It's the same as saying "Despite laws against speeding, people still speed. Ergo, speeding laws should not be enforced".
That's an institution full of retardation there.
Actually, that's a really interesting analogy you bring up there, Mr. Douchebag. Because in my considered opinion, enforcing speed limits does precisely zero to increase safety. Hmmm, I wonder why they do it then?
Also an awesome analogy, because as soon as a speeder has received his ticket and is back on the road, he's probably speeding again in less than five minutes. So you've just made Mike's case. What do you want to bet that Intellectual Property Enforcement is getting a lot more money thrown at it than speeding?
But still too much of a spineless coward to actually admit he supports piracy.
Do you never get tired of being so completely wrong? Mike has been 100% solid on this point: He does not condone copyright infringement. Nothing he has said/written has been in support of people copying/sharing. What he has said many times is that Intellectual Property enforcement is a no-win game. How, unless you yourself are a sociopath, do you read that as an endorsement? Telling someone that you can't stop the rain by waving your arms at it is not condoning rain, it's just a statement of fact!
p.s. Since we're going for the personal insults, you're a douchebag.
Furthermore, most EULAs involve installing the software package. If you did not install it, but instead only decompiled the code, I'm pretty sure you would bypass EULA restrictions.
Having said that, this patent troll company and its engineers are scum.
The bill's sponsors were actually negotiating with themselves as it opponents refused to provide even an iota of constructive input into how the bill's provisions could be amended to address their concerns.
Thanks for admitting this, because it is the key to the whole problem. They WERE negotiating with themselves, they were not letting any other actual stakeholders to the table, they would not listen to subject matter experts, and so they got stomped. I couldn't be more thrilled.
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill.
The Internet's finest hour. By the way, there was something the sponsor's did not try to "ameliorate concerns": drop that unneeded piece of garbage legislation like it was a hot potato.
Mmm, I marked your comment funny, but in retrospect I think I should have marked it "Quite Possible". Don't see that button though, so you get to keep the funny vote.
Exactly this. They have completely forgotten who they work for, or to be more accurate, they have decided that they work for corporations instead of the common Joe that voted them into office.
The Washington Post’s Rob Malda’s recent blog post appears to argue that the success of a particular film at the box office somehow means that concerns about widespread piracy are misplaced. This is a bit like condoning shoplifting if it’s done at a successful store. Of course, we shouldn’t. And it overlooks the economic damage – and the damage to consumers -- of turning a blind eye to such forms of theft.
The single best thing these idiots could do to try to clean up their hopelessly tarnished image is to KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF WITH THE STUPID STEALING METAPHORS! They are lies and they don't work, you're not shaming anyone, so just quit it! Copying is not stealing, it's COPYING! It's not like shoplifting, it's like COPYING! It's not like theft, it's like COPYING! It's not like plundering and pillaging on the open seas, it's like COPYING!
Michael O'Leary, please pay attention: copying is just copying after all. If you don't like that, tough, but nothing, NOTHING, you say can change this fact.
Agreed with the points in the article, and really enjoyed the example given. I have two things to add:
1. The consumers are not the only ones suffering from cognitive dissonance. The companies that bought the copyright extension laws seem to believe that everyone should follow them, even though they are demonstrably bad laws.
2. The Alabama Supreme Court may have banned parking meters back in 1937, but they're damn sure back in force now.
He can't give an example because it's bullshit, which is readily provable by analysis of precisely one of his statements:
There's lots of evidence that piracy of already popular albums hurts sales; there are plenty of sales charts where you can see sales ramping up, then the album appears on file sharing networks, and sales drop dramatically.
We can tell he's lying because his hypothetical album was already on file sharing networks before it even hit the stores.
Laird, the sales didn't drop dramatically because of file sharing, since as I noted above, it was already being shared before the first purchase. The sales dropped dramatically because the album sucked.
Unless this article is taken down immediately and a retraction is published immediately then it is the intention of my client.to sue and your reporter.
Yep, he definitely. a word.
Also: This is because these falsehoods and malicious misrepresentations could cause the film to lose its finacinmg and therefore its profits
C'mon Mike, you don't really want this film to lose its finacinmg, do you? 'Cause this is gonna be hilarious!
I have to wonder if you are joking. I can't read squirrel's Cracked link here at work, but the printer cartridge manufacturers began using the DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses as soon as it was passed. They would put a stupid little circuit on the cartridge that told the printer it was "authentic", and other manufacturers weren't allowed to reverse engineer the circuit according to the DMCA, so could not sell after-market cartridges. Totally abusive use of that idiotic law.
"If you add a spoonful of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage. If you add a spoonful of sewage to a barrel of wine, you also have a barrel of sewage."
