They already do that. Exactly how many cases have the media companies actually taken to trial and all the way to a jury verdict? Why is that? Exactly how many case of software "piracy" have be taken to trial and all the way to a jury verdict? Once you look at these numbers you see they are not worried about "pirates" or their filed court dates set for trials would be through the roof.
It is about one thing and one thing only, preserving the status quo. It's about ripping off artists of their copyrights. It's about controlling what music gets out and the music that does get out all the expenses are paid by the artists before they see any money. You only have to look at cases against the artists who try and leave the record companies to see they are far more worried about keeping artists in line and keeping control of the distribution channel for as long as they possibly can. Take a look at what the record company did to 30 seconds from Mars, telling them they couldn't leave because they owe the record company money for "a poor album that didn't recover costs". Your telling me a platinum record can't pay for the costs? Give me a break. How about what New Line Cinema did to Peter Jackson, trying to tell him that the Lord of the Rings didn't make a profit so there was nothing to split with him. He ended up suing them and won, which is extremely usual. "Pirates" are absolutely the last thing they are worried about. if demonizing "pirates' allows them to grab more control or keep control longer term.
You going to post the entire conversation you are quoting there so it can been seen in context and the other parts of what he said about that or would that invalidate your position so you won't bother to mention it? You do actually know what Christ said about full filling that law and what he came to and what the greatest law above all others and replaced them is right? Or did you just read that on some web site without knowing the full details around this supposed information.
You clearly are letting your political bias override the raw facts that show you are 100% incorrect. You really need to do a lot more study of societies across the world and in the US before you can claim what you did, because it simply isn't true and has never been true. Only those on the far radical left want to see their community change in to anything other than what it currently is because they are not the ones in charge or feel like the community owes them something that they shouldn't have to work for.
The only problem with this is that if you read the guy's whole manifesto yourself, which I have done. It becomes very clear that he is not right wing but a radical leftist in every sense of the word. Go read the entire thing yourself and then tell me his ideas would match up in any way with conservative right wing politics. If after reading the whole thing you believe that then either your reading comprehension is low or your trying to be blind to the facts so you can blame the conservatives when in fact yet again it is a leftist going radical and shooting up people again. Yea he must be a right wing conservative when he says he wants a one world government. He is clearly right wing when he says that the entire world should have 1 currency. He is right wing when he says that governments should give away more services and money to people and to "redistribute the wealth". Yep sounds exactly like a right wing conservative, oh wait those are all the things the radical leftists believe.
Yes you can get several options for Linux. The first point about not having DRM support on Linux is complete crap. The idea that Linux users won't pay for closed source programs is also complete and total crap that people just make up with no evidence to support it. If you have any doubt about that look at the Humble Indie Bundle and see how Linux users pay more per user for closed source games than Linux or Mac by a large percentage. There are multiple set top boxes running Linux that offer DRM movie and video streaming without any problems. So it isn't an issue of a technical problem. It's an issue of a political one with companies. You have Roku, Tivo, Neuros, Boxee, MeeGo, Videoscape, WD Live TV and the list just keeps on going. So clearly streaming movies/video even DRM videos on Linux is possible and is done all the time.
If you want to look at your current options under Linux. You can look at Hulu, Hulu Plus, Crackle, YouTube Movie rentals, WB tv show site, Slash Control, Veoh, CBS, NBC, ABC, TNT, Zediva, SyFy, Cartoon Network, South Park, usanetwork.com, tvland.com, jaman.com, Fear.net, PBS Frontline, Uncle Earl's Classic Television, Shocker Internet Drive-In, mevio.com, mylifetime.com, Free Film Source, MGM.com, asiapacificfilms.com, current.com, movieflix.com, cinemanow.com, joost.com, truveo.com, vudu.com, documentarystorm.com, blinkbox.com, mubi.com, ireel.com, and memocast.com just to name a few of the options out there.
You might want to tell that same nonsense to law enforcement the world over who use the Glock on a regular basis for their standard firearm. Your comments makes me even wonder if you have ever actually used one or if your just one of those people who hates all guns just on principal alone.
How in the world can he possibly claim to be a Knight's Templar and at the same time return to conservative Roman Catholicism? Seems a number of people need to learn their history a whole lot better, since trying to claim both at the same time is insanity and makes zero sense.
You might want to learn about what you are talking about before making yourself look so foolish showing that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about at all. Using your justification method to slam religion you might as well use the same method to slam every single country in the world and every society in history since they all have done the exact same thing, even the country your in now. No it doesn't matter which one because they all have done it. Your just spouting blind hate which while interesting to watch, ultimately it means nothing other than to show someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about.
What exact makes him right wing? That he doesn't want people coming in and changing everything, that he wants it to stay the same? Sorry that isn't right wing at all. It isn't even political. Lots of people want that exact thing and will go to amazing lengths to try and make it happen. Just look at small town politics anywhere in the world and you will see this. People want to protect their way of life and for things to be the same forever. That has zero to do with politics, and everything to do with people hating change. Not wanting things to change isn't even weird or insane. It's a very very common attitude with a large portion of society.
You might want to actually look in to the rules that were set up for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to be run by Congress about 7-8 years ago and who exactly it was who put those rules in place and told Freddie and Fannie how they must approve mortgages. If you really look at the history of both of them and how Democrats in Congress were involved you might be very surprised at where the problems lie and when they were created. Democrats in Congress made this whole mess and they were told point blank it was going to blow up in their faces with some of the asinine rules that they forced on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Economist and the banking sector all told them their messed up rules were going to create a nightmare and that is exactly what has happened. If you force them to give out loans no matter what, regardless of how bad a loan it is, don't be surprised when it all goes to hell in a hand basket. Democrats have made a game out of blaming Wall Street for this mess and refusing to acknowledge their main role in this whole mess. If Congress says they are class A securities what are you suppose to do stand up and say you guys are insane and they aren't? A number of people did exactly that and were told to sit down and shut up and stop trying to take advantage of the middle class and the poor. Once again Democrats blame anyone but themselves for the problem. We are seeing now more of the exact same thing.
