Which is exactly why Jason Rohrer has been spectacularly unsuccessful as a developer of public domain games. He has never made any money from it in all these years, and shakes his fist at anybody with an eye patch, which is a lot of people thanks to his propensity to stab forks in peoples eyes from all the rage at the freetards he sees on the streets.
Don't forget to mention Nina Paley, the writer of the article you're commenting on, she's never sold a thing either and hates file sharing with a passion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
People making their own food from recipes devalues food from professional chefs who create those recipes. We should stop people distributing recipes to stop the devaluing of food.
Chairs are being devalued by multiple chair manufacturers and even certain individuals competing against each other. We should limit chair manufacturing to the Association of Accredited Chair Manufacturers to stop this devaluing of chairs.
Being able to copy and distribute goods at near zero cost devalues the goods being distributed. We should limit distribution to protect the goods value.
Hint: An item is valuable because it is useful in some way, not because it's distribution is limited. Limiting its distribution is what limits its value.
You took my comment about Masnick having burned his bridge and compared it to Steve Jobs. That is what you did. I called you out on it, and you denied what you did.
Erm, no. But keep on misrepresenting what people say though.
As pointed out, I showed how your specific claim of no one bitching about DRM was wrong by showing Steve Jobs 5 years ago presenting clearly that DRM was not the future. I then took your comment about how Mike had apparently burned bridges with the entertainment industry for being anti-DRM (I didn't realise he had any in the first place when it came to the major labels, but whatever) and turned it around to help make the point that despite Steve Jobs arguing against DRM, not only did they continue doing business, the labels eventually relented and removed DRM from their music on iTunes.
No direct comparison with Mike needed, though even if I did grant you that, I'm not sure how it's relevant at all to attempt to insult Mike either way, other than to distract from the point at hand. You made a factually incorrect statement in a lazy attempt to make a personal attack, and responded with another irrelevant personal attack when proven wrong.
No, securing it to EVERY device YOU own. Just like Apple allows 5 copies to exist on different devices YOU own. I don't hear people bitching about iTunes locking you down to 5 devices (iPods, iPhones, iPads, computers, Apple TV, etc..)
If we were talking about 2 people meeting in a room to hash out the specifics of a business arrangement, that'd be great, but we're not. We're talking about companies that produce and sell products, which if they fail to do so in a way that satisfies customers needs, the line between consumer and provider inevitably blurs and the consumers aim at fulfilling the need/desire themselves.
A publisher failing at being good at distributing what its been tasked to distribute will only lead to competition. Piracy is that competition - people distributing certain goods that are easy and low cost to distribute because the alternatives are inadequate compared to what they can do themselves.
The only thing that would make that an "illegitimate" response would be the law and an assumed harm not based on any reputable evidence. Especially if you're prone to assuming people who pirate are separate from those who are perfectly willing to buy.
Correction: Read the dates wrong in the Ars Technica article. The real date? A year ago. An AC is claiming EFF is corrupt in Google's favour for $5,000 they got a year ago to develop a few software projects, in which they were not the only people to take part.
So are you going to argue hat all these other organisations are merely mouthpieces for Google too?
Other recipients range from advocacy and educational powerhouses like the ACLU ($1 million); Brookings Institution ($165,000); Electronic Frontier Foundation ($1 million); and Berkeley Law School (combined $700,000); to smaller groups such as “Youth Radio” ($50,000) and YMCA of Greater Long Beach ($300,000).
After all, despite the repeated evidence of criticism from the EFF on various actions by Google, the EFF are solely mouthpieces for Google. All that money and Google still can't get EFF to stop criticising them - sounds like a pretty shitty deal to me, but what would I know, I don't have people paying me to spread FUD about groups my employers don't like on forums, right?
I also guess that means every Google SoC participant - a programme used by many, many projects for many different things - are also now mouthpieces for Google. It's not like the SoC project you're referring to is 7 years old right? It's not like it only amounted to $5,000, I mean who would become Google's mouthpiece for as low a price as that?
Oh wait, that's all it was? $5,000 for development of a few projects 7 years ago, in which Google also gives to many other projects every year? Evil Google giving money freely to projects they won't directly benefit from. Evil EFF making use of it as many others have to help develop software. My world view is shaken to its very core.
