WoW took forever and a day to come out and it still did well. I played Asheron's Call for 9 years always hoping and waiting for WoW to be released - it took so long I finally lost interest. I also cancelled the AC subscription as well. Thoroughly enjoyed playing the later GTA games.
"Then Acosta put it up on Scribd for free, and lucked out by getting great reviews and a lot of interest - and the editors at Tor took enough notice to believe that there was a market for the book, and bought it."
Are you always so condescending?
Wouldn't "...getting great reviews and a lot of interest..." be a direct result of a quality piece of work, rather than defying the odds and "lucking out"?
I agree, but, you/others called it 'double dipping' - as in, you used the word 'double'. If you don't mean double the amount, don't call it that!
Double dipping refers to getting paid twice for the same thing not necessarily getting paid the same amount twice.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said but you are having difficulty with comprehension which, despite my best efforts, I just can't seem to help you with.
"You talk about your taxes paying for regulation of the public airwaves. Are you confusing the UK and the US again?"
You don't pay taxes in the UK?
Your public airwaves don't belong to the public?
A couple of hundred years ago, people on this side of the pond preferred Dutch tea, the British insisted on taxing the Dutch Tea to the point where the only "reasonable" option would be English tea. The Boston Tea party ensued along with a war. Now we have a choice on what tea we drink along with a nice chunk of land - that BP is wrecking as we speak.
Keep taxing/licensing (yes collection societies are basically a tax-type burden in my view) your way right out of existence - it's unfortunate the process takes so long.
The definition doesn't need to mention individuality to be valid. The point here is just because a group of people (lawmakers, for instance) say something is illegal it does not necessarily make that act immoral, except perhaps from a legal standpoint.
The point here - which you miserably failed to understand - is morality rests within each individual regardless of what a piece of paper may have written on it. You repeatedly linked laws with morality in your posts as you can see myself and others had the same impression.
[RANT] Morals are strictly an individuals interpretation of the world around them. Sometimes groups of individuals try to define morality for the masses. It's fairly easy to get a consensus on a majority of topics (killing someone is wrong) but circumstances will prove there are always exceptions: killing someone in self defense is nearly universally acceptable. Most of the planet believe in some religion and that the religious writings of their particular faith are the correct "moral" compass for them. Some insist it's for everyone but then we find ourselves right back to your point of having control over others and their actions. However, very few religions are actually tolerant of other religions. Logic makes short work of this fortunately: if the majority of people divided into hundreds subsections believe only they/their group is right, and there is only one actual but unknown truth (that's why it's called faith) then the majority of people are wrong. The sad part is they have no idea who is correct or if ANY of them are correct. If only one group was correct with their interpretation then the (vast) majority are wrong. If none of them are correct about the unknown truth (assume no God of any type) then they are ALL incorrect and as such, their teachings and/beliefs are questionable as well because it is not based on the absolute truth.[/RANT]
"No, I never gave that as the reason why I think it's morally correct." Your circular logic gave us all the same impression - maybe you should review how you've presented yourself. I wasn't the first or last one to point out this particular concept you've conveyed.
"And you claim I lied?". Actually you even quoted me: "claims to not be connected in the industry but apparently he is" apparently is not a claim, more of a suspicion based on something I read, which I placed some belief in.
"Those in opposition are really just stating the obvious - the law NEEDS to be changed."
This is subjective. Those who write songs, but don't perform them, or who perform them but don't write them, might not agree. They might like the licenses being separated so that the licensing is more granular and ultimately fairer. And that's why they are.
Dave, Dave, Dave, please wake up before replying!! The statement "Those in opposition..." clearly defines who I am talking about and is NOT subjective in the least - stay out of my thoughts and quit trying to append them since you clearly don't understand them.
What ship is this, sorry? You already admitted that "the side with the absurd law wins", which I guess you mean is me, or my country?
Actually, my disagreement with "your country" was settled back in the 1700's by my ancestors - we know how that ended because the USA is independent from British rule - thankfully!
As for yourself, I am merely stating that the barber did break the existing UK law ("the side with the absurd law wins") but I and many others here have stated reasons why we believe this to be unfair/unnatural and in need of correction.
I'd be happy to have a rematch of the war we fought a couple of hundred years ago, but that seems completely unnecessary in modern times, if that's what it took to correct what I, and many others, believe to be unfair.
Well let's review your errant "red herring" statement in depth here, I'm sure the truth might cause you some discomfort but hey what do you expect from a buffoon?
