AND, another major point in this area i don't believe is made often enough: our founding era copyright terms of 14/14 years (and was shorter than that, originally) was made back in the day when we had town criers as teevee, horses packing ACTUAL mail for days and weeks, local papers were LOCAL, and little to nothing of a widespread means of disseminating information analogous to the inertnet... (maybe public houses, at best) NOW, when we have essentially worldwide instant communications and any number of specialized publications available nearly everywhere, NOW we have to have terms of life plus intolerable ? ? ?
IF (let's play pwetend) the purported reason of encouraging creation by giving the 'owner' (let's not open that can of worms) certain monopoly rights for a certain length of time (seemingly arbitrary) which gives them motivation to create; then it is OBVIOUS (?) that there is nothing gained by 'encouraging' them to create after they are fucking dead...
in fact, when you think about it, payments to the creator's heirs AFTER death (um, do korporations ever die ? ? ?) INHIBIT creativity in general, in that the creator's heirs have no reason to create shit, but their signature on daddy's (whoever) royalty checks...
taking that one step further, LENGTHENING the terms of monopoly INHIBIT creativity in a similar fashion: if person A creates thing X and it catches on for whatever reason(s), they then have no real motivation to create anything else, because they know they can milk X for a lifetime plus... by that logic, monopoly terms should be shorter, not longer...
NOT TO MENTION, as someone did in another blog in the context of 'old' software that has no commercial use/value, but is STILL under the lock and key of copyright and/or patents for -essentially- 'forever'... by the time that software falls out of its monopoly terms, it will be totally useless... IF released today, it could help a lot of people...
as was pointed out in the comments alluded to above, and as is commonly reiterated here, the copyright 'deal' is BROKEN: WE GIVE the creator certain UNNATURAL monopoly rights for a certain length of time, and we are SUPPOSED to benefit from that creation after this term has expired...
BUT, what has happened is, the copyright maximalists have gotten it ALL their way in making ridiculously long terms, preposterous conditions, and constant clawback of fair use, etc; and OUR BENEFIT has been so diluted and delayed that it is close to worthless: we are giving people unnatural rights and not getting ANYTHING in return but IP aggravation and a STULTIFYING INFLUENCE on general creativity at all levels...
in short, we 99% have been blued, screwed and tattooed...
a variation on a theme just occurred to me, and i'm not sure if it has been addressed in these discussions: the camera explosion (as it were) in recent years has filtered down to hunters (who actually 'pioneered' a lot of work in this area), who like to use so-called 'game cameras' or 'trail cameras' to capture images of -usually- wildlife tripping a motion-detector/whatever, to take pictures -still or video- of themselves which is either stored, or simply uploaded to the hunter's email, and he (she) checks it from there...
so, the natural question arises: who (if anyone) 'owns' the copyright on the trail cameras where the animal triggers the picture ? ?? it would seem from a common sense perspective, the hunter does, since he set up the camera for that purpose... *BUT*, does the fact that the wildlife 'takes' the picture in tripping the shutter make any difference ? ? ?
gee, i'm sure that won't have any unintended consequences...
...like all the software companies who hire indian tech support and programmers, but since they no longer have access to the websites and tools they need to do their work, they can't do their work, so... ?
...and archive.org ? ? ? THE BEST site on the innertubes ? ? ? sure, hobble yourselves voluntarily, india...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
1. jury nullification is our last best hope of wresting ANY control from Empire in the judicial realm... 2. DOES NOT matter if jury nullification is 'correct' or 'right' all, most or some of the time; JUST LIKE it does not 'matter' whether 'normal' judge/jury decisions are 'right'... they are BOTH (or should be) valid means of reaching verdicts, whether the verdict is 100% metaphysically 'correct' or not, is another matter... (thus, appeals courts) it is the FACT that we SHOULD (as jurists) have the RIGHT to both reject bad laws, and make new precedents based on WE THE PEOPLE's verdict... of course, as that one and others have commented, that is depending upon an open, honest, and progressive district attorney's office recognizing and honoring that right, which they do not...
