Re: Re: Misplaced blame... but not where you think
"Gabriel, I don't see where Mike insisted that this person stop making porn. I think he suggested that if this guy thinks that porn is hurting children (which would appear to be the case judging by the fact that he has made the comments that he made) then maybe he should come to the conclusion that he should not be producing the stuff, much as you suggested."
-Anonymous Coward
Ah... but the porn-maker is not making the porn for the children. He's making it for adults... well, in theory, at least. Honestly, he's making it for anyone who'll pay for it. He's only going to admit to making it for adults.
My point is that the porn is filling a demand. It's only in more strict and conservative cultures that porn carries the stigma it does here in the US. There is a legitimate market for this. So if we (as a single part of a larger community) decide that we don't want our kids to have access to it, should we be able to make the moral decision that no one should have access to it? That it shouldn't exist at all?
If you like gangster rap, how would you feel if I made and enforced the decision that you can't have it just because I don't like the idea of kids hearing it? After all, it's "for the kids" that you're being denied the choice of whether or not you listen to it. Same with porn.
So why should this porn-maker have to decide to not provide this product (that has legitimate demand) just because a small part of the market doesn't like it?
BUT... to the point of the article: we already have laws that restrict the distribution of porn to minors. The question becomes 'who's the distributor here'. Google/Yahoo, or the site that posts the content? And that's for the courts to decide. Personally, I think Google/Yahoo have no obligation to limit information. It's up to us as responsible and enlightened people (sic) to decide what information to allow our children to access, and to help them on interpret it.
I absolutely agree that blaming Google and Yahoo for kids accessing porn is wrong and misplaced...
But Mike, so too is blaming the porn-maker.
"If he's so concerned about children accessing porn perhaps he should, I don't know... stop making it? Just a thought."
That sounds awful close to censorship. Now, I'm not saying that if this guy decides "hey, my stuff is hurting kids, I should stop", that it would be a bad thing. But insisting that he does is censorship.
As always, this blame and responsibility should be placed back to those who truly are responsible for the raising of children (and all things that go with it)... the parents.
But that's been beaten to death around here, so I'll digress. I just wanted to voice the opinion that shifting blame to the porn-maker is just as invalid and wrong as blaming Google or Yahoo.
Two things that I see these "big guys" doing wrong...
1) Assuming that just because this little upstart company can do it, so can they. I'm sure a lot of people said "eh, it's a novel concept, but I don't think it'll last" when Netflix start up. Even though they're still around, that doesn't mean that it's easy to do.
2) Not offering anything new. You're entering into a market that is already well established by a single company. Then you ask everyone to use your service instead. But you don't give a reason why to switch. If some of the above-mentioned stories are true about the service you offer, you're giving reasons not to switch. And you're surprised that no one switched? Seriously... this is where innovation is not only a good thing, but absolutely vital.
Now... as far as the streaming business goes... I'm not sure that it'll really take off as long as it's tied to any one company's hardware. Yeah, iTunes is successful, but how many people shop it when they don't own an iPod? Now, granted, there's a whole heckova lot of iPods out there. But still, I don't see myself buying yet another gadget to hook up to my TV just to pay a monthly premium to stream a movie.
Yeah, you could hook your computer your tv... in fact most new HD tv's come with a computer-in port (I'm typing on one now) and stream thataway, but the vast majority of home movie watchers aren't going to know how to or want to do that. Most of them are going to have an older TV and not want to upgrade just to stream.
I'd be more impressed and hopeful if they offered a generic stream (that you subscribe to) but allowed the secondary market produce the hardware to put it on your TV. Then we'd see some competitive innovation... or just more patent lawsuits. :s
Again, people seem to missing the possibility that this is a legitimate lawsuit, just focused at the wrong target.
If what this contractor claims is true (that his work was fine and the customer admitted that they made no such claim), and if Rip Off Report won't take down the false claims, then a lawsuit is the right way to go.
Now I know Google doesn't post these things, it only gathers together what's already out there. Therefore, Google isn't responsible for policing the articles it indexes. So it's up to the individual sites to remove content that contains libelous statements about someone. And if they fail that responsibility, then they should be punished for bad journalism... or in some cases, libel.
I think this confusion is partially due to the headline of this post. Yes, this guy is "just another lawsuit against Google" and yes, he is targeting the wrong party... but that doesn't mean that he's automatically guilty of whatever those websites accuse him of. He's not suing because he "doesn't like" the content, he's suing because the content (according to him) is a lie.
