Yes, I've heard that combat experience tends to transfer well to copyright litigation. Why would anyone ever bother questioning the motives and actions of someone so clearly qualified in this field?
Or do you think that fighting in a war gives someone carte blanche to profit off of other soldiers in whatever way he sees fit? It doesn't. I don't care if he personally shot Hitler, that's no reason he should be able to ransom a war memorial for several million dollars. This is wrong.
This seems reasonable to me. Can you imagine how many sales of this statue Gaylord must have lost due to the wide distribution of those stamps? I heard he only managed to sell one of it!
"We thought it would be nice to put our idea out there and wait to see how many people were willing to give us money for it. As it turns out, that was a mistake. This fundraising has been ridiculous. We don't need millions of dollars of donations, people. That's your money! I mean, thank you, but stop it!"
"Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story)."
People assume that lawsuits are a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, they're more like a big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
"IP and Piracy is the only crime that people insist will stop if we merely 'educate' people properly."
I've seen a similar sentiment with drugs and underage drinking. What it amounts to is an acknowledgement that there isn't much reason for people to think out something's bad on their own, coupled with an admission that conventional law enforcement strategies aren't working.
If you can infringe on a patent without making a product substantially similar to the patent holder's, and all the basic components are no longer patented, then the patent is too broad. What does Honeywell even have patented here? Connecting an appliance to the Internet? Using words to prompt the user to enter their preferred temperature range?
I'd say Nest's reception is relevant, if indirectly. If Nest really was as substantially similar to Honeywell as is being claimed, it probably would not have been nearly as well-received.
It's hardly an airtight argument on its own, but it does seem like it could be a valid support.
Etiquette has little to do with it. A person can be polite while saying nothing substantial (such as your "are you okay" example). However, a person can also be blunt without saying anything substantial (posting "jealous wee bitch" at every opportunity as if it was the only thing you knew how to type). The important part is that you finally used words to convey real thoughts, which is something you had been failing to do in most of your earlier posts. Prior to your more recent posts I wasn't even sure that you had any real thoughts to convey. And, as an aside, there are more ways to be a dick than to call people mean names. I'm fond of condescension, myself.
I didn't before I started trying to figure out how to hack my computer. As it turns out all that's required is downloading one off of Sourceforge and running the program. Other things I learned during that process included what a keylogger is, what Sourceforge is, and what freeware is. A determined child with a specific objective can learn a lot very quickly when armed with Google.
"Dude, you've got to stop with the 'slight paraphrase' tactic Mike uses. I never said 'the scum of the earth'...
I've mentioned Reaper a number of times because others here keep claiming Dan had to practically prostitute himself at Piccadilly Circus to make music."
Dude, you've got to stop using the 'slight paraphrase' tactic Mike uses. I never said "prostitute" or "Piccadilly Circus".
See how ridiculous that is?
"and I haven't focused on Bull not having bought Reaper"
It looks like you have from over here.
"I've repeatedly pointed out he DIDN'T NEED TO pirate expensive software to make his music once he'd bought and later downloaded a cracked version of Cubase."
And I probably should've been more direct in pointing out that NOT NEEDING something doesn't make using it abusive, and not using cheaper alternatives isn't abusing them either. That he didn't need something is not the end of the debate when you're saying that his using that thing makes any sympathy for the blocking of a major part of his business model unjustified.
"No, he could have bought Reaper for $60 anytime after 2006 as his version of Cubase let him down (allegedly)."
And I've agreed that he should've done so. I dispute your claim that his not doing so means he was abusing anyone.
"By the way Reaper was pretty well known and used by a band of followers from 2005. And in the last 6 years since 2006 there have been a number of well publicised free or very cheap music software products coming on the scene."
Okay then, I'll stop bringing up potential ignorance.
"That isn't what I've been saying. Why mischaracterize the counter claim?"
Err, because in the post I was responding to you said "Well you're just arguing based on guesswork and a biased personal opinion. You really have no idea whether or not Bull had the money in his account to buy more music software. No one does except Bull", which seems to pretty clearly be insinuating that you think he might've been able to afford it. I suppose it might've been my fault for assuming your posts would contain relevant responses to mine, rather than random statements that are true when removed from context, but that's the only way I know how to hold a conversation.
