Exactly, Marcus. The whole thing is just silly IMHO.
I have a twitter account that I use for personal interests and that I enjoy and could give a hoot about "influence". And I just "follow" people with the same interests because everyone finds different stories or what-have-you, not because of any "influencing" factor.
It just all seems as silly to me as being "popular" in High School.
Well, while she looks ridiculous to these tired middle aged eyes, and that name! But the girl's got some brains under her fluff.
Had to laugh at the idiot interviewing her; he sounded so appalled at the 99 cent deal. LOL
To me her music has zero value as I've only just heard of her about 2 weeks ago and am not at all interested (yeah, I know, never mind...) but more power to her. May she never travel the path of Brittany Spears.
The copyright laws as they stand now are just plain crazy. Just like news, music gets "old". Granted, some news may always be interesting and some music always "good" but it shouldn't have to be paid for over and over and over eternally and forevermore. Nothing in this world is worth that just like "nothing is new under the sun".
"But, can you have influence with no activity? No."
True. Absolutely. But if the biggest SE in the world doesn't think you are "active" enough, which supposedly means "influential", and drops your rankings so low no one can find your "stuff" any more, you can't have any influence, either, no matter how helpful or "good" your content is.
It's a 2 way street. Activity can take many other forms than a social link, too. Email, for one. Letters, for another. Newsletters, phone calls...
In my head - Mike, this is why I enjoy reading your writings SO much - not once have you failed to echo a thought or sentiment of my own that I can only sit here and think (and too often get upset about with no outlet).
Anyway, this has been an issue that has driven me batty for years. Now it's costing me web site rankings for what I do online since Google's Panda update. I am NOT into the "social marketing" scene - now I'm paying for that. Literally and dearly.
Thankfully I have some resources that will hopefully allow me to get by but suffice it to say this has greatly affected my ability to give and to donate and to SHARE as I've always so loved to do and that, in turn, is so frustrating. For example, I do a local Dial-A-Prayer site and love to donate the hosting/domain; I had to ask for the $ this year. I hated that. I REALLY hated that.
You see, I would far more like to work than sit around "socializing". If I sit here and "socialize" all the day long, I can't work - am a one-woman operation here and can only stretch myself so thin. I would far rather work on quality content and good web design skills that need constant updating as anyone who's done that work knows but now I find myself babysitting "twitter" and considering other avenues should I ever have the time. But it goes against everything in me and I can't afford - especially now - to outsource this.
And really sorry for rambling but please just a sec or two more - I was surfing a site called freelancer.com to see what the deal is and what do I see? People PAYING others to write content. People paying others to tweet, to post FB profiles and get "fans" - NONE OF IT IS EVEN FOR REAL; IT IS ALL FOR "SCORES" OR "RANKING" SO HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW WHO IS FOR REAL MUCH LESS HOW "GOOD" THEY ARE!?
Agree totally, although in a way the big nasty gov't of today is helping me boycott all big business by stealing all my money via taxation so I have nothing left to buy anything with.
It's crumbling. Slowly, systematically, step by step - and I literally pray every day we have the last laugh.
Sometimes I, too wonder if a total revolution would be the only way to fix all the horrible wrongs, IDK... .
These perps - RIAA/MPAA - they can't get enough and don't know how or where to stop the insanity. The people may just be bullied into stopping it themselves. Just sayin'.
That is the stupidest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time.
First, how on earth can you compare a physical object to an online subscription - that's like trying to mix oil and water.
To use your logic, one could also then say when a man and woman marry they become one, therefore both should be able to use the same "entertainment subscription".
Or that no one should ever invite anyone over to watch a copy of a DVD. Instead everyone who joins a get together should bring their own copy even though only one will be played. That's dumb. Are we all supposed to police our company now and make sure they OWN a copy of every song, every movie, every book etc., that we do simply because they may be on the same premises where a copy is? Good grief!!!
This is crazy. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here (never had an "entertainment subscription - trolls like Darryl entertain me for free) couldn't several college "roomies" just subscribe and all be sure to use one computer and one log in?
I would have liked to have seen what took place before all of that to-do, but from what we can see, I see fault on both sides - but all provoked by the blue-shirts-going-brown.
I don't see why they couldn't have politely asked the people to finish their dance and quietly leave the premises. They bullied and provoked those people, putting them on the defensive and then added insult to injury by arresting them. That, IMHO, was way out of line.
I don't want my tax dollars paying blue-shirts-going-brown to arrest dancers.
Boy, reading through the comments I lost my original train of thought - it's like a zoo around here at times.
But I do have one question, if anyone would be so kind...why is it that just because tech savvy people - and even some of us not-quite-as-tech-savvy-but-sort-of-tech-savvy people who have serious concerns about this invasive and unconstitutional "PROTECT IP" bull, are constantly labeled "pirates", "Thieves", etc.?
I don't understand this - maybe I haven't been participating long enough, IDK, but it continues to baffle me because I'm a long-time advocate of privacy and respect for the privacy of others and my own. That is all that drives my sentiments on this issue.
