I have recently signed up for a StatusNet account, in the anticipation of the exodus of Twitter. :) Now if only Tweetdeck for Android would support it.
ARGH, we need an edit button... sorry for the wall of text above. Here is a more legible reply:
It all depends on the use you find in social networking. For me it is an outlet to vent my frustration and happiness, and to showcase other people's wittiness.
For others it's a news source.
Yet another uses it to keep in touch with friends.
And for curmudgeons, they all suck.
On the topic of "sheep", your opinion isn't very new either, who's opinion are you following here? The Anti-Mike's? (just kidding)
Of course you'll mostly find people here who tend to agree with the viewpoints displayed on Techdirt. For a large part because they make sense (but that's my own opinion), and for another large part, birds of a feather flock together. Doesn't make anyone mindless sheep in any way/shape or form.
If you present your differing opinion in a clear way, with evidence, you'll find that you'll get a discussion, and even people agreeing with you.
If you just post "Nope, your wrong, losers"(sic), of course you'll get a flame back, as it doesn't add to the discussion. It's all in the way it's presented.
And on the topic of who owns the account, goes back to who created the account. If it was you, then you own it. If it was your boss, he or she owns it.
It all depends on the use you find in social networking. For me it is an outlet to vent my frustration and happiness, and to showcase other people's wittiness.
For others it's a news source.
Yet another uses it to keep in touch with friends.
And for curmudgeons, they all suck.
On the topic of "sheep", your opinion isn't very new either, who's opinion are you following here? The Anti-Mike's? (just kidding)
Of course you'll mostly find people here who tend to agree with the viewpoints displayed on Techdirt. For a large part because they make sense (but that's my own opinion), and for another large part, birds of a feather flock together. Doesn't make anyone mindless sheep in any way/shape or form.
If you present your differing opinion in a clear way, with evidence, you'll find that you'll get a discussion, and even people agreeing with you.
If you just post "Nope, your wrong, losers"(sic), of course you'll get a flame back, as it doesn't add to the discussion. It's all in the way it's presented.
And on the topic of who owns the account, goes back to who created the account. If it was you, then you own it. If it was your boss, he or she owns it.
Sesame Street encourages kids to think for themselves and to learn.
NASCAR is just entertainment for which you don't have to think.
Just sit there and watch those drivers make left hand turns, eat your popcorn, drink your beer, and get fat.
Watson's use of these material would be like us remembering a passage of a story, or a definition in an encyclopedia. Is Merriam Webster's going to sue me because I remembers the definition and spelling of encyclopedia for infringing on their copyright?
Or would a writer be wanting money from me every time I think of a passage of a book and explain it to a co-worker?
Would a songwriter want money from me, when I'm singing a song I remember? Oh wait, the RIAA probably does want that. Bad example.
Or they are trying to give Youtube the bad rep for being a harbour of pirated material, when in fact they have put up those materials.
Or they are trying to inflate the piracy-numbers, to have the real numbers appear to approach their fantasy numbers they use in their reports.
etc.
It's the just as much fun as CBS putting a video up on CBS.com and then pull it for infringement of copyright owned by CBS. http://i.imgur.com/6xXwT.png
I don't support companies that bully their customers. So the sooner Sony bites the dust, the better. And yes I know that means no Playstation, but that's no skin of my back.
It also means no Sony music, no Sony films, no Sony cameras nor TVs, etc... Still, that doesn't bother me.
1) Don't be condescending.
2) I'm not a US citizen, so the USA constitution does not apply to me. (Regardless where the site is hosted)
3) I am a firm believer of freedom of speech and will defend anyone's right, even if I don't agree with someone. But in this case I figured that it was an unwarranted and unwelcome 'contribution' (if you want to call it as such) to the discussion. In fact it seems to have meant as a willful inflammation of the community. We, as in most of the techdirt readers and commenters have debunked that particular statement many times over in the past. And it keeps getting back. And I just decided to flag it for report.
Perhaps it wasn't the right move, but I'm sick and tired of these kinds of trolls that equate a civil matter with a highly criminal matter, such as rape and theft. Stop conflating and further complicating an already complex issue by adding needless and woefully wrong rhetoric into the mix.
I'm one of the person's who clicked "report" on both posts, because it was incredibly offensive to me, and also not at all on topic. Equating copyright infringement with rape, how dare he.
There are four types of people in the world.
The unknowingly ignorant
the knowingly ignorant
the unknowingly smart
the knowingly smart.
I peg you at the second option.
You know that you are ignorant, and you bask in it.
Because you are deliberately ignoring what we are saying. We keep saying that you can't compare non-scarce goods (like digital downloads) with scarce goods (like cars and cds and purses and tvs and bank account information, and pin numbers and wallets).
And that this can't be the same as theft, as copyright infringement is treated differently in the lawbooks. In fact, one is a criminal offense (theft), and the other is a civil offense (copyright infringement).
Wait! So, one pro-copyright person is saying "Well, he can put it out there for free, because his stuff isn't worth much" and the other pro-copyright person is saying "well, he's a popular dj."...
So, what is he? An awful or a good dj?
But clearly you all have now seen that this business model would work for talentless hacks as well for talented people.
Why the heck are we arguing the same points over and over again on this blog, we're getting nowhere fast. Because the other side doesn't even want to listen.
The pro-copyright people will spout the same strawman arguments over and over and over again, meanwhile we try to educate them.