Someone needs to go back and learn their history correctly. Seems someone bough in to some serious historical rewriting that seems to be so common these days. Try and do you own research and find out for yourself rather than just repeating what seems to popular but clearly so very wrong. I would bet your going to try and bring the Crusades into it. Well if that is your point then you clearly have no understanding of the Crusades and need to go back and learn the actual full history of the Crusades, as well as other commonly misunderstood historical events that I hear people complaining about when clearly they haven't researched the history completely themselves or were taught really bad history which seems to be very common in schools and universities these days.
That is the biggest problem I have seen. Is that parents and schools push for everyone to be winners. Guess what not everyone are winners. Some people are just average and will average their entire life. We see the problem this creates with Dr. Spock and others with the idea of never tell a child no but instead redirect them. This idea that we should never physically correct children has gotten completely insane and it is a large reason why we have as many people in prison as we do. Children are growing up thinking they can do whatever they want and that force will never be used on them to make them do anything. Guess what that isn't how it works in the real world. Laws by their very nature are enforced upon threat of violence. You may get away with tell your parents that you don't have to listen to them or do what they say. You try that with law enforcement and you will quickly learn the error of that idea. We have been raising generations that have basically never heard the word no, told they are special and everyone is the same, and that they can do whatever they want and they will never be physically punished. That is a recipe for complete socialital break down and eventual anarchy.
Guess what in the real world and in all jobs you will hear no on a very regular basis and people don't think most people are special. It's the idea that we can't have advanced high school courses anymore because it makes some students feel bad that they can't do that level of work. So the **** what. Some people are just smarter, brighter and more advanced than others and trying to cover that up and make believe that it doesn't exist won't change the truth. You know why the work force of America and other countries is getting wider and wider between the skilled and unskilled? It's because parents and schools are not challenging students to be better and to try and be great. They are tell them "oh you failed...well that's ok at least you did your best". That is crap if you failed you failed and you need to do it over again and again until you do it correctly. If you want to give up and just be simple then go for it, because we always need garbage collectors and other non-skilled workers. You don't like it...too bad, that is the way society is. Some people are bright and on the top and some people are just not bright at all and they will always be at the lower levels of society. This idea that people are disadvantaged just because their school sucks or they didn't go to college. Guess what not everyone is mentally able to deal with college level courses and we need to get over this idea that everyone can go to college and should. That simply isn't reality and the sooner we accept it the better off society will be in the long run. Some people need to learn that not everyone can be a doctor/lawyer/business owner/whatever because they simply don't have the intelligence to do it, and no matter how much you try and teach them and send them to classes it simply will never happen.
Everyone is not the same and everyone can't be whatever they want to be. That is a lie that has been told to children for the last 20-30 years and it has done more damage to society than it has ever done any good.
This is a very accurate statement. If you ask some people if something is right or wrong they will reply that it depends on the situation and other factors. The idea that things can be just plain wrong in all cases is seen by some in society as outmoded and not keeping up with the times. The funny thing is that is more leftist media people and leftist guests brought on to shows, not to mention leftist professors who haven't left their ivory towers in years to deal with the real public.
The problem with people thinking this is normal is in fact because it is not. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious. This idea that religion is something to scorn is only held by a few few vocal minority in the US. They scream the loudest so people think that is the way it is, but that is just an echo chamber and it doesn't reflect reality. The last Time poll on religion about two years ago showed that 60% of American's have been to some kind of church/synagogue/temple/whatever generally at least once every 2 weeks. The idea that the US is not religious is just a fantasy that a very few vocal are trying to push on everyone else to make it seem like that is the major, when in fact they just wish it was the majority because they are the minority. This very small minority wants everyone to think that religion is crazy and those who believe it are crazy. The problem is they are the minority and it is religion that is the basis for laws in almost every country and every society throughout history but that isn't something they want to talk about.
I think it is interesting that people like that demand that people be tolerant and everyone should be allowed to think whatever they want, when in fact it is they who are the least tolerant especially when it comes to religion. Science has become a religion to so many of these type of people that they are throwing rationality out the window and are willing to accept anything that might go against religion even when it isn't logical and there is no proof to support it and true hard science doesn't support what they believe.
I tend to think the most common reason, and this is my opinion, is because these people want to be able to do whatever they want without feeling bad about what they are doing or how it effects other people. They justify it by saying those who oppose them are idiots and need to join the modern age and that these people can't think for themselves. In reality what they are saying is I don't care about anyone but me and I should be able to do whatever I want even if it hurts someone else. No one likes to be told they are wrong and that what they are doing is wrong. It seems that these type of people have taken it to an extreme and not only don't want to hear it, but they want everyone else and society to never tell anyone they are wrong or bad. You only need to look at one of the most famous examples of how this lead to the destruction of a society. Look at the social arc of the Roman society and you will be very surprised how similar it is to current society, and how if we don't do something different to break the cycle we could end up exactly like the Romans.
I thought that Mozilla would have realized the same thing that successful corporate leaders and turn around teams have been saying for years. If you are really good at one thing it doesn't mean you should start trying to do other things to make even more money. This type of thinking has crashed many companies over the years. The best example of this is Boston Market. They went from being a very profitable roasted chicken place to trying to offer all kinds of food and it pretty much ran the company in to the ground. It is a shadow of what it used to be. Most of the time doing one thing and doing it really really well is exactly what a company should continue to focus on rather than trying to chase even more profits and end up cratering.
You sure that it is impossible that no one else around the time would have or did come up with the same ideas? JIT systems are definitely not a new idea. They have been used in games for a very long time. Look at Infocom and SCUMM (Lucas Arts) games. They used basically JIT. I know that when I was in college back in the 1980's in class we talked several times about JIT and how they would work and how it could be done. The problem back then was getting it adopted not the technical issues. No two computer makers would ever want to see a JIT on their computer that works with the competition. I thought that getting one for Commodore, Apple and IBM-PCs would have been a great product to have. It would have made development costs much lower in theory. It wasn't until the Internet and needing 1 app to run on multiple platforms and systems that adoption of the idea became realistic.
