I only want it when it's ready. Are you saying the movie isn't ready the day after release?
To use your example: How do you think McDonalds would do, from a business standpoint, if they insisted that you wait 2.8 hours for your McRib, after it was cooked, because they didn't want to canabalize their burger sales and some marketing guys said that if I'm standing around in a McDonalds waiting for my McRib, I'm more likely to buy a burger. You'd say it was stupid, I bet. My choice to buy one has zero bearing on my choice to buy the other.
To make matters worse, since the 28 day window is fake, i.e., I could go to the store and buy it, it's available for me to stream free *long* before it is legitimately. That's called "shooting yourself in the foot" and it's generally considered a "Bad Thing".
The reality? You are Hollywood movie consumers, and this stuff bothers you because it hurts your enjoyment of the product (and perhaps makes it a little harder to find a decent DVD rip to download).
About goddamn time. We are the consumers. They are hurting our enjoyment of their product.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Is that why those reviews are missing? I noticed it this weekend, and was a little bummed; it was very useful to have them all in one place.
Do you know what the result of not having them there was? I didn't click through to yelp once on my trip. They should be careful what they ask for, they just might get it.
No one is saying anything of the sort. What is being said is that you can't eliminate the legitimate speech when attempting to eliminate the copyright infringement. No where has anyone said that copyright infringement is protected by the first amendment, that is a straw man you keep setting up.
Luckily there is a method in place to have infringing material taken down: The DMCA Takedown Request. With this tool, that was specifically asked for by the content distributors, (on behalf of the content creators, I'm *sure* /s) one can eliminate the infringing material without collateral damage to the protected speech.
I'm not sure how you still don't understand what is talked about on this site, since you seem to be here more than anyone, except possibly Mike.
Don't forget, Karl, about the story of the loaves and the fishes. That's the only accurate analogy of copyright infringement using physical goods I've ever read. Maybe the OP needs to re-evaluate what his religion says is okay.
Think of the long tail if this sort of thing were allowed! If any judge (even those in, say, east Texas) could go out of their way to challenge the constitution, it would be chaos; there would be conflicting case law everywhere. It's much better, in my opinion, to restrict this sort of thing to cases that actually revolve around the issue.
If Joel wants to challenge the constitutionality of these (ridiculous) awards, by all means, he should, but in a trial that focuses on that point, not in a criminal copyright infringement trial.
I find myself agreeing with the ruling. Judges shouldn't be going out of the way to tackle constitutional issues. Especially since there is another way, in this case, to reach the desired goal.
Most the artists I know personally work just as hard as anyone else; Maybe even harder. It seems, you're linking the content creators (artists) with the content distributors (labels, studios, etc)
The distributors *want* you to link them with the creators, because they think that gives them a moral high ground. Unfortunately, it's having the opposite effect, and the creators are being dragged down with the distributors.
Place blame where blame is due.
Please note: Not *all* artists are hard working, just the good ones. The other 5% are bums. :P
On the post: Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month
Re:
On the post: E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
You learn something new everyday.
On the post: Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month
Re: Re: Re:
To use your example: How do you think McDonalds would do, from a business standpoint, if they insisted that you wait 2.8 hours for your McRib, after it was cooked, because they didn't want to canabalize their burger sales and some marketing guys said that if I'm standing around in a McDonalds waiting for my McRib, I'm more likely to buy a burger. You'd say it was stupid, I bet. My choice to buy one has zero bearing on my choice to buy the other.
To make matters worse, since the 28 day window is fake, i.e., I could go to the store and buy it, it's available for me to stream free *long* before it is legitimately. That's called "shooting yourself in the foot" and it's generally considered a "Bad Thing".
WB, supporting piracy since 2003.
On the post: E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
Obvious
On the post: Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month
Re:
About goddamn time. We are the consumers. They are hurting our enjoyment of their product.
Welcome to our side of the debate, my friend.
On the post: Google Reveals 70% Increase In Requests For Content Removal; Including Law Enforcement Wanting To Hide Police Brutality
Little known fact.
They should try that first.
On the post: Google Reveals 70% Increase In Requests For Content Removal; Including Law Enforcement Wanting To Hide Police Brutality
Re:
2. It's "Don't be evil", not "do no evil"
On the post: China: Great Firewall Isn't Censorship, It's Safeguarding The Public
Re:
On the post: What If A Court Gave An Important Ruling, But We Were Not Allowed To Know What It Was?
I like this part better.
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: To expand on my tweet...
Do you know what the result of not having them there was? I didn't click through to yelp once on my trip. They should be careful what they ask for, they just might get it.
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Luckily there is a method in place to have infringing material taken down: The DMCA Takedown Request. With this tool, that was specifically asked for by the content distributors, (on behalf of the content creators, I'm *sure* /s) one can eliminate the infringing material without collateral damage to the protected speech.
I'm not sure how you still don't understand what is talked about on this site, since you seem to be here more than anyone, except possibly Mike.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: With rights comes obligations
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Joel wants to challenge the constitutionality of these (ridiculous) awards, by all means, he should, but in a trial that focuses on that point, not in a criminal copyright infringement trial.
Just my opinion. Feel free to change my mind.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re:
On the post: Straw Man
Re: A way to improve your site
+2 Douche-Bag.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not all law is contract law
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: We'll we know where you stand
The law is not necessarily moral. It can be, but to assume it has to be is foolish.
Which, of course, is exactly what the post you're responding to says. It's like you're arguing Jeopardy style.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: I disagree
The distributors *want* you to link them with the creators, because they think that gives them a moral high ground. Unfortunately, it's having the opposite effect, and the creators are being dragged down with the distributors.
Place blame where blame is due.
Please note: Not *all* artists are hard working, just the good ones. The other 5% are bums. :P
Next >>