Paying attention? I would guess that cross referencing those at the top of the ffc's resumes with names of isp parent companies and subsidiaries would provide a more instructive answer...
"If big studios are really so worried about smaller films - why don't they just produce these films?"
That was the question I asked on the submission page as well. We've got Fox Movies telling us that piracy hurts indy films the most....with no explanation as to why they care in any way....and no suggestion that they ought to just assist those indy producers by, oh i dont know....FUCKING HIRING THEM!
"Good thing Santa doesn't have a website, or he might infringe."
Can there BE a bigger criminal against IP laws than Santa Claus? After all, I was told that he and his elves made me all my shit that I got and then delivered it to me.
It seems fairly obvious, being as how I used to get a lot of namebrand stuff for Xmas, that Santa Claus is guilty of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and probably patent infringement as well. Worse, he isn't just making and copying this toys for himself...he's DISTRIBUTING it.
So I say to you, Santa Claus, you wiley fat madman, it might be a good idea to get some chaff installed on that sleigh of yours and teach Rudolph some evasive manuevers, because I expect a couple of SAM missile batteries to be firing away when you illegally cross our borders without a workers visa....
I'm going to be severely disappointed if this isn't immediately tossed out and sanctions applied. Since when did Good Samaritan laws reverse so as to be compulsatory upon police request? Isn't a person's twitter account their property in so much as a telephone line is? If the police had found someone injured and shouted, "Call 911!", would he be legally required to do so?
Or, perhaps a better example, if a policeman or policewoman attempt to commandeer your vehicle in order to pursue a fleeing suspect, and you refuse, are you charged w/Obstruction, or anything similar?
When the police started wearing dark colors instead of that friendly sky blue they used to wear, they seemed to have gone from good guys to gestapo....
"I can't imagine how that would would work. I agree the root cause is the short term profit thinking, and gambling on the stock market is one of the heaviest pressures for that mindset, but how could it be regulated effectively to stop that short term thinking?"
Well, admittedly I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this, but regulating how much and when an "investor" can sell stock they've bought seems like an easy fix. You buy stock in Apple Inc.? Great, now you have to hold all but 75% of it for a minimum of 6 months. That way you can allow people to still do SOME day trading, but no more instant wealth or death, the kind of things that did so much to encourage corruption and manipulation of the market...
"The problem is that this is based on the short-term economic thinking that's plaguing the people who learned business in the 80's. Profit now is always better than profit later, and thinking more than a quarter or two ahead is just crazy talk."
I couldn't agree more. This happened when, IMO, when a majority of people actually placing orders in the stock market changed from seeing themselves as investors to seeing themselves as gamblers.
It's actually one of the few places where the government needs to get involved and properly regulate the shit out of the stock market, because if they don't, I fear the result will be a crash unlike anything we've seen to date....
"Maybe you're not getting what I'm saying, or maybe you simply don't care, but technicalities do matter."
Okay, try to follow along with me here since you seem to want to paint a picture of ME not listening: I NEVER said that technicalities simply don't matter. What I'm trying to convey is my sense of where our priorities should be and the effect that certain defenses have in the public eye, which is FAR more important in enacting good legislation than any court. Unfortunately the entire public isn't as well informed as you and I when it comes to the nuances of this stuff. What they're going to see/read/hear is that some people got some infringing files and one of the defense arguments was that several people were only sharing small bits of the files so it's okay. The average person is going to see that as it is: a technicality. The end result is STILL that someone illegaly received an infringing file. In fact, because the end result is the same, the public will actually be innoculated to sensible technical arguments that may have even more merit in the future because of the attempt to use this one.
"You seem to think that we should allow our government to take any action it wants"
You've responded to my comments in the past, so I know you know what I'm about, so please excuse me while I laugh my ass off at the notion that I'm in favor of our American government doing pretty much anything at all....
"Let's say for example that it's a felony to have 50 or more grams of cocaine. Let's assume that someone is charged because he had 49.9 grams. Under your theory, because the stated purpose of eliminate cocaine use is served, the guy should get a felony. I wholeheartedly disagree."
