Re: Because it's MORAL for the producers to get rewarded for what THEY created.
"Not your fat pirate slobs like Kim Dotcom."
When you try to make a moral argument by insulting someone's physical appearance, you fail badly.
"I skipped reading the body, need only your headline to know where you went: the usual baseless assertions that greasy grifters must be cut in and pirates allowed to steal however much wished."
And this is why nobody here takes you seriously, and I doubt it's just us who feels this way. The article has nothing to do with your suggestion, and the fact that you're so far off base shows you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
"SO, though I regret the coming of DRM, it's entirely reasonable and necessary."
That's sounds like something I'd expect to hear from a clueless politician! Please explain how something that has a long and sordid history of abject failure can be considered "reasonable and necessary".
Re: Goes WRONG at: "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains"
"Nor should Techdirt support a new bunch of sleazy little grifters like Spotify..."
I've spent more money buying music in the last six months than in the previous six years. Why? Spotify and Pandora, so called "grifters". Why do you hate people spending money on music? Why do you hate artists!
"its so funny you could have easily replaced the word FORD for Google and it would be exactly the same..."
That's the same claim you make in EVERY post! Just replace Ford with whoever the article is actually about, and bam, your latest zero-credibity Google attack. When are you going to get some new schtick to bore us with?
You're right, but completely missing the point, which is that this method is stupid and unfairly punishes the purchaser. It would be simple, and far better for the manufacturer's supposedly valuable customers, to have the machine freely movable within a set area, which could be a building, city or even country.
You don't necessarily need to be found guilty of such an act of conspiracy, you merely have to be threatened by these serious charges in order to make to take a plea deal. Techdirt and others have covered this tactic quite extensively. A law like this would give the DoJ the ability to make even scarier threats, and increase the chances of innocent people pleading guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the possibility, however unlikely, of being found guilty of a much more serious crime.
Security researchers do not operate in their own little bubble. If you find an exploitable weakness and discuss it with other researchers or knowledgeable people, and then later on do something to attract the DoJ's attention, their history would indicate your discussions could quite easily be turned into 'conspiring' in order to threaten you with serious charges.
Remember, we're not talking about common-sense interpretations here, but about how the laws can be and have been twisted by the DoJ for their own purposes, like making heavy-handed threats as part of a plea bargain.
"You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP..."
No, he doesn't realise that, because it's demonstrably FALSE. That fact that so many (too many) things are covered by IP laws does not mean 'IP' is the reason they exist. You weaken any argument you try to make with this ridiculous claim.
"So anything that hurts piracy helps us all by letting society reward those who do the work."
Your theory seems to leap right from "stop piracy" to "people give me money", missing out the critical step in the middle where the customer decides whether the price you're asking matches how much they value your work. It doesn't matter what you think is a fair return, you're not the one paying.
Note also that there's currently nothing stopping society rewarding those who do the work.
"You have NO credibility with such egregious comparison."
And you have no credibilty because your reading comprehension is so terrible. Mike was not comparing the scale of this case to the MegaUpload one, he was comparing the DoJ's similarly incompetent actions in each case.
Is English even your first language? Coz you really struggle with understanding it sometimes.
Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.
"Content is only created when profits are possible."
To refute this claim I offer the entirety of human history as proof you're completely wrong.
""The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet." -- WOW, what a revelation, Mike! Yeah, people who put MONEY in producing content want to get it back and then some. They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without."
Definitions of 'free':
adjective 1. able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another. 2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
adverb 1. without cost or payment.
When you confuse the adjective with the adverb, you look like a complete moron. Again.
Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
Because someone who is clearly not the real OOTB wrongly thought it would be clever to post under that name, maybe forgetting that OOTB's reputation is so bad that his comments get reported regardless of the content.
"My guess is that google would prefer a search result about Ian Watkins to provide a picture of the corresponding Ian Watkins, not some other Ian Watkins."
And as soon as Google invents a technology that can read the minds of users via their internet connection, they'll be able to tell which of the many thousands of Ian Watkins in the world was actually being searched for by that particular user at that particular time. In the mean time, Google (and those of us with a grasp on reality) accept that the current method of returning search results works pretty damn well nearly all of the time, and unlikely coincidences like this are unfortunate but not worth trying to fix by making Google work less effectively.