... Fox's COO, Chase Carey, claims that if they lose the Aereo case, they might shut down Fox, the network TV channel, and move all its content to cable TV channels.
That's been debunked. The guy who made the Supersize Me movie falsified his research. You cannot reach the calorie counts he claimed without violating the rules he claims he followed.
I suppose that it's possible he faked his data.
Someone who actually does follow the rules claimed in Supersize Me tends to maintain or even lose weight on a McDonalds diet unless they are a total couch potato.
Nope, sorry, I probably wouldn't believe this statement with a mountain of data to back it up.
And just a side note: as I recall, he wasn't having as much trouble with weight gain as he was with liver damage...
Instead of just one 99 cent song (because hey clever guy, who only has just 1 song?), Alice has 2000 99 cent songs. However, she finds that she doesn't listen to 100 or so anymore, and she would like to sell her legally purchased property. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?
I'll tell you why. Because you goons want your cake and to eat it too. "No no, you can't make copies, because they are digital property." and "No no, you can't sell them, because it's just a license, you don't own that."
Yeah, agreed, this is a pretty horrible decision. And if you extrapolate it just a teeny bit further, I'm not sure if it would make a difference if you *had* the discs in your Office 2010 example.
As I read this article, I found myself wanting to yell at my monitor, "Shut up you stupid old dinosaurs, you don't even know what you're saying!"
If you'd like a chuckle, check out his full (auto)biography on poemhunter.com; I'm not going to link to it for fear of being held libel.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but in my humble opinion his poetry is complete garbage, the kind of drivel that emo fourteen year olds write in high school.
If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.
Mike, there is no level too ridiculous or extreme that a career prosecutor won't go to. And defending business models seems to be the new goal of many US govt agencies...
A noble goal my friend. It is too bad that you are under the delusion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property". Just look at those two words. They don't go together! You can't own an idea.
Congress can't selectively decree who can and cannot have copyright protection. If it provides it to anyone, it has to be available to all.
Ok, follow along with us slowly here:
(from above) "Rather, the copyright act (a federal law) says that works created by the federal government are ineligible for copyright. (17 USC 105 IIRC)"
Still with us? Ok, now:
Congress makes and/or changes laws.
That was a tough one, I agree. But stay in there:
Congress can modify the copyright act to state that State and local government materials are *also* not eligible for copyright!
What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda.
Well, right up front you damage your credibility with a statement like that. I assure you that there are many of us who do not feel what he did was clear-cut, black and white "wrong" as you seem to think.
However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model.
And now, to me at least, your credibility is irreparably damaged due to the fact that you used the word "own" in conjunction with the nonsense phrase "intellectual property". Here's a pro-tip: you can't own an idea.
Having said that, I did read your complete post, and minus the two glaring issues I've already addressed, I hear what you're saying and I agree that Swartz will be missed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:and we all know
Was that a command or an affirmative statement?
Re: Hmm
Yep, this was my thinking as well. There must be some bit of misinformation in there that they really, really want everyone to read and believe.
Too bad they didn't stop at "shut down Fox"
... Fox's COO, Chase Carey, claims that if they lose the Aereo case, they might shut down Fox, the network TV channel, and move all its content to cable TV channels.
And nothing of value was lost.
Re:
Are you suggesting that our planet is not experiencing global warming, either aided by man or not?
Re: Re: Re:
That's been debunked. The guy who made the Supersize Me movie falsified his research. You cannot reach the calorie counts he claimed without violating the rules he claims he followed.
I suppose that it's possible he faked his data.
Someone who actually does follow the rules claimed in Supersize Me tends to maintain or even lose weight on a McDonalds diet unless they are a total couch potato.
Nope, sorry, I probably wouldn't believe this statement with a mountain of data to back it up.
And just a side note: as I recall, he wasn't having as much trouble with weight gain as he was with liver damage...
Re: Re: Another update
Golf clap my friend. You deserve it.
Re: Boo effing hoo
I'll play along.
Instead of just one 99 cent song (because hey clever guy, who only has just 1 song?), Alice has 2000 99 cent songs. However, she finds that she doesn't listen to 100 or so anymore, and she would like to sell her legally purchased property. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?
I'll tell you why. Because you goons want your cake and to eat it too. "No no, you can't make copies, because they are digital property." and "No no, you can't sell them, because it's just a license, you don't own that."
Screw you, stupid lying shill.
Re: Re: Very bad ruling
Yeah, agreed, this is a pretty horrible decision. And if you extrapolate it just a teeny bit further, I'm not sure if it would make a difference if you *had* the discs in your Office 2010 example.
As I read this article, I found myself wanting to yell at my monitor, "Shut up you stupid old dinosaurs, you don't even know what you're saying!"
Re: Re: That last line -
Yes, dismemberment would be very suitable ... what?
Disbarment? You softy.
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure its "vexatious behaviour".
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, Burger King only sells Whoppers, not Whoopers. Pity, because a Whooper sounds utterly delicious.
shaun shane, wtf
If you'd like a chuckle, check out his full (auto)biography on poemhunter.com; I'm not going to link to it for fear of being held libel.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but in my humble opinion his poetry is complete garbage, the kind of drivel that emo fourteen year olds write in high school.
Just thought I'd mention
If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.
Mike, there is no level too ridiculous or extreme that a career prosecutor won't go to. And defending business models seems to be the new goal of many US govt agencies...
Re: Re: Huzzah!
Strange, I could've sworn that would be a given, what with aircraft being large, expensive and scarce relative to movies. Why point that out?
Because you can watch movies on planes, silly!
Re: OEM abuse of copyright concepts
A noble goal my friend. It is too bad that you are under the delusion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property". Just look at those two words. They don't go together! You can't own an idea.
Re:
Viva la revolucion!
Re:
With that kind of thinking, you could sell any kind of snake-oil and then sue when they said it wasn't effective.
Is there any room in your mind for the possibility that the pharm corporations might have a little bias?
Re: Re: erm...
I'm no gun control nut, but I can make a pretty convincing argument that there is indeed a direct cause and effect:
cause: bullets fired at people
effect: bullet holes in people
Re: Re: Re: Re: public funding
Congress can't selectively decree who can and cannot have copyright protection. If it provides it to anyone, it has to be available to all.
Ok, follow along with us slowly here:
(from above) "Rather, the copyright act (a federal law) says that works created by the federal government are ineligible for copyright. (17 USC 105 IIRC)"
Still with us? Ok, now:
Congress makes and/or changes laws.
That was a tough one, I agree. But stay in there:
Congress can modify the copyright act to state that State and local government materials are *also* not eligible for copyright!
Shizbam!
Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda.
Well, right up front you damage your credibility with a statement like that. I assure you that there are many of us who do not feel what he did was clear-cut, black and white "wrong" as you seem to think.
However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model.
And now, to me at least, your credibility is irreparably damaged due to the fact that you used the word "own" in conjunction with the nonsense phrase "intellectual property". Here's a pro-tip: you can't own an idea.
Having said that, I did read your complete post, and minus the two glaring issues I've already addressed, I hear what you're saying and I agree that Swartz will be missed.