Since it's so easy to identify the large benefits. Please provide a listing of the top and bottom 5 beneficiaries of each collection agency, so we can see these benefits first hand.
In case that's too complex of a request for you to grasp, list the top 5 artists and bottom 5 artists and the amounts each one received from each of the 3 collection societies. They provide so much benefit that this should be a simple request, right?
I'm an artist signed to a label under the RIAA, and I have recently been informed of a large copyright settlement coming my way. Unfortunately if I don't shelter these funds from the RIAA, they will take their standard 95% cut and leave me with little to nothing for my starving grandchildren to live on. This is where you come in, if you can act as a patsy for me, I will have the settlement wired directly to your bank account, once you have received the funds, you can keep 50% for your troubles, and wire the rest to me at iscammedyougood@hotmail.com
Failure to comply with my request will result in you being a party to the copyright lawsuit, and you will be fined for over $40 billion dollars, because we can create data showing that your IP address was involved.
Re: So our taxes have been paying for Hollywood's fight against piracy, now I understand
Take a big problem XX (twice as bad as crime X, right?), how much would an industry pay to stop it? No, show me their check. Oh, they don't have a check? So there is no big problem then, right?
They call that check they write 'bribes' (or lobbying for the PC crowd), a portion goes to law enforcement, a portion to their local representatives, but most to the congresscritters, who then write them the laws that they paid for.
This doesn't apply in the case of Monsanto wiping out farmers who suffered from 'wind drift' of their neighboring farms. Where the farmers did nothing to get infected, but because patented plants were found on their property, they were held liable.
So again, explain why this isn't the same as infecting someone with a computer virus, then suing them for patent infringement.
What's going to happen when the next generation of digital studios wants to remake one of these "classics"? Alice in wonderland or Sherlock Holmes for example?
I'm guessing that there would be lawsuits and all manner of 'infringing' claims by the makers of the current movies and the next generation of re-makes... But they used a rabbit with a hat for their mad hatter, and that's what we used in our movie, so they are infringing and must be stopped... Sherlock holmes's assistants name was "Watson" in their film, which is a blatant rip-off of our movie... Not that anything would 'stick' but it would probably be enough to prevent any smaller studios from even attempting the project.
But then I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and that's just how I roll...
Wow, who would have thought that motion sensing control would have been a good idea? Oh that's right, gaming companies have been using this type of technology for decades, but apparently, anyone remember the really old Atari motion sensing joysticks (yes the technology sucked at the time, but the idea was great 25 years ago....).
Next up will be patenting intracranial motion sensing as applied to horizontal perpetual motion.... more commonly referred to as, "Not falling down while walking".
I think you are misinterpreting the message in all those movies.....
The one piece jumpsuit with the inverted V is the only design left in the public domain, everything else (including all future designs in perpetuity, thanks to all the bogus laws the fashion industry got passed)have been copyrighted. So everyone wears the cheap (roughly $500 adjusted for inflation) jumpsuit, since they can't afford the outrageous prices that all the designers are asking for their copyrighted creations. I mean who would really want to pay $350,000 for a sleeveless one color cotton shirt with a somewhat rounded check-mark/shwoosh type logo on the front?
Ok, since I seem to the only tinfoil hat in the bunch...
How do we know that Monsanto didn't genetically engineer this fungus with the specific intent of disrupting the worlds wheat supply? Then they can turn around in a year or so and release a genetically modified (and patented) version of the same wheat that they can sell to the entire worlds farmers (while suing those who don't buy their wheat out of business).
I mean if they didn't create this fungus intentionally, then why haven't they come out and admitted it? Why aren't more people asking these questions?
This is the only logical way to corner an existing food supply:
1. Eliminate the existing crop, by releasing a targeted fungus.
2. Release a resistant and patented crop to replace it (same seed but with one gene changed, AND PATENTED).
3. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT....
I'm obviously reaching a little bit here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it happened in a year or so, just remember you heard it here first....
In most cases Businesses are supposed to report and pay personal property taxes on ANY personal property used in the business (personal in this instance refers to anything physically used in the business, not personally owned).
Buy a copy machine and put it in your business, it should be added to your personal property tax return and the business will have to pay personal property taxes on it for the life of the copy machine (life being the accounting life, so 5-7 years depending on depreciation method).
