Well, yes, you are confused. Content creators have NO inherent RIGHTS to ANY monopoly protection. Period. That isn't a RIGHT like Freedom of Speech. There is no "you shall have a monopoly" clause in the Constitution.
Why should "we the people" give them any monopoly at all? Many creative industries do quite well without such monopolies.
You are assuming that monopoly is their RIGHT and it isn't. It is a PRIVILEGE, given by US to them to encourage their creativity. That is the exchange. THEY get a limited monopoly and WE benefit from their creativity.
There is nothing in the vastly extended monopoly that encourages the ORIGINAL creator -- we're long past that cause and effect. Today the BENEFIT accrues to some big corporation and the original creator gets nothing.
The agreed-upon exchange has been destroyed. WE get NO benefit so why should we keep extending the privilege?
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
No, but the existence of the Internet does mean that the industry must change if it is to survive.
Their refusal to recognize this fact is their problem, not the problem innocent users who are being treated like criminals.
The problem is not "piracy", the problem is new technology. Barring outlawing all new technology from here on out, there is only one solution for the movie industry: Find out how to live with the world as it is not how they wish it to be. Old industries have always had to do that.
If some in the industry can't figure it out and go under, don't worry, there are many others who can and will figure it out. Laws designed to protect the old dinosaurs only delay the inevitable. Soon, the movie industry will be composed entirely of those who happily coexist with the Internet and the new technologies.
The difference here is that PIPA and SOPA make the abuse of the law legal. Under these laws you couldn't stop the abuse because they actually protect and even encourage the abuse.
Laws are supposed to protect the innocent -- these laws encourage the abuse of the innocent and protect the abuser. There are absolutely no penalties for misusing these laws. All the penalties are on the accused, even if they are completely innocent.
Back some time ago, my job was preparing ads for newspapers. We'd get the raw material, photos, copy, etc. and I'd arrange it to fit different sized ad space.
I'd see a movie come down, promoted as a romance. Then, a month later, it would be slanted as a comedy, then an adventure flick.
Same movie, just trying to find a way to get people to show up.
No, the ads have nothing to do with the actual movie. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know this by now?
What's REALLY strange is that companies who are supposed to be providing services (i.e. phone and internet connections) think they have the right to dictate what you may and may not do with your PRIVATE property, your phone -- and that there is a sense that rooting your phone is, somehow, wrong.
Verizon can't do anything to my phone, I rooted it. I trust Verizon to do whatever they decide will make them more money and give them more control -- so I shut them out completely.
So I DO own what I bought, Verizon just doesn't know it.
For the first time in 40 years*, Peanuts was actually funny. No wonder they shut it down -- it was destroying Peanuts' image as the most lame, boring comic.
The same reasoning they cripple their Google Apps functionality. Force paying users to make additional purchases through the marketplace...
"They"? Now who would that be? Google developers? Independent developers? Third party companies? Who? And are "they" all in on this conspiracy together?
"Cripple"? And how are they "crippling" their apps? Examples?
Nice troll. Now back it up with some facts. "Facts"? You know, examples that prove you are not totally full of *cough*BS*cough*.
Well, from their viewpoint, a rooted phone has already shown that its owner could care less about violating his carrier contract, and his device EULA, and probably Google's Android agreement to boot.
Michael, you make many assertions without any facts.
My carrier works for me. I don't work for them. I pay them, like I would any employee, and they provide the service I've contracted them for. No document gives them the legal right to dictate what I do with equipment I own. And they know that. You're the only one who doesn't seem to understand what's going on.
If you with to claim I am "violating my contract", you will need to provide a direct quote from that contract. Same with the mythical EULA you claim I violate.
The worst they can threaten me with is that I may "void my warranty". That's the extent of their powers in this matter -- and it's a pretty empty threat.
You think rooting is illegal in some way? It isn't. You claim it "violates my contract"? It doesn't.
On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain
Re: A little confused
Why should "we the people" give them any monopoly at all? Many creative industries do quite well without such monopolies.
You are assuming that monopoly is their RIGHT and it isn't. It is a PRIVILEGE, given by US to them to encourage their creativity. That is the exchange. THEY get a limited monopoly and WE benefit from their creativity.
There is nothing in the vastly extended monopoly that encourages the ORIGINAL creator -- we're long past that cause and effect. Today the BENEFIT accrues to some big corporation and the original creator gets nothing.
The agreed-upon exchange has been destroyed. WE get NO benefit so why should we keep extending the privilege?
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Their refusal to recognize this fact is their problem, not the problem innocent users who are being treated like criminals.
The problem is not "piracy", the problem is new technology. Barring outlawing all new technology from here on out, there is only one solution for the movie industry: Find out how to live with the world as it is not how they wish it to be. Old industries have always had to do that.
If some in the industry can't figure it out and go under, don't worry, there are many others who can and will figure it out. Laws designed to protect the old dinosaurs only delay the inevitable. Soon, the movie industry will be composed entirely of those who happily coexist with the Internet and the new technologies.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re:
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Why it's right!
Laws are supposed to protect the innocent -- these laws encourage the abuse of the innocent and protect the abuser. There are absolutely no penalties for misusing these laws. All the penalties are on the accused, even if they are completely innocent.
On the post: Woman Sues Over Misleading Movie Trailer; Wants To Make It A Class Action
Movie advertising
I'd see a movie come down, promoted as a romance. Then, a month later, it would be slanted as a comedy, then an adventure flick.
Same movie, just trying to find a way to get people to show up.
No, the ads have nothing to do with the actual movie. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know this by now?
On the post: Size Doesn't Matter: The Question Is Whether Google Hurts Consumers
Big is bad?
Wait, that doesn't help, does it?
On the post: Comcast Hijacks Mac Firefox Users' Homepage; Offers Blame Game And Faux Apology In Return
Taking over user's PCs?
On the post: You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought: Verizon Breaks Phones; Turns Off Feature
Re: It's MY phone
On the post: You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought: Verizon Breaks Phones; Turns Off Feature
It's MY phone
So I DO own what I bought, Verizon just doesn't know it.
On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All
Peanuts
*Earlier, Peanuts was sometimes actually funny.
On the post: Will Arresting 'Anonymous' Members Help Or Hurt Anonymous?
Governments define what is criminal
On the post: Google Won't Let You Rent Movies If You Root Your Device
Re: Google Profits
"They"? Now who would that be? Google developers? Independent developers? Third party companies? Who? And are "they" all in on this conspiracy together?
"Cripple"? And how are they "crippling" their apps? Examples?
Nice troll. Now back it up with some facts. "Facts"? You know, examples that prove you are not totally full of *cough*BS*cough*.
On the post: Google Won't Let You Rent Movies If You Root Your Device
Rooting
Michael, you make many assertions without any facts.
My carrier works for me. I don't work for them. I pay them, like I would any employee, and they provide the service I've contracted them for. No document gives them the legal right to dictate what I do with equipment I own. And they know that. You're the only one who doesn't seem to understand what's going on.
If you with to claim I am "violating my contract", you will need to provide a direct quote from that contract. Same with the mythical EULA you claim I violate.
The worst they can threaten me with is that I may "void my warranty". That's the extent of their powers in this matter -- and it's a pretty empty threat.
You think rooting is illegal in some way? It isn't. You claim it "violates my contract"? It doesn't.
On the post: Peter Jenner Admits That Stopping File Sharing Is Impossible
One hurdle
I use the Internet a lot but I have no interest in downloading movies or music.
Any "mandatory licensing" scheme needs to address the millions of people like me who should not pay.
Next >>