Is The Anti-Mike actually Stan McCoy? They both have a knack for saying something that is demonstrably false with conviction, and they're both shills for the entertianment industries. Has anyone seen them in the same room at the same time?
"Even then, because they don't display the full hulu page and only display individual videos, they do change the hulu experience."
What difference does that make? If you're giving away oranges, once you've given them away, you don't have the right to say what I do with them once I have them. If I want to make orange juice with them, but you wanted me to slice them and use them as garnish, guess what? Once they're mine I can do with them as I please.
Same with web content. If you place free content on a website, how I access that content is up to me. Original intent doesn't matter in the least.
But being the contrarian asscap that you are, I'm sure you'll disagree even though you know deep down I'm right.
Besides being a bad idea in theory, requiring a "internet license" would be an exercise in futility in practice. If you don't have a license in the "real world," whether it's for a vehicle, gun, or whatever, when you get caught without the necessary license, you are physically caught, and can be identified by witnesses. If you were phishing or even just posting comments to TechDirt w/o an internet license, how would you get caught? They trace your IP address? Even if you were stupid enough not to use a proxy, as Mike frequently points out that's not proof of anything. Say a parent is licensed, but their teenager isn't. How could anyone tell if they were on the family computer which family member was using it? Special government designed software? Good luck with that. You think the court system is backlogged now, just wait and see what happens if this genius idea ever gets pushed through.
To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd during his "Weekend Update" days: TAM you ignorant slut. Do you actually believe the tripe you post? Or are you just being ignorant for the sake of being a contrarian?
"We've also contacted the owner of failbook.com several times in order to reach a reasonable settlement."
Ben, it would seem that Mr. Castillo seems to think as long as he no longer iFrame's, there's no reason to proceed with the lawsuit.
"It was my bad to spend a couple of hour placing the iFrame, and as soon as I realized it was wronging you I stopped.
We should leave it there, don't you think?"
As long as he puts that into (legal) writing, what more would you require to drop the lawsuit?
As Mike points out, it doesn't seem that he's really hurting your brand at all, or defrauding you. Just trying to defraud whoever buys his domain name, which shouldn't affect you at all.
It's not really much of a strech at all, and the fact that you think so show's how far off the mainstream your viewpoint is. When the majority of people (and don't kid yourself, the upcoming generation overwhelmingly has no problem with IP "theft") no longer wish to obey any law, the law will change to fit the new beliefs and attitudes. Not the other way around. Geez, I can't believe I have to explain this simple point, or that someone would actually argue against it.
You can't pass a law and change the way people feel about something. Since Prohibition is too much of a strech for you, how about this? If a law was passed that citizens could no longer drink after 10pm, do you think people would just stop drinking after 10? I'm sure bars and stores would stop selling, but who's going to be sitting at home and put their beer down? The same people who would obey these silly anti-file sharing laws. A simple minded few.
All these laws will do it cause a backlash against the entertainment corporations. The only attitudes that will be shifted is a negative shift against the industry.
You don't change people's opinions or attitudes by passing laws going against their wishes. How'd that Prohibition thing work out? Talk about twisted logic, you're rife with it. Try thinking these things through before you post. M'kay, thanks for playing.
Another problem I have with web apps is if I'm traveling I'll have to either do without my apps, or pay the airlines and airports for WiFi access. That's if they even have WiFi on the flight, which most don't. Or if I'm out of a 3G coverage area (and as Verizon loves to show, is anywhere outside a major city) then a lot of these web apps will either be unusable, or take forever to load. That's not ideal.
Let me see if your thinking carries over to other groups. Should a TV broadcast company have to pay the Red Cross to use their name and logo in spots promoting their Haitian relief donation phone number? How about if Google had a contest where a little girl designed a logo with Amnesty International's logo incorporated into it, despite Google not stating that was a condition of the contest? Should Google have to pay them as well for promoting their organization and bringing awareness to their cause?
Re: you think you have the answers but actually you dont! everything has to be done
Oh, my. Where to begin. I don't have time to respond to all your specious rantings, but in brief:
First, no one is saying you have to do these things to be a musician or "Artist" as you say, but these are merely some ways in which other "Artists" have increased their revenue stream, and fan base in the process. If you have other means of creating an income from your art, than bully for you. Mike's ideas certainly aren't the only ways to make money from art, but they ARE proven ways that have verifiable results as demonstrated by those musicians sited.
Second, you seem to have a fixation with butt wiping. I've never heard your music, but if I ever do, I'll be listening for the anal fixation subtext to it.