You have been sadly deceived. The states have sold their databases to the highest bidders on many many occasions. You should also look at the Fusion Centers that are not government groups/divisions but rather private companies that are supported with grants from the federal government and full database access to all the government criminal and regular databases. They have full access to law enforcement and routinely send out information to law enforcement as to what they should be doing and the types of people they should be watching and monitoring. This isn't a government agency. They are private corporations and there are generally at least 2 of these Fusion Centers in every state.
You then throw in how every single administration has been cause pulling FBI files and such of their political opponents. You quickly see that every government database is for sale and abused on a regular basis. Police constantly do look-ups on neighbors and people they are dating or people dating their friends or family members. Police abuse their database access all the time and rarely are punished for it, and almost never publicly.
The government clearly can not be trusted with databases of people. They constantly abuse them. They put bad information in them, like the horribly inaccurate no fly list, and getting data corrected is impossible just ask several Congress members. The list just goes on and on. We do not need to be letting any level of government (state or federal) to have any more databases to abuse. Too bad if their job is hard and it would be easier if they had these. My life would be easier if I could just kill everyone who annoyed me as well, and take money anytime I wanted from banks with no legal problems. Neither are going to happen and the government and law enforcement just need to work harder, and too bad if their job is hard, they can always quit.
You are 100% correct. The founding fathers point blank said all rights come from God or the people or a higher power or whatever but they absolutely do not come from the government. It is not the government that gives us rights, they believed we are born with them and they all believed that they came from our creator. The only thing the federal government is suppose to be able to do is make rules/laws about when someone's rights are trampled on by someone else. You are 100% correct that the 10 Amendments are just a sample list of what the federal government can not do. It is not and never was intended to be the final list of what is or is not allowed. The US Constitution was set up so that it enumerated the rights or what the federal government was allowed to do. If it wasn't listed then the federal government was not allowed to do it. How in the world it got flipped from if it isn't in the US Constitution then we the public can't do it, I will never know. I have no idea how people ever got that idea. Either they slept through the US Constitution class required for high school graduation in the US or they had an extremely crappy teacher who taught them completely wrong. Read the federalist papers, letters and such written at the time and read the Constitutional Congress minutes to see what they argued and debated about and what they were trying to do. Remember the US Constitution almost didn't get ratified because so many thought the federal government was going to get way too many powers. It took a lot of debating and arguing and changes to get it finally ratified. If they were freaked out how about much power the federal government might end up with, why in the world do people think the federal government has the power and right to invade our lives anytime they want for any reason. That is completely insane. The states wanted to limit the federal government as much as possible so that the federal government was not telling states what they could and couldn't do. There are a lot of safe guards that were put in place to protect the states from the federal government and severly limit how powerful the federal government could get and controls set in place to make sure one branch didn't just take over everything. Over time these protections and ideas have gotten completely shredded by the federal government as it has grabbed more and more power and gotten larger and larger than was ever intended or imagined by the founding fathers. The founding fathers also wanted the federal and state governments to stay they hell out of people's lives as much as possible. They only wanted to the government to be involved in people's lives as little as was possible. Some how that has gotten flipped to where the governments are allowed to tell us what we can and can't do in our private lives. The courts were never ever suppose to make any laws that was the responsibility of the legislative branch, but somehow over the years the courts have grabbed more and more power and judges have started making laws from the bench which should never ever have been allowed and was strictly forbidden. All the branches crossing over and ignoring all the checks and balances is exactly why the US government is so screwed up today and why it is 10000X larger than it ever should have been or was even suppose to be allowed by the founding fathers. If the founding fathers saw the state and federal governments today they would throw up in disgust and then start an armed rebellion in the streets to overthrow the state and federal governments. They would probably bitch slap most of us in the process as well for letting it get this far and this bad.
People forget what the founding fathers said about rights. They said that all rights come from God or the people or a higher power or whatever. Right absolutely do not come from the government in any way shape or form. You have every right you were born with, unless that right is specifically taken away. I do not see any laws passed or things added to the US Constitution that says I have to give up my right to privacy. So until such a law is passed by the majority of the people, I will always have my right to privacy and it doesn't come from the government to allow me the right to privacy. You have to understand what the US Constitution actually is, what it is crafted to do, and what powers and rights it gives to the Federal government. It also helps if you read the federalist papers, the letters and such written around that time, and the Constitutional Congress minutes to get an idea of what they were trying to do. You might want to look at what was going on in Europe and how it was run to get an idea of how they were trying to do things differently.
You clearly don't understand what the US Constitution is and exactly what it is crafted to do. It is list of what the Federal government is allowed, along with a few examples of what they can not do. They set it up not to limit people but to severely limit the Federal government. If it isn't allowed in the Constitution for the Federal government to do it, then they can not do it period. The courts and the Supreme Court over the years have been allowed to get completely out of hand. They have been allowed to make Federal law when that is the job of the Legislative branch and not the Judicial branch. Judges have gotten completely out of control and think they can legislate from the bench when that was absolutely never intended and absolutely never allowed. Somehow the courts have over time given themselves far more rights an abilities than they were ever suppose to have. Just because something isn't in the Constitution does not mean we don't have that right. The founders said that all rights come from God or us or whatever, they absolutely do not come from the Government. The government doesn't give us rights or allow us to do things. It's only job is to say these things are not allowed because it tramples on the rights of others.
If you do not understand this you might want to go back to your high school US Constitution class book, or talk with a law professor about the US Constitution. You should also read the federalist papers and other letters and such written at the time by the founding fathers and the architects of the US Constitution. This background as well as Congressional minutes will given you a clear picture of exactly what the founders were trying to do. You also might want to look at how England and other countries in Europe were run at the time and how the US was trying to do things differently from them.
