I used to think that too. The problem is you're assuming he sounds like a boy. Only recently did I realize that I had heard some of his songs on the radio, I just thought it was a girl singing.
So, let me get this straight. Fox gives it away over the airwaves and if I DVR it then and watch it later, it's fine. If *someone else* DVRs it from over the airwaves and watches it later, it's fine. However, if someone else DVRs it over the airwaves and lets me watch it, it's stealing?
Jay, at the end of the day, the debate with the Techdirtbags doesn't really matter.
Yet, here you are. Strange, that.
Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists.
I suppose the EFF is just a terrorist group to you, huh?
Felony Streaming.
How you can manage to type that and not have an aneurysm is beyond me. Do you know how computers work? *Think* about what you want to make a felony. Really *think* about what is actually being done. Does that punishment fit the crime?
Graduated response has already been adopted by the ISP's.
That you celebrate the death of "innocent until proven guilty" tells me that your critical thinking skills are lacking, or, I suppose, you could be a politician.
The noose is tightening on the freeloaders.
You vastly underestimate human nature, my friend. The people you consider "freeloaders" are smarter than executives and politicians. They outnumber them. They are driven, not by greed or fear, but by passion. The noose is, no doubt tightening, but you're too deluded to see it's around your neck.
Hulu and the like would still be better: They can't tailor pick the ads to my location via torrent, but they *can* via hulu.
They're really shooting themselves in the foot. *Especially* Fox, who broadcasts over the air. Their "product" is eyeballs, and they are artificially limiting their profit.
I have to admit, I had *no* idea cell companies were collecting this data. Of course, I knew they could tell my location at any given time, but what is the reasoning behind storing were I've been in the past? I don't understand how this information is needed to make sure I can get a phone call.
I've had AdBlock on "set and forget" for years, but I've added Techdirt to the exemptions a few months ago. I look forward to seeing what you guys and SAY Media come up with.
I find it far more likely that sales of recorded music are down due to the ability to buy individual songs instead of whole albums. Also, there is *way* more media fighting for my attention but the number of hours in the day have, sadly, remained the same.
Piracy, no doubt, has *some* effect on sales, but it is being used as a scapegoat to explain away the reality that times have changed; selling recordings alone isn't going to be as insanely profitable as it was in 1999.
I can't share my toys and still be the sole possessor of them. That kind of sharing is good and healthy for society.
Oh boy. So, in the physical world, I cannot share a toy and keep possession of it, true, but imagine if I could. No child would be without a toy, ever. Is this fantasy world better, or worse, than our current one? Clearly, it is better to be able to share something *and* keep it. The laws of physics prevent this in the physical world, but digitally, this has been possible for a years. And people like you want to hold back, to limit culture to those with disposable income. Sounds like someone didn't learn the spirit behind why sharing is good.
File-sharing is nothing like that.
No, it's better.
To use your own analogy, how did your teachers feel about you "sharing" test answers with the kid seated next to you?
Ah, nice misdirection-- I'm impressed. Cheating was only wrong because it defeated the purpose of the test. Before or after the test, sharing knowledge is encouraged. They call these dens of knowledge pirates "study groups". Nice try, though, with the cheating thing.
How much do I pay to read techdirt? Well, how many ads on the page? How much of my internet connection is used to see techdirt? I pay for Techdirt, you all do.
Uh, wow. Okay, I agree. I'm going to venture a guess that 100% of the people who infringe on copyrights do it on an internet connection that has been paid for by someone. So, I guess that's it-- problem solved. As long as you pay for it, directly or indirectly, it's okay. I expected you to put up way more of a fight, really.
As for ads, which is a great point-- do you think Mike should be able to sue you if you block ads? Afterall, you're "stealing" his potential profit, right?
Boy, I'm bet you're glad you never put a name to anything, aren't you.
Me: What the heck? How are we "paying for laws"?
Tell me what you mean by "we", and I'll elaborate, with pleasure.
There is no "locking up of culture", that is perhaps the ultimate strawman. It wouldn't be culture if you never saw it, heard it, whatever. So obviously what is out there is being seen and enjoyed, and is part of the culture. "locking it up" would suggest nobody saw it ever, and that is just not the case.
