This is exactly the kind of thing that pisses me off. Howard perhaps you should stop infringing on music you created yourself and have not sold the rights too. Its against the law apparently. WTF has it come too.
This is exactly the kind of thing that pisses me off. Howard perhaps you should stop infringing on music you created yourself and have not sold the rights too. Its against the law apparently. WTF has it come too.
First off, while I do disagree with you on some level I appreciate a argument that both sides can express their opinions without throwing around insults as their primary argument. I think this was a well written post and you are right, both sides have been spending a lot of time tossing around criticisms that seem hardly relevant and in cases such as the MPAA guy being called a child molester, probably completely made up (and if it isn't it is still not relevant to the argument at hand.) On behalf of those on my side who don't post but agree with me, I still hold my view but apologize for any lies and excessive insults, realistically some will come out but we can at least try to be civil otherwise we get nowhere, used from the people in my camp.
Again it is true too much diatribe goes before the decision makers. As for infringing, my personal opinion is as follows. People who create products should be compensated thus; however, for one, attempts to hinder technology can be counter productive as well. For instance, laws have been pushed to ban torrents and that is simply a bad idea. Many legitimate uses for torrents exist, for example World of Warcraft updates, although I do not play the game it does have a large player base. For myself I need torrents for any large download or I simply can not download it, for example Open Office and any linux distro, both of which are distributed free of charge.
Secondly if a problem is occurring with the current system one can look at it two ways, spend lots of money on lawyers to fight the problem or look at ways to adapt so the problem works in your favor. For example, I know a guy in a band and they post download links to all their songs and lyrics on their website. It has encouraged people to try their stuff and it works for them. People are willing to give money to things they feel are worthy of it. That is the basis of fund raising. Instead of arguing that they shouldn't have to fund raise consider that any time you go to work you are fund raising for yourself, if you are not worth the money you are demanding you will not get paid. In short, quality of the products are declining while costs of the products and quantity of products are rising, all this in a declined economy. The math does not add up.
Something has to be done to help ensure that the creators of the products get paid but something also has to be done to ensure it is a good solution for all parties involved, including the purchaser, current laws/constitutional rights, and the technological backbone supporting the whole structure. Any law has to take the whole picture into account. I simply do not feel that is the case, I think both sides have major and minor proponents ignoring certain aspects. I also feel that the average citizen is being largely ignored by their governments in favor of major corporations bottom line. I think for most people that is one of the biggest problems.
As for the definition of infringing, it is not stealing, it is a breach of contract. Theft is larceny, which is different. But both are illegal. Stop trying to convince people otherwise and focus more on showing people how infringement hurts people, and please try and keep it realistic if your side will. I would also like contracts that are simple for the average consumer to read and understand.
Thanks Buck Lateral for your time, I expect a intense rebuttal ;)
Take care,
I would suggest, in the future, forget directing insults at me as I have yet to find any insult that fails to make me laugh. It sort of seems counter productive on your part. If you feel you want to waste time directing your anger issues at me, that is fine, as I said I think its funny. I just feel you should probably devote more effort to coming up with a solid response versus verbal attacks that really just make everyone here think you are trying to over compensate for personal issues.
As for whether or not I get insulted, I really do not care either way. I am just trying to offer you some constructive criticism and a view into how I think you are perceived as a result of your actions.
On the other hand, if this is just a tactic to make people think those who support the PROTECT IP laws are ignorant and throw insults around as a cover, nice strategy. It is working.
You have the right to make your views known and I do not contest that right, however, please keep in mind you lose credibility when you resort to cursing and/or making fun of people you do not agree with. You may think you are a defender of justice but this type of action is synonymous with school yard bullying. In the future I recommend you take this into consideration before clicking submit. Thank you for your time and have a good day.
Parents should also realize filters are easy to bypass
While my little bro was in school he was supposed to do internet research into a assigned topic. Of course the filters are set to really strict and he couldn't look up anything related. I can't remember what it was but needless to say, it shouldn't have been blocked. I think it took a day, one day, and we had figured out a simple way to completely bypass the entire system. Sure they don't do the entire job, but in this case it was easily made to not block anything at all, and that without admin access.
Ima Fish, I see your point of view but your continually stating that SONY doesnt have to add functionality but they do. Then you seem to be stating this gives them the right to remove functionality. Have you actually thought about this?
Consider this, a company makes a product, say SONY with their PS3 or Toyota with their cars. Now consider its broken, bad programming or brakes that fail, it is the responsibility of said company to fix the problems. Failure to do so results in severely damaged credibility and potential lawsuits.
Now lets consider a company that makes a product, say a PS3 or an XBOX. Perhaps one company keeps it up with new features and the other fails to do so. Any guesses which will die and which will thrive? The one which adapts and expands will thrive, the one which ignores its users will die.
Finally let us consider a product which is marketed as one thing and then the buyer discovers it is another. We call this false advertising. Removing the feature against the will of the buyer would be considered vandalism. Forcing the buyer to remove the feature, by whatever means, including the one used in 3.21, is blackmail.
