Am I the only one that sees this as a capitalist issue?
Machinima is a financier, similar to a bank. They make money off of other's labor while they finance it. They deal with the copyright issues by paying off companies far more than punishing their "actors" could make. There is a huge information mismatch. You have to use a studio to finance your works so that you don't get the dreaded three strikes that ruins you from having to start over.
The option that would be much more difficult but much more rewarding would be if there were indeed be a coop studio that worked on YouTube. The artists themselves worked on videos to make while they had a decision in what that company spent the extra proceeds they produced (the surplus). It kept small, there could be a lot of benefits in having the kids decide what they wasn't to do and how to spend money in a responsible company over having a contract that keeps you as an indentured servant for the rest of your life.
You have overzealous prosecutors looking for convictions, with little to no judicial oversight, tons of cash, looking for people to punish, and overlooking corporate crimes.
I can't tell you how much of a disaster this is...
The area around this motel owner is owned by larger corporations that had more drug crimes. Ortiz didn't punish Walmart or target another place with larger crimes.
She went for the little guy to bully. That is her MO. Pile on the criminal charges and get them to summit to civil asset forfeiture then use the money for law enforcement.
The area around this motel owner is owned by larger corporations that had more drug crimes. Ortiz didn't punish Walmart or target another place with larger crimes.
She went for the little guy to bully. That is her MO. Pile on the criminal charges and get them to summit to civil asset forfeiture then use the money for law enforcement.
If you have to play partisan politics, be prepared to look at your own party with a critical eye. Blaming one party for all ills doesn't help anyone figure out the problem, nor does it actually find solutions.
You have four strains of conservatives that make up the Republican party:
The plutocrats fund all of the events and get legislation passed. They don't wasn't taxes raised on them and get the most deals out of the budgets since they own Congress.
The Neo-cons care about foreign policy and the US being number one in their military.
The social conservatives are the ones preaching the message and they're usually behind on technology issues (think Rick Perry or Sarah Palin)
Finally, you have the libertarians/moderates who are usually up on technology issues but don't seem to connect well with the other groups on other issues.
With those for main strains of conservatism vying for control of the party, I doubt that they can shine up Republican politics to take advantage of new technology. At least not until they recognize that their messaging and their message are atrocious to the new majority in America.
Yes there is. Technologists would want to work with the D's since they're using up to date tech. The R's might be able to use it, but they would have a lot to learn which keeps the D's ahead of the game.
Let's think about this in another context...
Let's say I play chess and I have two years more experience than you. Of course, I play against you, and you have a hard time beating me. Then, you learn on your own while trekking to others to catch up to my level while I play at a more advanced level myself. Maybe you beat me 4/10 times instead of me dominating you.
Now think about politics as chess. The D's would remain two steps ahead by learning from their own mistakes and not having to relearn new software after they have an advantage.
The positives of releasing that info and attracting new people to that party outweigh the negative of worrying about R's gaining an advantage.
Having followed the "poli-tech" for a while, I can say that the Democrats reverse engineered a lot of their plotting and planning from Karl Rove.
She, they want to keep this secret from conservatives, hoping to land this weapon again but as noted they won't need to.
1) The "center" of the country is moving left.
2) Liberals have an advantage in tech over cooperatives already. A lot of the technology comes from the Googles and Apples, not the Microsoft and Intels (notice the generation gap here if you don't get it)
3) To bar others from making this better, you're effectively relying on an old mousetrap for a bigger mouse. That leaves other parties to take away your advantage and keeps you stuck in the potty instead of planning your next campaign.
Re: How would this apply to copyright law? Patent law?
The quick answer is abolishing copyright laws.
The long answer is creating policies and models that allow the public to benefit without having unnecessary impediments such as windowing, regionalization, price gouging, and monopolies.
The WL version shows that Wikileaks has been heavily prosecuted for publishing information that makes all governments look bad. The US government has been the worst prosecutor, looking to make Assange a personal pariah and an enemy of the state. The reasoning is rather simple: thegovernment wants to maintain a hold on the release of information. They want to maintain a hold on what information is released and when. Every time a court has a chance to review what or government is doing, they reply that they have a state secret in their hands.
Further, our government seems to want to crack down on anyone that is not their version of a whistle blower. If you let go of information that would benefit the public, watch out. If you want to maintain the stasis quo though, you're fine and very protected.