mason wheeler's sockpuppet said: (the same thing mason wheeler said)
the POINT you keep (purposefully) missing, is that weird al et al (hhh) IS one of the few avenues of general information about copyright to 90-99% or more of the public who DON'T hang out at techdirt or otherwise keep abreast of such issues...
so, the general public take some significant portion of *whatever* miniscule interest and knowledge they have about copyright, etc, from the chickenshit approach of weird al, which gives a FALSE and PERVERTED picture of HOW IT SHOULD WORK...
i do not for one second deny him the right to do it 'his way' and BEG for permission (yes, he actually tracked down one singer as she came off stage to BEG for permission to do what he ALREADY HAD THE RIGHT to do; not to mention, he demurred on doing a song or two he did not get 'permission' to do, AGAIN, giving a FALSE impression of the issue)...
i am saying that one of the major practitioners of satire/parody recognized by the public, is giving BAD advice through HIS preferred personal practices...
kids, do NOT do what weird al does: TAKE YOUR RIGHTS and use them (or you will lose them by lamers like weird al deprecating the practice of fair use); don't let ANYONE make you beg or apologize for exercising your rights...
Empire must fall. the sooner the fall, the gentler for all...
yes, it is difficult to reconcile the king family's greedy, nasty 'defense' of MLK's speeches, etc... fuckers were (maybe still are) at each other's throats in the courts trying to out-greed each other over what they could extract from their dead father's corpus of work... so disappointing that such a great man had such petty offspring: kings of moral justice to slaves of mammon in one generation... impressive...
also disappointing, is when directors like this, or people like weird al, essentially GIVE UP their RIGHTS to fair use in order to be 'polite' or some such ridiculous horseshit... (AS IF the shoe were on the other foot, the holders of the copyright are NOT 'polite' in any way, shape or form...) THEY are HURTING copyright for the rest of us by NOT using the exceptions that are in the law already, much less further the carve out of these exceptions... weird al is a dick for not using copyright right, AND it then promotes more ignorance of the law and fair use... but hey, he's got his, so fuck y'all...
not that your prescriptions don't make sense (if not cents) from the perspective of the current system; however, the starting premise (that ANY of these media korporations have ANY respect for the consumers AT ALL) is flawed...
we are caught in a game of rooting for 'our' rapacious bandits, instead of *those* other rapacious bandits who are engaging in internecine warfare we can hardly influence within the constraints of the system...
SWMBO and i are being amused with our dish favorite lists: while we only have a local fox for sports on our favorites lists, we have noticed a bunch of other channels which have bouncing around on our list with red shading, denoting they are not available... our list basically stays the same, but the channels flip in or out of availability/red in a seemingly random fashion...
that's all for our benefit, richtig ? ? ?
idiot media kingpins slit their own throats and wonder where all the blood is coming from...
well, in all likelihood, the terms of the covenant of your subdivision specify you must belong to the HOA... so, it IS part of the contract for sale for anyone who buys within that subdivision...
in general, HOA SUCK big time... had to do it over, NO WAY i would have bought our property with the idiots who run the association... (picture petty asshole neighbors who team up with lawyers who are salivating because they 'earn' THOUSANDS of dollars filing liens, etc over $200 dues in arrears... yes, you heard right, we spent THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars to hound one of our 'neighbors' to death over a couple hundred dollars not paid... about 3-4 fucktards out of the 15 properties make life miserable for everyone, but we can't get enough people involved to vote them out...)
funnily enough, it is 'against the law' (hardeehar har har) for the kops NOT to report these stats... the (in)justice dept is supposed to keep them, but hasn't bothered... maybe we should sicc the (in) justice department on them... oh, wait... its good to be the king ! !!