These laws are insane. Utterly and completely insane. And it's really quite scary to see people actually think it's "Okay" and should be enacted.
I pay my cable company a hefty monthly fee. I subscribe to a movie tier. I get lots of channels of both music and TV shows in addition to the movie tier. When I watch a movie on that movie tier, or a weekly series on my television screen, it's okay. If I watch it on my computer at a time that is more convenient for me - which, BTW, I pay the same company to access the Internet - suddenly some of you want to label me a "pirate" or a "thief"?
What am I missing here?
"Kool-aid" must be doing quite a business these days...
"I'd also use the crappy "computer fraud" laws that can be interpreted to mean this fake stuff with throwaway emails is a computer crime."
Yup! That's exactly what I was thinking! LOL - great minds...
It never ceases to amaze me that people who pull shenanigans like this always come up with such lame excuses that make everyone else sound like idiots i.e., "it's simply helping patients post their reviews, since it's too difficult for them to do it themselves."
Time to ban all ratings on the Internet and shut down any and ALL sites 'round the world that participate.
"If it's still theirs, why do I bother paying for it at all?"
Exactly, DEF! I recently bought a movie - can't recall which one, but every 15 to 20 minutes this ugly, huge message splattered up my TV telling me how copying is stealing - it was annoying, invasive, distracting and totally ruined any "entertainment value" from the whole movie. I sat here thinking, "I paid to sit in my living room and be scolded for over 90 minutes - for something I didn't do???"
Won't buy another movie until/unless that nonsense stops. I'm finding out Wii is fun...
You know, this reminded me of the days when women were into these nested tabled, graphical layouts with images (and for load time they'd slice them...). Anyone else remember those? Well, they were all the rage for a while and tons and tons of women 'round the world used images paid artists had online to showcase their work.
Most of the women always asked for permission and not a one woman I knew was refused and why? Because those artists only asked for their name credited and if they had a web site, their URL linked to it.
They loved it because guess what - it got their name spread far and wide for ZERO $$$. Totally free advertising for them that would have cost them a fortune otherwise.
And to think...all it took was a digital COPY of their work to help them make more sales...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
PS. I didn't know I had to be a lawyer to know something is illegal. I that were the case, everyone without a law degree can commit crimes and just claim "Duh, I didn't know, I'm no lawyer". Poof! Magic innocence of all wrong doing ...
Think, anonymous coward, THINK before you speak. My 3rd grade teacher taught me that a LONG time ago and I understood even at that young age! Imagine that!
On the post: Activity Is Not Influence
I have a twitter account that I use for personal interests and that I enjoy and could give a hoot about "influence". And I just "follow" people with the same interests because everyone finds different stories or what-have-you, not because of any "influencing" factor.
It just all seems as silly to me as being "popular" in High School.
On the post: Lady Gaga Says $0.99 Albums Make Sense, Especially For Digital
Good Gaga
Had to laugh at the idiot interviewing her; he sounded so appalled at the 99 cent deal. LOL
To me her music has zero value as I've only just heard of her about 2 weeks ago and am not at all interested (yeah, I know, never mind...) but more power to her. May she never travel the path of Brittany Spears.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism
BTW, this guy makes the case for using Tor...
On the post: French Court Says Merely Having The Word 'Torrent' In Your Domain Means You Are Encouraging Infringement
The insanity just keeps coming like a torrent. OOPS
On the post: Activity Is Not Influence
Re:
True. Absolutely. But if the biggest SE in the world doesn't think you are "active" enough, which supposedly means "influential", and drops your rankings so low no one can find your "stuff" any more, you can't have any influence, either, no matter how helpful or "good" your content is.
It's a 2 way street. Activity can take many other forms than a social link, too. Email, for one. Letters, for another. Newsletters, phone calls...
On the post: Activity Is Not Influence
Echo...
Anyway, this has been an issue that has driven me batty for years. Now it's costing me web site rankings for what I do online since Google's Panda update. I am NOT into the "social marketing" scene - now I'm paying for that. Literally and dearly.
Thankfully I have some resources that will hopefully allow me to get by but suffice it to say this has greatly affected my ability to give and to donate and to SHARE as I've always so loved to do and that, in turn, is so frustrating. For example, I do a local Dial-A-Prayer site and love to donate the hosting/domain; I had to ask for the $ this year. I hated that. I REALLY hated that.
You see, I would far more like to work than sit around "socializing". If I sit here and "socialize" all the day long, I can't work - am a one-woman operation here and can only stretch myself so thin. I would far rather work on quality content and good web design skills that need constant updating as anyone who's done that work knows but now I find myself babysitting "twitter" and considering other avenues should I ever have the time. But it goes against everything in me and I can't afford - especially now - to outsource this.
And really sorry for rambling but please just a sec or two more - I was surfing a site called freelancer.com to see what the deal is and what do I see? People PAYING others to write content. People paying others to tweet, to post FB profiles and get "fans" - NONE OF IT IS EVEN FOR REAL; IT IS ALL FOR "SCORES" OR "RANKING" SO HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW WHO IS FOR REAL MUCH LESS HOW "GOOD" THEY ARE!?