So yes, if you own a business you should be paying property tax on your refrigerator that's used in that business (depending on the state, I'm referring to WA state laws, but most are similar if not more onerous).
Michial Thompson = Wierd Harold??? Is that you in there WH????
Or did you just take over his crusade? I have to admit things were getting a little boring around here without having someone to always take the corporate side in their misguided arguments (which often fall apart when read by an intelligent individual - as opposed to the morons who are always in a hurry and seem to accept them as fact).
How about adding a hypocritical clause to the law...
Lets see....
I suggest that if the company being sued for 'patent marking' or 'false copyright claims' has at any time in their history sued anyone over any of the patents/copyrights in question, then the damages awarded should be multiplied by a factor of 10 (bonus factor, if they use the same lawyers to defend that they used in the earlier suits, then the damages are multiplied by 20).
It's only fair right? I mean if 'looking' at a patent can result in 3x the damages for 'willful infringement' then there should be a similar clause for 'hypocritical ignorance' that applies to the responsible industries.
Excess damages awarded to a billion dollar company at the expense of an individual or small group of individuals = BAD
Excess damages awarded to an individual or a small group of individuals at the expense of those billion dollar companies = GOOD
It's not too hard to understand hyprocracy is it? Live by the sword, die by the sword. And no I don't feel bad being a hypocrit about hypocritical companies.
Obviously we aren't hearing about the huge conspiracy going on in the Italian government which hinges on using this case to advance big media companies agendas.
How can I know there is a huge conspiracy going on? The same way you know that there is more to this story and it isn't political..... I just KNOW.... See how well that works? Statistically I have proof, 84.6% of people surveyed think this is the whole story and Italy is full of carp.... Of course 76% of statistics are made up on the spot, so don't believe everything you read.
This story has gotten enough coverage on other mainstream media outlets that if there was 'more to the story' it would have been reported already (and you could go find it, if you knew how to do a google search).
Some people can be so obtuse..... It just makes my tinfoil hat steam....
Nothing to see here folks, just move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
WOW, I feel so much better now that you have cleared everything up for me. I mean obviously if everything in ACTA is covered by existing laws, then nothing will change and there is no reason for ACTA at all, right?
The very fact that ACTA is being pushed as hard as it is gives credibility to the fact that some insiders feel that things need to be changed and this is the way to make those changes, or why bother with a secret 'executive agreement' that's not going to change anything in the first place?
The sheer amount of time and effort that's going into ACTA (and 'trying' to keep it a secret until it's already passed) pretty much guarantees that it's going to change things (or why bother with it in the first place).
I'd love for some of the article writing 'chicken littles' to be able to focus their arguments on the laws that will actually be changed, and as soon as the actual documents are released, I'm sure they will, but since everything is being done in secret, there's not much they can actually focus on right now is there?
Wait, weren't you the moron parroting what ONE judge had said in another thread just a couple days ago? I seem to recall that you found one lone idiot on the bench who called copyright infringement 'stealing' and you kept parroting the fact that A single judge called it 'stealing'.
So let me get this straight, if you find ONE judge who says something in support of your outrageous beliefs, it supports your position and can be used to bludgeon anyone who doesn't agree with you, but when ONE judge sets precedent that doesn't support your position, it's just a single judge in a single court in a single judgment and we should all ignore it?
Hypocrite much? Yeah, I thought so. Are you sure you aren't Wierd Harold reincarnated?
This statement brought to you by the tinfoil hat brigade, and if we think The Anti-Mike is a wacko, you really have to wonder, don't you?
I'm not sure why nobody has brought this particular line of reasoning up yet (or if they did and I just missed it), but I think this is just the first step in a much larger long term plan. What plan is that you ask?
The consolidation of smaller independent ISP's under larger corporate entities (which will be controlled and staffed at the highest level by **AA cronies and lobbiests), until eventually we have only 3-4 large global 'choices' left with a few smaller renegades (much like the cellular market today vs 15 years ago when there were multiple smaller companies competing).
Once the control of the ISP's has been consolidated by the **AA, it will be much easier for them to control this new 'broadcast internet tube thingy' that they keep claiming is 'killing their industry'. Just wait for things to start happening, here are my predictions:
1. When/If it passes, smaller ISP's in those areas will start being bombarded with accusations of infringement on large sections of their customers.
