Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2011 @ 12:23pm
Re: I think this source is somewhat wrong
I read 538 and Nate has great numbers.
There's one problem. That post assumed that 2010 numbers were not fraudulent as well. If the 2011 election results were consistent with 2010, but 2010 was tampered with, hmmm, then it sure makes sense that 2011 was tampered with as well.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2011 @ 12:15pm
Re:
Yeah, that was my reaction. It took a random blogger (who says she's never posted on the site before) to find this?
Sure makes those millions of dollars spent so that Wolf Blitzer can appear to be floating in space amongst holographic election results look like a good investment. Really, none of the "professional" journalists ever noticed?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:50pm
Re: Re: Re:
2 and 3: Why should I need to buy a new smartphone/music player because some idiot label won't put their music out as something I can use. There's tons of other music I can listen to instead of the newest boy band dreck.
4: Why should they care their new format can't be sold in the only retail sales channel that is actually working?
5: So how are the radio stations going to play the song in this wonderful new format? All their equipment is setup to play from computers/CDs/other digital formats. Radio stations would have an even worse problem than the average consumer with a new format.
6: No radio, no streaming. How is anyone going to hear the music before they buy it?
But hey, don't let me dissuade you from throwing millions of dollars into a fire to bring about this new format. If the recording labels want to commit suicide, I'll cheer them on.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 1:55pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you're not happy with your ISP over-billing you, go with one of that many that offer unmetered.
WTF don't you understand here?
There are no other options.
I have the choice of two and only two broadband providers. One already has caps. The other is actively working to implement them. Oh, and one of them is also getting a bill pushed through my state legislature to make it impossible for a city to setup their own alternative ISP.
Your water analogy might work if water wasn't a scarce resource. It is. Bits going down a wire have a near zero marginal cost and are not a scarce resource.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 1:29pm
Re:
How about the music industry decides to stop selling their content in mediums that are used by a computer, and instead sell it a new medium with new hardware that doesn't involve computers at all.
So you want to introduce a new format that:
1) Cannot be played on the billions of computers in the world.
2) Cannot be played on the billions of smartphones/iPods/MP3 players in the world.
3) Would require customers to buy new hardware to listen to it.
4) Cannot be sold via the only viable current sales platforms for music (iTunes/Amazon mp3/etc).
5) Cannot be marketed on the radio.
6) Cannot be streamed via Pandora/Spotify/etc.
You have no audience that could listen to it, no distribution method to sell it, and no advertising.
Good luck with that.
Even if you are living in magical fairy land where that wasn't a problem, whats to stop anyone from recording the sound and converting it, thus bypassing the whole point of your new format?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:31am
Win
Win!
However, I'm just a bit wary of installing something which the stated purpose of is to redirect my browser away from where I thought I was going elsewhere.
I'd be curious to see what kind of controls they have in place to avoid someone from submitting a redirect request from google.com to installmalware.com.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:29am
Re: Is This A 'More Friendly' Problem
So what ? I'm surprised some teen hackers don't do this regularly just to screw around.
Probably not 'teen' and not 'just to screw around' but it does happen. There are various types of malware that purposely kills off other competing malware when it gets on a system.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:52am
Re:
In summary: there seems to be no route to a rational argument for an intrinsic morality of copyright. There is no virtue in denying ourselves the benefit of copies.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:36am
Morality, Ethics, and Freedom
but so much of the debate simply seemed to assume that by arguing against using moral arguments, it was the equivalent of arguing against the entire system.
We live in a (supposedly) free country. The in the good old USA, you're supposed to need a reason for restricting freedom (making a law that says doing something is illegal).
There needs to be a damned good moral or ethical reason for restricting the right for me to repeat someone else's idea or expression in whatever form I wish.
There isn't one.
Therefore, copyright law in its entirety needs to go. It does not promote the progress, neither in its current form or any modern form that I can conceive*. The burden of proof is for copyright system defenders to show that the law is moral, ethical, and promotes the progress. If they can't, then the founding principles of this country say it cannot be law.
*(I'm perfectly willing to admit there might be a form that could be both ethical and which promotes the progress, but until I see one and the supporting evidence, my opinion stands.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:11am
Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
It matters not if the merchandise is apples from my orchard or the words of my book or the unique arrangement of notes of my song or images from my camera.
Wrong! It matters a great deal. A physical good is fundamentally different from an idea or expression.
If I take and sell your apples, you no longer have the apples to sell or eat yourself.
If I copy your idea or song and use it, you still have that idea. You still have created that song and can use it yourself. I have stolen nothing from you.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 11:30am
Re: Re: Re:
I don't blame Righthaven for walking away.
So you're saying that its okay for Righthaven to file completely baseless lawsuits to extort money from innocent people, and then give up only when it looks bad in the press?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 9:31am
Re:
Regardless, despite Righthaven's silly warnings to other defendants at the end of their notice, this case does show that they'll back down if the stakes get too high.
