Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 31 Jan 2013 @ 10:16am
Re:
Why can't Hollywood follow the same general path without all the hystrionics?
This will hurt to say: Because compared to Hollywood, mobile phone service is highly competitive.
If you want mobile phone service, you have between 3 and 8 choices of companies (depending how you count).
If you want to see NewMovieXYZ (legally), you have exactly one choice as to where your money goes: the studio that distributes it. Sure, there are other movies you can see, but they will be significantly different experiences.
There's also the difference between infrastructure. AT&Ts copper is old and costs AT&T money to maintain and upgrade. They're not necessarily wanting to get rid of it entirely, they just don't want to have to keep maintaining parts of it (as required under various laws). They'll use much of it for other things, all the backhaul and fiber for the calls going through their mobile towers, for instance.
For Hollywood, their studios are nothing but money makers. The production companies (that never show a profit on paper) pay for them. They don't own the theaters (anymore) so don't have to pay for that, and most of the ticket money theaters make goes directly back to the studios anyway.
There are other reasons, of course, but think about the money first.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 31 Jan 2013 @ 9:47am
Re: University's are stupid
Why have the Colleges and Universities of this country not sought out and promoted more open methods of getting the text books they need for education?
Money.
Many of the professors write the books.
The bookstore sells the books and makes a profit on them.
Other costs are just passed on to the students in fees and increased tuition.
The students pay the costs of the books - but it is mostly covered by student loans anyway.
On the other hand, fighting against this costs money for lawyers and lobbyists.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 31 Jan 2013 @ 5:55am
Re: Re: My firing
Next time keep the company private this way you do not have to deal with share holders, an unreasonable board, and maximizing value to the share holder.
Even private companies have shareholders and a board of directors, at least a private company of any decent size. The big difference between public and private are rules governing the number of shareholders you can have, and a lot of regulations on disclosure. You may remember some of the stories about pre-IPO Facebook.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jan 2013 @ 9:10am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That the IP was spoofed or some other defense would have to be argued by the defendant once the burden was shifted to them.
She did:
"In regards to the song 'tonight tonight' by Hot Chelle Rae being downloaded, I can't claim responsibility for this as it wasn't done by myself or anyone in this household"
As I stated above, if you are going to take the word of the accuser for granted, in a fair trial then you must take the word of the defendant for granted as well.
Without evidentiary controls and without further investigation, all we have are two parties making statements. One side said 'this person downloaded song1 twice and song2 once' and that person has responded saying 'I downloaded song1 once, the seond instance of song1 was the result of a technical problem, but I did not download song2 at all.' The burden is back on the accuser to show that their evidence for song2 is reliable. They didn't, and the tribunal just assumed she was guilty.
As to the DIAF comment:
1) It is common internet hyperbole
2) It was only directed at you if you did not want to live in the society I outlined (I guess you don't)
3) You get awful bent out of shape for someone who throws provably untrue insults at others in nearly every post. You are that sensitive/slimy/desperate as your posting history shows.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jan 2013 @ 8:16am
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, IPs can be spoofed and all that. It doesn't matter.
Yes, your identity can be stolen. It doesn't matter.
Yes, DNA evidence can be contaminated. It doesn't matter.
Yes, cops can railroad a mentally challenged person into confessing to murder. It doesn't matter.
Fuck. That. Shit.
It all matters. Some of us want to live in a society that respects the rights of individuals. Some of us want laws to be respected and understandable by ordinary people. Some of us want to be able to trust our government to look out for us. Some of us want a fair justice system so we can resolve disputes based on facts.
If you don't want those things, then please go Die. In. A. Fire.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jan 2013 @ 7:51am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The system worked perfectly.
Yet it didn't. The system identified her as sharing the third song - which she did not.
If you are presuming that when the accuser presents some evidence that it is valid, then in a fair system, if the defender presents conflicting evidence (she did), then the onus should be back onto the accuser to show that theirs is valid.
And you're damn right that we're freaking out about this. I have a hard time understanding how anyone who sees this isn't. There is no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidentiary control, and at best there is a appearance of a conflict of interest. This is the new Mccarthyism and Salem witch trials.
Sure, its file sharing and copyright infringement, which I don't think is in any way wrong (unlike many others who are also arguing against this that do think violating copyright is wrong). I would be arguing against this for other crimes - criminal or civil - for the same reasons. I'm against people running red lights, but I'm against red light cameras that only capture a license plate and presume guilt of the owner of the car with no evidence they were behind the wheel and no fair process to dispute a ticket. I'm against murder, but I'm against intimidating a suspect into confessing based on faulty evidence.