2. They will be forced to 'cut off' those customers based on the new laws that were put in place.
3. Excessive costs of notification and enforcement of the 3rd notification, along with the shrinking revenue streams due to the loss of a large group of their customers will result in many smaller ISP's going 'bankrupt', but right before they actually collapse and close, a large corporate ISP will come in and buy them for pennies on the dollar (since they were going to collapse anyway).
4. Consolidations will continue until the majority of the ISP market is controlled by 3-4 'competitors' (the competitors will actually collude to price fix and gouge all customers appropriately, while confusing the masses with ads about 'maps', 'apps', 'maximum potential speed' or similar non issues that make it appear that there are differences).
5. Once the market is consolidated the **AA's will be in a position to remove the various 3-strikes laws, claiming that they have realized the error of their ways, and that kicking people off the internet isn't such a good idea after all (what they really mean is, 'Now that we are getting all the revenue, we aren't willing to give it up by kicking our paying customers offline, because that would be a really stupid idea'
6. Increase prices and decrease service levels, since the **AA's will have an effective monopoly (via collusion and price fixing).
7. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT
Yes, I may be a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, does it? Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.... unless it's digital, then it's never right because it doesn't show the time when it's dead.... damn all this new fangled technology stuff is messing up my analogies, how will we ever adapt to this new 'tech' stuff?
How many of the 'unintended consequences' in legislation over the last 10 years or so do people think are really 'unintended'? I'm sure some of them are, but a large part are more likely the 'lobbiests intended changes' designed to appear unintended.
Oops, did I do that?????
It's much easier to brush off 'unintended consequences' and never change the legislation that caused them than it is to accept the fact that someone somewhere probably intended that exact result and is making a rather large profit off of it. These are the same individuals that were probably parties to drafting/crafting the legislation/regulation in such a way as to bring about the desired result, without appearing to do so before they handed it off to their purchased congress critter to get it put into law.
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re: Re: Why
Since it's so easy to identify the large benefits. Please provide a listing of the top and bottom 5 beneficiaries of each collection agency, so we can see these benefits first hand.
In case that's too complex of a request for you to grasp, list the top 5 artists and bottom 5 artists and the amounts each one received from each of the 3 collection societies. They provide so much benefit that this should be a simple request, right?
On the post: US Convicts Nigerian 419 Email Scammer
The next big scam.....
I'm an artist signed to a label under the RIAA, and I have recently been informed of a large copyright settlement coming my way. Unfortunately if I don't shelter these funds from the RIAA, they will take their standard 95% cut and leave me with little to nothing for my starving grandchildren to live on. This is where you come in, if you can act as a patsy for me, I will have the settlement wired directly to your bank account, once you have received the funds, you can keep 50% for your troubles, and wire the rest to me at iscammedyougood@hotmail.com
Failure to comply with my request will result in you being a party to the copyright lawsuit, and you will be fined for over $40 billion dollars, because we can create data showing that your IP address was involved.
Thanks for your time,
The new MAFIA
On the post: Scammers Using Mock Copyright Lawsuit Threats To Get People To Download Malware
And what's the penalty again for a 'false claim of copyright infringement'?
On the post: If File Sharing Is Costing Hollywood So Much Money, Why Do They Want To Pay So Little To Stop It?
Re: So our taxes have been paying for Hollywood's fight against piracy, now I understand
They call that check they write 'bribes' (or lobbying for the PC crowd), a portion goes to law enforcement, a portion to their local representatives, but most to the congresscritters, who then write them the laws that they paid for.
C'mon. This was a cheap shot....
On the post: Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid
Re: Re: Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
So again, explain why this isn't the same as infecting someone with a computer virus, then suing them for patent infringement.
On the post: Hollywood Seeks To Kill Off 3D Golden Goose With Much Higher Prices
What about the next generation of remakes?
I'm guessing that there would be lawsuits and all manner of 'infringing' claims by the makers of the current movies and the next generation of re-makes... But they used a rabbit with a hat for their mad hatter, and that's what we used in our movie, so they are infringing and must be stopped... Sherlock holmes's assistants name was "Watson" in their film, which is a blatant rip-off of our movie... Not that anything would 'stick' but it would probably be enough to prevent any smaller studios from even attempting the project.
