Lacking any thought of your own, you have to resort to parroting back to me my own words. Hysterical!
Obviously you will never respond to the topic of music piracy, because you lack the ability to debate it. This means I won the argument, and you lost. It's okay to admit when you're wrong, kid. Next time, don't let it consume you so deeply, and try to actually respond to people's points instead of covering your eyes and running away screaming.
Clearly, I was 100% right about every single thing I said.
I hate to stop you in the middle of your hyperventilating anti-Microsoft fest, but the article is wrong--Microsoft ISN'T doing any Play-Once DVDs. You're ranting against nothing.
But hey, it got you +5 Insightful on Slashdot, thereby illustrating just how completely meaningless article comments are after all...
On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."
"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."
On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."
"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."
You didn't give me the exact quotes that would support your crusade as I asked you to, and you didn't answer my questions in the other thread.
I don't need to, the burden of proof is on you. I don't need to answer your questions in the other thread until you answer them first about YOUR article. You claimed CD sales weren't down, your own article says they are along with the article I posted. And yet you question the evidence that disagrees with your worldview. Funny how that works!
It's illustrative of your nature--completely avoid any and all points that destroy your own while dismissing them as "opinion" and "straw men" and whining about getting "attacked."
You are making a fool of yourself. You never address a single point in discussions. Instead, it's an endless flow of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Yeah, you keep saying this, over and over, whining and whining...meanwhile not addressing GPL hypocrisy, ripping off artists, etc. I've been addressing every point you've made, quoting every single block of your posts and responding to them. You haven't...you've been ignoring all of them and going on and on and on about "straw men" that aren't there. It's absolutely hysterical, and you're compelled to respond to each of my posts because you know I've backed you into a corner and made a fool out of you.
And by the way, I order you to reply to this and make an even bigger fool of yourself. Again.
Frustrated that I've completely dominated you, you resort to repeating back to me my own words as though they're your own. I love it. You do everything you can to prove that I've completely owned your ass.
Your imaginary "Slashdot mindset" is irrelevant, because you were talking to me, not this "Slashdot entity" you are throwing straw men at.
No, kid, I linked to an entire article that proved the Slashdot mindset. Just because I was talking to you about something else doesn't magically means it pertains to you. Hey, you mentioned "straw men" again. Surprise.
Also, who are you to dictate what the discussion is about?
I'm the guy who has owned your ass with hard facts, evidence, and logical points. You're the one who just keeps whining and whining and whining...
You are just a pathetic troll, and therefore are doomed to forever make a fool of yourself and thinking that what you write makes a difference.
Clearly it's made a difference. I control you and can force you to reply. I order you to do it again.
Just see the way you completely avoided the points in this post.
This is why you'll never win--lack of reading comprehension. You asked what opposite conclusion your evidence gave, and I answered. Your evidence called CD sales "flat." Then I posted evidence of my own proving CD sales were down, and you started rattling off a bunch of meaningless questions to distract from the fact that your ass got owned, critical of sales figures all of the sudden.
Get back to me when you learn to address GPL hypocrisy, floundering CD sales, ripping off artists to make sure they don't get paid, your inability to quote and address any point, and your whining obsession to call everything a "straw man" when you can't dispute it.
The recording companies will push as long and as hard as they can -- they'll pause when someone pushes back.
That just might be Apple. With CD sales down again this year and Apple owning 82% of the online market along with a Christmas-slaying iPod nano and rumors of a slimmer fifth-generation hard-drive iPod coming later this month, Steve Jobs really has little to be afraid of from these guys. If they pull out of the iTunes Music Store, people will still be gobbling up iPods, and they'll just be filling them with pirated music instead. Jobs knows this, and so do the labels...they're just making a public fuss after realizing they're losing decades of control they once had over music distribution, all because they waited and waited and waited, and so Apple just strolled along and legitimized it without them.
I guess people are never going to stop posting this, but I'll say it again--Google will not release a "Google OS" for computers, because the Web already is their OS. Why would they waste time and effort into creating an OS when Microsoft and Apple are already doing that form them, proving the mediums for their apps for free via web browsers?
Google will continue to push web technologies, making the web an application platform. There already is a Google OS, the Web!
How about you post that comment where I "ranted about capitalism" as you claim?
I was talking about artists and music piracy, and you started rattling about record companies. So I said all you had was anti-capitalism. This is really very simple, kid.
