Most smaller corporations have one or two primary stockholders, I have read. Wouldn't it be interesting to go after them in court. Might go nowhere under the current U.S. corporate misgovernment political system, but getting their names out in public might at least cause reputation problems at the country club. Nah. In their circles, they'd probably be admired.
How could anyone outside the club know if the lawyer's a member? I was told years ago, by someone most definitely inside the club, that the HA have members in all sorts of professions, including law and the judiciary, who simply don't expose their colors to outsiders. I wonder if the club mounts its trademark lawsuits in some particularly, er, "friendly" courts...
Maybe you forgot to look at the picture? Traditionally, if a cop walked into a house after a noise complaint and found a kid in that shape, he'd assume child abuse and call the local Protective Services. The adults in charge would face some difficult questions and, probably, criminal charges.
This is a clear case of child abuse, however it happened (including criminal police malfeasance), and the DA is just as clearly complicit in an illegal action.
1950s: The policeman is your friend. 2013: You're safer facing a mugger than a cop.
I've wondered for awhile now what the NSA has on Feinstein to keep her so compliant. Perhaps it's related to her unstinting support of whatever the RIAA and MPAA want.
Makes me think a forensic audit would turn up some interesting stuff on her. But that's probably true of any senator who truckles to corporate lobbyists.
Anyone with a checkbook can buy a Senator's vote and Feinstein has always been a corporate tool. Let's not forget where the real spiders live, inside the NSA, CIA, DIA and other spy-on-Americans bureaucracies.
"and its worse simply because they are REPUBLICAN and willingly whore themselves out to corporate interest?"
Gee, I reread the comment and nothing like that was said. Just that all five were cross-waving, flag-wrapped hypocrites. And Republicans. Don't jump on people for noticing that cross-waving, flag-wrapped politicians tend to be Republicans. Democratic politicians wrap themselves in different symbols and seem, on average, to keep themselves less masked. They don't go out whoring at night and then thunder during the day about Christian morals.
Of course any politician of any party who talks about integrity, then takes corporate "free speech" money before pushing some corporate lobbyist's legislative agenda deserves to be snorted at. Just as hypocritical politicians deserve to have their noses rubbed in the fact.
Be as defensive as you need to be, but please try to speak to the point, not to some never-was-there interpretation of somebody's comment.
"These people can't help it, like any govt agency, they're incompetent and what most people consider common sense these people consider innovative. That's what happens when you have a govt that does anything to help secure your job. It's the same reason why the only innovation that comes from cableco companies is higher prices (remember, DVR's came from TIVO and cable companies copied and now they charge a fortune)."
What an amazing mix of non sequiturs. (a) All government agencies are incompetent (available data sez otherwise, btw)followed by (b) Therefore if government provides or guarantees your job you will become incompetent (huh?), followed by (c) That (i.e. government incompetence) is why legislated monopolies like cable will always grasp for money and contribute nothing new.
It's kind of jaw-dropping. But maybe Anonymous Coward can explain it a bit better...?
Wife and I moved to Mexico after I retired and we discovered the satellite TV people didn't want us as customers and the MPAA/RIAA thugs have locked the door against Mexico IP addresses. So I bought a $10 a month Usenet subscription and now only watch the shows we choose to watch, by downloading them a few hours after the networks broadcast them. No commercials, no mind-numbing cable channel flipping.
After many years of thinking we couldn't live without the networks or cable companies, we have discovered we don't even miss them. Okay, they drove us away originally by excluding us as customers in the area where we moved, just as they are now driving away a LOT of consumers (a million-customers-a-year burn rate is not trivial, all you "don't piss off the big money makers" people) by overpricing a mediocre product. Just like the RIAA companies.
All you free market capitalists who also support legislated monopolies like cable companies, as they gouge their own customers, need to come back through the looking glass to the real world.
Here's a hint: When you drive off customers who then quickly discover they don't miss you, your odds for survival do not look good.
"Except pirates also rip off from small indie labels that have great deals with their artists. This constant implication that pirating music is ok because it hurts the big bad major labels is just another of the numerous rationalizations people use to rip off musicians."
That might be interesting if it had anything at all to do with the post. It reminds me of blog comments that preface irrelevant remarks with *sigh* as if a faked long-suffering attitude will hide the stupidity of making irrelevant objections to good arguments.
Or did you reply to the wrong post? (Yeah, right. That must be it.)
C'mon, all you critics, lighten up. Don't you realize that, in the U.S. at least, corporations now own the government, courts and all? They do whatever the hell they want and the public interest has nothing to do with policy or anything else, not even in their rhetoric. That does it for the basis of the public domain. In the spirit of the sorts of people who preface irrelevant remarks with a faux long-suffering "Sigh," I must say it is only right that they steal from the public. After all, they have money, they have power, and they can.
Just curious - why is it that people who preface a remark with "sigh" then make ideological points without responding to what was said? Do they really think pretending to long-suffering patience keeps people from noticing they stepped off topic to instruct or indict with some irrelevant cliche? It just makes 'em seem stupid, to me.
Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone in their right mind, knowing what Scribd has done, would trust them with their own original content? I know I wouldn't. So it seems like poor business practice to me, and please spare us all the the "sigh. it's their site they can do what they want" remarks. I already agree - they can shoot themselves in the foot all they want, for all I care.
they dont ask me to give it a raving review, just tweet the fact that i just downloaded it.
Thanks. I knew something about this discussion bothered me, and you put your finger on it. Where a request for a positive review before listening to a song would be dishonest, simply saying you decided to give it a listen would not be. And I don't think asking for such a tweet would be blurring any lines.
"Tweet that you're going to listen to it, and if you like it, please tweet again that you liked what you heard." That's not dishonest either. It's all in how you do it.
Yes, the DIY forms are filed with the court. They are not, however, the end of the matter. What happens if the court rules against the DIY defendant and/or the plaintiff files related documents challenging the DIY form filings. Now what happens to the DIY'er who hoped filing the forms would be the end of it?
Honest question here, because I really don't get your point. In what way, if I'm the DIY filer, am I any worse off than before? I know I've saved your lawyer's fee by filing the first steps myself, but how am I worse off?
"when they try to abolish those constructs they will do so knowing that it will hurt them too"
Between thousands of people replying with these kits and (I hope) someone coming up with an equally inexpensive way to file a legal LLC, people would be turning their own bullying tactics right back on them. That sure appeals to the 10-year-old mischief maker who lives inside me.
Wikipedia is constantly criticized for being biased toward the left, for being biased toward the right-wing's approved "herd" opinion, and for being too rigidly neutral when the discussion requires coverage of opposing views. It must be hitting some kind of balance, eh?
By the way, saying someone or something "is well known" for this or that is well known as a basic propaganda technique. It's often used by people who are well known even in their own circles for being idiots. Like Palin and Breitbart and occasional anonymous cowards.
See how easy it is to use "is well known" to discredit someone, with or without any evidence? :-p
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TJGeezer.