DJ 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (757)

• On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

  

  DJ ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 02:51pm

  Re:

  Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait WAIT!!
  
  You're telling me that allowing you to know what you're buying BEFORE you buy will actually entice you to buy it?!?!?!?!
  
  That's complete rubbish and I'll prove it with examples from other industries:
  1)Automobile industry doesn't let you test...wait, damn yeah they do
  2)Home Electronics stores don't let you rubberneck...wait, damn yeah they do
  3)Restaurants don't tell you what's in their...wait, damn yeah they do
  4)Clothing stores don't let you try on...wait, damn yeah they do
  
  Well, it MUST be rubbish, because the entertainment industry says so!

• On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

  

  DJ ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 02:41pm

  Re: Oh, come on

  Guys, I don't think Brooks is in opposition to you on this. All of you seem to have overlooked one statement, and taken EVERYTHING else out of context:
  
  "It's still a ridiculous argument even when framed accurately."

• On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

  

  DJ ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 02:31pm

  Re: Re:

  I find it terribly amusing that you are, in fact, the one who is missing the point.
  
  The point IS NOT whether or not the punishments will discourage file sharing. Of course it will, if even only a little.
  
  The point IS that these punishments will not encourage people to pay more money. In fact, if this happens, people like myself -- who are NOT file sharers, anyway -- will intentionally boycott products by the supposed "offended party". Thereby DECREASING revenue, and they'll fall victim to what's known as "shooting yourself in the foot".

• On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

  

  DJ ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 02:19pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  ...and so on....

• On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

  

  DJ ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 02:18pm

  Re: The Telegraph column

  That's just plain lazy!!!
  
  GJ!

• On the post: Patent Holder Sues McAfee, Gets $25 Million… But May End Up Losing $5 Million Due To Everyone It Has To Pay Off [Update]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2009 @ 02:12pm

  Re: Re: Your math is off

  $8M + $25M - $10.1M - $11M - $1.25M - $2.1M = $8.5M
  
  If DeepNines gets another $5M, Altitude is still left with a $3.5M profit. Unless you consider that they were given an $8M loan, in which case it's an effective $4.5M LOSS.
  
  Not exactly what one would consider a "savvy investment".

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:56pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  Ah sweet ignorance, I love it so.....

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:54pm

  Re: Re: Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  I should clarify. By "no one" I mean that literally; no one person, e.g. Fitzgerald's heirs.

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:51pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re rewards, etc.

  Point conceded.

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:50pm

  Re:

  "think about how different that really is to normal in inheritance"
  
  OK ok, since so many of you can't grasp the concept that copyright royalties and normal inheritance really COMPLETELY different, let's go ahead and compare them.
  
  Q: If you have $1M, and you leave it to your children, what did they inherit?
  A: $1,000,000,000. Duh
  
  Q: If you write a book, and leave that story to your children, what did they inherit?
  A: A freaking story! Words!
  
  Unless you are talented enough to put them together in such a way that entices people to buy them, words are completely WORTHLESS.

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:37pm

  Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  Again, I contend that once a copyright lapses, either by time or the death of the author, that NO ONE should make a profit off the works.
  
  If the publisher wants to continue printing, then a pittance, perhaps, just for their trouble of printing it. But that's it.

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:32pm

  Re: Re: Re: re rewards, etc.

  You're right. We should be paying for the works of "the writer's soul". But we should be paying the WRITER, and ONLY the writer (yes, yes, the publishing and printing companies need to make a profit, too, but that's not a point of contention).
  
  The point you have completely glossed over, is that the heirs of Fitzgerald have done NOTHING to deserve any compensation whatsoever for his works.
  
  NOTHING!!!!

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:26pm

  Re:

  Heh. We cover patents here, too. And most of us don't like 'em either.

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:20pm

  Re: Who should benefit then?

  Why MUST someone benefit? The BEST answer is that NO ONE should actually benefit from it anymore. Publishing and printing companies should still produce copies, but at or near cost.

• On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

  

  DJ ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 01:16pm

  Re: Re: genus and creativity need to have unique rewards

  "I certainly wouldn't want my child to be that entitled...."
  
  You hit the nail on the head there. Too many people in this country feel that, because they EXIST they are entitled to other people's earnings.
  
  Q: If it's not your money, where does it come from?
  A: Another PERSON. (key word being PERSON)

• On the post: Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies

  

  DJ ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 06:11pm

  Re:

  The whole point is that, because SOMEONE already paid for a copy of the movie, they shouldn't HAVE to pay anything else; especially since the club is watching for enjoyment, not charging to the general public for profit.

• On the post: Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies

  

  DJ ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 06:00pm

  Re:

  This isn't enough to push me over the edge, but I'm about to call for a nationwide boycott of all movie theaters; even second-run theaters.

• On the post: Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies

  

  DJ ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 05:55pm

  Re: Re: Time to go Guerilla

  Are you suggesting they don't already do that?

• On the post: Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies

  

  DJ ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 05:53pm

  Re:

  So wait are saying that if 25 people own a copy, and each watches that movie with a friend (total 2 ppl per viewing), that's the same thing as 50 people watching the movie in the same room? That's ridiculous! The math just doesn't match up!!!
  
  /biting sarcasm

• On the post: Google Destroyed Missent Bank Info Email Unopened… As More Legal Questions Are Raised

  

  DJ ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2009 @ 06:24pm

  Re: Why are they emailing such information?

  Welcome to the information age. Electrons are faster AND cheaper, so companies vastly prefer EFT over freight.

Next >>