Even better if it can be sold as a viable vote-getting stunt. Imagine: attorney General A grandstands against random tech company. Attorney General B counters by grandstanding against Attorney General A using the new anti-grandstanding law. Grandstanding the grandstanding causes a paradox in space-time, and both lawyers collapse in on themselves. Problem solved!
So, PS3 owner to PS3 owner, I have a question. When you bring up the menu during a movie, what the HELL do all those buttons do?? There are, like, seven differently shaped forward and back arrows! I didn't even know you could represent arrows that many different ways! And there are 3 buttons that are just red green and blue squares, *labeled* "red" "green" and "blue" as their description! What the hell does that mean! And everything's just scattered randomly on that button grid, I'm always hunting for the basic controls it's ridiculous! I'm never sure whether hitting stop will "stop" the movie or activate the "black" feature! That menu was created by insane people! I'm sure of it!
Okay that stopped being a question pretty soon after the beginning, but I'm sure you understand..
Well if this is how you guys debate, then honestly it's probably a good thing that you avoid it. I'd hate to see you make a complete fool of yourself in a real life public forum.
Typically, a phrase like "no legitimate debate" is used in cases where there is, in fact, legitimate debate, but the issue is so contentious that it prompts those from one side or the other to isolate themselves from attack by avoiding confrontation entirely, claiming that said confrontation doesn't exist at all.
It's akin to the Semmelweis reflex, where alternative or oppositional positions are rejected instantly, without thought for whether such notions have any merit. Therefore, without sufficient precedent to justify that knee-jerk dismissal, you are engaging in a fairly common cognitive bias.
And I think it's safe to say that when it comes to the questions posed by copyright across the world, there is definitely insufficient precedent. :p
So, if that's actually the case Bob - if the people at these debates really just have their fingers in their ears, living in a fantasy world - then why avoid the debate? Why give them a opportunity to speak unopposed?
"The world economy suffered from massive inflation this month caused by money-creating paradoxes due to people suing their future selves for causing their own financial harm. In other news, I'm my own grandpa."
I don't understand it, and it's infuriating. Nearly all movie studios have this near-psychotic vice grip their advertising content. If anything - ANYTHING - is released or viewed without their complete and utter control behind it, they freak the hell out. I know sometimes people joke about how 'oh maybe the leak is secretly intentional, haha'. But seriously, I don't believe that thought has even marginally crossed the mind of any major studio, ever.
I worked for an entertainment site a few years ago that was very movie oriented. The only thing we got more than trailer leaks was takedown notices for said leaks. It was ridiculous. At one point, we actually wrote back, directly asking if they just didn't *want* the free publicity. But they don't care. Control is more important to them.
The Taliban is hardly a couple of deranged rebels with AKs. Aside from the massive scale difference, one of the major differences is that drug lords - no matter how successful - are doomed to work outside the government (in the rare instances where they get in, the government in question is so weak as to be irrelevant, when they're not, they find a way to quickly remove said individual). The Taliban, on the other hand, have the benefit of a heavily revised form of Islam to back them up morally, and a government that's just barely strong enough to be effective. If the UN wasn't there helping Afghanistan remove the Taliban, they'd be in charge. The Taliban are just REALLY convincing (and REALLY violent if you aren't convinced). The danger here is we could end up with an entire country that openly supports terrorists. Not covertly, not half-heartedly, and not just under certain narrow definitions (like how Hamas gets away with existing), but completely. The evidence that this could happen is incredibly strong, and it's kinda hard to argue that it's anything but a horrible outcome.
The problem of Mexican drug lords is a major one, but it's a different problem.
You should keep in mind that when comparing two problems, if one is much worse than another...that doesn't mean we should ignore the lesser to fix the larger. That's just irresponsible. We should fix both. We're a collective, not a single person.
It IS pretty disgusting, how these bands are trying to connect with their fans. How absolutely awful. Can't we go back to the days when rock stars were kept behind handlers, the things they said were pre-written by PR people, and all correspondence between them and fans was handled by the marketing staff at the record label?? That was so much better!! >:(
"Who uses Photobucket and Flickr? Not professional photographers"
That's an incredibly uninformed comment. Lots of professional photographers use those sites. All they do is store images. It's an easy and simple way to promote yourself. I don't even understand what the point of saying that is. It's baffling.
"rather than the burden being on the uploader to prove they have rights, it is shifted to the rights holder to locate and prove that they have the rights to the material."
Which is exactly where it should be. Thank you and goodnight.
On the post: Insider's View: How Grandstanding State Attorneys General Make Life Miserable For Law Abiding Tech Companies
Re: SLAPP-plus
On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Samsung Blu-ray Firmware Update Means No Warner Or Universal Movies
Re: Re: Here is me
Okay that stopped being a question pretty soon after the beginning, but I'm sure you understand..
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
Re: Re:
It's akin to the Semmelweis reflex, where alternative or oppositional positions are rejected instantly, without thought for whether such notions have any merit. Therefore, without sufficient precedent to justify that knee-jerk dismissal, you are engaging in a fairly common cognitive bias.
And I think it's safe to say that when it comes to the questions posed by copyright across the world, there is definitely insufficient precedent. :p
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
Re: why?
On the post: Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers
Re: Re:
On the post: Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait. What?
On the post: After Hundreds Of 'Empire State Of Mind' Parodies... Why Does EMI Suddenly Take One Down?
On the post: The History Of Haystack... And Why Online Censorship Will Remain Difficult
Re: Hyperpolymorphism...
On the post: Marvel Issuing Takedowns Over Thor Trailer; Hey Marvel: Trailers Are Advertising
I worked for an entertainment site a few years ago that was very movie oriented. The only thing we got more than trailer leaks was takedown notices for said leaks. It was ridiculous. At one point, we actually wrote back, directly asking if they just didn't *want* the free publicity. But they don't care. Control is more important to them.
On the post: Comcast Cares: Pay Us The $0.00 You Owe, Or We Cut You Off
Re:
sincerely,
Tea Partiers
On the post: Wikileaks Afghan War Document Leak Again Raises Questions: Treason Or Whistleblowing?
Re: Re: Re: That's not the question raised.
The problem of Mexican drug lords is a major one, but it's a different problem.
You should keep in mind that when comparing two problems, if one is much worse than another...that doesn't mean we should ignore the lesser to fix the larger. That's just irresponsible. We should fix both. We're a collective, not a single person.
On the post: Surprising New DMCA Exceptions: Jailbreaking Smartphones, Noncommercial Videos Somewhat Allowed
Re: Star Wars episode III review?
On the post: If Your Music Business Model Is To Make Money On Live Shows, Make Those Live Shows Experiences To Remember
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice
Re:
On the post: Don't Dismiss Musicians Who Forge Their Own Path
Re:
On the post: Don't Dismiss Musicians Who Forge Their Own Path
That's an incredibly uninformed comment. Lots of professional photographers use those sites. All they do is store images. It's an easy and simple way to promote yourself. I don't even understand what the point of saying that is. It's baffling.
On the post: YouTube's Three Strikes Rule Hits Again; Dance Company Has Over 300 Videos Taken Down
Re:
Which is exactly where it should be. Thank you and goodnight.
On the post: A Paywall... For Obituaries?
Re:
On the post: Judge Says Damages In Tenenbaum Case Were 'Unconstitutionally Excessive'
Re: Non-elected judiciary.
It's always rewarding to see people applaud uninformed congressional decisions when they happen to feed their own version of utopia.
Next >>