*sigh* evidently missing another point i made: advertisers CAN make 'responsible' (sic) advertising NOW, WHY don't they ? ? ? WHAT is going to change that will 'force' them to make 'good' ads ? ? ? again, my point is valid: IT DOES NOT MATTER if EVERY SINGLE ad was 'great', funny, cool, tasteful, entertaining, and fun, Fun, FUN ! ! ! WHO wants them plastered in front of them EVERYWHERE they go, NO MATTER HOW 'GOOD' THEY ARE ? ? ? ...and THAT is what they are accomplishing: ad platforms EVERYWHERE, all the time...
1. there is a fundamental flaw with commenting systems, that this one exhibits as well: active threads with lively debates become quickly obsoleted when that story scrolls down the list... (note: i don't 'blame' techdirt for this, it simply is a part of how most commenting systems work and are flawed, not a nefarious plot...) 2. in that respect, i am continuing a response to another post on ads where the author (forget which techdirtian, but it doesn't really matter) tried to continue this canard of how ads can be good, No Really! i will not get into a point-by-point rebuttal (which -again, given the post has scrolled into limbo, is pointless), but merely state several weaknesses with the defense proffered: A. NO ONE has 'refuted' (it can not be) one of my main points, that advertisements constitute a pernicious form of aural and visual pollution... you merely (without asserting it) seem to imply that *whatever* downside of ads is more than compensated for by the upside... (said 'upside' i both deny and decry...) B. NO ONE has 'refuted' that ads ARE annoying (purposefully so), NOT informative... there is NO REASON advertisers could not take the tack techdirt constantly refers to as far as making more unobtrusive, inserted 'naturally' in content, etc, etc, etc, TODAY... they do not; they WILL not... to hope that advertisers will be measured and tasteful in their ad campaigns is silly sophistry: THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING them from doing so now, yet they do not; WHY they will do so under your 'good-ads' regime is beyond me... C. NO ONE has 'refuted' that the WHOLE INTENTION of this 'golden age of neo-advertising' IS attempting to serve ads up EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME... again, it is merely technology that has made making ads ubiquitous with very little time, effort, or resources... DO NOT CARE HOW clever, funny, cool, current, or even informative ads are, when they plaster OUR WORLD wall-to-wall, 24/7 THEY SUCK NO MATTER HOW 'GOOD'... D. the application of 'no true Scotsman' in the form of ads is disingenuous: my rejection of billboards was 'refuted' by the absolutely MINIMAL counter-example of farmer john having a 'harvest days' billboard by the highway... you know, if THAT WAS ALL we were being exposed to, i might not have a problem; but it isn't, is it ? ? ? it is 99 garish billboards for every one of farmer john's theoretically helpful informative billboards... and, yes, i WILL throw that baby out with that bathwater... E. *sigh* it seems redundant to repeat to techdirt what they repeat about others a number of times (with validity): how people see an issue depends on who signs their paycheck; advertisers indirectly sign your paycheck, why am i not surprised you are all for advertising ? ? ? (just -you know- 'good' advertising... *snort*) 3. lastly, i will say the responses of the writer were indicative of his dislike for me (get in line), but not indicative of close reasoning and logic: the moronic 'you type like a baby and use shouty-caps all the time, blah blah blah' is STUPID SHIT, SHUT THE FUCK UP, you are demonstrating you value style over substance... (but really, you are just looking for ANY excuse to attack me, aren't you ?) address the points, or go the fuck home and bitch to your spouse about what a mean asshole i am... i know i do... (bitch to my wife about what a mean asshole i am...)
she was 'duped' into the performance ? ? ? not sure how that works, and i would bet dollars to donut holes that there are PLENTY of instances where actors were told one thing, but the project morphs into something else... life changes, don't it...
further, does this mean that any/all actors can now sue if they simply don't like how their character is portrayed ? ? ? so, there is no need for actual directors and film editors any longer, the actors are going to be in charge of those decisions ? ? ?
um, that kind of obviates the whole point of producers/directors imposing THEIR creative vision on the movie/whatever...
