Re: Board note: fanboys now get in FIVE hours early!
Board note: fanboys now get in FIVE hours early!
Laughing my ass off at you, Blue. Too funny.
This one is so simple I think even you can understand it. Stop whining, register an account and buy one of the packages that includes the Crystal Ball feature and Ta-Da! you can spout your inane, useless crap before an article goes live too. I'm pretty sure Mike will take anyone's money, whether it's from a fan, a critic or anyone else for that matter.
You keep repeating this lie about common law copyright when it is demonstrably false. Stop it
He won't stop. Blue has been bestowed with this wonderful gift of willful ignorance when it comes to anyone countering him with facts. If he simply ignores any counter-arguments to his statements, then it's like they never existed and he continues on his merry way. Kind of like the not-so-bright cat who thinks if it doesn't look at you, you can't see it.
It keeps his life simple, I guess, but it undermines everything he posts here. I've gotten to the point where I simply toss everything he says right into the bullshit pile.
Karl rebutted his "common law copyright" theory here:
I'd argue that 17 USC § 1201 (f) gives me the right to circumvent the technological measures for the purpose of creating interoperability between Netflix and my "independently created" Linux operating system as long as my acquiring the content from Netflix was licensed and legal to begin with.
Re: "the technology is coming one way or the other"?
Ah, Monday. Back to the inane yapping of ankle-biters, the skimming of prior comments to see whether my valuable screen name has been mis-appropriated again! -- And to answer a question the fanboys have, the name is valuable for the effect on you! -- Last week it produced a fine bunch of irrational yapping...
Bit Torrent helps to take away artists rights, by making their work widely available without cost or constraint, often against their will and desire.
It's pretty much the exact same thing. Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm. Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it's used by pirates. You guys would laugh at the latter, but support the former. How silly is that?
Not silly whatsoever. Nor is it even a close comparison.
Your "artist rights", as you put it, are important. Just not anywhere near as important as the rights of Free Speech. Not even in the same universe important, let alone in the same ballpark important. Your "right" to monetize your creations falls many miles short of the basic human right to Free Speech.
Fiduciary responsibility applies regardless of whether a contract exists.
Ok. I get what you are getting at here. You are talking about what is called the "business judgment rule" here in the US and is based on case law.
But those rulings really don't have all that much teeth in reality. Basically, US courts have pretty much tried to stay out of these issues and will dismiss the cases fairly readily if the CEO has some marginally rational reason for his actions. The case needs to be blatantly egregious for it go much further than that.
So your statement of "It's the law, the CEO CANNOT do anything that the shareholders don't want." still doesn't ring all that true in the real world.
It's the law, the CEO CANNOT do anything that the shareholders don't want.
I think you are incorrect here. The article you pointed to talks about the "legal obligations" of a CEO. Those would be enforced with legally binding contracts, not something codified into law. And the terms of the contracts could and would differ from company to company.
So no, I don't believe that there is a "law" that says this. But, I could be wrong.