I guess that's why all those tens of millions of people who commit copyright infringement everyday are hauled into a criminal court, for the crime of theft.
I'd like to see just ONE example of that. Just one.
Please explain again what it is that's being retransmitted publicly? I don't see where this is any different from simply renting television antennae.
I care about more than just myself.
Likewise. Which is why, even though I haven't watched a television program in over a year and have no intentions of doing so any time soon, I'm still arguing for what seems unquestionably to be a legal service.
Digital antennas don't require retransmission fees. Cable and satellite services do. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
And even, if in some crazy alternate universe, it did lead to the elimination of retransmission fees, then tough shit. It's the networks' fault for tailoring their current model exclusively to that system. It's not the place of government or courts to reinforce their business model, and watching over-the-air television through a digital antenna doesn't suddenly become "piracy" or "stealing" over it, either.
Why? Because he uses plain but aggressive language to voice his displeasure with major media, instead of a rambling, masturbatory treatise about the original purpose of copyright and the nuances of Section 513? I think there's more than enough room for both styles of posting here.
I disagree strongly. I'm not necessarily a copyright abolitionist, but I find more merit in that point of view than in maintaining the status quo, and MUCH more than in expanding it.
Furthermore, a more radical push against copyright in general can always lead to compromise (ie, shortened terms or the elimination of "copyright on creation").
Then what are bitching about? Too much data is uploaded to proactively monitor and magically know which uses are infringing and which isn't. If you have a problem with that, then it *is* your problem, dipshit.
If you understand the relationship between primary and secondary markets, he's absolutely right...buying used *does* support the original company, albeit in a roundabout way.
I don't know of a .30 Magnum pistol cartridge. The FBI were issued .38 Specials and .357 Magnums at the time...specifically, the Smith & Wesson models 10 and 19.
The National Guard troops at Kent State were using M1 Garand rifles, which were chambered for .30-06 Springfield. This is the type of round embedded in the statue artp mentioned.
I'll never understand that mentality, AT ALL. You can't see the profits for the copyright...even though the whiners would be no better off if nobody consumes their content than if individuals consume it without paying, you still insist on the former.
Personally, I believe in granting you your wish. Don't pirate, don't purchase. If a few more people jumped on that train, you fuckers would be BEGGING for the pirates to come back. Where there's relevance, there's always an opportunity for monetization, but where there's irrelevance, there's only irrelevance.
(untitled comment)
How unbelievably horrible do you have to be to make Gordan Ramsay seem reasonable?
Re: The problem is property.
If I could make "insightful" 10 times, I would.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess that's why all those tens of millions of people who commit copyright infringement everyday are hauled into a criminal court, for the crime of theft.
I'd like to see just ONE example of that. Just one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
Re:
There's a Special 404 list as well, but nobody knows what's in it because it can't be found.
(untitled comment)
If this were in Boston, they'd probably be ransacking his home searching for Light Brites with Mooninites on them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain again what it is that's being retransmitted publicly? I don't see where this is any different from simply renting television antennae.
I care about more than just myself.
Likewise. Which is why, even though I haven't watched a television program in over a year and have no intentions of doing so any time soon, I'm still arguing for what seems unquestionably to be a legal service.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Digital antennas don't require retransmission fees. Cable and satellite services do. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
And even, if in some crazy alternate universe, it did lead to the elimination of retransmission fees, then tough shit. It's the networks' fault for tailoring their current model exclusively to that system. It's not the place of government or courts to reinforce their business model, and watching over-the-air television through a digital antenna doesn't suddenly become "piracy" or "stealing" over it, either.
Re: Re: Re: Darkest Timeline
Why? Because he uses plain but aggressive language to voice his displeasure with major media, instead of a rambling, masturbatory treatise about the original purpose of copyright and the nuances of Section 513? I think there's more than enough room for both styles of posting here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree strongly. I'm not necessarily a copyright abolitionist, but I find more merit in that point of view than in maintaining the status quo, and MUCH more than in expanding it.
Furthermore, a more radical push against copyright in general can always lead to compromise (ie, shortened terms or the elimination of "copyright on creation").
Re: Re: Re:
With an attitude like that, of course it's not going to happen.
Let's go ahead and lock all those slaves back up, too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess what? That's not my fucking problem.
Then what are bitching about? Too much data is uploaded to proactively monitor and magically know which uses are infringing and which isn't. If you have a problem with that, then it *is* your problem, dipshit.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
No.
Re: Re: Re: Re: According to OOTB -- you're close enough.
Megaupload had similar terms of service.
Re: NRA is behind this.
Err...No. It's just Feinstein grandstanding, as usual. She's not affiliated with the NRA, in fact she's one of their most hated government officials.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Catch 22
If you understand the relationship between primary and secondary markets, he's absolutely right...buying used *does* support the original company, albeit in a roundabout way.
LOL
I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Too late
Not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that there is such a cartridge, or are you replying to the wrong post?
Re: Re: Too late
I don't know of a .30 Magnum pistol cartridge. The FBI were issued .38 Specials and .357 Magnums at the time...specifically, the Smith & Wesson models 10 and 19.
The National Guard troops at Kent State were using M1 Garand rifles, which were chambered for .30-06 Springfield. This is the type of round embedded in the statue artp mentioned.
Re:
I'll never understand that mentality, AT ALL. You can't see the profits for the copyright...even though the whiners would be no better off if nobody consumes their content than if individuals consume it without paying, you still insist on the former.
Personally, I believe in granting you your wish. Don't pirate, don't purchase. If a few more people jumped on that train, you fuckers would be BEGGING for the pirates to come back. Where there's relevance, there's always an opportunity for monetization, but where there's irrelevance, there's only irrelevance.