Let's see if you can actually make this analogy work. Whether one agrees or not, it was determined that cars made a significant contribution to pollution which harmed a lot of people.
Now, what part of a cell phone, tablet, etc matches that scenario? How is jailbreaking that device comparable to disabling emission controls?
You think these are comparable so go ahead, work with your analogy and explain how this actually works in this argument. Show that you are not as stupid as your analogy makes you look.
"You realize of course that the apps in question are based on the very technology developed in the patents? You realize that without the original patent ideas, the product might not even exist?"
You cannot understand that the apps in question were created without any knowledge or use of these patents. The patents in question were of no help in creating the app. Without those holy patents, the app would still have been created but, without those holy patents, the app could be used by those who need it.
We wouldn't be having this discussion without the patents because the little girl would be able to use the app. The patents are the problem, not the solution.
It isn't Google's data. Get it? The data comes from other user's searches, not some mysterious "Google repository of bad stuff". Do you think Google should stop users from making certain searches because "someone got upset"? And how would they do that?
Of course TPB wasn't found guilty in the US, so your argument is bogus. More to the point, how has MSFT determined that that specific link to one specific download is "illegal"? Hmmm? Do they have a vast array of researchers investigating every single link, interviewing the person who uploaded each one to verify the upload was legal, checking to guarantee they aren't blocking legitimate speech?
No, they just block and they don't care if they block legal downloads and legal free speech. And you can't see a single thing wrong with that?
Ever hear of the "presumption of innocence unless proven guilty"? You know, that pesky thing called "justice"?
The fact that "some people" consider "it" to be stealing isn't made clearer by agreeing with them. If by "it" they mean "copying" (which is what you are saying) then they are wrong. Using their ideas is wrong and stops discussion.
If, however, by "it" they mean "infringing" then they should say that to avoid confusion.
To continue to use "stealing" when the accurate term for what is illegal is "infringing" promotes the lie that all copying is stealing. Don't you think accuracy is better than hyperbole?
Why do you object to using the term "infringing" which is a quite accurate word to describe the exact type of copying that is illegal. Why insist on using a vague and sloppy term "stealing" when the exact, specific illegal action is "infringing"? Why be inaccurate when an accurate term exists?
Yet you make the absurd claim that "Copying" is "Stealing" when the words mean different things.
No one here (that I can see) is claiming that copying is legal, it may or may not be. But claiming that all copying is stealing is disingenuous. If, by copying, someone "obtains something they are not entitled to", that is wrong and accurately called "infringement".
You don't have to falsely conflate it with "stealing" to make it "more illegal". It's already illegal. Why argue about it? Infringement is illegal.
Using words correctly is important. With a contentious subject like this, it is very important.
"Stealing" is illegal, by definition. "Copying" may be infringing and, therefore may be illegal. To say "copying is theft" is to falsely accuse many people who have only copied legally.
1. Pass draconian law to censor the Internet.
2. Promise to study what to do about the Internet.
3. If any studies happen to get done, ignore.
4. Repeat.
Wait. Wouldn't "Giving the consumer what they want in the form they want it at the moment they want it at the price they are willing to pay for it" be the description of a REALLY good business plan?
It is amazing that Andy Ihnatko could so totally miss the entire point.
Here is a sales opportunity. It represents thousands of such sales opportunities, and the "content owners" did everything they possibly could do to ENSURE the consumers could not buy it legally in any way.
And then the content owners whine that they are losing money...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have given MS enough money
Yeah, because it "looks to you AS IF they are" illegal ... that's it. End of discussion. You're done.
Pardon me if I don't condemn people because it "looks to you as if they are illegal". Things are almost always more complicated then you might think.
I don't condone bad behavior but I don't condemn until REAL lawyers and REAL experts have investigated, analyzed and reported on these things. But you go ahead and pontificate and condemn because things "look to you as if", that's fine with me.
I don't think you read the article. While it would be a great idea if Moto/Google simply donated those patents license free, there are read problems with that or even lowering the price. Read the article.
Walt, keep believing ONLY the MS side of the story and be sure to parrot it exactly. Never look at the full picture. Then you will be protected from all the Evil Freetards who want to destroy the Internet.