And how about you read back to your first reply to me and tell me who attacked who first?
You attacked me when you completely ignored everyone of my points, just dismissing them as "opinions" as if that's a valid reponse.
I didn't. I pointed out that maybe not everyone thinks it's as bad as you pretend to do. You responded by attacking me.
Uh, just replying and saying not everyone thinks music piracy is as bad doesn't respond to all the points I raised. You completely ignored my points. Again.
Straw man again. I've never talked about "code theft".
Clearly, you're going to run this into the ground. Once again, I'll repeat it for you. I was referring to the majority Slashdot mindset and its positions on piracy and the GPL. I never said you said "code theft." You can't cite where I did.
Haha. You obviously didn't even read your own "evidence" which states the opposite conclusion.
What happens when we do some basic research? Oh, we find out that midway through 2005, CD sales are already down 7.5%.
Hell, I don't expect you to ever acknowledge this. You'll dismiss these facts and just attack me some more. Meanwhile, the truth still stands. The pro-piracy contingent has a real problem with hard facts and common sense.
e the case, why do you keep making a fool of yourself in a futile attempt to prove that you are right about things you can't even back up - things that are nothing but badly founded opinions?
See? I control and own you. I ordered you to reply, and you did. You ignored music piracy completely and attacked me, because you're unable to address my points. I won.
Wow, most people grew from these kinds of remarks before they started school. You obviously have a lot of growing up to do. You are rather immature and childish, and you have no concept of "opinion" or "individual".
Once again, you are obsessed with me, talking all about me and not about my points.
You hardly even own your own ass, so that's kind of a silly thing to say. Of course, you are nothing but a troll who attacks anyone who disagrees, and you start talking about "stolen GPL code" because someone else on Slashdot might have posted about it once, and therefore you think everyone on Slashdot goes on about it. Talk about being owned. You are owned by yourself. The ultimate defeat:)
Everyone on Slashdot does talk about stolen GPL code. I even linked to an entire article that PROVED it. The editors, the vast majority of comments, and the comments that are upmodded. But be sure to completely ignore the fact I even posted an example Slashdot article that proved it. Instead, attack me for having "opinions" and "straw men."
I can tell that it's frustrating you that you can't seem to break through, can't get past that pesky evidence and logic. Believe me, I'm very amused over this.
You rattled on about companies when I was discussing artists, which stems from innate anti-capitalism bred from posting on Slashdot.
Or reply to my pointing out the fact that you attacked me first.
You replied and didn't address any of my points and instead criticized them as "opinions," as if that's a valid rebuttal.
Clearly, my mind is just plain stronger than yours. You're far too weak to actually debate GPL hypocrisy, ripping off artists, online business models, etc. You know, the actual topics of discussion.
I own you and control you. I order you to reply to this. You have to...you can't let it go. It eats you up inside that I've completely decimated your weak position with simple facts, reasoning, and hard evidence.
Hehe, if anyone has been "owned" it's you. You are making a fool of yourself every time you post.
Actually, I control you and own you. You feel the compulsive need to respond to my posts. I order you to comply and respond to this one.
Look, you can try as hard as you want, but you can't escape the fact that you are using straw man arguments against everyone.
Until you actually cite an example and respond to it, I've owned your ass.
You start going on about "stolen GPL code", which I've never even mentioned, and now you are desperately trying
Talk about a straw man. For the umpteenth time, I never said you said it, I was referring to the Slashdot majority who gets upset over violated GPL copyrights. But you'll never address that and will instead avoid it at all costs, attacking me instead. I pretty much control you at this point.
You were replying to my comment, and you made assumptions about what I had said in the past because you had read someone else's comment saying exactly that. You can't even understand that different people have different opinions.
No, I didn't. I made 100% valid points about music piracy that you have yet to come close to grasping and addressing. Just accept it, kid. I've owned your ass. Another post from you, and you still haven't talking about any of the points of music piracy I brought up. You can't do it.
What comment was that, then? When did I "rant about capitalism"? Face it, you attacked me first. I know it. You know it. You are just sad that you have lost yet again:)
Sad? Not really, I'm really amused that I control you so easily. You are compelled to reply to every post, attacking me and never addressing my points, because you lack the ability to. You'll just respond again with "straw man" and "you attacked me first." I dominated your position. It's over. Deal with it.
