You self-contradicted yourself. There is simply no way around it. Just admit it and get done with it. The burden of the proof of the proof of any claim is always on the person who does it. You did it on the second sentence, and in exact the same way the poster you criticized did.
In practice patents were never an incentive to research and innovation. The legal costs make them a viable protection only to big business, which means that hundreds of thousands of small and medium business not only are not entitled to have their researches protected but have to be careful not to step in the big guys toes, even by a tortuous stretch of logic when researching anything.It serves absolutely nothing but the big guys. Period.
Furthermore these big guys have the distribution networks and the manufacturing advantages to profit without such protections.Apple would not going to stop creating new things because Samsung or anybody else could copy them. For God's sake. To tell the truth nobody copied other people's ideas more than Apple in this World.
Sure, if you received a commission request you are entitled to receive compensation on delivery or in whatever way you specified in contract with the other part. On the other hand, no, you do not have any "moral right" to have exclusive rights over any intellectual concept or work just because you created it. What you have is just a legal right conceded by society to you. This right exists for less than 500 years of the 30K+ years of human civilization, and it can be argued that before that most of humankind's important intellectual production was done.
I don't agree with everything the GP said, but he is right on the excerpt you decided to quote. Effort does not equate to value. You can run in circles loaded with rocks all day long and you will be producing very little value, for example.
I do agree with you in principle, but the situation is not quite as simple as that. Certainly if we want to have a chance to change things we need strong organizations with a lot of people supporting them, but it may not be enough in this case.
NRA fights weak organizations in US and not anything like the MAFIAA. Even a organization as big and as well financed as NRA wouldn't stand a chance against the kind of money MPAA and RIAA can put on the table.
Having strong organizations to fight them would certainly help and make their work harder, which is a very good thing, but it is just a step in the right direction, not a solution.
This way they can bypass the congress and do whatever they want through secret trade agreements like ACTA and TPP.
Seriously, US citizens should lock these guys and throw away the keys. They are corrupt to the bone.
If an organization is profit oriented or not is irrelevant here. Money is money it circulates regardless of the source. What varies is how much of it and how frequently. MegaUpload had servers and employees and payed for them. Proportionally a much greater part of their income ended back in the economy than Time Warner's do, for example.
The only people really affected are copyright owners, like your band, but I can bet it is on many many other places in the Internet and whoever wants to pirate your music will with or without DotCom. I understand why you hate people that make money with unlawful distribution but as I see you can keep disgruntled about it to no benefit or accept it as a fact and adapt.
This small band of people could just as well depend on the revenue of thousands of other smaller business. Money doesn't just disappear. It doesn't really matter if BMI, ASCAP or DotCom and his peers have the money. Whoever has the money will need services and goods and will pay for them.
Furthermore it is much better for your 4 guys small company and almost everybody else that money circulates the most it can. Money has a much worse tendency to accumulate if it is on the hands of a few very big companies. So from an economic point of view anything smaller that takes money from very big companies is a positive force.
The prosecution was an act of total disregard over people's rights and property. Even if most of the data stored was illegal (and it is a VERY big IF) that does not justify the seizure as it was done. You don't take all stuff from everybody's houses in a neighborhood, without warranties, to get evidence against a landlord because some of their tenants, or even most of their tenants are selling drugs within his properties. That violates human rights, constitutional rights and basically any right I can think about in any civilized country.
If you want to live in a totalitarian regimen, my friend, accepting and cheering actions like this is the quickest and best way to get there.
The MAFIAA does depend on small people to do tasks, so does MegaUpload. Any company where the money goes to will use the money to buy goods. Actually it is a lot better for the common folk if the money is fragmented into a lot of small companies like Kim's, than concentrated in a few very big companies. Chances are it will circulate better and won't go to industrial plants in China.
I couldn't care less if Dotcom is or isn't a "valid" businessman, whatever that may be for you. He had a service and it was a very useful service for storage of legal content. Many many people used it for this end, even if many people more used it for illegal distribution of material. In my opinion he is not accountable for what his users did with their rented space, in yours he is. Fine, I won't discuss this. That is beside the point. Even supposing you are right and he should be accountable, that does not justifies what the government did.
As I said before it ignored the legal user's rights, destroyed their property without any warrant or due process, and all that using taxpayers money that would be a lot more useful elsewhere.
