Because some artists/writers/filmmakers are aware of how to use Twitter and the studios see themselves becoming obsolete instead of being in complete control. Where would Paranormal Activity be without the use of Twitter?
The only use I have for my car radio is to listen to live talk radio, generally on AM stations where I can listen to local issues. The only music I listen to is either streamed in via an Internet site (I'm one of those Pandora subscribers, but I don't write letters on their behalf), or on my iPhone already.
If local music radio disappeared completely it would not affect me at all.
Do the celebrities in gossip mags all sign releases to the paparazzi who incessantly snap their photos so they can be paid thousands of dollars for those embarrassing photos they snap?
Unless I have explicitly agreed to take no photos, and cameras are explicitly forbidden for everyone (inside the Biltmore House for example) then I own my pictures and will do whatever I want with them.
If there is ever an automatic takedown feature, you can be pretty sure that it won't take long for every vid on YouTube to go down and there will not be enough YouTube employees to review them all.
I see her "abuse" gambit as nothing more than a smokescreen because she was counting on the "rescue the poor young damsel" effect. It's really sad when people would rather resort to such desperate measures instead of standing by their statements or even acknowledging that they really didn't have a grasp of the big picture.
Honestly, I had never heard of her before, and I am certainly inclined not to make any effort to learn more about her. She certainly didn't leave the impression that she's anything more than an impulsive, short-sighted, take-my-ball-and-go-home-when-you-don't-play-my-way sorta young lady.
I was always under the impression that "slave labor" was either forced, as in the workers have no choice. So is the volunteer fire department "slave labor" too?
Since there is no court involved, what do they do if you don't pay? Take you to court? They cannot garnish your wages without a court order. Just don't pay, never admit guilt, and dispute the charge then. It makes sense to claim you did not file an appeal since you have to admit guilt to do so and you did not pay because you dispute the charge.
Perhaps the chief is hoping that one of the anonymous posters is from the Bahamas or some nice European resort city so he can justify going there to apprehend them. :)
Oh and "Impersonating a police officer is sometimes committed in order to assert police-like authority in order to commit a crime. Posing as a police officer enables the offender to legitimize the appearance of an illegal act, such as; breaking and entry, making a traffic stop, or detaining." so says the mighty Wiki.
I don't think any posters are trying to commit an illegal act as a result of a comment claiming to be an officer. Going after commenters is trivial and will only be perceived as petty and wasteful of time and taxpayer dollars.
If there are no murderers, rapists, drug dealers, kidnappers, etc. on the street, sure, go keep yourself busy. If not, time to replace the chief.
So the music industry removes someone who pirates music. That person however, purchased e-books from Amazon. Now the music industry has removed a customer from Amazon.
Amazon takes advantage of the legislation and removed people who illegally download e-books. Those people bought and rented movies online from places like Netflix and no those paying customers are gone.
The MPAA goes after people downloading movies and uses the law to take more off the Internet. Those people bought music online. There goes some customers who were actually paying for music.
ALL of these people were paying for Internet from various providers, and so the ISPs lose customers. Look at just how many business' would lose REAL, measurable revenue. Not to mention that it's much more unlikely for anyone forced off the Internet by the music industry to suddenly decide to start buying music CDs.
If you buy a book online with Amazon or walk into Barnes and Nobles and buy a book with a credit card, or go check out a book in the library, there is a record of what books you have at least taken interest in that can be accessed by the government with the same authority as it would have with Google.
They will also have to shut down all open WiFi hot spots and demand cellular carriers give up the revenue from data plans for all these people. Good luck with that.
Has there been any trustworthy evidence put forth showing how many people who download copyrighted material will actually go out and purchase it if they cannot get it for free?
Has anyone done any research showing a relation between songs being freely available online and concert ticket sales? My first thought was to look at NIN, but honestly I didn't care for any of his recent work so it didn't inspire me to hear it live. Maybe some indie bands with increased fan base?
Since men don't mud wrestle, and this was a contest between two women and women do mud wrestle, it was spot on. Obviously it wouldn't be used when referring to two men. But, a metaphor that cannot be applied evenly across genders is not misogynistic be default.