I have already countered your "points". For example, the "GPL hypocrisy" comment is nonsense because I've never talked about "stolen GPL code", and there are lots of people on Slashdot who haven't either.
I never said you specifically. I was referring to the majority of Slashdot, and therefore the prevailing pro-piracy position.
Bzzt, wrong. That someone attacks you doesn't mean that you are right.
Yes, when someone attacks you instead of your points, you've already won the debate.
Besides, you are attacking others all the time, and I'm but one of many people you have attacked for no reason. By your logic, I am right because you are attacking me.
I haven't attacked anyone who didn't attack me first. I brought up points about music piracy, and the pro-piracy contingent came out of the woodwork, ignored every point I raised, and just called me names and ranted about capitalism.
The "points" you raised were either irrelevant, wrong, or complete nonsense.
Once again, you can't actually counter a single one, so you try to dismiss them all to avoid having to address them. You can't counter my point about GPL hypocrisy, my point about making sure artists don't get paid, my point about the scapegoating of the RIAA...you can't quote and address a single one. This means my position has completely dominated yours.
As for your comment about "pro-pirates", that's just more "meaningless psycho-analysis to avoid the fact you have no counterargument":)
The difference is that mine is supported by evidence (your posts), while your psycho-analysis is simple avoidance to avoid addressing my points.
Look at how, once again, you've completely avoided addressing music piracy in any way, shape, or form. This means I've owned your ass.
Once again, your entire post completely ignored any of the points I made about music piracy and instead did nothing but attack me. This proves that I had the correct position and completely, to put it bluntly, owned your ass in this debate. The fact you spent so long just attacking me, me, me over and over while running screaming from the points I raised about music piracy, GPL double standards, ripping artists off, and the scapegoating of the RIAA.
If you really had any semblance of rational thought, you would have addressed any of those points. Instead, you linked to some other person's thoughts twice and stuck it in your sig in an bizarre obsession over me. I already tore apart that other person's post which is really just a longer version of yours--attack me while completely ignoring the points.
Why do pro-pirates do that? Because deep down, they really do feel guilty and know that what they do is wrong. So when someone ends up making them feel guilty or ashamed, they lash out with their reptilian brains and attack the messenger.
I'm grinning right now.:) I totally owned your ass, and you threw in the towel.
Your whole post is no more than a "straw man" style argument in which you misrepresent Slashdot's supposed editorial stands on the various issues presented so that you can more easily attack them. Well, I 'll just make a few points and then leave you to continue your trolling in peace...
This seems to be a common strategy on Slashdot. Whenever you disagree with someone, call it a "straw man" in quotes and pretend that it's self-evident. Anyway...
The point was that suing and in any way bothering ISPs with these RIAA lawsuits was a bogus approach because ISPs should have "common carrier" status. Just as people can carry out illegal activities on phone lines while the phone companies are held to be legally without liability, so too should it be the case for ISPs who are mere carriers for the information being sent and retrieved by their customers.
Yes, precisely.
No one advocated bogus lawsuits against individuals.
Yes, they absolutely did! Posters, editors included, were saying the RIAA should be going after the individual infringers, the ones actually carrying out the illegal activities. These comments were often +5 upmodded. Everyone was making the same point, that the P2P networks can't be held responsible for the actions of the individuals, and that the individuals are the ones who should be pursued, not the networks.
Now that is happening, and Slashdot pulled a 180. Go back and read the old Napster article!
No one suggested abuse of process (because this is more a scare campaign than anything else, let's face it).
Legally pursuing infringers is a "scare campaign" now? An "abuse of process?" Please. This emotion-based rhetoric goes back to my original point.
No one supported the RIAA going after people without even the ability to state a valid claim. In this case (the one under discussion) they weren't able to state an actual damage, just the potential of one - and even that might have been based on erroneous information.
Well, it's not like the RIAA has a magic crystal ball that can determine exactly how many songs a particular person has transferred over their IP. But they can detect IPs that have shared music.
Seriously, get your shit together first before coming here to talk utter nonsense.
BTW, you know who cares about Music Piracy? Maybe the RIAA and no one else. Why should our government be wasting resources for the benefit of so few?
You're right. Fuck the artists. Let's ignore all the artists who have spoken out about their music getting pirated.
