"Sampling is direct copying and requires no innovation" is patently false, as you immediately managed to point out in your next sentence.
Using someone else's work as a baseline for your own is, as you also point out, a common practice. The means and methods by which people do so changes through the years... but until you specifically are able to produce a sampled track of the same quality or higher than that created by Snoop Dogg, (a simple request if, as you claim, there is no creativity or innovation involved) I suggest you find a new rhetorical shield to cower behind.
I look forward to your youtube link. And before you pull the "but that would be illegal" defense, please note that such a track would be created for purposes that fall well within the Fair Use criteria.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 24 Jun 2010 @ 2:16pm
Re: @Christopher Weigel
I've skimmed your profile, as well.
Oh, wait, what profile?
Simply because I disagree with your ill-stated opinions doesn't mean I don't have or express opinions of my own. A more detailed "skimming" would have shown that, but you've demonstrated ample evidence of your own trollishness.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 1:56pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, no. There's quite a bit of argument as to if there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy" associated with unencrypted data on an open network. So it's not nearly so clear-cut as you'd like to claim.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 11:17am
Re: Curious form of argument: state possible reasons,
Oof. The point was that their objective (finding the wi-fi access point) is harder than just grabbing a couple packets due to obstruction. The more data the better the determined location, and as a consequence you can find where there are obstructions.
Are you *really* so stupid and/or desperate to find something google "did wrong" as to have just accused them of trying to find structural weaknesses in buildings?
The data capture was a simple side-effect of their intended goal, i.e. to capture MAC addresses and signal strength. An unfortunate side effect, which is way overblown by idiots like, well, you.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 8 Jun 2010 @ 12:18pm
Re: @Christopher Weigel
Uh... What the hell are you babbling about?
Ignoring the completely off-topic rant here...
They're still public domain. The specific version provided may have anti-circumvention tech, but we're talking books. So
a) who buys e-books on a cd?
b) The publisher would have no legal recourse against other (public domain) versions of the book online.
In other words, chill out, stop ranting, and try to make comments at least somewhat relevant to the topic at hand. Not to mention avoiding the "paranoid drug addict" tone.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 8 Jun 2010 @ 11:35am
Re:
Do you know what an RSS reader does? The whole point is as a news aggregater.
Again, it's providing a better implementation of something that there exists a free version of. So long as consumer value says it's better, there's no moral dilemma there.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 8 Jun 2010 @ 11:31am
Re:
Not really. See: Books that are in the public domain still being bound and sold in bookstores. So long as there's a noticeable improvement in quality between the two situations... Well, it's up to the consumer to decide if the tangible difference in content presentation is worth the extra cost.
See also e-books (cheaper than their bound siblings, usually), "Best of" CD's, video games (cheaper on PC, typically) concerts, etc.
Re: Thankfully, it looks like the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU are trying to help out.
Except that, in this case, said civil liberties point is absolutely essential to the USCG's way of doing business, and therefore to the core case as a whole.
Filing separate briefs in each defendant's home jurisdiction would make their approach non-profitable, so it's highly likely that should such a situation happen they'll not file on those who refuse to "settle".
Failure to do so, in turn, reveals this scheme as what it truly is: Extortion.
For that matter, it's hardly "tangential to the core case". What they're arguing is that the "core case" is a violation of basic civil liberties (which it is...) so it should be thrown out. It's hard to view a point that can result in the case being trashed as "tangential"... unless you're trying to dismiss it.
Christopher Weigel (profile), 24 May 2010 @ 1:55pm
Re: Debate... (part 2)
Taking a speech apart into individual, coherent points is fine so long as you don't change the meaning of the point. It's called "respect for a reader". It's actually a debate format... point - counterpoint. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Also, the term Rant, as used by you, seems to mean "a long, well-written piece that I'm too lazy and/or intellectually underdeveloped to read".
And what else do you call debating a non-existent position?
Please, delete this from your RSS reader. Obviously intellectual debate isn't your forte, which is fine. Just try developing an understanding of your own weaknesses.
On the post: Snoop Dogg Sued By Famed Jazz Artist For Sampling
Re:
Using someone else's work as a baseline for your own is, as you also point out, a common practice. The means and methods by which people do so changes through the years... but until you specifically are able to produce a sampled track of the same quality or higher than that created by Snoop Dogg, (a simple request if, as you claim, there is no creativity or innovation involved) I suggest you find a new rhetorical shield to cower behind.
I look forward to your youtube link. And before you pull the "but that would be illegal" defense, please note that such a track would be created for purposes that fall well within the Fair Use criteria.
On the post: Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
Re:
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: @Christopher Weigel
Oh, wait, what profile?
Simply because I disagree with your ill-stated opinions doesn't mean I don't have or express opinions of my own. A more detailed "skimming" would have shown that, but you've demonstrated ample evidence of your own trollishness.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, though.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re:
After all, you do all your sensitive online work encrypted...
Right?
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Curious form of argument: state possible reasons,
Are you *really* so stupid and/or desperate to find something google "did wrong" as to have just accused them of trying to find structural weaknesses in buildings?
The data capture was a simple side-effect of their intended goal, i.e. to capture MAC addresses and signal strength. An unfortunate side effect, which is way overblown by idiots like, well, you.
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Get the facts
This was the appellate court's decision, moron. A Federal appellate court. Beyond this there are only 2 steps, as Mike mentioned in the article.
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re: @Christopher Weigel
Ignoring the completely off-topic rant here...
They're still public domain. The specific version provided may have anti-circumvention tech, but we're talking books. So
a) who buys e-books on a cd?
b) The publisher would have no legal recourse against other (public domain) versions of the book online.
In other words, chill out, stop ranting, and try to make comments at least somewhat relevant to the topic at hand. Not to mention avoiding the "paranoid drug addict" tone.
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re: Re:
Even a moron in a hurry wouldn't view this app as an official Times product. It actually looks decent, for one thing.
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re:
Again, it's providing a better implementation of something that there exists a free version of. So long as consumer value says it's better, there's no moral dilemma there.
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re:
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re:
See also e-books (cheaper than their bound siblings, usually), "Best of" CD's, video games (cheaper on PC, typically) concerts, etc.
On the post: Texas AG Looks Into Price Fixing Antitrust Questions Surrounding Ebooks
Re:
On the post: EFF, Public Citizen And ACLU Ask Judge To Quash Mass Subpoenas From US Copyright Group
Re: Thankfully, it looks like the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU are trying to help out.
Filing separate briefs in each defendant's home jurisdiction would make their approach non-profitable, so it's highly likely that should such a situation happen they'll not file on those who refuse to "settle".
Failure to do so, in turn, reveals this scheme as what it truly is: Extortion.
For that matter, it's hardly "tangential to the core case". What they're arguing is that the "core case" is a violation of basic civil liberties (which it is...) so it should be thrown out. It's hard to view a point that can result in the case being trashed as "tangential"... unless you're trying to dismiss it.
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re:
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: Re: Debate... (part 2)
http://xkcd.com/639/
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: Debate... (part 2)
Do you have [b]anything[/b] intelligent to say?
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re:
Seriously, do they all have the exact same "evil corporation's playbook against innovation" they're referencing?
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: When Architects Sue
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Debate... (part 2)
Also, the term Rant, as used by you, seems to mean "a long, well-written piece that I'm too lazy and/or intellectually underdeveloped to read".
And what else do you call debating a non-existent position?
Please, delete this from your RSS reader. Obviously intellectual debate isn't your forte, which is fine. Just try developing an understanding of your own weaknesses.
Next >>