In my opinion, it's pretty closed-minded and, well, wrong to automatically assume someone is guilty just because he resorts to a lawsuit. Are we so cynical that we have thrown out the possibility of giving the benefit of the doubt?
"And don't give me the crap about 'if you don't like it then just don't pay for it'. That argument doesn't work because there aren't any alternatives (aside from satellite providers, who are guilty of the same thing)."
-B-Man
I see where you're coming from, but we're talking about censorship here, not bad business decisions. Don't make it sound like a-la-carte is some noble cause here. It's not your right to have Cable TV, it's your choice. I didn't like that a healthy version of cigarettes was never introduced (if you believe the stories that Big Tobacco had created one, but shelved it)... but you know what? I didn't bitch about it, I quit smoking.
I will say "if you don't like it, then don't pay for it" because I don't have the false sense of entitlement that you seem to have. That argument does work when you realize that its not written anywhere "and thou shalt have cable tv to your liking".
A business can offer their services in any way they want (as long as they don't violate laws in doing so). Like when Henry Ford announced his Model-T. He told people who asked: "Yes, you can have it in any color you want... as long as you want black".
If you read his rebuttle on the linked report, the contractor says that he contacted the supposed complainer and that person said they made no such claim.
IF what this contractor says is true, the problem is that he is trying to remove a lie and is getting no where. So if Ripoff won't remove it, legal action would be the next step. But suing Google is still the wrong way to go.
I'm sure he just wants Google to remove the indexing to get the visibility lowered about this... which has utterly failed now that this "news" is now all over the place.
No, bitchslap them back into thier place of regulation and neuter them for getting uppity and pandering to the money of religious and "moral" interests.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-The Declaration of Independence
Yeah, thought this might apply again, soon.
-The infamous Joe
You know... I was thinking about that earlier, but I couldn't remember which Revolutionary document it was. Thanks!
3. FREE SPEECH! Everyone cries free speech whenever anyone suggests deciding what should or should not be allowed. But what about those wronged providers? Does free speech allow me to show my video on the air or does NBC et. al., just laugh in my face? What about the show Firefly (plug in your own favorite)? We didn't decide to stop watching THEY decided for us, even though there may have been literally millions still tuning into every episode.
-writer55
I'm missing your point here. Everyone cries "free speech" whenever censorship is mentioned, because that's the heart of the matter. Censorship destroys one group or another's freedom to express their opinion.
The common counter to this is "people have the right to not be offended." However, there are two things to remember when you're dealing with "free speech" and the First Amendment...
1) You don't have any right to say what you want...
2) You don't have any right to not be offended...
Free speech means that the Government will not enact a law that limits your ability to say what you want. And it has nothing to with whether or not you’re offended.
So if the government (FCC) enacts laws to limit what is said (shown) based on "morals", "offensiveness" or "decency", the problem isn't why those laws were enacted... it's that they were enacted at all.
As to your statements about Firefly (great show, IMO)... you don't have "the right" to the shows you like. As the receiver of these shows, you don't get any more say than the broadcasters give you. If they don't want to air a show (i.e., provide a service), then they have no obligation to. The "free speech" here would be that if they want to show it, the Government can't say "no".
"hmmm, 9 times out of 10 the lyrics are in the CD insert..."
-Daniel
Ok... what about that song you just purchased on iTunes, or that 2nd hand CD you bought at your local non-chain music store that doesn't have the insert? Or that "otherwise ligitimatly aquired" digital copy of a song? Or if you lose your insert or can't find it when you're curious about the lyrics.
How long until Yahoo (being the only "ligit" provider of lyrics) starts charging you to access that info through thier service? That's why the independant sites are so important. They understand what they're there for. A simple distribution of information. Not to get rich, not to monoplize that info, just to provide access to it.
Welcome to corporate america where everything must have a dollar sign attached to it. Anyone else curious about why the rest of the world views us as greedy, money-driven bastards?
There's just too many ins and outs for us to make a prediction. This is one that will be told by the courts. Of course, that doesn't stop us from tossing our pennies about, so here's my pair...
1) If Yahoo was told by the government to do this, you can bet it was backed up with a threat of "or else we'll boot you from here". That means they made the moral decision to turn over a human being (or, more accuratley, a large group of human beings) for a market place. Bucks over people.
"It's not for Yahoo, a company, to decide if a law is "right or wrong" but rather to just follow it."
-Jack Sombra
You're correct... but you missed one point. It is for that company to decide to do business in such an immoral environment. Are the 30 peices of silver worth it? Apparently so.
