Well we now know lots of things about middle eastern countries who were only pretending to hate us publicly, and we now know that some countries were taking the fall for our military operations, and we now know all kinds of other amazing and important stuff going all the way back to 1966.
Anyway, like I said above, governments are not humans. Therefore they do not have human rights. Their "private lives" are made up - entirely - by our public lives, because government is, ideally, made up of us. Therefore, it's actually OUR right to know about the private things our government is doing. Because that's us: it represents us, it reflects our decisions, it implies our ideology and ethics as a people. Should we not be allowed to control what face is presented to the rest of the world? Or should we just let a few unelected agents represent us instead?
That's silly, of course they promote other search engines. When i do a Google search for 'search engine' the first result is dogpile and the second result is Bing...
Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
Which isn't to say Mike is Henry Ford, but then, Henry Ford didn't exactly invent the automobile industry either, it was just the most recognizable name at hand.
Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
"What they've got now is bringing them income. Industry should just throw all that aside and embrace Henry Ford's model, eh? You'd better inform these folks that you have a solution that will rid them of *their current income*."
- Wagon Makers, c. 1890s
Not to mention the money to be made by DRM companies interested in exploiting paranoid content creators. "oh yes, everyone wants to steal your content and put you out of business. Oh, I understand that no one likes DRM, but OUR product isn't DRM! It's a robust content protection system, guaranteed to work under all circumstances, as defined by us!"
I was wondering about the "pleading guilty" thing. On the one hand he's guilty because he really did what they accused him of. On the other hand he's innocent because what they accused him of isn't illegal. Honestly, he shouldn't have had to plead anything; the case should have been thrown out, right?
No, by definition it's entrapment. A sting happens when you take an person or group who already have the ability to commit a crime, and set up a situation that allows them to incriminate themselves in a safe environment, but without the direct interference of law enforcement.
So, for instance, if a guy's talking about blowing up a building, you would wait for him to start trying to build the bomb and then undercut the other bidders or intercept the guy doing the drop. On the other hand, if a guy's talking about blowing up a building and you run up to him and say "here's a bomb and here's how you can do it!" - that's pretty much entrapment. If fact that's so entrapment it's stupid.
Oh yeah because ideas are sooo valuable!
Like when Dreamworkz beat Pixar to the punch with their fish movie by making "A Shark's Tale". That really ruined Pixar - oh wait, nobody watched "A Shark's Tale" because it was rubbish and a transparent money grab. :|
Seriously though, I only ever hear that concern from new scriptwriters "oh noes everyone wants to steal my idea!"
Nobody wants to steal your idea. Nobody cares about your idea. Your idea sucks. Everyone's ideas suck by default so don't beat yourself up over it. But don't expect studios to want what you have. The reason movies need to be pitched is because most ideas suck worse than the worst movie Hollywood has ever made. Only a select few ideas are good enough to become a bad film. But even though there are only a few, they're still a dime a dozen. And it's a fake dime made out of cheap plastic. Recycled from diapers.
....uh, you can...buy a script to produce it. That's sort of the point. If you want to use the story in the script, you buy the right to use that story from the scriptwriter, or whoever the scriptwriter sold that right to.
But scripts themselves are not published works. They have no inherent value, aside from the cost of paper. Which is of course negated when digitizing them.
Now, if they go ahead and take a script from a popular film, pretty it up, print it on fancy paper, maybe add some director's notes, behind-the-scenes info, some fancy set photos and bind it in a hard cover for your coffee table...then you've created what Mike would call a "scarcity". Which of course you could sell and probably make some money from. No one else could do it, because they don't own the rights.
But again, they could still just go online and read it with no repercussions.
and the charges are clearly trumped.
The REAL bottom line is don't let governments push you around when they threaten you.
The wikileaks team is a group of people who's lives involved constant movement, paranoia, and secret agent shit long before this leak happened. So don't worry about Assange - this is just another day at the office for him.
Well, it's logically sound. But it's actually invalid because it doesn't solve the (astronomically insignificant) problem at hand. The TSA wouldn't accept it as a solution because it isn't one.
People are excitable morons who over-inflate the dangers of anything that rests outside their control. Which is why deaths in car accidents are less important to the public than deaths in plane crashes, which are in turn less important than deaths in terrorist attacks. All of which runs exactly opposite to actual observations. The TSA is merely trying to humor the retarded children this country is made up of. Or rather, that this planet is made up of - but let's keep the scope manageable shall we?
Did that come off too cynical? It's hard to tell sometimes.
In particular, they grossly violate this: He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."
Opting out of the x-ray scanners is most certainly not a reason to conduct a more probing search.
The site may be the primary host of the documents, but it also links to a bit torrent where you can download the files yourself. Also, there is a dead man's switch in place in case the site is compromised/the site runners are jailed, which would release the rest of the documents immediately.
So what's the point of legal action, aside from impotent chest beating?
There is no trade secret, this is not the equivalent of reviewing a stolen iPhone, nothing you said was correct.
