Oh, no, not at all! It's the Evil Joo Joo in the any kind of computer, be it a 1 MHz 6809, or a 2.2 GHz, quad-core all-you-can-eat, Vegas style buffet computer.
It's the Evil Joo Joo that those filthy hackers get from the computer, nothing more. Don't you see? It's perfectly logical, old chap.
So you admit it's true, patents came before Freedom of Speech, and therefore pre-empt Freedom of Speech, you hairy, pirate-loving, universe of criminals inhabitor.
It's weird that prices won't go down unless piracy is managed, because according to a pretty standard, econ-101 style analysis, prices will be *lower* in markets with piracy:
Of course by Masnick's logic no politician should get a job for at least two years after he leaves office, because then he'd be a "lobbyist".
Wait, what's your opinion about "no-compete" contracts?
And more to the point, why do you have a problem with the Law of the Land, what our Representatives Enacted into Law as the Will of the People?
Are you some kind of Anarchist?
Wow, I think you should give links to citations for some or all of those extreme claims.
Because I, for one, don't believe you. What I remember, and my remembering is way better than your bald assertions, is that file sharing is way up, despite all the enforcement.
The only thing I torrent is the Slackware linux distro, and that's quite legal, but that's what I remember. So there: my memory beats your bald assertions again! Memory for the Win!
I really have to agree. Even the visible DoD budget appears bloated and corrupt and wasteful. That doesn't include the estimate 30 to 50 Billion dollars of "black budget", which is apparently a complete and utter waste of time and money.
Seriously. Black budget should not exist. Statistically speaking there's only a very few secrets of national importance. There's huge numbers of career-ending blunders and opportunities for graft, kickbacks & etc.
Statistically speaking, the black budget is guaranteed to be all waste. That's right, all fat, and no meat. Ditch it.
"Homer Simpson" probably isn't a trademarked cartoon character. A trademark is a registered name under which business transactions are accomplished: good and services are bought and sold. A trademark only applies in one line of business, so there can be "John's Bar and Grill" as well as "John's Plumbing" and "John's Medical Marijuana".
"Homer Simpson", as far as The Precious Intellectual Property thing goes, probably is copyrighted. "Homer Simpson" is one instantiation of an alcoholic, blue-collar everyman. Other such instantiations exist (Jackie Gleason's character in "The Honeymooners", I suppose would be an example.
And that's the permission issue: if Fox hasn't done business as "Duff Brewery" (or whatever) they don't have a trademark on "Duff Beer". They've got a copyright on a humorous, fictional Beer manufacturer, and its sometimes mediocre product.
Trademark law allows more than one "Duff" - Duff Beer, Duff Lumberyard, Duff Auto Sales. Copyright does not allow more than one "Duff", I guess.
But The Most Precious Intellectual Property Law is so confusing, and so riddled with exemptions, special cases and paradoxes that one must actually go to trial to get any definitive answer, apparently.
There's "Charlie Brown's", a bar in Denver, Colorado. Supposing it goes bad, lots of brawls, prostitution arrests and drug busts take place in it. Has the Estate of Charles Schulz accrued damages to the "Peanuts" cartoon strip?
I agree this example isn't perfect, relative the Duff beer trademark and copyright example, but it's for real.
Given your certainty about the Simpson's Duff beer copyright and a real-world Duff beer trademark, perhaps you could expound on my real life example.
William Gibson once wrote that both the technological and the sociological windows for being "The Beatles" were quite narrow, and probably closed by now.
The linux crowd, to a person, believes that Microsoft and/or Wagg-Ed has shills in every single linux forum. Most just believe that the shills divert seriouis talk by espousing slightly off-topic or arguable positions. A few believe that the most radical and foul-mouthed linux supporters are the shills, planted to make all linux users look like immature fan-boys.
I've always questioned *why* the same talking points show up within a day or two across all kinds of linux forums, but I've never been able to figure out why any corporation would fund an army of trollers. The Persona Management software explains this. It's not an army it's just a few computer assissted humans.
Wait, suppose I buy a book, lets say a book that's supposed to explain the C programming language. Then, I find that the book I just bought is filled with the most egregious of errors. I can find this by trying the example code it gives.
So, I go to my Wordpress blog, and write a blog entry about Egregious Error Book, including some of the most error-filled code examples, and calling attention to how nit-witted the errors are.
The nitwit who wrote Egregious Error Book has his or her profit degraded by my commentary on the error-filled examples.
By your definition, this is copyright infringement. But I believe that legally, this is "fair use" as I'm commenting specifically on the error-filled examples.
Stop me if I'm wrong, anybody. Copyright doesn't exist merely to guarantee profit.
The world will need at most 5 supercomputing pocket copiers.
Well, think about it. Once you've copied all your stuff in, you no longer need the supercomputing pocket copier. So after a while, you get tired of carrying it in your pocket and you give it to someone who hasn't scanned all their material yet. And so on and so forth.
Supercomputing pocket copiers are something of a self-limiting market,
No, no, because then he'd hear it FROM A LAWYER. You know, "If you want to know whether some material infringes or not, ASK A LAWYER".
That's the common troll thing to say. The trolls all seem to want to confuse a lawyer's opinion with a court's ruling. "All you have to do is HAVE A LAWYER REVIEW all the X's on your website" and you'll be protected.
It's a secret handshake thing. You're not expected to understand this.
