Re: Who said the music industry needs saving,, apart from you Mike ???
How the hell can you write SO MUCH and say SO LITTLE?! Even factoring in the one-line-per-double-space text method... do you miss AOL Chat or something?
Damn... I can't even pull pieces out of there to challenge.. it's all so... devoid of intellect.
Actually, I think most of the crap churned out by the 'popular industry' is, well, shite. And I would prefer to use a site that would help me find that hard-to-find classic song I've been looking for and had running through my head for a while now.
So, I just proved your assertion of people wanting what is most popular wrong. Thanks for playing tho.
Did no one else realize that i-Tunes is an example of one of the things Mike talks about? You can't make money on music sales alone (physical or digital). So make that secondary to what does make money. I know that Apple is not a creator of the infinite goods, but they are showing how they can give it away for damn-near free and still make a hellova paycheck.
You sell the device (physical, finite good) and use the ability to purchase singular songs (instead of whole albums, one of the angry points of music purchases from the 90's and 00's, for just a few songs) as an incentive to purchase the finite good.
I know it’s not 100% applicable to a business model, but it does demonstrate that giving customers a reason to buy an infinite good, bundled with a finite good that serves a purpose, is a valid and successful business model.
Re: Copyright isn't just about selfish corporations
"I keep seeing people discuss copyright as if all of the rightsholders were large (and therefore automatically evil) corporations. Not so. I don't know the music world, but I've been in book publishing since the 1980s."
Perhaps they're not all big corporations... but the article (and the resultant discussions) focuses on those that are. It's kind of the whole point of the article. The CR system is so over-abused, it no longer serves its intended purpose.
"The vast majority of book publishers are "mom and pop shops." There are more than 100,000 of them active in the US alone, and only 5 are large corporations. Only 100 are even modest-sized corporations."
Good! That means there's a better field of competition! But the focus here was who owns the copyright holders and why it's ever anyone other than the creator of the work.
"As for the output? Yes, most of the books in bookSTORES are from the corporations, because the tiny companies have huge barriers between them and you. Because of that, every single sale is critical. The margin between life and death for these companies is razor thin."
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), that's the nature of competition. While I do believe that the big congoms like Wal Mart and Target (altho I do prefer Target) harm competition and make for interesting debate, I don't think it really fits in here. Again, we're talking about who owns the copyrights of works, and what they're doing with those copyrights.
"We all know that not every download of pirate content is a lost sale. But we also all know that some are.
No, sorry... an illegal download of a digital copy is never a lost sale. The logic behind that claim is fallacious.
"On another front, most authors are making minimum wage, at best. So the royalties are pretty important to them, as well."
No one is arguing that a creator should be given their due for a creation. What is being pointed out by this argument is that too many times, a huge corporation is taking such due themselves all because of a piece of paper saying it's theirs. In short: you're preaching to the choir.
"Yes, downloading is different than simple theft of a physical object, but it's also more similar than those who download want to think. It's wrong."
The point is in the fundamental difference between the two... theft implies that there is no longer the original item to be sold by the artist/creator. Copying leaves the original so there is no lost ability to sell the item. In fact, the only substantial similarity is that they are both illegal acts. But, overall, this is not really related to the discussion of why Copyright is being abused by the corporations who own them and why they own them instead of the creators.
"And any band that would sign a contract like that is stupid."
So that's your defense of the label's practice? Really?
Go look up the history of "company store". If all these labels are so saint-like in their dealings, why did Courtney Love so publicly speak out against it? Why did Tori Amos angrily change labels and effectively told them to screw themselves by purposely releasing a crappy 'last album' to fulfill their contract?
And I do understand the idea of recouping costs. But you didn't address my point that "all this money the band is making" is doing little more than paying back the label.
I'm no fan of Courtney Love, but I'd label her as an informed expert on the matter before the majority of anonymous posters around here.
One of the things that's overlooked in 'how much money is paid to the artists' is how much of that 'great money' goes right back to the label as 'recoupable expenses'.
Now I'm sure that contracts have evolved since then, but your argument was for the 'time before piracy' which this was.
"Yeah, every download can't be proven as a lost sale, duh. "
You're missing the focus of the argument. You put in the quantifier "every", when I quoted Mike as saying "each". It may sound like splitting hairs, but keep up with me for a second... when you say 'every', you're implying that we state the entire body of downloads has be proven to be free of 'lost sales'. However, when we say 'each', we mean that the act itself, the very concept, is false logic. We’re not saying ‘every download can be proven as a lost sale’; we’re saying that it’s fallacious logic to imply that a download can be equated to a lost sale.
