"My understanding, from the affidavit, is that there was probable cause to believe there was wholesale copyright infringement taking place."
Will you please stop using the word 'wholesale'. The use of it is a blatant lie.
Wiktionary defines wholesale in this context as "extensive, indiscriminate, all-encompassing or blanket". Infringement on that scale was simply not taking place on the website. A massive proportion of the content was original, user-generated, or authorised. In fact there's been no evidence provided that any of the content was infringing.
"These objects are also a serious danger, no matter how small, if they are flying around the cabin."
True, and the same applies to every other thing not bolted down (much of which is supplied by the airline), and yet you want to apply the rule just to electronic devices. That makes no sense.
"There are still rules and laws in the world."
And when rules and laws are based on proven lies ("your electronic device will cause the plane to crash!"), respect for those rules and laws disappears. If you want people to follow them, tell the truth. Don't make up plausible but flawed reasons.
"Yes, he's a pirate. Thank you. Was that so hard?"
I wonder what proportion of the world's computer owners are officially a 'pirate' under your definition. 20%? 30%? Maybe 50%? I think that's probably not far from the truth. So at what point do you accept that it's become a societal norm, and not an evil fringe activity? Seriously, how much more popular does 'piracy' need to become before you get off your moral high horse? Your sanctimonious attitude is quickly becoming the minority one.
"As in he took advantage of someone else's work without their permission or paying them."
Which isn't stealing by any dictionary or legal definition.
"Ironically, music software employees are largely the same generation as Bull. He chose to rap, they chose to create great tools for musicians like Bull to use.
They can't go on tour to fund their software."
Why would music software employees need to go on tour to fund their software? They're employees who got paid to do a job. Try to keep your arguments straight.
"We would like to clarify one of the inaccuracies that has been reported. While a local Hasbro Australia marketing team did reach out to the Urban Taggers website to engage in promotional activity for which it required its address, it was completely unrelated to the confidential global investigation being conducted on Hasbro�s behalf by independent investigators looking into sources of leaked IP information."
They have not "clarified an inaccuracy", they have tried to deflect blame.
I work in a company that has a design/installation department and a service department. They are effectively operated as separate businesses and there isn't a lot of overlap between the divisions' activities, but we are constantly reminded of the fact that from the customer's perspective we are one company.
As far as this guy's concerned Hasbo contacted him for promotional purposes and Hasbo investigated him as a source of leaked IP information. They need to be up front and apologise for what Hasbo did rather than point the finger at another division.
"I think there is, in general, a valid right for the artist to be compensated for its inclusion in a movie since then the movie viewers see the art which is its primary value."
You realise 'the artist' is dead right? Why should anybody have to be compensated?
Personally I have no problem at all with non-intrusive product placement in films, because in a strange case of life imitating art, I actually use "products" every day! When I see a real product like Coke replaced with a red can labelled "Soda", it sticks out in an obviously fake way. It literally makes the movie (or TV program) worse by showing obvious 'fake'. Where things get stupid it the second money, licensing or permission is involved. Nobody should have to ask permission to use a real-life product in a realistic, preferably non-disparaging way. No manufacturer/supplier deserves payment for such exposure of their product, they should just be glad for the publicity and that it's not a competitor's product instead. The benefit to the film-maker is realism, which is always a lot less obvious that fakes. It's a win-win for both parties, unnecessary complicated (or ruined) by the lawyers, as usual.
"After all [to use the article's example], if the primary benefit wasn't to Cameron, why would he use the painting without permission and open himself up to liability? The nature of the economics suggests that the primary value is to the filmmaker in such a scenario."
Cameron totally benefited from putting this painting in Titanic! Way back in '97 when I heard the exited chatter that Picasso�s �Les Demoiselles d�Avignon� would be featured in the film I rushed out to see it. Twice! I would never have bothered otherwise, it was the film's only redeeming feature (other than Kate's boobs of course). Then just a few months ago when I heard a 3D version was being released I was overjoyed, and not just because of the 3D boobs! Finally I'd be able to see �Les Demoiselles d�Avignon� again! Because there's no other way to see this painting, right?
"Because it stops an important aspect of society (the arts) and an important industry from being decimated."
The only industry that's even close to being "decimated" is the shiny plastic disc industry. Ain't technology wonderful?
"You really think people want to pay for bread and milk? If you offered it free of charge you'd be trampled in the stampede."
And then we'd run out of bread and milk, at least until more was produced. Do you see us running out of music and movies any time soon? All the independent, non-industry studies say no, quite the opposite actually.
"Right, so you don't pay for paper made from sustainably harvested trees? If your power company switches to solar you don't have to pay for it?"
More stupid AC analogies. Can you reproduce a piece of paper instantly and with zero cost. No, you can't. Fail. Can solar produce more power all the time for zero extra cost. No, it can't. Fail again.
"Nice slight of hand."
No sleight of hand, I simply corrected your incorrect definition of civil rights.
"Hadopi is about stopping piracy..."
Except that it doesn't.
"Of course consumers oppose any action to make them pay for a product they've been enjoying taking illegally free."
Of course consumers oppose any action that constantly chips away at fundamental rights we've enjoyed for thousands of years, all because disruptive digital technology is upsetting the gravy train for a very small percentage of the world's population.
"The majority of the public don't understand or care about copyright."
Right, so why is it important again? Laws are supposed to reflect the will of "the majority of the public" so if most people don't care about copyright and openly disrespect it, why should copyright supporters be allowed to drive expansion of laws in their favour to the detriment of far more important things like civil rights and the growth and sharing of culture?
You need to think before you type, because this comment makes you look very, very stupid.
Hadopi is still in place, with all the negative consequences, and absolutely zero evidence of it achieving it's stated goals. So explain again why we'd stop discussing it?
