"the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent."
Gee that's funny, I thought people accused in the US were innocent until proven guilty? I guess you don't know the law as well as you claim to. And what little evidence there is (IP addresses) is no guarantee that the person who is being sued is the same person that did the downloading. How about you stop lying and spreading BS around, m'kay?
Another classic TAM reach, not shocking to see on a day that ends in 'Y.'
"if you can point me to an empirical study that can cover these very basic concepts, you might score a point. otherwise, your entire concept is meaningless and built on junk science."
And if you can point me to an empirical study that shows that infringement equals lost sales you might have a point. But there's not any, so your point of view is absurd and build on bad business models proped up by government monopolies granted due to influence peddling.
Those two words sum up virtually everything that TAM has ever posted here. Once again he's making his tired "there's not enough information in this article to reach that conclusion" arguement.
If you're not TAM, then I apologize, but you sure sound like him.
Yes it is an acronym. There is someone who used to post as "The Anti Mike" who now posts as an AC, but has such a distinctly combatitive tone and such a poor grasp of basic reasoning that no matter the nom de plume he is instantly recognizable.
I do realize a great deal of those with mild autism lead perfectly well adjusted lives, but that doesn't preclude autism from being a devastating condition. Just like mild gout is not a hinderance to a normal life, yet it can still be a devastating condition. Not that autism and gout are in any way similar, just using that as an example of a condition with a wide range of severity.
I'm assuming that comment is from a different AC than the TAM AC I was responding to, and will therefore further assume you are being sarcastic. If it is TAM that replied, and you're not being sarcastic, then for your own good I should point out you're an idiot.
So you chose to ignore the fact that those who "illegally" download content spend more on entertainment than those who don't. How convenient.
I may, or may not, download music, television shows, and movies via BitTorrent for free, but I also go to the movie theater fairly often, and pay to see the bands that I've "ripped off" when they play in my city. Which I might not have the discretionary income for if I had to pay for all the content I may or may not have downloaded for free. But you never take that into account, do you?
I, and a lot of other people, set aside "$X" for entertainment. If I don't have to spend it on content that can be reproduced and distributed for free, then I'm free to spend that money on other things that aren't freely availiable. But I don't suppose that makes any sense to you, does it?
"not only is your spell check not working, but your desire to slam viacom is becoming all too evident."
Hey TAM, not only are you not one to be pointing out grammer, spelling, syntax, or any other errors (the words were used incorrectly, but spelled correctly, learn the difference as well as how to use at least one of the SHIFT keys, m'kay), but what does Viacom refusing money from YouTube have to do with anything? All that shows is that they'd rather lose money out of spite than try and figure out how to actually make money in the new digital age.
Your desire to slam Mike has been evident to all for quite some time. Despite the fact you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"...describing autism as a "devastating condition" is a very broad generalisation..."
I'm pretty sure being told your child is autistic is pretty devastating when you first hear it. And, depending on the severity, many of those with autism are considered "special needs" which require a great amount of extra care (and patience) for their entire lives.
I've worked with autistic teens and have an autistic cousin. What is your experience with autism, I wonder?
You mean like the lead researcher saying something like this?
"'There's been a stranglehold put on the field because of this. The access to the science community to cells like this for basic scientific study is virtually nil," he [Schwartz] said.'
But I guess you probably don't think Dr. Schwartz knows what he's talking about either do you? Maybe you didn't RTFA.
So who determines what content has enough of your so called "value" to warrent a copyright? Where's that line and who sets it? You're such a bafoon to keep making these idiotic arguments that you know to be false. The term someone here used recently is so apt. You're a shilltard.
So you want to forget the analogy once it's shown to be flawed. You keep talking about the delivery system like that's important. It's not. What's important is that the supply of any particular song has been made infinite thanks to new technology. You might not like it, but that's the way the world now works. Does this mean that musicians now have to come up with other ways to make money than the selling of physical copies of their music? Yes. Just like musicians had to do 100+ years ago before the phonograph came along and began the recording industry. Did musicians not have incentives to make music before records and copyright laws were put in place?
