It's late here, I'm still at work and I'm afraid I really can't be arsed to find the link, but there was something on one of the bbc articles about it where a spokesperson was saying that they'd find away to work around https and encryption.
Could have been bluff and horseshit mind...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
Out of curiosity, how big is big when it comes to search?
Are Bing big search? Ask? Yahoo (still)? Dogpile? Duck duck go?
Does, as it were, size actually matter?
Or are you really just aiming this at google?
Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
So the creators of a device that helps people commit a crime should be treated as associates to any crime that is assisted by the use of that tool?
That what you're saying?
Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
Are you really Bob or are you a parody Bob?
"give Big Search their 1st Amendment protection and then put the search engine in jail for all of its infringement, drug running, and worse"
Search engines are drug-running now? Really? Code scripts are moving physical drugs across borders? Really?
And worse as well?
Search engines are doing worse than drug-running? Arson? Homicide? Terrorism?
:¬O
... won't someone think of the children?
How long before someone interested group starts to claim that surely we need to lock down the web and stop all the evil and pernicious companies exploiting our children's data?
Or we could let them grow up in this environment and figure out their own ways to control how much they choose to interact with it and what data they wish to share.
I was thinking about this last night (there's another post further down talking about the whole "any publicity is good publicity") and I'm wondering if that's still really true?*
What I mean is that in a pre-user-generated-content world the number of people who could actually/effectively make information public was fairly low. Reporters, critics etc all needed a platform (print / radio / tv) to publish on.
For big corporations these things were relatively easy to influence over a comfortable dinner in an appropriate gentlemen's club.
For small companies (much like independent artists today) your biggest challenge was getting your name out there and we got to this point of "any publicity is good publicity".
But this has changed now. One letter to a newspaper (that may not be published) is now a blog or facebook post that's available everywhere.
Given how quick people are to criticise and how slow they are to praise, we've almost swung the pendulum the other way to "most publicity is bad publicity".
* Disclaimer - I'm no marketeer, I have no idea if it was ever true.
I agree with this actually.
If you could wind back time and take the court case out of it, then imagine that this was their official response to someone copying an idea*, then I reckon that would actually have gone down pretty well.
You know, I think I might set myself up as a Internet Reputation Management (IRM*) consultant. Contents of my first seminar:
1 Streisand Effect
2 Streisand Effect
and
3 Streisand Effect
I know that's the same thing three times but I've got to pitch it to people dumb enough to hire an IRM consultant.
Right, your colour settings are squiffy so it's Mike's fault?
The point is that the users of the site (not Mike) reported your comment because it's a bullshit comment. It's not related to the article, it has zero basis in fact and it's actually pretty insulting for a whole bunch of people on here who either are artists or don't pirate or both.
If you'd care to provide any "inconvenient facts" you'll find we're happy to discuss them. As long as you just keep spouting shit then you'll get the report button.
This i just don't understand. It's not a zero-sum game. If someone uses one of my songs on a soundtrack for a fan-fiction (thanks folks you're awesome!) that means more people have heard my song. It doesn't mean that I have fewer copies of that song in my bandcamp account. What it means is that a couple more people come along and listen to my stuff and, oh look, some of them have bought a copy.
That's nice.
If Donald Trump uses my song in an advert for something I don't agree with then thousands of people will hear my song.
So I'll go to the you-tube clip and state my case. I'll put an article on my website, my facebook, my twitter account etc etc etc. And then friggin' thousands of people would know about my song, and talk about it, and repost it.
And a percentage of them would buy it.
Which would be a bunch of people who would never have heard it before.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
Strawman much? Generalise much? What Lowery speaks is anathema to how a lot of artists feel. Trying to pitch this kind of discussion as pirates vs artists is neither accurate nor helpful.
Think you may have missed the point here. It's not about whether having a Comp Sci background means your automatically able to teach maths. It's about the fact that the school had decided to offer this lady a job, hence they'd decided that she WAS clearly able to teach, but then had to retract that solely because of a missing bit of paperwork.
On the post: Get Ready For The Political Fight Against Encryption
Re:
Could have been bluff and horseshit mind...