I find it truly offensive that just because a person potentially broke a law, their rights to due process and a fair trial are not being respected.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jan 2013 @ 6:42am
Re: Re: Re:
then evidence rebuts that presumption and shifts the burden.
What evidence? How was it gathered? Is the manner in which it was gathered reliable, and not prone to false positives? Does it actually point to the individual responsible?
If some random internet commenter can see the huge gaping hole in the case, what does it say about your law education that you don't?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jan 2013 @ 6:27am
Re: Re:
1) Because the license or TOS (that you never signed, read, understood) only says (written by lawyers who couldn't create their way out of a wet paper bag) that you (and only you, no other human, trans-human, pet, non-pet, plant) can listen (only certain definitions of listen) to this song (no other versions, remixes, bit patterns, altered formats) in the same manner they intended (and they have the right to decide at any time in the past, present, future, time-travel-altered future to change their intentions). And the license/TOS trumps all other laws (even though they wrote those, too), rights, Constitutions you may ever come across (from now through perputity in any countries, worlds, solar systems, galaxies, universes, multiverses).
2) Because the TOS says so, and it cost LOTS OF MONEY to copy those bits, so they deserve to get paid LOTS OF MONEY anytime someone else copies it, and it is like stealing 2 CDs because they don't have the imagination to understand the digital world, and because they already have LOTS OF MONEY so they deserve more LOTS OF MONEY.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2013 @ 1:33pm
"However, I think the main reason the US has not complied with the WTO rulings is that Antigua is such a small country they think they can get away with it. I also think that, unfortunately, some people in the US government were almost offended that Antigua chose to challenge the US and have been so persistent in its pursuit of justice that the US government has adopted unusually harsh and unyielding lines that have made it difficult to consider our issue in its proper context."
Replace a few words and that would sum up many overreactions by the US Government. Whether you're a digital activist, disruptive entreprenuer, or a small country, the US certainly has a 'might is right' mindset.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2013 @ 1:01pm
One of the morning radio talk shows that I occasionally flip to on my way to work plays a soundbyte for stories like the fight above:
"Everyone in the room is now dumber."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2013 @ 10:48am
Re: Re: Re: Capitalism is the core issue
he capitalist system promotes this type of information dissymetry immensely.
I agree, at least somewhat. I don't see a better option, however. I feel like (classical) capitalism is the economic version of the quote about democracy being 'the worst form of government except all the others.'
What else do we have? Communism has been tried many places and in many versions and failed every time. The moderate socialism in place in some parts of Europe has some improvements, but other detriments.
I don't see this as a failure of economic models. The failure is because we are all human. Sometimes we're rational and do good things because we know its better for everyone. Other times we're emotional, irrational, greedy unevolved apes trying to dominate everyone else.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2013 @ 8:10am
Re:
Instead of a considered decision to ban someone for criticism, they have a system (buggy or not) that can automatically ban someone because they have chosen not to be spammed?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2013 @ 7:47am
Re: Capitalism is the core issue
The problem is not capitalism.
We're no longer living in a classical system of capitalism. We're more in a system of neo-capitalistic cronyism.
Central to the idea of capitalism was the "invisible hand" and enlightened self-interest. The contract noted is antithetical to both of those ideas. Once someone signs one of these contracts, they are no longer free to produce what they want and sell it as they see fit. And greed has replaced the enlightened self-interest of the corporation.
Heck, this doesn't even fit the Randian view of rational selfishness.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jan 2013 @ 4:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Troll Settlement Recouping
Send the settlement/extortion money the trolls got to the company that paid it or send it to charity or something like that, what matters is taking it back from the patent trolls,
All the money they won is gone, one way or another. Either it was paid to the lawyers and expenses for later cases, paid out to "investors" or has been funneled through many shell corporations and is effectively untraceable as far as the law is concerned. This is nothing new - whether it is for tax evasion, money laundering, or structuring expenses so studios don't need to pay royalties, all you need are a few ethically lacking lawyers and accountants to hide money beyond the reach of retrieval.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jan 2013 @ 6:55am
"surgical instruments"
'The official surgical instrument sponsor of the 2014 Olympics' just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
"firearms"
In the UK? Gonna be some issues with that, I think...
"asbestos"
...
...
...wait, what? You have got to be kidding, right? I'd make a witty remark, but 1) my brain is now broken and 2) that is absurd enough to not even need one.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jan 2013 @ 2:59pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You refused to answer in yes/no responses! Why won't you debate me? Why don't you have opinions?