Because their entire business model will collapse when the precedents are handed down, and Righthaven wishes to prolong the time they can extort money from people.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 1:55pm
Re:
Why not join together and sue the Government?
My understanding of the law would be that they would have no standing to sue, since none of them were "harmed" by the government. Unless Manning hires them all to represent him, they have no standing. Also, since Manning is military, there are different rules.
I'm sure some of the legal types around here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 11:36am
Re: Re: Re:
The argument isn't about whether or not the bandwidth cap are justified.
Wrong. That is exactly what this argument is about. And caps are not justified by any sane definition of justified.
And if I'm close to busting it, I buy the 10$ package that gives me an extra 30GB.
So how much did it cost your ISP for that 30GB? I'll give you the answer: Pennies or less.
And your ISP is selling you that bandwidth at a 1000% or more markup.
In a truly free market, I'd have no problem with one company charging ridiculous markup. But the broadband market is anything but a free market. Many places its a monopoly or duopoly. I have no choice in my broadband providers unless you consider who is less bad; "MassivelyGreedyLegacyCorporation1" or "AbsurdlyGreedyLegacyCorporation2" a choice.
You want to change my mind? Give me evidence. Give me data that shows I'm wrong about the absurdity of caps. Otherwise your words mean nothing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 12:05pm
Re: Re: Re:
ACTA, COICA, and lawsuits are the life support that allows them to remain leeching off real innovation. Every dollar they get by refusing to change is more dollars used to lobby (a.k.a. legalized bribery) politicians around the world.
Cut them off cold turkey. Copyright cut down to 5 years, max. Anything older automatically in the public domain. No exceptions.
Force them to adapt or die. Allowing them to continue trampling my rights and holding back culture and innovation is morally bankrupt.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 8:46am
Downsides
There are some big issues here. I agree that it could have a positive effect in some situations, but the downsides could be immense. If paying of the bribe is legalized anywhere there is competition between scarcities - and that if convicted, the bribe taker has to pay it back - it would greatly benefit a person or company with more cash than their skill at competing. This could make it difficult for more efficient, disruptive technologies or companies to have a chance to push out legacy players.
Government contracts was already mentioned. I'm not sure how India handles certain things, but consider fishing licenses, where the government only gives out a certain amount. Same situation for taxi permits. Bribing an official would have almost no risk - bribe as much as you can afford, knowing that you're most likely going to get it back - and be rewarded with the license where the guy who couldn't afford the up-front bribe doesn't get it.
What about private businesses and vendors bribing another company to choose them over another vendor?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 9:44am
Shills: Mission
Shills, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to push any discussion about COICA away from the obvious censorship issues.
You may use lines such as:
"Well, the progressives are against it, and the conservatives are against it, but the moderates are for it! (Please refer back to the discussion on business models working for big or small artists, but not those in the middle for inspiration!)
On the post: Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...
Re: I think this source is somewhat wrong
There's one problem. That post assumed that 2010 numbers were not fraudulent as well. If the 2011 election results were consistent with 2010, but 2010 was tampered with, hmmm, then it sure makes sense that 2011 was tampered with as well.
On the post: Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...
Re:
Sure makes those millions of dollars spent so that Wolf Blitzer can appear to be floating in space amongst holographic election results look like a good investment. Really, none of the "professional" journalists ever noticed?
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re: Re: Re:
4: Why should they care their new format can't be sold in the only retail sales channel that is actually working?
5: So how are the radio stations going to play the song in this wonderful new format? All their equipment is setup to play from computers/CDs/other digital formats. Radio stations would have an even worse problem than the average consumer with a new format.
6: No radio, no streaming. How is anyone going to hear the music before they buy it?
But hey, don't let me dissuade you from throwing millions of dollars into a fire to bring about this new format. If the recording labels want to commit suicide, I'll cheer them on.
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WTF don't you understand here?
There are no other options.
I have the choice of two and only two broadband providers. One already has caps. The other is actively working to implement them. Oh, and one of them is also getting a bill pushed through my state legislature to make it impossible for a city to setup their own alternative ISP.
Your water analogy might work if water wasn't a scarce resource. It is. Bits going down a wire have a near zero marginal cost and are not a scarce resource.
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re:
So you want to introduce a new format that:
1) Cannot be played on the billions of computers in the world.
2) Cannot be played on the billions of smartphones/iPods/MP3 players in the world.
3) Would require customers to buy new hardware to listen to it.
4) Cannot be sold via the only viable current sales platforms for music (iTunes/Amazon mp3/etc).
5) Cannot be marketed on the radio.
6) Cannot be streamed via Pandora/Spotify/etc.
You have no audience that could listen to it, no distribution method to sell it, and no advertising.
Good luck with that.