suck it up and move on, entitled wench, nobody cares but you...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And automatic payroll deposits?
i will only say this: wife/i got a home construction loan, and totally unexpectedly got a modest amount of money from a relative who died and left a trust account... being good little droids, we reported that money in our loan app, and were taken aback to find out *THEY* wanted to give us the third degree where they money came from, a copy of the will, blah blah blah...
all for money that was distributed by check from a trust account, NOT a will or anything involved... fucking creeps, dog damn i hates me some banksters...
as per usual, bullshit that THEY DO gets blamed on US; just like how NEGATIVE interest rates are becoming reality; *supposedly* to get big money holders to get their money out of savings accounts and put it in the stock market where The They (tm) can steal it fair and square...
um, just one tiny detail: IT IS THE BANKS who are sitting on tons of money they refuse to lend out; why isn't the Fed charging *them* negative interest to -you know- 'encourage' them to lend out the money ? ? ?
one racket on top of another... i'm investing in pitchforks FTW ! ! !
...they apparently KNOW that it was not likely from illegal means, YET THEY STILL are going to confiscate the money, simply because it 'looks suspicious' with the 'structuring' bullshit ? ? ?
so-o-o-o, the 'lesson' is: forget about whether you are doing anything actually illegal or not (AND who knows these days?), but simply APPEARING to be suspicious is enough to get your life's savings confiscated with no effective method to fight it...
AND she STILL has the sword of damocles hanging over her head for -what?- FOREVER ? ? ? dog almighty, we are so fucked...
On the post: How Copyright Makes Culture Disappear
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Follow the money
our founding era copyright terms of 14/14 years (and was shorter than that, originally) was made back in the day when we had town criers as teevee, horses packing ACTUAL mail for days and weeks, local papers were LOCAL, and little to nothing of a widespread means of disseminating information analogous to the inertnet... (maybe public houses, at best)
NOW, when we have essentially worldwide instant communications and any number of specialized publications available nearly everywhere, NOW we have to have terms of life plus intolerable ? ? ?
THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE ! ! !
(for the 99%...)
On the post: How Copyright Makes Culture Disappear
Re: Re: Re: Re: Follow the money
this is NOTHING but social engineering, with the guiding principle being: them that has, gets...
there is no 'inherent right' that some creator benefit from some creation forever, AND their heirs do as well... that is total bullshit...
i'm starting to think urine idjit...
On the post: How Copyright Makes Culture Disappear
Re: Re: Re: Re: Follow the money
IF (let's play pwetend) the purported reason of encouraging creation by giving the 'owner' (let's not open that can of worms) certain monopoly rights for a certain length of time (seemingly arbitrary) which gives them motivation to create; then it is OBVIOUS (?) that there is nothing gained by 'encouraging' them to create after they are fucking dead...
in fact, when you think about it, payments to the creator's heirs AFTER death (um, do korporations ever die ? ? ?) INHIBIT creativity in general, in that the creator's heirs have no reason to create shit, but their signature on daddy's (whoever) royalty checks...
taking that one step further, LENGTHENING the terms of monopoly INHIBIT creativity in a similar fashion: if person A creates thing X and it catches on for whatever reason(s), they then have no real motivation to create anything else, because they know they can milk X for a lifetime plus...
by that logic, monopoly terms should be shorter, not longer...
NOT TO MENTION, as someone did in another blog in the context of 'old' software that has no commercial use/value, but is STILL under the lock and key of copyright and/or patents for -essentially- 'forever'... by the time that software falls out of its monopoly terms, it will be totally useless... IF released today, it could help a lot of people...
as was pointed out in the comments alluded to above, and as is commonly reiterated here, the copyright 'deal' is BROKEN: WE GIVE the creator certain UNNATURAL monopoly rights for a certain length of time, and we are SUPPOSED to benefit from that creation after this term has expired...