"Misogyny" is a hatred towards women. There was nothing hateful in the metaphor.
I think Google should have some degree of responsibility here. They have a legal team and should have exhausted every trick available to them in order to protect the privacy of someone using their service. The lawsuit doesn't appear to have any legal soundness, but it's certainly a blemish on Google's reputation.
"Google will roll over and barf up everything it knows about you without a fight."
This entire spectacle appears silly, but it has very important effects. It means anybody or any company can take legal actions to stifle negative opinions about them.
The "model" dropped her plans to sue for defamation. No surprise, since she wasn't defamed. But the damage is done. You can bet that companies are scouring the Internet as we speak looking for all negative blog entries and comments mentioning them, especially on sites where Google can assist in providing the identity of the writers.
Unless things change, companies will be using the courts to silence negative opinions by identifying and legally intimidating anyone voicing them.
Google could have come out of this as a shining defender of rights against those who wish to control the free expression of opinion. Instead, they look like a tool used to chill freedoms.
So, now if you publish a negative opinion, there is precedent for not only publicly identifying you, but taking legal action because you made your opinion known.
It seems trivial. A model and a blogger.
But what happens when you publish your opinion of a business? If it is negative, but and opinion (and by opinion, I mean something subjective, like "skank". You cannot prove a subjective opinion is untrue, especially when the person who makes it claims it is true to them. Actual untruths are obviously not protected), any entity can take you to court (although if they make any statements of opinion about you, such as you are a "sad" person who has nothing better to do, you should certainly take offense and sue them for publicly expressing their negative opinion of you).
Negative movie review? Court. Bad restaurant review? Court. You didn't like my plumbing service and posted it on Angie's List? COURT! When individuals and companies can use the courts (aka. Government) to stifle if not actually penalize publicly expressed negative opinions, that is definitely a "chilling effect" on our rights to express how we feel.
On some other notes. Stating an negative opinion is not an "accusation" in any legal sense and does not give you the right to force a person to identify themselves (opening themselves up to all sorts of retribution).
Freedom of speech allows you to make any negative opinions you want ("Lady X is a Skank" is opinion. "Lady X is a child rapist" is not. One cannot be disproved because there is not a set legal definition for "skank", while there certainly is legal definition for the latter) and not be prosecuted by the government.
Anonymous speech is not singled out as prohibited so by default it remains under the blanket of "speech". You cannot arbitrarily select certain types of speech and declare them unprotected.
On the post: Hollywood Can't Handle Anyone Connecting With Fans... So It Contractually Tries To Stop Them
Here is the Reason
On the post: Garth Brooks Complains That The Gov't Ignores Musicians
Radio?
If local music radio disappeared completely it would not affect me at all.
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
I'm Just Curious
Unless I have explicitly agreed to take no photos, and cameras are explicitly forbidden for everyone (inside the Biltmore House for example) then I own my pictures and will do whatever I want with them.
On the post: YouTube Smoking Guns? What Constitutes Actual Knowledge?
Auto Takedown
On the post: Will People Pay CNN To Help Them Report The News?
This is not a new concept
On the post: A Song For Lily Allen... And A Little Conversation
No offense to women
Honestly, I had never heard of her before, and I am certainly inclined not to make any effort to learn more about her. She certainly didn't leave the impression that she's anything more than an impulsive, short-sighted, take-my-ball-and-go-home-when-you-don't-play-my-way sorta young lady.
On the post: Journalist: Oh No! Student Journalists Will Destroy Journalism!
Slave?
On the post: California City Looks To Evade Laws On Redlight Cameras
Criminal Offense?
On the post: Austin Police Chief To Go After Anonymous Commenters
Just an Idea
Oh and "Impersonating a police officer is sometimes committed in order to assert police-like authority in order to commit a crime. Posing as a police officer enables the offender to legitimize the appearance of an illegal act, such as; breaking and entry, making a traffic stop, or detaining." so says the mighty Wiki.
I don't think any posters are trying to commit an illegal act as a result of a comment claiming to be an officer. Going after commenters is trivial and will only be perceived as petty and wasteful of time and taxpayer dollars.