Regarding your last paragraph, society repulses copyright (at least as US sees copyright) legally in many places. Changing laws is unfortunately a slow process, but it will get there. While it does not people will do what they feel right as they always do. Just laws are usually obeyed with a little effort. Unjust laws, on the other hand, can only be enforced with machineguns pointed to people's heads, and as even US doesn't have that many machineguns, I highly doubt things will work out for the government.;)
Sorry, but you are insane. The MAFIAA does not represent the rights of anyone but big business'. The common work does not benefit from copyright at all. Most work in US is generated by small companies. Big companies outsource most of their jobs. And guess what, small companies are the mostly negatively affected by copyright issues.
And yes, it is wrong to enforce some people rights, when by doing so you are ignoring other people's rights. Thousands of people used Mega Uploaded service for legal storage, even if thousands more used it for piracy. The US government blatantly ignored these people's rights, and without observing ANY due process confiscated all their data, blocked their access and sequestered their data. How exactly can you completely ignore the huge amount of damage the government made to innocent people, in order to preserve the "rights" of just a few?
The MAFIAA is entitled to have rights, the problem is that their rights seem to be considerably greater then mine or yours. The government has the obligation to use proportional resources to defend people's rights. It can't just use all its money to help me to find the person who killed my family, for example, even if it is a just cause, because by doing so it would be neglecting everything else.
Furthermore the government can't blow up its cities to kill criminals. Even if most of the city is composed by criminals. That is a think totalitarian regimens do... What the DoJ did to Megaupload is just that.
And please, stop with these fallacious arguments about the poor employees. The employees are either very rich artists, who don't really deserve all the money they already made, or common works that could work anywhere for basically the same amount of money they are payed. They are a small minority of the market and can easily be absorbed to other business even if MAFIAA ceased to exist tomorrow.
One more thing, the effect Kim has over MAFIAA business is mostly irrelevant. He is not the cause but just a symptom of the majority's repulse of copyright. Copyright was something created by society for a purpose and corrupted along the way. It will be gone sooner or later as society repudiates it, and no force can prevent it.
The ridiculous part is the government wasting millions of dollars trying to enforce the rights of just a few very rich people, whilst violating the constitution in order to do so. And worse, in a futile effort.
If the MAFIAA thinks its rights have been violated THEY should go and sue the violators (the users who uploaded the files). ONE BY ONE, and with their own resources, not with taxpayer money and a disproportional help from the government.
I am really tired of these people think they are entitled to their money by godly mandate and that the government should do any effort necessary to preserve it no matter the cost. If they can't prevail within the legal system, as everybody else, with their huge amount of resources, then maybe, just maybe they shouldn't anyway.
The proof that these allegations are not true is that the DoJ doesn't have a case even though they blatantly violated due process and ignored any law that inconvenienced them to get the "evidences".
This seems like shameless propaganda. If Bing is so much better why don't you use Bing much? Maybe because Bing is not better at all? I do a lot of technical research and I have never felt Google lacking on finding me the results I need...
It is clear he only advanced over her, then she woke up, he forced his hand she conceded. They had have already sex over the night, she was not drugged and she certainly wouldn't have slept through the act in the morning. He never used his strength to hurt any of the girls, which they clearly admitted. The second girl could have yelled "get away from me" when she woke up, but noooo, she said: "you'd better not have HIV." There was no such thing as "consenting under duress" here. That is bullshit. They consented and then regretted their decisions. It is their problem not his. It is past time for women like this to start to be accounted for their decisions.
You are an idiot. A feminazi imbecile. The only good part about your thinking is that in time your kind will end extinct when your dystopia where it is required to fill seventy forms and hire a lawyer team in order to have sex comes to be.
Maybe you should start getting your news in another place too. I live next door in Brazil and I have several friends living there. Chavez is a demagogue, a populist, and generally speaking incompetent. But he do have the majority of the population on his side. Many many times the majority is that stupid and indulge in immediate benefits without thinking about the future. It was like so with Hitler, it was like so in the Russian revolution and it was like so in Cuba too. Even if in time all these countries' populations finally realized that they had done a very big mistake when they put these guys in power that does not change the fact that the majority did put them in power willingly .
Even if I do not like Chavez I have to point that you have ZERO evidence to support your claims and stills insist on defending them.
Chavez does not need to tamper with elections, he is a demagogue and has the people, who unfortunately do not know better, on his side. That is, at least until he manages to screw his country's economy majorly, which you can bet he will, sooner or later.
By your rationale there is not such thing as political refugees. Because it is really easy to accuse someone of something and them, when he is under your power arrest him for anything else, as political dissent, for example.
By your rationale You should, for example, go to China to be tried for a murder you didn't commit, even though you know they are after you because you made anti-communist propaganda.
