the banking system bubbled and bursted a number of times in the 1800s-1920s, because it wasn't regulated. so the government came in and regulated it. it bubbled and bursted again in 2007 because the government was hard at work REMOVING regulations for a decade before that
and then idiots like you come along and go "look, the government is involved, so its all their fault"
the only thing at fault in the government is idiots in the government who think the solution is less government
you WANT heavy government regulation for a healthy functional economy. simple solid fact
of course, jesus' greatest message was tolerance. yet his most vocal advocates today only seem to advance the cause of "christianity" by extending the bounds of intolerance
but i am speaking as a fellow working middle class american
i am not asking for a free ride, i am asking for sanity in what i get for the money i spend. shopping across state lines is obviously a hilarious token sideshow conceit, and you can't possibly be serious that has anything to do with a solution to our serious problems. you haven't, and no republican has, and no teabagger has, adddressed the huge systemic cost issues and bureaucratic paperwork storms amongst competing entities and ridiculous price bloat and outright racketeering and profiteering off our health by parasitical corporate structures
but thank you for your pat simplistic answer that isn't an answer at all. i'd like you to admit our current system is a horrible injustice for THE AVERAGE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS. not for your propaganda scare tactic spectre of the free loading poor
please stop being an obstructionist on painfully obvious failures we need to fix for THE AVERAGE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS, not the poor! (as a side note, the poor, you seem to wish only to die)
i don't care if its kaiser wilhelm, or otto von bismarck, keyser soze or this kaiser permanente fellow
its bad enough a certain socialist secret communist muslim wants to destroy america with healthcare reform
i'm a real american. i would rather die a slow painful death than get my healthcare from the czar, the mullah, the comandante, or the emperor of japan!
are often exactly the sort of lower middle class folk who would benefit immensely from socialized medicine
its like in the town hall meetings last summer, the old man who stands up and yells "keep your socialism away from my medicare"
it would be hilarious if it weren't so horribly tragic
i think it just boils down to incredible, horrible levels of high propaganda: the government is out to get you! the government is YOURS. it serves YOU. really
you genuinely have, for genuinely logically coherent reasons, a widely understood lower capacity for responsible behavior
yes, there are some 12 year olds who are more responsible than many 40 year olds, but by and large, when you are under 21, you're an idiot. you're also an idiot from age 21-100, but usually slightly less of one, which makes all the difference
the law is not made to excuse those rare 12 year olds who can behave responsibly. no more than the law is made to excuse drivers who can drive 90 miles per hour all the time and never get in an accident. mainly because self-perception of responsibility is usually inflated: if you asked a random sampling of people if they can drive 90 miles per hour responsibly, 40 out of 100 people will say "yes", when in reality it is only 2 out of 100
likewise, if you are under 18, you're probably an idiot. in spite of your self-perception to the contrary. so just deal with the fact that those horribly oppressive adults oppress you, and show some humility and understand why they "oppress" you (ie, try to tell you why certain behaviors of yours is wrong from their horribly corrupt and enfeedbled minds)
you may be amazed that you can in fact show humility about the possibility of your own lack of wisdom rather whine about the cosmic injustice of it all. and if you can keep from whining in such a way, congratulations: you're a mature adult
if you still feel the need to whine, you're an idiot
if you're poor, you have medicaid, and you have no problem
only if you are a middle class citizen in the united states do you have no healthcare options, and have to do ridiculous gymnastics like the poster above
how the hell did we arrive at this retarded status quo and why the hell do teabaggers and republicans oppose simple common sense reform of a horrible stituation?
i can hear all of their criticism of socialized medicine. republicans, teabaggers: i accept and acknowledge all of your criticism of socialized medicine. BUT ITS BETTER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. do you not see that?