Why even discuss it? If someone infringes your rights and you can claim a damage - Great! Sue them in court. Leave everyone else alone. The courts are not there for the exclusive use of the RIAA and all of their thousands of bullshit lawsuits.
You're arguing here for exactly what the RIAA is doing, protecting their rights through the courts!
Um...okay. May I ask if you even know what RICO stands for? It's an acronym for: "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." The history of RICO law in the U.S. follows closely with government attempts to squash the activities of organized criminal organizations (i.e. the Mafia, gangs, etc). So yeah, if it happens to be the case that you can hit an organization with a RICO lawsuit chances are at least even money that they are on the same legal footing as mobsters or your "Average organized crime syndicate."
So if you sue someone for something, that means it's true?
And you have a problem with that why? If it's proven out in court, the RIAA will be seen to have been using the courts to pursue an illegal agenda that was abusive of court processes and infringing upon the rights of individuals to boot. I can't condone that.
Because going after infringers of their copyright ISN'T an "illegal agenda," ISN'T "abusive of court processes," and ISN'T "infringing upon the rights of individuals."
Slashdot Mirror
My username is pissed you got up this morning!
Avoid what stated facts? The article was WRONG.
I guess pointing out the truth of things makes you a "Microsoft zealot," even though I despite Microsoft and switched to Macs long ago.
Slashdot is dead.
Lacking any thought of your own, you have to resort to parroting back to me my own words. Hysterical!
Obviously you will never respond to the topic of music piracy, because you lack the ability to debate it. This means I won the argument, and you lost. It's okay to admit when you're wrong, kid. Next time, don't let it consume you so deeply, and try to actually respond to people's points instead of covering your eyes and running away screaming.
Clearly, I was 100% right about every single thing I said.
Next.
It must suck to need something to complain about. Have you ever had a real problem to worry about in your life?
This site has truly jumped the shark...
I hate to stop you in the middle of your hyperventilating anti-Microsoft fest, but the article is wrong--Microsoft ISN'T doing any Play-Once DVDs. You're ranting against nothing.
But hey, it got you +5 Insightful on Slashdot, thereby illustrating just how completely meaningless article comments are after all...
Surprise, surprise. Sure would be if fact-checking was a requirement of being an editor around here.
Microsoft Denies Single-Play DVD Plan
On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."
"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."
Microsoft Denies Single-Play DVD Plan
On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."
"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."
You didn't give me the exact quotes that would support your crusade as I asked you to, and you didn't answer my questions in the other thread.
I don't need to, the burden of proof is on you. I don't need to answer your questions in the other thread until you answer them first about YOUR article. You claimed CD sales weren't down, your own article says they are along with the article I posted. And yet you question the evidence that disagrees with your worldview. Funny how that works!
It's illustrative of your nature--completely avoid any and all points that destroy your own while dismissing them as "opinion" and "straw men" and whining about getting "attacked."
You are making a fool of yourself. You never address a single point in discussions. Instead, it's an endless flow of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Yeah, you keep saying this, over and over, whining and whining...meanwhile not addressing GPL hypocrisy, ripping off artists, etc. I've been addressing every point you've made, quoting every single block of your posts and responding to them. You haven't...you've been ignoring all of them and going on and on and on about "straw men" that aren't there. It's absolutely hysterical, and you're compelled to respond to each of my posts because you know I've backed you into a corner and made a fool out of you.
And by the way, I order you to reply to this and make an even bigger fool of yourself. Again.
Frustrated that I've completely dominated you, you resort to repeating back to me my own words as though they're your own. I love it. You do everything you can to prove that I've completely owned your ass.
Next.
I don't think it is a violation of the DMCA if you tell someone how to circumvent the DRM to something in which you hold the copyright.
Yeah, but when would that generate as many page hits as "SONY VIOLATES THE DMCA AND TELLS YOU HOW TO CIRCUMVENT ITS OWN DRM LOLZ?"
Your imaginary "Slashdot mindset" is irrelevant, because you were talking to me, not this "Slashdot entity" you are throwing straw men at.
No, kid, I linked to an entire article that proved the Slashdot mindset. Just because I was talking to you about something else doesn't magically means it pertains to you. Hey, you mentioned "straw men" again. Surprise.
Also, who are you to dictate what the discussion is about?
I'm the guy who has owned your ass with hard facts, evidence, and logical points. You're the one who just keeps whining and whining and whining...