You might want to think again and look up all the lawsuits that celebrities have filed against paparazzi for using giant telephoto lens to take pictures through their house windows and all of that. The photographers are on public property but that still doesn't get them out of trouble most of the time. There is also the issue of you are not free to photograph just anyone for any reason you want. There are court rulings, thus laws against that as well. There is also the issue of recording people, and their expectation of privacy. There are loads of legal precedence to cover privacy. It isn't in the Constitution per-say but many will and have argued that "the pursuit of happiness" and right against "unreasonable search and seizure" are the foundations for expected privacy. Many people have argued quite successfully that those are directly things that show people have a right to be left alone, thus privacy. There is a lot of case law that backs up this idea as well. So while you think you may be right that there is no Constitutional right to privacy, I would bet that in fact most lawyers would say that is not the case and you are not looking at the intent of the founding fathers and what they wrote about before and while crafting the Constitution. Remember many of the states forced compromises on the federal government to sign the Constitution because they wanted the federal government to stay the hell out of the states business and let them run things rather than the federal government always telling them what they can and can't do. They also wanted the governments in general to stay the hell out of people's lives other than the absolute bare minimum that was required. Somehow this country has gotten so very far away from that idea. So clearly what you are saying is not correct in reality. You do have a legal expectation of privacy in the US.
I think everyone here is missing the absolutely amazing fact that this report points out. It isn't that "piracy" doesn't hurt the entertainment companies. It is the absolutely amazing fact that "piracy" is in fact a profit center for the entertainment companies. "Piracy" actually makes the entertainment companies more money. It seems very counter intuitive, but then many things about buying habits and marketing are counter intuitive.
Most people here have not applied any logic to see the underlying issue presented. If "piracy" was only about cost and nothing else then "pirates" would buy far fewer titles than average consumers because they would get everything for free. If they get everything for free and can save it to a DVD or CD why in the world would they ever buy anything? The reality is because it has very little to do with price. Logically "pirates" have to be completely stupid if they are buying anything when they can get it for nothing. So you have to ask why the logic is off. Why are they buying if they can get it for nothing and the quality is exactly the same? Why exactly would they pay when the risk for getting an exact copy is so very low to pretty much non-existant? The reason clearly must be that cost is not the issue and that there is some underlying reason that causes them to spend money when there is absolutely no need or logical reason for them to spend any money at all. This is the **HUGE** point that most have missed entirely about this report. People who have absolutely enormous amounts of exact copies of media available to them at no expense are still spending more than average consumers. That is a giant red flag against piracy. If they even spend the same amount as average consumers that would still be a giant red flag. There is more going on here and this proves that "piracy" absolutely does not cost the entertainment industry anything, in fact it is a profit center for them.
That is correct you read that correctly. This report absolutely logically proves that "piracy" is a profit center for the entertainment industry. There is absolutely no logical way to argue otherwise. If "piracy" causes more money to be spend by those doing "piracy" then it absolutely must be a profit center given that it is causing increases in sales. To argue otherwise is logically inconstant and it is lying. Entertainment companies have known this since the days of LP records. It is absolutely not something they want the general public or law makers to know because it would completely ruin their campaign to demonize "piracy' in order to get what they want for other reasons. There is a reason there have been very few convictions for individual "piracy". It's because they know it isn't a problem, and that they only have to do a very very few select legal cases to point at to get law makers to give them what they want. They want more control over the distribution channels that they know they are loosing now and probably will loose even more in the future. So they are trying to con law makers in to passing laws that are really designed to give them more legal control over distribution channels especially for the future. The entertainment companies are scared to death that they are the whip and buggy makers of this generation and that the market is going to leave them in the dust. The reality is that is exactly what is going on and the market is trying to leave them in the dust because they add no value to the product and only increase costs as a middle man. The current markets and the Internet in general are all about removing as many middle men as possible to reduce costs and this includes entertainment companies, rather than the artists themselves.
Entertainment companies are about to be completely screwed in a few short years. You can already setup a full music studio in your basement with $2000 or less and product the exact same level of product as the big studios. That freaks out the record companies and producers big time. High end professional digital movie cameras are getting better and better ev
Capitalist societies have existed for thousands of centuries without entertainment or media being paid for by the common person. The artists still created and the people got their culture. It is only a very modern idea that people must pay for their culture. How people were ever convinced that this was acceptable I have no idea. It is one of the greatest scams ever foisted on the public that I know of in recent times. That corporations think they can control the public's culture and sell it back to us over and over again is a high crime and they should be destroyed. In fact corporations as a legal entity never ever should have been allowed. It's a legal scam to protect the people who run and own the company from the public being able to come after them directly when it all goes badly. You don't need to have a corporation to have a business. Partnerships and sole owners have worked for thousands of centuries. Corporations are just a complete scam against the public to rip them off and never pay the consequences for it. If you are not ripping of the public or trying to scam them then not being a corporation should have no effect. You could still sell partnerships in your business which is all that stock is. It's simply a method of determining how much say and what part of the profits a partner gets. Stockholders are partners in a company.
You do know why there are region locks on movies right? I has nothing at all to do with export and import restrictions or anything like that. It is because movie studios only make X number of prints of the film. They claim it is due to expense of the film stock because of the amount of silver actually used in film stock. I can kind of believe this but not 100%. So a movie company will make say 200-300 copies and ship them around the US to theaters. Once it has it run in the US, they get all 200-300 film copies back and they send them out to France or Europe or whatever. So the same 300 or so film prints make their way around the world to all the different theaters. It is stupid and wasteful way to do distribution but it is they way they do it. Which is why DVD region locks exist. Movies are released in the US and Canada first, so they come out on DVD first there. The movie may not have even hit theaters in Burma or whatever so the movie companies want you to spend $10-$20 per ticket in the theater then spend another $15-$30 to buy the DVD later.
This is so very true. RIAA and MPPA and book publishers have become the buggy makers and whip makers of the modern era and they are being phased out and it scares them to death. They add absolutely no value to the created product other than controlling who get promoted and at what level and then that is charged back to the creator of the work. You could hire an advertising company to do that yourself. Media corporations are no longer needed in the age of the Internet and they know this and it scares the crap out of them. They are also scared to death that given the games they have played to get copyrights extended that artists would some how end up with the copyrights on their own creations and put them completely out of business forever given the current length of copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
They already do that. Exactly how many cases have the media companies actually taken to trial and all the way to a jury verdict? Why is that? Exactly how many case of software "piracy" have be taken to trial and all the way to a jury verdict? Once you look at these numbers you see they are not worried about "pirates" or their filed court dates set for trials would be through the roof.
