Ron Rezendes 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (556) comment rss

  • On the post: Hint: If You Commit A Crime, Do Not Google Every Aspect Of It Afterwards

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2011 @ 02:26pm

    WTF!?

    I have CCLeaner on my computer and run it several times a day!

    Hopefully, I will never be hiding these kinds of searches!

  • On the post: Could Reddit Make Its Own 'Rome, Sweet Rome' And Compete With Warner Bros.?

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wait just a sec...

    And by someone - you mean Reddit - right?

  • On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says No Liability For Linking To Defamatory Content

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2011 @ 09:38am

    Re: Re: inducement?

    Yes, but either way, there is virtually no way to prove what was there when the link was made. Time stamps can be changed on either end resulting in false positives.

    Stick to going after the person posting the material - they are the ones who should shoulder the responsibility for their objectionable actions (I intentionally did not use the word illegal here!). Everyone else linking to such material are no different than the people who stand on the corner after an auto accident saying "Look, an auto accident!". They have nothing to do with any objectionable action but do point out to others that something has occurred that may demand their attention. Certainly not an action that should violate any law.

  • On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 03:33pm

    Re: Posters and T-shirts are easily duplicated too.

    What the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.

    If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."

    The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.

    You get the cut and paste answer for your cut and paste doomsday scenario about how you'll never stop the pirates.

  • On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 03:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh

    Failure to cite any proof of your claim leaves you in default at the logic bank.

    Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not buy a t-shirt.

    Your point of view is bankrupt due to the lack of any facts whatsoever and your inability to back up your statement with anything meaningful. Then, for you to be claiming to know what things I know about and don't know about, that is just preposterous!

    You should be a little more careful when throwing around baseless assumptions about people you simply don't know or know of. You've now also tossed out any chance at credibility with me personally.

  • On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 01:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Both of the following posts are spot on and in accordance with my own beliefs. Kindly point out where I accuse you of being on the payroll? Ignoring this point would pretty much invalidate your entire reply so please don't skip over the important stuff. Other ACs simply post insults at this point but I'm sure you are above and beyond such infantile behavior.

    Also, please specifically note where I speak to you, and about you personally in regards to your previous post:

    "As soon as you claim to know what Google wants I know you are talking out of your ass. That is simply far too obvious to not recognize since I don't have any reason to believe you have any authority whatsoever to speak on Google's behalf."

    Then notice the subtle difference, when I am not speaking about you personally, and hence there is no reference to an individual including yourself:
    "On the other hand, these licensing agencies who keep the money, lobby for draconian laws, STEAL from the public domain and bring legal action against knowingly innocent people to make their money deserve absolutely nothing in my eyes and many others. They are quasi-legal corporate mobsters, nothing more."

    Now, if you would be so kind as to actually speak for yourself, rather than on behalf of Google (w/o their permission should be a reasonable assumption) about their intentions, we might be able have a somewhat honest discussion about the somewhat dishonest content industries and their willingness to spend vast sums of money to deprive me of my rights as a citizen in the USA despite having no proof of any wrong doing on my behalf. The reason I know they have no proof is because, quite simply, I do not employ any of the methods used to pirate the content industries materials. However, I have been called a thief, a pirate, and far worse things on these boards by ACs who claim to have some intimate knowledge of my life that I am not even aware of myself! Very hard to take the other side seriously under such conditions wouldn't you think?

  • On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 01:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But, but sharing is theft! /s

  • On the post: God Wants Homeless People To Lobby The FCC To Help The Outcast & Downtrodden AT&T?

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: You laugh, but the homeless do care about the merger

    Try having the interviewer from the last job you applied for, contact you to say you got the position, without a phone. Any street address will work on an application, even the shelter, a bus station, a PO Box etc. However, I can completely understand why having a cell phone would be important, even more than paying for the food. I wouldn't call it a luxury item either since a home phone is not an option for the homeless and good luck trying to find a payphone these days that actually receives incoming calls.

    While I don't necessarily agree with the methods he employs I can understand the importance of the phone. Also, if it is a pay as you go phone, whose to say he actually has enough money to buy the food he took? I'm just curious why he didn't get his food at the shelter?

  • On the post: Company Thanks Guy Who Alerted Them To Big Security Flaw By Sending The Cops… And The Bill

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's Australia, even the water drains backwards!

  • On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Your concerns are misplaced and we can only show you a few thousand reasons why. I pay for what I watch and listen to as well. Never even used a torrent file nor do I watch movies on my computer. There are legitimate sites that offer free content - YouTube is a HUGE one. I use it daily for entertainment purposes, give it a shot - it's fun!

  • On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ahem, even those who do create the product and have all these rights seem to be the ones at the "heart" of the very problem they claim to be fighting!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/technology/15MOVI.html?ei=5062&en=96592adcbf1f69e0&ex=1064203200&partner=TECHDIRT&pagewanted=all&position=

    If you want to point out people who talk out both sides of their mouth then look no further than the entertainment industry!

    See, here's the difference between trolls who provide only their personal feelings as the facts and the rest of us who follow the studies - both the debunked ones and the factual ones.

    Open your mind to the possibilities that not everyone who pirates content is a thief - lest you start with the studios who seem to do this frequently, but then a pirate calling another a pirate really does seem as childish as it is.

  • On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh

    "Ignorant liar."

    That right there is such damning evidence I may just become a pro IP extremist myself. The reasoning is all very clear once someone posts something as deep and meaningful as "Ignorant liar." in response to the clear and obvious fact that artists themselves make the vast majority of their income from performances and merchandise.

