I think Uriel-238 is questioning the legitimacy of the system, not whether anyone "earned" their money legitimately within the system. Using communist as a pejorative does not lend itself to me taking your comment seriously.
Do you claim capitalism is the absolute superior among economic models? True, it has been the most efficient at allocating resources of the systems tested by modern societies. Much of economic theory exists within a "clean room" so to speak and has never dealt with reality, IMO. There is more to interactions between people than efficient resource allocation.
Doesn't really matter, capitalism as a system is simply unsustainable and its expiration date is likely within my lifetime. An economy and the market largely exist because people are more productive when they specialize. When machines do almost everything, then I (currently called a consumer) will no longer need (almost any!) external producers.
This guy is seriously calling having to get a warrant "going dark?" The only reason to say they cannot access communications at all is if they only do so without due process. Interesting how honest these guys can be when ignore the foolish point of their statements and read into the implications.
"Note: Unused data does not carry over to the next month."
I love how they try to have it both ways. Limiting me to 700GB/mo should mean they are selling me 700GB. If they are not selling me data, but bandwidth, then I should get that bandwidth for the entire month (regardless of data usage). These usage caps really are absurd and obviously nothing more than a cash grab.
The idea that copyright holders (or their thugs) think it is reasonable to have someone's internet access turned off because of infringement is insane. Internet access is just as important as many other utilities.
Would Gatorade demand that the courts order your water service turned off if you were using it to make and consume your own Gatorade? ...no. But their proprietary formula!
Copyright infringement is not theft. No resources are removed from the copyright holder. The whole concept is based on the idea that an infringer cost them a sale that would have otherwise happened. Couldn't the infringer clear up that issue?
"Would you have purchased the song if you had not pirated it?"
No infringement should be legally actionable without the alleged infringer distributing the work for profit.
Just like no individual making use of a patented technology, in their own home through their own creation, should be found to infringe on any patent. The courts and industry need to stop trying to regulate private usage as if it were a competing company. They are fundamentally different.
This is a point I wish more people fully grasped. The Constitution protects rights, but does not give any. A preemptive to government overreach that is all but assured in any maturing society. It may be better to view it as a restriction on government powers, rather than protecting people's rights.
Man, I love those Polish developers. Ever since I first found out about them and GOG.com I always check there for games before logging into Steam. I almost never pre-order games, but I am eagerly awaiting the Witcher III to be activated in my game library. Tim is right, they are more awesome to their fans than any other studio I have come across.
$55/mo is the lowest option of their new more granular plan??? Wtf were they charging for their base option before? $55/mo for rigid television does not seem like a step forward to me, but then again, I have completely forgot what it felt like to be a cable television subscriber.
the National Photo Group argued that because Examiner does at least some vetting of people who can post, provides them some instruction about the types of articles they can post and because it compensates them based on traffic to the articles, the people who post on Examiner.com are not "users" under the DMCA, but are really more like employees of the company...
Does this not basically describe YouTube? 1) Have to sign in with an account to post videos. Some vetting of people who can post, check. 2) Has acceptable use policy illustrating what content is/is not allowed. Provides some instruction about the types of content, check. 3) YouTube allows users to generate revenue from ad views. Compensates them based on traffic to the content, check.