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
Are Bing big search? Ask? Yahoo (still)? Dogpile? Duck duck go?
Does, as it were, size actually matter?
Or are you really just aiming this at google?
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
thank you.
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
That what you're saying?
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
"give Big Search their 1st Amendment protection and then put the search engine in jail for all of its infringement, drug running, and worse"
Search engines are drug-running now? Really? Code scripts are moving physical drugs across borders? Really?
And worse as well?
Search engines are doing worse than drug-running? Arson? Homicide? Terrorism?
:¬O
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re:
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or are you still arguing that one download = one lost sale?
Aside from that, what's your point? Or is it simply that there are fewer people listing themselves as professional artists nowadays?
And so what?
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re:
an average rating of 8.3/10 and a 67% "want to see" rate?
That ain't faint praise.
On the post: Data Mining Exec Pays For Burgers In Cash To Keep His Insurance Company From Knowing His Bad Diet Habits
But but but...
How long before someone interested group starts to claim that surely we need to lock down the web and stop all the evil and pernicious companies exploiting our children's data?
Or we could let them grow up in this environment and figure out their own ways to control how much they choose to interact with it and what data they wish to share.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell me you really aren't trying to play that card.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Without copyright laws....
clickclickclickclick
Where would music be now if Bach had been able to copyright equal temperament for life +70 years?
On the post: Gym Allegedly Threatens To Call Police On Blogger For Blogging That Its Prices Were A Bit High
Re: Re: Business Opportunity
What I mean is that in a pre-user-generated-content world the number of people who could actually/effectively make information public was fairly low. Reporters, critics etc all needed a platform (print / radio / tv) to publish on.
For big corporations these things were relatively easy to influence over a comfortable dinner in an appropriate gentlemen's club.
For small companies (much like independent artists today) your biggest challenge was getting your name out there and we got to this point of "any publicity is good publicity".
But this has changed now. One letter to a newspaper (that may not be published) is now a blog or facebook post that's available everywhere.
Given how quick people are to criticise and how slow they are to praise, we've almost swung the pendulum the other way to "most publicity is bad publicity".
* Disclaimer - I'm no marketeer, I have no idea if it was ever true.
On the post: CBS Mocks Its Own Failed Copyright Lawsuit By Sarcastically Announcing New 'Completely Original' Show 'Dancing On The Stars'
Re:
If you could wind back time and take the court case out of it, then imagine that this was their official response to someone copying an idea*, then I reckon that would actually have gone down pretty well.
* that they've copied themselves, but hey...
On the post: Gym Allegedly Threatens To Call Police On Blogger For Blogging That Its Prices Were A Bit High
Business Opportunity
1 Streisand Effect
2 Streisand Effect
and
3 Streisand Effect
I know that's the same thing three times but I've got to pitch it to people dumb enough to hire an IRM consultant.
* copyright, obviously...
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Enough with this Nina already!
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re:
The point is that the users of the site (not Mike) reported your comment because it's a bullshit comment. It's not related to the article, it has zero basis in fact and it's actually pretty insulting for a whole bunch of people on here who either are artists or don't pirate or both.
If you'd care to provide any "inconvenient facts" you'll find we're happy to discuss them. As long as you just keep spouting shit then you'll get the report button.
On the post: Copyright Ratchet In Action Again: UK Introduces Yet Another Unjustified Extension
Re: Techdirt's stupid blue Facebook banner
;¬)
On the post: Nina Paley Explains Intellectual Disobedience
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This i just don't understand. It's not a zero-sum game. If someone uses one of my songs on a soundtrack for a fan-fiction (thanks folks you're awesome!) that means more people have heard my song. It doesn't mean that I have fewer copies of that song in my bandcamp account. What it means is that a couple more people come along and listen to my stuff and, oh look, some of them have bought a copy.
That's nice.
If Donald Trump uses my song in an advert for something I don't agree with then thousands of people will hear my song.
So I'll go to the you-tube clip and state my case. I'll put an article on my website, my facebook, my twitter account etc etc etc. And then friggin' thousands of people would know about my song, and talk about it, and repost it.
And a percentage of them would buy it.
Which would be a bunch of people who would never have heard it before.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Teachers
Next >>