"Blast them for allowing illegal file sharing...since we're performing a criminal act, let's make the people we're stealing FROM look like dumbasses"
As everyone keeps pointing out to you TAM, it's infringement, not theft, and it's a civil matter, not criminal. I know even you aren't that stupid, so it must be that you just love trolling sooooo much. Wish you'd find a better hobby.
On the post: Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car
Natural selection
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re:
This from the moron who doesn't seem to realize that accused people are innocent until proven guilty.
"the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent."
Pot meet kettle.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re:
Gee that's funny, I thought people accused in the US were innocent until proven guilty? I guess you don't know the law as well as you claim to. And what little evidence there is (IP addresses) is no guarantee that the person who is being sued is the same person that did the downloading. How about you stop lying and spreading BS around, m'kay?
Another classic TAM reach, not shocking to see on a day that ends in 'Y.'
On the post: US Copyright Official Pretends That Concerns About ACTA Are Unfounded; Mocks Legitimate Concerns
Re:
On the post: Mayor Gets City Council To Pass Law Demanding Critical Website Get Shut Down
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you can point me to an empirical study that shows that infringement equals lost sales you might have a point. But there's not any, so your point of view is absurd and build on bad business models proped up by government monopolies granted due to influence peddling.
On the post: Mayor Gets City Council To Pass Law Demanding Critical Website Get Shut Down
Re:
Those two words sum up virtually everything that TAM has ever posted here. Once again he's making his tired "there's not enough information in this article to reach that conclusion" arguement.
If you're not TAM, then I apologize, but you sure sound like him.
On the post: Copyright Infringement Charged Over Tao Te Ching... Which Is Only Two Millennia Old
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
I may, or may not, download music, television shows, and movies via BitTorrent for free, but I also go to the movie theater fairly often, and pay to see the bands that I've "ripped off" when they play in my city. Which I might not have the discretionary income for if I had to pay for all the content I may or may not have downloaded for free. But you never take that into account, do you?
I, and a lot of other people, set aside "$X" for entertainment. If I don't have to spend it on content that can be reproduced and distributed for free, then I'm free to spend that money on other things that aren't freely availiable. But I don't suppose that makes any sense to you, does it?
On the post: Viacom Execs Wanted Badly To Buy YouTube; Cited Tons Of Legit Content And Possibilities
Re:
Hey TAM, not only are you not one to be pointing out grammer, spelling, syntax, or any other errors (the words were used incorrectly, but spelled correctly, learn the difference as well as how to use at least one of the SHIFT keys, m'kay), but what does Viacom refusing money from YouTube have to do with anything? All that shows is that they'd rather lose money out of spite than try and figure out how to actually make money in the new digital age.
Your desire to slam Mike has been evident to all for quite some time. Despite the fact you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re:
I'm pretty sure being told your child is autistic is pretty devastating when you first hear it. And, depending on the severity, many of those with autism are considered "special needs" which require a great amount of extra care (and patience) for their entire lives.
I've worked with autistic teens and have an autistic cousin. What is your experience with autism, I wonder?
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re: Re: Re:
You mean like the lead researcher saying something like this?
"'There's been a stranglehold put on the field because of this. The access to the science community to cells like this for basic scientific study is virtually nil," he [Schwartz] said.'
But I guess you probably don't think Dr. Schwartz knows what he's talking about either do you? Maybe you didn't RTFA.
On the post: Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
Re:
On the post: Tipping Point? Quarter Of All Homes Have Totally Abandoned Landlines
Re:
On the post: Brief In Viacom/YouTube Trial Tries To Rewrite The DMCA
Re: Re: Re: TAM
On the post: Brief In Viacom/YouTube Trial Tries To Rewrite The DMCA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Many Bad Assumptions Can You Make In A Single Article About Content Creation And Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite Supply fallacy
On the post: Bad Ideas: Hurt Locker Producers Preparing To Sue Tens Of Thousands Of File Sharers
Re:
As everyone keeps pointing out to you TAM, it's infringement, not theft, and it's a civil matter, not criminal. I know even you aren't that stupid, so it must be that you just love trolling sooooo much. Wish you'd find a better hobby.
Next >>