when you oppose socialized medicine in the usa, because of all the evils of that you see, you merely support a MUCH WORSE STATUS QUO
are you resisting because you have a better solution? (crickets)
because they have deep pockets to skirt a broken legal status quo
in other words, everyone should be able to do what google does, but only google does it, not as an abuse of their financial power, but because their financial power puts them beyond the abuse of our broken intellectual property laws
google is not the problem. our antiquated intellectual property laws are
seriously, let them pass every goddamn unenforceable law they want
ten million technologically sophisticated, media hungry and POOR teenagers have them beat, sight unseen. they simply cannot enforce ACTA. seriously. its castles in the sky
i understand completely the concept of a legal framework to encourage the creation of cultural works via economic incentives
except what they are talking about goes WAY WAY beyond that concept and extends into the realm of corporate ownership of culture for no purpose that serves the general public in any way whatsoever
seriously, when
1. grandchildren of some guy who wrote a song are legally entitled to a cash flow, and 2. when pseudolegal structures are empowered to intrusively monitor the supposed free exchange of ideas central to a healthy society,
then the very idea of intellectual property law is philosophically and morally broken, and must simply be ignored and/ or outright actively destroyed by anyone with a moral compass and a passion for the concepts underlying western liberal democracy
ip law is a parasitical device distribution companies have bought and paid for via legislative interference to somehow validate their existence. distribution companies that have simply been replaced by the internet. they can buy all the fucking laws and all the prostitute legislators and all the legions of corporate legal goons. who fucking cares. unless they actually break the internet to the extent of china and iran, which even their legislative whores would feel uncomfortable about, their entire legal fantasy is an unenforceable joke for some highly motivated teenagers to route around, package as a point and click interface, and give away for free
technological progress is a bitch. no law can trump it unless you want to stop the very notion of progress itself. so for all of the power of media companies, i simply don't see them powerful enough to crush the foundational concepts of western liberal democracy simply in order to retain their antiquated reason for existence
death throes of a dinosaur. people should fucking know when they are defeated already. and the entirety of the media industry has most certainly been defeated
if they won't go peacefully, we'll just kill them. p2p is only the beginning. there are a million more technologically sophisticated methods. dark nets. steganography. obfuscation. protocol impersonation. and best of all: play countries against each other. set up shop in one, jump to the other. always a step ahead of the assholes. who are we? any goddamn poor terenager. there's no structure needed. a simple desire for one's own culture is the only imperative needed to defeat these assholes. let them sniff all they want. it's a pandora's box. a hydra: cut off its head, we grow ten more. they're doomed. let's make sure they fucking know it
bring it on media corporate assholes. bring all your legal goons and all your bought and paid for legislative puppets and all your paid for tech hacks and all your pseudo corporate governmental entities. we have you beat, and we welcome the fight in the name of the greatest principles of the free exchange of ideas and a free society and simple moral integrity. you're fucked, and your defeat is for the common good
you can't own our culture. we won't let you. we are simply motivated for the love of music, literature, and cinema. you don't own it. we the people do. fuck off and die. we will burn your toll booths to the ground
bring it on. bring your worst. we have you beaten, hard
i spit on you corporate assholes. i relish your comeuppance
myself, i'm just bothered by cock-eyed smug people
most believers, and atheists, just don't consider the realm of theology to be something to dwell that much on. they're lives are not simple, they are not stupid, they merely know a lesson apparently many don't know: humility on large questions
whatever is, or is not, out there, one thing for certain is: a little tact and subtlety is fucking appreciated from all of you, thanks
to me, one of the greatest questions in the spiritual realm of thought, the most pressing theological question ever devised is: "do i know when to shut the fuck up?"