I like that saying, although I have to disagree with part of it. I think it would take more like a cup of sewage added to the barrel of wine to convert it into a barrel of sewage. Most wine connoisseurs would probably only detect the dispersed spoonful as a piquant flavor.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also an awesome analogy, because as soon as a speeder has received his ticket and is back on the road, he's probably speeding again in less than five minutes. So you've just made Mike's case. What do you want to bet that Intellectual Property Enforcement is getting a lot more money thrown at it than speeding?
Re: Don't forget...
Keep in mind that Ron Kirk says that the TPP negotiations are the MOST transparent trade negotiations EVER.
Have you SEEN the TPP negotiations? No? Then they must be pretty damn transparent right?
Re: Re: Re:
Whoops, left out a key word:
Nothing he has said/written has been in support of people illegally copying/sharing.
Re: Re:
But still too much of a spineless coward to actually admit he supports piracy.
Do you never get tired of being so completely wrong? Mike has been 100% solid on this point: He does not condone copyright infringement. Nothing he has said/written has been in support of people copying/sharing. What he has said many times is that Intellectual Property enforcement is a no-win game. How, unless you yourself are a sociopath, do you read that as an endorsement? Telling someone that you can't stop the rain by waving your arms at it is not condoning rain, it's just a statement of fact!
p.s. Since we're going for the personal insults, you're a douchebag.
Re: Re: How is this legal?
Furthermore, most EULAs involve installing the software package. If you did not install it, but instead only decompiled the code, I'm pretty sure you would bypass EULA restrictions.
Having said that, this patent troll company and its engineers are scum.
Re: Re: Re: Poor Engineers
Like bonuses for every case of "infringement" found, I'm sure.
Re:
The bill's sponsors were actually negotiating with themselves as it opponents refused to provide even an iota of constructive input into how the bill's provisions could be amended to address their concerns.
Thanks for admitting this, because it is the key to the whole problem. They WERE negotiating with themselves, they were not letting any other actual stakeholders to the table, they would not listen to subject matter experts, and so they got stomped. I couldn't be more thrilled.
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill.
The Internet's finest hour. By the way, there was something the sponsor's did not try to "ameliorate concerns": drop that unneeded piece of garbage legislation like it was a hot potato.
Re: Re: BFG9000
Mmm, I marked your comment funny, but in retrospect I think I should have marked it "Quite Possible". Don't see that button though, so you get to keep the funny vote.
Re:
Exactly this. They have completely forgotten who they work for, or to be more accurate, they have decided that they work for corporations instead of the common Joe that voted them into office.
(untitled comment)
Michael O'Leary, please pay attention: copying is just copying after all. If you don't like that, tough, but nothing, NOTHING, you say can change this fact.
Re: To: Richard Rosenthal
+1 for the Jenny reference!
Cognitive dissonance
Agreed with the points in the article, and really enjoyed the example given. I have two things to add:
1. The consumers are not the only ones suffering from cognitive dissonance. The companies that bought the copyright extension laws seem to believe that everyone should follow them, even though they are demonstrably bad laws.
2. The Alabama Supreme Court may have banned parking meters back in 1937, but they're damn sure back in force now.
Re:
If you use the term "cyber" anything you are either a scaremonger with an agenda or a complete utter dumb fool.
William Gibson is a sad panda :(
Re:
You mean because that dirty piracy apologist Chris Dodd hangs out there?
Re: Ratchet up the hyperbole
You wouldn't murder a car, WOULD YOU?
Re: Re: It's not that simple
He can't give an example because it's bullshit, which is readily provable by analysis of precisely one of his statements:
There's lots of evidence that piracy of already popular albums hurts sales; there are plenty of sales charts where you can see sales ramping up, then the album appears on file sharing networks, and sales drop dramatically.
We can tell he's lying because his hypothetical album was already on file sharing networks before it even hit the stores.
Laird, the sales didn't drop dramatically because of file sharing, since as I noted above, it was already being shared before the first purchase. The sales dropped dramatically because the album sucked.
Re: Re: Re:
Unless this article is taken down immediately and a retraction is published immediately then it is the intention of my client.to sue and your reporter.
Yep, he definitely. a word.
Also:
This is because these falsehoods and malicious misrepresentations could cause the film to lose its finacinmg and therefore its profits
C'mon Mike, you don't really want this film to lose its finacinmg, do you? 'Cause this is gonna be hilarious!
C'mon guys, get with the program
When YOU lie under oath, that is perjury.
When police lie under oath, that is a "mistaken recollection of events".
Re: Circumvention
I have to wonder if you are joking. I can't read squirrel's Cracked link here at work, but the printer cartridge manufacturers began using the DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses as soon as it was passed. They would put a stupid little circuit on the cartridge that told the printer it was "authentic", and other manufacturers weren't allowed to reverse engineer the circuit according to the DMCA, so could not sell after-market cartridges. Totally abusive use of that idiotic law.
Re: Re: