This is part of the reason I just buy used CD's in stores.
It's FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR less of a hassle than buying on-line.
Buying almost anything on-line is cake-walk - except for the easiest commodity there is on the web to deliver - media.
Buying Media online is a huge hassle, it's easier to buy just about anything else online.
Yes, driving to the used CD store or pawnshop is much easier than buying music online, plus it's cheaper - BY FAR.
In conclusion, while we can explain the provisions in the copyright act, each case in the real world has to be considered on its own merits and as such, only a Court can rule with certainty as to how the provisions apply. For further clarity on this issue, you may wish to seek advice from a Solicitor.
So in other words - instead of a clear definition, they want to keep it open as a revenue source for the courts and the lawyers - now we are getting to the real point of all this 'copyright' BS.
The responsible thing to do is for Obama to explain to his kids that no, it's not his money to spend and that he can't justify having the American people's money finance such an expensive security apparatus just so his kids can go visit Mexico. But of course, he instead lets his kid go and makes us pay for it. Excuse me if I find that unacceptable.
Indeed, well said.
But the problem is - we don't have a responsible administration, they spend cash like an idiot with a credit card - literally.
If you're going to freak out and have a tantrum every time someone under secret service protection is traveling somewhere that requires additional staff, you're going to spend quite a lot of time hyperventilating over insignificant amounts of taxpayer money.
LOL, problem is they expect no one to complain about "insignificant amounts" 3 trillion times over.
They are all significant amounts. So hire private security for a work related trip and try the 'insignificant amount' spin on them and see how quick it lands you in an unemployment line, but for some reason people just want to ignore the cash government wastes - all while the US Government is charging 40 cents of every dollar to the big bond credit card.
Actually, if the school provides the brushes and paints and "studio space" for the little artists, couldn't an argument be made that this is a work-for-hire in which case the school legitimately holds the copyright anyway? Or does money have to be exchanged for a work-for-hire situation to exist?
It would seem in that case, it might bring many questions to the table about child labor law.
The TSA causes way too much of a pain in the ass to fly. As luck would also have it, the exorbitant high air fare rates completely justify - actually MAKE ME LOOK GOOD at work saving $$ - when I choose to get rental cars instead of flying.
Plus, my wife can spend the entire drive on the kindle if she so chooses. I would, of course, be busy driving anyway.
Why this is even something the FAA is wasting time on boggles my mind... no wonder this country is falling into the toilet - look at how the tax dollars are being spent.
With the incompetence of the TSA and FAA - iPads and Kindle are the least of our worries.
Of course, there's a good chance that the judge will allow the government to continue to hold the property and admit merely that "mistakes were made" and that they've now been corrected.
So then... why doesn't he get the same chance? To just say that he 'made mistakes' - correct them, and all is happy?
You think freetards just sprung into existence in a vacuum? It is years of abuse that created this backlash. Pull your head out of your ass.
I copied more music onto Cassette from the Radio in the 80's than I have digital music, LOL!
At least without owning it. Now I buy a used CD for a buck or less sometimes at the local pawn shop - rip to MP3 and put the CD in the closest.
Funny thing is really, unless you want the NEWEST stuff, you can find so much used stuff out there for dirt cheap - it's almost not worth illegally downloading it. And the 'best deals online' for media is quite misleading. Used CD shops, pawn shops, thrift stores, flea markets commonly have movies and CD's for a buck or two.
When it comes to movies - I figure I'll just run a year or two behind, pay my $16.00 a month for a movie channel + on-demand, and that's all I really need to pay. I do buy some DVD's - but knowing now how much of a rip-off they are at traditional prices - I buy few, and they are almost always gifts now.
If it wasn't for recording devices - Hollywood and the Music Industry wouldn't even exist now - would they?
Wrong. It IS different from stealing a movie from a store. Stealing a movie from a store is shoplifting, and in most jurisdictions a misdemeanor. Downloading/Uploading one is a felony, I believe. Go figure that the "crime" that involves a physical act, and the potential for collateral violence is a lessor crime than the one that is pure economic harm... Priorities, I guess.
