So why don't people who are pulled over just refuse to hand over their cell phones? What law can a cop cite that trumps the 4th Amendment?
If it was me, I'd politely tell the officer he could search my phone as soon as I see a warrent. If he forcibly took my phone or arrested me because I wouldn't hand it over, I'd be sure to call the ACLU post haste.
Doctors are taught in medical school, thanks to the AMA (which is funded in large part by the major pharma companies), that the answer to anything is either surgery or pharmacology. Or both.
Of course before they can decide which option to charge you for, they have to run you through as many tests as your insurance company will allow.
Never forget, as well meaning as doctors are, they have been essentially brainwashed by the AMA and pharmacutical reps. You thing the health care industry is there to cure you? No, it's a multi billion dollar industry run by large corporations (pharmacutical, HMO's, hospital conglomerates, not to mention GE and other medical equipment manufacturers) who all have shareholders and are seeking to maximize profits. Healthy people are their worst nightmare.
Back in the 'Old' days I used to make bootleg copies of songs by taping my local fm station with cassette tape...it never stopped me buying the stuff I liked....now we have the Internet Nd hard drives.... what's the diff?
Re: "It's not that consumers don't get that media piracy is wrong"
Question:So why do we have laws that punish individuals for actions that the people don't think are wrong?
Answer: Because of lobbyists like Chris Dodd and laws that allow lobbying to continue. Because without term limits every member of Congress' full time job is getting re-elected, not serving the people they supposedly represent.
I read it again, what is wrong with sharing?
Don't you share anything?
What Greevar meant by "wrong thing" is Dodd regurgitating the lies of the MPAA, and by "right thing" he's refering to Michael's point about Dodd not being willing to do the hard work required to drag the MPAA to an understanding of modern digital business models.
How about calling it what it is... Government out of control on everything and forcing companies out of the country (20 of the top companies in the US are either moving HQ outside to escape the highest corp. tax in the world, and the rest are looking to move in the next year... included, Google, GM, GE)...which will gut the economy and jobs screwing all of us...
How about I call "bullshit" on this idea that the US government is driving away large corporations with a high tax rate? You want to know why? See the below link (if you've already used up all your "free" NYT page views, or don't want to "waste" one on this link, I'm sure there must be another way around the paywall; if only I knew of a website that had that information...), and maybe pull your head out of your bum.
Actually, without piracy, it would be working out just fine.
And without drugs we'd need less prisons. Wish in one hand and crap in the other, as the saying goes. How's that war on drugs going again? Come back when you're done playing in your fantasy world.
Seriously. If you're an employer or a manager and you're seriously asking these questions, you just don't get it when it comes to social media. You're missing the whole point of these social-networking sites.
Mike, I think you missed Mr. Shepherd's point when he said this. It's not just that a company shouldn't try and control their employees social networking accounts, it's that they can't control the accounts after the employee leaves.
Once the employee that has thousands or millions of followers leaves, so do most of the followers if some company rep assumes the account. That's what I think Mr. Shepherd means by "missing the whole point."
Basically, if you think you could keep a former employee's contacts or followers, than you're an idiot who doesn't have a clue.
I think Bush criticizing Assange is acually a sneaky endorsement of him. I can see people on a jury (if not here, than Sweeden) saying, "Well if GWB doesn't like him, he must be a pretty good guy."
Mike if you still have it in it's original box you should hang onto that sidekick. Someday some nastalgic nerd will be willing to pay big bucks to add it to his obsolete gadget collection.
But the mechanisms to do so, the wide public use of P2P systems is almost entirely based on access to pirated material.
I don't know if you actually believe this crap you post or are just trolling, but this statement is laughable. So you think the only reason anybody accesses "P2P systems" is only for "pirated material?" This shows you don't have a clue. Plenty of people use uTorrent and other P2P software to trade legal and legitimate information. Many real world businesses depend on P2P software every day to share and speed up the transfer of large files.
Without P2P, bands would have to host websites and actually pay for bandwidth to distribute their songs. So rather than being free distribution, it would be paid distribution, and looked upon in the same manner that other paid promotional efforts are done.
