Quick thing Mike... I think it's more accurate to point out that these people are in the business of distributing content... and failing to do so in a way their customers like.
As has been shown in many ways, you can compete with 'free'... but not if you choose not to.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the Disney Vault. If you ever wanted a case study of the ridiculousness of artificial scarcity, look no further. They only release movies once every 10 years or so (still waiting on Fantasia 2000...) for a year or so, then back to the vault it goes. So guess who else pirated Tron before the new release...
Nah, we're just going to sink under a hurricane or the weight of stupidity coming out of Tallahassee... but then, with the old governer out, the former is more likely.
I think the point is that if I choose shipping through one company because they tell me "We use PLANES!!" when they really use the same truck as everyone else, and they charge me more for it... yeah, I'd have a problem with that.
please please PLEASE... use the damned sarc tag when you're being sarcastic. Don't play with others who may take your post seriously and try to answer ;) It's not nice.
If it's my private property (say a nice family eatery), and I choose to make, as a condition of eating in my establishment, a rule that no one may use cell phones (kinda like the no crying children rule)... why can I not enforce that in the method I choose?
Yes, I could just kick people out... but that may not be the way I wish to go about it. I know the law says I can't interfere with signals, but as long as I control it such a way that it does not exceed my walls, what's the big deal?
On another note: What about the FM Modulators? Where did that land? If they're legal, can we not create a in-house system... say, stereo system... that utilizes that particular band so that incoming signals are drowned out while in my establishment? I'm not that technically savvy on cell phone bands, so I don't know.
One last question... if I'm not allowed to interfere with someone else's signal, then why the hell is their signal allowed to interfere with my speakers? I get that 3G ticking every time someone walks by with a Blackberry. >:( Way to be fair, FCC.
Thanks...I think. I didn't know that I needed those two links in one place, but I guess I did.
But it doesn't really answer my point... unless I missed yours... were you saying that this is Copyright Infringement, or were you using "infringement" to mean a violation of TOS and not CRI?
"That is plainly false. First amendment does restrict private entities, as, for instance, in "Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins" decision. "
Um... no. That case established two things:
1) under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
2)under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
So the US Constitution does not apply to censorship by private individual. Individual State Constitutions may broaden the rights if they choose.
Since we're not a public shopping center in California, I don't think the case really applies to us.
So, you're wrong.
And by the way, don't be a dick... no need for such blatant name-calling.
What about Real Player's YouTube video recorder that pulls a Youtube video and saves it as an .FLV? It also comes with a converter to change that .FLV into MP3, MP4, MOV, WMF.
I love my free, legitimately acquired Real Player tools...
If his attitude turned you off to addressing his points, fine... I'll look at that as I've already explained. Just understand how people are going to see you.
And I know why he pulled the attitude... he's a bit of a dick. Sorry, AC, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
Now here's the difference... if he had just said something like "wow Joe, if you went to the Bars with that attitude, you'd so fail..." without actually making some kind of argument, then by all means, bury him under some well-deserved derision.
But that's not what he did. He made some valid points. Points you failed to address just because he was a bit snarky.
Just so you know, I really don't want the job of jumping all over people who are mean or don't argue well. I'm not trying to pick on you... the only reason I'm on this is because of the martyrdom yesterday. I thought we had all reached an agreement to be nicer. Just because some AC comes in and acts like an ass doesn't mean you need to. Joe, I respect you (except for those couple of times you went way overboard and I thought your kid brother broke into your account) and I enjoy reading a learned, insider view on the law... I don't want to see you ruin that position by dropping to their level.
"The reason it's a compelling state interest is because pamphleteering prospective jurors is jury tampering, and the First Amendment offers no protection to such tampering. It's criminal because it violates one's right to a fair trial."
That's what I'm talking about... easy two-sentence answer to address his points.
Thank you for the link to the 'former spokeswoman' article... that's the proof I was looking for. As far as that being the motivation behind creating a haven for "this type of organization", could you not allow the possibility that they want to protect the ability for people to blow the whistle on a government without fear of international legal action? Not provable one way or the other, but it is possible.
And for the benefit, I still say that you and I benefit from it. I have not been convinced that the Anit-USA and Anti-War groups were the motivators behind the release of those cables... Yes, their cause is helped by this information being released, but until I see evidence one way or the other, I'm going to put it on the same pedistal as "we went to war in Iraq to install and secure a more pliable goverment to address our oil interests"... possible, but not provable.
But none of that removes the fact that the information that was released was fact... that our government was doing these things. If your enemies are looking for dirt on you, don't hide it deeper. If you avoid getting dirty in the first place, your enemies have nothing on you.
I still say that while there are some political results and probably some political motivations, the actions of Wikileaks in exposing government corruption is a very necessary thing. If Birgitta is going to use the influence to forward her political agenda, then shame on her... but I don't think we should silence these whistles just to stop that.
Now that the info has been released, and Wikileaks has been called into question, perhaps it's now time to have others step up into their place... and learn from WL's major failure by allowing themselves to be transparent.
One final note… this still hasn’t addressed how Assange is behind all this and the US government pursuing him is his comeuppance. Unless you want to say that the whole shebang was Assange piloting an anti-government ship on his own.
But instead of addressing the points he was bringing up, which looked valid to me, you completely dismiss it with "snore, go read this...".
I'm lazy... I'm not going to go read a long article you wrote on a different thread and cross-reference to address points someone else is making. And I'm not the only one who would say so.
All I'm saying is this... if someone makes what appears to be a valid argument and you say "snore. You're wrong, go read this...", you're saying to everyone else "I don't have anything to address these points with". If his points were so ridiculous, why not address them, since it would seem to be easy to do so?