BUT, what has happened is, the copyright maximalists have gotten it ALL their way in making ridiculously long terms, preposterous conditions, and constant clawback of fair use, etc; and OUR BENEFIT has been so diluted and delayed that it is close to worthless: we are giving people unnatural rights and not getting ANYTHING in return but IP aggravation and a STULTIFYING INFLUENCE on general creativity at all levels...
in short, we 99% have been blued, screwed and tattooed...
On the post: Our Reply To A Totally Bogus Monkey Selfie Cease & Desist
Re: Step one: Apply cold water to burn area
the camera explosion (as it were) in recent years has filtered down to hunters (who actually 'pioneered' a lot of work in this area), who like to use so-called 'game cameras' or 'trail cameras' to capture images of -usually- wildlife tripping a motion-detector/whatever, to take pictures -still or video- of themselves which is either stored, or simply uploaded to the hunter's email, and he (she) checks it from there...
so, the natural question arises: who (if anyone) 'owns' the copyright on the trail cameras where the animal triggers the picture ? ??
it would seem from a common sense perspective, the hunter does, since he set up the camera for that purpose... *BUT*, does the fact that the wildlife 'takes' the picture in tripping the shutter make any difference ? ? ?
On the post: Indian Government Orders 32 Web Sites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archive.Org, Pastebin, DailyMotion And Vimeo
gee, i'm sure that won't have any unintended consequences...
...and archive.org ? ? ? THE BEST site on the innertubes ? ? ? sure, hobble yourselves voluntarily, india...
act in haste, repent at leisure...
On the post: Police In Scotland Tweet Out Plans To 'Investigate' Any 'Offensive Comments' On Social Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
ANY control from Empire in the judicial realm...
2. DOES NOT matter if jury nullification is 'correct' or 'right' all, most or some of the time; JUST LIKE it does not 'matter' whether 'normal' judge/jury decisions are 'right'...
they are BOTH (or should be) valid means of reaching verdicts, whether the verdict is 100% metaphysically 'correct' or not, is another matter... (thus, appeals courts)
it is the FACT that we SHOULD (as jurists) have the RIGHT to both reject bad laws, and make new precedents based on WE THE PEOPLE's verdict...
of course, as that one and others have commented, that is depending upon an open, honest, and progressive district attorney's office recognizing and honoring that right, which they do not...
On the post: How Copyright Forced A Filmmaker To Rewrite Martin Luther King's Historic Words
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(the same thing mason wheeler said)
the POINT you keep (purposefully) missing, is that weird al et al (hhh) IS one of the few avenues of general information about copyright to 90-99% or more of the public who DON'T hang out at techdirt or otherwise keep abreast of such issues...
so, the general public take some significant portion of *whatever* miniscule interest and knowledge they have about copyright, etc, from the chickenshit approach of weird al, which gives a FALSE and PERVERTED picture of HOW IT SHOULD WORK...
i do not for one second deny him the right to do it 'his way' and BEG for permission (yes, he actually tracked down one singer as she came off stage to BEG for permission to do what he ALREADY HAD THE RIGHT to do; not to mention, he demurred on doing a song or two he did not get 'permission' to do, AGAIN, giving a FALSE impression of the issue)...
i am saying that one of the major practitioners of satire/parody recognized by the public, is giving BAD advice through HIS preferred personal practices...
kids, do NOT do what weird al does: TAKE YOUR RIGHTS and use them (or you will lose them by lamers like weird al deprecating the practice of fair use); don't let ANYONE make you beg or apologize for exercising your rights...
Empire must fall.
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all...
On the post: Joke Tweet Gets Man Arrested
sweet geebus...
and i thought it was not borderline funny, but just plain funny, period... (which *should* be besides the point...)
On the post: How Copyright Forced A Filmmaker To Rewrite Martin Luther King's Historic Words
Re:
so disappointing that such a great man had such petty offspring: kings of moral justice to slaves of mammon in one generation... impressive...
also disappointing, is when directors like this, or people like weird al, essentially GIVE UP their RIGHTS to fair use in order to be 'polite' or some such ridiculous horseshit...
