"If you can't afford a computer game (or an iPhone, or a Netflix account, or whatever), and you're having to choose between buying it or feeding your family, then YES, guess what, you DO have to "sit out in the cold" and miss out on that "cultural event.""
Er, no I don't. You might think that I should, but that's different.
"You aren't ENTITLED to it simply because you're alive and you want it."
Correct, and nobody here has ever claimed that, so you're arguing against something you just made up. That doesn't really strengthen your case.
"No matter the arguments made later, that entitlement issue always feels like the underlying rational for online piracy to me, and I'm constantly surprised by how many seemingly intelligent people actually THINK like that."
You mean you're constantly surprised by something you're imagining is happening? Wow...
"But I was not commenting on all of TechDirt, I was commenting specifically on this article, how you came to miss that?"
You're not really making much sense. You launched into a rant that basically said "Why are you criticising Russia when the US does all these terrible things?!" My point is, we know. You haven't educated anybody on anything.
"Just as you both jumped on the possibility that maybe not all bunker busters are nuclear..."
Bunker busting bombs have been around since WWII and have been used quite a bit since then, including modern conflicts. Nuclear versions have never been used. It's a fact that most are non-nuclear.
As for the rest of your post, you sound like you lead a very sad and anguished existence. Or you're a troll. Not sure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do App developers need UDID's for?
"Also, you do realize that there is a difference between taking control over a server and taking physical possession of said server, right?"
How would a "doomsday" delete button work if the FBI already had control of the servers?
The FBI told the NZ Police they had to use rapid force to prevent the use of a delete function, even though they knew it wouldn't work even if he did have one, which he didn't because they made it up. Kinda hard to see how the FBI did anything but lie about this one.
"...I certainly do have a problem with them receiving the digital communications, decoding them (required step) and then using them."
Let's apply your statement to that other means of getting info from the out of the air:
"I certainly do have a problem with them receiving the analogue communications (broadcast radio waves), decoding them (required step, using a radio) and then using them (by sending them to speakers)."
Copyright is not a "longstanding human right", or even a basic human right. It's a mere blip in the history of human's creating and sharing culture, and most people have considerably less respect for it than actual human rights.
You must be new here, because all those criticisms of the US have been discussed at Techdirt in great detail over the years. Plus you seem to have misplaced your sense of humor. I too cringed a bit reading your comment...
"For the betterment of man, we want to encourage artists to make art. We don't want to discourage art and make them work as a wage slave all their lives."
Can you highlight the insult for less easily offended of us?
"Can I pick and choose which of your rights I want to respect?"
Of course you can! Watch me do it: I respect your fundamental human rights. I do not respect the artificial construct of your copyright. See how easy it is?
"If I decide to violate one of your rights, would it be wrong?"
"And to pretend like copyright doesn't create great works that we all love is just silly. You guys all hate copyright so much, but then your willing to break the law to get the copyrighted stuff."
Ugh, this sort of crap does your argument no favours. Copyright does not create content, good or bad. People create content. Copyright has absolutely no bearing on quality whatsoever, and any genuine artist would be insulted by the suggestion.
"...you guys seem unwilling to even admit that violating other people's rights is wrong."
The discussion is only about copyright, not actualrights, which nobody has suggested be violated. You seem to think copyright is on par with fundamental human rights, but you could not be more wrong. It's way down the pecking order, both in importance and current level of public respect.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Your reputation is based on your actions, not the actions of others. B&J's played no part in the creation of the movies' names, so I find it hard to fathom how anyone can place any blame on them. Personally, this parody names have absolutely zero impact on my opinion of B&J's as a company or a product. However getting all pissy and sending C&D's certainly doesn't improve my opinion of them.
How shocking that somebody representing members of the public should want to know what's being negotiated in a deal that would massively effect the public (and not just in relation to IP)?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
"...the point is whether the brand is harmed by the diluting use."
That is indeed the point, one which you have providing zero evidence or explanation of. Instead of cutting and pasting swathes of text, why don't you explain how Ben & Jerry's are harmed?