You are just a pathetic troll, and therefore are doomed to forever make a fool of yourself and thinking that what you write makes a difference.
Clearly it's made a difference. I control you and can force you to reply. I order you to do it again.
Just see the way you completely avoided the points in this post.
This is why you'll never win--lack of reading comprehension. You asked what opposite conclusion your evidence gave, and I answered. Your evidence called CD sales "flat." Then I posted evidence of my own proving CD sales were down, and you started rattling off a bunch of meaningless questions to distract from the fact that your ass got owned, critical of sales figures all of the sudden.
Get back to me when you learn to address GPL hypocrisy, floundering CD sales, ripping off artists to make sure they don't get paid, your inability to quote and address any point, and your whining obsession to call everything a "straw man" when you can't dispute it.
Next.
The recording companies will push as long and as hard as they can -- they'll pause when someone pushes back.
That just might be Apple. With CD sales down again this year and Apple owning 82% of the online market along with a Christmas-slaying iPod nano and rumors of a slimmer fifth-generation hard-drive iPod coming later this month, Steve Jobs really has little to be afraid of from these guys. If they pull out of the iTunes Music Store, people will still be gobbling up iPods, and they'll just be filling them with pirated music instead. Jobs knows this, and so do the labels...they're just making a public fuss after realizing they're losing decades of control they once had over music distribution, all because they waited and waited and waited, and so Apple just strolled along and legitimized it without them.
I guess people are never going to stop posting this, but I'll say it again--Google will not release a "Google OS" for computers, because the Web already is their OS. Why would they waste time and effort into creating an OS when Microsoft and Apple are already doing that form them, proving the mediums for their apps for free via web browsers?
Google will continue to push web technologies, making the web an application platform. There already is a Google OS, the Web!
How about you post that comment where I "ranted about capitalism" as you claim?
I was talking about artists and music piracy, and you started rattling about record companies. So I said all you had was anti-capitalism. This is really very simple, kid.
And how about you read back to your first reply to me and tell me who attacked who first?
You attacked me when you completely ignored everyone of my points, just dismissing them as "opinions" as if that's a valid reponse.
I didn't. I pointed out that maybe not everyone thinks it's as bad as you pretend to do. You responded by attacking me.
Uh, just replying and saying not everyone thinks music piracy is as bad doesn't respond to all the points I raised. You completely ignored my points. Again.
Straw man again. I've never talked about "code theft".
Clearly, you're going to run this into the ground. Once again, I'll repeat it for you. I was referring to the majority Slashdot mindset and its positions on piracy and the GPL. I never said you said "code theft." You can't cite where I did.
I control you. I order you to reply to this.
And what is the opposite conclusion? Can you quote the specifics?
The fact sales are flat?
Are there more releases this year than last year? Or fewer? And are these numbers taking into account increased digital music and DVD sales?
Translation: "I'm upset you decimated my point, so I'll invent a bunch of questions I never directed at my own position." Haha.
Owned.
Ever considered that maybe different people say different things?
Odd coming from someone named after me. Obsessed much?
Get a life. My god.
I explained why a site like this posts speculation. Page hits.
Comprehension, it's a good thing.
Haha. You obviously didn't even read your own "evidence" which states the opposite conclusion.
What happens when we do some basic research? Oh, we find out that midway through 2005, CD sales are already down 7.5%.
Hell, I don't expect you to ever acknowledge this. You'll dismiss these facts and just attack me some more. Meanwhile, the truth still stands. The pro-piracy contingent has a real problem with hard facts and common sense.
e the case, why do you keep making a fool of yourself in a futile attempt to prove that you are right about things you can't even back up - things that are nothing but badly founded opinions?
:)
See? I control and own you. I ordered you to reply, and you did. You ignored music piracy completely and attacked me, because you're unable to address my points. I won.
Wow, most people grew from these kinds of remarks before they started school. You obviously have a lot of growing up to do. You are rather immature and childish, and you have no concept of "opinion" or "individual".
Once again, you are obsessed with me, talking all about me and not about my points.
