So, to clarify: would you argue that police shouldn't be able to follow a suspect, even with a warrant? Or stake out a location where they anticipate a suspected drug dealer will complete a transaction?
Should federal law enforcement be able to get a warrant to access the phone records of a corporation they suspect is breaking the law? Or a warrant to monitor the financial activity of a politician they suspect is taking bribes?
I've noticed an increasing number of extremist opinions on Techdirt lately.
What troubles me most is they don't seem to realize their opinions are extreme. Only in a fantasy land is "zero surveillance of any kind, end of discussion" a moderate position, much less the obvious position they pretend it is.
So for example, you think we need laws that stop law enforcement from monitoring public forums and social media? And there should no longer be any such thing as legal searches of devices with a judge-issued warrant?
I did say so in the post, and it says "iPhone case" and "your iPhone" many, many times on the Kickstarter page. As an Android user I understand your frustration, but do you understand why a small manufacturer crowdfunding a brand new product can't immediately offer it in a wide variety of models? And either way, don't take it out on me, or pretend they are being deceptive when the word "iPhone" shows up on their page 25 times AND there's a question & answer in the FAQ specifically about other phones.
You're right, I was distracted by the numbers in the campaign. Though, there are still a lot of projects for which the amounts while surmountable would still be significant (keeping in mind also that if you end up needing to make changes, you probably have to pay the fee multiple times - though I admit I'm just guessing that, maybe UK bureaucracies are friendlier...) At least this filmmaker clearly takes issue with it.
On the other subject: as far as I understand it, the BBFC is not actually a government body - it's an organization founded by film studios, much like the MPAA/CARA. The key difference is that in the UK, there are actually laws that prevent or limit the sale/screening of unrated movies, and which designate the BBFC as the ratings authority, but the government doesn't actually control the board — whereas in the US, film ratings are "voluntary" but there's an oligopoly of cinemas and retail stores that all play along and making selling an unrated film essentially impossible.
The result for the filmmaker and the public is pretty much the same in both cases — though I'm not surprised to learn that the BBFC may be somewhat less subservient to industry whims than CARA. I'd also be curious to know what it's like interacting with them, as one of the biggest problems with the MPAA ratings is the opaque process that gives filmmakers few hints about how to get the rating they want.
Well, I think it's largely about calling attention to the fee structure, and the general problems with the rule in principle.
If you've gotta have censors, I suppose it's best to have thoughtful, measured, reasonable censors — but there's still a bigger argument for not having them at all. Plus, when you're forced to pay the censors by the minute, it's a bit galling, and it unfairly punishes small filmmakers (a few thousand pounds is nothing to a major studio picture, but could easily represent a double-digit percentage of an indy's entire budget).
Re: Thanks. My wallet and I appreciate Google Books
It never ceases to amaze me when people contort themselves into absurdity just to reject an objectively amazing piece of technology and progress.
"What's that you say? All the wealth of human knowledge at my fingertips, made searchable and mineable and accessible all around the globe? A staggering and transcendent information revolution that would have made all the great minds of history weep in joy at its beauty and utility? THIS WILL NOT STAND!"
(Also worth pointing out: games have moved far, far beyond "shoot em up games" in the past decade. Some of the prime candidates for VR gaming are immersive narrative experiences like Dear Esther, Gone Home, The Stanley Parable and Amnesia.)
That's true, but I suspect you are fully aware what I mean when I refer to the region of the Turkish Straits as the link between Europe and Asia, as it's been referred to as that for some twenty-plus centuries...
Can you provide a real-world example of this whole "customer service" argument that you keep pushing? Because it sounds to me like nonsense. Scratch that, it is nonsense. I can't think of a single situation that relates to what you're saying, or any meaningful way in which copyright would effect it. Give it up, it's a terrible argument and it's not convincing anyone.
Cover bands? Nice deflection, but what we're talking about is someone ripping off the Beatles and selling recorded versions for profit. You're saying as long as the masses are ok with that, then tough shit for the Beatles.
You brought it up dude. I turned it into a realistic example of something that actually happens - you, meanwhile, only have absurd hypotheticals to support your argument.
Believe me, it's very clear I've thought this through far more than you, because you just get angry and stop thinking immediately. To answer your question in your silly hypothetical: yup, I have no problem with that, and "tough shit" (not actually that tough or shitty) for the Beatles.
It's not sociopathic, it's a different and much more nuanced understanding of how culture works and has worked for centuries than you seem capable of grasping. And it's a view that will inevitably triumph - that already does, as unflagging piracy and sharing demonstrates - despite all your whining and flailing.
That would mean I could just rip off Beatles songs all day long- as long as "lots of people enjoy and are moved by" it.
Sure! More power to you. Many cover bands have had happy, long careers as local performers doing exactly that. Of course, the number of venues able/willing to accommodate such bands has been shrinking as the copyright collection societies have have been boosting their fees by hundreds or thousands of per cent... Hurray, another victory for copyright!