But they have closed their minds to our solutions, trying to refute them by saying that it works for artist X but wouldn't work for artist Y. Or that it's the same as rape, or they compare a non-scarce good to a scarce good, and argue that they be the same as well.
To the pro-copyright people, how many of you watched the Superbowl last night? How much did you pay to watch it?
They are putting it on tv for free (albeit ad-supported), in order to have people become fans, and have those fans then go pay for tickets to visit the games or buy apparel.
How is THAT any different from what David Guetta is saying here?
On the post: Twitter Decides To Kill Its Ecosystem: How Not To Run A Modern Company
StatusNet / Identi.ca
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: This just in!
FTFY :)
On the post: Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'
Re:
It all depends on the use you find in social networking. For me it is an outlet to vent my frustration and happiness, and to showcase other people's wittiness.
For others it's a news source.
Yet another uses it to keep in touch with friends.
And for curmudgeons, they all suck.
On the topic of "sheep", your opinion isn't very new either, who's opinion are you following here? The Anti-Mike's? (just kidding)
Of course you'll mostly find people here who tend to agree with the viewpoints displayed on Techdirt. For a large part because they make sense (but that's my own opinion), and for another large part, birds of a feather flock together. Doesn't make anyone mindless sheep in any way/shape or form.
If you present your differing opinion in a clear way, with evidence, you'll find that you'll get a discussion, and even people agreeing with you.
If you just post "Nope, your wrong, losers"(sic), of course you'll get a flame back, as it doesn't add to the discussion. It's all in the way it's presented.
And on the topic of who owns the account, goes back to who created the account. If it was you, then you own it. If it was your boss, he or she owns it.
On the post: Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'
Re:
On the post: Minecraft Creator Says 'No Such Thing As A Lost Sale'
Re: Re: Re: Re: The space ships are coming!
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re:
BTW, it's "you're" as in "you are" not "your".
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
NASCAR is just entertainment for which you don't have to think.
Just sit there and watch those drivers make left hand turns, eat your popcorn, drink your beer, and get fat.
On the post: The Five Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed The Whistleblower Bill
Re:
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Copyright on 'thoughts'?
Or would a writer be wanting money from me every time I think of a passage of a book and explain it to a co-worker?
Would a songwriter want money from me, when I'm singing a song I remember? Oh wait, the RIAA probably does want that. Bad example.
On the post: TSA Refuses To Provide Body Scanner Info In Lawsuit... Claiming Copyright Prevents Handing Over The Info
Re: Re:
On the post: Evidence Suggests Major Film Studios Uploading Movie Clips To YouTube... Pretending To Be Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or they are trying to inflate the piracy-numbers, to have the real numbers appear to approach their fantasy numbers they use in their reports.
etc.
It's the just as much fun as CBS putting a video up on CBS.com and then pull it for infringement of copyright owned by CBS.
http://i.imgur.com/6xXwT.png
On the post: Fake Sony PS3 VP Tricked Into Tweeting PS3 Security Key
Re: Re:
It also means no Sony music, no Sony films, no Sony cameras nor TVs, etc... Still, that doesn't bother me.
On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Don't be condescending.
2) I'm not a US citizen, so the USA constitution does not apply to me. (Regardless where the site is hosted)
3) I am a firm believer of freedom of speech and will defend anyone's right, even if I don't agree with someone. But in this case I figured that it was an unwarranted and unwelcome 'contribution' (if you want to call it as such) to the discussion. In fact it seems to have meant as a willful inflammation of the community. We, as in most of the techdirt readers and commenters have debunked that particular statement many times over in the past. And it keeps getting back. And I just decided to flag it for report.
Perhaps it wasn't the right move, but I'm sick and tired of these kinds of trolls that equate a civil matter with a highly criminal matter, such as rape and theft. Stop conflating and further complicating an already complex issue by adding needless and woefully wrong rhetoric into the mix.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
The unknowingly ignorant
the knowingly ignorant
the unknowingly smart
the knowingly smart.
I peg you at the second option.
You know that you are ignorant, and you bask in it.
Because you are deliberately ignoring what we are saying. We keep saying that you can't compare non-scarce goods (like digital downloads) with scarce goods (like cars and cds and purses and tvs and bank account information, and pin numbers and wallets).
And that this can't be the same as theft, as copyright infringement is treated differently in the lawbooks. In fact, one is a criminal offense (theft), and the other is a civil offense (copyright infringement).
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Attitude
So, what is he? An awful or a good dj?
But clearly you all have now seen that this business model would work for talentless hacks as well for talented people.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Pointless battles going on in here
The pro-copyright people will spout the same strawman arguments over and over and over again, meanwhile we try to educate them.
But they have closed their minds to our solutions, trying to refute them by saying that it works for artist X but wouldn't work for artist Y. Or that it's the same as rape, or they compare a non-scarce good to a scarce good, and argue that they be the same as well.
To the pro-copyright people, how many of you watched the Superbowl last night? How much did you pay to watch it?
They are putting it on tv for free (albeit ad-supported), in order to have people become fans, and have those fans then go pay for tickets to visit the games or buy apparel.
How is THAT any different from what David Guetta is saying here?
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: No Big Deal
He has fans all over the globe.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re:
Music on your website isn't a scarce good, and you don't HAVE to ask money for that.
Nice try, Bob, better luck next time.
Next >>