And bonus: Go read the article... he never said he's looking for a free computer. Now, this may be a mistake on the part of Google translation, but it looks more like he's asking for the repair/replacement of the LCD screen for free since the service provider failed to perform as agreed.
So... the customer is the company fixing the computer? They're the only two parties here. Or do you mean the lawyer involved in the suite? The judge to review the case? Enlighten me... who's the customer.
Oh wait! I think I got it... it's the guy who paid money to the company in exchange for services. you know... the very definition of a customer.
Where's the [Everyone Point And Laugh At The Troll] button for this post? I guess that would be too big of a button... Maybe an acronym? EPALATT... hmm potential, methinks.
Libel (noun)
a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/libel (emphasis added)
So… I think you mean libel; but you’re still wrong. Both libel and slander have to be false information. Now, do you have anything that shows his account of the event contains false statements? I’d love to see it.
What are you talking about? This guy wrote up a description of his experience. From what I could read in the translated copy of his write-up, he didn't curse, insult, or slander anyone. Is he stretching his interpretation of the law in insisting on a new computer for his troubles? Maybe. And the laws of his country will deal with it. But he's not trying to steal anything. And the point of the article is that a company is responding to negative press with a lawsuit.
I really hope you don't lead the customer relations for wherever you work. I'd hate to do business with someone who assumes I'm a thief until proven otherwise.
From their statement: "If you feel you have been misled by our promotions, we wish to unreservedly apologise[sic] and offer a full refund."
There will still be people who swear that these things actually work and will continue to wear them and defend them. I'm waiting to overhear a conversation around my office on how one of these snake-bands change their life!!!
I'll concede the point that movie makers should be given a fair amount of time to try to recoup their expenses. And perhaps 5 years would be too short. You make a good argument for the film industry.
But if we do extend it too far, we’d be offering protection for the risk of bad movies. How long is too long? I don’t know. Some movies legitimately take a long time to recoup… I loved Donny Darko (but the sequel was weak tea at best) and I’m glad that it did well. But not every movie will. Look at Adam Sandler’s ‘Going Overboard’: horrible movie (in my opinion) that is only known about now because he went on to greater fame. The copyright system is not supposed to protect against the eventuality that a film might someday make money.
And I think we both agree the 90/120 or Life+70 is far outside the intention of 'recouping expenses'. At that point, we're doing nothing but continuing to pay for people something they did long long ago. I wish I was still being paid for the burgers I flipped 15 years ago. Hell, I wouldn't have to work as hard now.
And that's why I think our system is hindering creativity. Not only does it put in place stiff penalties for derivative works (which may be legitimately good on their own), but we're giving incentive to artists to NOT create anything new... why should they? They're still getting paid. If not them, then someone who didn't even create the work is getting paid for it.
"I would agree that 5 years is way too short. Some movies, for example, fail to find their feet until a DVD release a few years later, while a band may find a lot of increased royalties from their early CDs when they have a larger hit a few years later."
I disagree with the logic here. By this argument, the copyright system would be a protection from unpopularity. If I make a movie that doesn't recoup cost for 5 years then either a) I made a bad movie that no one likes or b) I spent too much making it. While those are risks of shooting movies, why is the copyright system supposed to help protect against that risk? That's far far outside its intended purpose.
And on the music premise: no. First, same thing as the movies... copyright is not supposed to protect me from being unpopular. If a band releases their first album and it bombs, but the second album gets them some major fan base, there's no guarantee that people are suddenly going to buy the first one. Additionally, we've discussed ad nauseam that album sales are NOT the key to artists making money - even those who self-distribute. So even if the CR system was supposed to protect their income, it would be doing it the wrong way.
Or, even better, I'll buy that right from you so I can continue earning that money. I know I didn't do anything to contribute to it, but hey, if I pay good money for the rights...
"Yes I read it, and I agree with the courts. The new book would not exist nor would have been created without TCITR exisitng to start with. It isn't inspired by, it is copied from, and that is a huge difference. Those who hold the rights are the ones who get to say yes or no on that sort of thing until copyright expires."
I'm not arguing who has which rights... I know the copyright holders have the rights to decide who copies what... that's the whole meaning of the word. What I'm arguing is that copyright no longer does what it was originally intended to because it has been relegated to a welfare system to fund those who hold the copyrights- often times, not even the people who created the work. And you still haven't addressed my point that copyright is stifling creativity by holding up the material that could be used to create new material. You can call it derivative all you want... but the fact is that the story of TCITR is done... someone else said "hey, let's tell a bit more story here". That's creating a richer tapestry in the world of TCITR.