Further, the reach would be much more limited, because people would not be out there looking for free stuff to the same level, there would not be this huge infrastructure of free P2P sites and users to move the information.
But we have P2P. So these two paragraphs are meaningless. How about living in reality instead of a fantasy world?
Mike's business models depend entirely on that structure and that public use of it to exist. Without it, his business models would be looked at in the same manner as magazine ads or perhaps giving away shiny plastic discs at high schools and universities: an interesting but not very cost effective way of marketing.
That's first sentence is false. You clearly either have no idea what "Mike's business models" are or you are intentionally distorting what some of his suggestions are. Every time he points to business models that work he says something to the effect of, "These won't work for everyone, and it's up to each band, author, etc. to figure out what does work for them." Sometimes they may include using a P2P element, but never as the sole marketing tool, and they certainly never are "entirely" dependant on them.
This reminds me of the BP spind doctors using the gasoline stations owner as folder, showing how it affected them because they were chained to a 10 year contract and couldn't just drop BP.
At the time my thought was "why do those people keep signing exclusive contracts for 10 years?".
I'd say it's a calculated risk. You get a franchise license to sell one of the largest oil producers in the world's fuel, and hope that the oil producer doesn't have a PR catastrophy in that time period. Usually it works out for you, but every now and then you roll snake eyes.
Infinite supply only applies when it is in fact infinite. There are few services willing to take the risk of internet broadcasting at a level that means anything, and most that do cannot handle more than a few users at a time. By nature, real time events are incredibly hard to pirate reliably.
Few services as of right now. Just like there were only a few file sharing services when Napster was going strong in the 90s. Interesting how you seem to think that technology won't be advancing in the future. Shows how narrow your focus is. Try standing back and looking at the bigger picture every now and then. You might be surprised at what you see.
Good God there's a lot of dumb in that comment, and that's not even referencing the hypocricy.
"What hypocricy," you ask? How about this comment of yours from further down the (threaded) comments:
People who will pirate it at $40 will pirate it at $20. People still pirate music that is 99 cents. People pirate because they want to pirate, not to save money. They want to be cool, they want to "stick it to the man", whatever their logic. Even if the price was 10 cents for a song, it would still be too much for most dedicated pirates.
Sans proof, citations, or any documentation at all. For shame!
On the post: Michigan State Police Say It'll Cost $545k To Discover What Info It's Copying Off Mobile Phones During Traffic Stops [Updated]
Re: Re: phone snooping
If it was me, I'd politely tell the officer he could search my phone as soon as I see a warrent. If he forcibly took my phone or arrested me because I wouldn't hand it over, I'd be sure to call the ACLU post haste.
On the post: Is The FDA Helping Or Hindering Medical Innovation?
Re: The other side of the pharma business.
Of course before they can decide which option to charge you for, they have to run you through as many tests as your insurance company will allow.
Never forget, as well meaning as doctors are, they have been essentially brainwashed by the AMA and pharmacutical reps. You thing the health care industry is there to cure you? No, it's a multi billion dollar industry run by large corporations (pharmacutical, HMO's, hospital conglomerates, not to mention GE and other medical equipment manufacturers) who all have shareholders and are seeking to maximize profits. Healthy people are their worst nightmare.
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: 100,000 Unauthorized Downloads Of Your Music... Or None?
Re:
Quality for one.
On the post: Why Chris Dodd Is Doing Everything Wrong With The MPAA
Re: "It's not that consumers don't get that media piracy is wrong"
Answer: Because of lobbyists like Chris Dodd and laws that allow lobbying to continue. Because without term limits every member of Congress' full time job is getting re-elected, not serving the people they supposedly represent.
On the post: Why Chris Dodd Is Doing Everything Wrong With The MPAA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd
Don't you share anything?
What Greevar meant by "wrong thing" is Dodd regurgitating the lies of the MPAA, and by "right thing" he's refering to Michael's point about Dodd not being willing to do the hard work required to drag the MPAA to an understanding of modern digital business models.
On the post: Open Data, Transparency Sites That Helped Gov't Save Billions To Be Shut Down Over $30 Million?
Re: Re: Re: Re: An idea...
