So to summarise your argument, John Nemesh, almost nobody actually took advantage of Linux support on the PS3, but Sony HAD to drop support because these almost nobodies were apparently still numerous enough to kill profits by not buying games. Contradict yourself much?
Sony's excuses are full of shit and you embarrass yourself by parrotting them thoughtlessly.
When one dubs something a 'Modest Proposal' in the Swiftian sense, it means that one is making fun of the kind of person who would make this proposal. Is that what this video is doing, mocking the sort of person/filmmaker who would propose we be 'Piracy Neutral'? I think not, or else it is doing a very muddled job of it, too meek to actually make a satirical point and too genuinely tickled by its own absurd concept to bother biting hard enough to be called 'satire'.
"I'm not sure if this means he "signed" the name Salt Marsh or he signed his own name on behalf of Salt Marsh, or if nobody signed a damn thing and a document was sloppily submitted with a claimed signature of Salt Marsh."
Sounds like there may be some sinister secret at play here!
Tune in again tomorrow on 'Days of Our Lawyers' for the trials and tribulations of the corrupt 'Prenda' crime family... you can't keep track of the characters anymore, but who cares? Because any of them could be replaced by another actor at any time.
Seriously Anonymous Coward? The world must be a very frightening place for you full of evil pixel-based dangers you do not wish to violate your precious, precious eyes.
I watched it. It was no big deal. You all have some weak-ass stomachs, and for you to stand up on some moral soapbox as if the one with the problem isn't *you*, as if it's somewhoe *normal* and *acceptable* to get all offended that somebody has had quite an ordinary injury and that *shock* other people are looking at it. It's just laughable.
It's not normal. You have a propblem. Get some psychoogical help. People break their legs all the time. Very often, they look funny and shinbones stick out. If you know the person, you console them. If you don't the person, you point and laugh. That's just life.
Precisely so. The time in history in which government shows absolute disrespect for the rule of law, is exactly that time in which you don't want it rewriting those laws. The fundamental byword of our time is *disrespect*, and it will be wielded with extreme prejudice by the current powers that be, whatever their attempted works. Let us all hope those works will not include rewriting America's basic DNA. Let's save that for after the apocalypse because there will probably be a few decades after our so-called 'civilisation' has collapsed when disrespect for democratic institutions becomes extremely *extremely* unpopular due to half the planet dying as the result of corporate-captured government. *That* will be the correct time to rewrite the Constitution from scratch. At the height of the Era of Enron and the Long Financial Con -- this is the worst possible time to build or rewrite *anything*.
Yeah basically if you have no notification within MyWorld then you are not on the list, is my understanding. I was talked through this over the phone with a TekSavvy Service Representative, and that is what he said so I am relying on that phone-based authority, for what it's worth.
John, check the email from TekSavvy again. I found it rather confusing; I thought it was telling me I was on the list. On closer reading, it turns out that it was telling me that I *may* be on the list and that I was supposed to log into the TekSavvy site under 'My World' in order to find out whether I am actually on the list. When I did that, turns out I was in the clear. I should have read more carefully, but maybe TekSavvy's communication policy in this regard wasn't the best way to go about it.
I hope you are not on the list either but even if you are, you still are probably innocent and don't deserve to be exposed, IMO.
Turns out that I am not on the list of those accused. TekSavvy sent out a rather blanket information email about the lawsuit which I misinterpreted as an inclusion of my user account in the danger zone. I complained and their customer service notifying me that I am not on the list was fairly prompt -- however, the fact that I don't feel personally in jeopardy any longer does not change at all my concern over how TekSavvy is handling this because I am still their customer (for now) and as a personal with a dynamically rotating IP address that *frequently* dynamically rotates (sometimes every 10 minutes!), I could still end up innocently on the wrong list and therefore this is still highly relevant to my interests and the interests of all TekSavvy users.
For the record, I am among those accused and I am totally innocent. I have not downloaded any of the films on Voltage's list nor would -- they all sound perfectly awful or I had already heard they were awful. Nobody else I know who visits would have any visits in those movies either. Nobody torrented any of those movies in this house -- it just simply never happened.
And now I may have to try to prove this in court, because there are roving extortionists in the world and TekSavvy refuses to stand up to them?? Excuse me THIS BLOWS and this'll be the absolute end for me and TekSavvy if they do not eventually step up here and do the right thing for their customers.
Careful there, Julian Huxley's estate probably still owns the copyright on the phrase 'tinfoil hat'. The keyword filter nanites that have entered your bloodstream via "fluoridated" water will edit that phrase from your memory, and put your name on the no-fly list, unless you pay a modest settlement fee of say, $3000.
Any business person in today's world who does not respond to negative customer reviews online with an immediate and full apology, does not understand a damned thing and should probably have his or her head examined.
P.S. It doesn't matter whether the customer is right or wrong. IT DOESN'T MATTER YOUR REPUTATION IS FUCKED IF YOU TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE THAT IS NOT A FULL APOLOGY.
I'd tend to agree, but that, at least was their stated purpose. Let's not invent whole new purposes like protecting the biggest, most monolithic corporations as if taking their interests into account was written into the law or something.
What he means is that the private sector is not actually legally a stakeholder in copyright. The only purpose of granting a private entity a temporary monopoly on distribution in the first place, was to increase the value to society of whatever would eventualy be granted to the commons.