On the post: It's Amazing The Lengths 'Music Supporters' Will Go To In Trying To Trash Success Stories
...and we all suffer because of it.
On the post: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Illinois' Eavesdropping Law As Likely Violating The First Amendment
Re:
On the post: Congress Begins To Wonder Why ICE & DOJ Censored A Popular Hip Hop Blog For A Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will you please stop using the word 'wholesale'. The use of it is a blatant lie.
Wiktionary defines wholesale in this context as "extensive, indiscriminate, all-encompassing or blanket". Infringement on that scale was simply not taking place on the website. A massive proportion of the content was original, user-generated, or authorised. In fact there's been no evidence provided that any of the content was infringing.
On the post: Did Apple's Claims Over Rectangles And Corners Lead To 'The First Smartphone Designed Entirely By Lawyers'?
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, with that crackling sense of humour and sharp wit you must be the life of parties...
On the post: FAA Warns Guy Who Filmed Birds Striking Plane Engine
Re: distraction
True, and the same applies to every other thing not bolted down (much of which is supplied by the airline), and yet you want to apply the rule just to electronic devices. That makes no sense.
"There are still rules and laws in the world."
And when rules and laws are based on proven lies ("your electronic device will cause the plane to crash!"), respect for those rules and laws disappears. If you want people to follow them, tell the truth. Don't make up plausible but flawed reasons.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Dan the Pirate
I wonder what proportion of the world's computer owners are officially a 'pirate' under your definition. 20%? 30%? Maybe 50%? I think that's probably not far from the truth. So at what point do you accept that it's become a societal norm, and not an evil fringe activity? Seriously, how much more popular does 'piracy' need to become before you get off your moral high horse? Your sanctimonious attitude is quickly becoming the minority one.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
Which isn't stealing by any dictionary or legal definition.
"Ironically, music software employees are largely the same generation as Bull. He chose to rap, they chose to create great tools for musicians like Bull to use.
They can't go on tour to fund their software."
Why would music software employees need to go on tour to fund their software? They're employees who got paid to do a job. Try to keep your arguments straight.
On the post: Judge Lets Feds Censor Blog For Over A Year So The RIAA Could Take Its Sweet Time
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the unlawful conduct the government couldn't prove?
On the post: Judge Lets Feds Censor Blog For Over A Year So The RIAA Could Take Its Sweet Time
Re:
Okay, as soon as ICE/USG starts asking the right people instead of taking quotes from the biased RIAA.
Hypocrite much?
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re: Re: Infringement and theft
On the post: Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
Re:
Wait, so you disagree with the article, and think CISPA is a good thing? Really? Care to explain?
On the post: Hasbro Offers Nerf Blogger Free Samples, Sends Lawyers And Investigators Instead
They have not "clarified an inaccuracy", they have tried to deflect blame.
I work in a company that has a design/installation department and a service department. They are effectively operated as separate businesses and there isn't a lot of overlap between the divisions' activities, but we are constantly reminded of the fact that from the customer's perspective we are one company.
As far as this guy's concerned Hasbo contacted him for promotional purposes and Hasbo investigated him as a source of leaked IP information. They need to be up front and apologise for what Hasbo did rather than point the finger at another division.
On the post: Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder
Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
You realise 'the artist' is dead right? Why should anybody have to be compensated?
On the post: Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder
Re:
On the post: Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder
Re:
Cameron totally benefited from putting this painting in Titanic! Way back in '97 when I heard the exited chatter that Picasso�s �Les Demoiselles d�Avignon� would be featured in the film I rushed out to see it. Twice! I would never have bothered otherwise, it was the film's only redeeming feature (other than Kate's boobs of course). Then just a few months ago when I heard a 3D version was being released I was overjoyed, and not just because of the 3D boobs! Finally I'd be able to see �Les Demoiselles d�Avignon� again! Because there's no other way to see this painting, right?
Yeah, sarc...
On the post: RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only industry that's even close to being "decimated" is the shiny plastic disc industry. Ain't technology wonderful?
"You really think people want to pay for bread and milk? If you offered it free of charge you'd be trampled in the stampede."
And then we'd run out of bread and milk, at least until more was produced. Do you see us running out of music and movies any time soon? All the independent, non-industry studies say no, quite the opposite actually.
Yay for yet another AC analogy fail.
On the post: RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More stupid AC analogies. Can you reproduce a piece of paper instantly and with zero cost. No, you can't. Fail. Can solar produce more power all the time for zero extra cost. No, it can't. Fail again.
"Nice slight of hand."
No sleight of hand, I simply corrected your incorrect definition of civil rights.
"Hadopi is about stopping piracy..."
Except that it doesn't.
"Of course consumers oppose any action to make them pay for a product they've been enjoying taking illegally free."
Of course consumers oppose any action that constantly chips away at fundamental rights we've enjoyed for thousands of years, all because disruptive digital technology is upsetting the gravy train for a very small percentage of the world's population.
"The majority of the public don't understand or care about copyright."
Right, so why is it important again? Laws are supposed to reflect the will of "the majority of the public" so if most people don't care about copyright and openly disrespect it, why should copyright supporters be allowed to drive expansion of laws in their favour to the detriment of far more important things like civil rights and the growth and sharing of culture?
On the post: RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story
Re: Re: Re:
Hadopi is still in place, with all the negative consequences, and absolutely zero evidence of it achieving it's stated goals.
On the post: RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story
Re: 6 things the movie strudios don't want you to know
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-things-the-film-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-a bout.php
On the post: RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story
Re:
Hadopi is still in place, with all the negative consequences, and absolutely zero evidence of it achieving it's stated goals. So explain again why we'd stop discussing it?
Next >>