See the difference?
"But feel free to prove many downloads would not have been a sale."
I don't need to. The logic behind one download not being a lost sale is the same logic as 100 or 1,000 downloads not being lost sales. Your argument is based on the assumption that people who download don't buy and that any song downloaded is a sale that would have otherwise been made. And that's not accurate.
"For but one example which aptly demonstrates that obvious fact, despite CDs sill being the music medium of choice, the nation is littered with shuttered record stores."
Which, of course, would have NOTHING to do with online music sales such as i-Tunes which allows people to buy single songs instead of whole albums for that single song... something which had been a heartburn for many 'legitimate' purchasers of music for a long time. It obviously couldn't have anything to do with better purchasing alternatives being made available, could it?
Not sure if I got thru his paywall or something, but here's the info as of 12/13/2010 4:10 EST. Sorry for the bulk-pasting, but I'm too lazy to reformat 23 posts. Read at your own risk. By the way, that kickass 'vroom vroom' sound is my new 23-post horsepower Corvette. Like it? I would have preferred a bitchin' camaro myself. ;)
23 Responses to "Update on Internet content stealing"
Is that really full disclosure? No.
More lies right to our face.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 4:57 PM -- Report abuse
"If when he says "use" he means "use without permission...."
You mean like the SNL TSA video YOU used without permission that is now blocked by SNL on your article? Your level of your hypocrisy is stunning.
Written by: Tonik on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM -- Report abuse
I, too, would like to the explanation on that one.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM -- Report abuse
It was my understanding that full disclosure meant FULL disclosure; doesn't that mean the columnist would be disclosing his personal involvement in the Rightwing..ehmm, Righthaven scam?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 6:35 PM -- Report abuse
Your "understanding"? That's giving yourself way too much credit. But enlighten us, big boy. What is my "personal" relationship with Righthaven?
Written by: Sherm on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 7:25 PM -- Report abuse
Gee Sherm, I woulda thought you woulda made a full disclosure, since that's what you said. Maybe you don't understand what that means; look it up. I know you have so much "other" stuff to do, like write the lead ins for stories that other people write, but maybe you could assign...no wait a minute, you lost that authority, well, then maybe YOU could look it up yourself. Try a Google search for Rightwin...Righthaven and attorney and Sherm Frederick relationship. That should get you started.
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:30 PM -- Report abuse
Here's a description for you of a MORE "full disclosure though: "The newspaper is currently involved in a controversy over the licensing of its content to Righthaven LLC, a litigation firm that was "grubstaked" by Stephens Media." Is that enough, or "do you want another?"
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:33 PM -- Report abuse
Don't try to slither out. What is my "personal" relationship with Righthaven?
Written by: Sherm on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM -- Report abuse
Sherm: Tell us all now that you have no such relationship. Stop playing games, you assert you made "full disclosure" are you lying or telling the "truth"?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 9:16 PM -- Report abuse
Or, since you're "apparently" interested, how 'bout explaining this quote: "former Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick's "published threat was unequivocal: 'don't steal our content. Or, I promise you, you will meet my little friend called Righthaven."' Now, I don't know 'bout you Sherm, but when I call someone a "friend" its cause I got a "personal relationship with them. Maybe its me huh?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM -- Report abuse
How dare newspapers try to protect their unique content.
What unique content?
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 6:50 AM -- Report abuse
@Aformer.... the problem is that you're taking the word "friend" literally and using it in a rational world. Now slip on Sherm's slippers and look at it from his perspective...
(note -- youtube link does bot go to pirated content, unlike a certain former publishers did recently)
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:25 AM -- Report abuse
It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements. Of course, in this case he can neither put up ... or shut up.
Written by: Sherm on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:54 AM -- Report abuse
It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements.
isn't it though?
take for example the mindless poster who wrote on December 4th, "I'm against higher unemployment and deficit spending no matter who the president is."
HA --- that poster still hasn't backed up HIS statement --- despite his ginormous body of work. Wonder why?
lol.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM -- Report abuse
Anyone believe Sherm made a "full disclosure"? Now, I know, I know, no one with any sense believes much (if anything) that Sherm writes anyway, but seriously "Stephens Media is a CLIENT"...of Rightwinghaven? Thanks for being the same BS artist in your current job, that you were in your former one Sherm! At least for as long as you get to keep this one that is.
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM -- Report abuse
Your boss owns half of Righthaven.
That is full disclosure, you lying twit.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:23 PM -- Report abuse
Sherm, don't leave your peeps hanging ---- you've got loose strings floating all over this thread.