"Don't make the knee-jerk reaction that stronger rights for the mark holder equates to making the public worse off."
Many people would be amused and entertained by the parody names, which is their whole point. If the names were successfully prevented from being used, fewer people would see them and be entertained, meaning they are by definition worse off.
On the post: Chatting With Andrew K'Tetch Norton About 'No Safe Harbors'; The Techdirt Book Club Interview
Re:
On the post: Don't Focus On Why People Pirate; Focus On Why They Don't Buy
Re:
Er, no I don't. You might think that I should, but that's different.
"You aren't ENTITLED to it simply because you're alive and you want it."
Correct, and nobody here has ever claimed that, so you're arguing against something you just made up. That doesn't really strengthen your case.
"No matter the arguments made later, that entitlement issue always feels like the underlying rational for online piracy to me, and I'm constantly surprised by how many seemingly intelligent people actually THINK like that."
You mean you're constantly surprised by something you're imagining is happening? Wow...
On the post: Court: Fining Jammie Thomas $9,250 Per Song Infringed Motivates Creative Activity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be err on the side of caution. Just so you know.
On the post: Russia (Yes, The Country) Looking To Enter The Tablet Market
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not really making much sense. You launched into a rant that basically said "Why are you criticising Russia when the US does all these terrible things?!" My point is, we know. You haven't educated anybody on anything.
"Just as you both jumped on the possibility that maybe not all bunker busters are nuclear..."
Bunker busting bombs have been around since WWII and have been used quite a bit since then, including modern conflicts. Nuclear versions have never been used. It's a fact that most are non-nuclear.
As for the rest of your post, you sound like you lead a very sad and anguished existence. Or you're a troll. Not sure.
On the post: Publishing Company Admits That Anonymous' UDID Data Leak Was Actually Taken From Their Database
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do App developers need UDID's for?
How would a "doomsday" delete button work if the FBI already had control of the servers?
The FBI told the NZ Police they had to use rapid force to prevent the use of a delete function, even though they knew it wouldn't work even if he did have one, which he didn't because they made it up. Kinda hard to see how the FBI did anything but lie about this one.
On the post: Judge Says Sniffing Unencrypted WiFi Networks Is Not Wiretapping
Re:
Let's apply your statement to that other means of getting info from the out of the air:
"I certainly do have a problem with them receiving the analogue communications (broadcast radio waves), decoding them (required step, using a radio) and then using them (by sending them to speakers)."
Sound silly? Yeah, coz it is.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Russia (Yes, The Country) Looking To Enter The Tablet Market
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_busters#Nuclear
On the post: Russia (Yes, The Country) Looking To Enter The Tablet Market
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Can you highlight the insult for less easily offended of us?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Of course you can! Watch me do it: I respect your fundamental human rights. I do not respect the artificial construct of your copyright. See how easy it is?
"If I decide to violate one of your rights, would it be wrong?"
Depends which one. What's your choice?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Ugh, this sort of crap does your argument no favours. Copyright does not create content, good or bad. People create content. Copyright has absolutely no bearing on quality whatsoever, and any genuine artist would be insulted by the suggestion.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The discussion is only about copyright, not actualrights, which nobody has suggested be violated. You seem to think copyright is on par with fundamental human rights, but you could not be more wrong. It's way down the pecking order, both in importance and current level of public respect.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation please.
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Sending DMCA Takedowns On Content That's Been Gone For Months
Re:
Wow, reading comprehension fail again? Or just one of those troll-lies where you read something and then claim the writer said the opposite?
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
On the post: Members Of Congress Demand USTR Open Up On TPP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That is indeed the point, one which you have providing zero evidence or explanation of. Instead of cutting and pasting swathes of text, why don't you explain how Ben & Jerry's are harmed?
"Don't make the knee-jerk reaction that stronger rights for the mark holder equates to making the public worse off."
Many people would be amused and entertained by the parody names, which is their whole point. If the names were successfully prevented from being used, fewer people would see them and be entertained, meaning they are by definition worse off.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Next >>