It was better than that on Comedy Central Tuesday night during Tosh.0: there were THREE banners (1 from Viacom, 2 from DirecTV), all bitching and calling each other liars and telling the viewer to call 800-blahblah to complain. If it wasn't taking up so much screen real-estate it would have been hilarious; as it was though, it was just incredibly annoying.
Everything on the net, from now on, will be free. They want the internet to be some kind of 60s utopia where everything and everyone is free. But we still live in capitalism, and if you make culture free, you make it a ghetto. The internet is not free. It is about as free as the free market.
Mike, you missed a key point: This guy doesn't know the meaning of the word 'free'. He is interchanging 'free as in beer' for 'free as in freedom' all throughout his rant. If you substitute libre for gratis:
Everything on the net, from now on, will be libre.
Excellent! Basically, only dictatorships and heavy-handed constitutional republics would have a problem with this.
They want the internet to be some kind of 60s utopia where everything and everyone is libre. But we still live in capitalism, and if you make culture libre, you make it a ghetto.
Well, using the correct words makes this statement even more insane than it already was, if that's possible.
The internet is not libre. It is about as libre as the free market.
He's right about this, unfortunately, but we're trying to get it back there, inch by inch.
I hate to say it, but he could very well be right, inasmuch as verbiage forbidding 'sharing'. However, no ISP would try to directly enforce this: I think they put that in there so that they can refuse to do tech support if you admit you have a router somewhere on the line.
Regardless, an ISP's contractual issues with a customer would not give a third party (like Liberty) any standing to sue. That's just Carreon-thinking right there.
Given that this is still a highly fluid situation, if you're represented by any of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, you might want to give them a call and let them know that you opposed SOPA and you're shocked that the HJC might push through a piece of SOPA in a process that was even more secretive than the one for SOPA itself.
Shocked! Shocked I am that the House Judiciary Committee, of which 20% are representatives from California, which of course is where Hollywood lives, would try to secretly pass more Imaginary Property legislation! Ahh, wait, the shock is quickly passing... Yep, it's gone.
That's a good point. We all know that this is extortion, but obviously it's couched in a 'civilized' way, as a lawsuit. But if a company could somehow prove that the patent troll knew about the supposed 'infringement' long before they filed a lawsuit (say, once the company has become profitable), it seems to me there could be real grounds to press charges for extortion and racketeering.
Yeah, gonna agree with Danny on this one, the money laundering charge will never stick. It's actually kind of embarassing that they even tried it. Kind of like charging a dog with indecent exposure for not wearing pants.
Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?
Nobody is saying this, except you. What we *are* saying, and you are continually missing, is that the extradition itself looks fishy, and the NZ judge realizes this.
US: Kim Dotcom committed a crime, give him to us!
NZ: We'd like to take a look at the evidence to determine if extradition is really the right thing to do.
US: OMGWTF? We JUST told you he committed a crime! Why do you need to see the evidence? Don't you understand that we TOLD YOU he committed a crime? Now give him to us!
Ahh, Ross Perot... Even though I knew he didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, after backing out and then re-entering the race, I still voted for him, for no other reason than even back then I was already sick of our ridiculous two party system. The intervening years have seen that feeling evolve to disgust and shame.
Charles Carreon had his wife Tara lyn Carreon with him and she also told me that i must pay $ 50,000 dollars for her breast enlargements, her tummy tuck, and a years supply of anti aging cream. I told both defendants " no way" " this is complete blackmail" and I told Carreon that I'm reporting him to the Bar association for attorney ethic violations, and to the local police, and Charles Carreon went biserk and irate on me and took my bowl of oatmeal and threw it in m face, Tara lyn Carreon was originally using her feet under the table and secretly massaging my groin with her toes while mr. Carreon was trying to black mail me, so after oatmeal splattered my face, then Tara Carreon kicked me in the groin under the table, everything swelled. Mr. Carreon also poured hot mrs. butterworth maple syrup on my head to humiliate me, the defendants then got up , and Carreons left with a stern warning that they will see me in court, Mr. Carreon told me to enjoy my oat meal.
I sincerely hope whoever filed this doesn't get into any real trouble, because that's some seriously funny shit right there! I especially like the repeated mentions of oatmeal, gives it that touch of class.
Anyone who thinks this is just "competition" is fooling themselves: This is brand/design piracy.
No, you're wrong, it's competition.
Think about it: If I start a car company, and make a "Hot, New Retro Muscle Car" and make it look *almost exactly* like the new redesigned Dodge Challenger, would you say that Dodge was just being "fearful" that they couldn't compete if they sought an injunction?
Yes, if Dodge went all law-suity, I would say they were afraid of the competition.
Hell no, you'd say I should get sued.
Nope, I wouldn't.
What people have to realize is that knock-offs do more than just cannibalize sales: they create confusion in the market and allow inferior products to masquerade as industry front-runners.
Don't agree on cannabalizing sales: in point of fact, there is often an increase in sales as people who can afford the knockoff buy it who would never have been able to afford the "real thing" in the first place. Also, those knock-offs force prices downward, which is good for consumers, especially on ultra-high margin items. Furthermore, I truly doubt anyone has been confused into thinking an Android phone is an iPhone.
p.s. In future posts, you might want to provide some actual facts to back up your positions. Here you just come off sounding like an Apple fanboi.