"He could have supported other young creative people buy buying some music software however"
He could have. If it were available for purchase at the time, he probably should have. I still say choosing not to buy software does not qualify as abuse.
"I believe people make financial choices. Bull chose to pirate music software claiming he couldn't afford it. At the same time he presumably could afford to become heavily involved in gaming."
Those are two very different financial commitments. Over the last three years I've spent a total of around a thousand dollars on video games, and I'm at least involved enough in gaming to understand everything he's talked about. Unless you go and buy every game you see a positive review for, gaming isn't a very large immediate drain on one's financial resources.
And, since you're still pointing out the existence of Reaper like not buying it makes him the scum of the Earth, I will point out once again that it became available for purchase in August of 2006, the same year that Dan Bull started releasing music. Since Wikipedia wouldn't provide me with a month on Bull's end, there is (barring further information) a chance of seven out of twelve that it was not possible for Dan Bull to purchase Reaper because it was not possible for anyone to purchase Reaper. Should he have done all this in the first seven months of the year, would you like to try arguing how downloading freeware helps its programmers put food on the table?
"Bull says he 'lives for the internet'. Where I live it costs money to 'live for the internet'."
Maybe people are just far more okay with killing each other over minor provocations or differing beliefs than we like to think, and the particular brand of belief doesn't matter much. That's all irrelevant, though, because I don't think any of the quotes used in that discussion were advocating the slaughtering of heretics.
Re: Re: gaylord, a great big pr$ck
Yes, I've heard that combat experience tends to transfer well to copyright litigation. Why would anyone ever bother questioning the motives and actions of someone so clearly qualified in this field?
Or do you think that fighting in a war gives someone carte blanche to profit off of other soldiers in whatever way he sees fit? It doesn't. I don't care if he personally shot Hitler, that's no reason he should be able to ransom a war memorial for several million dollars. This is wrong.
(untitled comment)
This seems reasonable to me. Can you imagine how many sales of this statue Gaylord must have lost due to the wide distribution of those stamps? I heard he only managed to sell one of it!
Re: Re: but, but...
The general Kickstarter success rate is about 50%. I'm not sure what it is for music specifically, but I'd be very surprised if it was only 1%.
(untitled comment)
"We thought it would be nice to put our idea out there and wait to see how many people were willing to give us money for it. As it turns out, that was a mistake. This fundraising has been ridiculous. We don't need millions of dollars of donations, people. That's your money! I mean, thank you, but stop it!"
Re: Re: but, but...
That was just one idiot. It doesn't seem to have caught on.
Re: Beholden huh?
If that were actually true, The Last Airbender would never have been made.
Re: Re:
"Now it appears that the "entitlement" argument has been co-opted by the other side."
We're just as entitled to that argument as you are.
(untitled comment)
"Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story)."
People assume that lawsuits are a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, they're more like a big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
Re:
"IP and Piracy is the only crime that people insist will stop if we merely 'educate' people properly."
I've seen a similar sentiment with drugs and underage drinking. What it amounts to is an acknowledgement that there isn't much reason for people to think out something's bad on their own, coupled with an admission that conventional law enforcement strategies aren't working.
(untitled comment)
The first rule of government spending: why have one when you can have two for twice the price?
Re: Re: Re:
If you can infringe on a patent without making a product substantially similar to the patent holder's, and all the basic components are no longer patented, then the patent is too broad. What does Honeywell even have patented here? Connecting an appliance to the Internet? Using words to prompt the user to enter their preferred temperature range?
Re:
I'd say Nest's reception is relevant, if indirectly. If Nest really was as substantially similar to Honeywell as is being claimed, it probably would not have been nearly as well-received.
It's hardly an airtight argument on its own, but it does seem like it could be a valid support.
Re:
You get arrested for showing naked emperors to children.
Re: btw... Y U look down on me ?
Etiquette has little to do with it. A person can be polite while saying nothing substantial (such as your "are you okay" example). However, a person can also be blunt without saying anything substantial (posting "jealous wee bitch" at every opportunity as if it was the only thing you knew how to type). The important part is that you finally used words to convey real thoughts, which is something you had been failing to do in most of your earlier posts. Prior to your more recent posts I wasn't even sure that you had any real thoughts to convey. And, as an aside, there are more ways to be a dick than to call people mean names. I'm fond of condescension, myself.
