Lastly, here’s an alternative warning found with the movie Fight Club:
WARNING
If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second off your life. Don’t you have other things to do? Is your life so empty that you honestly can’t think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all who claim it? Do you read everything you’re supposed to read? Do you think everything you’re supposed to think? Buy what you’re told you should want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you’re alive. If you don’t claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned……
If you let reality into the equation then the labels barely have a case at all! They realize this and conveniently avoid any presentation of reality or facts when it comes to proving harm/damage. Stick to the theory not the reality.
If they were awarded damages based on fact, the guy might actually have to pay for his music at full retail price and maybe damages are trebled. The total fine might be more like $200-$300, which would actually seem almost reasonable. But remember, reasonable is not an option and it certainly does pay the legal team!
I disagree with you on this one, Mike. It would seem entirely plausible that a program with NYT in the title that is devised to work on the NYT website, would imply to many to be an NYT authorized program. It really isn't that far fetched to think so IMHO.
They could have spent the money on redundant server farms and hosted their own copy of Wikileaks! That way they would be in a position to report new items as soon as they appear and could beat the crowd to the audience. Just saying...
"You're pro-piracy, so I imagine you will receive high marks."
Hmmm, that seems to be a huge leap of faithless based logic on your part.
First of all, I legally own all of the software on my computers with valid licenses for the ones I don't "actually own".
Second, I only download free music from iTunes, Spin Magazine and Amazon so I'm pretty sure none of that is infringing.
Third, I don't use any type of torrent programs, nor do I visit torrent sites, nor do I otherwise download movies or other content.
I disagree with copyright and patent laws from the perspective that all works should end up in the public domain probably within 20 years of being granted. I think content creators, led by Disney et al, have slowly eroded our culture by stealing ideas from the public domain, then hiding them behind copyright protections for lengths of time that are defined to exceed the lifetime of the creator. Patent laws are equally absurd. Especially when it comes to pharma, where people actually die or are driven into bankruptcy just to be able to afford medicine to survive. It is simply criminal to acquire a patent for a drug that cost $10 dose, then without lifting a single finger to improve the product, raise the price astronomically because others are simply not even allowed to offer an alternative.
I do believe that patents and copyright have their place and should be obeyed but I completely disagree with the lengths of time these protections are in place and how they can be abused to stifle new works, derivatives thereof, actual innovation and the furthering or extension of previous products. I don't believe that using stacks of money to initiate legal battles with thousands of individuals that simply can't afford to defend themselves despite their innocence (Yes, they ARE ALL INNOCENT, until PROVEN otherwise in a court of law.)is a justifiable business method - it sure looks, smells and feels like extortion.
Somewhere in there you will surely find that I am pro-piracy. I'm actually waiting for your reply so I know where this idea of yours comes from.
How does a company, who didn't own the rights at the time of the "infringement" (obviously used in the loosest possible terms even for those who are the most die hard pro-copyright), even make a case for damages when they didn't own the rights at the time this occurred?
Apparently, both the justice system and the direction in which water flows South of the equator are in direct contrast to what happens North of the equator!
I consider myself pretty open minded but I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around this one (or two if you count the appeal that was also lost).
Contrarian: "Well it's a bad law because: Reason A, Reason B, Reason C plus these three arbitrary studies (citations) and the results."
Shit-roll: "Freetard! If you don't like the law change it!"
Contrarian: "That's exactly why I come to TD! So we can discuss the possible ramifications of the change, the reasons why change needs to be made (or not) and exactly what changes need to be made and why. Why are you here?"
Shit-roll: "Someone has to stick up for the "haves" while the have-nots are deprived of their personal freedom, liberties, and due process as accorded by the law. Have-nots, by their definition, will not be able to afford to defend themselves, thus we have the American public and society as a whole (aka "poor" suckers) in the crosshairs. Only the haves can use the law as a weapon, the have-nots will just have to hope they have some stupid legal defense (which we will change ASAP), if they can afford it."
"Monsanto's got to protect themselves, and if you take a look at what an economic behemoth they are, they're clearly bringing some value to the world."
It finally hit me - what an epiphany! Now I know where the AC Troll mindset comes from regardless of the topic (music, farming, copyright, pharma, etc.) - it's the not-so-classic version of the golden rule - "He who has the gold makes the rule". Every single AC shill/troll (can we just call them shit-rolls?) fully supports any business method that is backed by ginormous stacks of money regardless of how it was obtained or whether it was legal or not! Want to know where the shit-rolls stand on an issue? Count the money and you'll have your answer!
Needle in a haystack scavenger hunt time: find posts here on TD where the shit-rolls support the side of the debate that DOESN'T already have the bankroll on their side. First post wins a date with Copyright Man!
"A defendant can try and prove their innocence in court."
WTF!!! The court system is/was NEVER intended for someone to PROVE their innocence! You ARE INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Quit using the court system as your business method you intrepid little f*ck!!!
And you wonder why we have so little respect for those on the other side of this debate?
See - now you've confused the troll! You offered him freely available information which goes against the very fiber of his being! I would not be surprised to hear a news report of the trolls demise due to implosion.
Nice one Greevar, you may have solved the perplexing question of "How to rid Techdirt of the myopic troll?" - offer them FREE information to prove a point! BRILLIANT!!
Perhaps because he is like most Anonymous Cowards, grandstanding and spewing hot air because it resonated with some voters. He is likely less interested in the content of the document (which would require actual work to understand) and more interested in the political grandstanding moment of asking for it.
On the post: Is The FBI Lying To Congress About Its Abuses Of The Patriot Act?