"But to demand that the cultural property of indigenous peoples, minorities, and developing countries be free for use by western, FOR PROFIT companies like Google is arrogant at best "
Where do you come up with this flag being the cultural property of indigenous peoples, etc? The fee was being charged by one person. Whether it was an indigenous person or not is irrelevent. And the flag is less than 40 years old. The whole culture wasn't in danger of exploitation by simply showing this recently created flag. Maybe if you could see around your hyperbolic rhetoric and bleeding heart for one minute you would realize how full of crap you are. Having said that, thank you for your contribution to the discussion, as off base as it was.
"In the end, what is missing is the two steps: How to get from zero to "some" and to get from "some" to "enough". This is what the labels "use to do", so how does it happen now?"
That's not "missing." That's never been the issue. The point (which you frequently miss) is how to capitalize on an already established audience. Any musician worth a damn already knows how to build a fan base. What Mike's discussing is ways to monetize that fan base. Sheesh, search your couch cushions for a quarter so you can buy a clue.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: USTR Insists Gov't Isn't Keeping ACTA Secret
Could it be?
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re:
What difference does that make? If you're giving away oranges, once you've given them away, you don't have the right to say what I do with them once I have them. If I want to make orange juice with them, but you wanted me to slice them and use them as garnish, guess what? Once they're mine I can do with them as I please.
Same with web content. If you place free content on a website, how I access that content is up to me. Original intent doesn't matter in the least.
But being the contrarian asscap that you are, I'm sure you'll disagree even though you know deep down I'm right.
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
A new term is born
On the post: Microsoft Exec Calls For 'Driver's License For The Internet'
Virtual licensing vs. physical licensing
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Re: Re:
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Can't we all just get along?
Ben, it would seem that Mr. Castillo seems to think as long as he no longer iFrame's, there's no reason to proceed with the lawsuit.
"It was my bad to spend a couple of hour placing the iFrame, and as soon as I realized it was wronging you I stopped.
We should leave it there, don't you think?"
As long as he puts that into (legal) writing, what more would you require to drop the lawsuit?
As Mike points out, it doesn't seem that he's really hurting your brand at all, or defrauding you. Just trying to defraud whoever buys his domain name, which shouldn't affect you at all.
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Re: How to sell music and get a profit
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Re: Re: Re:
You can't pass a law and change the way people feel about something. Since Prohibition is too much of a strech for you, how about this? If a law was passed that citizens could no longer drink after 10pm, do you think people would just stop drinking after 10? I'm sure bars and stores would stop selling, but who's going to be sitting at home and put their beer down? The same people who would obey these silly anti-file sharing laws. A simple minded few.
All these laws will do it cause a backlash against the entertainment corporations. The only attitudes that will be shifted is a negative shift against the industry.
On the post: Others Claim To Hold The Trademark On iPad. Is There An App For That?
Re: an uphill battle
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Re:
On the post: Wait, Who Wants A Proprietary, Locked Down Device That Limits What You Can Do?
Re: Re: Re: Typical short-sighted "Apple Fan-boi" crap..
On the post: Google Routes Around App Store On The iPhone... Others Can Too
Re: Problems with non-native apps
On the post: Google Prevented From Using Australian Aboriginal Flag Because It's Covered By Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To me that seems just as rediculous.
On the post: The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)
Re: you think you have the answers but actually you dont! everything has to be done
First, no one is saying you have to do these things to be a musician or "Artist" as you say, but these are merely some ways in which other "Artists" have increased their revenue stream, and fan base in the process. If you have other means of creating an income from your art, than bully for you. Mike's ideas certainly aren't the only ways to make money from art, but they ARE proven ways that have verifiable results as demonstrated by those musicians sited.
Second, you seem to have a fixation with butt wiping. I've never heard your music, but if I ever do, I'll be listening for the anal fixation subtext to it.
Best of luck.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Prevented From Using Australian Aboriginal Flag Because It's Covered By Copyright
Re:
Where do you come up with this flag being the cultural property of indigenous peoples, etc? The fee was being charged by one person. Whether it was an indigenous person or not is irrelevent. And the flag is less than 40 years old. The whole culture wasn't in danger of exploitation by simply showing this recently created flag. Maybe if you could see around your hyperbolic rhetoric and bleeding heart for one minute you would realize how full of crap you are. Having said that, thank you for your contribution to the discussion, as off base as it was.
On the post: The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)
Re:
That's not "missing." That's never been the issue. The point (which you frequently miss) is how to capitalize on an already established audience. Any musician worth a damn already knows how to build a fan base. What Mike's discussing is ways to monetize that fan base. Sheesh, search your couch cushions for a quarter so you can buy a clue.
On the post: 'Public' Consultation Over ACTA In Mexico Almost Required NDAs, Blogger Removed For Tweeting
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but 10% of the people can pay a lobbyist to funnel money into politicians pockets (or campaign coffers) to buy a vote, or veto.
Next >>