DH, what you and the OP don't seem to realize is that Bobbies don't carry guns. I think only their version of a S.W.A.T. team gets to use them and only under extraordinary circumstances. I'm not sure a pen qualifies.
There are two types of people. The ones that melt in times of adversity and the ones that stand firm and support their business as if it was a family member.
What a bunch of crap. There are two types of people: those who say there are two types of people and those who know that's always an oversimplification.
I'm not trying to spin anything. As I said, having to wait for the firmware to update is a hassle, but one I'm willing to deal with for the quality. I agree that consumers shouldn't have to be aware of firmware.
While you're laughing at me, I'm pitying you for your schadenfreude. What a sad way to go through life. Meanwhile I'll be enjoying an amazing home theater experience... As soon as my firmware is done downloading.
laughing at you for buying blue-ray and supporting DRM. That will never happen in my house - because I will never own a blue-ray device.
Laughing at who exactly? The Samsung BD owners? I own a BluRay player (a PS3) and I've never had any problems, other than the mild inconvienience of having to occasionally wait while new firmware downloads. A hassle I'm willing to put up with because the quality of the video and audio is so far superior to anything that I've downloaded via BitTorrent.
I do use BitTorrent for comedies and other movies that don't really "need" to be seen in 1080p with lossless audio, or to preview movies that I may be interested in buying on BluRay but didn't want to spend $12 to see in the theater.
So because someone chooses to use BluRays you feel the need to scoff? Why is it you think your poo doesn't stink? Your comment makes you sound like a condescending prick. Do you drive a Prius as well? Are you Vegan and want to scoff at those of us who choose to eat meat? How about all of you makeing these type of comments get over yourself and quit acting so high and mighty. Sheesh.
Others of you have been rude, closed minded, and in some cases completely incoherent. I have my doubts as to whether those people know who they are.
While I haven't read all the above comments, I've read a most and with only a few exceptions they are hardly rude. And while I'm guilty myself of occasionally being rude and some may think incoherent, I came to this site very open minded since I had no firm opinion one way or the other on issues of copyright.
What I did have, however, was a basic understanding of economics and an inate belief that paying $.99 for a song that could be copied for free was rediculous. If any of the commenters who disagree with Mr. Masnick had presented a reasoned, rational, sound arguement explaining why copyright as it now stands makes sense, maybe I'd have been pursuaded to see their side of the argument. But all their arguements were/are lacking. So now that I've heard both sides, I've made up my mind. Does that mean I'm now close minded? I guess you can say that. Oh well.
I shouldn't have to be subjected to some overzealous high school dropout with a power-trip working as a mall cop putting his hands on me, handcuffing me, calling the police, pressing charges, etc. just because I stopped to chat with a pretty girl or ask someone directions to the nearest gas station.
Don't go to that mall and you won't be subjected to anything. That's the point I think Mike is making. If the mall has this silly policy in place, fewer people will go there and the tenents and mall owners will suffer the consequences. It's called a "free market."
But of course it's the internet and file sharing that's destroying the big budget movies. Hmmm... Maybe if studios didn't have to licence music and art and architechture and locations and, coming soon, furniture, they wouldn't cost $200M to make.
If that is the standard to be set, then there can be no argument - it's all simply a matter of anyone's interpretation.
I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS' opinion is the only one that counts. Like it or not.
Unfortunately, it would be very dangerous to allow the government to 'interpret' the Constitution as if it were an ambiguous document (especially where those ambiguities only arise due to changes in language, e.g. right qua privilege).
But in many ways it is and was intended to be. The Framers realized they couldn't account for every contingency, and left many things intentionally ambiguous so that Congress and the Courts could deal with these problems as they arose.
Merely by way of example, the article states that the original purpose underlying US copyright solely for the benefit of the public and not for the benefit of the author. I submit the correct answer is both.
It was in so much that by incentivizing artists with copyrights the public was benefited with new works. The intended end was the latter. The former was the means.
"Basically, we don't know," said Dave Ascher, the SESAC Music Licensing Consultant who sent the letters. "To make a long story short, there's no way, logistically, for us to know whether on a day-to-day basis they're playing SESAC music."
So they just assume you are and force you to pay regardless.
Do you think people have a natural right to make copies, say tape recordings, of the records they buy, e.g. in case they get broken?
That isn't what I'm talking about. What I mean is that you're rehashing arguements you've made in the past in other comment threads. Instead of doing that, perhaps just a link to your previous discussion on the matter would suffice, unless you are bringing something new to this particular discussion. But it's hard to tell since you first start out with a history lesson. As soon as I see your name, the length of your post, and the fact that it starts out pretty much exactly the same each time, I just stop reading. Which is probably what many people do.
So if the government passed a law giving exclusive rights to air to a few companies that gave a lot of money to every member of Congress' campaign funds, then you'd be fine with it. Okay. Got it.
What are you, and English teacher? I know all about paragraphs and how to use them.
Simmer down. I only point that out because almost no one likes to read a whole wall of text. Do you? If so, you're odd. If not, then you should see my point.
The reasons I made no reference to spelling/punctuation errors is: A)I don't care about them as long as what you're trying to say comes across clearly, and B) I didn't bother to read your single, ridiculously long paragraph so I wouldn't know if there were any of those types of errors.
I appologize if you thought I was being harsh. Now that I know how sensitive you are, I'll be more tactful in the future.
On the post: A Rose Is A Rose Is A Rose... Until Police See It On CCTV, Say It's A Knife & Throw You In Jail For 3 Months
Re: Re:
DH, what you and the OP don't seem to realize is that Bobbies don't carry guns. I think only their version of a S.W.A.T. team gets to use them and only under extraordinary circumstances. I'm not sure a pen qualifies.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch's Anti-Fair Use Comments Used Against Him In Court Yet Again
News Corps new motto.
