Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Delta Bravo. The NYT says Shakespeare couldn't survive because piracy would have killed him.
Mike says that not only is that not true, but because of how blatantly Shakespeare "derived" his works, that copyright would have killed his livelihood, not piracy. Please note that this is in direct conflict with the original post.
You burst forth saying that it's a silly comparison. Now, please show me a) Who made the comparison and b) Where you get "full support" from what Mike wrote.
I swear, it's rookies like you that make me thankful we have people like Average Joe around here, who can at least *read*.
Without those materials, pandora is, well, an empty box.
As someone already stated, if that was true the labels could easily cut out the "middle man" and stream the music themselves, and get 100% of the profits.
Last time I looked, there are a limited number of songs by each artist.
Oh! I didn't realize that Pandora only pays for each song once! That makes it much more reasonable! I was under the impression that they had to pay per song, per stream! You can easily see why that would seem to be ridiculous, I'm sure. Now that I know that they only pay for each different song once, it makes much more sense! I don't understand why those big whiners are complaining about having to pay for each song once. Talk about ungrateful!
I have a few questions regarding this wall of text your just threw out:
Your characterization of rape as a violent crime is, in itself, a rape culture trope.
The study you linked (which, by the way, never explicitly states the definition of rape like I asked) deals with forcible rape, stalking and physical assault. So, that study is just another brick in the so-called rape culture, I assume?
Take, for instance, people whom are cognitively disabled, either temporarily or permanently
I am unclear as to what you mean by temporarily cognitively disabled. While you're telling me your definition of rape, please include what this means, too.
I find it's best to lay out the foundations, especially definitions, before any discussion. It usually saves a lot of time and frustration.
It was a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question hinting at the Lori Drew case and how absurd it was. But if I were genuinely confused, you would have been very helpful!
FTA: [Barr] worked to link these IRC handles to real people, in part using his social networking expertise, and he created fake Twitter accounts and Facebook profiles.
Wouldn't that go directly opposite the way the legal system is supposed to work? (100 guilty men go free before one innocent man is wrongly convicted)
Seems like any sane and working-as-expected legal system would fine the legal brain trust that came up with this for wasting the court's time. So, what I mean to say is it will probably be approved.
It doesn't make you less or more anonymous, but it gives you a history. You can go see every comment I've made. We cannot with you. It makes a difference, trust me.
I think he means if you lump 1000 people into a class action suit and one person has been dead for 10 years, then do they all get a non-guilty verdict because one guy obviously couldn't have done it?
Wasn't it just determined that it *won't* work? If they are allowed to opt out, and the only reason they are going to be lumped together is because it's "too expensive" to attack them as individuals, then the defense's best advice would be for everyone to opt out. Welcome back to square one, except someone has to pay the lawyers to file the class action suit. So, square - 3.
But, I'm sure your professor will be so proud that you came up with an idea that won't work. :)
I agree with you completely, for once. The "report" button should be used to block spam or severely off-topic comments-- never to censor posts, even from trolls.
That being said, he *did* post the same thing twice, which is in the realm of spam. His original comment, the first one, has not (yet) been voted down.
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike says that not only is that not true, but because of how blatantly Shakespeare "derived" his works, that copyright would have killed his livelihood, not piracy. Please note that this is in direct conflict with the original post.
You burst forth saying that it's a silly comparison. Now, please show me a) Who made the comparison and b) Where you get "full support" from what Mike wrote.
I swear, it's rookies like you that make me thankful we have people like Average Joe around here, who can at least *read*.
Sheesh.
On the post: How Come No One Calls Out Pandora For False Promise Of Profitability?
Re: Re: Re: Re: This was so expected ...
As someone already stated, if that was true the labels could easily cut out the "middle man" and stream the music themselves, and get 100% of the profits.
They don't because Pandora adds value.
On the post: How Come No One Calls Out Pandora For False Promise Of Profitability?
Re: Re: Re: Re: This was so expected ...
Oh! I didn't realize that Pandora only pays for each song once! That makes it much more reasonable! I was under the impression that they had to pay per song, per stream! You can easily see why that would seem to be ridiculous, I'm sure. Now that I know that they only pay for each different song once, it makes much more sense! I don't understand why those big whiners are complaining about having to pay for each song once. Talk about ungrateful!
Thanks for setting me straight! :)
On the post: How Come No One Calls Out Pandora For False Promise Of Profitability?
Re:
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Would Johannes Brahms have survived?
On the post: How Come No One Calls Out Pandora For False Promise Of Profitability?
Re: Re: This was so expected ...
Would they be thrilled if using those raw materials actually benefited the makers of said raw materials as much, if not more, as it benefits Pandora?
Would they be thrilled if those same raw materials cost a fraction of the cost if "on the internet" were removed from their business?
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
Your characterization of rape as a violent crime is, in itself, a rape culture trope.
The study you linked (which, by the way, never explicitly states the definition of rape like I asked) deals with forcible rape, stalking and physical assault. So, that study is just another brick in the so-called rape culture, I assume?
Take, for instance, people whom are cognitively disabled, either temporarily or permanently
I am unclear as to what you mean by temporarily cognitively disabled. While you're telling me your definition of rape, please include what this means, too.
I find it's best to lay out the foundations, especially definitions, before any discussion. It usually saves a lot of time and frustration.
Thanks!
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Play By Play Of How HBGary Federal Tried To Expose Anonymous... And Got Hacked Instead
Re: Re:
On the post: Play By Play Of How HBGary Federal Tried To Expose Anonymous... And Got Hacked Instead
Re: Re: Jailtime.
On the post: Play By Play Of How HBGary Federal Tried To Expose Anonymous... And Got Hacked Instead
Jailtime.
Isn't making fake Facebook accounts a felony?
On the post: Belgian Collection Society SABAM Caught Taking Cash For Made Up Bands It Didn't Represent
Re:
I really want Mike to slip some pro-IP statements in an April Fools Day post just to see how many AC's disagree with him. :)
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whats the difference?
Seems like any sane and working-as-expected legal system would fine the legal brain trust that came up with this for wasting the court's time. So, what I mean to say is it will probably be approved.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Whats the difference?
I'm curious too.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re:
But, I'm sure your professor will be so proud that you came up with an idea that won't work. :)
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Attitude
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That being said, he *did* post the same thing twice, which is in the realm of spam. His original comment, the first one, has not (yet) been voted down.
So, easy there, fella.
Next >>