"Saying please or thank you most certainly does make you a man."
No, it makes you a gentleman. Neither does not saying them make you a man.
Being a man means being ready to set yourself in front of danger to others. Does not matter your physical shape or civility. He who ducks out from the line and allows others to take the brunt is not a man.
"A lot of shows wouldn't be so popular if it weren't for downloading or watching them on the internet."
You say that as if it were a fact, instead of just your opinion. I feel they get watched on the net because they are popular to begin with.
"Actors/actresses/musicians/artists/athletes/enter tainers/executives/etc. have no right to be paid millions upon millions for their lack of work in society."
You say that as if it were a fact, instead of the opinion of someone who probably doesn't produce anything worth paying large amounts of money for. Sour grapes, m'thinks.
"That is why we have our rights being stomped out."
You say that as if...
Well, you get the point. You are expressing your opinions only.
P.S.
"Yes they entertain but the priority of entertainment shouldn't be as high as it is."
From someone willing to breach the artist's copyright to access said entertainment. Ironic hypocracy.
And they were being sued for those years too. You forgot that part. Plus -- as usual for/. -- you conflate patents with copyright. And you neglect the lack of internatioinal patent law at that time.
Ask Terry Gillham(sp?) whatever happened to his Man from La Manchia film. Better yet, watch the documentary "Lost in La Manchia'. And, that was with professionals.
I think you confuse democratic with communistic. In democratic, the works are submitted, voted on and done or not. In communistic, the works are submitted to a committee, they are mashed together into an unrecognizable mush, then they are continually revised by everyone until it mires in the mud and dies.
"In theory, it's the press who protects our rights, by reporting the things that aren't right."
Got that right. Unfortunately, as we have seen much of as late, the press is involved with creating the news, not reporting. They also have been shown to be lying about what they 'report'.
"...does not consitute a restriction on the freedom of press?"
Technically, no. Freedom of the press means the freedom to publish. NYT brought up on charges for publishing? No.
"This index measures journalists ability to write whatever they want"
They CAN write whatever they want. They just don't have the right to shield felons.
I agree. Let's talk about the actual per-capita. That would include charitable giving, chum. Per-capita is not just governmental aid. We still come out well.
"I'm guessing that after the election, there are going to be journalists who will be shut down (read: vanish) on the grounds that they are undermining the War on Terror(tm) by vocalizing criticism of administration policy."
What a friggin' troll you are. There will be no such thing happen and you know it. Reporters have not 'disappeared' for any reasons other than perhaps organized crime. Dan Rathers, The NYT, et.al. have been adamantly andi-Bush and anti-anti-terrorism from the git-go and not a damn thing has or will happen to them. Nor should it.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can print what you want in the US. Show a law otherwise.
They don't have to reveal whistle-blowers. They do have to reveal felons, as in classified document leakers. In that, they are not above the law.
I can say "Fuck Bush" all I want. I don't even have to substitute a letter like you did, to make it seem like I can't (self-censorship). That won't get me arrested. I cannot, however, advocate killing him. It's a felony to do so and has been for much longer than Bush has been president.
Unless they're protecting a felon, point out cases where their modus operandi has been that.
Having read the list, I can say you fabricated your three points.
Nice trolling, though. Ironic, that, considering your second line.
That "general rule of thumb" certainly didn't apply to novels or recordings. If so, you're saying you could quote fifty pages of most novels and a full minute of many popular songs and be within limit. Nope, don't buy it.
Knocking him in the head was a metaphor for forcing the removal of copying rights from the author. Taking is what you do when you take something that doesn't belong to you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Saying please or thank you most certainly does make you a man."
No, it makes you a gentleman. Neither does not saying them make you a man.
Being a man means being ready to set yourself in front of danger to others. Does not matter your physical shape or civility. He who ducks out from the line and allows others to take the brunt is not a man.
"A nice letter with an explanation..."
That's what a C&D is.
"A lot of shows wouldn't be so popular if it weren't for downloading or watching them on the internet."
r tainers/executives/etc. have no right to be paid millions upon millions for their lack of work in society."
You say that as if it were a fact, instead of just your opinion. I feel they get watched on the net because they are popular to begin with.
"Actors/actresses/musicians/artists/athletes/ente
You say that as if it were a fact, instead of the opinion of someone who probably doesn't produce anything worth paying large amounts of money for. Sour grapes, m'thinks.