who care more about delivering value to stockholders, than delivering you life
the idea that there will be government death panels is hilarious, since we currently have corporate death panels: ex-nurses in cubicles looking at your list of CPT codes purposefully working hard to make sure you don't cost so much as you die
besides, i wonder if you've ever dealt with the maze of paperwork between hospitals, doctors, health insurers. now THAT'S a bloated bureaucracy. not that the feds won't indulge in odious amounts of waste, but it might actually be an improvement, since there are currently so many entities in the game throwing reams of paper at each other. and it would COST less, since there is no profit motive to run 900 tests on you every time you have a chest pain, while completely ignoring things like preventative medicine because its not profitable. instead, forcing uninsured diabetics to sit in expensive emergency rooms because they can't afford a doctor. which you pay for, and its more expensive. pathetic
no one says universal socialized healthcare is perfect. i advocate for it, and openly admit it would suck in many ways
the point is it would suck WAY LESS than the bullshit system we have no
so i accept admit and endorse every criticism of universal socialized healthcare you can imagine
and then challenge you to defend our current bullshit system as remotely better in any way
of course its anticompetitive bullshit, i guess department stores are adapting music industry tactics, complete with buying off legislators
but it would be pretty neat to have an "eBay" showroom
ebay could pick the wackiest shit: jesus on toast, my 7 year old's baby teeth, this obscene and bizarre plastic thing i bought in bangkok 3 years ago, etc., and put it on prominent display, like million dollar art work. purposefully play off a contrived vibe of reverence and awe, for really crappy mundane shit. it could be funny
then you can only buy certain stuff at say, 11 am sharp
and during checkout, if the guy behind you gives the clerk 10 cents more than your price while you are still reaching for your cash, he gets it instead
therefore, the abuse of the client's naivety was well-established long before they got serious representation. the unsymmetrical levels of legal sophistication was abused by corporate counsel, specifically in regards to the common meaning of "distribution", for a long running time in the early narrative of this case
the argument that "gosh, he was tricked by the cunning lawyers on the other side" fails
no, this argument succeeds on many levels and in multiple meanings, many times, long before the harvard brigade showed up on scene
in fact, "gosh, he was tricked by the cunning lawyers on the other side" is the core of the entire problem here with the music industry's tactics
the music industry does not depend upon legal integrity to win its cases. they depend upon the unsymmetrical nature of financial resources and legal acumen between defendant and corporate counsel
so you are attempting to dispel the very meat of the issue here in this case, and in many other cases, with after-the-fact claims: that things are balanced because interested academic counsel is now involved. no. this case was imbalanced a long time beforehand, and in many other cases not so blessed by academic interest, remain unbalanced
as soon as serious counsel shows up out of empathy for the abused defendants, the corporate sharks skulk away. if no such serious counsel shows up, the sharks have a feeding frenzy. this feeding frenzy is not based on legal integrity, it is based on simple abuse of overwhelming resources on one side of the court room
so you are currently tacking in the direction of intellectual honesty in the narrow scope of this particular scenario, and i thank you for that. however, you are still failing intellectual honesty-wise on the larger themes in play here. so i ask that you now continue your tack towards intellectual honesty and extend the scope of your attempt to be honest on the issues and admit the obvious about what is really in play here: no real legal integrity on the side of corporate counsel, simply deft maneuvering, manipulation of unsophisticates, and generalized abuse of unsymmetrical resources
for example, you will never see the music industry pursue cases like this against organizations or individuals with deep pockets. because this is a fight they know they will lose. they have no case, they only have muscular posturing that impresses legal unsophisticates. the music industry merely picks on the poor and the weak with chest thumping and menace and scares them into capitulatization with overwhelming legal force
therefore, if you yourself have any legal, moral, or intellectual integrity about you, you will give up the charade that there is anything valid in the notion this is a fair fight going on here
you're dancing around it, perhaps as a tacit admission that NYCL has a good point, or out of willful ignorance, or genuine ignorance
"So you're saying that defendants can't ever confess unless they're lawyers? That's a novel perspective and I look forward to your future articles on the subject."