#1 "red herring": any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue (If you were talking about fish then the rest is irrelevant.)
Doesn't seem to apply here since I'm referring to customer warnings required by law and/or legal proceedings which is the path the conversation went when Stuart asked: "Do we really need to tell people not to use the hair dryer in the shower?". My examples are not a diversion/distraction from this point. Epic fail on your behalf.
#2 "She did not get rich": I'll grant you SOME leeway here since the definition is relative to each individual but from my perspective, any amount of money between 480K and 640K would certainly change my financial status to "rich". Since rich is a relative term and I was the one using it - again fail on your behalf.
#3 McDonalds admitted to keeping the coffee hotter so that it lasted longer." Absolutely incorrect and a blatantly false statement!
(Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)Quote: "McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste."
These things you pull out of your rear orifice smell like crap probably because they amount to as much. Epic fail and outright lie on your behalf.
McDonald's was found to be 80% at fault and the customer 20% - this indeed was not entirely McD's fault even though the coffee was indeed served hotter than one might expect. However, a little research (hopefully you don't need a definition here just some experience) shows even this is debatable:
"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[18]"
"Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[19] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit".[20]"
"Do we really need to tell people not to use the hair dryer in the shower?"
Actually, yes you do - it's required by law! That's why all hair dryers come with a warning label on the cord.
It's also why ladders have anywhere from 12-17 warning labels on them! To protect the company from lawsuits of people who hurt themselves and then say "No one ever told me it wasn't safe to use the top of the ladder as a step!"
McDonald's coffee cups now warn you that the contents are "hot"! The lady who won her lawsuit after burning herself with a cup of hot McDonald's coffee had to be a moron to not know the coffee was hot, but she's a rich moron now!
I don't necessarily agree with any or all of these examples but my opinion won't change the mind of a jury.
In the case of the phone companies, good customer service practices would practically force some sort of consumer protection. Of course, much like the software and hardware industries, it's difficult to justify the cost for such programs because taking advantage of these circumstances is profitable despite the inherent "sleaze" factor involved. They would much rather collect every last dime, then spend millions on marketing to attract new customers when the dissatisfied ones leave. Customer service and tech support people hate this mode of operation but marketing folks love it because they get to travel to trade shows hawking the services at the expense of the company (consumer).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Excellent point Crosbie, you've easily earned the "insightful" vote I cast on this one!
I twice deleted a similar point regarding the trees! :)
@Rose, Dave is obviously not of the leetspeak troll genre and despite the fact that I don't agree with him, he presented his side with dignity and he honestly believes what he says.
In an "internet comment forum" type of civility - yes. Lack of profanity and direct personal attacks will usually qualify as civil to me on internet forums. He did present his side, on the whole, with a certain amount of civility. How much credence he gets is severely diminished by the points you and I both mention. However the conversation never approached the obnoxious name calling and one line put downs often found in these types of forums. I'd give him at least an 9 out of 10 on civility - the part where he is dishonest about his background cost him the other point.
Do I think his point of view is correct? No!
Do I agree with the law in the UK, as it stands? No!
Do I think this specific law and the whole collection society is really racketeering with governmental blessing? Yes!
Do I think Dave handled himself in a civil manner taking into account the large number of shots he withstood? Yes I do.
Actually he may be too heavily invested at this point. He also doesn't appear to actually be "wrong" on the primary point that this guy played unlicensed music illegally.
However, after that he insists that the situation is "morally" correct because the law says so, claims to not be connected in the industry but apparently he is, and Rosa Parks should have got off the bus and started her own bus line!! The last one is actually reprehensible from a "moral" standpoint which puts a dent in his "morals" claim, the second point he seems to have lied about and thus puts into question everything he says, the third point shows his ignorance of the Civil Rights movement in the US which took a great number of years to change completely unacceptable laws which had no business in being made in the first place.
Despite all that it always takes someone to "fight the world" if they want to make a change. At one time, most well schooled people believed the earth was flat and those that opposed the thought were ostracized and ridiculed.
I don't think Dave will "win" this battle but he really doesn't have to because the law in the UK currently requires both licenses for someone in a place of business to turn on their radio and play licensed music. The side with the absurd law wins until that law is changed. Those in opposition are really just stating the obvious - the law NEEDS to be changed.
This is one of the longest running commentaries I've followed in the few years that I've read TechDirt and it has been relatively free of personal attacks (those exceptions I'm sure the contributors know who they are) and very enlightening.