But then I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and that's just how I roll...
On the post: Why Does Financial Reform Punish Startup Companies And Angel Investors?
Politicians Jealous?
On the post: Smart Phone Motion Control Patented; Held By Shell Company
Old Idea new tool...
http://www.mathpirate.net/log/tag/joystick/
Next up will be patenting intracranial motion sensing as applied to horizontal perpetual motion.... more commonly referred to as, "Not falling down while walking".
On the post: Response To The White House's Request For Feedback On IP Enforcement
Excellent Letter...
On the post: Apparently The Word 'Piracy' No Longer Sufficiently Derogatory For Entertainment Industry
Why don't they read their manual?
DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD
Oh, that's right, someone pulled the copy of the manual off their Kindles, whatever will they do now?
On the post: Harvard Law Prof's Poor Economic Analysis Used As Cover For Unnecessary Fashion Copyright
Re: Crap...
The one piece jumpsuit with the inverted V is the only design left in the public domain, everything else (including all future designs in perpetuity, thanks to all the bogus laws the fashion industry got passed)have been copyrighted. So everyone wears the cheap (roughly $500 adjusted for inflation) jumpsuit, since they can't afford the outrageous prices that all the designers are asking for their copyrighted creations. I mean who would really want to pay $350,000 for a sleeveless one color cotton shirt with a somewhat rounded check-mark/shwoosh type logo on the front?
/sarcasm off
On the post: More Examples Of Patent Incentives Making The World Less Safe
Ok, since I seem to the only tinfoil hat in the bunch...
I mean if they didn't create this fungus intentionally, then why haven't they come out and admitted it? Why aren't more people asking these questions?
This is the only logical way to corner an existing food supply:
1. Eliminate the existing crop, by releasing a targeted fungus.
2. Release a resistant and patented crop to replace it (same seed but with one gene changed, AND PATENTED).
3. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT....
I'm obviously reaching a little bit here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it happened in a year or so, just remember you heard it here first....
On the post: When You Try To Figure Out Who Owns Imaginary 'Property,' Things Get Confusing Fast
Re: Re: Re: Tangible and Intangible Property
Buy a copy machine and put it in your business, it should be added to your personal property tax return and the business will have to pay personal property taxes on it for the life of the copy machine (life being the accounting life, so 5-7 years depending on depreciation method).
So yes, if you own a business you should be paying property tax on your refrigerator that's used in that business (depending on the state, I'm referring to WA state laws, but most are similar if not more onerous).
On the post: Williams Sonoma Nastygrams Blogger Who Helps People Build Their Own Furniture
Re: Gee what a play on words
Or did you just take over his crusade? I have to admit things were getting a little boring around here without having someone to always take the corporate side in their misguided arguments (which often fall apart when read by an intelligent individual - as opposed to the morons who are always in a hurry and seem to accept them as fact).
Good to see you again.
On the post: New Industry Springs Up Overnight: Filing Patent Marking Suits Over False Patent Claims
How about adding a hypocritical clause to the law...
I suggest that if the company being sued for 'patent marking' or 'false copyright claims' has at any time in their history sued anyone over any of the patents/copyrights in question, then the damages awarded should be multiplied by a factor of 10 (bonus factor, if they use the same lawyers to defend that they used in the earlier suits, then the damages are multiplied by 20).
It's only fair right? I mean if 'looking' at a patent can result in 3x the damages for 'willful infringement' then there should be a similar clause for 'hypocritical ignorance' that applies to the responsible industries.
Excess damages awarded to a billion dollar company at the expense of an individual or small group of individuals = BAD
Excess damages awarded to an individual or a small group of individuals at the expense of those billion dollar companies = GOOD
It's not too hard to understand hyprocracy is it? Live by the sword, die by the sword. And no I don't feel bad being a hypocrit about hypocritical companies.
On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences
Re: Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
How can I know there is a huge conspiracy going on? The same way you know that there is more to this story and it isn't political..... I just KNOW.... See how well that works? Statistically I have proof, 84.6% of people surveyed think this is the whole story and Italy is full of carp.... Of course 76% of statistics are made up on the spot, so don't believe everything you read.