no, that's not novel, its a very old trick in many criminal and civil cases: a terminology has a broad common english language meaning but also a narrow and specific legal meaning. Confusion between what meaning is being addressed arises when some parties to the case are not aware of the specific legal meaning. A cunning lawyer can then sow confusion on purpose if he is aware of certain party's naivety on the legal subtleties of the specific terminology, especially when the meanings overlap with common english use
so don't obfuscate or stammer and stomp around NYCL's point. it is an obvious and easy point for you or anyone else to understand, and so you either address the point directly, or you fail to make a convincing argument of your own that dispels NYCL's point. but as it is now, your mockery of NYCL's point about the meaning of "distribution" only makes a mockery of your own position
by changing the subject, you are making yourself appear to be avoiding the topic at hand, which is really only a kind of a way to concede to the superiority of NYCL's argument in the eyes of everyone else
and besides, he's not asking for ad revenue, which he would deserve (in a sane time span)
he's asking for google to give him gobs of cash just because of something he wrote 23 years ago. hey, i helped build my neighbor's porch twenty three years ago. its my "intellectual property": i figure out the best way to plant the posts. i'll go over tomorrow and hit him up for $100 x 23 years. seems like a fair number to me. adjusted for how many parties he hosted on the deck, including all transfers along the chain of possible new ownership. i'll get my lawyers involved if he's not cooperative
howabout this crazy wacky "communist" thinking of mine: if the movie is good, producers recoup their investment in theatres. if the movie sucks, then they lose money. end of fucking story. the point is, what i am advocating is not some techno anarchist bullshit. what i'm advocating for is called PURE CAPITALISM. meanwhile, the current system is not defending itself from "information wants to be free man" technohippies. they are oligopolies and monopolies, using intellectual property law from before the internet, to defend themselves from pure capitalism. monopolies and oligopolies are just as poisonous to the free market as stalin and mao. so fuck the studios and their crocodile tears over how the internet has killed their dvd aftermarket. warner brothers needs to learn how to make movies like the actual warner brothers made movies in the silver screen era
movies should only make money in theatres, and should be free online. no enforcement, no policing, no legal force or warping of common sense/ how the internet functions need apply
you say this model doesn't support modern production costs?
oh yeah: how much did avatar cost to produce? and how much money has avatar made in theatres so far? pfffft
you say avatar isn't typical of revenue? ok, so then what are we paying for in the pre-internet model? we're supposed to give corporate welfare to moviemakers who make bad movies nobody wants to see?
there will be no dearth of movies or culture because of this "new" model... aka, how moviemaking functioned for decades before the age of the vhs tape. the vhs tape/ dvd which the movie industry fought. fought because this CASH COW they thought in the 1980s was going to destroy them: morons then, morons now about how the internet has destroyed intellectual property law's enforceability
i did not know direct-to-dvd was a movie making model worth saving. here's my tiny violin for steven seagal and uwe boll. adios blockbuster video. boo fucking hoo
"So it seems that you're OK with YOU making money off of your movie via advertising click, dvd reproduction or what have you, however this doesn't extend to everyone else."
what? of course it extends to everyone else
what doesn't extend to everyone else, nor to me, is that i have ANY say in how my movie is distributed once its out there on the internet
i don't understand why you are not seeing this point, or why you are confusing this point with some other point of argument that i am not defending/ advocating
perhaps its too subtle a point? i'm not slighting you, maybe the point really is too subtle. a lot of otherwise intelligent people really don't seem to get how fundamentally the internet has changed media distribution, ESPECIALLY in regards to what you cannot control anymore. all of intellectual property concerning distribution is predicated on dead models. the laws are toothless. because technological change has rendered them toothless, yet so many people are wedded to the old understanding of what they control they can't seem to grasp this truth
Slashdot Mirror
the banking system bubbled and bursted a number of times in the 1800s-1920s, because it wasn't regulated. so the government came in and regulated it. it bubbled and bursted again in 2007 because the government was hard at work REMOVING regulations for a decade before that
and then idiots like you come along and go "look, the government is involved, so its all their fault"