It is about one thing and one thing only, preserving the status quo. It's about ripping off artists of their copyrights. It's about controlling what music gets out and the music that does get out all the expenses are paid by the artists before they see any money. You only have to look at cases against the artists who try and leave the record companies to see they are far more worried about keeping artists in line and keeping control of the distribution channel for as long as they possibly can. Take a look at what the record company did to 30 seconds from Mars, telling them they couldn't leave because they owe the record company money for "a poor album that didn't recover costs". Your telling me a platinum record can't pay for the costs? Give me a break. How about what New Line Cinema did to Peter Jackson, trying to tell him that the Lord of the Rings didn't make a profit so there was nothing to split with him. He ended up suing them and won, which is extremely usual. "Pirates" are absolutely the last thing they are worried about. if demonizing "pirates' allows them to grab more control or keep control longer term.
That's your best reply to defend your position is to call people names? How old are you, because that is the kind of thing a child does.
You going to post the entire conversation you are quoting there so it can been seen in context and the other parts of what he said about that or would that invalidate your position so you won't bother to mention it? You do actually know what Christ said about full filling that law and what he came to and what the greatest law above all others and replaced them is right? Or did you just read that on some web site without knowing the full details around this supposed information.
You clearly are letting your political bias override the raw facts that show you are 100% incorrect. You really need to do a lot more study of societies across the world and in the US before you can claim what you did, because it simply isn't true and has never been true. Only those on the far radical left want to see their community change in to anything other than what it currently is because they are not the ones in charge or feel like the community owes them something that they shouldn't have to work for.
The only problem with this is that if you read the guy's whole manifesto yourself, which I have done. It becomes very clear that he is not right wing but a radical leftist in every sense of the word. Go read the entire thing yourself and then tell me his ideas would match up in any way with conservative right wing politics. If after reading the whole thing you believe that then either your reading comprehension is low or your trying to be blind to the facts so you can blame the conservatives when in fact yet again it is a leftist going radical and shooting up people again. Yea he must be a right wing conservative when he says he wants a one world government. He is clearly right wing when he says that the entire world should have 1 currency. He is right wing when he says that governments should give away more services and money to people and to "redistribute the wealth". Yep sounds exactly like a right wing conservative, oh wait those are all the things the radical leftists believe.
Yes you can get several options for Linux. The first point about not having DRM support on Linux is complete crap. The idea that Linux users won't pay for closed source programs is also complete and total crap that people just make up with no evidence to support it. If you have any doubt about that look at the Humble Indie Bundle and see how Linux users pay more per user for closed source games than Linux or Mac by a large percentage. There are multiple set top boxes running Linux that offer DRM movie and video streaming without any problems. So it isn't an issue of a technical problem. It's an issue of a political one with companies. You have Roku, Tivo, Neuros, Boxee, MeeGo, Videoscape, WD Live TV and the list just keeps on going. So clearly streaming movies/video even DRM videos on Linux is possible and is done all the time.
If you want to look at your current options under Linux. You can look at Hulu, Hulu Plus, Crackle, YouTube Movie rentals, WB tv show site, Slash Control, Veoh, CBS, NBC, ABC, TNT, Zediva, SyFy, Cartoon Network, South Park, usanetwork.com, tvland.com, jaman.com, Fear.net, PBS Frontline, Uncle Earl's Classic Television, Shocker Internet Drive-In, mevio.com, mylifetime.com, Free Film Source, MGM.com, asiapacificfilms.com, current.com, movieflix.com, cinemanow.com, joost.com, truveo.com, vudu.com, documentarystorm.com, blinkbox.com, mubi.com, ireel.com, and memocast.com just to name a few of the options out there.
You might want to tell that same nonsense to law enforcement the world over who use the Glock on a regular basis for their standard firearm. Your comments makes me even wonder if you have ever actually used one or if your just one of those people who hates all guns just on principal alone.
How in the world can he possibly claim to be a Knight's Templar and at the same time return to conservative Roman Catholicism? Seems a number of people need to learn their history a whole lot better, since trying to claim both at the same time is insanity and makes zero sense.
You might want to learn about what you are talking about before making yourself look so foolish showing that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about at all. Using your justification method to slam religion you might as well use the same method to slam every single country in the world and every society in history since they all have done the exact same thing, even the country your in now. No it doesn't matter which one because they all have done it. Your just spouting blind hate which while interesting to watch, ultimately it means nothing other than to show someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about.
What exact makes him right wing? That he doesn't want people coming in and changing everything, that he wants it to stay the same? Sorry that isn't right wing at all. It isn't even political. Lots of people want that exact thing and will go to amazing lengths to try and make it happen. Just look at small town politics anywhere in the world and you will see this. People want to protect their way of life and for things to be the same forever. That has zero to do with politics, and everything to do with people hating change. Not wanting things to change isn't even weird or insane. It's a very very common attitude with a large portion of society.
You might want to actually look in to the rules that were set up for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to be run by Congress about 7-8 years ago and who exactly it was who put those rules in place and told Freddie and Fannie how they must approve mortgages. If you really look at the history of both of them and how Democrats in Congress were involved you might be very surprised at where the problems lie and when they were created. Democrats in Congress made this whole mess and they were told point blank it was going to blow up in their faces with some of the asinine rules that they forced on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Economist and the banking sector all told them their messed up rules were going to create a nightmare and that is exactly what has happened. If you force them to give out loans no matter what, regardless of how bad a loan it is, don't be surprised when it all goes to hell in a hand basket. Democrats have made a game out of blaming Wall Street for this mess and refusing to acknowledge their main role in this whole mess. If Congress says they are class A securities what are you suppose to do stand up and say you guys are insane and they aren't? A number of people did exactly that and were told to sit down and shut up and stop trying to take advantage of the middle class and the poor. Once again Democrats blame anyone but themselves for the problem. We are seeing now more of the exact same thing.