Sorry. Didn't mean to shout. Deep breathes...
/offsoapbox
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re: Re:
It's crumbling. Slowly, systematically, step by step - and I literally pray every day we have the last laugh.
Sometimes I, too wonder if a total revolution would be the only way to fix all the horrible wrongs, IDK... .
These perps - RIAA/MPAA - they can't get enough and don't know how or where to stop the insanity. The people may just be bullied into stopping it themselves. Just sayin'.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Soon we will all be criminals
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re:
First, how on earth can you compare a physical object to an online subscription - that's like trying to mix oil and water.
To use your logic, one could also then say when a man and woman marry they become one, therefore both should be able to use the same "entertainment subscription".
Or that no one should ever invite anyone over to watch a copy of a DVD. Instead everyone who joins a get together should bring their own copy even though only one will be played. That's dumb. Are we all supposed to police our company now and make sure they OWN a copy of every song, every movie, every book etc., that we do simply because they may be on the same premises where a copy is? Good grief!!!
This is crazy. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here (never had an "entertainment subscription - trolls like Darryl entertain me for free) couldn't several college "roomies" just subscribe and all be sure to use one computer and one log in?
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
I don't see why they couldn't have politely asked the people to finish their dance and quietly leave the premises. They bullied and provoked those people, putting them on the defensive and then added insult to injury by arresting them. That, IMHO, was way out of line.
I don't want my tax dollars paying blue-shirts-going-brown to arrest dancers.
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re:
Weak and scared are reserved for atheists who haven't the guts to believe in something because they fall for anything.
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Ah ha.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit of RIAA/MPAA etc. nazi's are trolling.
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
I'm in!
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Buggy Whips
Boy, reading through the comments I lost my original train of thought - it's like a zoo around here at times.
But I do have one question, if anyone would be so kind...why is it that just because tech savvy people - and even some of us not-quite-as-tech-savvy-but-sort-of-tech-savvy people who have serious concerns about this invasive and unconstitutional "PROTECT IP" bull, are constantly labeled "pirates", "Thieves", etc.?
I don't understand this - maybe I haven't been participating long enough, IDK, but it continues to baffle me because I'm a long-time advocate of privacy and respect for the privacy of others and my own. That is all that drives my sentiments on this issue.
These laws are insane. Utterly and completely insane. And it's really quite scary to see people actually think it's "Okay" and should be enacted.
I pay my cable company a hefty monthly fee. I subscribe to a movie tier. I get lots of channels of both music and TV shows in addition to the movie tier. When I watch a movie on that movie tier, or a weekly series on my television screen, it's okay. If I watch it on my computer at a time that is more convenient for me - which, BTW, I pay the same company to access the Internet - suddenly some of you want to label me a "pirate" or a "thief"?
What am I missing here?
"Kool-aid" must be doing quite a business these days...
On the post: Medical Justice Caught Posting Happy Reviews Of Doctors; Claims It's Just Helping Patients
Re: Re: Stole my thunder (lol)
Yes, it was...
On the post: Medical Justice Caught Posting Happy Reviews Of Doctors; Claims It's Just Helping Patients
Stole my thunder (lol)
Yup! That's exactly what I was thinking! LOL - great minds...
It never ceases to amaze me that people who pull shenanigans like this always come up with such lame excuses that make everyone else sound like idiots i.e., "it's simply helping patients post their reviews, since it's too difficult for them to do it themselves."
Time to ban all ratings on the Internet and shut down any and ALL sites 'round the world that participate.
On the post: EMI Exec Thinks You Shouldn't Be Able To Listen To Your Own Music Without Paying Again
Re:
Exactly, DEF! I recently bought a movie - can't recall which one, but every 15 to 20 minutes this ugly, huge message splattered up my TV telling me how copying is stealing - it was annoying, invasive, distracting and totally ruined any "entertainment value" from the whole movie. I sat here thinking, "I paid to sit in my living room and be scolded for over 90 minutes - for something I didn't do???"
Won't buy another movie until/unless that nonsense stops. I'm finding out Wii is fun...
On the post: Waiting 100+ Years For Version 2.0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you crazy???
Most of the women always asked for permission and not a one woman I knew was refused and why? Because those artists only asked for their name credited and if they had a web site, their URL linked to it.
They loved it because guess what - it got their name spread far and wide for ZERO $$$. Totally free advertising for them that would have cost them a fortune otherwise.
And to think...all it took was a digital COPY of their work to help them make more sales...
On the post: Waiting 100+ Years For Version 2.0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
Think, anonymous coward, THINK before you speak. My 3rd grade teacher taught me that a LONG time ago and I understood even at that young age! Imagine that!
On the post: Waiting 100+ Years For Version 2.0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the You're-Still-Full-Of-Shit-Department
I'm too old.
Next >>