Oh --- I know. this is going to be like every other time you've "slithered out" on your obligations. right?
lol --- so predictable.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM -- Report abuse
Ignorant babble.
Written by: Sherm on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM -- Report abuse
"Ignorant babble."
Does that count as another days "work" Sherm?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM -- Report abuse
lol -- "ignorant babble"? why so dismissive, Sherm? Seems you keep prying open Pandora's box then complain that you're to pooped out when the fun's about to start.
or were talking about the guy who babbled, on Dec 4th, "I'm against higher unemployment and deficit spending no matter who the president is."?
lol.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 5:44 PM -- Report abuse
Any plans Sherm to discuss your unauthorized use of the SNL/TSA skit and their blocking you from showing anymore because of the copyright violation? Or are you prohibited from discussing it because Righthaven is suing you?
Written by: Tonik on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM -- Report abuse
I love how this man has no hestitation about flat-out lying under the guise of journalism.
What a shameful display. I'm embarrassed for giving you the page views.
Your boss owns half of Righthaven, you lying twit.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM -- Report abuse
It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements.
Be when we challenge you; you seem to be 'mindlessly' absent. May we consider an absence of response as acquiescence?
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Sunday, Dec. 12, 2010 at 6:34 AM -- Report
I agree with you for the most part, but I challenge you to find an analogy or origin in nature from whence we borrowed the idea of Copyright itself. I think that's at least one thing we wholly invented ourselves.
I actually enjoy kool-aid thank you very much. I also got quite a bit done out & about this weekend and still had time to read these posts. Unfortunately I didn't get to engage in stimulating conversation with these wonderful people until today. So... I'm sorry... what were you trolling about again? I forgot.
Freedom of movement is a right. It has been upheld in court (I don't know the case off the top of my head) that undue burdens put on air travel violate that right.
I'd really be interested in reading that. I'm a big fan of the debate between granted rights and assumed (or demanded) rights. I did a basic search and couldn't really find any references to court cases that show the TSA's actions are unconstituional on the grounds that they block freedom of travel.
The real kicker is that the TSA is not a required service. Airports can say "nah, we'll hire someone else" and there was a recent story where one airport did (San Diego, I think... could be wrong).
But seriously, I'd love to read up on that law if you ever find it.
You really do love attacking people instead of their points, don't you.
At worst, this Geek Hillbilly could be said to be misinformed. He's stating his personal impression of the information he has at hand. I would hardly call that lying.
You're attacks against people to try to discredit them however... I would hardly call that anything but infantile.
And by the way, your opinion (proven wrong by people outside of this blog and conversation) and personal attacks against people is hardly what I would call 'evidence'.
The lost sale fallacy: of course, demolishing the industry's desire to pretend that each act of infringement represents a "lost" sale.
and The theft fallacy: once again reinforcing that infringement is a different beast than theft, and even the Supreme Court recognizes this... though the entertainment industry seems unwilling to admit it.
"You rip off musicians. And Masnick encourages it.
You're both scumbags."
Straw-man fallacies aside, your ad hominim attack hurts... really. I mean that with all the sincerity the recording industry has when it says it's looking out for the best interests of the artists. Really.
"As far as justifying piracy goes, I guess illegal is still illegal, but if an action has an overall net benefit on culture, how can that be all that bad?" [emphasis added by me]
Because it shatters their fragile little stances as industry shills. Duh.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Who said the music industry needs saving,, apart from you Mike ???
Damn... I can't even pull pieces out of there to challenge.. it's all so... devoid of intellect.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, I just proved your assertion of people wanting what is most popular wrong. Thanks for playing tho.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I know it's not 100% applicable to a music industry business model".
My bad.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re:
You sell the device (physical, finite good) and use the ability to purchase singular songs (instead of whole albums, one of the angry points of music purchases from the 90's and 00's, for just a few songs) as an incentive to purchase the finite good.
I know it’s not 100% applicable to a business model, but it does demonstrate that giving customers a reason to buy an infinite good, bundled with a finite good that serves a purpose, is a valid and successful business model.
On the post: Comic Artist Dylan Horrocks Explains How Copyright Is Too Often Used To Kill Culture
Re: Copyright isn't just about selfish corporations
Good! That means there's a better field of competition! But the focus here was who owns the copyright holders and why it's ever anyone other than the creator of the work.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), that's the nature of competition. While I do believe that the big congoms like Wal Mart and Target (altho I do prefer Target) harm competition and make for interesting debate, I don't think it really fits in here. Again, we're talking about who owns the copyrights of works, and what they're doing with those copyrights.
