All of language is metaphor. As such, anything anyone ever says can be taken out of context or made nonsense of. This does not prove the original writer did not know what they were talking about.
What it proves is you don't read any better than you spell.
I remember when we lost the first World War for democratic control of the airwaves in the 80's. The model then was satellite. The issue was that they were beaming the signal everywhere and had no right to expect anyone to police that. So they invented scrambling, and when that didn't work they had laws passed such that using descramblers was illegal.
The addition of the technology took care of the casual cling ons, and the legal harassment over descramblers finished off the more determined.
What could, and indeed should, have happened, was that the airwaves should not have been regulated at all. Let the scramblers and descramblers war over technology, let more and more people become aware of this technology, educate themselves, and create avenues of distribution of their own.
Copyright should not be something a creator can bargain away. It is not physical property, and should never be treated as if it were. Rather, creative people should be allowed to set the rate at which they wish to be paid, and then whoever is willing to distribute it can pay them that price. Let the best distributor win.
That's assuming there's any love left in your heart for creators at all, which sadly in my case is a firm negits. Still, that's the one logical approach I can come up with, and of course it is every bit as objectionable to them as simply doing away with copyright, so to heck with them. A pox on them all.
Your comment would be less offensive, and thus more effective, if you were to leave off the gratuitous anti-Christian rant that has almost nothing to do with the point you otherwise seem to make quite eloquently.
It's funny, but I wouldn't go five feet out of my way for most of the content that comes from HBO. I do not buy OR pirate it because, to me, it is limp milk toast garbage. Copyright combined with corporate anti-competitive practices work together to limit the type and quality of entertainment that is generally available and, despite the promise of the internet to broaden the horizons of what could be seen and heard by most people, these people seem bound and determined to extend their barbaric sense of "art" to monopolies there as well, even if it means trashing the technology behind the internet in the process.
I again respectfully submit to you that we are being far, far too sympathetic to so called "artists" who cooperate with the corporate anti-competitive elite. They need to start suffering for their support of this sort of undemocratic collusion with the worst that this world has to offer in terms of socio-economic freedom and fairness.
The entire purpose of copyright is to deliver a monopoly in order to jack up prices. The issue here is that on the one hand we have the Sherman Act that outlaws the artificial constraint of trade and price fixing, and on the other hand we have Intellectual Property laws. If IP always followed the originator, that would be one thing, but it does not. Large corporations now use IP to enforce monopolies for their own benefit whether or not it benefits the creators. Further, if the creators are in bed with the corporations to begin with, then they deserve no sympathy for conspiring to fix prices.
I think we take far too sympathetic a view of the "artist" these days. The best of them have always sought out powerful and wealthy patrons. These patrons have always used their talents to further their own ends. We don't owe them anything, and far from needing some incentive to create, you could hardly shut the vast majority of them up even if you used surgical staples and a gallon of super glue on their lips.
Apparently is not as popular as leftists continually say it is. It's fun to watch people try to defend it. The best you can do is complain about over-reactions.
It's a serious issue that gets blow off and blown out of proportion all at the same time.
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Re: Re: Society wasn't built by people who waited
All of language is metaphor. As such, anything anyone ever says can be taken out of context or made nonsense of. This does not prove the original writer did not know what they were talking about.
What it proves is you don't read any better than you spell.
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Re: Is anyone considering who owns HBO?
The addition of the technology took care of the casual cling ons, and the legal harassment over descramblers finished off the more determined.
What could, and indeed should, have happened, was that the airwaves should not have been regulated at all. Let the scramblers and descramblers war over technology, let more and more people become aware of this technology, educate themselves, and create avenues of distribution of their own.
Copyright should not be something a creator can bargain away. It is not physical property, and should never be treated as if it were. Rather, creative people should be allowed to set the rate at which they wish to be paid, and then whoever is willing to distribute it can pay them that price. Let the best distributor win.
That's assuming there's any love left in your heart for creators at all, which sadly in my case is a firm negits. Still, that's the one logical approach I can come up with, and of course it is every bit as objectionable to them as simply doing away with copyright, so to heck with them. A pox on them all.
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Simplificate and add lightness
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Re: Quality of Content Issue
I again respectfully submit to you that we are being far, far too sympathetic to so called "artists" who cooperate with the corporate anti-competitive elite. They need to start suffering for their support of this sort of undemocratic collusion with the worst that this world has to offer in terms of socio-economic freedom and fairness.
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Re: It goes to motive
I think we take far too sympathetic a view of the "artist" these days. The best of them have always sought out powerful and wealthy patrons. These patrons have always used their talents to further their own ends. We don't owe them anything, and far from needing some incentive to create, you could hardly shut the vast majority of them up even if you used surgical staples and a gallon of super glue on their lips.
On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right -- The Internet Is Our Enemy
Pron
It's a serious issue that gets blow off and blown out of proportion all at the same time.
Next >>