Lesson to Republicans: You thought you were going to keep the office forever? What where you Thinking!!! Now the Democrats have the powers you concentrated into the Presidency!
Lesson to Democrats: You are not going to be in office forever either! Do you really want the other guys to have this power!?!?!?
Where is George Washington among these folks? Can't any President walk away from the opportunity to use powers that are a threat to us all?
The point of the piece is that only one side of the issue was presented. That anyone that had done a bit of background work on the topic might have challenged some of the statements made.
You want to claim that is the same as Mike saying these folks lied, okay fine.
But see how easy it is to challenge a statement someone makes that doesn't seem to be consistent with the facts?
Were any of these statements placed in context? Did these movie folks get the opportunity (and seriously, if they really are on top of their stuff like you imply, it would be an opportunity) to address these issues more fully? No they were not.
60 minutes didn't do them any favors. We are denied a REAL story, and these guys made themselves legitimate targets for those of us that were not buying their line in the first place.
That's the point. Not that they lied, but that you CAN'T possibly tell if they did or didn't.... As in fact your defense shows, we don't know hardly what any of their presented "facts" and "figures" really mean.... Because nobody actually asked.
And yet, while the U.K. woman may not have sought the proper permissions for her event, shall anyone care to guess how much properly licensed merchandise failed to get sold by preventing the event?
I haven't seen the data on Harry Potter, but the merchandise/movie income ratio for STAR WARS is heavily on the merchandise side. I can't believe that Harry Potter is that far different.
I'm an engineer. I get payed a salary plus some rather inconsequential and sometimes even insulting bonuses. My work is sold over and over to great returns by the various companies.
I am just saying. If he wants musicians to be protected just like everyone else, I say give it to him. I think there is no better way of describing copyright reform than Sir Garth's very words.
I have to say you are a kind and generous soul. Many of us, even myself, are of the mind that making Time Warner feel the pain is worth the cost. But it is also true that one can take the high road consistently, rather than only with one's friends.
I applaud the understanding and forgiving tone of your reply, and only regret that Time Warner cannot possibly understand the contrast between your position and theirs.
Time Warner makes 2 million a year on "Happy Birthday" despite the many, many problems with their claims to the single most famous song in the world. The problem is that the public domain has no way of suing to protect its rights.
But in this case, a clear owner exists. One willing to give their content to their fans for free. And Time Warner is attempting to steal this content? In this case, they are not stealing from the public domain, but from a person.
We should do Whatever we can do to encourage Collins to fight at least Time Warner. They should pay their own established rate (however many thousands) to an ACTUAL Person!
And I absolutely agree with Ragnar Krempel that this is a no lose scenario. A loss would be a strike against copyright, or a win would require establish Time Warner as just another "Pirate Bay".
I would only beg Collins not to settle. No matter what, I think legal action would swiftly result in an attempt by Time Warner to settle.
The copyright cartel is absolutely evil, but they are not stupid.
Obviously Mike is lying, is making stuff up. And I can back this claim with details that prove this.
1) Mike said that Taylor was "suggesting that BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing: ".
2) And Mike was called on that, and I quote, "He did not say that "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing", as you assert. "
Obviously saying that someone "suggested" something is against the law is the same as asserting they claimed something is against the law.
Who can argue with that? Obviously Mike misstated what..., er..., I mean.....
Hmmmm....
Never mind. It is clearly BMI misstated Mike... Mike only said Taylor's statements *suggested* something. A far cry from *asserting* Taylor *said* something.
... if for no other reason than it is simple to state, simple to understand, and can be implemented regardless of any general or overall health reform.
And it makes absolute sense. Patents are being used to block innovation rather than encourage innovation. And while 20 years might be a reasonable time to wait to get improved snowboarding bindings at a reasonable price, getting life saving drugs at a reasonable price cannot wait so long.
Not to mention how tying up drugs by patents hurts people in poorer countries because the big Pharm doesn't make drugs they need because there is little money in doing so, and uses their patents to insure nobody else does either.
Besides, if you are going to make health care cheaper, you are going to have to make it more competitive. You can't make Pharm more competitive if you keep strong monopoly rights over drugs.
