Technically, psychiatry is practiced by an MD who specializes (post graduation) in mental illness. That's how psychiatrists can prescribe medication where as psychologists cannot.
In my field, once you fail to pay your annual dues to the professional engineering association, you lose the right (privilege?) to call yourself an engineer.
So far you've argued that people don't need to rely on copyright to make money, reiterating what we said.
What you haven't successfully argued yet is how people make money USING copyright.
Explain HOW using copyrights makes money.
Anything created automatically has a copyright on it. You don't need to mail yourself a copy to create a copyright or to register it with a government agency.
SO Doctorow's work is copyrighted, but he did NOT use that fact to make money.
So you still need to prove HOW one makes money using copyrights?
Beyond lawsuits, how does one generate any income from copyrights?
Because I'd love to create something and use the magic of copyrights to make money. Doesn't matter whether it is good or not, just has to be copyrighted and the system will generate money for me.
That's what you're imply, so go on and tell us how that happens - how copyright made Thriller the highest grossing album of all time. How Rumors holds the record for most sales in year of release.
The incentive to sue is amazing isn't it? And so productive. I mean all those artists making money, feeding their families because of lawsuits. All those would-be fans started buying thanks to lawsuits.
The world is wonderful thanks to copyrights.
Wake up buddy. The only reason you've heard of classical music is because it wasn't locked up with copyrights and any orchestra or musician can perform it.
Imagine if music created in the last century wasn't locked up, and others could play it, how culturally rich would we be?
What fucking benefit does a douchebag law like copyright afford society? Seriously, what benefit? Do you think it was copyrights that made Michael Jackson famous or propelled thriller to be highest grossing album of all time? Uh NO!
Like patents, copyright is simply a tool used to stifle innovation (fucking batteries in hybrids and electric vehicles are limited thanks to Chevron owning Panasonic's battery patent) or fight competition.
You go on and on about how copyrights are required but what good have they actually done? Give me one example where copyrights actually did something and not because of the content itself! You can't! But we can give you MANY examples where copyright maximalists have done nothing but try to stifle innovation and kill competition.
You love to write (as does Lowery) if free was so good why are you afraid of copyrights? Who said we're afraid of copyrights? We're afraid of copyright abuse, laws trying to kill competition in the name of copyrights. We're afraid of bullshit copyright claims to silence dissenting views and critiques of works.
And if copyrights were so fucking good why bitch and complain for the last 60 years? Why try to make up bullshit about old boss new boss with out-of-context quotes and anecdotal data (which he's NEVER put up - seriously -where's the charts and tables? Oh, you quote RIAA numbers or RIAA paid for studies - riiiiight)?
It's so obvious that it hurts you to understand, the majority of the population don't care about your copyrights. When laws don't fit, you change the laws.
Copyrights are not natural either. And you would not see much complaining if they were used in original context and with original intent. But they are not, just like patents.
Your IP is mere horseshit and nothing more than control freaks trying to maximize their temporary, short term gains instead of thinking of the future.
Maybe you have a real problem and it's short-term memory loss? It never makes it to long-term memory storage?
Oh, right, you support copyright maximalism, so that means you are not permitted to copy from short term to long term memory because that would be a copyright violation.
They claim copyright ownership, as written in said claim.
I have not bothered to contact Alex Day directly and see if he owns his copyrights, which would make said DMCA complete bullshit and actually warranting of fraud-claims.
But who knows what his YouTube Partner/network agreements are. If it were Google's agreement to own the rights (via the partnership) then BPI can file all they want. It's not like there's any enforceable law against bogus DMCA filings.
3500 + 10 000 pounds per month is pretty damn good living.
How is it the new boss is bad? Or is it, as Alex says, you need to "get" the new boss first before you can make use of it?
Perhaps that's the real problem and that's why cherrypicking quotes, to help remove them from context (such as the Thom Yorke post where cleverly quoting and drawing context, including the implication that Thom said something when it was the linked article Author who says "Google", not Thom) causes this lovely "cheer" from people who don't get it, and also don't earn 13 500 pounds per month without doing concerts/selling tshirts.
It was really well done! I wonder how many others will copy such an idea. I can see where she's coming from with feeling exploited, but maybe she should take it with a grain of salt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seemed stressed. I hope you have more patience with your patients.
Why let someone who does not understand get you so worked up?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, psychiatry is practiced by an MD who specializes (post graduation) in mental illness. That's how psychiatrists can prescribe medication where as psychologists cannot.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The article says he's no longer licensed.
In my field, once you fail to pay your annual dues to the professional engineering association, you lose the right (privilege?) to call yourself an engineer.
Re: Re: He's not a doctor
I know he has a PhD in Philolophy (It's in his name) in psychology (he's a psychologist).
And he was hilarious in that film. He saved Shaq.
My fav is still Scary Movie 2, James Woods as Father McFeely was down right awesome!
He's not a doctor
He admits this in the beginning minutes of Scary Movie 4. Apparently he's an electrician.
Re: Rogue
I don't think they mean rogue, they really mean Rouge, which is Red in France. Red is the symbol for Communism!
They are targeting the communist sites in an effort to bring back the cold war.
Re: Re: Re:
I've never heard Marcus' rap, but I guarantee it would be better than your arguments!