"As for you lists of changes, please consider the difference between changes in the laws and adjustment made to meet treaty agreements. There has been 1 law and 4 adjustments in 220 years, which isn't very often. In that time frame hundreds of thousands of works have fallen into the public domain."
And almost every one of those changes has been to extend copyright. We haven't addressed copyright's intention, purpose, usefulness, effectiveness in light of changing environment or technology... we've made the period that owners of CR can keep milking it for money get longer.
"There is another reality you have to accept: The US is becoming more and more of a IP and service related economy. The US doesn't do much heavy manufacturing anymore, that is done offshore where labor is cheap. Copyright is, in many ways, to protect what it is that the US produces. Like many things the government trades away your short term gain of being legally able to copy 5 year old movies in return for stronger defence of the nation’s products. It might not satisfy your little world, but the government has to look at things overall, not just working to get you your binky so you feel better."
I don't have to accept any reality... If I see something that I disagree with, it's my given right and freedom (and, in my opinion, responsibility) to effect change. Just saying "oops... that's the way it is. Oh well..." is about as mindlessly-conformist as you can get. That's why terms like "sheeple" came to be.
And CR is to protect America's "produce"? Sounds like how CR is being used to shore up the recording industry's failing business model. Weak argument there. If America is falling behind in contributing to the world, maybe we need to come up with a better strategy to contribution.
But you're wrong... they're not protecting some kind of produce here... they're protecting their ability to make money off of it. And who are they defending against? Their own people? Are they protecting us from ourselves here? Sorry, but you're argument doesn't really hold up here.
And if you're going to turn to ad hominim attacks, you might want to at least directly insult people. When you imply it like with the 'binky' comment, it makes you look childish and snipey.
Same thing as the Catcher in the Rye sequel. It could be written (subject to the CR laws in the author's country), but it would be blocked from publication and release here in the US.
the 'present tense' is modified with the "has yet". It implies that no one has made explanation yet... or to put it another way: the present-tense of 'explanation' has not yet been created.
It’s one of the reasons I hate the 'grammatical rule' of ending a sentence with a preposition. There is nothing conceptually wrong with saying "no one has explained it yet". However, the effete high-society snobs in the Victorian era introduced a good number of these 'rules' so that the educated would sound "better" than the uneducated poor. And that's the only reason we have such rules.
"One of the the things that copyright opponents do is try to make it sound like these works are somehow not available, out of reach, or otherwise cannot be enjoyed by the public. That is patently false, we all know that."
No... what we "CR opponents" do is try to show how our Copyright system is doing the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.
"Copyright law has been amended a few times over it's history to allow for a longer copyright. "
A "few" times... heh...
Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1831 - extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
Universal Copyright Convention - ratified by the U.S. in 1954, and again in 1971, this treaty was developed by UNESCO as an alternative to the Berne Convention
Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years; extended federal copyright to unpublished works; preempted state copyright laws; codified much copyright doctrine that had originated in case law
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 - removed the requirement for renewal
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - criminalized some cases of copyright infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_copyright_law
"There will never be enough votes in the house and senate in the US to undo these changes. They are the law of the land, reviewed and past by your elected officials, doing their jobs."
Not sure what point you're making here except that the votes will never be pushed through. That's kind of an argument a copyright opponent would make about how those votes could never be purchased because the industries getting fat off the current system can pay higher than we opponents.
"Desperate and whiny, one of the TD things that made it into 2011 unscathed."
Along with ad hominim troll-attacks without actually supporting a position. You want to show how Copyright is a good thing, then show how society has been improved here.
You're missing the entire point here. We don't want free copies of these works. What we want is for other artists and writers to be able to use these works to create new works based on them without worry about being sued. Did you read the post a few weeks ago about the sequel to The Catcher in the Rye? If that book was in the public domain, the sequel would be published uncontested here in the US. But instead of that, such works are disallowed and blocked; thereby reducing the enrichment of our collective society.
A bipedal robot, that runs like people do, uses "pneumatic muscles" which mimic human legs. This robot looks like it still needs to learn how to walk first."
"They deserve everything that gov is going to do to them."
So... the government is going to continue allowing losing lawsuits to be filed? They're going to pressure financial institutions to not do business with them? Just what is it you expect the government to do here?