Dave, once again kudos to you for being willing to go down with the ship, we don't agree on how things should be but i admire your tenacity and civility throughout!
Your work is being broadcast on my property and this device I bought (radio) will play that broadcast and many others. That's why I bought the device in the first place! Perhaps the collection societies should impose a tax on the radio manufacturers?
I didn't ask for the broadcast. It's there because of an agreement between the creator and the broadcaster, who happens to know there is a business opportunity (in selling advertising for instance) between the songs he has paid to broadcast from the creators.
See, the creator gets paid, the broadcaster gets paid, and the listening audience (regardless of their environment) gets (hopefully) entertained.
Where in that scenario does the artist have the right to ANOTHER payment from the audience?
If you want to get paid again, then sell it again to a DIFFERENT audience!! Or, sell it on a closed system (CD, stream, etc.)instead of publicly available airwaves which, by the way, are owned by the audience who make up the population of the country and have a government agency that is "supposed" to work for the public and regulate these things for the benefit OF THE PUBLIC. my taxes are paying for this regulation and you have the gall to ask for another payment outside of the ones already made?! That right there is theft! Fortunately we know your view on thieves:
"Thieves usually have a genuine belief that stealing is OK, but morally it is not."
"No, your belief on whether something is immoral or not has no effect on whether it actually is immoral."
Another epic logic fail Dave! Morality is expressly an individual interpretation of right and wrong or good and evil. Your definition (or anyone else's for that matter) has ZERO bearing on my belief of what is moral and immoral. Neither of us can claim the "high ground" because morals are an individual interpretation. Retraction to this blatantly false statement is hereby requested.
morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
The point of contention lies in the interpretation that "All laws are right/moral and thus, must be obeyed (regardless of an individual's concerns/beliefs)", which is then self-justified by the "that's why they are laws" claim. Laws are laws so they must be right. Ummm, NO!
Most individuals with critical thinking skills would see the RED flag "ALL" and immediately analyse the statement/facts. Very few statements can use "All/Always/Everyone/Anyone" without reprisal based on circumstances. Here's one for the crowd: All squares are rectangles. It's an indisputable fact that has been scientifically proven based on the definitions of squares and rectangles. Laws are interpretations (not necessarily moral interpretations either) of acceptable or unacceptable behavior for a subsection of humanity (which is why laws have jurisdictions). I sincerely doubt that any statement regarding laws on the whole will withstand the scrutiny on a global scale.
Dave, I do give you all the credit in the world for standing firm and fielding all the inquiries, allegations, and abuse being directed to you, even though you are not apparently any part of this case - kudos for your determination!
BROADCAST - A method of sending information over a network
When is any shop or business ever "sending" anything by turning on a radio? They are RECEIVING a broadcast! Please let's be clear about this simple fact. If they were turning on a transmitter then they would be broadcasting. This is the crux of how ridiculous the laws in question appear. Obviously the law in the UK has avoided this truth about who is broadcasting or what broadcasting actually entails and so the law should be corrected. The law has taken a public transmission and turned it into a selectively closed network based on where and under what circumstances the broadcast is being received.
No one here is claiming the artists or production personnel shouldn't get paid for their work.
Quote: "No, that's not true. You're implying that being paid twice means 'double' the amount."
Epic logic fail. You take a logical argument and attach an unrelated mathematical expression (multiplication) to try and disprove the logic. Sorry, getting paid twice does not automatically imply double the value - it is simply collecting ANYTHING more than once. If I pay a dollar and you pay a penny, the receiver gets paid twice but not necessarily double.
Quote: "which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction)"
You keep insisting that the music enhances working conditions or customer satisfaction - what is this observation based on? Quit claiming you are selling a business enhancement which is debatable to begin with but ultimately irrelevant according to....YOU!
You go on to say: "Whether or not having music enhances your business/increases your sales, you still need to respect the wishes of the copyright holders of the music you choose to play. If they say they want paying, either pay them or don't play their music."
I see an excellent business opportunity here for anyone who wants to broadcast license free or public domain music here! Get yourself an advertising-based radio station in the UK and play only music NOT subject to ANY collection society/agency/racketeer.
I'd be willing to bet that eventually the industry (lawyers) will find a way, with legislative help no doubt, to get a piece of that as well.
Quote #1: "The fact he paid up with the PRS means he agreed with this principle, but unfortunately made the mistake of not signing up with the PPL."
What evidence do you have that this shop owner agreed to the principle of these fees? Did you interview him? Did you read an interview where he expressed this? Did he post it on the barbershop.com blog?
