The devil is in the details. Yes the Obama administration does encourage whistleblowing in the same way the police encourages you turning yourself in or the courts encourage you pleading guilty. It makes the DOJ's job so much easier when the whistleblowers point themselves out vs. having to find them.
It comes down to how you define "artists." The definition of "artists" in that phrase is the RIAA. If you suggest an alternative revenue source outside of the RIAA's labels then yes you are against "artists getting paid." It is just not the same "artists" you and I are thinking of.
This art book costs $180 and you get several blank pieces of paper bounded in a hard cover book, several pencils, and a variety of paints and brushes. All you need to do is supply your own art.
I'm torn on this as I can see both sides to this. I see that this only happened because the FBI helped him in many ways. However I also see that it could have been some other group that pushed him to do this and gave him the same level of help. Except in that case the outcome would have been a whole lot different.
Wait I'm lost, first ACs are complaining that they can't compete with free and that people are downloading their software they spent x * 100,000 dollars to make and not buying it from them. Then ACs are complaining that Zynga is ripping off other games AND making a lot of money while giving the game away for free. What way do you want it?
You bitch about not being able to make money the old fashioned way anymore (selling games for $30 - $50) and then bitch when another company comes into the market and figures out a way to give away their games for free and still make money. Seems to me you should be praising Zynga. After all if you follow their lead you will be profitable again.
You can't legislate morality. When will people get this? Haven't you learned anything from prohibition? If the people don't believe in the law they will work around it.
By my calculation the public interests is only given 0.1% of the entire conference. Bathroom breaks are allotted more than that. I supposed that shows us where their priorities are. The public is worth less than my shit.
The fugitive slave act of 1850 declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. Prior to this act most states (mainly northern states) required a jury trial before an alleged fugitive slave could be returned to their master. This act made it the duty of any Federal official to arrest an alleged runaway slave based solely on someone else?s word. Simply make a claim that a black person is a runaway slave and now all Federal officials have a duty to arrest that person or face a fine. Since the alleged slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being kidnapped and put into slavery. They had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against the accusation. Yep, no trial, no jury, just the word of someone else and a black person is now considered a slave.
FACT declared that all links are infringing and must be removed unless proven innocent.
Let?s hope we can avoid a civil war this time around.
Looks like their evil plan is coming together nicely.
Stage 1 - infiltrate the legislative branch
Stage 2 - infiltrate the executive branch
Stage 3 - infiltrate the judicial branch
Stage 4 - take over the world!!!
If this passes how long until the professors in Germany start to demand a portion of every graduate's salary? After all it is their knowledge that was used to land that job. And it won't stop there either. Lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc all rely on each others work (lawyers read up on established case law, doctors read medical journals, scientists read published works of other scientists, etc.) The line of people demanding a hand out would be endless. You think a business has a hard time bringing a product to market now with all the patent trolls demanding a cut just image what that business would have to deal with if this passes and spirals out of control.
Dumb question but couldn't NASA upload the video to YouTube's Content ID system and mark it as public domain (if even a possibility) or at least mark itself as the copyright holder?
So basically what you are saying is this is nothing more than felony interference of a business model. After all it was the broadcasters that setup the model of charging for free content (humm you can't compete with free, really?) and it is the same broadcasters that are upset that someone else is watching that content over the internet. Oh and the "Aereo is not paying for that content" statement, Aereo is paying EXACTLY what you and I would pay for it ourselves.
So tell me why should cable/sat companies pay for free content just so they can enabled more viewers to watch that content? That same statement has been said in the comments several times but what is never said why it should be that way. And don't use the old fall back argument of "but its the law." Laws can and do change all the time. Instead of repeating the same statement over and over thinking that will change people's mind lets bring out the reasons why? Why was this setup to begin with? What purpose did it serve then? Does it still serve the same purpose? Is it hindering other features or services?
This is just stupid, plain and simple. The content is sent OTA and is designed to be picked up and consumed by as many people as possible for free. This service is only allowing more people to pickup and consume that very same content.
Wasn't there a ruling that said anything sent in the clear over airwaves was fair game? I believe this came about in the 80's due to people setting up antenna's or satellite dish's to receive cable TV that was sent over the air. In response the cable TV companies started to scramble their signal. Would this ruling not apply here? Once it enters the airwaves it should be fair game and I should be able to pick it up and send it out again. Of course if I send it via RF over the airwaves I have to follow the FCC rules on RF transmission. In this case it is being sent out over an internet connection so the FCC would not be involved.
Ummm WHAT?!?!?! The TV broadcasters are sending out the signal for anybody with an antenna to receive and watch for free already. Why would they really care if I am located in this town or another town. If anything the broadcasters should be thrilled after all their viewership would increase and therefore allow them to charge more for ads. If they really don't want people with an antenna to watch their broadcast then don't transmit it in the clear. What's next? Radio broadcasters suing auto manufactures because they are allowing people to listen to their broadcast while driving?
The devil is in the details. Yes the Obama administration does encourage whistleblowing in the same way the police encourages you turning yourself in or the courts encourage you pleading guilty. It makes the DOJ's job so much easier when the whistleblowers point themselves out vs. having to find them.
