I still find it astonishingly ironic the 4 clauses found in US Copyright law infringed on Patry's original works nearly 30 years ago.
I'm with Baio on this one. No reason to take a chance when there's far too much at stake, both financially and of reputation.
As for the "standing up and defending yourself" side of the argument, great in theory, poor in execution, when our entire legal system is designed for people to take the low road (of guilt) rather than an expensive trial. Plea bargains exist in criminal courts and bribery payments in civil courts.
Great in theory, poor in application. Attribution is the entire reason why copyright exists.
No one puts value into a works other than me, for it is I who deem them valuable.
This concept is lost, especially on many artists out there, who feel it's their responsibility to place this attribution on their works.
Hence why they seem to try and control it.
Some artists are figuring out this internet thing can build this attribution for them, but it's still bogus to call it "intellectual property", as though it's a tangible product requiring a say to distribute as the artist sees fit.
It's why I hate CC licenses, which is being used as some ridiculous tool to pretend the artist has control over their works.
Attribution once had another value, back when slaves were used in early America. That didn't turn out well, either.
Fans will support what they like, whether it be sharing works with others to build an audience, or financially.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of artists telling me what I can, and can't do, with their "property".
I've said it once before: if they don't want people sharing it and dislike it when we break their "rules", keep their works to themselves.
"Intellectual Property" is the biggest offense out there, and I find it incredulous this term is used as though it has meaning.
I can't sell a person's transformation from an idea to a canvas, word processor, song, or film. I can only do so once the transformation is turned into actual property, which I can hold, sell, trade, lend, etc.
If you want to talk about intellectually offensive uses of the digital era, start with "intellectual property" and how it's the very reason why there's a copyright law to begin with.
People always assume their ideas are protected, simply because they are transferred into tangible property, which is then wrapped in a multitude of draconian laws.
Sorry, Leigh, but you dropped the ball on this one by using the most offensive term out there.
Other than that, I concur with the position. It's rather telling people will placate these issues as though there's some reason behind why it should cost them $5 for a "24 hour rental" of a digital file which can be infinitely reproduced.
At least Blockbuster had a reason to charge that much. Not only did the industry blackmail their profits, but they only had a limited number of copies on hand, per store, so it was a perfect setup for bilking customers who didn't want to spend $20 (or more!) for the movie.
To remit payment, please contact any local Senator in the US Government. Upon receipt of payment, anything you want shall be granted, regardless of the rights of the people.
Three simple words: "We The People", completely ignored by the government.
I will probably live long enough to see this country enter another revolution, if this keeps up.
Aren't most bills passed into laws these days financially benefiting someone else?
It's par for the course. Hell, even when this country was facing an economic crisis, thanks to the housing market crash, an emergent "bailout" couldn't get passed unless it was including benefits to make someone else rich.
I hate our government. I really, really hate our government.
Today, while eating at McD's, a manager asked me if I was enjoying my meal. I said, "Yep, it's good. Nothing beats a nice relaxing meal after hours of fighting Deathclaws in Fallout 3."
So, does this mean legislation is going to punish me for linking violent video games to eating fast food?
Best be careful what I say. Mayor Bloomberg may read this site and get another wonderful "idea" for New Yorkers, and I'd hate to feel their wrath for making the suggestion.
Perhaps I'm confused, but Haong isn't ticked off at IMDB for investigating her real age, but then turning and posting the information on her page once it was discovered to be accurate than the info currently being displayed.
Normally, I would agree with her, but in this case, I can't. IMDB is used by everyone, including businesses looking for actors, and to lie on the page is no different than lying on a resume.
While it may be true one isn't asked for their age, they most certainly are asked on their job application.
If she's been lying on these job applications, she may very well be in for more trouble than she anticipated.
On the post: Fair Use Protects Some Uses, But It Is Still Way Too Weak To Be Effective For Many
I'm with Baio on this one. No reason to take a chance when there's far too much at stake, both financially and of reputation.
As for the "standing up and defending yourself" side of the argument, great in theory, poor in execution, when our entire legal system is designed for people to take the low road (of guilt) rather than an expensive trial. Plea bargains exist in criminal courts and bribery payments in civil courts.
Innocent until proven guilty my ass.
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Uh, sorry, but that's not what it stands for.
Industry & Corporate Enforcement.
Please make note of this in the future, for accuracy. ;)
On the post: Sen. Dan Coats On The Boston Bombing: You Know Who We Need To Keep An Eye On? Loners.