2) I know the UN can't do anything about Yahoo's business practice, but...
" 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'
UN Declaration of Human Rights- which obviously sounds nice but doesn't mean shit. And certainly doesn't apply to China...a member of the UN. This isn't a business issue. It's a moral issue and an issue of conscience. "
-Tashi
This brings up an excellent point (and question). Thanks Tashi.
This is obviously a public issue. This isn't obscure. So why isn't the UN sanctioning, or at least publicly speaking against, one of their members breaking thier rules. Hell, if I was a member of a club and I blatenly broke the rules, they'd kick me out.
Maybe (and watch out for the dripping cynicism here) it's because the whole world knows the UN is toothless and impotent. Maybe it's known that the UN hasn't the balls to truly step up and defend the values it claims to hold dear. Hell, if it did, we Americans would be screwed. And rightly so.
"Attaching some penalties to that behavior likely would result in those companies making double dog sure they know exactly how their dollars are being spent."
-Haywood
"If you are a company and your ad is found on spyware, you get a fine.
You are not going to stop advertising because of this fine. you're going to use a more reputed company, who wont sublet your advertising on spyware."
-fuse5k
I was agreeing with everything, but as I typed it up, I realized that it wasn't as simple as it first seemed. First, the companies aren't the ones breaking the law here. They aren't writing the code for the spyware. They're just being lazy by saying "here's my money, go advertise me". Nothing illegal in being lazy... as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... oh, wait... yeah.
But then, we also have the issue of responsibility for an agent's action. If I act on your behalf, you usually have responsibility for such actions. Now, there are many many legal convolutions to this, but that's the short of it.
So what we really have is this: Companies should adhere to the moral obligation to not harm their customers. This brings us back to the point of them checking out where their advertising money is going. Should it be legally enforced with fines? I think, since they can't seem police themselves, yes.
"If a few legitamate companies go bust over this, is it really that bad. If they dont shape up then ship them out."
-fuse5k
I couldn't agree more with this statement. We have become a society so afraid to step on anyone's toes that we are stomping on the collective feet of the masses. Maybe some "tough love" is what's needed. This is a prime example of that. Also, its a prime example of us litigating responsibility away.
So, a message to these companies: You're spending the money, XYZ Company, be responsible for what you're spending it on. We'd like to let you handle this on your own without us having to slap you on the hand every time, but you don't seem capable of doing that. But, I won't lie... this will hurt you more than it'll hurt us.
"This is why the internet is both good and bad: People dont' take the time to actually READ, they just watch videos and come up with half assed opinions."
-Carlos Menstealia
Kinda like when people read the second comment in a forum then post the half-assed opinion that they're the first one to point out an error. And are actually like number 10 or so.
"This article does not explore the idea that Mencia is guilty of a crime."
-Dave
I think I misspoke on that point again... I shouldn't have said "my 'comedy' deserves the same legal protection"... what I meant was that my 'comedy' would deserve the same protection period... legal or otherwise. Sorry about that. It's almost time to go home and my I'm shutting down a bit. I'll try to keep it together a bit more.
But why should #2 of my list speak volumes? Being paid for your comedy is not the cause or result of its humor. If I had some magical mythical joke that made every man woman and child in this world laugh, I could give it away for free and it would still be as funny.
Whether or not I'm a professional comedian has nothing to do with how funny I am.
"If the stealing comedic material becomes an accepted practice, then the artform will die as comedians will no longer be able to make a living by developing original material."
-dave
Two problems with that statement:
1) The artform will not die... it will be changed. It will become more of a "who can tell it better". And if its a joke that's made in your style, then other's will know it's stolen if someone else tries to use it.
2) I have heard from more than one comedian that it's not the joke, but how you tell it. Therefore, if you're good, you can have any of your jokes, and tell it better than the punk that stole it, and be a better (and better paid) comic.
"It might help to know that I used to perform amateur comedy--and I had a comic steal material from me. So, I do take the entire thing somewhat personally."
-dave
Actually, I guessed as much. I understand that it's frustrating and insulting when someone else steals your jokes... hell, I've had friends do that many many times through out my life; little one-liner's and such... But I don't go calling them out in public to have a pissing contest on stage about who did what.
All I'm saying is that instead of taking it so personally that you attack anyone who thinks differently than you, how expressing yourself in a respectful and mature fashion. If you had said much of your latter posts in the beginning, instead of (in so many words) calling me an Idiot, I might have done more to reexamine my stand instead of spending so much time defending my points. You shoot yourself in the foot when you attack people personally.