That is an amazing bit of mind reading ability you display here. Just because he paid DOES NOT mean he agreed to anything in principle!
Quote #2: TechDirt - you're not reporting this fairly - "Hello kettle? this is the pot, you're black!"
If you want to be fair about something then quit double and triple charging for listening to the music on the radio!
Quote #3: "You are adding value to the shopping experience of your business by playing the music, which you will profit from in some way, thus you must pay for it."
Excuse me? There are many who don't want music being played while they shop. Now you are degrading the shopping experience - do these collection agencies offer rebates or discounts when the music does not enhance the experience? What about commercials? You know, the way the people who are supposed to get paid for their talents, have their bills paid - by the radio station! These commercials also do not enhance my shopping experience! Turning on the radio - really anywhere in the free world - should never have the phrase: "thus you must pay for it." attached to it. Your entitlement mentality (collecting multiple times for something that has already been paid for) is nothing more than simply theft. However, because this is systematically done by an organization I believe it is better known as racketeering.
Book 'em Dano!!
On the post: Legal Settlement 'Paves The Way' To Release Of Duke Nukem Forever?
WoW
On the post: Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Just curious where this occurs - perhaps you could point out where Mike does this?
After you read the article 3-4 times - just stop and save yourself some time - it's not there.
I rarely agree with your comments but this one is just a flat out lie and accusation. Please go "cry wolf" elsewhere.
On the post: Author Puts Novel Online For Free... And Gets A Book Deal
Re: Interesting
Are you always so condescending?
Wouldn't "...getting great reviews and a lot of interest..." be a direct result of a quality piece of work, rather than defying the odds and "lucking out"?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Double dipping refers to getting paid twice for the same thing not necessarily getting paid the same amount twice.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said but you are having difficulty with comprehension which, despite my best efforts, I just can't seem to help you with.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Whoa!!
You don't pay taxes in the UK?
Your public airwaves don't belong to the public?
A couple of hundred years ago, people on this side of the pond preferred Dutch tea, the British insisted on taxing the Dutch Tea to the point where the only "reasonable" option would be English tea. The Boston Tea party ensued along with a war. Now we have a choice on what tea we drink along with a nice chunk of land - that BP is wrecking as we speak.
Keep taxing/licensing (yes collection societies are basically a tax-type burden in my view) your way right out of existence - it's unfortunate the process takes so long.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "moral majority" is rarely either.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Again, REALLY?? C'mon Dave!
The point here - which you miserably failed to understand - is morality rests within each individual regardless of what a piece of paper may have written on it. You repeatedly linked laws with morality in your posts as you can see myself and others had the same impression.
[RANT] Morals are strictly an individuals interpretation of the world around them. Sometimes groups of individuals try to define morality for the masses. It's fairly easy to get a consensus on a majority of topics (killing someone is wrong) but circumstances will prove there are always exceptions: killing someone in self defense is nearly universally acceptable. Most of the planet believe in some religion and that the religious writings of their particular faith are the correct "moral" compass for them. Some insist it's for everyone but then we find ourselves right back to your point of having control over others and their actions. However, very few religions are actually tolerant of other religions. Logic makes short work of this fortunately: if the majority of people divided into hundreds subsections believe only they/their group is right, and there is only one actual but unknown truth (that's why it's called faith) then the majority of people are wrong. The sad part is they have no idea who is correct or if ANY of them are correct. If only one group was correct with their interpretation then the (vast) majority are wrong. If none of them are correct about the unknown truth (assume no God of any type) then they are ALL incorrect and as such, their teachings and/beliefs are questionable as well because it is not based on the absolute truth.[/RANT]
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Dave = WTF?
"And you claim I lied?". Actually you even quoted me: "claims to not be connected in the industry but apparently he is" apparently is not a claim, more of a suspicion based on something I read, which I placed some belief in.
"Those in opposition are really just stating the obvious - the law NEEDS to be changed."
This is subjective. Those who write songs, but don't perform them, or who perform them but don't write them, might not agree. They might like the licenses being separated so that the licensing is more granular and ultimately fairer. And that's why they are.
Dave, Dave, Dave, please wake up before replying!! The statement "Those in opposition..." clearly defines who I am talking about and is NOT subjective in the least - stay out of my thoughts and quit trying to append them since you clearly don't understand them.
What ship is this, sorry? You already admitted that "the side with the absurd law wins", which I guess you mean is me, or my country?