Now that the 2 year old antics are finished, let's get down to business.
1) If it is ethical for the government to act against or without knowing the desires of the creator, what makes that different from society, or individuals, deciding the infringe on copyright against the desires of the artist, or without knowing whether the artist approves? Don't cop out and head down the legal path - we're talking ethics, not legality.
2) Nice fence sitting. I can't decipher where you actually stand. You sound like a politician trying not to piss off anyone.
3&4) So you have no problem with taking works from the public (ie, Golan), yet potentially have problems taking things away from the rightsholder. When you have gotten rid of your cognitive dissonance, try again.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re:
This will hurt to say: Because compared to Hollywood, mobile phone service is highly competitive.
If you want mobile phone service, you have between 3 and 8 choices of companies (depending how you count).
If you want to see NewMovieXYZ (legally), you have exactly one choice as to where your money goes: the studio that distributes it. Sure, there are other movies you can see, but they will be significantly different experiences.
There's also the difference between infrastructure. AT&Ts copper is old and costs AT&T money to maintain and upgrade. They're not necessarily wanting to get rid of it entirely, they just don't want to have to keep maintaining parts of it (as required under various laws). They'll use much of it for other things, all the backhaul and fiber for the calls going through their mobile towers, for instance.
For Hollywood, their studios are nothing but money makers. The production companies (that never show a profit on paper) pay for them. They don't own the theaters (anymore) so don't have to pay for that, and most of the ticket money theaters make goes directly back to the studios anyway.
There are other reasons, of course, but think about the money first.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why....
I agree.
Piracy is OK for entirely different reasons.
But all the shady dealings just brings a hell of a lot more attention to how fucked up copyright law is.
On the post: Obama Administration Considers Joining Publishers In Fight To Stamp Out Fair Use At Universities
Re: University's are stupid
Money.
Many of the professors write the books.
The bookstore sells the books and makes a profit on them.
Other costs are just passed on to the students in fees and increased tuition.
The students pay the costs of the books - but it is mostly covered by student loans anyway.
On the other hand, fighting against this costs money for lawyers and lobbyists.
On the post: TuneCore Fires Last Remaining Founder, Gets Into Ridiculously Petty Fight With Jeff Price
Re: Re: My firing
Even private companies have shareholders and a board of directors, at least a private company of any decent size. The big difference between public and private are rules governing the number of shareholders you can have, and a lot of regulations on disclosure. You may remember some of the stories about pre-IPO Facebook.
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She did:
"In regards to the song 'tonight tonight' by Hot Chelle Rae being downloaded, I can't claim responsibility for this as it wasn't done by myself or anyone in this household"
As I stated above, if you are going to take the word of the accuser for granted, in a fair trial then you must take the word of the defendant for granted as well.
Without evidentiary controls and without further investigation, all we have are two parties making statements. One side said 'this person downloaded song1 twice and song2 once' and that person has responded saying 'I downloaded song1 once, the seond instance of song1 was the result of a technical problem, but I did not download song2 at all.' The burden is back on the accuser to show that their evidence for song2 is reliable. They didn't, and the tribunal just assumed she was guilty.
As to the DIAF comment:
1) It is common internet hyperbole
2) It was only directed at you if you did not want to live in the society I outlined (I guess you don't)
3) You get awful bent out of shape for someone who throws provably untrue insults at others in nearly every post. You are that sensitive/slimy/desperate as your posting history shows.
and
4) Go DIAF. :)
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, your identity can be stolen. It doesn't matter.
Yes, DNA evidence can be contaminated. It doesn't matter.
Yes, cops can railroad a mentally challenged person into confessing to murder. It doesn't matter.
Fuck. That. Shit.
It all matters. Some of us want to live in a society that respects the rights of individuals. Some of us want laws to be respected and understandable by ordinary people. Some of us want to be able to trust our government to look out for us. Some of us want a fair justice system so we can resolve disputes based on facts.
If you don't want those things, then please go Die. In. A. Fire.
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet it didn't. The system identified her as sharing the third song - which she did not.
If you are presuming that when the accuser presents some evidence that it is valid, then in a fair system, if the defender presents conflicting evidence (she did), then the onus should be back onto the accuser to show that theirs is valid.
And you're damn right that we're freaking out about this. I have a hard time understanding how anyone who sees this isn't. There is no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidentiary control, and at best there is a appearance of a conflict of interest. This is the new Mccarthyism and Salem witch trials.