On the post: Video Showcases The Many Perfectly Legitimate Reasons To Jailbreak A Device
Re: Car analogy
Now, what part of a cell phone, tablet, etc matches that scenario? How is jailbreaking that device comparable to disabling emission controls?
You think these are comparable so go ahead, work with your analogy and explain how this actually works in this argument. Show that you are not as stupid as your analogy makes you look.
On the post: National Highway Transportation Safety Agency Says You Can Keep Your GPS -- As Long As It's Completely Useless
More bunk.
Bunk.
Total unsubstantiated bunk.
Real, valid, verifiable, scientific research required to substantiate this bunk ... and it doesn't exist.
On the post: Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You cannot understand that the apps in question were created without any knowledge or use of these patents. The patents in question were of no help in creating the app. Without those holy patents, the app would still have been created but, without those holy patents, the app could be used by those who need it.
We wouldn't be having this discussion without the patents because the little girl would be able to use the app. The patents are the problem, not the solution.
On the post: Japanese Court Misunderstands Autocomplete, Orders Google To Turn It Off To Protect 'Privacy'
Re:
On the post: Japanese Court Misunderstands Autocomplete, Orders Google To Turn It Off To Protect 'Privacy'
Re: Re: Correlation and causation...
On the post: Microsoft Spying On Live Messenger Messages, Censoring Any Pirate Bay Links
Re: Re: Re:
No, they just block and they don't care if they block legal downloads and legal free speech. And you can't see a single thing wrong with that?
Ever hear of the "presumption of innocence unless proven guilty"? You know, that pesky thing called "justice"?
On the post: Microsoft Spying On Live Messenger Messages, Censoring Any Pirate Bay Links
Re:
FIFY.
And there is no reason to use Microsoft Messenger now that we know they don't believe in Privacy, Free Speech or Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
But, no, you've made it plain that you think "copying is stealing" is "accurate" and not misleading when it obviously is neither.
Apparently, you think inaccurate, deliberately misleading statements "can be accurate". I don't think I want to visit your planet.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: It can be.
If, however, by "it" they mean "infringing" then they should say that to avoid confusion.
To continue to use "stealing" when the accurate term for what is illegal is "infringing" promotes the lie that all copying is stealing. Don't you think accuracy is better than hyperbole?
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: It can be.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: It can be.
No one here (that I can see) is claiming that copying is legal, it may or may not be. But claiming that all copying is stealing is disingenuous. If, by copying, someone "obtains something they are not entitled to", that is wrong and accurately called "infringement".
You don't have to falsely conflate it with "stealing" to make it "more illegal". It's already illegal. Why argue about it? Infringement is illegal.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: It can be.
"Stealing" is illegal, by definition. "Copying" may be infringing and, therefore may be illegal. To say "copying is theft" is to falsely accuse many people who have only copied legally.
These things are different.
On the post: Ireland Signs Controversial 'Irish SOPA' Into Law; Kicks Off New Censorship Regime
Typical legislation sequence
2. Promise to study what to do about the Internet.
3. If any studies happen to get done, ignore.
4. Repeat.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Good business plan
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Whooosh!
Here is a sales opportunity. It represents thousands of such sales opportunities, and the "content owners" did everything they possibly could do to ENSURE the consumers could not buy it legally in any way.
And then the content owners whine that they are losing money...
On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have given MS enough money
Pardon me if I don't condemn people because it "looks to you as if they are illegal". Things are almost always more complicated then you might think.
I don't condone bad behavior but I don't condemn until REAL lawyers and REAL experts have investigated, analyzed and reported on these things. But you go ahead and pontificate and condemn because things "look to you as if", that's fine with me.
On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have given MS enough money
On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents
Re: Re: I have given MS enough money
On the post: Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suing Google For Third-Party Android Apps That 'Promote Piracy'
RSS feed
And I mentally filled it in: "Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suicide".
Seemed accurate to me.
On the post: Dutch Economics Minister Says ACTA Is Designed To Shut Down Child Porn Sites... Even Though That's Not True
Re: The problem is with the means, not the ends
You see, the child porn purveyors will, of course, want to stop pirates from stealing their IP, so they will want to use ACTA to do it.
That means they have to register copyright. That's when the Copyright Office (a subdivision of Disney), will catch them!!!1!!
It will work!!!11