Re: Re: Re: It really is simple
I didn't before I started trying to figure out how to hack my computer. As it turns out all that's required is downloading one off of Sourceforge and running the program. Other things I learned during that process included what a keylogger is, what Sourceforge is, and what freeware is. A determined child with a specific objective can learn a lot very quickly when armed with Google.
Re: It really is simple
How to bypass parental blocks:
Step 1: Install keylogger on computer.
Step 2: Find blocked legitimate site.
Step 3: Request that parent bypass block for legitimate site.
Step 4: Retrieve password from keylogger.
I'm sure there are other ways to get around them too, but that was how my first day with my own laptop went.
Re: Re:
Very good. You contributed something of substance to the discussion and didn't waste half the post calling him a jealous wee bitch. I'm proud of you.
Re: Re: Re: Claim and counter claim
"Dude, you've got to stop with the 'slight paraphrase' tactic Mike uses. I never said 'the scum of the earth'...
I've mentioned Reaper a number of times because others here keep claiming Dan had to practically prostitute himself at Piccadilly Circus to make music."
Dude, you've got to stop using the 'slight paraphrase' tactic Mike uses. I never said "prostitute" or "Piccadilly Circus".
See how ridiculous that is?
"and I haven't focused on Bull not having bought Reaper"
It looks like you have from over here.
"I've repeatedly pointed out he DIDN'T NEED TO pirate expensive software to make his music once he'd bought and later downloaded a cracked version of Cubase."
And I probably should've been more direct in pointing out that NOT NEEDING something doesn't make using it abusive, and not using cheaper alternatives isn't abusing them either. That he didn't need something is not the end of the debate when you're saying that his using that thing makes any sympathy for the blocking of a major part of his business model unjustified.
"No, he could have bought Reaper for $60 anytime after 2006 as his version of Cubase let him down (allegedly)."
And I've agreed that he should've done so. I dispute your claim that his not doing so means he was abusing anyone.
"By the way Reaper was pretty well known and used by a band of followers from 2005. And in the last 6 years since 2006 there have been a number of well publicised free or very cheap music software products coming on the scene."
Okay then, I'll stop bringing up potential ignorance.
Re: Claim and counter claim
"That isn't what I've been saying. Why mischaracterize the counter claim?"
Err, because in the post I was responding to you said "Well you're just arguing based on guesswork and a biased personal opinion. You really have no idea whether or not Bull had the money in his account to buy more music software. No one does except Bull", which seems to pretty clearly be insinuating that you think he might've been able to afford it. I suppose it might've been my fault for assuming your posts would contain relevant responses to mine, rather than random statements that are true when removed from context, but that's the only way I know how to hold a conversation.
"He could have supported other young creative people buy buying some music software however"
He could have. If it were available for purchase at the time, he probably should have. I still say choosing not to buy software does not qualify as abuse.
"I believe people make financial choices. Bull chose to pirate music software claiming he couldn't afford it. At the same time he presumably could afford to become heavily involved in gaming."
Those are two very different financial commitments. Over the last three years I've spent a total of around a thousand dollars on video games, and I'm at least involved enough in gaming to understand everything he's talked about. Unless you go and buy every game you see a positive review for, gaming isn't a very large immediate drain on one's financial resources.
And, since you're still pointing out the existence of Reaper like not buying it makes him the scum of the Earth, I will point out once again that it became available for purchase in August of 2006, the same year that Dan Bull started releasing music. Since Wikipedia wouldn't provide me with a month on Bull's end, there is (barring further information) a chance of seven out of twelve that it was not possible for Dan Bull to purchase Reaper because it was not possible for anyone to purchase Reaper. Should he have done all this in the first seven months of the year, would you like to try arguing how downloading freeware helps its programmers put food on the table?
"Bull says he 'lives for the internet'. Where I live it costs money to 'live for the internet'."
Where I live it doesn't cost all that much.
Re: Re: “two of the largest and most brutal dictatorships in the twentieth century were not religious in nature, but atheistic and secular: ”
Maybe people are just far more okay with killing each other over minor provocations or differing beliefs than we like to think, and the particular brand of belief doesn't matter much. That's all irrelevant, though, because I don't think any of the quotes used in that discussion were advocating the slaughtering of heretics.