Minors are under the care and responsibility of their parents, and if the people of California are concerned about how easy it is for their kids to get their hands on something that the parents don't want them getting their hands on, they are free to elect congressmen who put into place laws that enforce a parent's right to parent.
How is enforcing government non-intervention in a form of expression violating my right to raise my kids? Just because there's no law for or against video games with violent content doesn't mean that I still can't take the actions you outlined above, SCOTUS is maintaining that regardless of what people think, Constitutionally speaking, the government can't pass laws restricting it.
Think of it this way, there's no law requiring children to not watch R-rated films, and somehow theaters and parents have found ways to enforce these internal rules on their own.
There should be a universal symbol to symbolize how weak fair use is becoming, and how that affects culture negatively.
I say everytime a piece is considered questionable for the fair rights defence (which nowadays is everything), a sucker, or popsicle should be included, with the argument that it's not only transformative, but parodic. If the piece already includes a sucker or popsicle, a banana may be used. Eventually people will get tired of seeing a pixellated Miles Davis eating a Bomb Pop and realize how silly things were getting.
A DMCA Takedown because some guy decided to include a 26 second clip of a documentary in his critique of the documentary.
Now say you're some guy with a good lawyer who would find a way to prove monetary damages and mens rea, because for all the words the law provides, sometimes it does come down to has the best lawyer. Heck it doesn't even have to go to court if the letter is convincing enough.
If I were that guy, I'd think, "Why threaten someone with a club, when there's a bazooka handy?"
But if we don't have enough patents, the other countries will laugh at our lack of innovation! Do you know the size of the missile we'll have build to make ourselves feel better?
Things do indeed cost money, but no merchant should believe that the costs will always remain the same. Sometimes technologies advance in such a way that turn old models and methods upside down, making labor more efficient or or prior products obsolete in terms of their usefulness. When that happens, and time goes by, expect consumers to wonder why they're paying the same prices for the same old things or even the same prices for the newer things after the technology has had time to mature.
In the end, smarter merchants will leverage the changes to offer cheaper and/or better things to draw consumers like me, and the merchants who fall behind the curve should either catch up, or get out of the way.
And that would actually be a way to make me feel like I'm getting my money's worth on digital goods. Find a more reasonable way to price me for what I'm getting. If I'm being offered something that's clearly restricted it better be cheap. If it isn't I could deal with paying more.
Though in the grand scheme of things, why try to rein in the genie when it's already out of the bottle? I would rather see digital goods treated to the fullest potential as easy to copy and in versatile standard formats, for the current prices.
Just don't forget that, for these guys it might be about more than money. It could be recognition, curiosity, love of hobby, opportunity to work with current technology, etc.
I've noticed that I have purchased a notable amount of Samsung electronics in the past couple years. If my satisfaction is linked to this sort of open-mindedness, than I'm all for it.
A nice time to roll out my three Personal Rules as A legitimate Consumer:
1. I like free stuff.
2. If I can't get it for free, cheap is fine.
3. If I can't get it cheap, I will pay more if I feel like I'm getting my money's worth from the product. Since that is a personal judgment, I cannot be faulted for it, it can only lead to me buying, or not buying.
If other consumers are like me, then it's not a sense of entitlement, as I am a legitimate consumer who won't engage in physical theft or IP infringment.What I am is frustrated that advances which should be making things effectively cheap, or even free aren't budging the prices, and sometimes even raises them (hardcover level prices for an e-book?). And when it comes to digital goods they're often burdened with licenses or DRM that hobble the advances the technology was intended to give. That's not giving me my money's worth.
I'm no "freetard", as some ACs bandy about. I'm just a guy who tries to be wise with his spending money, and doesn't get why the rapid advancements of the past decade are not being leveraged to influence my buying decisions, or are outright seen as bad.
Patent it Hank, and watch the money roll in. Then again someone likely has "Method of Popular Music Creation Using A Three Chord Combination" already registered.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Anti-Violent Video Game Law Violates The First Amendment
Re:
How is enforcing government non-intervention in a form of expression violating my right to raise my kids? Just because there's no law for or against video games with violent content doesn't mean that I still can't take the actions you outlined above, SCOTUS is maintaining that regardless of what people think, Constitutionally speaking, the government can't pass laws restricting it.
Think of it this way, there's no law requiring children to not watch R-rated films, and somehow theaters and parents have found ways to enforce these internal rules on their own.