Incomplete analogy. The better way to look at it, IMO, is take your 50 gram requirement for felony status and put 10 people in a warehouse packaging up sevearl pieces of 60 grams of cocaine. When the DEA busts the place, they're ALL going to jail for felony trafficking. In your analogy, felony status to an insufficient gramage of cocaine is not something supported by ANYTHING I said...
"We should enforce laws only as written and we should not allow our government to act arbitrarily without legal authority merely to achieve some stated purpose."
We're talking about two entirely different things. You keep wanting to talk about how we're enforcing our current laws and holding the govt.'s feet to the fire, and I want to focus on how we get those laws off the books completely, rendering enforcement moot....
RSS
Twitter
$10 says... (as Dark Helmet)
...Both those Senators suddenly get career ending scandals.
Re: Re: Re: (as Dark Helmet)
"that post brought to you by DH's love child..."
And, by extension, me...
FYI, extension an awesome unintended pun...
(as Dark Helmet)
Paying attention? I would guess that cross referencing those at the top of the ffc's resumes with names of isp parent companies and subsidiaries would provide a more instructive answer...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You want them to WHAT?! (as Dark Helmet)
Well, not that you can see anyway ;)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You want them to WHAT?! (as Dark Helmet)
Plus I thought it was funny, though I appreciate posters getting my helmety back ;)
Re: (as Dark Helmet)
"If big studios are really so worried about smaller films - why don't they just produce these films?"
That was the question I asked on the submission page as well. We've got Fox Movies telling us that piracy hurts indy films the most....with no explanation as to why they care in any way....and no suggestion that they ought to just assist those indy producers by, oh i dont know....FUCKING HIRING THEM!
Ah, Santa.... (as Dark Helmet)
"Good thing Santa doesn't have a website, or he might infringe."
Can there BE a bigger criminal against IP laws than Santa Claus? After all, I was told that he and his elves made me all my shit that I got and then delivered it to me.
It seems fairly obvious, being as how I used to get a lot of namebrand stuff for Xmas, that Santa Claus is guilty of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and probably patent infringement as well. Worse, he isn't just making and copying this toys for himself...he's DISTRIBUTING it.
So I say to you, Santa Claus, you wiley fat madman, it might be a good idea to get some chaff installed on that sleigh of yours and teach Rudolph some evasive manuevers, because I expect a couple of SAM missile batteries to be firing away when you illegally cross our borders without a workers visa....
Re: Re: Er... (as Dark Helmet)
"Sanctions? How does that work against the police? Courts can sanction attorneys, but the police are independent of the courts. Explain please."
Here are examples of courts filing sanctions against police departments:
http://www.mlnlaw.com/2009/11/motion-requests-sanctions-against.html
http://www.j stor.org/pss/793655
http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/tickets/050604_folo.shtml
Re: Re: Re: Re: You want them to WHAT?! (as Dark Helmet)
"We're unique and special, just like everybody else."
Like snowflakes? Or orgasms?
Er... (as Dark Helmet)
I'm going to be severely disappointed if this isn't immediately tossed out and sanctions applied. Since when did Good Samaritan laws reverse so as to be compulsatory upon police request? Isn't a person's twitter account their property in so much as a telephone line is? If the police had found someone injured and shouted, "Call 911!", would he be legally required to do so?
Or, perhaps a better example, if a policeman or policewoman attempt to commandeer your vehicle in order to pursue a fleeing suspect, and you refuse, are you charged w/Obstruction, or anything similar?
When the police started wearing dark colors instead of that friendly sky blue they used to wear, they seemed to have gone from good guys to gestapo....
Re: You want them to WHAT?! (as Dark Helmet)
"An Exec, come here and mingle with the commoners in the comments?!"
While I agree with your sentiments, I wouldn't define most of the commentors here as "common". Myself included....
Re: Re: Re: Quarter-finals (as Dark Helmet)
"I can't imagine how that would would work. I agree the root cause is the short term profit thinking, and gambling on the stock market is one of the heaviest pressures for that mindset, but how could it be regulated effectively to stop that short term thinking?"