the only thing at fault in the government is idiots in the government who think the solution is less government
you WANT heavy government regulation for a healthy functional economy. simple solid fact
in order to bring about the glorious christian theocracy of north america:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html
of course, jesus' greatest message was tolerance. yet his most vocal advocates today only seem to advance the cause of "christianity" by extending the bounds of intolerance
but i am speaking as a fellow working middle class american
i am not asking for a free ride, i am asking for sanity in what i get for the money i spend. shopping across state lines is obviously a hilarious token sideshow conceit, and you can't possibly be serious that has anything to do with a solution to our serious problems. you haven't, and no republican has, and no teabagger has, adddressed the huge systemic cost issues and bureaucratic paperwork storms amongst competing entities and ridiculous price bloat and outright racketeering and profiteering off our health by parasitical corporate structures
but thank you for your pat simplistic answer that isn't an answer at all. i'd like you to admit our current system is a horrible injustice for THE AVERAGE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS. not for your propaganda scare tactic spectre of the free loading poor
please stop being an obstructionist on painfully obvious failures we need to fix for THE AVERAGE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS, not the poor! (as a side note, the poor, you seem to wish only to die)
but judging by the flamebait mod and your perceived need to lecture me, my joke is obviously a dismal failure ;-P
i don't care if its kaiser wilhelm, or otto von bismarck, keyser soze or this kaiser permanente fellow
its bad enough a certain socialist secret communist muslim wants to destroy america with healthcare reform
i'm a real american. i would rather die a slow painful death than get my healthcare from the czar, the mullah, the comandante, or the emperor of japan!
traitor
are often exactly the sort of lower middle class folk who would benefit immensely from socialized medicine
its like in the town hall meetings last summer, the old man who stands up and yells "keep your socialism away from my medicare"
it would be hilarious if it weren't so horribly tragic
i think it just boils down to incredible, horrible levels of high propaganda: the government is out to get you! the government is YOURS. it serves YOU. really
you genuinely have, for genuinely logically coherent reasons, a widely understood lower capacity for responsible behavior
yes, there are some 12 year olds who are more responsible than many 40 year olds, but by and large, when you are under 21, you're an idiot. you're also an idiot from age 21-100, but usually slightly less of one, which makes all the difference
the law is not made to excuse those rare 12 year olds who can behave responsibly. no more than the law is made to excuse drivers who can drive 90 miles per hour all the time and never get in an accident. mainly because self-perception of responsibility is usually inflated: if you asked a random sampling of people if they can drive 90 miles per hour responsibly, 40 out of 100 people will say "yes", when in reality it is only 2 out of 100
likewise, if you are under 18, you're probably an idiot. in spite of your self-perception to the contrary. so just deal with the fact that those horribly oppressive adults oppress you, and show some humility and understand why they "oppress" you (ie, try to tell you why certain behaviors of yours is wrong from their horribly corrupt and enfeedbled minds)
you may be amazed that you can in fact show humility about the possibility of your own lack of wisdom rather whine about the cosmic injustice of it all. and if you can keep from whining in such a way, congratulations: you're a mature adult
if you still feel the need to whine, you're an idiot
if you're rich, you have no problem
if you're poor, you have medicaid, and you have no problem
only if you are a middle class citizen in the united states do you have no healthcare options, and have to do ridiculous gymnastics like the poster above
how the hell did we arrive at this retarded status quo and why the hell do teabaggers and republicans oppose simple common sense reform of a horrible stituation?
i can hear all of their criticism of socialized medicine. republicans, teabaggers: i accept and acknowledge all of your criticism of socialized medicine. BUT ITS BETTER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. do you not see that?
when you oppose socialized medicine in the usa, because of all the evils of that you see, you merely support a MUCH WORSE STATUS QUO
are you resisting because you have a better solution? (crickets)
at the bottom of the slashdot page?
currently it says
One of the large consolations for experiencing anything unpleasant is the knowledge that one can communicate it. -- Joyce Carol Oates
i feel no need for thought. the entire subject matter has been digested and summarized
i'm not familiar with that metric. could you convert that into libraries of congress?