If there are no murderers, rapists, drug dealers, kidnappers, etc. on the street, sure, go keep yourself busy. If not, time to replace the chief.
On the post: IBM Wants Patent On Conference Call Laugh Tracks
A Sample Conference Call
Silence.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
On the post: Recording Industry Insiders Complain About Musicians Who Argue Against Kicking People Off The Internet
Snowball effect
Amazon takes advantage of the legislation and removed people who illegally download e-books. Those people bought and rented movies online from places like Netflix and no those paying customers are gone.
The MPAA goes after people downloading movies and uses the law to take more off the Internet. Those people bought music online. There goes some customers who were actually paying for music.
ALL of these people were paying for Internet from various providers, and so the ISPs lose customers. Look at just how many business' would lose REAL, measurable revenue. Not to mention that it's much more unlikely for anyone forced off the Internet by the music industry to suddenly decide to start buying music CDs.
So where is the gain? It's just all loss.
On the post: Complaints Against Google Book Scanning Project Reach Ridiculous Levels
Re: Pricacy - or lack thereof - biggest issue.
On the plus side, nobody cares.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures' Patents Starting To Show Up In Lawsuits
haha
On the post: UK Gov't Now Supporting 3 Strikes: Lobbyists Win Again
On the post: Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier
Re: Re: Re: poor metaphor
Note to self, avoid bars on Halsted Steet. Check.
On the post: Swedish Court Get The Pirate Bay Taken Down
Wondering
Has anyone done any research showing a relation between songs being freely available online and concert ticket sales? My first thought was to look at NIN, but honestly I didn't care for any of his recent work so it didn't inspire me to hear it live. Maybe some indie bands with increased fan base?
On the post: Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier
Re: poor metaphor
"Misogyny" is a hatred towards women. There was nothing hateful in the metaphor.
On the post: Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier
My Thoughts
"Google will roll over and barf up everything it knows about you without a fight."
This entire spectacle appears silly, but it has very important effects. It means anybody or any company can take legal actions to stifle negative opinions about them.
The "model" dropped her plans to sue for defamation. No surprise, since she wasn't defamed. But the damage is done. You can bet that companies are scouring the Internet as we speak looking for all negative blog entries and comments mentioning them, especially on sites where Google can assist in providing the identity of the writers.
Unless things change, companies will be using the courts to silence negative opinions by identifying and legally intimidating anyone voicing them.
Google could have come out of this as a shining defender of rights against those who wish to control the free expression of opinion. Instead, they look like a tool used to chill freedoms.
On the post: If Your Computer Detects You Laughing At This Patent Drawing, You May Have Infringed On The Patent
I wonder
On the post: Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger
Want to know how this could be "chilling"?
It seems trivial. A model and a blogger.
But what happens when you publish your opinion of a business? If it is negative, but and opinion (and by opinion, I mean something subjective, like "skank". You cannot prove a subjective opinion is untrue, especially when the person who makes it claims it is true to them. Actual untruths are obviously not protected), any entity can take you to court (although if they make any statements of opinion about you, such as you are a "sad" person who has nothing better to do, you should certainly take offense and sue them for publicly expressing their negative opinion of you).
Negative movie review? Court. Bad restaurant review? Court. You didn't like my plumbing service and posted it on Angie's List? COURT! When individuals and companies can use the courts (aka. Government) to stifle if not actually penalize publicly expressed negative opinions, that is definitely a "chilling effect" on our rights to express how we feel.
On some other notes. Stating an negative opinion is not an "accusation" in any legal sense and does not give you the right to force a person to identify themselves (opening themselves up to all sorts of retribution).
Freedom of speech allows you to make any negative opinions you want ("Lady X is a Skank" is opinion. "Lady X is a child rapist" is not. One cannot be disproved because there is not a set legal definition for "skank", while there certainly is legal definition for the latter) and not be prosecuted by the government.
Anonymous speech is not singled out as prohibited so by default it remains under the blanket of "speech". You cannot arbitrarily select certain types of speech and declare them unprotected.
Next >>