(AS IF the shoe were on the other foot, the holders of the copyright are NOT 'polite' in any way, shape or form...) THEY are HURTING copyright for the rest of us by NOT using the exceptions that are in the law already, much less further the carve out of these exceptions...
weird al is a dick for not using copyright right, AND it then promotes more ignorance of the law and fair use... but hey, he's got his, so fuck y'all...
On the post: Dish, Fox News Feud Again Illustrates How The Cable TV Industry Is Digging Its Own Grave
Re: Re: How sad...
we are caught in a game of rooting for 'our' rapacious bandits, instead of *those* other rapacious bandits who are engaging in internecine warfare we can hardly influence within the constraints of the system...
SWMBO and i are being amused with our dish favorite lists: while we only have a local fox for sports on our favorites lists, we have noticed a bunch of other channels which have bouncing around on our list with red shading, denoting they are not available... our list basically stays the same, but the channels flip in or out of availability/red in a seemingly random fashion...
that's all for our benefit, richtig ? ? ?
idiot media kingpins slit their own throats and wonder where all the blood is coming from...
On the post: Comcast, NBC Have Learned Little, Still Cling Tightly To Broken 'TV Everywhere' Mindset
Re:
hee hee hee
On the post: Film Academy Sues Family Of Oscar Winner For Selling Trophy On Ebay
Re: Who owns it?
so, it IS part of the contract for sale for anyone who buys within that subdivision...
in general, HOA SUCK big time... had to do it over, NO WAY i would have bought our property with the idiots who run the association...
(picture petty asshole neighbors who team up with lawyers who are salivating because they 'earn' THOUSANDS of dollars filing liens, etc over $200 dues in arrears... yes, you heard right, we spent THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars to hound one of our 'neighbors' to death over a couple hundred dollars not paid... about 3-4 fucktards out of the 15 properties make life miserable for everyone, but we can't get enough people involved to vote them out...)
On the post: Cleveland Police Union Rep: Citizens Think They Understand The Law? Ridiculous!
Re: Re:
oh, wait...
its good to be the king ! !!
On the post: Cleveland Police Union Rep: Citizens Think They Understand The Law? Ridiculous!
Re: And yet...
pedant off/
On the post: DailyDirt: Advertising Needs To Be More Considerate
Re: Re: continuing on previous ad rant...
WHAT is going to change that will 'force' them to make 'good' ads ? ? ?
again, my point is valid: IT DOES NOT MATTER if EVERY SINGLE ad was 'great', funny, cool, tasteful, entertaining, and fun, Fun, FUN ! ! ! WHO wants them plastered in front of them EVERYWHERE they go, NO MATTER HOW 'GOOD' THEY ARE ? ? ?
...and THAT is what they are accomplishing: ad platforms EVERYWHERE, all the time...
On the post: DailyDirt: Advertising Needs To Be More Considerate
continuing on previous ad rant...
(note: i don't 'blame' techdirt for this, it simply is a part of how most commenting systems work and are flawed, not a nefarious plot...)
2. in that respect, i am continuing a response to another post on ads where the author (forget which techdirtian, but it doesn't really matter) tried to continue this canard of how ads can be good, No Really!
i will not get into a point-by-point rebuttal (which -again, given the post has scrolled into limbo, is pointless), but merely state several weaknesses with the defense proffered:
A. NO ONE has 'refuted' (it can not be) one of my main points, that advertisements constitute a pernicious form of aural and visual pollution...
you merely (without asserting it) seem to imply that *whatever* downside of ads is more than compensated for by the upside... (said 'upside' i both deny and decry...)
B. NO ONE has 'refuted' that ads ARE annoying (purposefully so), NOT informative... there is NO REASON advertisers could not take the tack techdirt constantly refers to as far as making more unobtrusive, inserted 'naturally' in content, etc, etc, etc, TODAY... they do not; they WILL not...
to hope that advertisers will be measured and tasteful in their ad campaigns is silly sophistry: THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING them from doing so now, yet they do not; WHY they will do so under your 'good-ads' regime is beyond me...