On the post: Is Jeftel A Spamming Front?
Re:
When that "traffic" is spam, then while it might =/= spamming you, it = spamming others.
On the post: Is Jeftel A Spamming Front?
Re: JM
What a bunch of crap. There are two types of people: those who say there are two types of people and those who know that's always an oversimplification.
Get bent.
On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Samsung Blu-ray Firmware Update Means No Warner Or Universal Movies
Re: Yes. Laughing at YOU.
I'm not trying to spin anything. As I said, having to wait for the firmware to update is a hassle, but one I'm willing to deal with for the quality. I agree that consumers shouldn't have to be aware of firmware.
While you're laughing at me, I'm pitying you for your schadenfreude. What a sad way to go through life. Meanwhile I'll be enjoying an amazing home theater experience... As soon as my firmware is done downloading.
On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Samsung Blu-ray Firmware Update Means No Warner Or Universal Movies
Re: Here is me
Laughing at who exactly? The Samsung BD owners? I own a BluRay player (a PS3) and I've never had any problems, other than the mild inconvienience of having to occasionally wait while new firmware downloads. A hassle I'm willing to put up with because the quality of the video and audio is so far superior to anything that I've downloaded via BitTorrent.
I do use BitTorrent for comedies and other movies that don't really "need" to be seen in 1080p with lossless audio, or to preview movies that I may be interested in buying on BluRay but didn't want to spend $12 to see in the theater.
So because someone chooses to use BluRays you feel the need to scoff? Why is it you think your poo doesn't stink? Your comment makes you sound like a condescending prick. Do you drive a Prius as well? Are you Vegan and want to scoff at those of us who choose to eat meat? How about all of you makeing these type of comments get over yourself and quit acting so high and mighty. Sheesh.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down
While I haven't read all the above comments, I've read a most and with only a few exceptions they are hardly rude. And while I'm guilty myself of occasionally being rude and some may think incoherent, I came to this site very open minded since I had no firm opinion one way or the other on issues of copyright.
What I did have, however, was a basic understanding of economics and an inate belief that paying $.99 for a song that could be copied for free was rediculous. If any of the commenters who disagree with Mr. Masnick had presented a reasoned, rational, sound arguement explaining why copyright as it now stands makes sense, maybe I'd have been pursuaded to see their side of the argument. But all their arguements were/are lacking. So now that I've heard both sides, I've made up my mind. Does that mean I'm now close minded? I guess you can say that. Oh well.
On the post: Court Tells Mall That It Cannot Ban Customers From Talking To Strangers
Re: Arrest
Don't go to that mall and you won't be subjected to anything. That's the point I think Mike is making. If the mall has this silly policy in place, fewer people will go there and the tenents and mall owners will suffer the consequences. It's called a "free market."
On the post: Chair Designer Sues Disney Over Chair Used In Alice In Wonderland Movie
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Find what is correct, its easier.. less of them..
Also, learn to use the "reply to this" link. Makes your lunacy that much easier to follow.
On the post: How Many Times Will Content Industries Claim The Sky Is Falling Before People Stop Believing Them?
Re: Re: Re: Actually I believe them more
"Why thank you Jonathan for agreeing with myself."
"Well when your right, I'm right."
Curse these colored snowflakes! Now I can't make it seem like my crappy points have AC's agreeing with me!
On the post: Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers
Re: Re: Re: Wait. What?
Then you're using the wrong filing cabinets.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS' opinion is the only one that counts. Like it or not.
Unfortunately, it would be very dangerous to allow the government to 'interpret' the Constitution as if it were an ambiguous document (especially where those ambiguities only arise due to changes in language, e.g. right qua privilege).
But in many ways it is and was intended to be. The Framers realized they couldn't account for every contingency, and left many things intentionally ambiguous so that Congress and the Courts could deal with these problems as they arose.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re:
It was in so much that by incentivizing artists with copyrights the public was benefited with new works. The intended end was the latter. The former was the means.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nonprofit venues boycotting?
Well, as a matter of fact:
So they just assume you are and force you to pay regardless.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: This is legalized extortion
Do you think people have a natural right to make copies, say tape recordings, of the records they buy, e.g. in case they get broken?
That isn't what I'm talking about. What I mean is that you're rehashing arguements you've made in the past in other comment threads. Instead of doing that, perhaps just a link to your previous discussion on the matter would suffice, unless you are bringing something new to this particular discussion. But it's hard to tell since you first start out with a history lesson. As soon as I see your name, the length of your post, and the fact that it starts out pretty much exactly the same each time, I just stop reading. Which is probably what many people do.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pentagon Takes Head In Sand Approach To Wikileaks: Blocks All Access To Troops... Though Everyone Else Can Get In
Re:
Uhm...what you do why say what this?
On the post: Forging Science: The Story Of How Famed Painting Authenticator Likely Duped The Art World
Re: Re: Re: The big deal
Simmer down. I only point that out because almost no one likes to read a whole wall of text. Do you? If so, you're odd. If not, then you should see my point.
The reasons I made no reference to spelling/punctuation errors is: A)I don't care about them as long as what you're trying to say comes across clearly, and B) I didn't bother to read your single, ridiculously long paragraph so I wouldn't know if there were any of those types of errors.
I appologize if you thought I was being harsh. Now that I know how sensitive you are, I'll be more tactful in the future.
P.S. I think you meant, "an English teacher?" :)
On the post: It's Back: Totally Unnecessary And Damaging Fashion Copyright Bill Reintroduced
Next >>