Well, admittedly I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this, but regulating how much and when an "investor" can sell stock they've bought seems like an easy fix. You buy stock in Apple Inc.? Great, now you have to hold all but 75% of it for a minimum of 6 months. That way you can allow people to still do SOME day trading, but no more instant wealth or death, the kind of things that did so much to encourage corruption and manipulation of the market...
Re: Re: Re: The worst possible outcome... (as Dark Helmet)
"So which would people use that realize the two parties are just a big smoke and mirrors game for all the elites?"
Well, we use Google, but we just often shake our heads sadly at some of the results...
Re: (as Dark Helmet)
"It seems to me a civil lawsuit is a pretty appropriate way to handle it. A criminal trial was not."
Two civil lawsuits would seem appropriate, actually. One from the family of the girl that killed herself against Lori Drew.
And one from Lori Drew against the DA's office....
Re: The worst possible outcome... (as Dark Helmet)
"Google becomes the search engine for liberals, and Bing becomes the search engine for conservatives."
Dear God, I never even considered that! What a special kind of terrible that would be....
Google search for Obama results in the first link going to www.barackobama.com
Bing search for Obama results in the first link going to www.societyformuslimsbornoutsidethecountry.aljazeera.com?
Re: Quarter-finals (as Dark Helmet)
"The problem is that this is based on the short-term economic thinking that's plaguing the people who learned business in the 80's. Profit now is always better than profit later, and thinking more than a quarter or two ahead is just crazy talk."
I couldn't agree more. This happened when, IMO, when a majority of people actually placing orders in the stock market changed from seeing themselves as investors to seeing themselves as gamblers.
It's actually one of the few places where the government needs to get involved and properly regulate the shit out of the stock market, because if they don't, I fear the result will be a crash unlike anything we've seen to date....
Re: Re: Re: (as Dark Helmet)
"Rick Moranis?"
Hell, if ONLY I had his money....
Re: (as Dark Helmet)
While I'm. Stoked that you think I'm mike, I've actually already revealed who I am...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah... (as Dark Helmet)
"Maybe you're not getting what I'm saying, or maybe you simply don't care, but technicalities do matter."
Okay, try to follow along with me here since you seem to want to paint a picture of ME not listening: I NEVER said that technicalities simply don't matter. What I'm trying to convey is my sense of where our priorities should be and the effect that certain defenses have in the public eye, which is FAR more important in enacting good legislation than any court. Unfortunately the entire public isn't as well informed as you and I when it comes to the nuances of this stuff. What they're going to see/read/hear is that some people got some infringing files and one of the defense arguments was that several people were only sharing small bits of the files so it's okay. The average person is going to see that as it is: a technicality. The end result is STILL that someone illegaly received an infringing file. In fact, because the end result is the same, the public will actually be innoculated to sensible technical arguments that may have even more merit in the future because of the attempt to use this one.
"You seem to think that we should allow our government to take any action it wants"
You've responded to my comments in the past, so I know you know what I'm about, so please excuse me while I laugh my ass off at the notion that I'm in favor of our American government doing pretty much anything at all....
"Let's say for example that it's a felony to have 50 or more grams of cocaine. Let's assume that someone is charged because he had 49.9 grams. Under your theory, because the stated purpose of eliminate cocaine use is served, the guy should get a felony. I wholeheartedly disagree."
Incomplete analogy. The better way to look at it, IMO, is take your 50 gram requirement for felony status and put 10 people in a warehouse packaging up sevearl pieces of 60 grams of cocaine. When the DEA busts the place, they're ALL going to jail for felony trafficking. In your analogy, felony status to an insufficient gramage of cocaine is not something supported by ANYTHING I said...
"We should enforce laws only as written and we should not allow our government to act arbitrarily without legal authority merely to achieve some stated purpose."
We're talking about two entirely different things. You keep wanting to talk about how we're enforcing our current laws and holding the govt.'s feet to the fire, and I want to focus on how we get those laws off the books completely, rendering enforcement moot....
Re: Re... (as Dark Helmet)
Mac, picturing you fighting hordes of deranged scientologists ala Neo and the Smith clones in the Matrix brought one hell of a smile to my face....