On the post: What New-Style Trade Agreements Are Really About (Hint: It's Not Trade)
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this was a fairy tale:
Remember that the next time you buy a brand name product. I'm betting you can find an ad for it.
On the post: Solution: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re:
Nevermind. I forget this is the internet.
On the post: When Corruption Fails: Hollywood Has 'Turned Off The Critical Thinking Functions Of Many Democrats'
On the post: NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re:
No one puts value into a works other than me, for it is I who deem them valuable.
This concept is lost, especially on many artists out there, who feel it's their responsibility to place this attribution on their works.
Hence why they seem to try and control it.
Some artists are figuring out this internet thing can build this attribution for them, but it's still bogus to call it "intellectual property", as though it's a tangible product requiring a say to distribute as the artist sees fit.
It's why I hate CC licenses, which is being used as some ridiculous tool to pretend the artist has control over their works.
Attribution once had another value, back when slaves were used in early America. That didn't turn out well, either.
Fans will support what they like, whether it be sharing works with others to build an audience, or financially.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of artists telling me what I can, and can't do, with their "property".
I've said it once before: if they don't want people sharing it and dislike it when we break their "rules", keep their works to themselves.
This solves every problem.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
I can't sell a person's transformation from an idea to a canvas, word processor, song, or film. I can only do so once the transformation is turned into actual property, which I can hold, sell, trade, lend, etc.
If you want to talk about intellectually offensive uses of the digital era, start with "intellectual property" and how it's the very reason why there's a copyright law to begin with.
People always assume their ideas are protected, simply because they are transferred into tangible property, which is then wrapped in a multitude of draconian laws.
Sorry, Leigh, but you dropped the ball on this one by using the most offensive term out there.
Other than that, I concur with the position. It's rather telling people will placate these issues as though there's some reason behind why it should cost them $5 for a "24 hour rental" of a digital file which can be infinitely reproduced.
At least Blockbuster had a reason to charge that much. Not only did the industry blackmail their profits, but they only had a limited number of copies on hand, per store, so it was a perfect setup for bilking customers who didn't want to spend $20 (or more!) for the movie.
Look where they are now.
On the post: Red Sox' David Ortiz Unleashes An Expletive During Televised Speech; FCC Says 'F**k It'
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionTo remit payment, please contact any local Senator in the US Government. Upon receipt of payment, anything you want shall be granted, regardless of the rights of the people.
Three simple words: "We The People", completely ignored by the government.
I will probably live long enough to see this country enter another revolution, if this keeps up.
On the post: Takedown (Non-DMCA) Filed Against YouTube Video Challenging Controversial Cancer Clinic
It'll be known as CatTube.
On the post: Med Express Apologies For Suing Customer, Says It Was A Mistake, But Doesn't Mention The Long List Of Similar Lawsuits
Buy today, and use our trusty Low Ratings (TM) as proof we're here for you, not our bottom line.
Right. I've learned that apologies after the fact are just a poor excuse for doing something stupid in the first place.
Apology not accepted. Fix your ratings, left by disgruntled buyers, than worry about the internet.
Priorities, genius. Priorities.
On the post: Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...
It's par for the course. Hell, even when this country was facing an economic crisis, thanks to the housing market crash, an emergent "bailout" couldn't get passed unless it was including benefits to make someone else rich.
I hate our government. I really, really hate our government.
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
"Many members of the American public are already convinced something should be done about hackers."
... would be the same members who once thought PCs came with a free cup holder.
On the post: Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself
Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid again.
Americans no longer trust their government, and, in my opinion, won't settle until the House is cleaned of the roaches now infesting it.
On the post: New Jersey Lawmaker Proposes Legislation To Ban Games With Mature Content From Public Places
So, does this mean legislation is going to punish me for linking violent video games to eating fast food?
Best be careful what I say. Mayor Bloomberg may read this site and get another wonderful "idea" for New Yorkers, and I'd hate to feel their wrath for making the suggestion.
On the post: IBM Sends 200 Execs To Capitol Hill To Demand The Right To Send Your Private Info To The NSA
Meet one of the companies cashing in on the fear mongering.
On the post: Judge's Random, Unrelated Rant Against Facebook Leads To Child Porn Sentence Being Overturned
On the post: Sorry, Having IMDB Accurately List Your Age Doesn't Entitle You To A Million Dollars
Normally, I would agree with her, but in this case, I can't. IMDB is used by everyone, including businesses looking for actors, and to lie on the page is no different than lying on a resume.
While it may be true one isn't asked for their age, they most certainly are asked on their job application.
If she's been lying on these job applications, she may very well be in for more trouble than she anticipated.