You want a solution, turn Capitalism loose on the problem. Isn't that want Republicans at least claim to want to do?
"1st, all of you whiners need to realize that it is illegal to download ANYTHING to a DoD computer, especially for personal use. Yes it is, in fact, a criminal offense that people CAN go to jail for, and people HAVE been fired for."
You can't use a browser without downloading things to your computer.
Are you seriously going to claim this is illegal?
But you do have some valid points about some government jobs, and some government computers. Not all government jobs, and not all government computers.
Some companies are just as strict, and just as sensitive to risk.
It is all about common sense, after all. If your system handles HIPAA data, or classified data, or documents with trade secrets ... you need a certain level of security, and security training for your users.
If your system is really just there for email and access to generally public information about your company.... you need a certain, much lower level of security.
To one extent or another, everyone with a job has need of both sorts of access. In my past jobs as a government military contractor, consultant to government human services, game development, Microsoft, IBM, and even my own companies, I generally used different machines (and accounts... yeah, I am that old) with different and appropriate levels of security.
And I have taken these courses (and courses like them) through the years. And yes, they are always stupid. You just turn your brain off about information, and on about what they want you to say, and you can pass them just fine.
A Web site for downloading music. That is what your "friend" is telling you about, right?
Then the various lectures you get when you hit wrong answers lecture you about P2P applications... Which CAN BE insecure, to various degrees depending on which ones you are talking about, let's be fair.
But if we are talking about a WEB SITE... And you are not supposed to use ANY P2P type program... (I'll generalize and simply assume they mean an application commonly used to download music)...
Doesn't that description by definition have to include your Browser?
I have done a bit of surfing on this issue, and it seems that everyone is boiling down Dvorak's issues raised in his blog to questions about Chopra's Masters Degree. I really don't understand why, given that this plays such a minor role in Dvorak's criticism of Chopra. Dvorak has updated his blog entry with that information about the MS degree, without any loss in the sting against Chopra, best I can tell.
Seriously, the bigger picture here shouldn't be lost. Washington has a habit of putting absolute dolts in charge of setting up policy. I don't know what the answer really is, since I would be just as disturbed if Obama had put Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, or Larry Ellison, or Sergey Brin, or Larry Pageany, or any number of other recognizable tech names in the same position.
The real question is exactly where is this guy coming from, what are his goals, and why do we believe he has the right plan for Information Technology?
And why isn't anyone seriously digging into these questions? I mean, do your own searches. Where are the answers to these broader questions about Chopra, rather than just this hyper focus on this one single question Dvorak clearly got wrong, out of all the questions Dvorak raised?
"Works created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in 17 U.S.C. ยง 302. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright
Obviously there exists an argument about who owns the data. However, Apple made that argument moot. They refused to update the Routesy application, and when it quit working (after a modification to the Muni web site) it was removed from the app store.
Apple simply took the word of NBIS as they must I think given the receipt of a take down notice. Nobody has ruled in favor of NBIS, but NBIS wins by default. If this data is really in the Public Domain (despite their arguments about owning predictions), then the Public loses by default. We (the Public) are denied the use of technology simply because "someone" asserts they own something, even if the courts, if pressed, might very well rule that this "someone" does not.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Paul)
No.... Pushing the other side as hard as the RIAA does here would mean nobody from the RIAA and MPAA would have been on the program....
Both sides in the same program is what we should have gotten from 60 minutes.
Next question?
Re: (as Paul)
No.... Pushing the other side as hard as the RIAA does here would mean nobody from the RIAA and MPAA would have been on the program....
Both sides in the same program is what we should have gotten from 60 minutes.
Next question?
Re: (as Paul)
Lesson to Republicans: You thought you were going to keep the office forever? What where you Thinking!!! Now the Democrats have the powers you concentrated into the Presidency!
Lesson to Democrats: You are not going to be in office forever either! Do you really want the other guys to have this power!?!?!?
Where is George Washington among these folks? Can't any President walk away from the opportunity to use powers that are a threat to us all?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Paul)
The point of the piece is that only one side of the issue was presented. That anyone that had done a bit of background work on the topic might have challenged some of the statements made.
