Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:38am
Re:
Actually, they are very likely to get in trouble because of the conversion process.
The same conversion process that my DVD player does between it and my TV? Wrong, that's legal.
They move it from DVD to "streaming", because they aren't providing the output that a dvd would normally generate. There is no simple way to transmit HDMI, Svideo, or "composite" video in it's original format.
They're taking the output that an actual DVD player does provide, and encapsulating it in IP packets. It is an incredibly simple process of which there are hundreds of legal solutions.
As soon as it moves to the digital realm, it is no longer a DVD player, it is just a streaming device.
What's DVD stand for again? Oh, that's right. Digital Video Disc. It was digital before it left the DVD manufacturer.
The length of the wire transmitting the data, or the protocol used to transfer the data doesn't make something illegal if everything on both sides of the wire is legal.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:21am
Obvious
This is a relatively an obvious idea. All it takes is a brief look at history and current successful businesses.
Apple - Steve Jobs didn't have the idea for a personal computer. That was Wozniak. Jobs was the businessman/marketer. And to be really successful, it took the idea of a GUI ("stolen" from Xerox PARC).
Microsoft - Bill Gates, again, a businessman. The idea of licensing something (an OS, which Gates didn't even have at the time of the deal) to another company (IBM) had been around since before Gates was born. And again, to be successful, integrating other ideas into the product (the GUI and others "stolen" from Apple).
Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, just a way of efficiently producing it. Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb or movie projector, he "stole" those ideas from others.
The list goes on, but you get the idea.
*all uses of "stole" in the above post are nonsense, as you can't steal an idea. You can copy them, and the world is better off each time good ideas are copied and improved upon.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 2:31pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unemployment is the most obvious effects of this, which hurts the economy. Are you denying that huge numbers of people related to the sale of recorded music have lost their jobs?
Are you denying that the mass production of the automobile put large numbers of people involved in the manufacturing of buggy whips out of their jobs?
Are you denying that the invention of electronic switching put large numbers of telephone operators out of their jobs?
No one denies that people in the recording industry could lose their jobs. The market has made those jobs obsolete because they are inefficient. The Internet has made you obsolete. The faster you and those who are losing their jobs accept that undeniable fact and stop trying to hold on to an obsolete job or business model, the faster you can become a contributing member of the economy.
The system wasn't unnecessary. It has been put on hold by piracy. Can you show me the true functional business model that is actually working and replacing the lost jobs in the economy? Running pirate sites isn't one of those examples.
The system may have been necessary before the Internet made distribution cheap and easy. But situations change.
Mike has shown dozens of different models that work. If you bothered to read posts looking for ideas instead of doing nothing but saying everything written on TD is wrong, you might actually see one.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 8:32am
Re: Re:
Nah, the Phoenicians were infringing on Ug the Caveman's rights. He was the first to make the 'Mmm' sound, and the Phoenicians illegally took the sound and transformed it into a written letter without Ug's consent.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 10:51am
Re:
I wonder if there are criminal charges that the RIAA can be slapped with for that.
Who are going to file the charges? The same federal agencies that are bought off and would have to admit they took bad info? Department of Justice... run by former RIAA goons?
In a system this corrupt, who is left to hold the corruptors responsible?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:58am
Re:
Nigerian scammers are generally preying off someone's greed in a too-good-to-be-true situation (someone's gonna transfer millions of dollars into my bank account and I get to keep it!).
Both the scammers in this article and the RIAA/MPAA are preying off people's fear and ignorance.
Now that I actually put it like that, the copyright industry looks to be a few levels below Nigerian scammers in the ethics department.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:53am
Re:
You would think anyone hit with this would do a little investigation before paying. If I live in say the US and the payment is through a website with headquarters in the Netherlands, Russia and Latvia, I might be a bit suspicious.
Easy enough for those of us who understand... but how is the average internet user going to know how to do that?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 12:48pm
Re: Re: Re: AC support for Russian censorship
Clever, but I'm not buying. Wordpress, Facebook, Twitter, and all those others provide the tools so that every individual can have their own printing press. We don't hold them responsible because they are not responsible for the actions of their users (oh, and there's also this thing called section 230).