Re:
On the post: Is The FBI Lying To Congress About Its Abuses Of The Patriot Act?
Re: Re: Are they lying??
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
Don't ignore them all...
WARNING
If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second off your life. Don’t you have other things to do? Is your life so empty that you honestly can’t think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all who claim it? Do you read everything you’re supposed to read? Do you think everything you’re supposed to think? Buy what you’re told you should want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you’re alive. If you don’t claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned……
(source: )
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Re: Re: I'm baffled ..
(Another vote for an edit button, MM!)
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Re: I'm baffled ..
If they were awarded damages based on fact, the guy might actually have to pay for his music at full retail price and maybe damages are trebled. The total fine might be more like $200-$300, which would actually seem almost reasonable. But remember, reasonable is not an option and it certainly does pay the legal team!
On the post: Greek Site That Links To Legal Videos By Rightsholders... Sued For Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Greek Site That Links To Legal Videos By Rightsholders... Sued For Infringement
Popcorn in hand!
On the post: NYTimes Threatens NYTClean Bookmarklet Maker With Bogus Trademark Claim
Disagree....
On the post: How Else Could The NY Times Have Spent $40 Million?
Server farms!
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm, that seems to be a huge leap of faithless based logic on your part.
First of all, I legally own all of the software on my computers with valid licenses for the ones I don't "actually own".
Second, I only download free music from iTunes, Spin Magazine and Amazon so I'm pretty sure none of that is infringing.
Third, I don't use any type of torrent programs, nor do I visit torrent sites, nor do I otherwise download movies or other content.
I disagree with copyright and patent laws from the perspective that all works should end up in the public domain probably within 20 years of being granted. I think content creators, led by Disney et al, have slowly eroded our culture by stealing ideas from the public domain, then hiding them behind copyright protections for lengths of time that are defined to exceed the lifetime of the creator. Patent laws are equally absurd. Especially when it comes to pharma, where people actually die or are driven into bankruptcy just to be able to afford medicine to survive. It is simply criminal to acquire a patent for a drug that cost $10 dose, then without lifting a single finger to improve the product, raise the price astronomically because others are simply not even allowed to offer an alternative.
I do believe that patents and copyright have their place and should be obeyed but I completely disagree with the lengths of time these protections are in place and how they can be abused to stifle new works, derivatives thereof, actual innovation and the furthering or extension of previous products. I don't believe that using stacks of money to initiate legal battles with thousands of individuals that simply can't afford to defend themselves despite their innocence (Yes, they ARE ALL INNOCENT, until PROVEN otherwise in a court of law.)is a justifiable business method - it sure looks, smells and feels like extortion.
Somewhere in there you will surely find that I am pro-piracy. I'm actually waiting for your reply so I know where this idea of yours comes from.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
My post above...
On the post: The Cognitive Science Explanation For Why Copyright Doesn't Make Much Sense
Re: Re: I'm not sure I understand...
On the post: Appeals Court Still Says 'Down Under' Infringes On Decades Old Folk Song
Explanation please....
Apparently, both the justice system and the direction in which water flows South of the equator are in direct contrast to what happens North of the equator!
I consider myself pretty open minded but I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around this one (or two if you count the appeal that was also lost).
On the post: Truck Drivers Told They Need To Pay A Licensing Fee To Listen To Music While Driving
Where is the AC Parade?
On the post: Monsanto Sued By Organic Farmers Who Don't Want To Be Accused Of Patent Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Contrarian: "Well it's a bad law because: Reason A, Reason B, Reason C plus these three arbitrary studies (citations) and the results."
Shit-roll: "Freetard! If you don't like the law change it!"
Contrarian: "That's exactly why I come to TD! So we can discuss the possible ramifications of the change, the reasons why change needs to be made (or not) and exactly what changes need to be made and why. Why are you here?"
Shit-roll: "Someone has to stick up for the "haves" while the have-nots are deprived of their personal freedom, liberties, and due process as accorded by the law. Have-nots, by their definition, will not be able to afford to defend themselves, thus we have the American public and society as a whole (aka "poor" suckers) in the crosshairs. Only the haves can use the law as a weapon, the have-nots will just have to hope they have some stupid legal defense (which we will change ASAP), if they can afford it."
Thanks for proving my point AC!
On the post: Monsanto Sued By Organic Farmers Who Don't Want To Be Accused Of Patent Infringement
Re:
It finally hit me - what an epiphany! Now I know where the AC Troll mindset comes from regardless of the topic (music, farming, copyright, pharma, etc.) - it's the not-so-classic version of the golden rule - "He who has the gold makes the rule". Every single AC shill/troll (can we just call them shit-rolls?) fully supports any business method that is backed by ginormous stacks of money regardless of how it was obtained or whether it was legal or not! Want to know where the shit-rolls stand on an issue? Count the money and you'll have your answer!
Needle in a haystack scavenger hunt time: find posts here on TD where the shit-rolls support the side of the debate that DOESN'T already have the bankroll on their side. First post wins a date with Copyright Man!
On the post: Danish Supreme Court Sets High Bar For Evidence In File Sharing Cases
Excuse me?!
WTF!!! The court system is/was NEVER intended for someone to PROVE their innocence! You ARE INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Quit using the court system as your business method you intrepid little f*ck!!!
And you wonder why we have so little respect for those on the other side of this debate?
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice one Greevar, you may have solved the perplexing question of "How to rid Techdirt of the myopic troll?" - offer them FREE information to prove a point! BRILLIANT!!
On the post: USTR Refuses To Release Congressional Research Service Study On Legality Of ACTA
Re:
FTFY
Next >>