It is quite different I do agree. Stealing the movie from the store takes from the store - they bought the movie to re-sell it. Stealing the movie causes them provable financial loss.
Making a copy of a digital file that can be replicated infinitely is certainly different. While I will agree that in most cases it is in fact illegal - I must also add that copyright law is non-functional in it's current form for the digital age and I'll also add, it's an injustice to the public to keep copyrights in force for so many years.
It's also theft from the US taxpayer to bring up frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit as well. I would like to see someone take that to task as well - might be a good soapbox for a politician to run on even...
typical freetard, you want it all and you figure 20 bucks is all it should cost, what wrong you are "scientists and engineers" and you can't figure out the real cost of all your freeloading???
For many of us - we don't download copy-written content that we know we shouldn't for free.
I know that downloading the latest Universal Pictures movie off of torrent is illegal.
However....
There are hours upon hours of free content on the web - that's 100% legit free. YouTube is an example, Hulu, Crackle, and many others.
But yes - $20.00 for a digital file is a outright rip off and I won't pay it - content or not.
I pay LESS than that per month for a Movie Channel on Cable - that movie channel offers me the ability to watch movies on-line or watch them on-demand. All I want, all month for $16.00 - why in God's name would I want to pay $20.00 for a single movie? LOL
To add: I mean - WHAT entitles Hollywood or anyone to the ISP's log files? Wouldn't the ISP have the same 'rights' claim to the logs their servers generate as Hollywood has to a movie?
Why not?
Why should Hollywood, even for a second, expect these for free?
Mike is NOT rooting for the criminals. In case you've missed it, he's clearly stated (on more than one occasion and to more than one troll, like yourself) that he is AGAINST piracy. Karl, a frequent commenter, one time even went so far as to go back and search for and then link to every single EXACT QUOTE from Mike on the subject and his views on it. I think Karl came up with, and it was a quick search, AT LEAST 15 or so links. So this "Mike supports piracy" and "Mike roots for criminals" thing seriously needs to stop because it's just stupid and petty and really reeks of desperation to smear him and what he says.
You may disagree with his views and opinions, that's your right. But to state he roots for criminals is completely off base.
Consider yourself adequately corrected, moron.
Yeah, I agree and my position is the same. I really don't condone piracy, but rank stupidity really annoys me - thus why I comment on here a lot.
Let's look at a hypothetical - let's say that SOPA went through - first time, no opposition and this goes through - this will not be enough of course, piracy will continue.
So the government will do MORE AND MORE to restrict the 'piracy' - when really it will just make life harder for legit users - the pirates will go on routing around it - hell, it's what drives them - *busting the system*.
That's why they do what they do - probably more to 'stick it to the man' - then anything else.
I mean - why else would they do all this stuff for 'free'?
IF the government and these corporations had their way, the internet would end up being so gimped, and so bug ridden that it's popularity would wane quickly. Like anything else that corporations or government end up putting out there - half the time, it's worthless garbage that was only done to make someone a buck. MOST of the good stuff doesn't come from corporations or government does it?
It's just like DRM on a game like Spore or something - you can add all you want, but that doesn't mean people will like it more, pay more or use it more now will it?
There are at least 4 games I have sitting in my old CD bin that I won't bother to play - because the DRM is a hassle. I don't play games to be hassled, sorry.
And the web is an ok tool, and even if the government and the corporations have their way totally, I might use it with all of the excitement that I have when mailing out snail-mail letters; in other words *if I have to*, but I certainly wouldn't spend much time on there if all that was out there to look at was corporate and government content... blah.
That's like watching infomercials and c-span all day - who the hell does that?
lets make it possible for users to vote on these things, by empowering people we can get somewhere thats a better place than here
Just about anyone, other than a tyrant making decisions would be preferable to the 'lawmakers' we have now.
