"""That said, to prove almost any civil case of this nature, the girl must show damages."""
The principle showed the movie for free! And there were multiple people in the room, so it was also a public performance! By **AA rules, she can claim triple the gross national product of Uganda in damages!
Oh, and while I'm at it: Won't you think of the children???
"""This is a point that I fear many involved in this debate are totally ignoring."""
"Fear" is not the right word. Replace with "know". Also, while you are at it, as far as congress-critters are concerned, change "many" to "all". There, fixed that for ya.
"""His argument, supported by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, is that the price hike -- mainly focused on those using the physical DVD rental business, is designed to speed up the shift to online streaming."""
I can certainly believe that Hastings is thinking along these lines, but he's not looking at the big picture. ISPs all over are tightening up their bandwidth caps and throttling/shaping all kinds of traffic. I'll bet that watching several streamed movies/episodes a week will get you to those un-advertised caps pretty quickly... and then the ISPs will either throttle you way down, or charge you per gigabyte (or some scale) for the rest of the month! People are not going to be thrilled to get a $300 bill from their ISP because they didn't realize those streaming movies over Netflix had pushed them into a $/per gigabyte tier.
Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
"""Yes, you should, because YOU HAVE NO RIGHT. It's not your property."""
Whoa there big boy, calm down. Breathe deeply. Relax.
Now, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that what you called "property" was not real property at all. Hahaha, ridiculous, I know, but let's just suppose. So, if there is no actual property anyway, and anyone can just come along and make a copy of "it" for their very own, can you see how your position and arguments would just fall apart?
The AC does, and the industry he shills for does. They honestly, really, truly believe that every downloaded copy of a song/show/movie is a lost sale. Every. Single. One. Dollars out of their pockets. Food snatched from their babies mouths.
You will never get through to people like that. They live in a different reality and will never recognize what you and I know: copying is here to stay. When little old ladies (yes, more than one!) ask me how to find movies on the web... when police chat about jailbreaking their iPhones... when everyday people "infringe" without a second thought or a twinge of guilt... Like Marcus said, morality doesn't come into this equation, and to a very large extent neither does illegality.
Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?
"""Where's the incentive for JSTOR to even collect and collate this info if anyone can just come in and reproduce it all?"""
This is possibly the first rational question I've seen from you under your new username. And you should give it a lot of thought. But an even better questions is, Who cares? If JSTOR no longer has incentive to collect and collate the data, great! They can piss right off, a dozen different entities would fight for the chance to host that data at little or even no cost! (think Google, Wikipedia, etc.)
And if you are so ready to go to bat for JSTOR, would you mind please pointing out what extra value they bring to the table? Not just hosting and indexing, those are trivial nowadays, but true extra value for the outrageous prices they charge.
The only extra value I can think of is this: they are keeping the data out of the hands of everyone unwilling or unable to pay their prices.
"""...I'll simply point out that time and again you oppose any and every reasonable action designed to slow infringing..."""
There. Right there is your basic problem. What the people like you just don't get. Pandora's Box is opened, and if you have any education, you should know that it never closes again. You may as well go to the beach and fight the tide.
"""...and never offer any alternatives of your own that reign in infringement and protect rightsholders."""
Because you innately misstate the problem, likely because you don't even understand the problem. The "rightsholders" have plenty of protection, too much in fact, in the form of practically never ending monopolies. Mike has in fact offered many many alternatives, not to reign in infringement (see Pandora's Box, above), but to make money in SPITE of infringement, or even better BECAUSE of infringement. Yes, it is possible to monetize, but your complete inability to grasp that simple fact is what causes you to continually fight an un-winnable battle.
"""Down with pat downs and taking off shoes and security...it's SOOOO inconvenient!!!!!"""
The bigger problem is that it's SOOOO irrelevant! Pat downs and taking off shoes have stopped precisely zero attacks, and furthermore will never stop any attacks, because the turrists KNOW ABOUT THAT CHECK so they WON'T USE THAT STRATEGY. It only affects all other travelers (which is basically all of them) in the form of aggrevation and, in your case, a false sense of security.
