Sure!! As soon as I finish ripping all my old CD's to my new external hard drive, I'll bring them all along!! Should we use the Boston Harbor again, or is there a river that runs through Hollywood??
It's similar to taxing them, without offering them any sort of representation to have a say in the matter... For some reason, I think an historical war could have started over something similar... I can't know for sure though, because apparently being an American in today's society means that I have to blind myself to historically relevant facts and stop trying to learn from my predecessors' lessons...
Thirded. I wasn't ever that big a pirate, just a few movies that looked like they could go either way (be really good or really bad) that I didn't want to end up feeling pissed off about after paying theater prices for. I'd done that far too much already in my lifetime. Avatar was one of them...was very skeptical that it'd be any good, heard mixed reviews, watched MOST of it online, but a little more than half way through I had seen enough to know I'd be pleased enough to pay theater prices, and so I did...twice. Now I'm on Netflix and I love it, can't wait until they get more streaming stuff and lose that whole "only available on disc" bullspit. I even canceled my cable TV subscription cuz I'm so happy with Netflix. So go ahead Hollywood, do away with them, and then watch as I go out of my way to make sure you ass clowns do not get ANY more money from my pocket. Not even a redbox rental for a stay at home date night. Nothing.
As one who was born and raised in New Hampshire, I find myself thinking the same thing right now. I hope the values of that motto haven't fallen like the Old Man in the Mountain...
"It could even be considered that the the building owner was encouraging it" ... COULD, you say, but I think only by those narrow minded enough to not see the bigger picture.
"No, but if you are saying "I hate the government, meet me at 10PM with your guns and bombs and let's take the kremlin over", you might be going over the edge."
-You'll get no argument that that would be going over the edge (which sometimes is inevitable, see the Declaration of Independence), though there is absolutely NO logical step that would take the actions of a user, going over the edge or not, and make them the responsibility of someone else (the company, or building or what have you..) Users are not a company's children, and therefore the company holds no responsibility for the actions of them (Provided they follow the clear legal guidelines).
Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
Bush does have the right to say what he wants, but the day he became President of the United States, I think he took a bigger life long role than that of simple private citizen. It was a choice, and no one forced his hand. As such, just like major sports leagues hold their players to a higher standard than 'private citizens' because they are role models, and in the public eye their words and actions hold significantly more weight than the words or actions of you or I, Bush still needs to exercise restraint.
This is not a lawyer crying for attention for himself, as much as it is trying to bring attention to the case. If people are paying enough attention, then today they will see what Bush said, and tomorrow they will see all the responses. If they are not paying attention, then they may only hear one side of it, form an UNeducated opinion based on only that one side, and reach the wrong conclusion (like how Obama promised us 'hope' and 'change we can believe in' but didn't actually tell us that it would be 'hope that the rich can stay rich in a poor economy' and 'change that you can believe won't actually make anything better' so a large number of his supporters would really like to reach out and slap him, but I digress).
Personally, hearing Bush speak out against Assange like this only strengthens my beliefs that there are leaked documents out there which could bring down a rain of terror on him and his administration, and he doesn't want that. Just like when Bank of America took action against wikileaks, and a day later we learned that it was because rumors of a damning document about Bank of America and their role in the financial crisis, was due to be released.
"Do you think that building would be ignored by the authorities? Do you think that it would be tolerated for long? Do you not think that the building owner would face charges?"
Do you think those would be the "right" things to do?? It is not a crime against humanity to say, or even write somewhere, that you hate the government, or more appropriately, that you hate something the government is doing. Online or off, just because it is something you do not like, does not mean it is something that is 'wrong'.
Wow, I managed to start the first Newspaper in New Hampshire in the 1700's, get elected governor of North Carolina in the late 1800's, and apparently I still haunt the governors mansion from time to time. Does that mean Google is trying to turn me into a time traveler??
Anyone else read that last paragraph in a deep voice with some music in the background, trying to figure out a way to squeeze "This 'beer' is for you Mr. Non-overreacting-gaming-company-CEO, we salute you" ???
'beer' is because I'm not sure if I can actually use Bud Light here... I don't want to get sued...
Don't independent contractors need to be hired to do work?? I don't think this is a case where he went out, took the picture, and then went to the family and said "Hey, this is a nice photo of you, I'll sell you a copy if you want."
I've done a bit of contractor work, and while it's true that when you are a contractor, you're not exactly an employee...you're still very much comparable to a temporary employee, and the work you are doing is still for the company that signed your contract. Seems like whether or not he was a literal "employee" or not, he still fits the bill as an employee of the family in the legal sense as far as this is concerned...
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I am using a little bit of common sense here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is totally wrong given the current state of the U.S. Legal system.
