The beloved Average Joe hath descended on these comments spewing all about how passage of this act would weaken Copyright law. Going into all sorts of detail, citing statue, etc.
Ok, I'll grant you that, Joseph, but answer this: why is that a bad thing?
So, what it looks like this issue boils down to is that the pols in the UK are worried about people looking at porno in public places.
"Clean wi-fi", what a joke. Is there an epidemic across the UK of people setting up their laptops in cafes and watching porno in the middle of the day? Textbook grandstanding.
What he's suggesting is censorship and an infringement on network neutrality. When will people learn that on the internet, it's pretty much all or nothing(or whitelisting, in which case I'd probably still prefer nothing) in terms of access. This is especially true for something as prevalent as pornography. That's about as possible as blocking people from reading news online.
As to blue's comment here, I'll say this: "You're out of your element, Donny! Shut the fuck up!"
Exactly how are they stealing something which is broadcast -for free- to the world? I'm just not following your logic here. If they wanted to restrict who can receive it, they'd do some kind of encryption or a poorly implemented and administered 'six strikes' program.
Also, you were stereotyping, so Ruben was just returning the favor.
So the question remains. Areo is not altering the broadcast stream in any way. They aren't removing ads, or replacing them with their own. They're adding value to an increasingly irrelevant product. What harm is Areo causing to the broadcast networks. These lawsuits look very much like a thinly veiled attempt to stifle innovation.
Seriously. Why haven't the media companies banded together to inundate Google with lawsuits of one kind or another. I mean there has to be a good reason, right? Like maybe the media companies are grifting off of Google's hard earned profits? Could it be?????
Nay, blasphemy!!!!
Every day, I hear the same old tropes about how one person or another is infringing copyright or otherwise contributing to it. Yet there's so little direct action against the infringers. Instead, it's just little bitch moves like 6 strikes. Fucking cowards, all of them.
No you're the moron here. Norms and laws are independent of one another, as JMT stated 5 comments above. I know you're aware of his comment, but you probably stopped reading after the first sentence. Jim Crow laws, like slavery are an example of where morals and law came into disagreement. It's a concept which really doesn't require much thought to understand. Bruce Schneier elaborates wonderfully on this concept in his book, Liars and Outliers.
All that little tagline did is point out how ridiculously deluded it is, the notion that you can stop someone from doing something on the internet. It's a battle that can't be won, which certain parties insist on fighting.
Also, this whole notion of guilty by accusation is utter bullshit and you know it. It also happens to be one of the tenets of the DMCA, and I hate it.
We both know that you are going to milk this thing for all it's worth.
Once, just once, could one of these giants show one shred of humility instead of resorting to this petulance? CBS just made themselves look like they're run by a bunch of middle schoolers.
Features are added and cut throughout the development cycle of any software. Besides, to prove false advertising you have to show that their remarks weren't true under any number of interpretations. That one's decisions make a difference at the end, shit you could just say that's something that's true of all games.
What Titov did here is just egregious by comparison.
Lol, trichordist. I'd give that site a shred of respect if they didn't moderate all of my comments to hell. That site's nothing but a circle jerk for Lowery et al and the only dissenting comments they allow are taken totally out of context and twisted and spun so as to make them fit their narrative.
And if you're persistent, Lowery will threaten you personally.
I'd really love for some population of TD commenters to decend on trichordist.
The fact is that the public has an interest in making sure that the businesses can survive. If they can't, the public is stuck trying to do it themselves.
True, to a degree. Certainly not in the case of the companies you're referring to. They do not ever act in the interest of artists or the public. After all, what's their incentive?
You seem to have forgotten that respect is a 2 way street. Or maybe you just never learned that in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
It's worse than that. In some instances, they're deliberately conflating terms to muddy the argument.
Re: If you keep on idolizing libertarian assholes like Snowden and Greenwald
That's one twisted world view you have.
Snowden and Greenwald, profiteers?
Sure seems an odd and incongruous means to an end.
Re: Say one thing, imply another
Steve Jobs' words there. What would that say if he didn't fully believe(even falsely so) that it was completely superior in every way?
Let alone the fact that Jobs was an arrogant douche.
Re: NEVER
There's no such thing as unbreakable encryption. All encryption does is buy you time. How good the encryption is determines how much time you have.
Trolling vs. Extortion
This is extortion. No way around it.
Re: Exactly when did school administrators become THIS incompetent
Funny thing about education adminstration, is that people tend to fail upwards.
(untitled comment)
The beloved Average Joe hath descended on these comments spewing all about how passage of this act would weaken Copyright law. Going into all sorts of detail, citing statue, etc.