Actually, my disagreement with "your country" was settled back in the 1700's by my ancestors - we know how that ended because the USA is independent from British rule - thankfully!
As for yourself, I am merely stating that the barber did break the existing UK law ("the side with the absurd law wins") but I and many others here have stated reasons why we believe this to be unfair/unnatural and in need of correction.
I'd be happy to have a rematch of the war we fought a couple of hundred years ago, but that seems completely unnecessary in modern times, if that's what it took to correct what I, and many others, believe to be unfair.
On the post: Lawyers Doing Real Time Jury Googling
On trolls and their uselessness....
On the post: If You Kill Someone And Want To Get Away With It, Bragging About It On Facebook Isn't A Good Idea
Bugs & such...
On the post: Mobile Phone Operator Lobbyists Say No Laws Necessary To Prevent 'Bill Shock'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
#1 "red herring": any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue (If you were talking about fish then the rest is irrelevant.)
Doesn't seem to apply here since I'm referring to customer warnings required by law and/or legal proceedings which is the path the conversation went when Stuart asked: "Do we really need to tell people not to use the hair dryer in the shower?". My examples are not a diversion/distraction from this point. Epic fail on your behalf.
#2 "She did not get rich": I'll grant you SOME leeway here since the definition is relative to each individual but from my perspective, any amount of money between 480K and 640K would certainly change my financial status to "rich". Since rich is a relative term and I was the one using it - again fail on your behalf.
#3 McDonalds admitted to keeping the coffee hotter so that it lasted longer." Absolutely incorrect and a blatantly false statement!
(Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)Quote: "McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste."
These things you pull out of your rear orifice smell like crap probably because they amount to as much. Epic fail and outright lie on your behalf.
McDonald's was found to be 80% at fault and the customer 20% - this indeed was not entirely McD's fault even though the coffee was indeed served hotter than one might expect. However, a little research (hopefully you don't need a definition here just some experience) shows even this is debatable:
"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[18]"
"Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[19] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit".[20]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Thank you for your complete waste of time here, hopefully "Not again" is when we'll see you post and not just your board name.
On the post: Mobile Phone Operator Lobbyists Say No Laws Necessary To Prevent 'Bill Shock'
Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
Actually, yes you do - it's required by law! That's why all hair dryers come with a warning label on the cord.
It's also why ladders have anywhere from 12-17 warning labels on them! To protect the company from lawsuits of people who hurt themselves and then say "No one ever told me it wasn't safe to use the top of the ladder as a step!"
McDonald's coffee cups now warn you that the contents are "hot"! The lady who won her lawsuit after burning herself with a cup of hot McDonald's coffee had to be a moron to not know the coffee was hot, but she's a rich moron now!
I don't necessarily agree with any or all of these examples but my opinion won't change the mind of a jury.
In the case of the phone companies, good customer service practices would practically force some sort of consumer protection. Of course, much like the software and hardware industries, it's difficult to justify the cost for such programs because taking advantage of these circumstances is profitable despite the inherent "sleaze" factor involved. They would much rather collect every last dime, then spend millions on marketing to attract new customers when the dissatisfied ones leave. Customer service and tech support people hate this mode of operation but marketing folks love it because they get to travel to trade shows hawking the services at the expense of the company (consumer).
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
I twice deleted a similar point regarding the trees! :)
@Rose, Dave is obviously not of the leetspeak troll genre and despite the fact that I don't agree with him, he presented his side with dignity and he honestly believes what he says.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Dave = WTF?
Do I think his point of view is correct? No!
Do I agree with the law in the UK, as it stands? No!
Do I think this specific law and the whole collection society is really racketeering with governmental blessing? Yes!
Do I think Dave handled himself in a civil manner taking into account the large number of shots he withstood? Yes I do.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Dave = WTF?
However, after that he insists that the situation is "morally" correct because the law says so, claims to not be connected in the industry but apparently he is, and Rosa Parks should have got off the bus and started her own bus line!! The last one is actually reprehensible from a "moral" standpoint which puts a dent in his "morals" claim, the second point he seems to have lied about and thus puts into question everything he says, the third point shows his ignorance of the Civil Rights movement in the US which took a great number of years to change completely unacceptable laws which had no business in being made in the first place.
Despite all that it always takes someone to "fight the world" if they want to make a change. At one time, most well schooled people believed the earth was flat and those that opposed the thought were ostracized and ridiculed.