Sure, its file sharing and copyright infringement, which I don't think is in any way wrong (unlike many others who are also arguing against this that do think violating copyright is wrong). I would be arguing against this for other crimes - criminal or civil - for the same reasons. I'm against people running red lights, but I'm against red light cameras that only capture a license plate and presume guilt of the owner of the car with no evidence they were behind the wheel and no fair process to dispute a ticket. I'm against murder, but I'm against intimidating a suspect into confessing based on faulty evidence.
I find it truly offensive that just because a person potentially broke a law, their rights to due process and a fair trial are not being respected.
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re: Re: Re:
What evidence? How was it gathered? Is the manner in which it was gathered reliable, and not prone to false positives? Does it actually point to the individual responsible?
If some random internet commenter can see the huge gaping hole in the case, what does it say about your law education that you don't?
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re: Re:
2) Because the TOS says so, and it cost LOTS OF MONEY to copy those bits, so they deserve to get paid LOTS OF MONEY anytime someone else copies it, and it is like stealing 2 CDs because they don't have the imagination to understand the digital world, and because they already have LOTS OF MONEY so they deserve more LOTS OF MONEY.
On the post: US Still 'Warning' Antigua That It Better Not Set Up Piracy Hub, Even As WTO Gives Approval
Replace a few words and that would sum up many overreactions by the US Government. Whether you're a digital activist, disruptive entreprenuer, or a small country, the US certainly has a 'might is right' mindset.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Birth Blogger Fight Goes Legal Over DMCA Abuse
"Everyone in the room is now dumber."
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Re: Re: Re: Capitalism is the core issue
I agree, at least somewhat. I don't see a better option, however. I feel like (classical) capitalism is the economic version of the quote about democracy being 'the worst form of government except all the others.'
What else do we have? Communism has been tried many places and in many versions and failed every time. The moderate socialism in place in some parts of Europe has some improvements, but other detriments.
I don't see this as a failure of economic models. The failure is because we are all human. Sometimes we're rational and do good things because we know its better for everyone. Other times we're emotional, irrational, greedy unevolved apes trying to dominate everyone else.
On the post: Redditor Points Out The Flaws In SimCity's Online-Only DRM, Gets Banned By EA For His Troubles [UPDATED]
Re:
This is somehow better?
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Re: Capitalism is the core issue
We're no longer living in a classical system of capitalism. We're more in a system of neo-capitalistic cronyism.
Central to the idea of capitalism was the "invisible hand" and enlightened self-interest. The contract noted is antithetical to both of those ideas. Once someone signs one of these contracts, they are no longer free to produce what they want and sell it as they see fit. And greed has replaced the enlightened self-interest of the corporation.
Heck, this doesn't even fit the Randian view of rational selfishness.
On the post: OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product
Free speech
On the post: Newegg's 'Screw Patent Trolls!' Strategy Leads To Victory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Troll Settlement Recouping
All the money they won is gone, one way or another. Either it was paid to the lawyers and expenses for later cases, paid out to "investors" or has been funneled through many shell corporations and is effectively untraceable as far as the law is concerned. This is nothing new - whether it is for tax evasion, money laundering, or structuring expenses so studios don't need to pay royalties, all you need are a few ethically lacking lawyers and accountants to hide money beyond the reach of retrieval.
On the post: OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product
Re:
Why bother trying when you can just hire a lawyer to sue your competition and get them to fold?
If IP law has any lesson, that is it.
On the post: The International Olympic Committee Has Already Staked A Trademark Claim On The Number '2014'
'The official surgical instrument sponsor of the 2014 Olympics' just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
"firearms"
In the UK? Gonna be some issues with that, I think...
"asbestos"
...
...
...wait, what? You have got to be kidding, right? I'd make a witty remark, but 1) my brain is now broken and 2) that is absurd enough to not even need one.
On the post: Global Hackathons Prepared To Carry Forward The Work Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that the 2 year old antics are finished, let's get down to business.
1) If it is ethical for the government to act against or without knowing the desires of the creator, what makes that different from society, or individuals, deciding the infringe on copyright against the desires of the artist, or without knowing whether the artist approves? Don't cop out and head down the legal path - we're talking ethics, not legality.
2) Nice fence sitting. I can't decipher where you actually stand. You sound like a politician trying not to piss off anyone.
3&4) So you have no problem with taking works from the public (ie, Golan), yet potentially have problems taking things away from the rightsholder. When you have gotten rid of your cognitive dissonance, try again.
Next >>