That is because I know how to read. You on the other hand seems to mix the text you read with things from your imagination, apparently. The statements you quote can be easily verified by reading the text. You need some read and comprehension skills badly.
Let me put it in a way even you can understand. These are the facts:
- Woman A invites him to have sex.
- Woman A asks him to use a condom.
- He accepts even if it annoys him.
- Condom ends ripping.
- He stays one week in Woman A house and she never asks him to leave.
- Woman A asks him for an HIV test.
- He refuses, which is within his right to do.
- Later, woman A accuses him of ripping the condom on purpose.
- Woman B invites him to her house.
- Woman B refuses to have sex without condom.
- Woman B invites him to sleep in her bed.
- He advances over her in the morning.
- After some insistence she asks him if he has no HIV.
- He says he does not.
- She concedes.
- They have sex.
- He goes away.
- Later woman B accuses him of "forcing" her into unsafe sex.
And these are the obvious conclusions:
- Woman A and Woman B see him in the news and decide to get rich by publishing their stories.
- Prosecutor C decides to get famous by taking the case.
- Politicians D, E and F, see it as an opportunity to make an example of him and discredit his efforts.
It is really simple. If you can't understand it is because you don't know how to read.
I am all for user freedom, but anyone capable of flashing a custom ROM is able to execute the procedures to unlock the bootloaders on most devices. No OEM is forced to unlock their bootloaders, but none are forced to lock them either, and some don't. If you want an unlocked bootloader buy from an OEM that offers you one or unlock it yourself. Problem solved.
Users can have about as much freedom as they want with Android phones, they just have to research a bit before buying as is the case with EVERYTHING you buy.
About the 3GS, really, it is a stupid acquisition, but I am not trying to force anyone not to buy it, just pointing something that should be obvious. You are free to disagree, but that does not make it less true. You can whine forever about it. It won't make a difference.
You are the one trying to dictate needs, my friend. Saying that all OEM need to update their phones even if their users don't think they need it just to fit some weird notion of "ecosystem" you have in your mind.
I am just saying that whoever buys a 3GS having much better and newer options for smaller prices is a retard, but one is free to victimize oneself as much as he sees fit, you included.
Slashdot Mirror
You certainly would if J. K. Rowling copied the other 29 chapters from someone else (like Conan Doyle, for example) and added just one of her own. ;)
You self-contradicted yourself. There is simply no way around it. Just admit it and get done with it. The burden of the proof of the proof of any claim is always on the person who does it. You did it on the second sentence, and in exact the same way the poster you criticized did.
In practice patents were never an incentive to research and innovation. The legal costs make them a viable protection only to big business, which means that hundreds of thousands of small and medium business not only are not entitled to have their researches protected but have to be careful not to step in the big guys toes, even by a tortuous stretch of logic when researching anything.It serves absolutely nothing but the big guys. Period.
Furthermore these big guys have the distribution networks and the manufacturing advantages to profit without such protections.Apple would not going to stop creating new things because Samsung or anybody else could copy them. For God's sake. To tell the truth nobody copied other people's ideas more than Apple in this World.
If it cannot be proved any ownership relation between the two, yes.
No, they are not. Not for any legal purpose.
Sure, if you received a commission request you are entitled to receive compensation on delivery or in whatever way you specified in contract with the other part. On the other hand, no, you do not have any "moral right" to have exclusive rights over any intellectual concept or work just because you created it. What you have is just a legal right conceded by society to you. This right exists for less than 500 years of the 30K+ years of human civilization, and it can be argued that before that most of humankind's important intellectual production was done.
I don't agree with everything the GP said, but he is right on the excerpt you decided to quote. Effort does not equate to value. You can run in circles loaded with rocks all day long and you will be producing very little value, for example.
I do agree with you in principle, but the situation is not quite as simple as that. Certainly if we want to have a chance to change things we need strong organizations with a lot of people supporting them, but it may not be enough in this case.
NRA fights weak organizations in US and not anything like the MAFIAA. Even a organization as big and as well financed as NRA wouldn't stand a chance against the kind of money MPAA and RIAA can put on the table.
Having strong organizations to fight them would certainly help and make their work harder, which is a very good thing, but it is just a step in the right direction, not a solution.
Throw in the judges too? >.>
This way they can bypass the congress and do whatever they want through secret trade agreements like ACTA and TPP. Seriously, US citizens should lock these guys and throw away the keys. They are corrupt to the bone.
If an organization is profit oriented or not is irrelevant here. Money is money it circulates regardless of the source. What varies is how much of it and how frequently. MegaUpload had servers and employees and payed for them. Proportionally a much greater part of their income ended back in the economy than Time Warner's do, for example.