Someone needs to go back and learn their history correctly. Seems someone bough in to some serious historical rewriting that seems to be so common these days. Try and do you own research and find out for yourself rather than just repeating what seems to popular but clearly so very wrong. I would bet your going to try and bring the Crusades into it. Well if that is your point then you clearly have no understanding of the Crusades and need to go back and learn the actual full history of the Crusades, as well as other commonly misunderstood historical events that I hear people complaining about when clearly they haven't researched the history completely themselves or were taught really bad history which seems to be very common in schools and universities these days.
That is the biggest problem I have seen. Is that parents and schools push for everyone to be winners. Guess what not everyone are winners. Some people are just average and will average their entire life. We see the problem this creates with Dr. Spock and others with the idea of never tell a child no but instead redirect them. This idea that we should never physically correct children has gotten completely insane and it is a large reason why we have as many people in prison as we do. Children are growing up thinking they can do whatever they want and that force will never be used on them to make them do anything. Guess what that isn't how it works in the real world. Laws by their very nature are enforced upon threat of violence. You may get away with tell your parents that you don't have to listen to them or do what they say. You try that with law enforcement and you will quickly learn the error of that idea. We have been raising generations that have basically never heard the word no, told they are special and everyone is the same, and that they can do whatever they want and they will never be physically punished. That is a recipe for complete socialital break down and eventual anarchy.
Guess what in the real world and in all jobs you will hear no on a very regular basis and people don't think most people are special. It's the idea that we can't have advanced high school courses anymore because it makes some students feel bad that they can't do that level of work. So the **** what. Some people are just smarter, brighter and more advanced than others and trying to cover that up and make believe that it doesn't exist won't change the truth. You know why the work force of America and other countries is getting wider and wider between the skilled and unskilled? It's because parents and schools are not challenging students to be better and to try and be great. They are tell them "oh you failed...well that's ok at least you did your best". That is crap if you failed you failed and you need to do it over again and again until you do it correctly. If you want to give up and just be simple then go for it, because we always need garbage collectors and other non-skilled workers. You don't like it...too bad, that is the way society is. Some people are bright and on the top and some people are just not bright at all and they will always be at the lower levels of society. This idea that people are disadvantaged just because their school sucks or they didn't go to college. Guess what not everyone is mentally able to deal with college level courses and we need to get over this idea that everyone can go to college and should. That simply isn't reality and the sooner we accept it the better off society will be in the long run. Some people need to learn that not everyone can be a doctor/lawyer/business owner/whatever because they simply don't have the intelligence to do it, and no matter how much you try and teach them and send them to classes it simply will never happen.
Everyone is not the same and everyone can't be whatever they want to be. That is a lie that has been told to children for the last 20-30 years and it has done more damage to society than it has ever done any good.
This is a very accurate statement. If you ask some people if something is right or wrong they will reply that it depends on the situation and other factors. The idea that things can be just plain wrong in all cases is seen by some in society as outmoded and not keeping up with the times. The funny thing is that is more leftist media people and leftist guests brought on to shows, not to mention leftist professors who haven't left their ivory towers in years to deal with the real public.
The problem with people thinking this is normal is in fact because it is not. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious. This idea that religion is something to scorn is only held by a few few vocal minority in the US. They scream the loudest so people think that is the way it is, but that is just an echo chamber and it doesn't reflect reality. The last Time poll on religion about two years ago showed that 60% of American's have been to some kind of church/synagogue/temple/whatever generally at least once every 2 weeks. The idea that the US is not religious is just a fantasy that a very few vocal are trying to push on everyone else to make it seem like that is the major, when in fact they just wish it was the majority because they are the minority. This very small minority wants everyone to think that religion is crazy and those who believe it are crazy. The problem is they are the minority and it is religion that is the basis for laws in almost every country and every society throughout history but that isn't something they want to talk about.
I think it is interesting that people like that demand that people be tolerant and everyone should be allowed to think whatever they want, when in fact it is they who are the least tolerant especially when it comes to religion. Science has become a religion to so many of these type of people that they are throwing rationality out the window and are willing to accept anything that might go against religion even when it isn't logical and there is no proof to support it and true hard science doesn't support what they believe.
I tend to think the most common reason, and this is my opinion, is because these people want to be able to do whatever they want without feeling bad about what they are doing or how it effects other people. They justify it by saying those who oppose them are idiots and need to join the modern age and that these people can't think for themselves. In reality what they are saying is I don't care about anyone but me and I should be able to do whatever I want even if it hurts someone else. No one likes to be told they are wrong and that what they are doing is wrong. It seems that these type of people have taken it to an extreme and not only don't want to hear it, but they want everyone else and society to never tell anyone they are wrong or bad. You only need to look at one of the most famous examples of how this lead to the destruction of a society. Look at the social arc of the Roman society and you will be very surprised how similar it is to current society, and how if we don't do something different to break the cycle we could end up exactly like the Romans.
I thought that Mozilla would have realized the same thing that successful corporate leaders and turn around teams have been saying for years. If you are really good at one thing it doesn't mean you should start trying to do other things to make even more money. This type of thinking has crashed many companies over the years. The best example of this is Boston Market. They went from being a very profitable roasted chicken place to trying to offer all kinds of food and it pretty much ran the company in to the ground. It is a shadow of what it used to be. Most of the time doing one thing and doing it really really well is exactly what a company should continue to focus on rather than trying to chase even more profits and end up cratering.
You sure that it is impossible that no one else around the time would have or did come up with the same ideas? JIT systems are definitely not a new idea. They have been used in games for a very long time. Look at Infocom and SCUMM (Lucas Arts) games. They used basically JIT. I know that when I was in college back in the 1980's in class we talked several times about JIT and how they would work and how it could be done. The problem back then was getting it adopted not the technical issues. No two computer makers would ever want to see a JIT on their computer that works with the competition. I thought that getting one for Commodore, Apple and IBM-PCs would have been a great product to have. It would have made development costs much lower in theory. It wasn't until the Internet and needing 1 app to run on multiple platforms and systems that adoption of the idea became realistic.