"Correct me if I'm wrong; but it seemed obvious to me that you were attempting to mock the idea that a comedian's material should not be stolen by another "comedian" by attempting to draw a parallel between your earlier remark and the material which professional comedians work to develop and perform."
-Dave
No, I'm mocking the crying about it in public. Look... I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to say whether it's illegal to use someone else's comedic material. All I'm saying is why aren't these comedians taking him to court for copyright infringement? Instead of having little pissing contests during what should have been someone else's show.
"It is this opinion which I took offense to and responded to. I referred to your remark as "stupid" because of the vast differences between comedic material and an insignificant and inane comment on a message board."
-Dave
I'd like to talk about differences between "professional comedy" and "blog posts"...
1) The medium of delivery... mine is written here, Ned's/Joe's are spoken on stage.
2) The pay... i obviously don't get paid for mine.
3) The quality of humor... this is the one that I'm responding to here since its a matter of opinion.
You chose to insult me over the difference in our opinions about what's funny... real mature there. And you choose to use words like "insignificant" and "inane" to describe my ideas... Which is fine when it's expressing your opinion. But you are trying to invalidate my opinion and supplant it with your own. And you're trying to do it by belittling me. Again, not very mature.
As far as the legality of it all... I admit that I misinterpreted your words. I apologize for that.
When you said "you guys don't know the difference between..." I thought you were implying that while the Stolen Jokes of Mencia were worthy of legal action, my joke about the Streisand Effect wasn't. I was wrong in my interpretation of your words, and again, I apologize.
"being a comedian is not a profession...its a career you idiot"
-steve
pro·fes·sion (phonetic spelling did not translate) n.
1. a. An occupation or career: "One of the highest compliments a child can pay a parent is to choose his or her profession"(Joan Nathan).
b. An occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that requires considerable training and specialized study.
c. The body of qualified persons in an occupation or field: members of the teaching profession.
(http://www.answers.com/profession&r=67)
Responding to a few different posts here, so bear with me.
"Joe Rogan did not interrupt "Calros's" show. here is what actually happened, this is taken directly from Joe Rogans blog."
-ned
Yeah, sorry about that... I was going off the video I saw on Break.Com yesterday and I formed the wrong impression. Yup... I WAS WRONG! Everyone can read that here and now.
So anyways, yeah, NedCarlos wasn't interrupted and actually did the interrupting. This means that Joe isn't unprofessional for interrupting as I had previously said. But, Joe could have easily stopped the ensuing pissyfight by telling NedCarlos to get the hell off the stage if he was hosting.
which leads to this...
"If a man stole a wallet on the subway, would not say anything to prevent a scene?"
-argumentative clown
Ooohhh kaaayy... What does stealing a wallet on a train have to do with this?
If you mean "answer the challenge when it's issued"... ok, I can roll with that. Yeah, Joe can save face and not "admit to being a pussy" (or whatever NedCarlos was accusing him of)... or he could have easily turned it around and made NedCarlos look like a childish fool up there (see below). If Joe is half the comic that people here believe him to be (I have no opinion on him, by the way. I've never heard his material... stolen or otherwise), then he could have twisted NedCarlos up and tossed him away. Then NedCarlos would be on stage looking like an embarrassed tool.
But instead he played right into NedCarlos' hand and got into a going-nowhere argument in public. With both of them looking like tools. It just happens that NedCarlos came out on the lower end after this one.
"Mencia is paid to perform original material. The comedy clubs should sue him for breach of contract."
-argumentative clown
And you have a copy of this breached contract? Mencia is paid to perform stand-up comedy... no one ever said that it had to be original. That's a matter for copyright law.
"Rogan should be lauded for showing character and courage."
-argumentative clown
In my opinion, Rogan would have shown character and courage by swallowing his pride over being called a pussy by Mencia and said "I'm not going to argue here Ned. I'm going to let this guy do his bit, as the fine people here paid to see". He would have come off looking like solid gold and Mencia would have looked like a childish prick.
"If you like Mencia go flush yourself down a fucking toilet you tasteless fuck."
Yeah, I don't even have to try on this one. Moving on...
While typing all this, I checked, and like 3 more people posted how I was wrong about the interruption...
THANK YOU! I KNOW! I retract that part of my comment AND MY GOD HAVE MERCY ON MY SOUL!
