"Anyone notice how all those old school rules are really about maximizing label profits by screwing over the artist?"
Actually, I hadn't noticed that. How does refusing to sell things in Australia until they're not cool anymore maximize label profits? I see your explanation of "billing the artist for each release", but that seems weak.
But if people are allowed to give away waffles for free, pretty soon there won't be any waffles left! Who will make new waffles if no one can make money off of them?
You do realize that anywhere that lots of people go qualifies as a "shooting gallery", right? Malls, schools, restaurants, department stores, airport security lines, and lots of other things all qualify as shooting galleries. Not supporting them would be beyond impractical.
"If someone is just randomly running around naked and gets arrested for indecent exposure, what treatment prior to them stripping could they point at to say they were protesting?"
I've often considered doing just that in protest of public indecency laws. If I'm ever in Oregon I now know the first thing I need to do.
I can always talk to the people around me, but do you have any idea how limiting it feels to even think about having that as the only good option? If what you seem to be getting at came to pass, I'd be cut off from almost all of our culture and have to make do with whatever the people who happen to live in the same geographical area as me come up with. Why would I ever want to be restricted to talking to whoever happened to buy a house near my parents or go to the same college I am? How could segregating society in such a manner possibly be acceptable?
Only big businesses are able to dispute the validity of a patent in under three pages? Or is that impossible for everyone, and only big businesses have $180?
"Using your criteria, there would be no such thing as non-governmental action in the law."
Congress making no law that abridges freedom of speech certainly sounds like it isn't limited to Congress not passing laws that allow Congress to abridge freedom of speech. Using your criteria, Congress could make a law that allows private firms to remove anything criticizing them from the Internet, and it would be perfectly okay because it wouldn't be the government removing criticism of itself.
"This company using patent law to assert its rights is no more government action than someone suing under the Bill of Rights for violation of their right to peaceably assemble."
Well, it's certainly not a government-independent action. Let's see someone try doing that in a country where the government doesn't afford them First Amendment protections.
That would be why I didn't say that Semantic Compaction Systems would be abridging freedom of speech. Patent law comes from Congress, and thus presumably is supposed to be held to that standard.
If someone wants the product in a country it isn't sold in, that person doesn't have any legitimate options. "Respecting the content providers" would mean not getting it at all.
If someone wants the product sooner than the content provider has decided to allow them to buy it, that person doesn't have any legitimate options. Respecting the content providers would mean waiting until whoever makes release decisions decides that they want to make money off of DVD sales. If someone gets something before its producer decides to sell it, it's the producer's fault that they didn't buy it.
If someone just wants a product cheaper, okay. There's a lot of things I don't buy because they're too expensive. It's a perfectly reasonable decision by the producer, but they have no right to complain when the people who aren't willing to spend that much money on their product don't. If they want the people who want it cheaper to buy it, they can lower the price, and if they think they're okay without those people buying it, they can keep the price the same. The situation and solution are the same regardless of whether piracy is involved or not.
Probably. Measuring the existence of a particle isn't the kind of thing that can be easily faked by some delayed messaging. Those are very complicated readings, and the fact that they're showing us exactly what we expected to find would be an incredible coincidence if it turned out to be faulty equipment. The neutrino story, on the other hand, made about as much sense as this. That bumped up the chance of wrongness there.
There is a patent for looking at the Internet on a smartphone? What dumbass decided that was novel? Hell, it's not just smartphones! My laptop can qualify as a wireless device! This is completely fucking ridiculous!
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re:
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re:
Actually, I hadn't noticed that. How does refusing to sell things in Australia until they're not cool anymore maximize label profits? I see your explanation of "billing the artist for each release", but that seems weak.
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
On the post: Pirate Party ALMOST Ejected From Festival For Giving Out Free Waffles After Vendors Selling Waffles Complained (Updated)
Re: Re:
Yes.
On the post: Pirate Party ALMOST Ejected From Festival For Giving Out Free Waffles After Vendors Selling Waffles Complained (Updated)
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Re: A cultural problem
On the post: Does Batman Need Copyright Protection?
Re: Re: Re: Once again for those in the cheap seats
On the post: Apparently Stripping Nude To Protest TSA Search Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re:
I've often considered doing just that in protest of public indecency laws. If I'm ever in Oregon I now know the first thing I need to do.
On the post: Meet The Internet Defense League (And Join It, Too)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patent Office Releases Rules To Let Third Parties Provide Documents To Help Reject Patent Applications
Re:
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congress making no law that abridges freedom of speech certainly sounds like it isn't limited to Congress not passing laws that allow Congress to abridge freedom of speech. Using your criteria, Congress could make a law that allows private firms to remove anything criticizing them from the Internet, and it would be perfectly okay because it wouldn't be the government removing criticism of itself.
"This company using patent law to assert its rights is no more government action than someone suing under the Bill of Rights for violation of their right to peaceably assemble."
Well, it's certainly not a government-independent action. Let's see someone try doing that in a country where the government doesn't afford them First Amendment protections.
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Re:
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
On the post: Dan Bull: Censored By Copyright For Protesting Being Censored By Copyright
Re:
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Re: Re: The Problem
If someone wants the product sooner than the content provider has decided to allow them to buy it, that person doesn't have any legitimate options. Respecting the content providers would mean waiting until whoever makes release decisions decides that they want to make money off of DVD sales. If someone gets something before its producer decides to sell it, it's the producer's fault that they didn't buy it.
If someone just wants a product cheaper, okay. There's a lot of things I don't buy because they're too expensive. It's a perfectly reasonable decision by the producer, but they have no right to complain when the people who aren't willing to spend that much money on their product don't. If they want the people who want it cheaper to buy it, they can lower the price, and if they think they're okay without those people buying it, they can keep the price the same. The situation and solution are the same regardless of whether piracy is involved or not.
On the post: Kim Jong Un's Mysterious Female Companion Hides The Real Issue: Piracy Of Disney Characters!
Re: Ummm....
On the post: Are Books Printed With Disappearing Ink Really The Best Way To Make People Read Them?
On the post: DailyDirt: The Little Things In Physics Make Big News
Re:
On the post: Google Sued For Patent Infringement For Mobile Chrome
Are you fucking KIDDING ME?!
There is a patent for looking at the Internet on a smartphone? What dumbass decided that was novel? Hell, it's not just smartphones! My laptop can qualify as a wireless device! This is completely fucking ridiculous!
Next >>