I think I get all the arguments against Mike's position here. It's like saying this guy did something wrong and got kicked in the face, and now he's coming back with a black eye and doing more wrong, so she wants to shoot him so he just can't come back.
I get that, and it makes sense to an extent. Mike isn't trying to say that she shouldn't use the legal system, just because he doesn't want her to. I believe he's simply asking the question, is it really necessary to kill someone (sue them in court) just to set the punishment in stone? That black eye isn't going away for at least as long as the lawsuit outcome would be remembered anyway. The guy already lost all of his credibility, so why does she need to use taxpayer money in court to essentially establish what the "court of the common man" or in the terms used, the marketplace of ideas, has already established??
Personally, I can't pick a side on this issue... I do think that some annoyances need to be dealt with in the fullest extent possible, but I also believe that any court case that isn't really necessary is a huge waste of valuable resources and I frown upon them.
I recently just switched to streaming only (see above comments by me) and only ever needed to use a user name and password when I first set it up. To me, that's still better than waiting around during a 4 hour window for some guy in dirty boots to show up and plug the box into the wall for me...
Tivo still requires the expensive cable subscription, and Hulu+ provides recommendations based on what you've already subscribed to as well... Delete something from your Tivo: it's gone, watch something from your queue: it's not in your queue anymore, but the service still has it available to you should you want to pull it up again. Commercials are much much less invasive, and my favorite part about them is that they provide a count down until the show returns. I could go on and on about the benefits i've seen, but I really thought the ability to be a bit lazier about TV and the significantly lower price point would have been enough.
Also, did you read that Tivo is shutting down service in the UK to customers that it wants to upgrade but don't feel the need on their own?? A company like that is definitely not one I would want to do business with...and especially if I would have to pay for Tivo service above and beyond my already far too expensive Cable service.
A week and a half ago, I purchased a Roku box (there are a few models, and comparable set top boxes...I got this one for the very reasonable price of $80, and $16/month for Netflix and Hulu+) I fell in love with the thing immediately. It's better than cable television, because you don't have to remember to record everything you want to watch. On hulu, you subscribe to shows, and they are in your queue the morning after they air. Netflix gives you the backlogs of old seasons, and many many movies to stream instantly. There's also the option of Amazon OnDemand, which is pretty darn expensive per show, but includes all the shows that are not yet available on Hulu that I watch...Netflix even streams the Starz series Spartacus (both seasons). After canceling my plan with my cable provider to ditch the TV and Home Phone (which I didn't even have plugged in anyway...) I'm SAVING a net of about $120 PER MONTH, and I am enjoying my TV watching experience much much more.
I got rid of cable TV and became a happier consumer...that is what the cable companies are afraid of. They have been ripping people off so badly for so long, and they do not want their cash cow to die because people realize just how unhappy they were...
Wasn't it one of the Google officials who famously stated that "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have nothing to hide" in response to why it's OK not to have privacy online......or something along those lines??
Google trying to be secretive like this is very scary.
@ 87: That's not the same thing. Drug dealers in the street sense are obviously breaking the law, therefore giving the authorities probable cause on sight to arrest, and bring for trial.
If you wanted a valid comparison to this scenario using drug sellers, it would be "I wonder if Masnick thinks that the corner pharmacy should be warned and the owner arrested for trial before they get shut down on the suspicion of selling counterfeit prescriptions?" And I can't speak for him, but I would say "YES" myself... They should really be proven guilty before they are treated as such, that's the root premise of our justice system.
Oh yeah, just like with Search Engines right? There was a good one way back, Lycos, but then all kinds of copycats entered the game like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft with many offerings... And then the scammers saw that there was a lot of traffic and now no one uses search engines because they're all junk????
Dude, you're not even using logic for this argument...
I think a crapload of money and old age are the only things removing their motivation to do anything... and I don't really understand how being on tour for 2 years and then going into a foursome to play more shows for at least another year, as you say, isn't an understandable excuse that could be otherwise put as "they were too busy to worry about writing songs...there just wasn't a pressing need for them to."
If he's turning himself into a pirate, running the risk that all pirates risk of being sued for egregious amounts of money, why exactly should he piss away that money for the disc?? Having paid for the disc legally would not prevent the MafIAAs from suing him should they find out he downloaded a torrent, so really what's the benefit to him for doing two things for one result??? There isn't one.
"Still, this really does highlight the ridiculousness of Sony's campaign to pretend such things don't exist. The more they try to deny it, the more people learn about it. "
Wow, that last sentence could be applied to so many things and still hold just as much truth. Like prostitution and drug use, in case that's not clear to any Attorney's General that may see this comment.
The true value of something does not need to shrink whatsoever for that thing to become overvalued. The perceived value would simply need to grow at a rate faster than the true value is growing. See all the laws, and the lack of any actual benefit coming of them, for your proof of overvaluation.
"but I guess appeasing special interests is more important than actually working to promote progress and improve the economy."
You're missing one important piece of the puzzle that will make this all crystal clear. Rule #1 in every persons book is to look out for yourself. What is in the IP Czar's best interest is getting paid large sums of money by those special interest groups, and in order to accomplish that, those groups need to be appeased. Appeasing the special interests alone might not be more important, but as the only way to pad your own pockets, it jumps a few spots on the list, at the expense of the rest of the world. It's all about selfishness and greed, and an inability for these people in power to look beyond their own needs to the needs of the general population. The only solution I can think of for this problem, is real, true transparency...and now you know why that isn't really too high on anybody's list of things to accomplish.