Seriously people... read the comments before tossing your two cents in. 9 times outta 10, someone else has already made the point. I don't mind being told when I'm wrong, but (to quote a funny movie)... "yes, ::sigh::, I got the memo".
"You guys don't understand the difference between though-provoking, laugh-inducing material people use to make a living and stupid comments. That's funny. Why don't you try out your Barbara material on stage and see how far you get?"
-Dave
I'm going to assume that was directed at my last comment. Correct me if I'm wrong...
And you don't understand the difference between sarcastic parody and sincere comments. Seriously... does an online, written joke have to have "j/k" or "lol" or ";)" after it before it's taken with levity?
Besides... if I was serious about "my material" being stolen... it wouldn't matter if you found it funny or not. The law wouldn't make that distinction, since humor is a matter of personal taste.
And the fact that you're attacking me with the "stupid comments" comment means that you have nothing to say about the validity of my comments aside from the fact that you disagree. An Ad Hominem attack demonstrates that you have nothing to add to the conversation.
At least Joe has the debating wherewithal to know to prove or disprove a point, not the person he's arguing against. I may think he's foolish for letting NedCarlos bait him to such a public display of childish fighting, but I respect the fact he didn't turn it into a mud-slinging contest to see who could insult who more.
On the post: Porn Company Exec Blames Google & Yahoo For Kids Accessing Porn
Re: Re: Misplaced blame... but not where you think
Ah... but the porn-maker is not making the porn for the children. He's making it for adults... well, in theory, at least. Honestly, he's making it for anyone who'll pay for it. He's only going to admit to making it for adults.
My point is that the porn is filling a demand. It's only in more strict and conservative cultures that porn carries the stigma it does here in the US. There is a legitimate market for this. So if we (as a single part of a larger community) decide that we don't want our kids to have access to it, should we be able to make the moral decision that no one should have access to it? That it shouldn't exist at all?
If you like gangster rap, how would you feel if I made and enforced the decision that you can't have it just because I don't like the idea of kids hearing it? After all, it's "for the kids" that you're being denied the choice of whether or not you listen to it. Same with porn.
So why should this porn-maker have to decide to not provide this product (that has legitimate demand) just because a small part of the market doesn't like it?
BUT... to the point of the article: we already have laws that restrict the distribution of porn to minors. The question becomes 'who's the distributor here'. Google/Yahoo, or the site that posts the content? And that's for the courts to decide. Personally, I think Google/Yahoo have no obligation to limit information. It's up to us as responsible and enlightened people (sic) to decide what information to allow our children to access, and to help them on interpret it.
On the post: Porn Company Exec Blames Google & Yahoo For Kids Accessing Porn
Misplaced blame... but not where you think
But Mike, so too is blaming the porn-maker.
That sounds awful close to censorship. Now, I'm not saying that if this guy decides "hey, my stuff is hurting kids, I should stop", that it would be a bad thing. But insisting that he does is censorship.
As always, this blame and responsibility should be placed back to those who truly are responsible for the raising of children (and all things that go with it)... the parents.
But that's been beaten to death around here, so I'll digress. I just wanted to voice the opinion that shifting blame to the porn-maker is just as invalid and wrong as blaming Google or Yahoo.
On the post: Amazon Quietly Dumps DVD Rental Business; Guess Netflix Isn't So Easy To Beat
No big suprise
1) Assuming that just because this little upstart company can do it, so can they. I'm sure a lot of people said "eh, it's a novel concept, but I don't think it'll last" when Netflix start up. Even though they're still around, that doesn't mean that it's easy to do.
2) Not offering anything new. You're entering into a market that is already well established by a single company. Then you ask everyone to use your service instead. But you don't give a reason why to switch. If some of the above-mentioned stories are true about the service you offer, you're giving reasons not to switch. And you're surprised that no one switched? Seriously... this is where innovation is not only a good thing, but absolutely vital.
Now... as far as the streaming business goes... I'm not sure that it'll really take off as long as it's tied to any one company's hardware. Yeah, iTunes is successful, but how many people shop it when they don't own an iPod? Now, granted, there's a whole heckova lot of iPods out there. But still, I don't see myself buying yet another gadget to hook up to my TV just to pay a monthly premium to stream a movie.
Yeah, you could hook your computer your tv... in fact most new HD tv's come with a computer-in port (I'm typing on one now) and stream thataway, but the vast majority of home movie watchers aren't going to know how to or want to do that. Most of them are going to have an older TV and not want to upgrade just to stream.