That is not the only way to lock up culture. For example: I wanted, initially, to simply respond to you with this link. That is an image from my culture, and by linking to it, some would say that I have committed a crime. You see, my culture does not belong to me because it is locked up by laws that no longer have a place in our society. I never meant to suggest that no one saw it, and I apologize if that is what you thought.
As for VPN, it is pretty much proven that idiots will pay almost anything to avoid paying. It's the classic stupidity of the Tardian nation.
I am amazed that you so casually dismiss this. You *just* said that copyright infringers want "something for nothing", and then you go on and say that they will pay almost anything. You're about to get downgraded to troll, because the ability to reconcile those two ideas requires a level of insanity that would render coherent sentence impossible.
I am confident we can come to some middle ground here, since we both share a love for idiots.
What is equally sad is the people who can't understand that getting something for nothing without permission just isn't right.
How much did you pay to read Techdirt? Nothing? but.. but.. but.. That's not right!!!!!!eleven Give it a rest, guy.
You can't steal candy from the stupid kid in your class, why can you take from them just because they are stupid.
What if I just copied his candy? Is that okay?
It is as if everyone lost their morals.
Assuming you were ever enrolled in a school system of any type, what did your kindergarten teacher tell you about sharing? Did he said it was immoral, or that it was nice?
Obtaining something for nothing when you are suppose to pay or get permission just isn't right.
Locking up our culture and paying for laws to keep it locked up isn't right, either. Which one does more harm?
There are not little holes in the dam, just a bunch of little a-holes who think they can have everything for nothing.
Very few people actually want something for nothing. Most of us want something worth paying for before we pay for it. VPNs usually charge around $8/mo. These people who want "something for nothing" gladly PAY for a VPN service. Why do you think this is so? Clearly they are willing to pay at least $8/mo for something, aren't they?
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
Oh, that's right, because it would piss of fans.
I am pleased with Google's policy.
On the post: All Of Justin Bieber's Music Removed From YouTube Via 'Prank' DMCA Claims
Re: Re:
I used to think that too. The problem is you're assuming he sounds like a boy. Only recently did I realize that I had heard some of his songs on the radio, I just thought it was a girl singing.
On the post: Background Check Company Sued For Calling Samuel Jackson A Sex Offender
Re: Forget Snakes
On the post: Of Course: New Fox Delay Means More Unauthorized Downloads Of Fox Shows
Re: Legal vs. illegal
Give it a rest, you're wrong and you know it.
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: Re:
Teenagers with guitars in their hands, dreams in their heads and dollar signs in their eyes, that's who.
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts
Yet, here you are. Strange, that.
Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists.
I suppose the EFF is just a terrorist group to you, huh?
Felony Streaming.
How you can manage to type that and not have an aneurysm is beyond me. Do you know how computers work? *Think* about what you want to make a felony. Really *think* about what is actually being done. Does that punishment fit the crime?
Graduated response has already been adopted by the ISP's.
That you celebrate the death of "innocent until proven guilty" tells me that your critical thinking skills are lacking, or, I suppose, you could be a politician.
The noose is tightening on the freeloaders.
You vastly underestimate human nature, my friend. The people you consider "freeloaders" are smarter than executives and politicians. They outnumber them. They are driven, not by greed or fear, but by passion. The noose is, no doubt tightening, but you're too deluded to see it's around your neck.
On the post: Fox Responds To 'Piracy Surge' By Answering A Different Question
Re: Re:
Fox doesn't sell TV shows, it sells my eyeballs.
On the post: Fox Responds To 'Piracy Surge' By Answering A Different Question
Re: Re: Fox.
They're really shooting themselves in the foot. *Especially* Fox, who broadcasts over the air. Their "product" is eyeballs, and they are artificially limiting their profit.
On the post: Surprise: Federal Court Says Warrant Needed For Mobile Phone Location Info
Ignorance.
I'm probably missing something here. Please enlighten me.
On the post: Changing How We Handle Advertising And Sponsorships
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Files Expected Appeal Over Judge's Decision To Decrease Jury Award In Jammie Thomas Trial
Re: Well, after all the "reality" talk on the "New Fox Delay" thread...
That's the ticket.
On the post: RIAA Files Expected Appeal Over Judge's Decision To Decrease Jury Award In Jammie Thomas Trial
Re: You can ask for it all you want....
