If by "weeeping and sniveling", you mean encouraging Americans to think for themselves (regardless of his tactics) instead of blindly and stupidly following the rest of the herd, then I guess you're right.
If by "weeping and sniveling" you mean ACTUALLY weeping and sniveling then two things are clearly true: 1)you've never watched or listened to his show, AND 2)you're just a designated blog-watcher whose sole job it is to bash people who disagree with the democratic agenda.
"Why aren't they post here explaining why they're right and why Mike is wrong about this one? Where are they?... Come on, don't just disappear on me when faced with facts and then continue to spew your nonsense elsewhere where the facts don't exist."
fact checking DOES NOT mean that you open your own case study center, enlist volunteers and start doing original research.
Fact checking means that you go and look at official documents and talk to officials.
It is clear that Mr. Dawkins did neither of those, and based his article entirely on hearsay; precisely what "professional journalists" are blasting bloggers for doing.
Re: But I didn't 'make it available' I just downloaded 1000 copies, then gave them away....
At first you made me ponder, but then I realized the error in your scenario. The "implied take only one" rule is a COURTESY to keep the samples from disappearing before everyone can get one. If you DO take more than one, the only thing they can legally do is call you nasty names.
If something is free, it's free. Period. Yes, there are loopholes and back doors, and tons of different ways that people can get screwed, but 0 = 0, and only 0.
"The argument that people seem to be making, that these people have been given distribution rights, and therefore everyone else distributing the files also has distribution rights seems false to me."
No. That's neither the argument, nor what's happening. The argument is that if this company has distribution rights to these files, DISTRIBUTES THEM, and people download the files, what legal ground do they have to charge for infringement???
Admittedly I didn't read the rest of your post, because your first point was in such poor understanding of the topic at hand that I didn't want the headache.
Oh yeah, and just to drive your idiocy home, I'm not a network tech, just a guy who visits this site in his free time at work.
"If they have the right to "make it available" then the downloaders have the right to download it."
Let's change that to where the naysayers can understand it better:
This is like charging people with theft if they help themselves to a "free sample" at the grocery store.
apparently you missed what Mike said, so I'll c/p it here:
"Whatever you think of Drew's behavior, it was absolutely wrong to try to twist a totally unrelated law to find something to charge her with."
To clarify that, he's saying that your opinion on what she did is irrelevant here, so we don't wanna hear it. Instead let's hear about your opinion on the ruling.
"Please don't make assumptions about pricing if you don't know what it is"
I, too, have an iPhone. It is by no means the "best on the market", and there are things about it I do not like; but overall, I'm satisfied. That being said, I DO pay about $130 a month. It's the middle plan, not the low or high. So...he DOES "know what it is".
On the post: Glenn Beck Didn't Rape And Murder Anyone... But He Doesn't Want Websites Discussing It
Re: Glenn Beck
If by "weeping and sniveling" you mean ACTUALLY weeping and sniveling then two things are clearly true: 1)you've never watched or listened to his show, AND 2)you're just a designated blog-watcher whose sole job it is to bash people who disagree with the democratic agenda.
On the post: Glenn Beck Didn't Rape And Murder Anyone... But He Doesn't Want Websites Discussing It
Re: ok.. clue me in..
On the post: That Story About Warner Music Paying For A Rappers' PhD? Well... Not So Much
Re: It's just an apostrophe
On the post: UK Inventor To Lord Mandelson: Make Patent Infringement A Criminal Offense
Re: What a shock....
Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the concept explored in the 1983 "Trading Places".
On the post: That Story About Warner Music Paying For A Rappers' PhD? Well... Not So Much
Re:
Answered your own question
On the post: That Story About Warner Music Paying For A Rappers' PhD? Well... Not So Much
Re:
Fact checking means that you go and look at official documents and talk to officials.
It is clear that Mr. Dawkins did neither of those, and based his article entirely on hearsay; precisely what "professional journalists" are blasting bloggers for doing.
On the post: NPR Recognizes It Makes Business Sense To Give Up Content Cash Cow And Go Free
Re:
No! No! No! you're supposed to wait for the cue, first!
On the post: FCC To Study Single Rating System For Movies, Video Games, TV & Music
Re: The constitution?
On the post: Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From
Re: But I didn't 'make it available' I just downloaded 1000 copies, then gave them away....
If something is free, it's free. Period. Yes, there are loopholes and back doors, and tons of different ways that people can get screwed, but 0 = 0, and only 0.
On the post: Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From
Re:
No. That's neither the argument, nor what's happening. The argument is that if this company has distribution rights to these files, DISTRIBUTES THEM, and people download the files, what legal ground do they have to charge for infringement???
Admittedly I didn't read the rest of your post, because your first point was in such poor understanding of the topic at hand that I didn't want the headache.
Oh yeah, and just to drive your idiocy home, I'm not a network tech, just a guy who visits this site in his free time at work.
On the post: Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From
Re:
Let's change that to where the naysayers can understand it better:
This is like charging people with theft if they help themselves to a "free sample" at the grocery store.
On the post: Lori Drew Case Officially Dropped
Re:
"Whatever you think of Drew's behavior, it was absolutely wrong to try to twist a totally unrelated law to find something to charge her with."
To clarify that, he's saying that your opinion on what she did is irrelevant here, so we don't wanna hear it. Instead let's hear about your opinion on the ruling.
On the post: Lori Drew Case Officially Dropped
Re: Re: Isn't harassment already illegal?
On the post: Why Sprint Should Be Giving Away The Palm Pre For Free
Re:
1200-1160=40
You NETTED $40 bucks, dude. Yeah that's $40 bucks you didn't have before, but...
40/24=3.33333333
$3.33 a month...woot(?)
On the post: Why Sprint Should Be Giving Away The Palm Pre For Free
Re:
A "glowing" woman talking soothingly creeps you out???
You must curl up in the fetal position when watching Snow White then....
On the post: Why Sprint Should Be Giving Away The Palm Pre For Free
Re: Re: Re: Small Correction
I, too, have an iPhone. It is by no means the "best on the market", and there are things about it I do not like; but overall, I'm satisfied. That being said, I DO pay about $130 a month. It's the middle plan, not the low or high. So...he DOES "know what it is".
On the post: Doctor Who Uploaded Rorschach Images Now Being Investigated
Re:
On the post: Doctor Who Uploaded Rorschach Images Now Being Investigated
Re: Re:
On the post: Doctor Who Uploaded Rorschach Images Now Being Investigated
Re: Re:
i.e. Anthropology, archaeology, geology, biology, reflexology, sexology, zoology, etc.
On the post: Doctor Who Uploaded Rorschach Images Now Being Investigated
Re: Re: Re: The Doctor
Next >>