You want to make individuals part of some larger organization that you can attach a label to, lump together, and hold responsible (or sue, arrest, whatever). Whether it is Techdirt-koolaid-drinking-commenters or filthy-job-killing-pirates, you need to be able to label someone as part of a larger group instead of accepting each as an individual.
It's a pervasive viewpoint. Corporations want specific demographics they can focus group and market to. Music labels want artists that make music that can be categorized into specific genres, packaged on a disc, put in a shiny box, shrinkwrapped, then sold. Same for movies.
It doesn't work that way anymore. Its doubtful it ever did. There are no lines in the sand - if there were, the Internet whirlwind has blown them all away. We're all just individual grains floating in the wind.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 9:42am
Re: AC support for Russian censorship
Do you think that building would be ignored by the authorities? Do you think that it would be tolerated for long? Do you not think that the building owner would face charges?
If this building was in a country that supported freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and privacy rights, then absolutely I would expect all those things.
But that's not Russia. And neither is it America any longer.
Just because something is online doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
Just because something is done by a government doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
Just because something is done by a large corporation doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
Just because something is deemed legal doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
However, your comment is essentially correct. Just because something is online does not make it more right. It is not technology that makes something wrong or right. It is the action itself. And because of that, holding any technology or company that makes the technology accountable for the actions of the people who use it is wrong.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 12:17pm
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that everyone has to say "by the way, I am not in favor of piracy"?
I don't think I'm that unique, and if a business can't change to keep up with me, then I go elsewhere.
The fundamental underlying concept of economics is that if the value of something is greater to an individual than the price, they will buy it.
If a business is not providing value to their customers at a price those customers are willing to pay, that business will fail. Even if it a monopoly. Even if it gets the government to pass draconian laws.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 6:52am
Re: Judges Are Hostile To Juries
Its not that judges get to violate a juror's rights, its that a juror's free speech rights are going to overlap between a defendant's right to an impartial jury.
Where there is overlap in the rights of one person over another, there is the possibility of conflict. Telling jurors not to discuss the case is not an overwhelming burden on their free speech rights for the generally short period of time while the case is ongoing. After the case is over, they are free to talk about their experience.
On the post: If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
Re:
The same conversion process that my DVD player does between it and my TV? Wrong, that's legal.
They move it from DVD to "streaming", because they aren't providing the output that a dvd would normally generate. There is no simple way to transmit HDMI, Svideo, or "composite" video in it's original format.
They're taking the output that an actual DVD player does provide, and encapsulating it in IP packets. It is an incredibly simple process of which there are hundreds of legal solutions.
As soon as it moves to the digital realm, it is no longer a DVD player, it is just a streaming device.
What's DVD stand for again? Oh, that's right. Digital Video Disc. It was digital before it left the DVD manufacturer.
The length of the wire transmitting the data, or the protocol used to transfer the data doesn't make something illegal if everything on both sides of the wire is legal.
On the post: Felix Dennis: Ideas Without Execution Are Nothing
Obvious
Apple - Steve Jobs didn't have the idea for a personal computer. That was Wozniak. Jobs was the businessman/marketer. And to be really successful, it took the idea of a GUI ("stolen" from Xerox PARC).
Microsoft - Bill Gates, again, a businessman. The idea of licensing something (an OS, which Gates didn't even have at the time of the deal) to another company (IBM) had been around since before Gates was born. And again, to be successful, integrating other ideas into the product (the GUI and others "stolen" from Apple).
Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, just a way of efficiently producing it. Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb or movie projector, he "stole" those ideas from others.
The list goes on, but you get the idea.
*all uses of "stole" in the above post are nonsense, as you can't steal an idea. You can copy them, and the world is better off each time good ideas are copied and improved upon.
On the post: Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you denying that the mass production of the automobile put large numbers of people involved in the manufacturing of buggy whips out of their jobs?
Are you denying that the invention of electronic switching put large numbers of telephone operators out of their jobs?
No one denies that people in the recording industry could lose their jobs. The market has made those jobs obsolete because they are inefficient. The Internet has made you obsolete. The faster you and those who are losing their jobs accept that undeniable fact and stop trying to hold on to an obsolete job or business model, the faster you can become a contributing member of the economy.
The system wasn't unnecessary. It has been put on hold by piracy. Can you show me the true functional business model that is actually working and replacing the lost jobs in the economy? Running pirate sites isn't one of those examples.