You hardly even own your own ass, so that's kind of a silly thing to say. Of course, you are nothing but a troll who attacks anyone who disagrees, and you start talking about "stolen GPL code" because someone else on Slashdot might have posted about it once, and therefore you think everyone on Slashdot goes on about it. Talk about being owned. You are owned by yourself. The ultimate defeat
Everyone on Slashdot does talk about stolen GPL code. I even linked to an entire article that PROVED it. The editors, the vast majority of comments, and the comments that are upmodded. But be sure to completely ignore the fact I even posted an example Slashdot article that proved it. Instead, attack me for having "opinions" and "straw men."
I can tell that it's frustrating you that you can't seem to break through, can't get past that pesky evidence and logic. Believe me, I'm very amused over this.
You rattled on about companies when I was discussing artists, which stems from innate anti-capitalism bred from posting on Slashdot.
Or reply to my pointing out the fact that you attacked me first.
You replied and didn't address any of my points and instead criticized them as "opinions," as if that's a valid rebuttal.
Clearly, my mind is just plain stronger than yours. You're far too weak to actually debate GPL hypocrisy, ripping off artists, online business models, etc. You know, the actual topics of discussion.
I own you and control you. I order you to reply to this. You have to...you can't let it go. It eats you up inside that I've completely decimated your weak position with simple facts, reasoning, and hard evidence.
Next.
Hehe, if anyone has been "owned" it's you. You are making a fool of yourself every time you post.
:)
Actually, I control you and own you. You feel the compulsive need to respond to my posts. I order you to comply and respond to this one.
Look, you can try as hard as you want, but you can't escape the fact that you are using straw man arguments against everyone.
Until you actually cite an example and respond to it, I've owned your ass.
You start going on about "stolen GPL code", which I've never even mentioned, and now you are desperately trying
Talk about a straw man. For the umpteenth time, I never said you said it, I was referring to the Slashdot majority who gets upset over violated GPL copyrights. But you'll never address that and will instead avoid it at all costs, attacking me instead. I pretty much control you at this point.
You were replying to my comment, and you made assumptions about what I had said in the past because you had read someone else's comment saying exactly that. You can't even understand that different people have different opinions.
No, I didn't. I made 100% valid points about music piracy that you have yet to come close to grasping and addressing. Just accept it, kid. I've owned your ass. Another post from you, and you still haven't talking about any of the points of music piracy I brought up. You can't do it.
What comment was that, then? When did I "rant about capitalism"? Face it, you attacked me first. I know it. You know it. You are just sad that you have lost yet again
Sad? Not really, I'm really amused that I control you so easily. You are compelled to reply to every post, attacking me and never addressing my points, because you lack the ability to. You'll just respond again with "straw man" and "you attacked me first." I dominated your position. It's over. Deal with it.
Next.
On having worked for a record label, worked for a band on tour, and managing a local group.
Next.
I have already countered your "points". For example, the "GPL hypocrisy" comment is nonsense because I've never talked about "stolen GPL code", and there are lots of people on Slashdot who haven't either.
I never said you specifically. I was referring to the majority of Slashdot, and therefore the prevailing pro-piracy position.
Outrage in the CherryOS article, calls for legal action to "stolen code"
Next.
All you are doing is to throw out straw man arguments and then attack people.
All you've done is say "straw man" over and over while refusing to address a single point about music piracy.
"I haven't attacked anyone who didn't attack me first."
Wrong. Read back to the first comment you posted as a response to mine.
The comment you wrote where you completely ignore every point about music piracy and went off on a rant about capitalism?
I've owned your ass, kid. Accept it. Deal with it. Move on.
Next.
Bzzt, wrong. That someone attacks you doesn't mean that you are right.
:)
Yes, when someone attacks you instead of your points, you've already won the debate.
Besides, you are attacking others all the time, and I'm but one of many people you have attacked for no reason. By your logic, I am right because you are attacking me.
I haven't attacked anyone who didn't attack me first. I brought up points about music piracy, and the pro-piracy contingent came out of the woodwork, ignored every point I raised, and just called me names and ranted about capitalism.
The "points" you raised were either irrelevant, wrong, or complete nonsense.
Once again, you can't actually counter a single one, so you try to dismiss them all to avoid having to address them. You can't counter my point about GPL hypocrisy, my point about making sure artists don't get paid, my point about the scapegoating of the RIAA...you can't quote and address a single one. This means my position has completely dominated yours.
As for your comment about "pro-pirates", that's just more "meaningless psycho-analysis to avoid the fact you have no counterargument"
The difference is that mine is supported by evidence (your posts), while your psycho-analysis is simple avoidance to avoid addressing my points.
