Ah yes, whenever I see a good movie, I say, "Great! Now that I've seen it, I never have to see it again!"
And I only buy DVD's of movies that I haven't seen. Otherwise, I'd have to buy coasters!
That is incredibly stupid, even for you. 24 people gathering for movie night for charity is hardly 10% of the people in the city of Datona. Oh, you didn't read (again) before you popped off?
The US is a Democratic Republic. A true Democracy is fucked up by nature, i.e.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin
When a scalper buys a $100 ticket and sells it for $300, he has made a $200 profit, or 200% on his investment. How much does the government get? Whatever tax has been already paid on the $100 ticket. And since scalping is illegal, they will not declare the cash. The state wants it's cut, plain and simple. The two-day wait is obviously a deal made to get TicketMaster's support.
If they want to cause as much pain to the scalpers as possible, either have assigned seating where they check ids, or add a "deposit" which is refunded at the gate the night of the concert. The "deposit" would make it difficult for a scalper to buy out a significant number of seats, and he/she would only buy the number of tickets that he/she could safely sell, as their price had effectively doubled, compared to the fan that actually went to the concert.
I find the "deposit" particularly attractive, because then you know the fan has the cash to buy merchandise.
But, in any case, this would be much better handled by the ticket retailer.
The issue here is not a legal battle over copyright infringement. It is extra-legal destruction of character and reputation, before anything has been discovered in court.
It actually doesn't matter if the work is his or not. The end does not justify the means. If it's a legal battle, fine, but leave the clients out of it: they will not be liable in any case.
You are continuously the spin doctor of bad copyright (is there good? I begin to wonder...). Try actually getting the point once.
Exactly. Religious Zealot or Copyright Zealot, neither of them have the general public interest in mind. The prosecutor can pick and choose what to prosecute, and spend inordinate amounts of time developing a case. A witch hunt for Tommy Chong or a witch hunt for the person who leaked Wolverine, there is no difference.
Plus, this gives the copyright extremists influence over the entire administration. If you need a favor from the copyright maximalist who works next to you, you're more likely do do a favor in return.
It's just not a good environment that they have created.
To answer your question Mike, yes, it does seem to be that hard for him to hold two concepts in his brain at once. Actually, I would say that even one seems to be beyond his capacity, as he constantly changes the subject. I think only ADHD is his friend...
Maybe the studio got the hint, and DID leak it on purpose. Then they issued these statements as a cover-up for the moron on their board of directors who happens to be CEO for some anti-piracy corp.
I think I am typing to a brick wall. HELLO? The THUMBNAILS, the PREVIEWS, were what was INFRINGING. I have no idea what you two loonies are bs'ing about, because you don't reference it anywhere. Try a link! Or read mine! Or actually read the complaint against SeeqPod! Or just shut up and quit trying to mislead people!
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that when a party brings suit for copyright infringement, it's about copyright infringement. I linked this before, but I'll do it again: http://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google Google only got in trouble FOR THE THUMBNAILS, because that part was actually ON THEIR SERVERS. And if you have actually used Google Images, you will find a link TO THE IMAGE ITSELF.
The defense of the search engine is that it doesn't host the material. What don't you understand about that? It has nothing to do with repackaging.
WH, this is probably what you are in reference to about the thumbnails: http://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google.
As anyone can see, Google was in trouble FOR THE THUMBNAILS, not the linked images, because the thumbnails actually reside on their systems.
What does search engine/not search engine have to do with copyright infringement? They are rightly claiming that they do not host the infringing material, they are just providing a link to it. Repackaging it the same way that Google does, and including a link to the original source.
I guess your point is that the site also includes a part that automatically runs a media player on your machine, and links to that media file? None of the offending material ever resides on their system or servers. Do you comprehend that?
Lying troll again. I am getting sick of refuting your stupid claims for the benefit of the innocent. The main page always showed thumbnails because it is convenient. Then it links to the original page, AND adds a link to JUST THE IMAGE which shows IN IT'S OWN PAGE (no context).
You are saying that, if you havea copyrighted picture on the web, I cannot link to that picture and display it on my page without infringing on your copyright. I'm not talking about trademark here, pure copyright.
Notice at no time have I copied the file to my site, just created a link which displays when a user loads my page.
Sooo... Microsoft is liable because it searches your hard drive for media, but DOESN'T check to see if the music/movies are legal or not? Or are you trying to say that because they have an internet-enabled player, they magically become more liable than a player that doesn't live on the local machine?
And yes, the SeeqPod player DOES run on your machine. It runs on a flash player which executes locally. So, if SeeqPod is infringing, so is every media player that is internet-enabled, and probably every player that can possibly play media without checking copyright status.
Sorry, but WH is a delusional corporate apologist, and your argument doesn't hold water.
The lawsuit is about Seeqpod giving users access to illegal and unauthorized access to copyrighted music, not about how the music is presented. As a user, you have a link where you can go to directly download the file or imbed it directly into your social networking page. This is in the complaint filed by Warner.
Jeez, WH, is it so bad that you have to resort to making up some goofball story about content presentation? Why didn't you just shut up? Now you have completely lost all credibility. Not far to fall, though...