The system may have been necessary before the Internet made distribution cheap and easy. But situations change.
Mike has shown dozens of different models that work. If you bothered to read posts looking for ideas instead of doing nothing but saying everything written on TD is wrong, you might actually see one.
On the post: Bath & Bodyworks Goes To Court To Explain To Summit Entertainment That The Word Twilight Existed Before The Movie
Re:
You might even say that they've entered the 'Twilight Zone' in their activities regarding trademark.
On the post: Bath & Bodyworks Goes To Court To Explain To Summit Entertainment That The Word Twilight Existed Before The Movie
Re: Re:
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Re: Ugh, there's the "F" word again
If you consider piracy the unrestricted copying of ideas, information, expressions, thoughts, and content... in a single word: culture.
I do.
Culture cannot be owned. Culture is shared amongst everyone in a society.
I choose freedom and change over restriction and stagnation.
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re:
Who are going to file the charges? The same federal agencies that are bought off and would have to admit they took bad info? Department of Justice... run by former RIAA goons?
In a system this corrupt, who is left to hold the corruptors responsible?
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
Awww. When I read that I thought it said "raptorist" and got excited.
An advocacy group devoted to copyright abolition involving the feeding of copyright maximalists to hungry velociraptors.
So who's in?
On the post: Facebook Comment Leads To Arrest In Zimbabwe
But...
On the post: Fox Sends DMCA Takedown To Google To Remove Link To DMCA Takedown Sent By Fox
Re: Re:
On the post: Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'
Re:
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re:
Both the scammers in this article and the RIAA/MPAA are preying off people's fear and ignorance.
Now that I actually put it like that, the copyright industry looks to be a few levels below Nigerian scammers in the ethics department.
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re:
Easy enough for those of us who understand... but how is the average internet user going to know how to do that?
On the post: Russia Wants Social Media Sites To Be Liable For User Content To Avoid Middle East-Style Protests
Re: Re: Re: AC support for Russian censorship
You want to make individuals part of some larger organization that you can attach a label to, lump together, and hold responsible (or sue, arrest, whatever). Whether it is Techdirt-koolaid-drinking-commenters or filthy-job-killing-pirates, you need to be able to label someone as part of a larger group instead of accepting each as an individual.
It's a pervasive viewpoint. Corporations want specific demographics they can focus group and market to. Music labels want artists that make music that can be categorized into specific genres, packaged on a disc, put in a shiny box, shrinkwrapped, then sold. Same for movies.
It doesn't work that way anymore. Its doubtful it ever did. There are no lines in the sand - if there were, the Internet whirlwind has blown them all away. We're all just individual grains floating in the wind.
On the post: Russia Wants Social Media Sites To Be Liable For User Content To Avoid Middle East-Style Protests
Re: AC support for Russian censorship
If this building was in a country that supported freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and privacy rights, then absolutely I would expect all those things.
But that's not Russia. And neither is it America any longer.
Just because something is online doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
Just because something is done by a government doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
Just because something is done by a large corporation doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
Just because something is deemed legal doesn't make it suddenly more "right".
However, your comment is essentially correct. Just because something is online does not make it more right. It is not technology that makes something wrong or right. It is the action itself. And because of that, holding any technology or company that makes the technology accountable for the actions of the people who use it is wrong.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that everyone has to say "by the way, I am not in favor of piracy"?
The fundamental underlying concept of economics is that if the value of something is greater to an individual than the price, they will buy it.
If a business is not providing value to their customers at a price those customers are willing to pay, that business will fail. Even if it a monopoly. Even if it gets the government to pass draconian laws.
On the post: UK Publishers: Fair Use Would Put A 'Chokehold On Innovation'
Re:
On the post: UK Publishers: Fair Use Would Put A 'Chokehold On Innovation'
Re: Heh
On the post: The First Rule Of Being A Juror For Barry Bonds' Perjury Case Is You Don't Talk About Being A Juror For Barry Bonds' Perjury Case
Re: Judges Are Hostile To Juries
Where there is overlap in the rights of one person over another, there is the possibility of conflict. Telling jurors not to discuss the case is not an overwhelming burden on their free speech rights for the generally short period of time while the case is ongoing. After the case is over, they are free to talk about their experience.
Next >>