Scripts are freely available to be read everywhere, of released films, films in-production, and even ones that haven't yet been picked up. Their method of construction is not only also freely available everywhere, but exceptionally rigid and standardized - if an aspiring scriptwriter hands in a script that deviates from the structure, their script won't even be read. Guaranteed. Resources for viewing scripts of other films, therefore, are very important.
Furthermore, scripts are not the movie. They are rarely even enjoyable to read, because they lack stage direction and emotional cues. Many good scripts end up as bad movies and vice versa.
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
Re:
Anyway, like I said above, governments are not humans. Therefore they do not have human rights. Their "private lives" are made up - entirely - by our public lives, because government is, ideally, made up of us. Therefore, it's actually OUR right to know about the private things our government is doing. Because that's us: it represents us, it reflects our decisions, it implies our ideology and ethics as a people. Should we not be allowed to control what face is presented to the rest of the world? Or should we just let a few unelected agents represent us instead?
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
Re: The government does not have a right to privacy
On the post: Wait, Can Anyone Explain Why Google Should Promote Other Search Engines?
oh wait
On the post: There's An Entire Conference About Trying To 'Protect' Content?
Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
On the post: There's An Entire Conference About Trying To 'Protect' Content?
Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
- Wagon Makers, c. 1890s
On the post: There's An Entire Conference About Trying To 'Protect' Content?
Re: Or rather...
On the post: Jailbreaking Phones Lands A Guy In... Jail!
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re: Re:
So, for instance, if a guy's talking about blowing up a building, you would wait for him to start trying to build the bomb and then undercut the other bidders or intercept the guy doing the drop. On the other hand, if a guy's talking about blowing up a building and you run up to him and say "here's a bomb and here's how you can do it!" - that's pretty much entrapment. If fact that's so entrapment it's stupid.
On the post: Fox Sues Woman For $15M Because She Aggregated TV And Movie Scripts She Found Online
Re:
Like when Dreamworkz beat Pixar to the punch with their fish movie by making "A Shark's Tale". That really ruined Pixar - oh wait, nobody watched "A Shark's Tale" because it was rubbish and a transparent money grab. :|
Seriously though, I only ever hear that concern from new scriptwriters "oh noes everyone wants to steal my idea!"
Nobody wants to steal your idea. Nobody cares about your idea. Your idea sucks. Everyone's ideas suck by default so don't beat yourself up over it. But don't expect studios to want what you have. The reason movies need to be pitched is because most ideas suck worse than the worst movie Hollywood has ever made. Only a select few ideas are good enough to become a bad film. But even though there are only a few, they're still a dime a dozen. And it's a fake dime made out of cheap plastic. Recycled from diapers.
On the post: Fox Sues Woman For $15M Because She Aggregated TV And Movie Scripts She Found Online
Re:
But scripts themselves are not published works. They have no inherent value, aside from the cost of paper. Which is of course negated when digitizing them.
Now, if they go ahead and take a script from a popular film, pretty it up, print it on fancy paper, maybe add some director's notes, behind-the-scenes info, some fancy set photos and bind it in a hard cover for your coffee table...then you've created what Mike would call a "scarcity". Which of course you could sell and probably make some money from. No one else could do it, because they don't own the rights.
But again, they could still just go online and read it with no repercussions.
On the post: Fox Sues Woman For $15M Because She Aggregated TV And Movie Scripts She Found Online
Re: Re: Iran
;)
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
On the post: Obama 'Considering Legal Action' Against Wikileaks
Re: Wikileak
The REAL bottom line is don't let governments push you around when they threaten you.
The wikileaks team is a group of people who's lives involved constant movement, paranoia, and secret agent shit long before this leak happened. So don't worry about Assange - this is just another day at the office for him.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!
People are excitable morons who over-inflate the dangers of anything that rests outside their control. Which is why deaths in car accidents are less important to the public than deaths in plane crashes, which are in turn less important than deaths in terrorist attacks. All of which runs exactly opposite to actual observations. The TSA is merely trying to humor the retarded children this country is made up of. Or rather, that this planet is made up of - but let's keep the scope manageable shall we?
Did that come off too cynical? It's hard to tell sometimes.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
...unless it does. I don't know, I haven't gotten a traffic ticket in a while.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
Opting out of the x-ray scanners is most certainly not a reason to conduct a more probing search.
On the post: Obama 'Considering Legal Action' Against Wikileaks
Worthless
So what's the point of legal action, aside from impotent chest beating?
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re:
On the post: Fox Sues Woman For $15M Because She Aggregated TV And Movie Scripts She Found Online
Re: Not copyright, trade secret
Scripts are freely available to be read everywhere, of released films, films in-production, and even ones that haven't yet been picked up. Their method of construction is not only also freely available everywhere, but exceptionally rigid and standardized - if an aspiring scriptwriter hands in a script that deviates from the structure, their script won't even be read. Guaranteed. Resources for viewing scripts of other films, therefore, are very important.
Furthermore, scripts are not the movie. They are rarely even enjoyable to read, because they lack stage direction and emotional cues. Many good scripts end up as bad movies and vice versa.
This lawsuit ridiculous.
On the post: Foursquare Offers New Badge Mocking TSA
Re: Revolution
Next >>