It bothers me though. Unfortunately, it seems that enriching the public about the government is a punishable offense. Our Supreme Court has made it so that corporations have more power in our government than people. There are some truly powerful interests looking to make an example of those that want to do good things.
No matter what happens, it seems that if you are trying to enrich the public, you are an enemy of the state.
When was it that the people the government was supposed to protect were not the people that voted you into office?
Good luck... That is the prosecution's bread and butter. You are literally along then to take a paycut and a reduction in power.
I kind of agree with the libertarian position that it gives the government way too much power and leverage in destroying a person's life with zero accountability.
" Then ask why the parents are letting their kids view those programs and play those games. Don't try pushing your prudishness onto full grown adults who like stuff you don't like."
Here's what I don't like in arguments... This is a caricature... A stereotype if you will... That is used as an emotional plea.
The government really shouldn't have any business in what games are too violent except to have that information understood by the community.
Parenting is not the problem here. We have millions of gamers that play millions of different games for millions of different reasons. Very few of the gamers become violent.
What we have here is lack of communities to regulate behavior. The parenting is a scapegoat for most people to ignore how a community regulates behavior for good or ill.
Personally, I played MKII in arcades. I still study high level sciences and maths while I speak two languages and study in college. The amount of science needed to create a game is mind boggling and yet people don't realize that parenting isn't the problem.
How about creating better communities that teach better storytelling? How about being able to talk to parents about different games?
How about allowing patents to have a few days off to spend time with their children instead of working until they're 65 with few paid vacation days?
How about jobs paying a living wage so that our society allows parents more options and choices in the games they think are appropriate?
Focusing on merely parenting is focusing on once aspect without a clear view of the big picture.
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Capitalism is the core issue
Machinima is a financier, similar to a bank. They make money off of other's labor while they finance it. They deal with the copyright issues by paying off companies far more than punishing their "actors" could make. There is a huge information mismatch. You have to use a studio to finance your works so that you don't get the dreaded three strikes that ruins you from having to start over.
The option that would be much more difficult but much more rewarding would be if there were indeed be a coop studio that worked on YouTube. The artists themselves worked on videos to make while they had a decision in what that company spent the extra proceeds they produced (the surplus). It kept small, there could be a lot of benefits in having the kids decide what they wasn't to do and how to spend money in a responsible company over having a contract that keeps you as an indentured servant for the rest of your life.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Don't hate the player, hate the game... well and her too.
Prosecutors have been using faulty evidence for speedy convictions for years.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/17/150823191/prosecutors-knew-of-forensics-fla ws-for-years-the-post-reports
Now think about it...
You have overzealous prosecutors looking for convictions, with little to no judicial oversight, tons of cash, looking for people to punish, and overlooking corporate crimes.
I can't tell you how much of a disaster this is...
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re:
The area around this motel owner is owned by larger corporations that had more drug crimes. Ortiz didn't punish Walmart or target another place with larger crimes.
She went for the little guy to bully. That is her MO. Pile on the criminal charges and get them to summit to civil asset forfeiture then use the money for law enforcement.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re: Re:
The area around this motel owner is owned by larger corporations that had more drug crimes. Ortiz didn't punish Walmart or target another place with larger crimes.
She went for the little guy to bully. That is her MO. Pile on the criminal charges and get them to summit to civil asset forfeiture then use the money for law enforcement.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: D's amaze me
Here's a new rule:
If you have to play partisan politics, be prepared to look at your own party with a critical eye. Blaming one party for all ills doesn't help anyone figure out the problem, nor does it actually find solutions.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upstarts know its wrong?
You have four strains of conservatives that make up the Republican party:
The plutocrats fund all of the events and get legislation passed. They don't wasn't taxes raised on them and get the most deals out of the budgets since they own Congress.
The Neo-cons care about foreign policy and the US being number one in their military.
The social conservatives are the ones preaching the message and they're usually behind on technology issues (think Rick Perry or Sarah Palin)
Finally, you have the libertarians/moderates who are usually up on technology issues but don't seem to connect well with the other groups on other issues.
With those for main strains of conservatism vying for control of the party, I doubt that they can shine up Republican politics to take advantage of new technology. At least not until they recognize that their messaging and their message are atrocious to the new majority in America.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Re: Re: Upstarts know its wrong?
Let's think about this in another context...
