If he actually said that, I would be interested to know where he expects to get the funding, not just for the hardware and installation, but the salaries for those who will have to go through all the files and the background checks they will require.
Well, I think you missed something "As the report notes, CAL collected $114 million last year, and can only say, for certain, that $9.1 million got distributed to actual content creators. Now that's efficient! Certainly, some of that $76 million may have reached content creators, but no one knows for sure.
Now, it appears to me the $million is in addition to the $9.1 million that it knows went to creators and the $9.4 it paid its staff. So tell me, where's the rest of $114 million they collected? By my calculations $9.1 million + $9.5 million + $76 million = $94.5 million. They collected $114 million. Where is the other $19.5 million?
So, here's a nother question. Is there more than one HJ Heinz in the world? What if this just happened to be someone with the same name who liked their products? Would it be fair then to just rename the account NOT HJ Heinz when he really was HJ Heinz? Shouldn't they have at least asked him about it to begin with?
They aren't making money by selling someone else's name. They are paying to have searches linked to their ads when the searched term is someone else's trademark. It's like running a search on google for Ford and having a listing for Chevy show up in the results.
Actually, there are very few here who believe copyright should go away completely. That said, the current period of copyright is so far beyond excessive that it's no where near funny. When people can't utilize things that have been around for 50 years or more, it begins to get ridiculous. Copyright was originally intended to provide a limited monopoly on the use of a creation. In today's world the "limited" part is getting to be out of control. Mickey Mouse should have been in the public domain decades ago, instead, it's still under copyright.
Having been through one significant, and several not significant quakes, while I will admit the ground certainly rolled like the ocean, I never sank in to it like I would have water.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate your statement. Christianity is not against your standards, and even if it were, you have no rights, given by God, Allah, or anyone else, to make a judgement against what someone else chooses to view on the internet. Even in Islam there is still such a thing as free will. Deal with it, move one, and enjoy your life, but don't try to control mine.
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession. How did you get it? "Oh, it just materialized." No, really, you obtained it illegally, right? Grandma would call it stealing.
But you just said I paid for it, so I should be able to be in possession of it, isn't that how it works??
Oh, wait a minute I bet you meant to say I had NOT paid for it, didn't you??
I have seen bears within a couple of miles of my house, but unlike the ones that live in the tourist areas of national parks, they pretty much stay away from inhabited areas. Wolves are just getting established again in this area, and they do pose a bit of a threat, but not to much at this point.
We, the people, want to know what is in ACTA. If it only involves counterfeiting of physical goods, no problem, but if they are negotiating to change our laws without input from those who will be affected by the laws, then its a big problem. There are a number of congressional representatives who want to know what's in ACTA, but don't. THEY are the ones who are constitutionally authorized to enact or change laws, not the US Trade Representatives. If the law makers aren't even aware of what laws are being affected, then it shouldn't be negotiated at all. In case you aren't fully aware, the way its being run, it won't need congressional approval like most treaties, just a signature from Obama, and its a done deal. There has been no representation of the American people anywhere in this process, and that is the biggest problem of all.
On the post: School Accused Of Spying On Kids In Their Homes With Spyware That Secretly Activated Webcams
Re: Re: Other Possibilities
On the post: School Accused Of Spying On Kids In Their Homes With Spyware That Secretly Activated Webcams
Re: Re: Next time
On the post: Australian Copyright Agency Paid Itself More Than It Distributed To Content Creators
Re: Re: charitable comparison?
Now, it appears to me the $million is in addition to the $9.1 million that it knows went to creators and the $9.4 it paid its staff. So tell me, where's the rest of $114 million they collected? By my calculations $9.1 million + $9.5 million + $76 million = $94.5 million. They collected $114 million. Where is the other $19.5 million?
On the post: Sarcasm Wars: Proprietary SarcMark Gets Some Sarcastic Open Competition
Re: The creators live here in town
On the post: How Someone Pretended To Be HJ Heinz On Twitter
Re: Re: Why did Heinz even do something?
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
Re: Explain to me ...
On the post: Beyonce's Bikini Infringing On Copyrights?
Re:
On the post: Iceland Wants To Become A Hub For Free Speech Journalism Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Australian ISP Stops Kicking People Off The Internet Following iiNet Ruling
Re:
On the post: BioShock 2, Loaded Up With Annoying DRM That Pisses Off Fans, Cracked Immediately Anyway
Re: Re: Reality
On the post: Kevin Smith May Try Crowdfunding Horror Film, Red State, After Fans Offer To Do So
Re: Re: Re: more drivel from the f-ing idiot TAM
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re: Re: ..
On the post: Author's Guild Didn't Want To 'Pull An RIAA' But Still Misses The Point
Re: Lazy Artists?
On the post: Remix Culture Is About The Culture As Much As The Remix
Re: Re: Re: Moh Oh Oh Ron.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction
Re: Re: Good
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re:
But you just said I paid for it, so I should be able to be in possession of it, isn't that how it works??
Oh, wait a minute I bet you meant to say I had NOT paid for it, didn't you??
On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users
Re: Re:
On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users
Re: Re:
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: We, the People.
Next >>