because they have deep pockets to skirt a broken legal status quo
in other words, everyone should be able to do what google does, but only google does it, not as an abuse of their financial power, but because their financial power puts them beyond the abuse of our broken intellectual property laws
google is not the problem. our antiquated intellectual property laws are
seriously, let them pass every goddamn unenforceable law they want
ten million technologically sophisticated, media hungry and POOR teenagers have them beat, sight unseen. they simply cannot enforce ACTA. seriously. its castles in the sky
i understand completely the concept of a legal framework to encourage the creation of cultural works via economic incentives
except what they are talking about goes WAY WAY beyond that concept and extends into the realm of corporate ownership of culture for no purpose that serves the general public in any way whatsoever
seriously, when
1. grandchildren of some guy who wrote a song are legally entitled to a cash flow, and
2. when pseudolegal structures are empowered to intrusively monitor the supposed free exchange of ideas central to a healthy society,
then the very idea of intellectual property law is philosophically and morally broken, and must simply be ignored and/ or outright actively destroyed by anyone with a moral compass and a passion for the concepts underlying western liberal democracy
ip law is a parasitical device distribution companies have bought and paid for via legislative interference to somehow validate their existence. distribution companies that have simply been replaced by the internet. they can buy all the fucking laws and all the prostitute legislators and all the legions of corporate legal goons. who fucking cares. unless they actually break the internet to the extent of china and iran, which even their legislative whores would feel uncomfortable about, their entire legal fantasy is an unenforceable joke for some highly motivated teenagers to route around, package as a point and click interface, and give away for free
technological progress is a bitch. no law can trump it unless you want to stop the very notion of progress itself. so for all of the power of media companies, i simply don't see them powerful enough to crush the foundational concepts of western liberal democracy simply in order to retain their antiquated reason for existence
death throes of a dinosaur. people should fucking know when they are defeated already. and the entirety of the media industry has most certainly been defeated
if they won't go peacefully, we'll just kill them. p2p is only the beginning. there are a million more technologically sophisticated methods. dark nets. steganography. obfuscation. protocol impersonation. and best of all: play countries against each other. set up shop in one, jump to the other. always a step ahead of the assholes. who are we? any goddamn poor terenager. there's no structure needed. a simple desire for one's own culture is the only imperative needed to defeat these assholes. let them sniff all they want. it's a pandora's box. a hydra: cut off its head, we grow ten more. they're doomed. let's make sure they fucking know it
bring it on media corporate assholes. bring all your legal goons and all your bought and paid for legislative puppets and all your paid for tech hacks and all your pseudo corporate governmental entities. we have you beat, and we welcome the fight in the name of the greatest principles of the free exchange of ideas and a free society and simple moral integrity. you're fucked, and your defeat is for the common good
you can't own our culture. we won't let you. we are simply motivated for the love of music, literature, and cinema. you don't own it. we the people do. fuck off and die. we will burn your toll booths to the ground
bring it on. bring your worst. we have you beaten, hard
i spit on you corporate assholes. i relish your comeuppance
if yes, then you admit to something about this "life" concept is real
cock-eyed smug believers
believers are bothered by cock-eyed smug atheists
myself, i'm just bothered by cock-eyed smug people
most believers, and atheists, just don't consider the realm of theology to be something to dwell that much on. they're lives are not simple, they are not stupid, they merely know a lesson apparently many don't know: humility on large questions
whatever is, or is not, out there, one thing for certain is: a little tact and subtlety is fucking appreciated from all of you, thanks
to me, one of the greatest questions in the spiritual realm of thought, the most pressing theological question ever devised is: "do i know when to shut the fuck up?"
security guards would not allow you to leave the eBay showroom until you shout "A++++ WOULD BUY FROM AGAIN!!!"