Even if you are living in magical fairy land where that wasn't a problem, whats to stop anyone from recording the sound and converting it, thus bypassing the whole point of your new format?
On the post: Technology Trumps ICE Domain Seizures: Browser Plugin Fix Created In Just Days
Win
However, I'm just a bit wary of installing something which the stated purpose of is to redirect my browser away from where I thought I was going elsewhere.
I'd be curious to see what kind of controls they have in place to avoid someone from submitting a redirect request from google.com to installmalware.com.
On the post: New Zealand Politican Tweets How She's Violating Copyright Law Night Before Supporting Three Strikes Copyright Law
Re: Re: Re:
Everything is automatically copyrighted for 70+ years.
On the post: FBI Hijacks Botnet, With Court Order... Then Issues Kill Signal To Millions Of Computers
Re: Is This A 'More Friendly' Problem
Probably not 'teen' and not 'just to screw around' but it does happen. There are various types of malware that purposely kills off other competing malware when it gets on a system.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re:
100% agree.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Morality, Ethics, and Freedom
We live in a (supposedly) free country. The in the good old USA, you're supposed to need a reason for restricting freedom (making a law that says doing something is illegal).
There needs to be a damned good moral or ethical reason for restricting the right for me to repeat someone else's idea or expression in whatever form I wish.
There isn't one.
Therefore, copyright law in its entirety needs to go. It does not promote the progress, neither in its current form or any modern form that I can conceive*. The burden of proof is for copyright system defenders to show that the law is moral, ethical, and promotes the progress. If they can't, then the founding principles of this country say it cannot be law.
*(I'm perfectly willing to admit there might be a form that could be both ethical and which promotes the progress, but until I see one and the supporting evidence, my opinion stands.)
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
Wrong! It matters a great deal. A physical good is fundamentally different from an idea or expression.
If I take and sell your apples, you no longer have the apples to sell or eat yourself.
If I copy your idea or song and use it, you still have that idea. You still have created that song and can use it yourself. I have stolen nothing from you.
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying that its okay for Righthaven to file completely baseless lawsuits to extort money from innocent people, and then give up only when it looks bad in the press?
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re:
Because their entire business model will collapse when the precedents are handed down, and Righthaven wishes to prolong the time they can extort money from people.
On the post: Over 250 Top US Legal Scholars Condemn The Treatment Of Bradley Manning
Re:
My understanding of the law would be that they would have no standing to sue, since none of them were "harmed" by the government. Unless Manning hires them all to represent him, they have no standing. Also, since Manning is military, there are different rules.
I'm sure some of the legal types around here will correct me if I'm wrong.
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. That is exactly what this argument is about. And caps are not justified by any sane definition of justified.
And if I'm close to busting it, I buy the 10$ package that gives me an extra 30GB.
So how much did it cost your ISP for that 30GB? I'll give you the answer: Pennies or less.
And your ISP is selling you that bandwidth at a 1000% or more markup.
In a truly free market, I'd have no problem with one company charging ridiculous markup. But the broadband market is anything but a free market. Many places its a monopoly or duopoly. I have no choice in my broadband providers unless you consider who is less bad; "MassivelyGreedyLegacyCorporation1" or "AbsurdlyGreedyLegacyCorporation2" a choice.
You want to change my mind? Give me evidence. Give me data that shows I'm wrong about the absurdity of caps. Otherwise your words mean nothing.
On the post: Statutory Damages In Copyright Law Make It More Appealing To Sue Than To Innovate
Re: Re: Re:
Cut them off cold turkey. Copyright cut down to 5 years, max. Anything older automatically in the public domain. No exceptions.
Force them to adapt or die. Allowing them to continue trampling my rights and holding back culture and innovation is morally bankrupt.
On the post: Statutory Damages In Copyright Law Make It More Appealing To Sue Than To Innovate
Re: Re: This right here
FTFY.
On the post: House Hearing On File Sharing Turns Into 'But Why Can't Google Magically Stop All Bad Things Online' Hearing
Re: The question is not...
Ask not what Google can do for the country and the people, but what Google can do for the entrenched monopolies with lobbying power in Washington.
On the post: Economist Explains Why Paying Certain Bribes Should Be Legal
Downsides
Government contracts was already mentioned. I'm not sure how India handles certain things, but consider fishing licenses, where the government only gives out a certain amount. Same situation for taxi permits. Bribing an official would have almost no risk - bribe as much as you can afford, knowing that you're most likely going to get it back - and be rewarded with the license where the guy who couldn't afford the up-front bribe doesn't get it.
What about private businesses and vendors bribing another company to choose them over another vendor?
On the post: People Across Political Spectrum Come Out Against COICA Censorship Bill
Shills: Mission
You may use lines such as:
"Well, the progressives are against it, and the conservatives are against it, but the moderates are for it! (Please refer back to the discussion on business models working for big or small artists, but not those in the middle for inspiration!)
Next >>