Ok, I'll grant you that, Joseph, but answer this: why is that a bad thing?
(untitled comment)
So, what it looks like this issue boils down to is that the pols in the UK are worried about people looking at porno in public places.
"Clean wi-fi", what a joke. Is there an epidemic across the UK of people setting up their laptops in cafes and watching porno in the middle of the day? Textbook grandstanding.
What he's suggesting is censorship and an infringement on network neutrality. When will people learn that on the internet, it's pretty much all or nothing(or whitelisting, in which case I'd probably still prefer nothing) in terms of access. This is especially true for something as prevalent as pornography. That's about as possible as blocking people from reading news online.
As to blue's comment here, I'll say this: "You're out of your element, Donny! Shut the fuck up!"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.google.com/search?q=CNET+areo+report
I couldn't find that report. Link please?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly how are they stealing something which is broadcast -for free- to the world? I'm just not following your logic here. If they wanted to restrict who can receive it, they'd do some kind of encryption or a poorly implemented and administered 'six strikes' program.
Also, you were stereotyping, so Ruben was just returning the favor.
So the question remains. Areo is not altering the broadcast stream in any way. They aren't removing ads, or replacing them with their own. They're adding value to an increasingly irrelevant product. What harm is Areo causing to the broadcast networks. These lawsuits look very much like a thinly veiled attempt to stifle innovation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
Yes, it is.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
What a supremely awesome idea!
Why has no one done this yet?!
Seriously. Why haven't the media companies banded together to inundate Google with lawsuits of one kind or another. I mean there has to be a good reason, right? Like maybe the media companies are grifting off of Google's hard earned profits? Could it be?????
Nay, blasphemy!!!!
Every day, I hear the same old tropes about how one person or another is infringing copyright or otherwise contributing to it. Yet there's so little direct action against the infringers. Instead, it's just little bitch moves like 6 strikes. Fucking cowards, all of them.
And contributory infringement is a myth.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The principles remain in place DESPITE easier copying.
No you're the moron here. Norms and laws are independent of one another, as JMT stated 5 comments above. I know you're aware of his comment, but you probably stopped reading after the first sentence. Jim Crow laws, like slavery are an example of where morals and law came into disagreement. It's a concept which really doesn't require much thought to understand. Bruce Schneier elaborates wonderfully on this concept in his book, Liars and Outliers.
Re:
All that little tagline did is point out how ridiculously deluded it is, the notion that you can stop someone from doing something on the internet. It's a battle that can't be won, which certain parties insist on fighting.
Also, this whole notion of guilty by accusation is utter bullshit and you know it. It also happens to be one of the tenets of the DMCA, and I hate it.
We both know that you are going to milk this thing for all it's worth.
Which, to you, means what?
Re: Shaun Shane
Wow. Butthurt bully makes weak jab at article author.
You sure showed 'em.
I really do hope this winds up in court. The smackdown which will be lain upon you will be indescribable.
"had already determined it would not attempt to partner with CES for the awards again."
Once, just once, could one of these giants show one shred of humility instead of resorting to this petulance? CBS just made themselves look like they're run by a bunch of middle schoolers.
Re: Re: Re:
Features are added and cut throughout the development cycle of any software. Besides, to prove false advertising you have to show that their remarks weren't true under any number of interpretations. That one's decisions make a difference at the end, shit you could just say that's something that's true of all games.
What Titov did here is just egregious by comparison.
Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
OK, I've had it.
So sick of seeing this little troll here egged on by all of you. I'll admit that, until now, I was a smallish part of the problem.
The only way this guy's ever going away is if we ignore him completely.
From now on, I'll be reporting all posts by OOTB as well as all who reply to him.
Re: Re:
Lol, trichordist. I'd give that site a shred of respect if they didn't moderate all of my comments to hell. That site's nothing but a circle jerk for Lowery et al and the only dissenting comments they allow are taken totally out of context and twisted and spun so as to make them fit their narrative.
And if you're persistent, Lowery will threaten you personally.
I'd really love for some population of TD commenters to decend on trichordist.
Re: Horse manure! Without the creator, the public gets nothing
The fact is that the public has an interest in making sure that the businesses can survive. If they can't, the public is stuck trying to do it themselves.
True, to a degree. Certainly not in the case of the companies you're referring to. They do not ever act in the interest of artists or the public. After all, what's their incentive?
You seem to have forgotten that respect is a 2 way street. Or maybe you just never learned that in the first place.
Fuck off, bobby.