Ever heard of closing the barn door after the horses have run away?
Gee, why don't you just drop a "yo momma" joke while you're at it?
Looks like you're a juvenile asshole. And before your juvenile ass points it out, yes, I'm aware that calling you a juvenile asshole makes me a bit juvenile too. I can live with that.
"""And despite all the laws against murder & rape, we can't bring the risk of murder and rape to zero. Therefore any attempt to reduce that risk to zero is foolish."""
Jeez, can I call a Godwin ruling on rape here? You may as well have tossed out "Hitler" and called it a day.
But, yes, as ugly as it is to say it, any attempt to reduce THAT risk to zero is also foolish.
It's simple math (the law of diminishing returns). At the point of diminishing returns on a graph, you get almost no return no matter how many resources you throw at it, which makes sense because as you approach zero (risk), the amount of resources you would need to get it there approaches infinity.
"""But the reality is if they cannot properly search someone, the rest of us are at risk."""
You, sir, are a sheep.
Number A: Nothing... NOTHING... reduces the "risk" of flying to zero other than stopping flights completely. Therefore any attempt to reduce that risk to zero is foolish.
Number B: Checking old ladies' adult diapers might reduce said risk by some infinitesimally small amount, but it is certainly not worth the emotional backlash from the public nor the trauma to the "victim".
Number C: That goes for feeling up kids too. Risk reduction way too small for the negative publicity and trauma to the child.
It all comes down to ROI (return on investment), these people have no understanding of ROI. The returns are much too small for the impact their "procedures" cause.
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Wrong Court
The principle showed the movie for free! And there were multiple people in the room, so it was also a public performance! By **AA rules, she can claim triple the gross national product of Uganda in damages!
Oh, and while I'm at it: Won't you think of the children???
On the post: Court Says Logging Into Someone Else's Facebook Page And Posting A Message Can Be Identity Fraud
Re: He's lucky
On the post: How Data Retention Makes Us Less Secure
Stop sandbagging.
"Fear" is not the right word. Replace with "know". Also, while you are at it, as far as congress-critters are concerned, change "many" to "all". There, fixed that for ya.
On the post: Huge Ruling: Court Says Proving Copyright Infringement Does Not Automatically Mean Irreperable Harm
Re: No more "presumption of irreparable harm"?
I kinda feel like anytime a court decision is decisively overruled, that's pretty big. Granted, maybe not "huge", but pretty damn big.
On the post: New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
Re: Country Music?
Yes, there is a reason you don't hear those kinds of stories: Nobody wants to license county music.
On the post: Another View Of The Netflix Price Hike: It's Speeding Up The Shift To Online Streaming
Bandwidth caps anyone?
I can certainly believe that Hastings is thinking along these lines, but he's not looking at the big picture. ISPs all over are tightening up their bandwidth caps and throttling/shaping all kinds of traffic. I'll bet that watching several streamed movies/episodes a week will get you to those un-advertised caps pretty quickly... and then the ISPs will either throttle you way down, or charge you per gigabyte (or some scale) for the rest of the month! People are not going to be thrilled to get a $300 bill from their ISP because they didn't realize those streaming movies over Netflix had pushed them into a $/per gigabyte tier.
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?
Whoa there big boy, calm down. Breathe deeply. Relax.
Now, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that what you called "property" was not real property at all. Hahaha, ridiculous, I know, but let's just suppose. So, if there is no actual property anyway, and anyone can just come along and make a copy of "it" for their very own, can you see how your position and arguments would just fall apart?
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC does, and the industry he shills for does. They honestly, really, truly believe that every downloaded copy of a song/show/movie is a lost sale. Every. Single. One. Dollars out of their pockets. Food snatched from their babies mouths.