No, sorry... an illegal download of a digital copy is never a lost sale. The logic behind that claim is fallacious.
No one is arguing that a creator should be given their due for a creation. What is being pointed out by this argument is that too many times, a huge corporation is taking such due themselves all because of a piece of paper saying it's theirs. In short: you're preaching to the choir.
The point is in the fundamental difference between the two... theft implies that there is no longer the original item to be sold by the artist/creator. Copying leaves the original so there is no lost ability to sell the item. In fact, the only substantial similarity is that they are both illegal acts. But, overall, this is not really related to the discussion of why Copyright is being abused by the corporations who own them and why they own them instead of the creators.
On the post: How Copyright Takes Away Rights From Consumers
Re: The Alexandrians Were Immoral Pagans
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um… ok…
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
I'm no fan of Courtney Love, but I'd label her as an informed expert on the matter before the majority of anonymous posters around here.
One of the things that's overlooked in 'how much money is paid to the artists' is how much of that 'great money' goes right back to the label as 'recoupable expenses'.
Now I'm sure that contracts have evolved since then, but your argument was for the 'time before piracy' which this was.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're missing the focus of the argument. You put in the quantifier "every", when I quoted Mike as saying "each". It may sound like splitting hairs, but keep up with me for a second... when you say 'every', you're implying that we state the entire body of downloads has be proven to be free of 'lost sales'. However, when we say 'each', we mean that the act itself, the very concept, is false logic. We’re not saying ‘every download can be proven as a lost sale’; we’re saying that it’s fallacious logic to imply that a download can be equated to a lost sale.
See the difference?
I don't need to. The logic behind one download not being a lost sale is the same logic as 100 or 1,000 downloads not being lost sales. Your argument is based on the assumption that people who download don't buy and that any song downloaded is a sale that would have otherwise been made. And that's not accurate.
Which, of course, would have NOTHING to do with online music sales such as i-Tunes which allows people to buy single songs instead of whole albums for that single song... something which had been a heartburn for many 'legitimate' purchasers of music for a long time. It obviously couldn't have anything to do with better purchasing alternatives being made available, could it?
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Wow...
23 Responses to "Update on Internet content stealing"
Is that really full disclosure? No.
More lies right to our face.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 4:57 PM -- Report abuse
"If when he says "use" he means "use without permission...."
You mean like the SNL TSA video YOU used without permission that is now blocked by SNL on your article? Your level of your hypocrisy is stunning.
Written by: Tonik on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM -- Report abuse
I, too, would like to the explanation on that one.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM -- Report abuse
It was my understanding that full disclosure meant FULL disclosure; doesn't that mean the columnist would be disclosing his personal involvement in the Rightwing..ehmm, Righthaven scam?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 6:35 PM -- Report abuse
Your "understanding"? That's giving yourself way too much credit. But enlighten us, big boy. What is my "personal" relationship with Righthaven?
Written by: Sherm on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 7:25 PM -- Report abuse
Gee Sherm, I woulda thought you woulda made a full disclosure, since that's what you said. Maybe you don't understand what that means; look it up. I know you have so much "other" stuff to do, like write the lead ins for stories that other people write, but maybe you could assign...no wait a minute, you lost that authority, well, then maybe YOU could look it up yourself. Try a Google search for Rightwin...Righthaven and attorney and Sherm Frederick relationship. That should get you started.
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:30 PM -- Report abuse
Here's a description for you of a MORE "full disclosure though: "The newspaper is currently involved in a controversy over the licensing of its content to Righthaven LLC, a litigation firm that was "grubstaked" by Stephens Media." Is that enough, or "do you want another?"
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:33 PM -- Report abuse
Don't try to slither out. What is my "personal" relationship with Righthaven?
Written by: Sherm on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM -- Report abuse
Sherm: Tell us all now that you have no such relationship. Stop playing games, you assert you made "full disclosure" are you lying or telling the "truth"?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 9:16 PM -- Report abuse
Or, since you're "apparently" interested, how 'bout explaining this quote: "former Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick's "published threat was unequivocal: 'don't steal our content. Or, I promise you, you will meet my little friend called Righthaven."' Now, I don't know 'bout you Sherm, but when I call someone a "friend" its cause I got a "personal relationship with them. Maybe its me huh?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM -- Report abuse
How dare newspapers try to protect their unique content.
What unique content?