Lawmakers that don't bother to follow the laws they put in place... makes a lot of sense... to a moron on crack. Once the 'rule of law' is tossed out the door, all the laws in the world are meaningless. If the government doesn't have to follow it's own laws - why do we?
On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'
It's FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR less of a hassle than buying on-line.
Buying almost anything on-line is cake-walk - except for the easiest commodity there is on the web to deliver - media.
Buying Media online is a huge hassle, it's easier to buy just about anything else online.
Yes, driving to the used CD store or pawnshop is much easier than buying music online, plus it's cheaper - BY FAR.
On the post: British National Arts Program Aims To Rob Thousands Of Kids Of Their Copyrights
In conclusion, while we can explain the provisions in the copyright act, each case in the real world has to be considered on its own merits and as such, only a Court can rule with certainty as to how the provisions apply. For further clarity on this issue, you may wish to seek advice from a Solicitor.
So in other words - instead of a clear definition, they want to keep it open as a revenue source for the courts and the lawyers - now we are getting to the real point of all this 'copyright' BS.
On the post: No That Won't Backfire At All: Questionable Story About Obama's Daughter Disappears From The Web
Indeed, well said.
But the problem is - we don't have a responsible administration, they spend cash like an idiot with a credit card - literally.
On the post: No That Won't Backfire At All: Questionable Story About Obama's Daughter Disappears From The Web
LOL, problem is they expect no one to complain about "insignificant amounts" 3 trillion times over.
They are all significant amounts. So hire private security for a work related trip and try the 'insignificant amount' spin on them and see how quick it lands you in an unemployment line, but for some reason people just want to ignore the cash government wastes - all while the US Government is charging 40 cents of every dollar to the big bond credit card.
On the post: No That Won't Backfire At All: Questionable Story About Obama's Daughter Disappears From The Web
On the post: British National Arts Program Aims To Rob Thousands Of Kids Of Their Copyrights
It would seem in that case, it might bring many questions to the table about child labor law.
On the post: Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act
The "terrorists"?
Or the Government?
It seems - right now - the government is far more of a threat to our way of life than any terrorist.
On the post: Procedural Error By Law Enforcement Means Restraining Order On Kim Dotcom 'Null And Void'
I was going to add to the above:
"If the RIAA and MPAA can buy politicians, why can't the general public?"
On the post: Procedural Error By Law Enforcement Means Restraining Order On Kim Dotcom 'Null And Void'
On the post: FAA Admits That It's Going To Rethink Whether You Can Use Kindles & Tablets On Takeoff & Landing
Plus, my wife can spend the entire drive on the kindle if she so chooses. I would, of course, be busy driving anyway.
Why this is even something the FAA is wasting time on boggles my mind... no wonder this country is falling into the toilet - look at how the tax dollars are being spent.
With the incompetence of the TSA and FAA - iPads and Kindle are the least of our worries.
On the post: Procedural Error By Law Enforcement Means Restraining Order On Kim Dotcom 'Null And Void'
So then... why doesn't he get the same chance? To just say that he 'made mistakes' - correct them, and all is happy?
On the post: MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
It would help the MPAA overall if they had people that actually looked at facts trying to run things and be their spokesmen.
Oh wait, but that would make sense.
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
Another fuck you to the constitution by the very system thats suppose to uphold it
Bingo.
If the government, corporations, and such don't have to follow the law - why does the public?
I do out of personal moral reasons that have nothing to do with government. But that's a personal choice.
In terms of the "rule of law" - Government doesn't follow it, so I don't see what obligates the public to follow it.
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
You think freetards just sprung into existence in a vacuum? It is years of abuse that created this backlash. Pull your head out of your ass.
I copied more music onto Cassette from the Radio in the 80's than I have digital music, LOL!
At least without owning it. Now I buy a used CD for a buck or less sometimes at the local pawn shop - rip to MP3 and put the CD in the closest.