Sorry... but what 'silly' attitude? He seemed to be on to something there, up until he mentioned that giving such answers would have had you fail the bar.
Aside from some typographical errors and a bit of snideness, I hardly see where you're justified in looking down your nose at him and dismissively waiving him away like he's an offending servant daring to infringe upon your time.
To me, it looked like you were dismissing an argument that you would have a difficult time rebuking on factual basis.
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:
As has been shown in many ways, you can compete with 'free'... but not if you choose not to.
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:
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: Re: Re:
On the post: Time Warner Cable Whining About How It's Not Allowed To Pretend It Offers Fiber To The Home Any More
Re: Re:
Don't get me wrong, this is some nifty info, but I think everyone is rushing to logic away a joke.
"He can't lift the seat Focker, he doesn't have any thumbs" - Meet the Parents
On the post: Time Warner Cable Whining About How It's Not Allowed To Pretend It Offers Fiber To The Home Any More
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's no need for jammers
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
I'm with you now.
On the post: FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices
Re: Re: Re: There's no need for jammers
...
dammit DH, that was MY thunder.
On the post: Time Warner Cable Whining About How It's Not Allowed To Pretend It Offers Fiber To The Home Any More
Re:
On the post: Time Warner Cable Whining About How It's Not Allowed To Pretend It Offers Fiber To The Home Any More
Re:
Thanks
On the post: FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices
Private Property
If it's my private property (say a nice family eatery), and I choose to make, as a condition of eating in my establishment, a rule that no one may use cell phones (kinda like the no crying children rule)... why can I not enforce that in the method I choose?
Yes, I could just kick people out... but that may not be the way I wish to go about it. I know the law says I can't interfere with signals, but as long as I control it such a way that it does not exceed my walls, what's the big deal?
On another note: What about the FM Modulators? Where did that land? If they're legal, can we not create a in-house system... say, stereo system... that utilizes that particular band so that incoming signals are drowned out while in my establishment? I'm not that technically savvy on cell phone bands, so I don't know.
One last question... if I'm not allowed to interfere with someone else's signal, then why the hell is their signal allowed to interfere with my speakers? I get that 3G ticking every time someone walks by with a Blackberry. >:( Way to be fair, FCC.
On the post: FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices
Re: There's no need for jammers
/sarc
*My apologies if my sarcasm has offended anyone who lost a child to spontaneous combustion.
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
But it doesn't really answer my point... unless I missed yours... were you saying that this is Copyright Infringement, or were you using "infringement" to mean a violation of TOS and not CRI?
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Re: Yes, it is an infringement
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
2)under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
So the US Constitution does not apply to censorship by private individual. Individual State Constitutions may broaden the rights if they choose.
Since we're not a public shopping center in California, I don't think the case really applies to us.
So, you're wrong.
And by the way, don't be a dick... no need for such blatant name-calling.
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Real Player
I love my free, legitimately acquired Real Player tools...
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment scrutiny
And I know why he pulled the attitude... he's a bit of a dick. Sorry, AC, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
Now here's the difference... if he had just said something like "wow Joe, if you went to the Bars with that attitude, you'd so fail..." without actually making some kind of argument, then by all means, bury him under some well-deserved derision.
But that's not what he did. He made some valid points. Points you failed to address just because he was a bit snarky.
Just so you know, I really don't want the job of jumping all over people who are mean or don't argue well. I'm not trying to pick on you... the only reason I'm on this is because of the martyrdom yesterday. I thought we had all reached an agreement to be nicer. Just because some AC comes in and acts like an ass doesn't mean you need to. Joe, I respect you (except for those couple of times you went way overboard and I thought your kid brother broke into your account) and I enjoy reading a learned, insider view on the law... I don't want to see you ruin that position by dropping to their level.
That's what I'm talking about... easy two-sentence answer to address his points.
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And for the benefit, I still say that you and I benefit from it. I have not been convinced that the Anit-USA and Anti-War groups were the motivators behind the release of those cables... Yes, their cause is helped by this information being released, but until I see evidence one way or the other, I'm going to put it on the same pedistal as "we went to war in Iraq to install and secure a more pliable goverment to address our oil interests"... possible, but not provable.
But none of that removes the fact that the information that was released was fact... that our government was doing these things. If your enemies are looking for dirt on you, don't hide it deeper. If you avoid getting dirty in the first place, your enemies have nothing on you.
I still say that while there are some political results and probably some political motivations, the actions of Wikileaks in exposing government corruption is a very necessary thing. If Birgitta is going to use the influence to forward her political agenda, then shame on her... but I don't think we should silence these whistles just to stop that.
Now that the info has been released, and Wikileaks has been called into question, perhaps it's now time to have others step up into their place... and learn from WL's major failure by allowing themselves to be transparent.
One final note… this still hasn’t addressed how Assange is behind all this and the US government pursuing him is his comeuppance. Unless you want to say that the whole shebang was Assange piloting an anti-government ship on his own.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment scrutiny
I'm lazy... I'm not going to go read a long article you wrote on a different thread and cross-reference to address points someone else is making. And I'm not the only one who would say so.
All I'm saying is this... if someone makes what appears to be a valid argument and you say "snore. You're wrong, go read this...", you're saying to everyone else "I don't have anything to address these points with". If his points were so ridiculous, why not address them, since it would seem to be easy to do so?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment scrutiny
Aside from some typographical errors and a bit of snideness, I hardly see where you're justified in looking down your nose at him and dismissively waiving him away like he's an offending servant daring to infringe upon your time.
To me, it looked like you were dismissing an argument that you would have a difficult time rebuking on factual basis.
Next >>