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re:
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
I say everytime a piece is considered questionable for the fair rights defence (which nowadays is everything), a sucker, or popsicle should be included, with the argument that it's not only transformative, but parodic. If the piece already includes a sucker or popsicle, a banana may be used. Eventually people will get tired of seeing a pixellated Miles Davis eating a Bomb Pop and realize how silly things were getting.
On the post: Facebook, Roger Ebert And The Pointlessness Of The Jerk Patrol
On the post: Collateral Damage: In The Hunt For LulzSec, FBI Takes Down A Bunch Of Websites
Re: Re:
On the post: Return To The Days Of Hoover's Enemy List? FBI Raiding Activists As Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: New word, same treatment
On the post: Senators Unconcerned About Massive Unintended Consequences Of Criminalizing People For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re:
A DMCA Takedown because some guy decided to include a 26 second clip of a documentary in his critique of the documentary.
Now say you're some guy with a good lawyer who would find a way to prove monetary damages and mens rea, because for all the words the law provides, sometimes it does come down to has the best lawyer. Heck it doesn't even have to go to court if the letter is convincing enough.
If I were that guy, I'd think, "Why threaten someone with a club, when there's a bazooka handy?"
On the post: White House Ramps Up Efforts To Criminalize Wikileaks, As Witnesses Refuse To 'Cooperate'
Re: Re:
Just gold. Lots of shiny-shiny gold.
On the post: Score One For The Trolls: Supreme Court Says Congress Intended It To Be Very Difficult To Invalidate Patents
Re:
On the post: Feds Ridiculous Prosecution Of Whistleblower Thomas Drake Falling Apart
Re: America
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: capitalism
Things do indeed cost money, but no merchant should believe that the costs will always remain the same. Sometimes technologies advance in such a way that turn old models and methods upside down, making labor more efficient or or prior products obsolete in terms of their usefulness. When that happens, and time goes by, expect consumers to wonder why they're paying the same prices for the same old things or even the same prices for the newer things after the technology has had time to mature.
In the end, smarter merchants will leverage the changes to offer cheaper and/or better things to draw consumers like me, and the merchants who fall behind the curve should either catch up, or get out of the way.
Now that's capitalism.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though in the grand scheme of things, why try to rein in the genie when it's already out of the bottle? I would rather see digital goods treated to the fullest potential as easy to copy and in versatile standard formats, for the current prices.
On the post: While Sony Sues Modders, Samsung Sends Them Devices To Mod Faster
Re: Hmmm...
iPhone? What's that?
On the post: While Sony Sues Modders, Samsung Sends Them Devices To Mod Faster
Re:
I've noticed that I have purchased a notable amount of Samsung electronics in the past couple years. If my satisfaction is linked to this sort of open-mindedness, than I'm all for it.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
1. I like free stuff.
2. If I can't get it for free, cheap is fine.
3. If I can't get it cheap, I will pay more if I feel like I'm getting my money's worth from the product. Since that is a personal judgment, I cannot be faulted for it, it can only lead to me buying, or not buying.
If other consumers are like me, then it's not a sense of entitlement, as I am a legitimate consumer who won't engage in physical theft or IP infringment.What I am is frustrated that advances which should be making things effectively cheap, or even free aren't budging the prices, and sometimes even raises them (hardcover level prices for an e-book?). And when it comes to digital goods they're often burdened with licenses or DRM that hobble the advances the technology was intended to give. That's not giving me my money's worth.
I'm no "freetard", as some ACs bandy about. I'm just a guy who tries to be wise with his spending money, and doesn't get why the rapid advancements of the past decade are not being leveraged to influence my buying decisions, or are outright seen as bad.
On the post: Dubious Record Label Insists It Has A 'Patent-Pending' Method To Guarantee A Platinum Selling Album
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Summer is my reading season, might have to check 'em out.
On the post: Dubious Record Label Insists It Has A 'Patent-Pending' Method To Guarantee A Platinum Selling Album
Re: 5-7
On the post: Dubious Record Label Insists It Has A 'Patent-Pending' Method To Guarantee A Platinum Selling Album
Re: Re:
hypothetically speaking of course, I would never do that.
On the post: Dubious Record Label Insists It Has A 'Patent-Pending' Method To Guarantee A Platinum Selling Album
Re:
If his idea sounded anything less than some kind of con, you would be completely right.
Instead you went one step further and created a novel promotion model.This is way better. I wonder what the RtB would look like with this obvious CwF?
On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist
Re: Re:
Possibly.
Next >>