"It's the product, not the company that matters here."
Wrong. It's the convenience of Netflix that people pay for. If Netflix won't pay, do NOT expect anyone else to come in, pay those high prices, and be successful. By that time, anyone who really wants the content would have found other ways to get it without paying more than what they felt was fair for the CONVENIENCE of Netflix.
The title of the post is not necessarily some bold statement that Mike agrees with and will try to defend. He's still running a website, and still needs eye's viewing his website to keep it running. The content is in the post and the articles, not the headline.
I would think anyone with half a brain, especially anyone who reads this site often, would know the difference by now.
Although, if you could read this whole post and still somehow believe Mike to be toting "new evidence that shows talking while driving makes the roads safer," I shouldn't really expect you to have half a brain.
On the post: If The Whole World Knows A False Statement Was Made About You... Why Still Sue For Defamation?
Re:
I get that, and it makes sense to an extent. Mike isn't trying to say that she shouldn't use the legal system, just because he doesn't want her to. I believe he's simply asking the question, is it really necessary to kill someone (sue them in court) just to set the punishment in stone? That black eye isn't going away for at least as long as the lawsuit outcome would be remembered anyway. The guy already lost all of his credibility, so why does she need to use taxpayer money in court to essentially establish what the "court of the common man" or in the terms used, the marketplace of ideas, has already established??
Personally, I can't pick a side on this issue... I do think that some annoyances need to be dealt with in the fullest extent possible, but I also believe that any court case that isn't really necessary is a huge waste of valuable resources and I frown upon them.
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re:
I call bullspit.
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
Re: I'm on their side...
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Also Looking To Be Able To Seize Domains
Re:
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
Re: Re: Ditch cable!!!
Also, did you read that Tivo is shutting down service in the UK to customers that it wants to upgrade but don't feel the need on their own?? A company like that is definitely not one I would want to do business with...and especially if I would have to pay for Tivo service above and beyond my already far too expensive Cable service.
What else you got?
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
Ditch cable!!!
On the post: Why Is Google Fighting So Hard To Keep Filing In RosettaStone Lawsuit Secret?
Doing something wrong??
Google trying to be secretive like this is very scary.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re: Re:
If you wanted a valid comparison to this scenario using drug sellers, it would be "I wonder if Masnick thinks that the corner pharmacy should be warned and the owner arrested for trial before they get shut down on the suspicion of selling counterfeit prescriptions?" And I can't speak for him, but I would say "YES" myself... They should really be proven guilty before they are treated as such, that's the root premise of our justice system.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re:
Some of the U.S. citizens are equally scared, and equally despise our own government for it...
To the World: Please don't confuse U.S. Government Policy with the wishes of the U.S. People.
On the post: Recording Industry Keeps Quiet About Canadian IsoHunt Lawsuit; Didn't Want To Admit Canada Has Strong Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Wikia Owned Wikileaks.com Domain; Assange Ignored Attempts To Hand It Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, you're not even using logic for this argument...
On the post: How Neil Gaiman Went From Fearing 'Piracy' To Believing It's 'An Incredibly Good Thing'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re:
"You can't be half a pirate these days, Nucky..."
On the post: Fake Sony PS3 VP Tricked Into Tweeting PS3 Security Key
Wow, that last sentence could be applied to so many things and still hold just as much truth. Like prostitution and drug use, in case that's not clear to any Attorney's General that may see this comment.
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The true value of something does not need to shrink whatsoever for that thing to become overvalued. The perceived value would simply need to grow at a rate faster than the true value is growing. See all the laws, and the lack of any actual benefit coming of them, for your proof of overvaluation.
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
You're missing one important piece of the puzzle that will make this all crystal clear. Rule #1 in every persons book is to look out for yourself. What is in the IP Czar's best interest is getting paid large sums of money by those special interest groups, and in order to accomplish that, those groups need to be appeased. Appeasing the special interests alone might not be more important, but as the only way to pad your own pockets, it jumps a few spots on the list, at the expense of the rest of the world. It's all about selfishness and greed, and an inability for these people in power to look beyond their own needs to the needs of the general population. The only solution I can think of for this problem, is real, true transparency...and now you know why that isn't really too high on anybody's list of things to accomplish.
On the post: Will Hollywood Kill The Golden Goose By Squeezing Netflix Dry?
Re:
Wrong. It's the convenience of Netflix that people pay for. If Netflix won't pay, do NOT expect anyone else to come in, pay those high prices, and be successful. By that time, anyone who really wants the content would have found other ways to get it without paying more than what they felt was fair for the CONVENIENCE of Netflix.
On the post: Australian Politician Compares Attempts To Silence Assange With Catholic Church Silencing Galileo
Re:
On the post: New Study Shows As More People Talk While Driving, Accidents Are Dropping
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would think anyone with half a brain, especially anyone who reads this site often, would know the difference by now.
Although, if you could read this whole post and still somehow believe Mike to be toting "new evidence that shows talking while driving makes the roads safer," I shouldn't really expect you to have half a brain.
Next >>