Funny thing is really, unless you want the NEWEST stuff, you can find so much used stuff out there for dirt cheap - it's almost not worth illegally downloading it. And the 'best deals online' for media is quite misleading. Used CD shops, pawn shops, thrift stores, flea markets commonly have movies and CD's for a buck or two.
When it comes to movies - I figure I'll just run a year or two behind, pay my $16.00 a month for a movie channel + on-demand, and that's all I really need to pay. I do buy some DVD's - but knowing now how much of a rip-off they are at traditional prices - I buy few, and they are almost always gifts now.
If it wasn't for recording devices - Hollywood and the Music Industry wouldn't even exist now - would they?
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
It is quite different I do agree. Stealing the movie from the store takes from the store - they bought the movie to re-sell it. Stealing the movie causes them provable financial loss.
Making a copy of a digital file that can be replicated infinitely is certainly different. While I will agree that in most cases it is in fact illegal - I must also add that copyright law is non-functional in it's current form for the digital age and I'll also add, it's an injustice to the public to keep copyrights in force for so many years.
It's also theft from the US taxpayer to bring up frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit as well. I would like to see someone take that to task as well - might be a good soapbox for a politician to run on even...
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
For many of us - we don't download copy-written content that we know we shouldn't for free.
I know that downloading the latest Universal Pictures movie off of torrent is illegal.
However....
There are hours upon hours of free content on the web - that's 100% legit free. YouTube is an example, Hulu, Crackle, and many others.
But yes - $20.00 for a digital file is a outright rip off and I won't pay it - content or not.
I pay LESS than that per month for a Movie Channel on Cable - that movie channel offers me the ability to watch movies on-line or watch them on-demand. All I want, all month for $16.00 - why in God's name would I want to pay $20.00 for a single movie? LOL
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
Why not?
Why should Hollywood, even for a second, expect these for free?
That's what this is all about, right?
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
On the post: Rather Than Speaking Out Against Domain Seizures, ICANN Provides A 'How To' Manual
You may disagree with his views and opinions, that's your right. But to state he roots for criminals is completely off base.
Consider yourself adequately corrected, moron.
Yeah, I agree and my position is the same. I really don't condone piracy, but rank stupidity really annoys me - thus why I comment on here a lot.
Let's look at a hypothetical - let's say that SOPA went through - first time, no opposition and this goes through - this will not be enough of course, piracy will continue.
So the government will do MORE AND MORE to restrict the 'piracy' - when really it will just make life harder for legit users - the pirates will go on routing around it - hell, it's what drives them - *busting the system*.
That's why they do what they do - probably more to 'stick it to the man' - then anything else.
I mean - why else would they do all this stuff for 'free'?
IF the government and these corporations had their way, the internet would end up being so gimped, and so bug ridden that it's popularity would wane quickly. Like anything else that corporations or government end up putting out there - half the time, it's worthless garbage that was only done to make someone a buck. MOST of the good stuff doesn't come from corporations or government does it?
It's just like DRM on a game like Spore or something - you can add all you want, but that doesn't mean people will like it more, pay more or use it more now will it?
There are at least 4 games I have sitting in my old CD bin that I won't bother to play - because the DRM is a hassle. I don't play games to be hassled, sorry.
And the web is an ok tool, and even if the government and the corporations have their way totally, I might use it with all of the excitement that I have when mailing out snail-mail letters; in other words *if I have to*, but I certainly wouldn't spend much time on there if all that was out there to look at was corporate and government content... blah.
That's like watching infomercials and c-span all day - who the hell does that?
On the post: US Government Admits It Has Seized Hundreds Of Domains Registered Outside The US
Just about anyone, other than a tyrant making decisions would be preferable to the 'lawmakers' we have now.
Lawmakers that don't bother to follow the laws they put in place... makes a lot of sense... to a moron on crack. Once the 'rule of law' is tossed out the door, all the laws in the world are meaningless. If the government doesn't have to follow it's own laws - why do we?
Next >>