    Please cite a single recent (last 30 years?) artist who makes more money from actual recorded music sales than performances and and merchandise. Please select a living artist who does still actually perform if you want credit for your answer.

  • On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2011 @ 09:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It's actually pretty simple: Google is once again trying to get in the middle of things. "

    How is this illegal? How does this harm the artist or the consumer? What benefits are lost vs. others performing said services?

    "They are perhaps the ultimate in middlemen, trying to make money on all sides."

    That is so ironic coming from the pro IP side who fail to actually pay the artists they claim to represent. Do your own search for the proof - it's here on the site.

    "They don't want bands to have their own websites, they want them to send all their traffic to youtube (where they run ads), and use their merch processing to sell their stuff (getting in the middle of that) all the while allowing them to track users even more, and in the long run make more money by filtering surfers and sending them to the most profitable points in their vast network."

    As soon as you claim to know what Google wants I know you are talking out of your ass. That is simply far too obvious to not recognize since I don't have any reason to believe you have any authority whatsoever to speak on Google's behalf. If you did, you'd probably be unemployed by the time I post this.

    Please stick to things you actually know, if any actually apply,and quit with the conjecture about what others want according to you. Some middlemen are actually useful and do add value to the transactions(VAR value added resllers!) - what a concept! On the other hand, these licensing agencies who keep the money, lobby for draconian laws, STEAL from the public domain and bring legal action against knowingly innocent people to make their money deserve absolutely nothing in my eyes and many others. They are quasi-legal corporate mobsters, nothing more.

  • On the post: Email Is 40 Years Old

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2011 @ 04:27pm

    Re: I think it's conception was 40 years ago...

    guarantee there is an IP troll out there that would probably file suit for even suggesting the reality of the situation.

    You should be receiving something from their attorney in 3...2...1...

  • On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: Surprise ?

    Empty rhetoric from an AC - not surprising.

    The question is what is the true public interest?
    Certainly not one sided six strikes legislation that involved not one single entity representing said public, despite the job description of our sold out elected officials.

    The short term access to content?
    Access to any and all legitimate content.

    The long term production of content?
    Content can be and currently is produced from many sources not just the big content companies who were the ONLY group represented.

    "Moreover, you have to ask what the government's goal is. I know that content is taxable (on all levels), and thus is a good source of government revenue - and a chunk of the economy."
    I've never paid a single dime to watch all sorts of content on YouTube - where and when is all this content being taxed - who's collecting the money? Are the artists being paid?

    Myopic troll is still a troll, back under the bridge until sundown!

  • On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2011 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprise ?

    Because that's how I told you to ordain it, my only son!

  • On the post: Universal Backs Away From Planned $60 VOD Release Of Tower Heist

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2011 @ 04:21pm

    Re: Re:

    You just know that is begging for some scrutiny under the guise of a public performance, somehow - somewhere - in some office filled with lawyers that conversation would take place.

  • On the post: Does Amazon Want to Monopolize The Entire Publishing Chain?

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2011 @ 09:51am

    Re: I have wondered why this hasnt happend sooner

    I think you've answered your own question here:

    "Why haven't record labels, movie studios and book publishers done this before?"

    "This would allow prices to go lower since the retail markup could be done away with while still giving the labels their full cut."

    The labels, studios and publishers have no concept of how to lower prices to increase income. It is a totally foreign idea to them and makes their head hurt if someone tries to explain it to them. Remember when cassettes went out because CDs were so much cheaper to make? Despite the lower costs the price of music instead went up! The content industries are about 5-6 years behind the economic times and they seem oblivious to the plight of middle class America - their core audience. Professional sports are even further disconnected from today's economic reality. Going to a baseball, football, basketball or hockey game now costs as much or more than going to a big name amusement park.

  • On the post: Unfortunate: Novelist Joins Lawsuit Against Libraries; Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2011 @ 09:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Playstation network was not hacked again - please get the facts straight. http://www.pcworld.com/article/241742/no_sony_wasnt_hacked_but_they_were_massattacked.html#tk.rss_news

  • On the post: Norway The Latest Country To Look At Censorship As A 'Solution' To Entertainment Industry's Failed Business Models

    Ron Rezendes ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 02:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Have you ever considered that there is a point where the black market wipes out the normal market, and in the end takes both of them out as a result?"

    Obviously the black market isn't going anywhere. the normal market appears to be doing quite well also - so when is this economic armageddon suppose to be taking place? It doesn't appear to have even started, yet.

    "Laws like this exist because people insist on playing the old whack-a-mole game of hiding their pirate site offshore,..."

    LMFTFY: Laws like this exist because people insist on playing the old whack-a-mole game of trying to stop piracy that so richly serves the markets they ignore.

    Serve your market well and turn a reasonable profit and piracy will be such a non-issue that it would be easy to ignore. Accept the fact that digital content will not be paid for to some small degree regardless of any and all efforts. Sorry, you'll just never stop the neighbor kid from burning a copy of something or emailing a file they want to share with their friends at school.

    "Ask the people who ran Ninja video... 500k for a couple of years work is pretty good money when you have almost no expenses!"

    You would think the content folks would realize this by now - wouldn't you?

    I mean if three people can do this on a thin dime and make half a million - you would have to think the movie and music industry could serve the same market at the same prices rather easily. After all, they actually have the digital and physical copies of the digital content in their hands - do they not?

    Serve the market properly at reasonable prices and the industry can spend their time counting money.

    -Or-

    Spend vast sums of money on legal teams and lobbyists who can get laws passed that supposedly serve their interests but doesn't turn into a single dollars worth of profit and does absolutely nothing to stop piracy but, may very well cause it to increase.

    One of those options seems rather foolish...just saying!

Next >>