The only people really affected are copyright owners, like your band, but I can bet it is on many many other places in the Internet and whoever wants to pirate your music will with or without DotCom. I understand why you hate people that make money with unlawful distribution but as I see you can keep disgruntled about it to no benefit or accept it as a fact and adapt.
This small band of people could just as well depend on the revenue of thousands of other smaller business. Money doesn't just disappear. It doesn't really matter if BMI, ASCAP or DotCom and his peers have the money. Whoever has the money will need services and goods and will pay for them.
Furthermore it is much better for your 4 guys small company and almost everybody else that money circulates the most it can. Money has a much worse tendency to accumulate if it is on the hands of a few very big companies. So from an economic point of view anything smaller that takes money from very big companies is a positive force.
The prosecution was an act of total disregard over people's rights and property. Even if most of the data stored was illegal (and it is a VERY big IF) that does not justify the seizure as it was done. You don't take all stuff from everybody's houses in a neighborhood, without warranties, to get evidence against a landlord because some of their tenants, or even most of their tenants are selling drugs within his properties. That violates human rights, constitutional rights and basically any right I can think about in any civilized country.
If you want to live in a totalitarian regimen, my friend, accepting and cheering actions like this is the quickest and best way to get there.
The MAFIAA does depend on small people to do tasks, so does MegaUpload. Any company where the money goes to will use the money to buy goods. Actually it is a lot better for the common folk if the money is fragmented into a lot of small companies like Kim's, than concentrated in a few very big companies. Chances are it will circulate better and won't go to industrial plants in China.
;)
I couldn't care less if Dotcom is or isn't a "valid" businessman, whatever that may be for you. He had a service and it was a very useful service for storage of legal content. Many many people used it for this end, even if many people more used it for illegal distribution of material. In my opinion he is not accountable for what his users did with their rented space, in yours he is. Fine, I won't discuss this. That is beside the point. Even supposing you are right and he should be accountable, that does not justifies what the government did.
As I said before it ignored the legal user's rights, destroyed their property without any warrant or due process, and all that using taxpayers money that would be a lot more useful elsewhere.
Regarding your last paragraph, society repulses copyright (at least as US sees copyright) legally in many places. Changing laws is unfortunately a slow process, but it will get there. While it does not people will do what they feel right as they always do. Just laws are usually obeyed with a little effort. Unjust laws, on the other hand, can only be enforced with machineguns pointed to people's heads, and as even US doesn't have that many machineguns, I highly doubt things will work out for the government.
Sorry, but you are insane. The MAFIAA does not represent the rights of anyone but big business'. The common work does not benefit from copyright at all. Most work in US is generated by small companies. Big companies outsource most of their jobs. And guess what, small companies are the mostly negatively affected by copyright issues.
And yes, it is wrong to enforce some people rights, when by doing so you are ignoring other people's rights. Thousands of people used Mega Uploaded service for legal storage, even if thousands more used it for piracy. The US government blatantly ignored these people's rights, and without observing ANY due process confiscated all their data, blocked their access and sequestered their data. How exactly can you completely ignore the huge amount of damage the government made to innocent people, in order to preserve the "rights" of just a few?
The MAFIAA is entitled to have rights, the problem is that their rights seem to be considerably greater then mine or yours. The government has the obligation to use proportional resources to defend people's rights. It can't just use all its money to help me to find the person who killed my family, for example, even if it is a just cause, because by doing so it would be neglecting everything else.
Furthermore the government can't blow up its cities to kill criminals. Even if most of the city is composed by criminals. That is a think totalitarian regimens do... What the DoJ did to Megaupload is just that.
And please, stop with these fallacious arguments about the poor employees. The employees are either very rich artists, who don't really deserve all the money they already made, or common works that could work anywhere for basically the same amount of money they are payed. They are a small minority of the market and can easily be absorbed to other business even if MAFIAA ceased to exist tomorrow.
One more thing, the effect Kim has over MAFIAA business is mostly irrelevant. He is not the cause but just a symptom of the majority's repulse of copyright. Copyright was something created by society for a purpose and corrupted along the way. It will be gone sooner or later as society repudiates it, and no force can prevent it.
The ridiculous part is the government wasting millions of dollars trying to enforce the rights of just a few very rich people, whilst violating the constitution in order to do so. And worse, in a futile effort.
If the MAFIAA thinks its rights have been violated THEY should go and sue the violators (the users who uploaded the files). ONE BY ONE, and with their own resources, not with taxpayer money and a disproportional help from the government.