Even better a family with multiple computers behind a firewall and NAT. What happens then? I know of many families with that exact setup.
You have been sadly deceived. The states have sold their databases to the highest bidders on many many occasions. You should also look at the Fusion Centers that are not government groups/divisions but rather private companies that are supported with grants from the federal government and full database access to all the government criminal and regular databases. They have full access to law enforcement and routinely send out information to law enforcement as to what they should be doing and the types of people they should be watching and monitoring. This isn't a government agency. They are private corporations and there are generally at least 2 of these Fusion Centers in every state.
You then throw in how every single administration has been cause pulling FBI files and such of their political opponents. You quickly see that every government database is for sale and abused on a regular basis. Police constantly do look-ups on neighbors and people they are dating or people dating their friends or family members. Police abuse their database access all the time and rarely are punished for it, and almost never publicly.
The government clearly can not be trusted with databases of people. They constantly abuse them. They put bad information in them, like the horribly inaccurate no fly list, and getting data corrected is impossible just ask several Congress members. The list just goes on and on. We do not need to be letting any level of government (state or federal) to have any more databases to abuse. Too bad if their job is hard and it would be easier if they had these. My life would be easier if I could just kill everyone who annoyed me as well, and take money anytime I wanted from banks with no legal problems. Neither are going to happen and the government and law enforcement just need to work harder, and too bad if their job is hard, they can always quit.
You are 100% correct. The founding fathers point blank said all rights come from God or the people or a higher power or whatever but they absolutely do not come from the government. It is not the government that gives us rights, they believed we are born with them and they all believed that they came from our creator. The only thing the federal government is suppose to be able to do is make rules/laws about when someone's rights are trampled on by someone else. You are 100% correct that the 10 Amendments are just a sample list of what the federal government can not do. It is not and never was intended to be the final list of what is or is not allowed. The US Constitution was set up so that it enumerated the rights or what the federal government was allowed to do. If it wasn't listed then the federal government was not allowed to do it. How in the world it got flipped from if it isn't in the US Constitution then we the public can't do it, I will never know. I have no idea how people ever got that idea. Either they slept through the US Constitution class required for high school graduation in the US or they had an extremely crappy teacher who taught them completely wrong. Read the federalist papers, letters and such written at the time and read the Constitutional Congress minutes to see what they argued and debated about and what they were trying to do. Remember the US Constitution almost didn't get ratified because so many thought the federal government was going to get way too many powers. It took a lot of debating and arguing and changes to get it finally ratified. If they were freaked out how about much power the federal government might end up with, why in the world do people think the federal government has the power and right to invade our lives anytime they want for any reason. That is completely insane. The states wanted to limit the federal government as much as possible so that the federal government was not telling states what they could and couldn't do. There are a lot of safe guards that were put in place to protect the states from the federal government and severly limit how powerful the federal government could get and controls set in place to make sure one branch didn't just take over everything. Over time these protections and ideas have gotten completely shredded by the federal government as it has grabbed more and more power and gotten larger and larger than was ever intended or imagined by the founding fathers. The founding fathers also wanted the federal and state governments to stay they hell out of people's lives as much as possible. They only wanted to the government to be involved in people's lives as little as was possible. Some how that has gotten flipped to where the governments are allowed to tell us what we can and can't do in our private lives. The courts were never ever suppose to make any laws that was the responsibility of the legislative branch, but somehow over the years the courts have grabbed more and more power and judges have started making laws from the bench which should never ever have been allowed and was strictly forbidden. All the branches crossing over and ignoring all the checks and balances is exactly why the US government is so screwed up today and why it is 10000X larger than it ever should have been or was even suppose to be allowed by the founding fathers. If the founding fathers saw the state and federal governments today they would throw up in disgust and then start an armed rebellion in the streets to overthrow the state and federal governments. They would probably bitch slap most of us in the process as well for letting it get this far and this bad.
People forget what the founding fathers said about rights. They said that all rights come from God or the people or a higher power or whatever. Right absolutely do not come from the government in any way shape or form. You have every right you were born with, unless that right is specifically taken away. I do not see any laws passed or things added to the US Constitution that says I have to give up my right to privacy. So until such a law is passed by the majority of the people, I will always have my right to privacy and it doesn't come from the government to allow me the right to privacy. You have to understand what the US Constitution actually is, what it is crafted to do, and what powers and rights it gives to the Federal government. It also helps if you read the federalist papers, the letters and such written around that time, and the Constitutional Congress minutes to get an idea of what they were trying to do. You might want to look at what was going on in Europe and how it was run to get an idea of how they were trying to do things differently.
You clearly don't understand what the US Constitution is and exactly what it is crafted to do. It is list of what the Federal government is allowed, along with a few examples of what they can not do. They set it up not to limit people but to severely limit the Federal government. If it isn't allowed in the Constitution for the Federal government to do it, then they can not do it period. The courts and the Supreme Court over the years have been allowed to get completely out of hand. They have been allowed to make Federal law when that is the job of the Legislative branch and not the Judicial branch. Judges have gotten completely out of control and think they can legislate from the bench when that was absolutely never intended and absolutely never allowed. Somehow the courts have over time given themselves far more rights an abilities than they were ever suppose to have. Just because something isn't in the Constitution does not mean we don't have that right. The founders said that all rights come from God or us or whatever, they absolutely do not come from the Government. The government doesn't give us rights or allow us to do things. It's only job is to say these things are not allowed because it tramples on the rights of others.
If you do not understand this you might want to go back to your high school US Constitution class book, or talk with a law professor about the US Constitution. You should also read the federalist papers and other letters and such written at the time by the founding fathers and the architects of the US Constitution. This background as well as Congressional minutes will given you a clear picture of exactly what the founders were trying to do. You also might want to look at how England and other countries in Europe were run at the time and how the US was trying to do things differently from them.