You do realise the difference between demanding information on companies performing private lobbying to the FCC and the EFF characterising itself as being in the process of lobbying don't you? 'Cos if you didn't, that'd make you look stupid. Like you couldn't understand when someone is talking about lobbying, not characterising their own actions as lobbying. Evil EFF confusing silly AC's! What will they do next, criticise Google after being given $5,000 for 4 software projects 7 years ago?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
This one about Schmidt praises Google for deleting some moldy log files and calls it a "first step in the right direction."
It helps your cases if you can read, Nowhere in that link is this stated. I shouldn't be surprised that in the face of evidence, you outright lie about something that is actually linked.
The one about the new Google policy is laughable. Google is "applauded". Then the EFF explains that it's all okay because you can set up multiple accounts. Apparently disclosure is all it takes to make the EFF happy.
And yet again, bob can't understand the difference between calling transparency a positive step to actively endorsing Googles policy.
The one about the book settlement is a bit harsher but it only addresses a very narrow part of the debate. It complete ly ignores copyright.
And now this is where you really stretch things, primarily by changing the topic from privacy to copyright, making no sense in the process.
By automatically suspending allegedly pseudonymous accounts, Google was taking a bad idea one step further, with a potential for even more widespread chilling effects on freedom of expression than we’d seen on Facebook. This clash between Google and Google Plus users became known at Nymwars, which has expanded into a catch-all term for the debate over the role of pseudonymity online.
At the same time, let’s be clear: Google+’s latest changes are a good first step toward supporting pseudonyms, but they are not an acceptable end game. While some users will be satisfied, there is still no support for individuals who wish to establish new pseudonyms. For new activists, or people creating new identities with which to explore a new issue—such as gay rights or politics—Google+ is not a welcome place for them to build that identity.
You mean how they specifically argued for change in the Google reader agreement?
EFF is representing a coalition of authors and publishers — including best-sellers Michael Chabon Jonathan Lethem and technical author Bruce Schneier — in urging the Court to reject the proposed settlement unless it is amended or Google enforceably commits to ensure better reader privacy. The group of more than two dozen authors and publishers represented by EFF the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Samuelson Law Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Samuelson clinic) filed an objection to the settlement in September 2009.
Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
It's about time the EFF started calling Google on the massive surveillance going on at Google. After all of these years of being willfully silent, it has gotten plain embarrassing to watch them scold the NSA and everyone else while ignoring their benefactor. But that's how business is done.
You mean like when they criticised Eric Schmidts statements?
FF is representing a coalition of authors and publishers — including best-sellers Michael Chabon Jonathan Lethem and technical author Bruce Schneier — in urging the Court to reject the proposed settlement unless it is amended or Google enforceably commits to ensure better reader privacy. The group of more than two dozen authors and publishers represented by EFF the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Samuelson Law Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Samuelson clinic) filed an objection to the settlement in September 2009.
Are you really going to keep claiming the EFF is in Googles pcokets? Because your claims are wearing even thinnger than they were before bob.
How exactly does a crap-tonne of free services like Jamendo, Bandcamp and P2P distribution not scale moreso than a major label with limited budget, reliance on selling CDs and a business that fundamentally relies on putting signed artists into some form of debt from the outset?
I can tell the word scale will no longer sound like a real word after this. Scale scale scale scale scale.
Though I find the idea of any success involving the internet not being scalable ludicrous. How much easier is it for any band and their dog to reach an audience now compared to the MTV days? How is the relative ease to reach out to people now somehow less workable for most artists than TV music channels that only play label backed music and require you to acquire rights for things like covers to be able to broadcast?
The idea isn't to create a sensoring system, it's to create a system that maintains the rule of US law for everyone who wants to do business here
Except by definition of what it is claimed SOPA/PIPA is needed for, it would affect you likely regardless of whether you *wanted* to do business in the US. You would be affected merely by proxy of being on an open web where citizens from other countries can use or view your site.
You are flying in the face of a technology where the origin doesn't matter because the reach is inherently global.
Maybe because using the word property in reference to something that cannot be exclusively owned in the same way a teapot can is misleading and an attempt at attaching ideas about how one owns a teapot to how one can forbid someone from sharing an MP3 ripped from a CD you already bought, or from watching you bought with the "wrong" device.