I'd be more impressed and hopeful if they offered a generic stream (that you subscribe to) but allowed the secondary market produce the hardware to put it on your TV. Then we'd see some competitive innovation... or just more patent lawsuits. :s
On the post: Another Day, Another Lawsuit Against Google For Indexing Content Someone Doesn't Like
Re: Well you built, you live with it ;)
If what this contractor claims is true (that his work was fine and the customer admitted that they made no such claim), and if Rip Off Report won't take down the false claims, then a lawsuit is the right way to go.
Now I know Google doesn't post these things, it only gathers together what's already out there. Therefore, Google isn't responsible for policing the articles it indexes. So it's up to the individual sites to remove content that contains libelous statements about someone. And if they fail that responsibility, then they should be punished for bad journalism... or in some cases, libel.
I think this confusion is partially due to the headline of this post. Yes, this guy is "just another lawsuit against Google" and yes, he is targeting the wrong party... but that doesn't mean that he's automatically guilty of whatever those websites accuse him of. He's not suing because he "doesn't like" the content, he's suing because the content (according to him) is a lie.
In my opinion, it's pretty closed-minded and, well, wrong to automatically assume someone is guilty just because he resorts to a lawsuit. Are we so cynical that we have thrown out the possibility of giving the benefit of the doubt?
On the post: FCC Wants To Decide What You Can Watch On Cable
Re: Give me a la carte asap
I see where you're coming from, but we're talking about censorship here, not bad business decisions. Don't make it sound like a-la-carte is some noble cause here. It's not your right to have Cable TV, it's your choice. I didn't like that a healthy version of cigarettes was never introduced (if you believe the stories that Big Tobacco had created one, but shelved it)... but you know what? I didn't bitch about it, I quit smoking.
I will say "if you don't like it, then don't pay for it" because I don't have the false sense of entitlement that you seem to have. That argument does work when you realize that its not written anywhere "and thou shalt have cable tv to your liking".
A business can offer their services in any way they want (as long as they don't violate laws in doing so). Like when Henry Ford announced his Model-T. He told people who asked: "Yes, you can have it in any color you want... as long as you want black".
Now... let's all swing back to topic here.
On the post: Another Day, Another Lawsuit Against Google For Indexing Content Someone Doesn't Like
Re: Re: #2 no more
IF what this contractor says is true, the problem is that he is trying to remove a lie and is getting no where. So if Ripoff won't remove it, legal action would be the next step. But suing Google is still the wrong way to go.
I'm sure he just wants Google to remove the indexing to get the visibility lowered about this... which has utterly failed now that this "news" is now all over the place.
Oops. Didn't know that Streisand builds homes.
On the post: FCC Wants To Decide What You Can Watch On Cable
Re:
No, bitchslap them back into thier place of regulation and neuter them for getting uppity and pandering to the money of religious and "moral" interests.
On the post: FCC Wants To Decide What You Can Watch On Cable
Re: Thought provoking.
You know... I was thinking about that earlier, but I couldn't remember which Revolutionary document it was. Thanks!
On the post: FCC Wants To Decide What You Can Watch On Cable
Re:
I'm missing your point here. Everyone cries "free speech" whenever censorship is mentioned, because that's the heart of the matter. Censorship destroys one group or another's freedom to express their opinion.
The common counter to this is "people have the right to not be offended." However, there are two things to remember when you're dealing with "free speech" and the First Amendment...
1) You don't have any right to say what you want...
2) You don't have any right to not be offended...
Free speech means that the Government will not enact a law that limits your ability to say what you want. And it has nothing to with whether or not you’re offended.
So if the government (FCC) enacts laws to limit what is said (shown) based on "morals", "offensiveness" or "decency", the problem isn't why those laws were enacted... it's that they were enacted at all.
As to your statements about Firefly (great show, IMO)... you don't have "the right" to the shows you like. As the receiver of these shows, you don't get any more say than the broadcasters give you. If they don't want to air a show (i.e., provide a service), then they have no obligation to. The "free speech" here would be that if they want to show it, the Government can't say "no".
On the post: FCC Wants To Decide What You Can Watch On Cable
On the post: Yahoo Licenses Lyrics... Meaning More Pressure Coming To Unofficial Lyrics Sites
Re:
Ok... what about that song you just purchased on iTunes, or that 2nd hand CD you bought at your local non-chain music store that doesn't have the insert? Or that "otherwise ligitimatly aquired" digital copy of a song? Or if you lose your insert or can't find it when you're curious about the lyrics.
