While that sentence is highly unlikely, it would not be so wrong. I believe we are seeing people who do not have and never will have an interest in anything resembling real work or an actual job doing something productive. Creating value.
If left to run free, they will move on to their next scam.
From elsewhere I read that Time Warner spent enough so that their combined total spent on this bad idea of a merger was over HALF A BILLION dollars!
How much new fiber could have been laid with that?
How many new and upgraded routers in the infrastructure?
I know these days that numbers like a hundred million or half a billion don't sound like much. But that is a huge amount of money. How much new fiber could be installed for only one million?
Re: Okay, let's talk Masnick's reputation. Also intangible, but not intellectual.
> Continue to take other's property, pirates
1. Nobody is taking your property, that is, your copyright. 2. Some people, somewhere, are merely infringing the copyright. 3. Do you know of any actual pirates here?
Free clue for the clue challenged: when someone discusses the fact that copyright infringers exist, participating in such a discussion does not make that person a pirate.
It's all for your own good. Apple controlling music will be for your own good too.
It's a Walled Garden, not a Prison Camp.
The content is Curated, not Censored.
The rules to get content and apps approved are not arbitrary and capricious; they are secret. Apple doesn't want to publish rules that merely make reference to bad things which you should not be exposed to.
It's not that Apple telling you what you may and may not think; they are protecting you from being exposed to bad ideas, for your own good.
With Music, Apple now wants to help guide you to listen to what music it knows you will agree to like and pay Apple for telling you to like it.
You know the quality must be good because of the high prices.
That's what these are, monopolies. And artificial ones at that. (As opposed to more natural monopolies, like pipes in the ground running to every building.)
When private companies, instead of copyright law and courts, can say whether or not you can have fair use, then it is Free Speech that is at risk, not just fair use at risk.
Um, excuse me, but isn't the 4th Amendment about protecting us from a hypothetical narrative of government intrusion?
Or am I missing something? (Other than possibly a few other amendments I should have mentioned?)
Dear Daniel Conley, You can download a copy of the US Constitution right here. But hurry! Supplies are limited. Please take care not to download too many copies or the US might no longer have a constitution.
Every time you hear Justin Bieber sing you won't have to be concerned whether you have paid the proper licensing.
The solution: brain implants. Implanted at birth. Any time you see or hear anything copyrighted, your credit card is automatically charged. Problem solved. Everyone happy.
I think the maximalists have achieved their objective in places like Saudi Arabia.
No music is listened to at all. Except secretly, in private. Just the way the copyright maximalists want it.
The end result of both kinds of insanity are the same. If the only way you can listen to music without it being a ('public performance' | 'punishable crime') is to do so secretly in private, then that is the only way that music will be listened to.
The point of a public performance with respect to copyright should be about whether the performance itself is the reason people come to the gathering.
A gathering for some other primary purpose that happens to play a radio or other source of music should not qualify as a public performance. To think otherwise is to mean that music should become a very private thing that people only hear in private. Of course, when that is taken to its logical extreme, it would have the upside of meaning the death of the RIAA.
Please consider, people can shower in places such as a locker room at a public pool or park. The shower has an expectation of privacy even if it is at a public place. While I was thinking more of locker rooms, I can see why a copyright maximalist might bring up a bath house.
Should that be a public performance? Only the copyright maximalists would think there is any marketability to a naked person whistling a tune in the shower. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Does the expectation of privacy depend on how good the person's whistling is, or whatever other features might attract an audience?
You can download a copy of the US Constitution right here. But hurry! Supplies are limited. Please take care not to download too many copies or the US might no longer have a constitution.
On the post: Team Prenda Has A Very Bad Day In Court... And You Can Watch It All
Re:
If left to run free, they will move on to their next scam.
On the post: After Blowing $336 Million On Failed Merger, Comcast Again Proves New Neutrality Rules Won't Harm Broadband Investment
Re: Re: What a collossal waste of money
Oh, wait.
They should have waited until Title II was a fact before making that claim. Now we know that Title II is not the cause.
On the post: After Blowing $336 Million On Failed Merger, Comcast Again Proves New Neutrality Rules Won't Harm Broadband Investment
What a collossal waste of money
How much new fiber could have been laid with that?
