there's no other reasonable conclusion than that he holds the copyright
Err, the only reasonable conclusion is that no one owns the copyrights, since any creative expression in them was accomplished by an entity that has no legal right to their output (the monkeys).
Oh, I know what the UN has "delcared", but that doesn't make it so. Tomorrow they could declare the owning ponies is a human right and that everyone should be given a pony, but I don't find that convincing.
If you couldn't claim it on a deserted island as the last surviving specimen of the human race, it ain't a right.
Love the post. I never realized that the lurking, alien horrors that seek to devour us and drive men to madness were related to intellectual property, but now that you mention it, it seems obvious.
I guess the best thing to do, if you want to use Lovecraft's work, would be to pick a single story and research it through history to build a case, then cross your fingers and pray to whatever elder god you fancy might be listening.
Instead, shes taught the girl to be rude and confrontational
I want more people to be confrontational towards the assholes in government who think they own us. You won't change anything by knuckling under now and then complaining after the fact; the people who you are protesting are the same people who will hear your complaint and decide its merits.
If you mean the airlines, I agree. At least then we can decide to vote with our dollars and choose the airline who treats us the best.
But if you mean the government, I think you're off base. Saying it's okay for them to violate your rights in one situation, because you can choose to put yourself in different situation instead is a slippery slope. The TSA is already starting to handle security for other forms of travel. What happens when they get around to all the other items on your list?
You mean the reality of letting 'central banks' control the money supply?
That falls under "accounting tricks". They like to pretend that they can increase wealth by increasing money, but reality is setting us straight now, isn't it?
You can pretend that things aren't what they are through media manipulation, accounting tricks, and police state tactics, but reality will always win through in the end.
Abbott retrieved her cell phone and was attempting to film her daughter being screened. I advised Abbott to put her cell phone away. Again, Abbott was verbally abusive.
"Disorderly Conduct" can be translated as "contempt of cop" these days.
"Once again, if denying women the vote is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to stop women from voting.
Stop whining already."
That's a very good point you make.
"Once again, if making black people sit at the back of the bus is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to make black people sit at the back of the bus.
Stop whining already."
Can't argue with that line of thinking at all.
"Once again, if rounding up Jews is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to round up Jews.
Stop whining already."
You've certainly backed me into a logical corner there. I don't see any way to assail your iron-clad premise. Kudos to you, sir!
Even if there were a copyright on the pictures (and there's not), Mike's use is fair. He isn't going to "go broke" unless sending the words "LOL! No." back to Caters is somehow prohibitively expensive now.
That doesn't make sense. Netflix is just going to pass any price increases on to the customer (which is what they doing now). If people won't pay that price, and Netflix goes out of business, how will the content providers continue to make money from customers' desire for a Netflix-like service?
If Netflix won't pay the high price, someone else will and Netflix will have no flix. Basic, basic economics.
So let me see if I have your "basic" economics straight:
1. People will pay X dollars a month for a Netflix-like service.
2. People will NOT pay 2X dollars a month for a Netflix-like service.
3. The content companies will force Netflix to raise their rates to 2X in order to pay onerous new licensing fees.
4. Netflix will lose customers and go out of business.
(So far, we're on the same page, but then you continue with:)
5. New companies will enter the market and charge 2X for their Netflix-like service.
6. ???
7. Profit.
On the post: DHS Requests $300 Million To Purchase Even More Devices That Don't Work
Re: Sucker for a salesman
I don't think the politicians are the suckers in this story.
On the post: DHS Requests $300 Million To Purchase Even More Devices That Don't Work
Re:
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Good god. Now you've a monkey fetish too.
Err, the only reasonable conclusion is that no one owns the copyrights, since any creative expression in them was accomplished by an entity that has no legal right to their output (the monkeys).
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't agree on this one
If you couldn't claim it on a deserted island as the last surviving specimen of the human race, it ain't a right.
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Can't agree on this one
The internet is not a human right.
On the post: The Confusing Case Of Lovecraft's Copyrights
This. Is. Awesome
I guess the best thing to do, if you want to use Lovecraft's work, would be to pick a single story and research it through history to build a case, then cross your fingers and pray to whatever elder god you fancy might be listening.
On the post: YouTube Kills Lady Gaga's YouTube Channel For Copyright Violations
Re: Re: Re: "And, it may be true that...
All law is violence, at its heart.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re:
I want more people to be confrontational towards the assholes in government who think they own us. You won't change anything by knuckling under now and then complaining after the fact; the people who you are protesting are the same people who will hear your complaint and decide its merits.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re:
If you mean the airlines, I agree. At least then we can decide to vote with our dollars and choose the airline who treats us the best.
But if you mean the government, I think you're off base. Saying it's okay for them to violate your rights in one situation, because you can choose to put yourself in different situation instead is a slippery slope. The TSA is already starting to handle security for other forms of travel. What happens when they get around to all the other items on your list?
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Re: Re: Yeah, That'll Work
That falls under "accounting tricks". They like to pretend that they can increase wealth by increasing money, but reality is setting us straight now, isn't it?
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Yeah, That'll Work
It's certainly kicking our ass now.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re: Re:
You lick the boots of authority, or the terrorists win. That's the deal.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re:
Abbott retrieved her cell phone and was attempting to film her daughter being screened. I advised Abbott to put her cell phone away. Again, Abbott was verbally abusive.
"Disorderly Conduct" can be translated as "contempt of cop" these days.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re:
Stop whining already."
That's a very good point you make.
"Once again, if making black people sit at the back of the bus is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to make black people sit at the back of the bus.
Stop whining already."
Can't argue with that line of thinking at all.
"Once again, if rounding up Jews is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to round up Jews.
Stop whining already."
You've certainly backed me into a logical corner there. I don't see any way to assail your iron-clad premise. Kudos to you, sir!
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if there were a copyright on the pictures (and there's not), Mike's use is fair. He isn't going to "go broke" unless sending the words "LOL! No." back to Caters is somehow prohibitively expensive now.
On the post: Killing The Golden Goose: Is Hollywood To Blame For Netflix's Poorly Thought Out Massive Price Hike?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Killing The Golden Goose: Is Hollywood To Blame For Netflix's Poorly Thought Out Massive Price Hike?
Re: Re:
2. SubSonic
3. Torrents
Your own personal Netflix. Hallelujah.
On the post: Killing The Golden Goose: Is Hollywood To Blame For Netflix's Poorly Thought Out Massive Price Hike?
Re:
So let me see if I have your "basic" economics straight:
1. People will pay X dollars a month for a Netflix-like service.
2. People will NOT pay 2X dollars a month for a Netflix-like service.
3. The content companies will force Netflix to raise their rates to 2X in order to pay onerous new licensing fees.
4. Netflix will lose customers and go out of business.
(So far, we're on the same page, but then you continue with:)
5. New companies will enter the market and charge 2X for their Netflix-like service.
6. ???
7. Profit.
Can you elaborate on what happens in step 6?
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re:
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
Because unlike her, we think discussion entails actually talking to people.
Next >>