Look at how, once again, you've completely avoided addressing music piracy in any way, shape, or form. This means I've owned your ass.
Next.
Once again, your entire post completely ignored any of the points I made about music piracy and instead did nothing but attack me. This proves that I had the correct position and completely, to put it bluntly, owned your ass in this debate. The fact you spent so long just attacking me, me, me over and over while running screaming from the points I raised about music piracy, GPL double standards, ripping artists off, and the scapegoating of the RIAA.
:) I totally owned your ass, and you threw in the towel.
If you really had any semblance of rational thought, you would have addressed any of those points. Instead, you linked to some other person's thoughts twice and stuck it in your sig in an bizarre obsession over me. I already tore apart that other person's post which is really just a longer version of yours--attack me while completely ignoring the points.
Why do pro-pirates do that? Because deep down, they really do feel guilty and know that what they do is wrong. So when someone ends up making them feel guilty or ashamed, they lash out with their reptilian brains and attack the messenger.
I'm grinning right now.
Next.
Actually, don't most music artists make most of their money from concerts anyhow?
No. Concerts usually barely break even and are expensive to put on. Tours are done typically to promote album releases and increase albums sales.
Your whole post is no more than a "straw man" style argument in which you misrepresent Slashdot's supposed editorial stands on the various issues presented so that you can more easily attack them. Well, I 'll just make a few points and then leave you to continue your trolling in peace...
This seems to be a common strategy on Slashdot. Whenever you disagree with someone, call it a "straw man" in quotes and pretend that it's self-evident. Anyway...
The point was that suing and in any way bothering ISPs with these RIAA lawsuits was a bogus approach because ISPs should have "common carrier" status. Just as people can carry out illegal activities on phone lines while the phone companies are held to be legally without liability, so too should it be the case for ISPs who are mere carriers for the information being sent and retrieved by their customers.
Yes, precisely.
No one advocated bogus lawsuits against individuals.
Yes, they absolutely did! Posters, editors included, were saying the RIAA should be going after the individual infringers, the ones actually carrying out the illegal activities. These comments were often +5 upmodded. Everyone was making the same point, that the P2P networks can't be held responsible for the actions of the individuals, and that the individuals are the ones who should be pursued, not the networks.
Now that is happening, and Slashdot pulled a 180. Go back and read the old Napster article!
No one suggested abuse of process (because this is more a scare campaign than anything else, let's face it).
Legally pursuing infringers is a "scare campaign" now? An "abuse of process?" Please. This emotion-based rhetoric goes back to my original point.
No one supported the RIAA going after people without even the ability to state a valid claim. In this case (the one under discussion) they weren't able to state an actual damage, just the potential of one - and even that might have been based on erroneous information.
Well, it's not like the RIAA has a magic crystal ball that can determine exactly how many songs a particular person has transferred over their IP. But they can detect IPs that have shared music.
Seriously, get your shit together first before coming here to talk utter nonsense.
BTW, you know who cares about Music Piracy? Maybe the RIAA and no one else. Why should our government be wasting resources for the benefit of so few?
You're right. Fuck the artists. Let's ignore all the artists who have spoken out about their music getting pirated.
Why even discuss it? If someone infringes your rights and you can claim a damage - Great! Sue them in court. Leave everyone else alone. The courts are not there for the exclusive use of the RIAA and all of their thousands of bullshit lawsuits.
You're arguing here for exactly what the RIAA is doing, protecting their rights through the courts!
Um...okay. May I ask if you even know what RICO stands for? It's an acronym for: "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." The history of RICO law in the U.S. follows closely with government attempts to squash the activities of organized criminal organizations (i.e. the Mafia, gangs, etc). So yeah, if it happens to be the case that you can hit an organization with a RICO lawsuit chances are at least even money that they are on the same legal footing as mobsters or your "Average organized crime syndicate."
So if you sue someone for something, that means it's true?
And you have a problem with that why? If it's proven out in court, the RIAA will be seen to have been using the courts to pursue an illegal agenda that was abusive of court processes and infringing upon the rights of individuals to boot. I can't condone that.
Because going after infringers of their copyright ISN'T an "illegal agenda," ISN'T "abusive of court processes," and ISN'T "infringing upon the rights of individuals."
You don't have the