And the article is about what the RIAA/MPAA was doing to them, not the government. Or do you mean that the RIAA/MPAA owns enough of the government now to be considered 'the government'.
"Sounds like you need to get a new bank or you need to ask a human at your bank where you can find the info you are looking for."
Sounds to me like you're advocating talking to a bank rep about it... which is exactly what we were talking about. Asking the bank and taking thier word for it. Most people wouldn't call to ask for a document then read it for information they're not even sure of the location of. They'd just ask the bank "hey, what's my funds availability?" And that's not stupid or lazy, it's deferring to the experts.
I'm not arguing the responsibility of the funds... ultimately it is yours. But if the bank says "yes the money is there" when it's not, that's thier mistake, not yours.
"I disagree that the 'information given to them is wrong' as you put it. The information given was not properly understood, misunderstanding and wrong are not the same thing."
The hypothetical conversation Rose posted was pretty straight-forward.
No one is saying that the banks should hold deposits for five days or a week or thirty days, or whatever. As the post said, we want banks to give people an honest disclosure about their money. Like this:
Teller: "Right now, it looks like the funds are available, and that this check will eventually clear successfully. However, please note that it hasn't actually cleared yet. Would you like me to make those funds available to your account now or when the check actually clears?
Customer: Now.
Teller: Please note that you'll be liable for these funds if the check is not cleared. You may also be assessed a fee for each purchase or withdrawal that occurs.
Customer: Oh... Well, nevermind. Just deposit the money when the check actually clears.
Teller: Alright, no problem. Check back in x days, and we'll let you know if it's actually cleared the issuing bank.
So, if instead, the conversation ended at the teller saying "yes, the money is in your account" with no disclaimer that the money might not really be there, then that's dishonest at worst, sloppy at best.
"Like I said, the problem is with people not with the bank. We need to educate people not change banking. No amount of changes to banking will fix the issues surrounding successful social engineering."
So when we say that a bank should discuss the in's and out's of the transaction when asked "hey is my money there", to the end results of the customer having a better understanding on how their account works, how is that NOT educational? Should the government be pressured into introducing legislation that would require that kind of discussion? No. Not at all. But if legislation exists that’s keeping banks from taking that action, or preventing banks who want to change their practices to protect their customers from fraudulent checks, why should you or anyone else say “no, the customer is stupid, don’t change anything”?
We've heard from others in this post that there are FDIC regulations which may keep banks from changing their funds availability policy. If the banks want to change their processes and can't, then how is that customer stupidity? Sounds to me like you're so angry at dumb (and I can't blame you) that you're unwilling to look at alternatives.
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmmm
In case 3 clicks is too many: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf= 1&sl=el&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fxxx.avclub.gr%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D1382169
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmmm
Oh wait! I think I got it... it's the guy who paid money to the company in exchange for services. you know... the very definition of a customer.
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: "In his opinion" WTF
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: Re: Re: hrmmm
So… I think you mean libel; but you’re still wrong. Both libel and slander have to be false information. Now, do you have anything that shows his account of the event contains false statements? I’d love to see it.
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmmm
I really hope you don't lead the customer relations for wherever you work. I'd hate to do business with someone who assumes I'm a thief until proven otherwise.
On the post: Company That Makes Wristbands With Holograms Forced To Admit That Their Scientific Claims Are Bunk
Don't you just know...
There will still be people who swear that these things actually work and will continue to wear them and defend them. I'm waiting to overhear a conversation around my office on how one of these snake-bands change their life!!!
Damn you P T Barnum.
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if we do extend it too far, we’d be offering protection for the risk of bad movies. How long is too long? I don’t know. Some movies legitimately take a long time to recoup… I loved Donny Darko (but the sequel was weak tea at best) and I’m glad that it did well. But not every movie will. Look at Adam Sandler’s ‘Going Overboard’: horrible movie (in my opinion) that is only known about now because he went on to greater fame. The copyright system is not supposed to protect against the eventuality that a film might someday make money.
And I think we both agree the 90/120 or Life+70 is far outside the intention of 'recouping expenses'. At that point, we're doing nothing but continuing to pay for people something they did long long ago. I wish I was still being paid for the burgers I flipped 15 years ago. Hell, I wouldn't have to work as hard now.
And that's why I think our system is hindering creativity. Not only does it put in place stiff penalties for derivative works (which may be legitimately good on their own), but we're giving incentive to artists to NOT create anything new... why should they? They're still getting paid. If not them, then someone who didn't even create the work is getting paid for it.