How many new and upgraded routers in the infrastructure?
I know these days that numbers like a hundred million or half a billion don't sound like much. But that is a huge amount of money. How much new fiber could be installed for only one million?
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Okay, let's talk Masnick's reputation. Also intangible, but not intellectual.
1. Nobody is taking your property, that is, your copyright.
2. Some people, somewhere, are merely infringing the copyright.
3. Do you know of any actual pirates here?
Free clue for the clue challenged: when someone discusses the fact that copyright infringers exist, participating in such a discussion does not make that person a pirate.
On the post: Apple Trying To Kill Off Spotify's Free Tier; DOJ Now Investigating For Antitrust
Re:
It's a Walled Garden, not a Prison Camp.
The content is Curated, not Censored.
The rules to get content and apps approved are not arbitrary and capricious; they are secret. Apple doesn't want to publish rules that merely make reference to bad things which you should not be exposed to.
It's not that Apple telling you what you may and may not think; they are protecting you from being exposed to bad ideas, for your own good.
With Music, Apple now wants to help guide you to listen to what music it knows you will agree to like and pay Apple for telling you to like it.
You know the quality must be good because of the high prices.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Use the word Monopoly instead of Right
Copyright --> Copy Monopoly
Patent right --> Patent Monopoly
Trademark --> Trademark Monopoly
That's what these are, monopolies. And artificial ones at that. (As opposed to more natural monopolies, like pipes in the ground running to every building.)
Use the term IPM for Imaginary Property Monopoly.
On the post: Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us
Fair use is not at risk
On the post: Law Enforcement's Cluelessness On Display In Congressional Hearing On Undermining Encryption
hypothetical narrative of government intrusion
Or am I missing something? (Other than possibly a few other amendments I should have mentioned?)
Dear Daniel Conley, You can download a copy of the US Constitution right here. But hurry! Supplies are limited. Please take care not to download too many copies or the US might no longer have a constitution.
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
Re: Re: They are "educating" the public
They will no longer need to shake people down.
Every time you hear Justin Bieber sing you won't have to be concerned whether you have paid the proper licensing.
The solution: brain implants. Implanted at birth. Any time you see or hear anything copyrighted, your credit card is automatically charged. Problem solved. Everyone happy.
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
Re: Maximalists and the law
No music is listened to at all. Except secretly, in private. Just the way the copyright maximalists want it.
The end result of both kinds of insanity are the same. If the only way you can listen to music without it being a ('public performance' | 'punishable crime') is to do so secretly in private, then that is the only way that music will be listened to.
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
Re: Re:
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
Re:
A gathering for some other primary purpose that happens to play a radio or other source of music should not qualify as a public performance. To think otherwise is to mean that music should become a very private thing that people only hear in private. Of course, when that is taken to its logical extreme, it would have the upside of meaning the death of the RIAA.
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
Re: Re:
Should that be a public performance? Only the copyright maximalists would think there is any marketability to a naked person whistling a tune in the shower. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Does the expectation of privacy depend on how good the person's whistling is, or whatever other features might attract an audience?
On the post: UK Tribunal Rules GCHQ Conducted Illegal Surveillance And Must Destroy Legally Privileged Documents
In GCHQ's defense
On the post: Comic Artists Claim Copyright On Metallic Suits And The Three Point Landing
Re: Don't panic! It'll go nowhere.
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: Re:
Corporations are Persons.
Therefore Copyright is for Corporations.
Humans are worker drones, not persons.
Humans running corporations get personhood transitively from their association with the corporation.
On the post: New Version Of USA Freedom Surveillance Reform Bill To Hit The House This Week
Re: Re: words words
But your honor, there was an imminent threat of copyright infringement which could put us into a national emergency situation.
Or even an imminent threat of someone powerful being embarrassed by publication of the truth.
Or an imminent threat of government wrongdoing being made public.
On the post: New Version Of USA Freedom Surveillance Reform Bill To Hit The House This Week
Dear Senators
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: If defending Megaupload, you're for out and out PIRACY.
Some people say the sun rises in the East.
Others say the sun rises in the West.
Where are the moderates when you need them?
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Promoting
Next >>