How about I call "bullshit" on this idea that the US government is driving away large corporations with a high tax rate? You want to know why? See the below link (if you've already used up all your "free" NYT page views, or don't want to "waste" one on this link, I'm sure there must be another way around the paywall; if only I knew of a website that had that information...), and maybe pull your head out of your bum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
Re: Yeah, right...
More brilliant criticism from an anonymous troll.
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
Re:
And you head-in-the-sand neoluddites will pretend it's not, as your failing business model continues it's downward spiral.
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
Re: Re: Re: RE: wrong
On the post: FTC Puts Patent Trolls On Notice
I'm shocked
On the post: Rethinking Music Selling Incentives: Can A Pyramid Scheme Help Save Music Sales?
Re:
Of course you're a troll. Only "trolls" comment with outright BS that doesn't fool anyone.
On the post: Rethinking Music Selling Incentives: Can A Pyramid Scheme Help Save Music Sales?
Re: Re: Re:
And without drugs we'd need less prisons. Wish in one hand and crap in the other, as the saying goes. How's that war on drugs going again? Come back when you're done playing in your fantasy world.
On the post: Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'
Seriously. If you're an employer or a manager and you're seriously asking these questions, you just don't get it when it comes to social media. You're missing the whole point of these social-networking sites.
Mike, I think you missed Mr. Shepherd's point when he said this. It's not just that a company shouldn't try and control their employees social networking accounts, it's that they can't control the accounts after the employee leaves.
Once the employee that has thousands or millions of followers leaves, so do most of the followers if some company rep assumes the account. That's what I think Mr. Shepherd means by "missing the whole point."
Basically, if you think you could keep a former employee's contacts or followers, than you're an idiot who doesn't have a clue.
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
On the post: T-Mobile Finally Kills Off The Sidekick
Hang on to that Sidekick!
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know if you actually believe this crap you post or are just trolling, but this statement is laughable. So you think the only reason anybody accesses "P2P systems" is only for "pirated material?" This shows you don't have a clue. Plenty of people use uTorrent and other P2P software to trade legal and legitimate information. Many real world businesses depend on P2P software every day to share and speed up the transfer of large files.
Without P2P, bands would have to host websites and actually pay for bandwidth to distribute their songs. So rather than being free distribution, it would be paid distribution, and looked upon in the same manner that other paid promotional efforts are done.
Further, the reach would be much more limited, because people would not be out there looking for free stuff to the same level, there would not be this huge infrastructure of free P2P sites and users to move the information.
But we have P2P. So these two paragraphs are meaningless. How about living in reality instead of a fantasy world?
Mike's business models depend entirely on that structure and that public use of it to exist. Without it, his business models would be looked at in the same manner as magazine ads or perhaps giving away shiny plastic discs at high schools and universities: an interesting but not very cost effective way of marketing.
That's first sentence is false. You clearly either have no idea what "Mike's business models" are or you are intentionally distorting what some of his suggestions are. Every time he points to business models that work he says something to the effect of, "These won't work for everyone, and it's up to each band, author, etc. to figure out what does work for them." Sometimes they may include using a P2P element, but never as the sole marketing tool, and they certainly never are "entirely" dependant on them.
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
Re: Re: No way to affect the top
At the time my thought was "why do those people keep signing exclusive contracts for 10 years?".
I'd say it's a calculated risk. You get a franchise license to sell one of the largest oil producers in the world's fuel, and hope that the oil producer doesn't have a PR catastrophy in that time period. Usually it works out for you, but every now and then you roll snake eyes.
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Few services as of right now. Just like there were only a few file sharing services when Napster was going strong in the 90s. Interesting how you seem to think that technology won't be advancing in the future. Shows how narrow your focus is. Try standing back and looking at the bigger picture every now and then. You might be surprised at what you see.
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What hypocricy," you ask? How about this comment of yours from further down the (threaded) comments:
People who will pirate it at $40 will pirate it at $20. People still pirate music that is 99 cents. People pirate because they want to pirate, not to save money. They want to be cool, they want to "stick it to the man", whatever their logic. Even if the price was 10 cents for a song, it would still be too much for most dedicated pirates.
Sans proof, citations, or any documentation at all. For shame!
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Re:
Next >>