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And on the music premise: no. First, same thing as the movies... copyright is not supposed to protect me from being unpopular. If a band releases their first album and it bombs, but the second album gets them some major fan base, there's no guarantee that people are suddenly going to buy the first one. Additionally, we've discussed ad nauseam that album sales are NOT the key to artists making money - even those who self-distribute. So even if the CR system was supposed to protect their income, it would be doing it the wrong way.
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re: Re: Re:
And almost every one of those changes has been to extend copyright. We haven't addressed copyright's intention, purpose, usefulness, effectiveness in light of changing environment or technology... we've made the period that owners of CR can keep milking it for money get longer.
I don't have to accept any reality... If I see something that I disagree with, it's my given right and freedom (and, in my opinion, responsibility) to effect change. Just saying "oops... that's the way it is. Oh well..." is about as mindlessly-conformist as you can get. That's why terms like "sheeple" came to be.
And CR is to protect America's "produce"? Sounds like how CR is being used to shore up the recording industry's failing business model. Weak argument there. If America is falling behind in contributing to the world, maybe we need to come up with a better strategy to contribution.
But you're wrong... they're not protecting some kind of produce here... they're protecting their ability to make money off of it. And who are they defending against? Their own people? Are they protecting us from ourselves here? Sorry, but you're argument doesn't really hold up here.
And if you're going to turn to ad hominim attacks, you might want to at least directly insult people. When you imply it like with the 'binky' comment, it makes you look childish and snipey.
On the post: Homeland Security Finally Files For Civil Forfeiture Of Domains Seized Back In June
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re: Re:
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re: Some clarification
On the post: Homeland Security Finally Files For Civil Forfeiture Of Domains Seized Back In June
Re: Re: Re:
It’s one of the reasons I hate the 'grammatical rule' of ending a sentence with a preposition. There is nothing conceptually wrong with saying "no one has explained it yet". However, the effete high-society snobs in the Victorian era introduced a good number of these 'rules' so that the educated would sound "better" than the uneducated poor. And that's the only reason we have such rules.
On the post: US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
Re:
No... what we "CR opponents" do is try to show how our Copyright system is doing the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.
A "few" times... heh...
Not sure what point you're making here except that the votes will never be pushed through. That's kind of an argument a copyright opponent would make about how those votes could never be purchased because the industries getting fat off the current system can pay higher than we opponents.
Along with ad hominim troll-attacks without actually supporting a position. You want to show how Copyright is a good thing, then show how society has been improved here.
You're missing the entire point here. We don't want free copies of these works. What we want is for other artists and writers to be able to use these works to create new works based on them without worry about being sued. Did you read the post a few weeks ago about the sequel to The Catcher in the Rye? If that book was in the public domain, the sequel would be published uncontested here in the US. But instead of that, such works are disallowed and blocked; thereby reducing the enrichment of our collective society.
On the post: DailyDirt: Cool Robot Videos
Re:
On the post: RapidShare Hires Big DC Lobbying Firm To Convince Politicians That The RIAA/MPAA Are Lying About It
Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Cool Robot Videos
On the post: RapidShare Hires Big DC Lobbying Firm To Convince Politicians That The RIAA/MPAA Are Lying About It
Re:
And the article is about what the RIAA/MPAA was doing to them, not the government. Or do you mean that the RIAA/MPAA owns enough of the government now to be considered 'the government'.
On the post: Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?
I'm not arguing the responsibility of the funds... ultimately it is yours. But if the bank says "yes the money is there" when it's not, that's thier mistake, not yours.
The hypothetical conversation Rose posted was pretty straight-forward.
So, if instead, the conversation ended at the teller saying "yes, the money is in your account" with no disclaimer that the money might not really be there, then that's dishonest at worst, sloppy at best.
So when we say that a bank should discuss the in's and out's of the transaction when asked "hey is my money there", to the end results of the customer having a better understanding on how their account works, how is that NOT educational? Should the government be pressured into introducing legislation that would require that kind of discussion? No. Not at all. But if legislation exists that’s keeping banks from taking that action, or preventing banks who want to change their practices to protect their customers from fraudulent checks, why should you or anyone else say “no, the customer is stupid, don’t change anything”?
We've heard from others in this post that there are FDIC regulations which may keep banks from changing their funds availability policy. If the banks want to change their processes and can't, then how is that customer stupidity? Sounds to me like you're so angry at dumb (and I can't blame you) that you're unwilling to look at alternatives.
Next >>