We'd Like To Keep Doing That
Re: Re:
You mean like "piracy"?
On the post: Court Says Case Against Megaupload Can Continue, Despite Not Being Able To Serve The Company
Re:
Neither are the laws for copyright, but here we are...
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Can't Help But Inject Bogus 'Copyright Wins!' Argument Into Google/Publisher Settlement
Re:
TD definition of innovation: a process anyone comes up with to make themselves more money by providing a service the people really, really want to use. FTFY.
"Copyright is never going away."
I bet they said the same thing about prohibition and slavery too. Laws that people don't respect and simply stop following do eventually go away. Respect for current copyright laws is falling all around the world, and I see no reason to think that will change unless copyright laws are massively revised in the near future.
"And protecting people from corporate robber barons like Google is why."
Ask people who they think the real "robber barons" are. Google, who provide a range of very useful and very popular web services, or legacy music labels, film studios and book publishers, who have stretched and contorted copyright law into something completely different to what is was originally intended to be and is massively incompatible with modern technology and societal attitudes.
On the post: RIAA's Bogus Math Strikes Again: Claimed 41% Decline In Musicians... Not Even Close To True
Re: Okay, so show me ANY data showing MORE musicians now!
So are you going to apologise to Mike for completely misunderstanding the valid criticism of the two different scales? Or would that make your head go all 'splodey?
On the post: RIAA's Bogus Math Strikes Again: Claimed 41% Decline In Musicians... Not Even Close To True
Re: Re:
On the post: Is It Really A Good Idea To Open A 'Mini' Patent Office Directly Within Cornell's NYC Tech Campus?
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious to know what your basis is for making this crazy claim, because it goes completely against human nature and basic economics. Assuming they're meeting a real market demand, companies that "move things forward in a more dramatic fashion" will always be in a better market position than competitors that only make "very small incremental improvements on existing things".
The iPod is a good example of this. There were other MP3 players available, but the iPod was so different and so much better that it quickly achieved market dominance. The only product that could eventually surpass it was the iPhone, which was similarly so much better than any other smart phone that it came to dominate its own segment. Note that these two products emerged before Apple unfortunately turned full-on patent warrior.
On the post: Justice Department Calls Megaupload Case A Success; Hands Out Cash To Cops To Do More Bogus Takedowns
Re: Re:
The merits? You mean like the way the FBI can't or won't present enough evidence to convince a NZ court to proceed with extradition? That they can't even show a court of law that there might be a case to answer? What exactly are these merits you claim to understand better than the courts?
On the post: WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria
Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
Nobody have ever stated that's it's an injustice that Hollywood won't let you watch their movies without paying for it, because in case you haven't noticed, they're completely incapable of stopping people from doing that. It may be stupid on their part to try to control how people consume content, but nobody's ever said it's an injustice. You made that up all on your own.
As usual you're completely missing the actual injustices that people are complaining about, things like the massive abuses of copyright law by rightsholders, the erosions of basic human rights in a completely ineffectual attempt to stop copyright infringement, and the massively disproportional influence a relatively tiny industry has on government decision-making.
On the post: Chris Dodd: Hollywood's Most Predictable Dissembler
Re: Dodds is doing what he's paid to do.
Criticising Dodds for stating completely bogus stats as facts, lying about the actual state of the industry, and scolding politicians for not following through with what the MPAA "paid" them for is not wrong-headed, it's completely justified.
On the post: Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence & Violated Civil Liberties
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>