who care more about delivering value to stockholders, than delivering you life
the idea that there will be government death panels is hilarious, since we currently have corporate death panels: ex-nurses in cubicles looking at your list of CPT codes purposefully working hard to make sure you don't cost so much as you die
besides, i wonder if you've ever dealt with the maze of paperwork between hospitals, doctors, health insurers. now THAT'S a bloated bureaucracy. not that the feds won't indulge in odious amounts of waste, but it might actually be an improvement, since there are currently so many entities in the game throwing reams of paper at each other. and it would COST less, since there is no profit motive to run 900 tests on you every time you have a chest pain, while completely ignoring things like preventative medicine because its not profitable. instead, forcing uninsured diabetics to sit in expensive emergency rooms because they can't afford a doctor. which you pay for, and its more expensive. pathetic
no one says universal socialized healthcare is perfect. i advocate for it, and openly admit it would suck in many ways
the point is it would suck WAY LESS than the bullshit system we have no
so i accept admit and endorse every criticism of universal socialized healthcare you can imagine
and then challenge you to defend our current bullshit system as remotely better in any way
wake the fuck up
of course its anticompetitive bullshit, i guess department stores are adapting music industry tactics, complete with buying off legislators
but it would be pretty neat to have an "eBay" showroom
ebay could pick the wackiest shit: jesus on toast, my 7 year old's baby teeth, this obscene and bizarre plastic thing i bought in bangkok 3 years ago, etc., and put it on prominent display, like million dollar art work. purposefully play off a contrived vibe of reverence and awe, for really crappy mundane shit. it could be funny
then you can only buy certain stuff at say, 11 am sharp
and during checkout, if the guy behind you gives the clerk 10 cents more than your price while you are still reaching for your cash, he gets it instead
trolls are my specialty, i eat them for lunch
and your good work is much appreciated
perhaps we have a temporal disconnect here, as the defendant was without lawyer in the initial part of the case
http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/londonsire_does_080617TranscriptConference.pdf
therefore, the abuse of the client's naivety was well-established long before they got serious representation. the unsymmetrical levels of legal sophistication was abused by corporate counsel, specifically in regards to the common meaning of "distribution", for a long running time in the early narrative of this case
the argument that "gosh, he was tricked by the cunning lawyers on the other side" fails
no, this argument succeeds on many levels and in multiple meanings, many times, long before the harvard brigade showed up on scene
in fact, "gosh, he was tricked by the cunning lawyers on the other side" is the core of the entire problem here with the music industry's tactics
the music industry does not depend upon legal integrity to win its cases. they depend upon the unsymmetrical nature of financial resources and legal acumen between defendant and corporate counsel
so you are attempting to dispel the very meat of the issue here in this case, and in many other cases, with after-the-fact claims: that things are balanced because interested academic counsel is now involved. no. this case was imbalanced a long time beforehand, and in many other cases not so blessed by academic interest, remain unbalanced
as soon as serious counsel shows up out of empathy for the abused defendants, the corporate sharks skulk away. if no such serious counsel shows up, the sharks have a feeding frenzy. this feeding frenzy is not based on legal integrity, it is based on simple abuse of overwhelming resources on one side of the court room
so you are currently tacking in the direction of intellectual honesty in the narrow scope of this particular scenario, and i thank you for that. however, you are still failing intellectual honesty-wise on the larger themes in play here. so i ask that you now continue your tack towards intellectual honesty and extend the scope of your attempt to be honest on the issues and admit the obvious about what is really in play here: no real legal integrity on the side of corporate counsel, simply deft maneuvering, manipulation of unsophisticates, and generalized abuse of unsymmetrical resources
for example, you will never see the music industry pursue cases like this against organizations or individuals with deep pockets. because this is a fight they know they will lose. they have no case, they only have muscular posturing that impresses legal unsophisticates. the music industry merely picks on the poor and the weak with chest thumping and menace and scares them into capitulatization with overwhelming legal force
therefore, if you yourself have any legal, moral, or intellectual integrity about you, you will give up the charade that there is anything valid in the notion this is a fair fight going on here
crocodile tears
you're dancing around it, perhaps as a tacit admission that NYCL has a good point, or out of willful ignorance, or genuine ignorance
"So you're saying that defendants can't ever confess unless they're lawyers? That's a novel perspective and I look forward to your future articles on the subject."