You want to claim that is the same as Mike saying these folks lied, okay fine.
But see how easy it is to challenge a statement someone makes that doesn't seem to be consistent with the facts?
Were any of these statements placed in context? Did these movie folks get the opportunity (and seriously, if they really are on top of their stuff like you imply, it would be an opportunity) to address these issues more fully? No they were not.
60 minutes didn't do them any favors. We are denied a REAL story, and these guys made themselves legitimate targets for those of us that were not buying their line in the first place.
That's the point. Not that they lied, but that you CAN'T possibly tell if they did or didn't.... As in fact your defense shows, we don't know hardly what any of their presented "facts" and "figures" really mean.... Because nobody actually asked.
Counter Productive (as Paul)
And yet, while the U.K. woman may not have sought the proper permissions for her event, shall anyone care to guess how much properly licensed merchandise failed to get sold by preventing the event?
I haven't seen the data on Harry Potter, but the merchandise/movie income ratio for STAR WARS is heavily on the merchandise side. I can't believe that Harry Potter is that far different.
(as Paul)
"...Protected like everyone else is..."
I'm an engineer. I get payed a salary plus some rather inconsequential and sometimes even insulting bonuses. My work is sold over and over to great returns by the various companies.
I am just saying. If he wants musicians to be protected just like everyone else, I say give it to him. I think there is no better way of describing copyright reform than Sir Garth's very words.
Re: (as Paul)
Grace Maxwell,
I have to say you are a kind and generous soul. Many of us, even myself, are of the mind that making Time Warner feel the pain is worth the cost. But it is also true that one can take the high road consistently, rather than only with one's friends.
I applaud the understanding and forgiving tone of your reply, and only regret that Time Warner cannot possibly understand the contrast between your position and theirs.
I will have to watch this one.... (as Paul)
Time Warner makes 2 million a year on "Happy Birthday" despite the many, many problems with their claims to the single most famous song in the world. The problem is that the public domain has no way of suing to protect its rights.
But in this case, a clear owner exists. One willing to give their content to their fans for free. And Time Warner is attempting to steal this content? In this case, they are not stealing from the public domain, but from a person.
We should do Whatever we can do to encourage Collins to fight at least Time Warner. They should pay their own established rate (however many thousands) to an ACTUAL Person!
And I absolutely agree with Ragnar Krempel that this is a no lose scenario. A loss would be a strike against copyright, or a win would require establish Time Warner as just another "Pirate Bay".
I would only beg Collins not to settle. No matter what, I think legal action would swiftly result in an attempt by Time Warner to settle.
The copyright cartel is absolutely evil, but they are not stupid.
Mike IS lying (as Paul)
Obviously Mike is lying, is making stuff up. And I can back this claim with details that prove this.
1) Mike said that Taylor was "suggesting that BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing: ".
2) And Mike was called on that, and I quote, "He did not say that "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing", as you assert. "
Obviously saying that someone "suggested" something is against the law is the same as asserting they claimed something is against the law.
Who can argue with that? Obviously Mike misstated what..., er..., I mean.....
Hmmmm....
Never mind. It is clearly BMI misstated Mike... Mike only said Taylor's statements *suggested* something. A far cry from *asserting* Taylor *said* something.
This is a GREAT idea.... (as Paul)
... if for no other reason than it is simple to state, simple to understand, and can be implemented regardless of any general or overall health reform.
And it makes absolute sense. Patents are being used to block innovation rather than encourage innovation. And while 20 years might be a reasonable time to wait to get improved snowboarding bindings at a reasonable price, getting life saving drugs at a reasonable price cannot wait so long.
Not to mention how tying up drugs by patents hurts people in poorer countries because the big Pharm doesn't make drugs they need because there is little money in doing so, and uses their patents to insure nobody else does either.
Besides, if you are going to make health care cheaper, you are going to have to make it more competitive. You can't make Pharm more competitive if you keep strong monopoly rights over drugs.
You want a solution, turn Capitalism loose on the problem. Isn't that want Republicans at least claim to want to do?