C. NO ONE has 'refuted' that the WHOLE INTENTION of this 'golden age of neo-advertising' IS attempting to serve ads up EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME... again, it is merely technology that has made making ads ubiquitous with very little time, effort, or resources...
DO NOT CARE HOW clever, funny, cool, current, or even informative ads are, when they plaster OUR WORLD wall-to-wall, 24/7 THEY SUCK NO MATTER HOW 'GOOD'...
D. the application of 'no true Scotsman' in the form of ads is disingenuous: my rejection of billboards was 'refuted' by the absolutely MINIMAL counter-example of farmer john having a 'harvest days' billboard by the highway...
you know, if THAT WAS ALL we were being exposed to, i might not have a problem; but it isn't, is it ? ? ? it is 99 garish billboards for every one of farmer john's theoretically helpful informative billboards...
and, yes, i WILL throw that baby out with that bathwater...
E. *sigh* it seems redundant to repeat to techdirt what they repeat about others a number of times (with validity): how people see an issue depends on who signs their paycheck; advertisers indirectly sign your paycheck, why am i not surprised you are all for advertising ? ? ? (just -you know- 'good' advertising... *snort*)
3. lastly, i will say the responses of the writer were indicative of his dislike for me (get in line), but not indicative of close reasoning and logic: the moronic 'you type like a baby and use shouty-caps all the time, blah blah blah' is STUPID SHIT, SHUT THE FUCK UP, you are demonstrating you value style over substance... (but really, you are just looking for ANY excuse to attack me, aren't you ?)
address the points, or go the fuck home and bitch to your spouse about what a mean asshole i am...
i know i do...
(bitch to my wife about what a mean asshole i am...)
On the post: Celine Dion And Human Cannonballs: The Garcia v Google En Banc Oral Argument
Re:
further, does this mean that any/all actors can now sue if they simply don't like how their character is portrayed ? ? ?
so, there is no need for actual directors and film editors any longer, the actors are going to be in charge of those decisions ? ? ?
um, that kind of obviates the whole point of producers/directors imposing THEIR creative vision on the movie/whatever...
suck it up and move on, entitled wench, nobody cares but you...
On the post: IRS Drops Its Asset Forfeiture Case Against Owner Of Small, Cash-Only Restaurant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And automatic payroll deposits?
being good little droids, we reported that money in our loan app, and were taken aback to find out *THEY* wanted to give us the third degree where they money came from, a copy of the will, blah blah blah...
all for money that was distributed by check from a trust account, NOT a will or anything involved...
fucking creeps, dog damn i hates me some banksters...
as per usual, bullshit that THEY DO gets blamed on US; just like how NEGATIVE interest rates are becoming reality; *supposedly* to get big money holders to get their money out of savings accounts and put it in the stock market where The They (tm) can steal it fair and square...
um, just one tiny detail: IT IS THE BANKS who are sitting on tons of money they refuse to lend out; why isn't the Fed charging *them* negative interest to -you know- 'encourage' them to lend out the money ? ? ?
one racket on top of another...
i'm investing in pitchforks FTW ! ! !
On the post: 3 Silly Years Later, Chik-Fil-A Loses Trademark Dispute Over Kale
Re: Re:
8^)
broccoli rules ! ! !
On the post: IRS Drops Its Asset Forfeiture Case Against Owner Of Small, Cash-Only Restaurant
well, here's what gets me...
so-o-o-o, the 'lesson' is: forget about whether you are doing anything actually illegal or not (AND who knows these days?), but simply APPEARING to be suspicious is enough to get your life's savings confiscated with no effective method to fight it...
AND she STILL has the sword of damocles hanging over her head for -what?- FOREVER ? ? ? dog almighty, we are so fucked...
Next >>