This story has gotten enough coverage on other mainstream media outlets that if there was 'more to the story' it would have been reported already (and you could go find it, if you knew how to do a google search).
Some people can be so obtuse..... It just makes my tinfoil hat steam....
On the post: Let's Face Facts: ACTA Is Called An 'Executive Agreement' To Change The Law With Less Hassle Than A Treaty
Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here... move along
WOW, I feel so much better now that you have cleared everything up for me. I mean obviously if everything in ACTA is covered by existing laws, then nothing will change and there is no reason for ACTA at all, right?
The very fact that ACTA is being pushed as hard as it is gives credibility to the fact that some insiders feel that things need to be changed and this is the way to make those changes, or why bother with a secret 'executive agreement' that's not going to change anything in the first place?
The sheer amount of time and effort that's going into ACTA (and 'trying' to keep it a secret until it's already passed) pretty much guarantees that it's going to change things (or why bother with it in the first place).
I'd love for some of the article writing 'chicken littles' to be able to focus their arguments on the laws that will actually be changed, and as soon as the actual documents are released, I'm sure they will, but since everything is being done in secret, there's not much they can actually focus on right now is there?
Intellectually Dishonest much?
On the post: TV Station Issuing DMCA Takedowns To Try To Hide Weatherman Making A Bad Joke
Re: Re: Re:
So let me get this straight, if you find ONE judge who says something in support of your outrageous beliefs, it supports your position and can be used to bludgeon anyone who doesn't agree with you, but when ONE judge sets precedent that doesn't support your position, it's just a single judge in a single court in a single judgment and we should all ignore it?
Hypocrite much? Yeah, I thought so. Are you sure you aren't Wierd Harold reincarnated?
This statement brought to you by the tinfoil hat brigade, and if we think The Anti-Mike is a wacko, you really have to wonder, don't you?
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
It's all about control of the ISP's
The consolidation of smaller independent ISP's under larger corporate entities (which will be controlled and staffed at the highest level by **AA cronies and lobbiests), until eventually we have only 3-4 large global 'choices' left with a few smaller renegades (much like the cellular market today vs 15 years ago when there were multiple smaller companies competing).
Once the control of the ISP's has been consolidated by the **AA, it will be much easier for them to control this new 'broadcast internet tube thingy' that they keep claiming is 'killing their industry'. Just wait for things to start happening, here are my predictions:
1. When/If it passes, smaller ISP's in those areas will start being bombarded with accusations of infringement on large sections of their customers.
2. They will be forced to 'cut off' those customers based on the new laws that were put in place.
3. Excessive costs of notification and enforcement of the 3rd notification, along with the shrinking revenue streams due to the loss of a large group of their customers will result in many smaller ISP's going 'bankrupt', but right before they actually collapse and close, a large corporate ISP will come in and buy them for pennies on the dollar (since they were going to collapse anyway).
4. Consolidations will continue until the majority of the ISP market is controlled by 3-4 'competitors' (the competitors will actually collude to price fix and gouge all customers appropriately, while confusing the masses with ads about 'maps', 'apps', 'maximum potential speed' or similar non issues that make it appear that there are differences).
5. Once the market is consolidated the **AA's will be in a position to remove the various 3-strikes laws, claiming that they have realized the error of their ways, and that kicking people off the internet isn't such a good idea after all (what they really mean is, 'Now that we are getting all the revenue, we aren't willing to give it up by kicking our paying customers offline, because that would be a really stupid idea'
6. Increase prices and decrease service levels, since the **AA's will have an effective monopoly (via collusion and price fixing).
7. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT
Yes, I may be a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, does it? Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.... unless it's digital, then it's never right because it doesn't show the time when it's dead.... damn all this new fangled technology stuff is messing up my analogies, how will we ever adapt to this new 'tech' stuff?
On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA
Are 'Unintended Consequences' really unintended?
Oops, did I do that?????
It's much easier to brush off 'unintended consequences' and never change the legislation that caused them than it is to accept the fact that someone somewhere probably intended that exact result and is making a rather large profit off of it. These are the same individuals that were probably parties to drafting/crafting the legislation/regulation in such a way as to bring about the desired result, without appearing to do so before they handed it off to their purchased congress critter to get it put into law.
/Tinfoil hat off
Next >>