I HAD RATHER LIVE LIKE THERE IS A GOD AND FIND OUT WHEN I DIE THERE ISN'T THAN TO LIVE LIKE THERE IS NO GOD (like you) AND FIND OUT THERE REALLY IS A GOD.
Ahh Pascal's Wager, which assumes that, that god would be the god your religion believes in. You'd be in a pickle if that god turned out to the god some other religion believes in. As it turns out you are as much an Atheist as I am, you just disbelieve in one fewer god than I do.
Back to the subject.
No it wasn't persecution of Christians or any other religionists. It was the stupid pointless mindless adherence to a stupid law designed by copyright maximalists, because god forbid anyone should share the enjoyment of their favourite sport, with friends and neighbours.
I absolutely agree. I have stopped posting at every site that has moved to Disqus. In fact Disqus is blocked on my browser, making those site effectively have no comments section, as far as I'm concerned.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
I don't give a rats arse what the bible has to say about anything.
The bible makes as good a case for Genocide being a moral option, as it does for turning the other cheek. It is an utterly worthless document upon which to base one's moral compass.
Re: Re: So offering the world's leading photo sharing site for free isn't giving back to the community?
Actually I do think it's possible that a for profit company or service can give back to the community. Red Hat is one such company. The relationship is symbiotic, the more the community benefits the more Red Hat benefits.
In the case of services like Flickr I'd say the relationship is more parasitical. There IS a benefit to the community, and people do find it useful, but that small benefit only exists so that those services can gain much, much more.
The benefit to the community doesn't increased as the gains to the service owner increase.
This, the selling of CC licensed works, is an example of how the hard work of the community is being used to benefit the service owner. Yes legally the service owner can do this, and yes people did give up their right to control those works, but if the company was actually interested in the community, or even it's community, it would already have in place a means to ensure there are benefits to the wider community. Maybe that means supporting relevant open Source start ups that don't have an immediate benefit to the company (they already support those Open Source projects that do have an immediate benefit), maybe it means something else.
So far as i can see they mean to profit directly from the CC licensed works.
So offering the world's leading photo sharing site for free isn't giving back to the community?
No. They offer the site in the manner they do because it generates income by other means, as is the case with all Social Network sites.
The site does not operate for the benefit of the community, it operates for the benefit of it's owners. The income they receive is generated by selling advertising and or data gleaned from the people who use the site for no charge.
The benefits to the community exist only in so far as they add value to the site's real users, the advertisers and marketers who buy information from the site's owners.
The people who post photos and interact for free with the site are resources, as are anything they post. The CC-By and CC0 can be traded as is, anything with a non commercial attachment to the CC license is used in other ways that don't violate the letter of the license.
I think the real issue for most people is they have suddenly realised the site doesn't actually exist for their benefit, but for the benefit of the site owners, and that any benefit they may have assumed existed so that ultimately the site owners could benefit more. They are seeing the trade off (you use this for no monetary fee, we profit from everything you post) in action, and don't like it.
The hidden cost of such "free" services has been made obnoxiously apparent, in this case.
quote::I think that a minimum fine of $100.00 per DVD / Blu-Ray disc that has those "lockouts" that prevent skipping or fast forwarding during advertisements and fake legal threats would be a good start.::quote
"lockouts" is this something new, or does it only apply on certain devices/operating systems?
so long as it ensures they sell more licenses for their proprietary stuff. Microsoft spends a lot of time contributing to Open Source projects to ensure they work well with Windows, they even contribute to the Linux kernel, to ensure it will work well in Azure.
On the post: School Principal Contacts FBI After Student Throws American Flag Out A Window
That's quite a fall,
On the post: Blurred Lines Copyright Lawsuit Gets Funky As Judge Delves Into The Blurred Lines Of What's Really Copyrighted
because the very nature of copyright is its needless complexion
On the post: Police Department Refuses To Release Use Of Force Policies Because 'Criminals Might Gain An Advantage'
Re: Re: Blocked / Censorship
This video contains content from UMG. It is restricted from playback on certain sites. Watch on YouTube
On the post: 369 Bloggers Have Registered Under Russia's New Blogger's Law
Re: *approximate maximum values; actual numbers may be lower
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Mike had sense of humour fail
On the post: Latest Trade Agreements Are About The Opposite Of Free Trade: Protectionism For Big Business
Re: >_
America?