On the post: Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process
Re: Deja Vu
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Re: What about multi-core cpu's?
It's the Evil Joo Joo that those filthy hackers get from the computer, nothing more. Don't you see? It's perfectly logical, old chap.
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Re: Re: Re: The Brain
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: simple question...
http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/piracy.html
That analysis uses "software" as the good in question, but I think it will work for anything else.
So where do your get the certainty of your guarantee?
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist
Re: Re:
I usually just mark any of the Anonymous Coward with good grammar's posts as "report", but I will henceforth mark them as "funny".
I'm still going to "report" any posts using the word "freetard" as an insult, however.
On the post: Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist
Re:
Wait, what's your opinion about "no-compete" contracts?
And more to the point, why do you have a problem with the Law of the Land, what our Representatives Enacted into Law as the Will of the People? Are you some kind of Anarchist?
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re:
Because I, for one, don't believe you. What I remember, and my remembering is way better than your bald assertions, is that file sharing is way up, despite all the enforcement.
The only thing I torrent is the Slackware linux distro, and that's quite legal, but that's what I remember. So there: my memory beats your bald assertions again! Memory for the Win!
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home
Or is the US code copyright somebody?
Ha ha!
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re:
Seriously. Black budget should not exist. Statistically speaking there's only a very few secrets of national importance. There's huge numbers of career-ending blunders and opportunities for graft, kickbacks & etc.
Statistically speaking, the black budget is guaranteed to be all waste. That's right, all fat, and no meat. Ditch it.
On the post: The Trademarking Of Duff Beer: How Fictional Trademarks Become Copyright Issues In The Real World
Re: Duff
"Homer Simpson", as far as The Precious Intellectual Property thing goes, probably is copyrighted. "Homer Simpson" is one instantiation of an alcoholic, blue-collar everyman. Other such instantiations exist (Jackie Gleason's character in "The Honeymooners", I suppose would be an example.
And that's the permission issue: if Fox hasn't done business as "Duff Brewery" (or whatever) they don't have a trademark on "Duff Beer". They've got a copyright on a humorous, fictional Beer manufacturer, and its sometimes mediocre product.
Trademark law allows more than one "Duff" - Duff Beer, Duff Lumberyard, Duff Auto Sales. Copyright does not allow more than one "Duff", I guess.
But The Most Precious Intellectual Property Law is so confusing, and so riddled with exemptions, special cases and paradoxes that one must actually go to trial to get any definitive answer, apparently.
On the post: The Trademarking Of Duff Beer: How Fictional Trademarks Become Copyright Issues In The Real World
Re:
There's "Charlie Brown's", a bar in Denver, Colorado. Supposing it goes bad, lots of brawls, prostitution arrests and drug busts take place in it. Has the Estate of Charles Schulz accrued damages to the "Peanuts" cartoon strip?
I agree this example isn't perfect, relative the Duff beer trademark and copyright example, but it's for real.
Given your certainty about the Simpson's Duff beer copyright and a real-world Duff beer trademark, perhaps you could expound on my real life example.
On the post: The Trademarking Of Duff Beer: How Fictional Trademarks Become Copyright Issues In The Real World
Re: Re:
On the post: More HBGary Federal Fallout: The Government Wants To Buy Software To Fake Online Grassroots Social Media Campaigns
Re: Re:
William Gibson once wrote that both the technological and the sociological windows for being "The Beatles" were quite narrow, and probably closed by now.
On the post: More HBGary Federal Fallout: The Government Wants To Buy Software To Fake Online Grassroots Social Media Campaigns
Re: Re: Re:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2232892
The linux crowd, to a person, believes that Microsoft and/or Wagg-Ed has shills in every single linux forum. Most just believe that the shills divert seriouis talk by espousing slightly off-topic or arguable positions. A few believe that the most radical and foul-mouthed linux supporters are the shills, planted to make all linux users look like immature fan-boys.
I've always questioned *why* the same talking points show up within a day or two across all kinds of linux forums, but I've never been able to figure out why any corporation would fund an army of trollers. The Persona Management software explains this. It's not an army it's just a few computer assissted humans.
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Re: Degrading profit
So, I go to my Wordpress blog, and write a blog entry about Egregious Error Book, including some of the most error-filled code examples, and calling attention to how nit-witted the errors are.
The nitwit who wrote Egregious Error Book has his or her profit degraded by my commentary on the error-filled examples.
By your definition, this is copyright infringement. But I believe that legally, this is "fair use" as I'm commenting specifically on the error-filled examples.
Stop me if I'm wrong, anybody. Copyright doesn't exist merely to guarantee profit.
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Re: Degrading profit
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Supercomputing pocket copiers
Well, think about it. Once you've copied all your stuff in, you no longer need the supercomputing pocket copier. So after a while, you get tired of carrying it in your pocket and you give it to someone who hasn't scanned all their material yet. And so on and so forth.
Supercomputing pocket copiers are something of a self-limiting market,
On the post: Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
Because LAWYERS CAN DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OR TRUTH OF SOMETHING. Everyone else is a miserable, untrustworthy prole.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the common troll thing to say. The trolls all seem to want to confuse a lawyer's opinion with a court's ruling. "All you have to do is HAVE A LAWYER REVIEW all the X's on your website" and you'll be protected.
It's a secret handshake thing. You're not expected to understand this.
Next >>