That's a tough question .... (as Paul)
...er, no it isn't. You are a pirate.
Paul
Re: it's a DoD thang! (as Paul)
"1st, all of you whiners need to realize that it is illegal to download ANYTHING to a DoD computer, especially for personal use. Yes it is, in fact, a criminal offense that people CAN go to jail for, and people HAVE been fired for."
You can't use a browser without downloading things to your computer.
Are you seriously going to claim this is illegal?
But you do have some valid points about some government jobs, and some government computers. Not all government jobs, and not all government computers.
Some companies are just as strict, and just as sensitive to risk.
It is all about common sense, after all. If your system handles HIPAA data, or classified data, or documents with trade secrets ... you need a certain level of security, and security training for your users.
If your system is really just there for email and access to generally public information about your company.... you need a certain, much lower level of security.
To one extent or another, everyone with a job has need of both sorts of access. In my past jobs as a government military contractor, consultant to government human services, game development, Microsoft, IBM, and even my own companies, I generally used different machines (and accounts... yeah, I am that old) with different and appropriate levels of security.
And I have taken these courses (and courses like them) through the years. And yes, they are always stupid. You just turn your brain off about information, and on about what they want you to say, and you can pass them just fine.
A Web site for downloading music.... (as Paul)
A Web site for downloading music. That is what your "friend" is telling you about, right?
Then the various lectures you get when you hit wrong answers lecture you about P2P applications... Which CAN BE insecure, to various degrees depending on which ones you are talking about, let's be fair.
But if we are talking about a WEB SITE... And you are not supposed to use ANY P2P type program... (I'll generalize and simply assume they mean an application commonly used to download music)...
Doesn't that description by definition have to include your Browser?
Dvorak (as Paul)
I have done a bit of surfing on this issue, and it seems that everyone is boiling down Dvorak's issues raised in his blog to questions about Chopra's Masters Degree. I really don't understand why, given that this plays such a minor role in Dvorak's criticism of Chopra. Dvorak has updated his blog entry with that information about the MS degree, without any loss in the sting against Chopra, best I can tell.
Seriously, the bigger picture here shouldn't be lost. Washington has a habit of putting absolute dolts in charge of setting up policy. I don't know what the answer really is, since I would be just as disturbed if Obama had put Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, or Larry Ellison, or Sergey Brin, or Larry Pageany, or any number of other recognizable tech names in the same position.
The real question is exactly where is this guy coming from, what are his goals, and why do we believe he has the right plan for Information Technology?
And why isn't anyone seriously digging into these questions? I mean, do your own searches. Where are the answers to these broader questions about Chopra, rather than just this hyper focus on this one single question Dvorak clearly got wrong, out of all the questions Dvorak raised?
But is Aneesh Chopra a phony? (as Paul)
I only bring this up because I ran across Dvorak's Article:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio -vivek-kundra-a-phony/
Has anyone else dug into this?
Re: (as Paul)
"Works created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in 17 U.S.C. ยง 302. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright
Re: classic fallacy (as Paul)
What is P and what is Q?
Is P the power to enact patent and copyright law?
Is Q the actual patent and copyright law?
If so, where did anyone imply that the fact that congress has enacted patent and copyright law that that gives them the right to do so?
I am confused.
No ITunes? Oh Well! (as Paul)
You allow Apple to dictate how your devices are used and loaded, and you have to accept their decisions.
I will have nothing to do with closed, tightly controlled platforms like ITunes, IPhones, IPods, or I-anything else.
The I in ITunes (and all other such products) refers to Apple, not the customer.
I think Apple's action is the more questionable issue... (as Paul)
Obviously there exists an argument about who owns the data. However, Apple made that argument moot. They refused to update the Routesy application, and when it quit working (after a modification to the Muni web site) it was removed from the app store.
Apple simply took the word of NBIS as they must I think given the receipt of a take down notice. Nobody has ruled in favor of NBIS, but NBIS wins by default. If this data is really in the Public Domain (despite their arguments about owning predictions), then the Public loses by default. We (the Public) are denied the use of technology simply because "someone" asserts they own something, even if the courts, if pressed, might very well rule that this "someone" does not.