I don't think Dave will "win" this battle but he really doesn't have to because the law in the UK currently requires both licenses for someone in a place of business to turn on their radio and play licensed music. The side with the absurd law wins until that law is changed. Those in opposition are really just stating the obvious - the law NEEDS to be changed.
This is one of the longest running commentaries I've followed in the few years that I've read TechDirt and it has been relatively free of personal attacks (those exceptions I'm sure the contributors know who they are) and very enlightening.
Dave, once again kudos to you for being willing to go down with the ship, we don't agree on how things should be but i admire your tenacity and civility throughout!
On the post: Sharron Angle Insists She's Going To Sue Harry Reid For His Reposting Of Angle's Own Website
Re:
Poverty
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Whoa!!
I didn't ask for the broadcast. It's there because of an agreement between the creator and the broadcaster, who happens to know there is a business opportunity (in selling advertising for instance) between the songs he has paid to broadcast from the creators.
See, the creator gets paid, the broadcaster gets paid, and the listening audience (regardless of their environment) gets (hopefully) entertained.
Where in that scenario does the artist have the right to ANOTHER payment from the audience?
If you want to get paid again, then sell it again to a DIFFERENT audience!! Or, sell it on a closed system (CD, stream, etc.)instead of publicly available airwaves which, by the way, are owned by the audience who make up the population of the country and have a government agency that is "supposed" to work for the public and regulate these things for the benefit OF THE PUBLIC. my taxes are paying for this regulation and you have the gall to ask for another payment outside of the ones already made?! That right there is theft! Fortunately we know your view on thieves:
"Thieves usually have a genuine belief that stealing is OK, but morally it is not."
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Again, REALLY?? C'mon Dave!
Another epic logic fail Dave! Morality is expressly an individual interpretation of right and wrong or good and evil. Your definition (or anyone else's for that matter) has ZERO bearing on my belief of what is moral and immoral. Neither of us can claim the "high ground" because morals are an individual interpretation. Retraction to this blatantly false statement is hereby requested.
morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
The point of contention lies in the interpretation that "All laws are right/moral and thus, must be obeyed (regardless of an individual's concerns/beliefs)", which is then self-justified by the "that's why they are laws" claim. Laws are laws so they must be right. Ummm, NO!
Most individuals with critical thinking skills would see the RED flag "ALL" and immediately analyse the statement/facts. Very few statements can use "All/Always/Everyone/Anyone" without reprisal based on circumstances. Here's one for the crowd: All squares are rectangles. It's an indisputable fact that has been scientifically proven based on the definitions of squares and rectangles. Laws are interpretations (not necessarily moral interpretations either) of acceptable or unacceptable behavior for a subsection of humanity (which is why laws have jurisdictions). I sincerely doubt that any statement regarding laws on the whole will withstand the scrutiny on a global scale.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BROADCAST - A method of sending information over a network
When is any shop or business ever "sending" anything by turning on a radio? They are RECEIVING a broadcast! Please let's be clear about this simple fact. If they were turning on a transmitter then they would be broadcasting. This is the crux of how ridiculous the laws in question appear. Obviously the law in the UK has avoided this truth about who is broadcasting or what broadcasting actually entails and so the law should be corrected. The law has taken a public transmission and turned it into a selectively closed network based on where and under what circumstances the broadcast is being received.
No one here is claiming the artists or production personnel shouldn't get paid for their work.
Quote: "No, that's not true. You're implying that being paid twice means 'double' the amount."
Epic logic fail. You take a logical argument and attach an unrelated mathematical expression (multiplication) to try and disprove the logic. Sorry, getting paid twice does not automatically imply double the value - it is simply collecting ANYTHING more than once. If I pay a dollar and you pay a penny, the receiver gets paid twice but not necessarily double.
Quote: "which enhances your working conditions and/or your customer satisfaction)"
You keep insisting that the music enhances working conditions or customer satisfaction - what is this observation based on? Quit claiming you are selling a business enhancement which is debatable to begin with but ultimately irrelevant according to....YOU!
You go on to say: "Whether or not having music enhances your business/increases your sales, you still need to respect the wishes of the copyright holders of the music you choose to play. If they say they want paying, either pay them or don't play their music."
I see an excellent business opportunity here for anyone who wants to broadcast license free or public domain music here! Get yourself an advertising-based radio station in the UK and play only music NOT subject to ANY collection society/agency/racketeer.
I'd be willing to bet that eventually the industry (lawyers) will find a way, with legislative help no doubt, to get a piece of that as well.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Next >>