Rico R.’s Techdirt Profile

wizoomer95

About Rico R.




Rico R.’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Not to be religious, but...

    Wouldn't work; God's against copyright law. What do I mean? As a Christian who's warming up to the idea of copyright abolition, I can actually point to the Bible (aka the Word of God) to say maybe copyright isn't a good idea. "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other. So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 31; NRSV) Copyright, by its very nature, means the copyright holder's creative endeavors are made for the glory of themselves, and not for the glory of God. Not to mention Hollywood's lobbyists are only concerned about making sure copyright law lines the pockets of the corporations they represent with money. Tell me: What did Jesus say about whether or not you could serve both God and money?

  • Dec 5th, 2018 @ 12:47pm

    Sometime in the not-to-distant future...

    The part where Tumblr flagged their own post about the flagging reminds me of this one scene from Thomas and the Magic Railroad. I'd show you the clip, but Article 13 censored it, even with the Tumblr logo and the flag icon covering the two characters. You'll just have to take my word for it... Again, tell me how we're not in an Orwellian future?

  • Nov 26th, 2018 @ 6:53pm

    "A business model strengthened by theft..."?

    First off, copying is not theft. But if we live in your disillusioned world for a second, where sneaking bread from a 7-11 into your backpack and walking out of the store without paying is exactly the same as downloading a movie you found on a Torrent site using Google to find it, Google is no more in the pirated movies business than backpack manufacturers are in the shoplifting bread business!

  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 12:36pm

    It's all in the name!

    People have always wondered why Apple products start with "i": iPhone, iPod, iPad, etc. But it's not that they begin with "i", but rather "iP". Get it yet? "iP"? IP? Intellectual Property? Apple's beliefs that IP laws are there to enforce their anti-consumer will because it's more profitable for them? Cue the Illuminati music... Apple just got their true colors exposed! Why else would they want people not to exercise their first sale and repair rights?

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: The REAL reason the RIAA filed this response

    Well, let's see... This year I downloaded a leaked version of Owl City's Cinematic (which was leaked on May 31, less than 24 hours than it's official release on June 1 here in the US) when I already had it pre-ordered on iTunes ($10) AND on Vinyl ($25), with concert tickets already purchased for September (2 tickets for $33 each, plus a $5 fee and $14 insurance). Sounds like according to you, I must owe Adam Young an additional amount of money for my ILLEGAL act of downloading an album leak ON TOP OF the $120 I spent on the full album experience I had already paid for...

    Did I really not break out my wallet enough times? Am I depriving poor independent musician Adam Young of money? Is that download considered a lost sale? The answer to the above is all no.

    Not every big artist is as protective of their music like Taylor Swift is. If I recall properly, Brendon Urie of Panic! At the Disco replied to a tweet of a fan complaining he couldn't afford to pay to download their latest single to literally rip it from YouTube. Miley Cyrus stated on Jimmy Kimmel that she doesn't care whether or not people downloaded her album when it leaked. But the RIAA detests all these actions a fan might take. Copyright maximalism is a double-edged sword, and all the RIAA wants to do is stop it from cutting themselves while they continue to allow it to cut others.

    The point is, if copyright was abolished tomorrow, fans of any artist would still pay for copies of albums and concert tickets to support the artist. Copyright doesn't factor into that logic, and it has NOTHING to do with an artist making money.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 11:09am

    The REAL reason the RIAA filed this response

    “Copyright law only applies to file sharers and streaming services that underpay us in royalties. Whenever an artist of ours is unjustly accused of copying a song, we of course will stand with artists to stop them from being sued to oblivion by this system we helped create.”

    Now if only they’d stand with artists when they publicly state they’re okay with people downloading their album when it leaks or ripping their own songs from YouTube...

  • Nov 9th, 2018 @ 4:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    Denuvo has become a bigger economic threat than piracy. One causes the developer to lose an unknown amount of money, and the other is piracy! Game developers need to take a chill pill about potential revenue being lost to piracy when there is actual revenue lost when paying for a DRM software that boasts of protection for only an hour!!

  • Oct 25th, 2018 @ 11:24am

    The key to copyright legislation is to find the balance...

    ...between the good and the bad! So, you want to do good by eliminating the link tax and upload filter? We need to counter that with the bad of requiring existing exceptions to meet the requirements of new exceptions! See? It's the balance that makes copyright work the way it does!

  • Oct 3rd, 2018 @ 5:20pm

    (untitled comment)

    Funny how ISPs are calling themselves BIAS, as they clearly are showing how biased they are against the free and open internet they want to "protect"!