I am really tired of these people think they are entitled to their money by godly mandate and that the government should do any effort necessary to preserve it no matter the cost. If they can't prevail within the legal system, as everybody else, with their huge amount of resources, then maybe, just maybe they shouldn't anyway.
The proof that these allegations are not true is that the DoJ doesn't have a case even though they blatantly violated due process and ignored any law that inconvenienced them to get the "evidences".
This seems like shameless propaganda. If Bing is so much better why don't you use Bing much? Maybe because Bing is not better at all? I do a lot of technical research and I have never felt Google lacking on finding me the results I need...
This is a very healthy way of thinking. Definitely insightful. Wish I had mod points today.
It is clear he only advanced over her, then she woke up, he forced his hand she conceded. They had have already sex over the night, she was not drugged and she certainly wouldn't have slept through the act in the morning. He never used his strength to hurt any of the girls, which they clearly admitted. The second girl could have yelled "get away from me" when she woke up, but noooo, she said: "you'd better not have HIV." There was no such thing as "consenting under duress" here. That is bullshit. They consented and then regretted their decisions. It is their problem not his. It is past time for women like this to start to be accounted for their decisions.
You are an idiot. A feminazi imbecile. The only good part about your thinking is that in time your kind will end extinct when your dystopia where it is required to fill seventy forms and hire a lawyer team in order to have sex comes to be.
Maybe you should start getting your news in another place too. I live next door in Brazil and I have several friends living there. Chavez is a demagogue, a populist, and generally speaking incompetent. But he do have the majority of the population on his side. Many many times the majority is that stupid and indulge in immediate benefits without thinking about the future. It was like so with Hitler, it was like so in the Russian revolution and it was like so in Cuba too. Even if in time all these countries' populations finally realized that they had done a very big mistake when they put these guys in power that does not change the fact that the majority did put them in power willingly .
Even if I do not like Chavez I have to point that you have ZERO evidence to support your claims and stills insist on defending them. Chavez does not need to tamper with elections, he is a demagogue and has the people, who unfortunately do not know better, on his side. That is, at least until he manages to screw his country's economy majorly, which you can bet he will, sooner or later.
By your rationale there is not such thing as political refugees. Because it is really easy to accuse someone of something and them, when he is under your power arrest him for anything else, as political dissent, for example.
By your rationale You should, for example, go to China to be tried for a murder you didn't commit, even though you know they are after you because you made anti-communist propaganda.
That is idiocy on its best.
That is because I know how to read. You on the other hand seems to mix the text you read with things from your imagination, apparently. The statements you quote can be easily verified by reading the text. You need some read and comprehension skills badly.
Let me put it in a way even you can understand. These are the facts:
- Woman A invites him to have sex.
- Woman A asks him to use a condom.
- He accepts even if it annoys him.
- Condom ends ripping.
- He stays one week in Woman A house and she never asks him to leave.
- Woman A asks him for an HIV test.
- He refuses, which is within his right to do.
- Later, woman A accuses him of ripping the condom on purpose.
- Woman B invites him to her house.
- Woman B refuses to have sex without condom.
- Woman B invites him to sleep in her bed.
- He advances over her in the morning.
- After some insistence she asks him if he has no HIV.
- He says he does not.
- She concedes.
- They have sex.
- He goes away.
- Later woman B accuses him of "forcing" her into unsafe sex.
And these are the obvious conclusions:
- Woman A and Woman B see him in the news and decide to get rich by publishing their stories.
- Prosecutor C decides to get famous by taking the case.
- Politicians D, E and F, see it as an opportunity to make an example of him and discredit his efforts.
It is really simple. If you can't understand it is because you don't know how to read.
I am all for user freedom, but anyone capable of flashing a custom ROM is able to execute the procedures to unlock the bootloaders on most devices. No OEM is forced to unlock their bootloaders, but none are forced to lock them either, and some don't. If you want an unlocked bootloader buy from an OEM that offers you one or unlock it yourself. Problem solved.
Users can have about as much freedom as they want with Android phones, they just have to research a bit before buying as is the case with EVERYTHING you buy.
About the 3GS, really, it is a stupid acquisition, but I am not trying to force anyone not to buy it, just pointing something that should be obvious. You are free to disagree, but that does not make it less true. You can whine forever about it. It won't make a difference.
You are the one trying to dictate needs, my friend. Saying that all OEM need to update their phones even if their users don't think they need it just to fit some weird notion of "ecosystem" you have in your mind. I am just saying that whoever buys a 3GS having much better and newer options for smaller prices is a retard, but one is free to victimize oneself as much as he sees fit, you included.