Re:
You just made half my office stop working and laugh hysterically.
I am so getting this game!
My aunts and cousin are all nurses, as are our long-time family friends. I'm going to have so much fun with this at Xmas.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So far you've argued that people don't need to rely on copyright to make money, reiterating what we said.
What you haven't successfully argued yet is how people make money USING copyright.
Explain HOW using copyrights makes money.
Anything created automatically has a copyright on it. You don't need to mail yourself a copy to create a copyright or to register it with a government agency.
SO Doctorow's work is copyrighted, but he did NOT use that fact to make money.
So you still need to prove HOW one makes money using copyrights?
Beyond lawsuits, how does one generate any income from copyrights?
Because I'd love to create something and use the magic of copyrights to make money. Doesn't matter whether it is good or not, just has to be copyrighted and the system will generate money for me.
That's what you're imply, so go on and tell us how that happens - how copyright made Thriller the highest grossing album of all time. How Rumors holds the record for most sales in year of release.
I'll wait.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The incentive to sue is amazing isn't it? And so productive. I mean all those artists making money, feeding their families because of lawsuits. All those would-be fans started buying thanks to lawsuits.
The world is wonderful thanks to copyrights.
Wake up buddy. The only reason you've heard of classical music is because it wasn't locked up with copyrights and any orchestra or musician can perform it.
Imagine if music created in the last century wasn't locked up, and others could play it, how culturally rich would we be?
What fucking benefit does a douchebag law like copyright afford society? Seriously, what benefit? Do you think it was copyrights that made Michael Jackson famous or propelled thriller to be highest grossing album of all time? Uh NO!
Like patents, copyright is simply a tool used to stifle innovation (fucking batteries in hybrids and electric vehicles are limited thanks to Chevron owning Panasonic's battery patent) or fight competition.
You go on and on about how copyrights are required but what good have they actually done? Give me one example where copyrights actually did something and not because of the content itself! You can't! But we can give you MANY examples where copyright maximalists have done nothing but try to stifle innovation and kill competition.
You love to write (as does Lowery) if free was so good why are you afraid of copyrights? Who said we're afraid of copyrights? We're afraid of copyright abuse, laws trying to kill competition in the name of copyrights. We're afraid of bullshit copyright claims to silence dissenting views and critiques of works.
And if copyrights were so fucking good why bitch and complain for the last 60 years? Why try to make up bullshit about old boss new boss with out-of-context quotes and anecdotal data (which he's NEVER put up - seriously -where's the charts and tables? Oh, you quote RIAA numbers or RIAA paid for studies - riiiiight)?
It's so obvious that it hurts you to understand, the majority of the population don't care about your copyrights. When laws don't fit, you change the laws.
Copyrights are not natural either. And you would not see much complaining if they were used in original context and with original intent. But they are not, just like patents.
Your IP is mere horseshit and nothing more than control freaks trying to maximize their temporary, short term gains instead of thinking of the future.
Re: Re: SO? Copyright recognizes that creators have that CHOICE.
If that's too difficult, go post on trichordist, they love your comments.
Re: Re: Re:
Forgot to take your meds again?
Maybe you have a real problem and it's short-term memory loss? It never makes it to long-term memory storage?
Oh, right, you support copyright maximalism, so that means you are not permitted to copy from short term to long term memory because that would be a copyright violation.
Gotcha.
Re: And then there's the DMCA notices
BPI filed that notice.
They claim copyright ownership, as written in said claim.
I have not bothered to contact Alex Day directly and see if he owns his copyrights, which would make said DMCA complete bullshit and actually warranting of fraud-claims.
But who knows what his YouTube Partner/network agreements are. If it were Google's agreement to own the rights (via the partnership) then BPI can file all they want. It's not like there's any enforceable law against bogus DMCA filings.
Re: would be interesting if true...
3500 + 10 000 pounds per month is pretty damn good living.
How is it the new boss is bad? Or is it, as Alex says, you need to "get" the new boss first before you can make use of it?
Perhaps that's the real problem and that's why cherrypicking quotes, to help remove them from context (such as the Thom Yorke post where cleverly quoting and drawing context, including the implication that Thom said something when it was the linked article Author who says "Google", not Thom) causes this lovely "cheer" from people who don't get it, and also don't earn 13 500 pounds per month without doing concerts/selling tshirts.
Awesome
It was really well done! I wonder how many others will copy such an idea. I can see where she's coming from with feeling exploited, but maybe she should take it with a grain of salt.
Better yet, run with it! Do performances!
Like Canadian Levies
Copying at home for backups not illegal, well isn't if there's no DRM.
How long before she's accused of being a Google shill?
Re: Re:
Or better yet, how about knocking at the door or looking in the window to notice someone vacuuming? Odd concept huh?
Re:
You mean due-diligent?
If they actually called don't you think the guy would have answered? How about phone records to prove they actually called?
Oh you were just commenting nonsense, OK, gotcha.
Re: Fake.
Misread that, 47 minutes, then 17 miles.
17 miles in 40 minutes: 25mph. Gurr.
I suppose he could have done that. Would be better if he just faked it, estimating 25mph average.
Fake.
Obvious fake, 30 miles in 13 minutes? That's 139mph.