Let's say I play chess and I have two years more experience than you. Of course, I play against you, and you have a hard time beating me. Then, you learn on your own while trekking to others to catch up to my level while I play at a more advanced level myself. Maybe you beat me 4/10 times instead of me dominating you.
Now think about politics as chess. The D's would remain two steps ahead by learning from their own mistakes and not having to relearn new software after they have an advantage.
The positives of releasing that info and attracting new people to that party outweigh the negative of worrying about R's gaining an advantage.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Irony
She, they want to keep this secret from conservatives, hoping to land this weapon again but as noted they won't need to.
1) The "center" of the country is moving left.
2) Liberals have an advantage in tech over cooperatives already. A lot of the technology comes from the Googles and Apples, not the Microsoft and Intels (notice the generation gap here if you don't get it)
3) To bar others from making this better, you're effectively relying on an old mousetrap for a bigger mouse. That leaves other parties to take away your advantage and keeps you stuck in the potty instead of planning your next campaign.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
The time that infringement ran rampant from the global democracy we call the internet?
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
The time that infringement ran rampant from the global democracy we call the internet?
On the post: EU VP On Aaron Swartz: If Our Laws Hold Back Benefits From Openness, We Should Change Those Laws
Re: How would this apply to copyright law? Patent law?
The long answer is creating policies and models that allow the public to benefit without having unnecessary impediments such as windowing, regionalization, price gouging, and monopolies.
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Re: Re: Geez...
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Geez...
You ask him every day... After post after post in regards to copyright... He answers you but you STILL fail to believe him...
Yeah, you logic is off the rails.
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Geez...
You ask him every day... After post after post in regards to copyright... He answers you but you STILL fail to believe him...
Yeah, you logic is off the rails.
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Re: Re:
On the post: Concerns Raised About Aaron Swartz's Prosecution And The Wikileaks Connection
The take of Wikileaks
The WL version shows that Wikileaks has been heavily prosecuted for publishing information that makes all governments look bad. The US government has been the worst prosecutor, looking to make Assange a personal pariah and an enemy of the state. The reasoning is rather simple: thegovernment wants to maintain a hold on the release of information. They want to maintain a hold on what information is released and when. Every time a court has a chance to review what or government is doing, they reply that they have a state secret in their hands.
Further, our government seems to want to crack down on anyone that is not their version of a whistle blower. If you let go of information that would benefit the public, watch out. If you want to maintain the stasis quo though, you're fine and very protected.
It bothers me though. Unfortunately, it seems that enriching the public about the government is a punishable offense. Our Supreme Court has made it so that corporations have more power in our government than people. There are some truly powerful interests looking to make an example of those that want to do good things.
No matter what happens, it seems that if you are trying to enrich the public, you are an enemy of the state.
When was it that the people the government was supposed to protect were not the people that voted you into office?
On the post: Retired Federal Judge Criticizes Carmen Ortiz's Handling Of Aaron Swartz Case
Re:
I kind of agree with the libertarian position that it gives the government way too much power and leverage in destroying a person's life with zero accountability.
On the post: Ralph Nader Makes First Serious Bid For 'Crazy Old Man' Position; Refers To Video Games As 'Electronic Child Molestors'
Re: Meh
On the post: Ralph Nader Makes First Serious Bid For 'Crazy Old Man' Position; Refers To Video Games As 'Electronic Child Molestors'
Re:
Here's what I don't like in arguments... This is a caricature... A stereotype if you will... That is used as an emotional plea.
The government really shouldn't have any business in what games are too violent except to have that information understood by the community.
Parenting is not the problem here. We have millions of gamers that play millions of different games for millions of different reasons. Very few of the gamers become violent.
What we have here is lack of communities to regulate behavior. The parenting is a scapegoat for most people to ignore how a community regulates behavior for good or ill.
Personally, I played MKII in arcades. I still study high level sciences and maths while I speak two languages and study in college. The amount of science needed to create a game is mind boggling and yet people don't realize that parenting isn't the problem.
How about creating better communities that teach better storytelling? How about being able to talk to parents about different games?
How about allowing patents to have a few days off to spend time with their children instead of working until they're 65 with few paid vacation days?
How about jobs paying a living wage so that our society allows parents more options and choices in the games they think are appropriate?
Focusing on merely parenting is focusing on once aspect without a clear view of the big picture.
On the post: Ralph Nader Makes First Serious Bid For 'Crazy Old Man' Position; Refers To Video Games As 'Electronic Child Molestors'
Re:
Next >>