How long until Yahoo (being the only "ligit" provider of lyrics) starts charging you to access that info through thier service? That's why the independant sites are so important. They understand what they're there for. A simple distribution of information. Not to get rich, not to monoplize that info, just to provide access to it.
Welcome to corporate america where everything must have a dollar sign attached to it. Anyone else curious about why the rest of the world views us as greedy, money-driven bastards?
On the post: Wife Of Jailed Chinese Dissident Suing Yahoo For Handing Over His Info
Very slippery
1) If Yahoo was told by the government to do this, you can bet it was backed up with a threat of "or else we'll boot you from here". That means they made the moral decision to turn over a human being (or, more accuratley, a large group of human beings) for a market place. Bucks over people.
You're correct... but you missed one point. It is for that company to decide to do business in such an immoral environment. Are the 30 peices of silver worth it? Apparently so.
2) I know the UN can't do anything about Yahoo's business practice, but...
This brings up an excellent point (and question). Thanks Tashi.
This is obviously a public issue. This isn't obscure. So why isn't the UN sanctioning, or at least publicly speaking against, one of their members breaking thier rules. Hell, if I was a member of a club and I blatenly broke the rules, they'd kick me out.
Maybe (and watch out for the dripping cynicism here) it's because the whole world knows the UN is toothless and impotent. Maybe it's known that the UN hasn't the balls to truly step up and defend the values it claims to hold dear. Hell, if it did, we Americans would be screwed. And rightly so.
Who's next on the soap box?
On the post: Choking Spyware Off At The Source Sounds Nice, But Don't Count On It
Thank you...
I was agreeing with everything, but as I typed it up, I realized that it wasn't as simple as it first seemed. First, the companies aren't the ones breaking the law here. They aren't writing the code for the spyware. They're just being lazy by saying "here's my money, go advertise me". Nothing illegal in being lazy... as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... oh, wait... yeah.
But then, we also have the issue of responsibility for an agent's action. If I act on your behalf, you usually have responsibility for such actions. Now, there are many many legal convolutions to this, but that's the short of it.
So what we really have is this: Companies should adhere to the moral obligation to not harm their customers. This brings us back to the point of them checking out where their advertising money is going. Should it be legally enforced with fines? I think, since they can't seem police themselves, yes.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. We have become a society so afraid to step on anyone's toes that we are stomping on the collective feet of the masses. Maybe some "tough love" is what's needed. This is a prime example of that. Also, its a prime example of us litigating responsibility away.
So, a message to these companies: You're spending the money, XYZ Company, be responsible for what you're spending it on. We'd like to let you handle this on your own without us having to slap you on the hand every time, but you don't seem capable of doing that. But, I won't lie... this will hurt you more than it'll hurt us.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Re: What's Next?
Kinda like when people read the second comment in a forum then post the half-assed opinion that they're the first one to point out an error. And are actually like number 10 or so.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heh
I think I misspoke on that point again... I shouldn't have said "my 'comedy' deserves the same legal protection"... what I meant was that my 'comedy' would deserve the same protection period... legal or otherwise. Sorry about that. It's almost time to go home and my I'm shutting down a bit. I'll try to keep it together a bit more.
But why should #2 of my list speak volumes? Being paid for your comedy is not the cause or result of its humor. If I had some magical mythical joke that made every man woman and child in this world laugh, I could give it away for free and it would still be as funny.
Whether or not I'm a professional comedian has nothing to do with how funny I am.
Two problems with that statement:
1) The artform will not die... it will be changed. It will become more of a "who can tell it better". And if its a joke that's made in your style, then other's will know it's stolen if someone else tries to use it.
2) I have heard from more than one comedian that it's not the joke, but how you tell it. Therefore, if you're good, you can have any of your jokes, and tell it better than the punk that stole it, and be a better (and better paid) comic.
Actually, I guessed as much. I understand that it's frustrating and insulting when someone else steals your jokes... hell, I've had friends do that many many times through out my life; little one-liner's and such... But I don't go calling them out in public to have a pissing contest on stage about who did what.
All I'm saying is that instead of taking it so personally that you attack anyone who thinks differently than you, how expressing yourself in a respectful and mature fashion. If you had said much of your latter posts in the beginning, instead of (in so many words) calling me an Idiot, I might have done more to reexamine my stand instead of spending so much time defending my points. You shoot yourself in the foot when you attack people personally.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Re: Re: Heh
No, I'm mocking the crying about it in public. Look... I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to say whether it's illegal to use someone else's comedic material. All I'm saying is why aren't these comedians taking him to court for copyright infringement? Instead of having little pissing contests during what should have been someone else's show.