no, that's not novel, its a very old trick in many criminal and civil cases: a terminology has a broad common english language meaning but also a narrow and specific legal meaning. Confusion between what meaning is being addressed arises when some parties to the case are not aware of the specific legal meaning. A cunning lawyer can then sow confusion on purpose if he is aware of certain party's naivety on the legal subtleties of the specific terminology, especially when the meanings overlap with common english use
so don't obfuscate or stammer and stomp around NYCL's point. it is an obvious and easy point for you or anyone else to understand, and so you either address the point directly, or you fail to make a convincing argument of your own that dispels NYCL's point. but as it is now, your mockery of NYCL's point about the meaning of "distribution" only makes a mockery of your own position
by changing the subject, you are making yourself appear to be avoiding the topic at hand, which is really only a kind of a way to concede to the superiority of NYCL's argument in the eyes of everyone else
however a google spider is approaching this thread any moment now and i fear being found out
all this time i thought they were becoming skynet
now its clear they are becoming the matrix
and besides, he's not asking for ad revenue, which he would deserve (in a sane time span)
he's asking for google to give him gobs of cash just because of something he wrote 23 years ago. hey, i helped build my neighbor's porch twenty three years ago. its my "intellectual property": i figure out the best way to plant the posts. i'll go over tomorrow and hit him up for $100 x 23 years. seems like a fair number to me. adjusted for how many parties he hosted on the deck, including all transfers along the chain of possible new ownership. i'll get my lawyers involved if he's not cooperative
pffffft
howabout this crazy wacky "communist" thinking of mine: if the movie is good, producers recoup their investment in theatres. if the movie sucks, then they lose money. end of fucking story. the point is, what i am advocating is not some techno anarchist bullshit. what i'm advocating for is called PURE CAPITALISM. meanwhile, the current system is not defending itself from "information wants to be free man" technohippies. they are oligopolies and monopolies, using intellectual property law from before the internet, to defend themselves from pure capitalism. monopolies and oligopolies are just as poisonous to the free market as stalin and mao. so fuck the studios and their crocodile tears over how the internet has killed their dvd aftermarket. warner brothers needs to learn how to make movies like the actual warner brothers made movies in the silver screen era
movies should only make money in theatres, and should be free online. no enforcement, no policing, no legal force or warping of common sense/ how the internet functions need apply
you say this model doesn't support modern production costs?
oh yeah: how much did avatar cost to produce? and how much money has avatar made in theatres so far? pfffft
you say avatar isn't typical of revenue? ok, so then what are we paying for in the pre-internet model? we're supposed to give corporate welfare to moviemakers who make bad movies nobody wants to see?
there will be no dearth of movies or culture because of this "new" model... aka, how moviemaking functioned for decades before the age of the vhs tape. the vhs tape/ dvd which the movie industry fought. fought because this CASH COW they thought in the 1980s was going to destroy them: morons then, morons now about how the internet has destroyed intellectual property law's enforceability
i did not know direct-to-dvd was a movie making model worth saving. here's my tiny violin for steven seagal and uwe boll. adios blockbuster video. boo fucking hoo
"So it seems that you're OK with YOU making money off of your movie via advertising click, dvd reproduction or what have you, however this doesn't extend to everyone else."
what? of course it extends to everyone else
what doesn't extend to everyone else, nor to me, is that i have ANY say in how my movie is distributed once its out there on the internet
i don't understand why you are not seeing this point, or why you are confusing this point with some other point of argument that i am not defending/ advocating
perhaps its too subtle a point? i'm not slighting you, maybe the point really is too subtle. a lot of otherwise intelligent people really don't seem to get how fundamentally the internet has changed media distribution, ESPECIALLY in regards to what you cannot control anymore. all of intellectual property concerning distribution is predicated on dead models. the laws are toothless. because technological change has rendered them toothless, yet so many people are wedded to the old understanding of what they control they can't seem to grasp this truth