No it's every country who's government conned into signing on to these American Multinational Corporation inspired "Free trade" agreements.
On the post: NFL Wants To Remind You That Having People Over To Watch The Super Bowl On A Big Screen Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: of course a church
Ahh Pascal's Wager, which assumes that, that god would be the god your religion believes in. You'd be in a pickle if that god turned out to the god some other religion believes in. As it turns out you are as much an Atheist as I am, you just disbelieve in one fewer god than I do.
Back to the subject.
No it wasn't persecution of Christians or any other religionists. It was the stupid pointless mindless adherence to a stupid law designed by copyright maximalists, because god forbid anyone should share the enjoyment of their favourite sport, with friends and neighbours.
On the post: Yet Another Website Kills Comments, Despite Study Showing You Can Have Civil Comments If You Give A Damn
Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another Website Kills Comments, Despite Study Showing You Can Have Civil Comments If You Give A Damn
Re: Re:
On the post: Washington Post Shrugs Off Torture Because, You Know, It Polls Well
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get the "U.S. citizens condones torture" bottom line
The bible makes as good a case for Genocide being a moral option, as it does for turning the other cheek. It is an utterly worthless document upon which to base one's moral compass.
On the post: Court Ruling: EA's Anti-Piracy Software Is Patent Infringing
I can't make up my mind
On the post: Surprise: Spanish Newspapers Beg Government And EU To Stop Google News Shutting Down
Re: It's just become a propaganda machine for liberals.
On the post: UK Web Filtering Blocks Access To Website Of Europe's Largest And Oldest Hacking Community
I watched the movie V for Vendetta the other night
On the post: Amazon Fire TV Firmware Update Bricks Rooted Devices, Prevents Rollback To Previous Firmware Versions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
On the post: Amazon Fire TV Firmware Update Bricks Rooted Devices, Prevents Rollback To Previous Firmware Versions
with Win Amp for MP3s
On the post: Flickr Plans To Sell Creative Commons Photos And That's Okay...
Re: Re: So offering the world's leading photo sharing site for free isn't giving back to the community?
In the case of services like Flickr I'd say the relationship is more parasitical. There IS a benefit to the community, and people do find it useful, but that small benefit only exists so that those services can gain much, much more.
The benefit to the community doesn't increased as the gains to the service owner increase.
This, the selling of CC licensed works, is an example of how the hard work of the community is being used to benefit the service owner. Yes legally the service owner can do this, and yes people did give up their right to control those works, but if the company was actually interested in the community, or even it's community, it would already have in place a means to ensure there are benefits to the wider community. Maybe that means supporting relevant open Source start ups that don't have an immediate benefit to the company (they already support those Open Source projects that do have an immediate benefit), maybe it means something else.
So far as i can see they mean to profit directly from the CC licensed works.
On the post: Flickr Plans To Sell Creative Commons Photos And That's Okay...
So offering the world's leading photo sharing site for free isn't giving back to the community?
The site does not operate for the benefit of the community, it operates for the benefit of it's owners. The income they receive is generated by selling advertising and or data gleaned from the people who use the site for no charge.
The benefits to the community exist only in so far as they add value to the site's real users, the advertisers and marketers who buy information from the site's owners.
The people who post photos and interact for free with the site are resources, as are anything they post. The CC-By and CC0 can be traded as is, anything with a non commercial attachment to the CC license is used in other ways that don't violate the letter of the license.
I think the real issue for most people is they have suddenly realised the site doesn't actually exist for their benefit, but for the benefit of the site owners, and that any benefit they may have assumed existed so that ultimately the site owners could benefit more. They are seeing the trade off (you use this for no monetary fee, we profit from everything you post) in action, and don't like it.
The hidden cost of such "free" services has been made obnoxiously apparent, in this case.
On the post: Music Publishers, With Help From Rightscorp, Test Legal Theory That DMCA Requires Kicking Repeat Infringers Off The Internet
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against MPAA
"lockouts" is this something new, or does it only apply on certain devices/operating systems?
I have never experienced such a thing.
On the post: Bill Gates Evidently Gets Open Access And Open Data: So What About Open Source?
Microsoft Loves Open Source
On the post: DailyDirt: Just Because You're Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Watching You...
Wouldn't that be more correct if it was
Next >>