You might want to think again and look up all the lawsuits that celebrities have filed against paparazzi for using giant telephoto lens to take pictures through their house windows and all of that. The photographers are on public property but that still doesn't get them out of trouble most of the time. There is also the issue of you are not free to photograph just anyone for any reason you want. There are court rulings, thus laws against that as well. There is also the issue of recording people, and their expectation of privacy. There are loads of legal precedence to cover privacy. It isn't in the Constitution per-say but many will and have argued that "the pursuit of happiness" and right against "unreasonable search and seizure" are the foundations for expected privacy. Many people have argued quite successfully that those are directly things that show people have a right to be left alone, thus privacy. There is a lot of case law that backs up this idea as well. So while you think you may be right that there is no Constitutional right to privacy, I would bet that in fact most lawyers would say that is not the case and you are not looking at the intent of the founding fathers and what they wrote about before and while crafting the Constitution. Remember many of the states forced compromises on the federal government to sign the Constitution because they wanted the federal government to stay the hell out of the states business and let them run things rather than the federal government always telling them what they can and can't do. They also wanted the governments in general to stay the hell out of people's lives other than the absolute bare minimum that was required. Somehow this country has gotten so very far away from that idea. So clearly what you are saying is not correct in reality. You do have a legal expectation of privacy in the US.
I think everyone here is missing the absolutely amazing fact that this report points out. It isn't that "piracy" doesn't hurt the entertainment companies. It is the absolutely amazing fact that "piracy" is in fact a profit center for the entertainment companies. "Piracy" actually makes the entertainment companies more money. It seems very counter intuitive, but then many things about buying habits and marketing are counter intuitive.
Most people here have not applied any logic to see the underlying issue presented. If "piracy" was only about cost and nothing else then "pirates" would buy far fewer titles than average consumers because they would get everything for free. If they get everything for free and can save it to a DVD or CD why in the world would they ever buy anything? The reality is because it has very little to do with price. Logically "pirates" have to be completely stupid if they are buying anything when they can get it for nothing. So you have to ask why the logic is off. Why are they buying if they can get it for nothing and the quality is exactly the same? Why exactly would they pay when the risk for getting an exact copy is so very low to pretty much non-existant? The reason clearly must be that cost is not the issue and that there is some underlying reason that causes them to spend money when there is absolutely no need or logical reason for them to spend any money at all. This is the **HUGE** point that most have missed entirely about this report. People who have absolutely enormous amounts of exact copies of media available to them at no expense are still spending more than average consumers. That is a giant red flag against piracy. If they even spend the same amount as average consumers that would still be a giant red flag. There is more going on here and this proves that "piracy" absolutely does not cost the entertainment industry anything, in fact it is a profit center for them.
That is correct you read that correctly. This report absolutely logically proves that "piracy" is a profit center for the entertainment industry. There is absolutely no logical way to argue otherwise. If "piracy" causes more money to be spend by those doing "piracy" then it absolutely must be a profit center given that it is causing increases in sales. To argue otherwise is logically inconstant and it is lying. Entertainment companies have known this since the days of LP records. It is absolutely not something they want the general public or law makers to know because it would completely ruin their campaign to demonize "piracy' in order to get what they want for other reasons. There is a reason there have been very few convictions for individual "piracy". It's because they know it isn't a problem, and that they only have to do a very very few select legal cases to point at to get law makers to give them what they want. They want more control over the distribution channels that they know they are loosing now and probably will loose even more in the future. So they are trying to con law makers in to passing laws that are really designed to give them more legal control over distribution channels especially for the future. The entertainment companies are scared to death that they are the whip and buggy makers of this generation and that the market is going to leave them in the dust. The reality is that is exactly what is going on and the market is trying to leave them in the dust because they add no value to the product and only increase costs as a middle man. The current markets and the Internet in general are all about removing as many middle men as possible to reduce costs and this includes entertainment companies, rather than the artists themselves.
Entertainment companies are about to be completely screwed in a few short years. You can already setup a full music studio in your basement with $2000 or less and product the exact same level of product as the big studios. That freaks out the record companies and producers big time. High end professional digital movie cameras are getting better and better ev
Capitalist societies have existed for thousands of centuries without entertainment or media being paid for by the common person. The artists still created and the people got their culture. It is only a very modern idea that people must pay for their culture. How people were ever convinced that this was acceptable I have no idea. It is one of the greatest scams ever foisted on the public that I know of in recent times. That corporations think they can control the public's culture and sell it back to us over and over again is a high crime and they should be destroyed. In fact corporations as a legal entity never ever should have been allowed. It's a legal scam to protect the people who run and own the company from the public being able to come after them directly when it all goes badly. You don't need to have a corporation to have a business. Partnerships and sole owners have worked for thousands of centuries. Corporations are just a complete scam against the public to rip them off and never pay the consequences for it. If you are not ripping of the public or trying to scam them then not being a corporation should have no effect. You could still sell partnerships in your business which is all that stock is. It's simply a method of determining how much say and what part of the profits a partner gets. Stockholders are partners in a company.
You do know why there are region locks on movies right? I has nothing at all to do with export and import restrictions or anything like that. It is because movie studios only make X number of prints of the film. They claim it is due to expense of the film stock because of the amount of silver actually used in film stock. I can kind of believe this but not 100%. So a movie company will make say 200-300 copies and ship them around the US to theaters. Once it has it run in the US, they get all 200-300 film copies back and they send them out to France or Europe or whatever. So the same 300 or so film prints make their way around the world to all the different theaters. It is stupid and wasteful way to do distribution but it is they way they do it. Which is why DVD region locks exist. Movies are released in the US and Canada first, so they come out on DVD first there. The movie may not have even hit theaters in Burma or whatever so the movie companies want you to spend $10-$20 per ticket in the theater then spend another $15-$30 to buy the DVD later.
This is why region locks on DVDs exist.
This is so very true. RIAA and MPPA and book publishers have become the buggy makers and whip makers of the modern era and they are being phased out and it scares them to death. They add absolutely no value to the created product other than controlling who get promoted and at what level and then that is charged back to the creator of the work. You could hire an advertising company to do that yourself. Media corporations are no longer needed in the age of the Internet and they know this and it scares the crap out of them. They are also scared to death that given the games they have played to get copyrights extended that artists would some how end up with the copyrights on their own creations and put them completely out of business forever given the current length of copyrights.