Noooo... If terrorism is just about making someone afraid, then Glen Beck and Fox News are the biggest terrorists in the world. Glen Beck makes me afraid every time I hear a clip, because it's down right scary that there are people out there stupid enough to believe his bullspit. Osama Bin Laden doesn't really scare me...Terrorists flying a plane into the WTC did. The possibility of harm doesn't scare me, because I'm smart enough to realize there is an equal possibility of no harm. It's Fox News' assertions that this danger is inevitable or right around the corner and there's no protection from liberals, and the fact that idiots out there believe it, that scares me.
That's a huge overreach to try and say we're claiming the government has nothing to do with us. My words simply said that the Government does not always do what the people wish it would do. That's a pretty simple concept to grasp, and merely serves to suggest that anyone who disagrees greatly with the U.S. policy on something, should think twice before blaming the average citizen for it.
The time will come :-) I used to think the same way, that I'd be missing something if I cut the TV cord, and that held me back for a while. Finally a friend convinced me that "needing it now" was a really bad reason to pay so much to the cable company, and that it would eventually come to Netflix, commercial free, with the whole season available at once instead of having to wait a week between episodes. For the shows not yet on Hulu+, I decided waiting was the only way to let the providers know that I'm sick of cable, and it became a very reasonable price to pay, considering how much money I'm saving. Rock on with that homebrew PVR though, with that and perhaps Boxee's software or box, cutting the TV cord could be sooner than you think! :-)
This really makes me wish I could vote for him... I can't believe he's not only thinking about the current impact, but also the future impacts, and unintended consequences it may bring overseas.. My hat is certainly off to him. Just wow.
On the post: Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures
Re: So...
On the post: Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures
Re:
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: I actually paid for content
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
Because this side benefits the public, and the greater good. The other side benefits filthy rich corporations and greedy executives. It's that simple.
On the post: New Hampshire Police Charge Man With 'Wiretapping' Because He Made A Phone Call During Traffic Stop
Re: Live Free or Die
On the post: Russia Wants Social Media Sites To Be Liable For User Content To Avoid Middle East-Style Protests
Re: Re: Re:
"No, but if you are saying "I hate the government, meet me at 10PM with your guns and bombs and let's take the kremlin over", you might be going over the edge."
-You'll get no argument that that would be going over the edge (which sometimes is inevitable, see the Declaration of Independence), though there is absolutely NO logical step that would take the actions of a user, going over the edge or not, and make them the responsibility of someone else (the company, or building or what have you..) Users are not a company's children, and therefore the company holds no responsibility for the actions of them (Provided they follow the clear legal guidelines).
On the post: Fox Sends DMCA Takedown To Google To Remove Link To DMCA Takedown Sent By Fox
Re: Re:
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
This is not a lawyer crying for attention for himself, as much as it is trying to bring attention to the case. If people are paying enough attention, then today they will see what Bush said, and tomorrow they will see all the responses. If they are not paying attention, then they may only hear one side of it, form an UNeducated opinion based on only that one side, and reach the wrong conclusion (like how Obama promised us 'hope' and 'change we can believe in' but didn't actually tell us that it would be 'hope that the rich can stay rich in a poor economy' and 'change that you can believe won't actually make anything better' so a large number of his supporters would really like to reach out and slap him, but I digress).
Personally, hearing Bush speak out against Assange like this only strengthens my beliefs that there are leaked documents out there which could bring down a rain of terror on him and his administration, and he doesn't want that. Just like when Bank of America took action against wikileaks, and a day later we learned that it was because rumors of a damning document about Bank of America and their role in the financial crisis, was due to be released.
On the post: Russia Wants Social Media Sites To Be Liable For User Content To Avoid Middle East-Style Protests
Re:
Do you think those would be the "right" things to do?? It is not a crime against humanity to say, or even write somewhere, that you hate the government, or more appropriately, that you hate something the government is doing. Online or off, just because it is something you do not like, does not mean it is something that is 'wrong'.
On the post: DailyDirt: Evolution Made Some Smart Stuff Other Than Us
Design
The only reasons I can think of would be to give their lives some form of purpose, and also...to have something to laugh at :-)
On the post: Yet Another Person Sues Google Because They Don't Like Pornographic Results When People Search On Their Name
Re: Weird.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: It's NOT ok...
Aren't those the words that got Nixon 'Frosted'???
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Typo maybe??
I think the last word was supposed to be "profitable."
On the post: Yet Another Person Sues Google Because They Don't Like Pornographic Results When People Search On Their Name
On the post: Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
This one's for you...
'beer' is because I'm not sure if I can actually use Bud Light here... I don't want to get sued...
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
Re: Re: Work for Hire
I've done a bit of contractor work, and while it's true that when you are a contractor, you're not exactly an employee...you're still very much comparable to a temporary employee, and the work you are doing is still for the company that signed your contract. Seems like whether or not he was a literal "employee" or not, he still fits the bill as an employee of the family in the legal sense as far as this is concerned...
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I am using a little bit of common sense here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is totally wrong given the current state of the U.S. Legal system.
On the post: TSA Agents Caught Stealing From Passengers & Helping Subordinates Steal As Well
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ditch cable!!!
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Wow
Next >>