It comes down to how you define "artists." The definition of "artists" in that phrase is the RIAA. If you suggest an alternative revenue source outside of the RIAA's labels then yes you are against "artists getting paid." It is just not the same "artists" you and I are thinking of.
I wonder if anybody patented the wheel yet? If I could just get a patent for that I could sue everyone who uses a wheel.
This art book costs $180 and you get several blank pieces of paper bounded in a hard cover book, several pencils, and a variety of paints and brushes. All you need to do is supply your own art.
I'm torn on this as I can see both sides to this. I see that this only happened because the FBI helped him in many ways. However I also see that it could have been some other group that pushed him to do this and gave him the same level of help. Except in that case the outcome would have been a whole lot different.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait I'm lost, first ACs are complaining that they can't compete with free and that people are downloading their software they spent x * 100,000 dollars to make and not buying it from them. Then ACs are complaining that Zynga is ripping off other games AND making a lot of money while giving the game away for free. What way do you want it?
You bitch about not being able to make money the old fashioned way anymore (selling games for $30 - $50) and then bitch when another company comes into the market and figures out a way to give away their games for free and still make money. Seems to me you should be praising Zynga. After all if you follow their lead you will be profitable again.
I really like this line:
That was a dark path he was heading down. First a dime, next a quarter!You can't legislate morality. When will people get this? Haven't you learned anything from prohibition? If the people don't believe in the law they will work around it.
Message to VP Biden - Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
The PAC formerly known as Hall & Oates
By my calculation the public interests is only given 0.1% of the entire conference. Bathroom breaks are allotted more than that. I supposed that shows us where their priorities are. The public is worth less than my shit.
The fugitive slave act of 1850 declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. Prior to this act most states (mainly northern states) required a jury trial before an alleged fugitive slave could be returned to their master. This act made it the duty of any Federal official to arrest an alleged runaway slave based solely on someone else?s word. Simply make a claim that a black person is a runaway slave and now all Federal officials have a duty to arrest that person or face a fine. Since the alleged slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being kidnapped and put into slavery. They had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against the accusation. Yep, no trial, no jury, just the word of someone else and a black person is now considered a slave.
FACT declared that all links are infringing and must be removed unless proven innocent.
Let?s hope we can avoid a civil war this time around.
Looks like their evil plan is coming together nicely.
Stage 1 - infiltrate the legislative branch
Stage 2 - infiltrate the executive branch
Stage 3 - infiltrate the judicial branch
Stage 4 - take over the world!!!
If this passes how long until the professors in Germany start to demand a portion of every graduate's salary? After all it is their knowledge that was used to land that job. And it won't stop there either. Lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc all rely on each others work (lawyers read up on established case law, doctors read medical journals, scientists read published works of other scientists, etc.) The line of people demanding a hand out would be endless. You think a business has a hard time bringing a product to market now with all the patent trolls demanding a cut just image what that business would have to deal with if this passes and spirals out of control.
Dumb question but couldn't NASA upload the video to YouTube's Content ID system and mark it as public domain (if even a possibility) or at least mark itself as the copyright holder?
But think of the children!
Re: Re:
So basically what you are saying is this is nothing more than felony interference of a business model. After all it was the broadcasters that setup the model of charging for free content (humm you can't compete with free, really?) and it is the same broadcasters that are upset that someone else is watching that content over the internet. Oh and the "Aereo is not paying for that content" statement, Aereo is paying EXACTLY what you and I would pay for it ourselves.
So tell me why should cable/sat companies pay for free content just so they can enabled more viewers to watch that content? That same statement has been said in the comments several times but what is never said why it should be that way. And don't use the old fall back argument of "but its the law." Laws can and do change all the time. Instead of repeating the same statement over and over thinking that will change people's mind lets bring out the reasons why? Why was this setup to begin with? What purpose did it serve then? Does it still serve the same purpose? Is it hindering other features or services?
This is just stupid, plain and simple. The content is sent OTA and is designed to be picked up and consumed by as many people as possible for free. This service is only allowing more people to pickup and consume that very same content.
Wasn't there a ruling that said anything sent in the clear over airwaves was fair game? I believe this came about in the 80's due to people setting up antenna's or satellite dish's to receive cable TV that was sent over the air. In response the cable TV companies started to scramble their signal. Would this ruling not apply here? Once it enters the airwaves it should be fair game and I should be able to pick it up and send it out again. Of course if I send it via RF over the airwaves I have to follow the FCC rules on RF transmission. In this case it is being sent out over an internet connection so the FCC would not be involved.
Just how much money is the MPAA paying anybody who signs these agreements?
Ummm WHAT?!?!?! The TV broadcasters are sending out the signal for anybody with an antenna to receive and watch for free already. Why would they really care if I am located in this town or another town. If anything the broadcasters should be thrilled after all their viewership would increase and therefore allow them to charge more for ads. If they really don't want people with an antenna to watch their broadcast then don't transmit it in the clear. What's next? Radio broadcasters suing auto manufactures because they are allowing people to listen to their broadcast while driving?