I'd like to talk about differences between "professional comedy" and "blog posts"...
1) The medium of delivery... mine is written here, Ned's/Joe's are spoken on stage.
2) The pay... i obviously don't get paid for mine.
3) The quality of humor... this is the one that I'm responding to here since its a matter of opinion.
You chose to insult me over the difference in our opinions about what's funny... real mature there. And you choose to use words like "insignificant" and "inane" to describe my ideas... Which is fine when it's expressing your opinion. But you are trying to invalidate my opinion and supplant it with your own. And you're trying to do it by belittling me. Again, not very mature.
As far as the legality of it all... I admit that I misinterpreted your words. I apologize for that.
When you said "you guys don't know the difference between..." I thought you were implying that while the Stolen Jokes of Mencia were worthy of legal action, my joke about the Streisand Effect wasn't. I was wrong in my interpretation of your words, and again, I apologize.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Mencia Sucks Balls
pro·fes·sion (phonetic spelling did not translate) n.
1. a. An occupation or career: "One of the highest compliments a child can pay a parent is to choose his or her profession"(Joan Nathan).
b. An occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that requires considerable training and specialized study.
c. The body of qualified persons in an occupation or field: members of the teaching profession.
(http://www.answers.com/profession&r=67)
Next?
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Re: What's Next?
Yeah, sorry about that... I was going off the video I saw on Break.Com yesterday and I formed the wrong impression. Yup... I WAS WRONG! Everyone can read that here and now.
So anyways, yeah, NedCarlos wasn't interrupted and actually did the interrupting. This means that Joe isn't unprofessional for interrupting as I had previously said. But, Joe could have easily stopped the ensuing pissyfight by telling NedCarlos to get the hell off the stage if he was hosting.
which leads to this...
Ooohhh kaaayy... What does stealing a wallet on a train have to do with this?
If you mean "answer the challenge when it's issued"... ok, I can roll with that. Yeah, Joe can save face and not "admit to being a pussy" (or whatever NedCarlos was accusing him of)... or he could have easily turned it around and made NedCarlos look like a childish fool up there (see below). If Joe is half the comic that people here believe him to be (I have no opinion on him, by the way. I've never heard his material... stolen or otherwise), then he could have twisted NedCarlos up and tossed him away. Then NedCarlos would be on stage looking like an embarrassed tool.
But instead he played right into NedCarlos' hand and got into a going-nowhere argument in public. With both of them looking like tools. It just happens that NedCarlos came out on the lower end after this one.
And you have a copy of this breached contract? Mencia is paid to perform stand-up comedy... no one ever said that it had to be original. That's a matter for copyright law.
In my opinion, Rogan would have shown character and courage by swallowing his pride over being called a pussy by Mencia and said "I'm not going to argue here Ned. I'm going to let this guy do his bit, as the fine people here paid to see". He would have come off looking like solid gold and Mencia would have looked like a childish prick.
Yeah, I don't even have to try on this one. Moving on...
While typing all this, I checked, and like 3 more people posted how I was wrong about the interruption...
THANK YOU! I KNOW! I retract that part of my comment AND MY GOD HAVE MERCY ON MY SOUL!
Seriously people... read the comments before tossing your two cents in. 9 times outta 10, someone else has already made the point. I don't mind being told when I'm wrong, but (to quote a funny movie)... "yes, ::sigh::, I got the memo".
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Heh
I'm going to assume that was directed at my last comment. Correct me if I'm wrong...
And you don't understand the difference between sarcastic parody and sincere comments. Seriously... does an online, written joke have to have "j/k" or "lol" or ";)" after it before it's taken with levity?
Besides... if I was serious about "my material" being stolen... it wouldn't matter if you found it funny or not. The law wouldn't make that distinction, since humor is a matter of personal taste.
And the fact that you're attacking me with the "stupid comments" comment means that you have nothing to say about the validity of my comments aside from the fact that you disagree. An Ad Hominem attack demonstrates that you have nothing to add to the conversation.
At least Joe has the debating wherewithal to know to prove or disprove a point, not the person he's arguing against. I may think he's foolish for letting NedCarlos bait him to such a public display of childish fighting, but I respect the fact he didn't turn it into a mud-slinging contest to see who could insult who more.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re:
HEY! I used that joke back at comment #2! STOP STEALING MY MATERIAL!
Where's Joe when you need him?!?
Next >>