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 6:50 AM -- Report abuse
@Aformer.... the problem is that you're taking the word "friend" literally and using it in a rational world. Now slip on Sherm's slippers and look at it from his perspective...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVKPzmR1gds
(note -- youtube link does bot go to pirated content, unlike a certain former publishers did recently)
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:25 AM -- Report abuse
It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements. Of course, in this case he can neither put up ... or shut up.
Written by: Sherm on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:54 AM -- Report abuse
It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements.
isn't it though?
take for example the mindless poster who wrote on December 4th, "I'm against higher unemployment and deficit spending no matter who the president is."
HA --- that poster still hasn't backed up HIS statement --- despite his ginormous body of work. Wonder why?
lol.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM -- Report abuse
Anyone believe Sherm made a "full disclosure"? Now, I know, I know, no one with any sense believes much (if anything) that Sherm writes anyway, but seriously "Stephens Media is a CLIENT"...of Rightwinghaven? Thanks for being the same BS artist in your current job, that you were in your former one Sherm! At least for as long as you get to keep this one that is.
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM -- Report abuse
Your boss owns half of Righthaven.
That is full disclosure, you lying twit.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:23 PM -- Report abuse
Sherm, don't leave your peeps hanging ---- you've got loose strings floating all over this thread.
Oh --- I know. this is going to be like every other time you've "slithered out" on your obligations. right?
lol --- so predictable.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM -- Report abuse
Ignorant babble.
Written by: Sherm on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM -- Report abuse
"Ignorant babble."
Does that count as another days "work" Sherm?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM -- Report abuse
lol -- "ignorant babble"? why so dismissive, Sherm? Seems you keep prying open Pandora's box then complain that you're to pooped out when the fun's about to start.
or were talking about the guy who babbled, on Dec 4th, "I'm against higher unemployment and deficit spending no matter who the president is."?
lol.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 5:44 PM -- Report abuse
Any plans Sherm to discuss your unauthorized use of the SNL/TSA skit and their blocking you from showing anymore because of the copyright violation? Or are you prohibited from discussing it because Righthaven is suing you?
Written by: Tonik on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM -- Report abuse
I love how this man has no hestitation about flat-out lying under the guise of journalism.
What a shameful display. I'm embarrassed for giving you the page views.
Your boss owns half of Righthaven, you lying twit.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM -- Report abuse
It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements.
Be when we challenge you; you seem to be 'mindlessly' absent. May we consider an absence of response as acquiescence?
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Sunday, Dec. 12, 2010 at 6:34 AM -- Report
On the post: Comic Artist Dylan Horrocks Explains How Copyright Is Too Often Used To Kill Culture
Re: Sorry to say..
On the post: Dark Helmet's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week...
Re:
On the post: New Research Shows How Easy It Is To Get Weapons Or Explosives Past Backscatter X-Rays
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it works great!
I just don't want people to mistake layman interpretation as a granting of rights (which I see happen all too often).
On the post: New Research Shows How Easy It Is To Get Weapons Or Explosives Past Backscatter X-Rays
Re: Re: Re: it works great!
I'd really be interested in reading that. I'm a big fan of the debate between granted rights and assumed (or demanded) rights. I did a basic search and couldn't really find any references to court cases that show the TSA's actions are unconstituional on the grounds that they block freedom of travel.
The real kicker is that the TSA is not a required service. Airports can say "nah, we'll hire someone else" and there was a recent story where one airport did (San Diego, I think... could be wrong).
But seriously, I'd love to read up on that law if you ever find it.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: RIAA & MPAA=MAFIAA
At worst, this Geek Hillbilly could be said to be misinformed. He's stating his personal impression of the information he has at hand. I would hardly call that lying.
You're attacks against people to try to discredit them however... I would hardly call that anything but infantile.
GH, sorry if I got your gender wrong.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here, an early x-mas present.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/31483004/IPEC-Comments-FINAL-w-Attachments
Go read this. It made rounds back in March of this year. And, as Mike mentioned in his post about it, it discusses:
The lost sale fallacy: of course, demolishing the industry's desire to pretend that each act of infringement represents a "lost" sale.
and
The theft fallacy: once again reinforcing that infringement is a different beast than theft, and even the Supreme Court recognizes this... though the entertainment industry seems unwilling to admit it.
Straw-man fallacies aside, your ad hominim attack hurts... really. I mean that with all the sincerity the recording industry has when it says it's looking out for the best interests of the artists. Really.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it shatters their fragile little stances as industry shills. Duh.
On the post: FAA Has No Clue About Who Owns Approximately 1/3 Of All Private And Commercial Planes
doot doot doodle-oodle doot doot do do
Next >>