"That is why we have our rights being stomped out."
You say that as if...
Well, you get the point. You are expressing your opinions only.
P.S.
"Yes they entertain but the priority of entertainment shouldn't be as high as it is."
From someone willing to breach the artist's copyright to access said entertainment. Ironic hypocracy.
Let's see... that adds up...
Lexus for 30+K
laptop for 2+K
Gucci purse for 800C+
No wonder people steal this crap.
Hint: People steal crap because they are thieves.
And they were being sued for those years too. You forgot that part. Plus -- as usual for /. -- you conflate patents with copyright. And you neglect the lack of internatioinal patent law at that time.
But, it sounds good, don't it?
You, of course, have no problem with investing your personal money and time in the road in front of your house, research, etc?
"if all the cash that the current administration has invested in the war was put towards space, where we would be right now?"
Cleaning up several more TW's, perhaps? You make the mistake that there is only one focus for spending at a time.
Ask Terry Gillham(sp?) whatever happened to his Man from La Manchia film. Better yet, watch the documentary "Lost in La Manchia'. And, that was with professionals.
I think you confuse democratic with communistic. In democratic, the works are submitted, voted on and done or not. In communistic, the works are submitted to a committee, they are mashed together into an unrecognizable mush, then they are continually revised by everyone until it mires in the mud and dies.
I then, presume you missed the announcement recently by the BBC that they were indeed actively biased in their reporting?
Maybe the BBC didn't cover it?
"In theory, it's the press who protects our rights, by reporting the things that aren't right."
Got that right. Unfortunately, as we have seen much of as late, the press is involved with creating the news, not reporting. They also have been shown to be lying about what they 'report'.
So, no, it is no more important for them then me.
"...does not consitute a restriction on the freedom of press?"
Technically, no. Freedom of the press means the freedom to publish. NYT brought up on charges for publishing? No.
"This index measures journalists ability to write whatever they want"
They CAN write whatever they want. They just don't have the right to shield felons.
I agree. Let's talk about the actual per-capita. That would include charitable giving, chum. Per-capita is not just governmental aid. We still come out well.
"The US State Department is VERY aggressive at making sure..."
"Its an ugly system, but living so close the the US (and being so similar) its necessary to give some market niches breathing room."
Chicken, meet egg.
"Its not that US is better or France is better, its that France does things differently and that's okay too."
Uh, not according to the French, who want to suppress everything from the US.
"I'm guessing that after the election, there are going to be journalists who will be shut down (read: vanish) on the grounds that they are undermining the War on Terror(tm) by vocalizing criticism of administration policy."
What a friggin' troll you are. There will be no such thing happen and you know it. Reporters have not 'disappeared' for any reasons other than perhaps organized crime. Dan Rathers, The NYT, et.al. have been adamantly andi-Bush and anti-anti-terrorism from the git-go and not a damn thing has or will happen to them. Nor should it.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can print what you want in the US. Show a law otherwise.
They don't have to reveal whistle-blowers. They do have to reveal felons, as in classified document leakers. In that, they are not above the law.
I can say "Fuck Bush" all I want. I don't even have to substitute a letter like you did, to make it seem like I can't (self-censorship). That won't get me arrested. I cannot, however, advocate killing him. It's a felony to do so and has been for much longer than Bush has been president.
Unless they're protecting a felon, point out cases where their modus operandi has been that.
Having read the list, I can say you fabricated your three points.
Nice trolling, though. Ironic, that, considering your second line.
Dear grammar nazi; The word "dont" is a contraction -- "don't".
That "general rule of thumb" certainly didn't apply to novels or recordings. If so, you're saying you could quote fifty pages of most novels and a full minute of many popular songs and be within limit. Nope, don't buy it.
Speaking of which, how much trouble would it have been to blur the screen and audio enough to become 'mumbling'?
You are in error.
The more complex something is, the more likely it is to break down.
One more time for all the programmers. Copyright as applied to software is a smidgeon of what copyright is used for. So, screw all the novellists?
Untrue right back at ya. Look at the timeline and tell me if the chicken or the egg came first.
"At the end of the day, creative people who aren't making a crapload of money are a very different bvreed to those who are."
Yeah, poorer and striving to make a crapload.
Knocking him in the head was a metaphor for forcing the removal of copying rights from the author. Taking is what you do when you take something that doesn't belong to you.
Understand now?