Evil Mike, you hit the nail on the head. I can already see the next virus targeting Windows boxes (stick it to the man!) that flips the switch, and "poof" no more laptop. Of course, it will change the activation code as well, so the provider cannot turn it back on.
Just more proof that stupidity is more powerful than intelligence, because there are limits to intelligence...
Correction: Microsoft was never a fan of interoperability WITH OTHER VENDORS. They made their own apps interoperable, which was their selling point.
The sad part is, other vendors wouldn't even make their own apps interoperable. You had to get a 3rd party tool to get information from one app to another.
Lockin, yes, but forced upgrade? Come on. Forced upgrade is when a company turns off an app after a certain calendar date, like Apple did with QuickTime. (Yes, it happened to me!) I have yet to see Microsoft do such a stupid thing. Not saying they didn't, I just haven't seen it.
On the post: Daytona Beach Charity Movie Night Put On Hold Due To Copyright
Re:
And I only buy DVD's of movies that I haven't seen. Otherwise, I'd have to buy coasters!
That is incredibly stupid, even for you. 24 people gathering for movie night for charity is hardly 10% of the people in the city of Datona. Oh, you didn't read (again) before you popped off?
I really don't know why you even bother.
On the post: Hollywood's Favorite Lawmakers Preparing Next Level Of Draconian Copyright Laws
Re: Sigh
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin
On the post: Schumer Tries To Force Scalpers To Register; Limit How They Buy And Sell Tickets
You all missed the point...
If they want to cause as much pain to the scalpers as possible, either have assigned seating where they check ids, or add a "deposit" which is refunded at the gate the night of the concert. The "deposit" would make it difficult for a scalper to buy out a significant number of seats, and he/she would only buy the number of tickets that he/she could safely sell, as their price had effectively doubled, compared to the fan that actually went to the concert.
I find the "deposit" particularly attractive, because then you know the fan has the cash to buy merchandise.
But, in any case, this would be much better handled by the ticket retailer.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Shows How Her Fans Support Her
Re:
On the post: Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work
Re:
The issue here is not a legal battle over copyright infringement. It is extra-legal destruction of character and reputation, before anything has been discovered in court.
It actually doesn't matter if the work is his or not. The end does not justify the means. If it's a legal battle, fine, but leave the clients out of it: they will not be liable in any case.
You are continuously the spin doctor of bad copyright (is there good? I begin to wonder...). Try actually getting the point once.
On the post: Consumer Interest Groups Ask Obama To Stop Appointing RIAA Lawyers
Re: Re:
Plus, this gives the copyright extremists influence over the entire administration. If you need a favor from the copyright maximalist who works next to you, you're more likely do do a favor in return.
It's just not a good environment that they have created.
On the post: Has The Recording Industry Finally Realized That Selling 1,000 Songs In One Package Makes Sense?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In An Alternate Universe, How 20th Century Fox Could Have Responded To Wolverine Leak
Conspiracy Theory
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re:
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess your point is that the site also includes a part that automatically runs a media player on your machine, and links to that media file? None of the offending material ever resides on their system or servers. Do you comprehend that?
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get outa here, Ol' Weird Harold!
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess not, and furthermore, I wasn't addressing you.
You are truly nothing more than the latest green-haired troll on this site.
PS I went to your site. You seem to have more unauthorized images than any site I've ever seen!
Stupid, lying, hypocritical troll is no way to go through life, son.
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re: Re:
Notice at no time have I copied the file to my site, just created a link which displays when a user loads my page.
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re: Re:
And yes, the SeeqPod player DOES run on your machine. It runs on a flash player which executes locally. So, if SeeqPod is infringing, so is every media player that is internet-enabled, and probably every player that can possibly play media without checking copyright status.
Sorry, but WH is a delusional corporate apologist, and your argument doesn't hold water.
On the post: Congrats, Recording Industry: You May Now Have Killed Seeqpod Too
Re:
The lawsuit is about Seeqpod giving users access to illegal and unauthorized access to copyrighted music, not about how the music is presented. As a user, you have a link where you can go to directly download the file or imbed it directly into your social networking page. This is in the complaint filed by Warner.
Jeez, WH, is it so bad that you have to resort to making up some goofball story about content presentation? Why didn't you just shut up? Now you have completely lost all credibility. Not far to fall, though...
On the post: Forget Just Locking Your Laptop's Wireless Modem, Now Operators Can Lock The Whole Machine
Re:
Just more proof that stupidity is more powerful than intelligence, because there are limits to intelligence...
On the post: TomTom Realizes Microsoft's Pointy Patent Stick Is Too Sharp... Settles Patent Dispute
Re:
The sad part is, other vendors wouldn't even make their own apps interoperable. You had to get a 3rd party tool to get information from one app to another.
Lockin, yes, but forced upgrade? Come on. Forced upgrade is when a company turns off an app after a certain calendar date, like Apple did with QuickTime. (Yes, it happened to me!) I have yet to see Microsoft do such a stupid thing. Not saying they didn't, I just haven't seen it.
Next >>