Do not think your schooling makes you right, and do not consider your apparent weak middle of the road approach makes you right either. What has been done is wrong. It is wrong not because I want this feature. It is wrong simply because it is wrong. Because this isn't fixing a problem, it is false advertising, vandalism and blackmail.
If SONY doesn't want to support this feature, fine. If SONY doesn't want to continue this feature, changes its advertising and removes it, fine. Systems with it already, however, should not have it removed.
On the post: Being Concerned With Free Speech Implications Of PROTECT IP Does Not Mean You Think You're Above The Law
Re: YouTube
On the post: Being Concerned With Free Speech Implications Of PROTECT IP Does Not Mean You Think You're Above The Law
Re: YouTube
On the post: Being Concerned With Free Speech Implications Of PROTECT IP Does Not Mean You Think You're Above The Law
Re:
Again it is true too much diatribe goes before the decision makers. As for infringing, my personal opinion is as follows. People who create products should be compensated thus; however, for one, attempts to hinder technology can be counter productive as well. For instance, laws have been pushed to ban torrents and that is simply a bad idea. Many legitimate uses for torrents exist, for example World of Warcraft updates, although I do not play the game it does have a large player base. For myself I need torrents for any large download or I simply can not download it, for example Open Office and any linux distro, both of which are distributed free of charge.
Secondly if a problem is occurring with the current system one can look at it two ways, spend lots of money on lawyers to fight the problem or look at ways to adapt so the problem works in your favor. For example, I know a guy in a band and they post download links to all their songs and lyrics on their website. It has encouraged people to try their stuff and it works for them. People are willing to give money to things they feel are worthy of it. That is the basis of fund raising. Instead of arguing that they shouldn't have to fund raise consider that any time you go to work you are fund raising for yourself, if you are not worth the money you are demanding you will not get paid. In short, quality of the products are declining while costs of the products and quantity of products are rising, all this in a declined economy. The math does not add up.
Something has to be done to help ensure that the creators of the products get paid but something also has to be done to ensure it is a good solution for all parties involved, including the purchaser, current laws/constitutional rights, and the technological backbone supporting the whole structure. Any law has to take the whole picture into account. I simply do not feel that is the case, I think both sides have major and minor proponents ignoring certain aspects. I also feel that the average citizen is being largely ignored by their governments in favor of major corporations bottom line. I think for most people that is one of the biggest problems.
As for the definition of infringing, it is not stealing, it is a breach of contract. Theft is larceny, which is different. But both are illegal. Stop trying to convince people otherwise and focus more on showing people how infringement hurts people, and please try and keep it realistic if your side will. I would also like contracts that are simple for the average consumer to read and understand.
Thanks Buck Lateral for your time, I expect a intense rebuttal ;)
Take care,
Bnesaladur
On the post: Being Concerned With Free Speech Implications Of PROTECT IP Does Not Mean You Think You're Above The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for whether or not I get insulted, I really do not care either way. I am just trying to offer you some constructive criticism and a view into how I think you are perceived as a result of your actions.
On the other hand, if this is just a tactic to make people think those who support the PROTECT IP laws are ignorant and throw insults around as a cover, nice strategy. It is working.
On the post: Being Concerned With Free Speech Implications Of PROTECT IP Does Not Mean You Think You're Above The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have the right to make your views known and I do not contest that right, however, please keep in mind you lose credibility when you resort to cursing and/or making fun of people you do not agree with. You may think you are a defender of justice but this type of action is synonymous with school yard bullying. In the future I recommend you take this into consideration before clicking submit. Thank you for your time and have a good day.
Bnesaladur
On the post: Reminder To Parents: Online Kid Filters Don't Really Block All That Much
Parents should also realize filters are easy to bypass
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
ImaFish, Im late but your wrong
Consider this, a company makes a product, say SONY with their PS3 or Toyota with their cars. Now consider its broken, bad programming or brakes that fail, it is the responsibility of said company to fix the problems. Failure to do so results in severely damaged credibility and potential lawsuits.
Now lets consider a company that makes a product, say a PS3 or an XBOX. Perhaps one company keeps it up with new features and the other fails to do so. Any guesses which will die and which will thrive? The one which adapts and expands will thrive, the one which ignores its users will die.
Finally let us consider a product which is marketed as one thing and then the buyer discovers it is another. We call this false advertising. Removing the feature against the will of the buyer would be considered vandalism. Forcing the buyer to remove the feature, by whatever means, including the one used in 3.21, is blackmail.
Do not think your schooling makes you right, and do not consider your apparent weak middle of the road approach makes you right either. What has been done is wrong. It is wrong not because I want this feature. It is wrong simply because it is wrong. Because this isn't fixing a problem, it is false advertising, vandalism and blackmail.
If SONY doesn't want to support this feature, fine. If SONY doesn't want to continue this feature, changes its advertising and removes it, fine. Systems with it already, however, should not have it removed.
On the post: Since When Is Sharing So Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Shortsighted
Next >>