On the post: Of Course: New Fox Delay Means More Unauthorized Downloads Of Fox Shows
Re: Re: Re:
Before you say anything about ads, keep in mind that everyone skips them on a DVR, which is perfectly legal.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Ad Hominem
I find it far more likely that sales of recorded music are down due to the ability to buy individual songs instead of whole albums. Also, there is *way* more media fighting for my attention but the number of hours in the day have, sadly, remained the same.
Piracy, no doubt, has *some* effect on sales, but it is being used as a scapegoat to explain away the reality that times have changed; selling recordings alone isn't going to be as insanely profitable as it was in 1999.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: I am tired of paying for dates, so now I woman-share (gang rape)
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: The Impact of Increased Poverty
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh boy. So, in the physical world, I cannot share a toy and keep possession of it, true, but imagine if I could. No child would be without a toy, ever. Is this fantasy world better, or worse, than our current one? Clearly, it is better to be able to share something *and* keep it. The laws of physics prevent this in the physical world, but digitally, this has been possible for a years. And people like you want to hold back, to limit culture to those with disposable income. Sounds like someone didn't learn the spirit behind why sharing is good.
File-sharing is nothing like that.
No, it's better.
To use your own analogy, how did your teachers feel about you "sharing" test answers with the kid seated next to you?
Ah, nice misdirection-- I'm impressed. Cheating was only wrong because it defeated the purpose of the test. Before or after the test, sharing knowledge is encouraged. They call these dens of knowledge pirates "study groups". Nice try, though, with the cheating thing.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, wow. Okay, I agree. I'm going to venture a guess that 100% of the people who infringe on copyrights do it on an internet connection that has been paid for by someone. So, I guess that's it-- problem solved. As long as you pay for it, directly or indirectly, it's okay. I expected you to put up way more of a fight, really.
As for ads, which is a great point-- do you think Mike should be able to sue you if you block ads? Afterall, you're "stealing" his potential profit, right?
Boy, I'm bet you're glad you never put a name to anything, aren't you.
Me: What the heck? How are we "paying for laws"?
Tell me what you mean by "we", and I'll elaborate, with pleasure.
There is no "locking up of culture", that is perhaps the ultimate strawman. It wouldn't be culture if you never saw it, heard it, whatever. So obviously what is out there is being seen and enjoyed, and is part of the culture. "locking it up" would suggest nobody saw it ever, and that is just not the case.
That is not the only way to lock up culture. For example: I wanted, initially, to simply respond to you with this link. That is an image from my culture, and by linking to it, some would say that I have committed a crime. You see, my culture does not belong to me because it is locked up by laws that no longer have a place in our society. I never meant to suggest that no one saw it, and I apologize if that is what you thought.
As for VPN, it is pretty much proven that idiots will pay almost anything to avoid paying. It's the classic stupidity of the Tardian nation.
I am amazed that you so casually dismiss this. You *just* said that copyright infringers want "something for nothing", and then you go on and say that they will pay almost anything. You're about to get downgraded to troll, because the ability to reconcile those two ideas requires a level of insanity that would render coherent sentence impossible.
I am confident we can come to some middle ground here, since we both share a love for idiots.
On the post: Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man
Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re:
How much did you pay to read Techdirt? Nothing? but.. but.. but.. That's not right!!!!!!eleven Give it a rest, guy.
You can't steal candy from the stupid kid in your class, why can you take from them just because they are stupid.
What if I just copied his candy? Is that okay?
It is as if everyone lost their morals.
Assuming you were ever enrolled in a school system of any type, what did your kindergarten teacher tell you about sharing? Did he said it was immoral, or that it was nice?
Obtaining something for nothing when you are suppose to pay or get permission just isn't right.
Locking up our culture and paying for laws to keep it locked up isn't right, either. Which one does more harm?
There are not little holes in the dam, just a bunch of little a-holes who think they can have everything for nothing.
Very few people actually want something for nothing. Most of us want something worth paying for before we pay for it. VPNs usually charge around $8/mo. These people who want "something for nothing" gladly PAY for a VPN service. Why do you think this is so? Clearly they are willing to pay at least $8/mo for something, aren't they?
Next >>