You will never get through to people like that. They live in a different reality and will never recognize what you and I know: copying is here to stay. When little old ladies (yes, more than one!) ask me how to find movies on the web... when police chat about jailbreaking their iPhones... when everyday people "infringe" without a second thought or a twinge of guilt... Like Marcus said, morality doesn't come into this equation, and to a very large extent neither does illegality.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?
This is possibly the first rational question I've seen from you under your new username. And you should give it a lot of thought. But an even better questions is, Who cares? If JSTOR no longer has incentive to collect and collate the data, great! They can piss right off, a dozen different entities would fight for the chance to host that data at little or even no cost! (think Google, Wikipedia, etc.)
And if you are so ready to go to bat for JSTOR, would you mind please pointing out what extra value they bring to the table? Not just hosting and indexing, those are trivial nowadays, but true extra value for the outrageous prices they charge.
The only extra value I can think of is this: they are keeping the data out of the hands of everyone unwilling or unable to pay their prices.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re:
There. Right there is your basic problem. What the people like you just don't get. Pandora's Box is opened, and if you have any education, you should know that it never closes again. You may as well go to the beach and fight the tide.
"""...and never offer any alternatives of your own that reign in infringement and protect rightsholders."""
Because you innately misstate the problem, likely because you don't even understand the problem. The "rightsholders" have plenty of protection, too much in fact, in the form of practically never ending monopolies. Mike has in fact offered many many alternatives, not to reign in infringement (see Pandora's Box, above), but to make money in SPITE of infringement, or even better BECAUSE of infringement. Yes, it is possible to monetize, but your complete inability to grasp that simple fact is what causes you to continually fight an un-winnable battle.
On the post: Justice Department Practicing Mix-And-Match, Sleight-Of-Hand Law In Seizure Case
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: You Know What's Missing From The Aaron Swartz Indictment? Any Mention Of Copyright
Re: Larceny = theft = infringement = illegal activity = crime
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
On the post: Woman Faces Felony Charges For Groping A TSA Agent
Re: Bad analogy
The bigger problem is that it's SOOOO irrelevant! Pat downs and taking off shoes have stopped precisely zero attacks, and furthermore will never stop any attacks, because the turrists KNOW ABOUT THAT CHECK so they WON'T USE THAT STRATEGY. It only affects all other travelers (which is basically all of them) in the form of aggrevation and, in your case, a false sense of security.
Ever heard of closing the barn door after the horses have run away?
On the post: Woman Faces Felony Charges For Groping A TSA Agent
Re: Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
On the post: Get Accused Of Copyright Infringement Under New Five Strikes Plan? It'll Cost You To Challenge
Re: Re: Re:
Looks like you're a juvenile asshole. And before your juvenile ass points it out, yes, I'm aware that calling you a juvenile asshole makes me a bit juvenile too. I can live with that.
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re:
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re: Re: Re:
Jeez, can I call a Godwin ruling on rape here? You may as well have tossed out "Hitler" and called it a day.
But, yes, as ugly as it is to say it, any attempt to reduce THAT risk to zero is also foolish.
It's simple math (the law of diminishing returns). At the point of diminishing returns on a graph, you get almost no return no matter how many resources you throw at it, which makes sense because as you approach zero (risk), the amount of resources you would need to get it there approaches infinity.
See? Simple!
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re: Obligatory....
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re:
You, sir, are a sheep.
Number A: Nothing... NOTHING... reduces the "risk" of flying to zero other than stopping flights completely. Therefore any attempt to reduce that risk to zero is foolish.
Number B: Checking old ladies' adult diapers might reduce said risk by some infinitesimally small amount, but it is certainly not worth the emotional backlash from the public nor the trauma to the "victim".
Number C: That goes for feeling up kids too. Risk reduction way too small for the negative publicity and trauma to the child.
It all comes down to ROI (return on investment), these people have no understanding of ROI. The returns are much too small for the impact their "procedures" cause.
Next >>