Hola, one of the largest (because it's free) was successfully blocked. The pay ones were mostly all blocked, but have a pay incentive to fix it, so many did before their users noticed. Now it's an arms race.
Nope. They never were. That was all lies to cover for the fact that the US did invade Russia, with the White Army to overthrow the Reds. The US did the worst of what they accused the commies of, and that we'd do it is proof that they would, though they didn't. They were interested in the atomic bomb, and other things, but didn't ever try to overthrow the US government.
Anti trump shirts wouldn't be considered part of his campaign. A pro-Bernie shirt from a well-meaning supporter is a campaign activity. As such, it is regulated by election law, and if the seller doesn't folllow that law, Bernie can go to prison.
Do you see the difference now?
And you places yourself as a pro-trump idiot. Why didn't you point to the anti Hillary shirts at Cafepress? There many of those. There are even anyi-Bernie shirts on CafePress, and Bernie hasn't gone after them. Because allowing them wouldn't get him put in prison.
The idiots on Slashdot think they know Fair Use and don't know any other laws, and complain that because their wrong opinion on Fair Use isn't used, everyone else is wrong.
It is in this case. licensing and permitting it would be officially making them part of the Bernie Sanders' campaign. Given how they've operated so far, that'd land Bernie in prison. He has to shut them down because they are engaging in a political action in a campaign cycle without meeting the appropriate laws.
Also note, Expendables (or one of the sequels) was delayed for an election cycle for The Governator. Appearing in a movie in a campaign cycle was deemed to be a promotion. So 3rd party non-political uses of likenesses has been ruled to be political in election times. So someone selling Bernie's likeness could get Bernie in prison for election fraud. So it'd be stupid for him to not shut down their illegal operation.
Political speech (As in the speech of and by politicians) is one of the most regulated speeches. Mainly to legalize bribes, but also to present the appearance of fairness.
Nope. Selling things that could be confused with endorsements is illegal. You are campaigning for him, and making a profit doing it. If he doesn't address it, he could be committing a felony.
They know they have no legal ground but sue as a bullying tactic. Sad.
The Bernie campaign didn't sue anyone. When your hate is so large you can't even English, you need to seek help. The site was doing something illegal. The Bernie campaign asked them to stop.
The site is claiming that being asked to stop doing something obviously illegal is bullying. The site is run by the bullies and idiots.
This does not say anything about quantity or quality of Writings and Discoveries. I have no idea where you got the idea that it did.
I didn't. Review. You said "Why are you focusing only on quantity and ignoring quality?" and I pointed out that "quality" was not a requirement. You've taken the fact that quantity isn't either to mean I'm wrong, when I never said anything contrary to that.
Go on, Slashdot is threaded. Read again. Slower, and this time, for content.
Are you claiming that people who are not friends or family actually want to read what I've written?
No. I'm making no such claim. Nor do I see how me making and such claim would have been relevant.
I can easily imagine a world without copyright, and I think it would be a disaster, unless we had something to replace it.
So, you are like the people who in the 1800s tried to imagine a world without horses. It would be a disaster. It's a disaster because you can't comprehend it. I don't disagree that the first few years would be complete chaos, but Copyright was invented relatively recently, and not to "promote the progress" of anything. It's always been about control. Control profit. Control distribution of information. And *never* about promoting progress. The US tried to do that differently, and the narrow minded people like yourself reject it.
T-Mobile isn't a US company. T-Mobile US is, though owned and controlled by T-Mobile (a subsidiary of DT), so I consider T-Mobile a foreign company. The last time I looked, the board and executives were chosen by Germans, even if they chose Americans to keep the local look of the company.
I'm one block from the edge of Comcast and two from Wave.
And you know of nobody who lives more than one block from you? Remember the claim isn't that there are gaps, but that "I live in Seattle and don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream."
Someone who points out you are an illiterate idiot must like Avatar? Your logic skills are weak. Try thinking before speaking. Scratch that. Try thinking. At least once. You've obviously not tried it yet. It's useful.
So you live in North Bend and work in Bellevue, and tell everyone you "live in Seattle"? Because that's the only plausible scenario unless you are simply lying.
"Speed reading" used for skimming can be replaced by non-speed reading skimming. Read the first 5 words of every paragraph. Move to the next. Reading at normal speed and skipping unintelligently will give a similar result to speed reading. And yes, I've done speed reading. I just don't do it becauase it's useful for so little of my regular reading. I can speed-read TFA and get a result similar to slow-reading the headline. And most of my reading is pleasure reading, which gets no benefit from reading fast, except when I pick a book to read before seeing the movie, and have limited time, though usually, I find I like both the book and the movie better when I read the book after.
Why are you focusing only on quantity and ignoring quality?
Because the charter the laws are based on doesn't mention quality. If you want a lower quantity higher quality, then change the Constitution to support your opinion.
Would you rather read a polished and well-edited novel, or the one I wrote for National Novel-Writing Month last November and haven't edited since?
So we should base laws on what you think people should rather want to do, but not what they actually want, or what's coded in the Constitution.
It's not a good argument to say "we need copyright because I'm too small minded to imagine a world without it." but it looks like that's your only argument.
Are you saying the Na'vi wouldn't share? They offered to share. It's the invaders who decided that they needed the deposit right under the sacred tree (where the tree may have grown *because* of the deposit). The Na'vi shared, but every "share" was taken by the invaders with another request to "share" soon after. It wasn't a sharing situation, but a complete invasion.
However, I also think it's important to remember that while the copyright term extensions are bad, in reality most piracy involves very recent works that would almost certainly still have been covered even under a much shorter and more reasonable term of protection
When everything is piracy, you might as well do it better. If you can't make a fan-fiction remake of North by Northwest, you might as well target a more recent blockbuster, as it'd be more popular. You are using an effect of the long copyright to justify its cause. If the terms were the original terms, there would be much more in the means of fan fiction and other derivative creative work. Copyright is anti-innovation and pro-profit. The creative motive is long lost, and your attempt to appeal to is indicates you don't really understand it.
Copyright does have its merits, and I don't see a lot of people proposing plausible alternatives so far.
It's a simple question. Do copyrights increase creative work, or not. If so, then they should be continued (even if adjusted). But if no copyright were to encourage more creative works (note, the standard isn't quality, nor breadth of distribution, but individual works in the public domain, so no more of your irrelevant red herrings), then the "plausible alternative" is none, for now. There's no motivation to come up with an alternative when the current system benefits the decision makers. I'm not saying no copyright is the best solution, but complete abolition of copyright is better than what we have now, and will motivate those involved to solve the problem, rather than making it worse, which they do with every treaty and extension.
it's not the same thing or category as distributing a movie to millions of strangers.
Neither is downloading Hurt Locker via bittorrent, but it can get you in court as if it were.
Low hanging fruit. Ripping a DVD to your personal computer is illegal (According to the MPAA), under the same laws that make the commercial infringement illegal. So they are very much related.
They produced works equivalent to a modern movie or a show like Game of Thrones, with budgets running into the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars, paying for production teams and casts numbering hundreds if not thousands of people, and then made those works available to millions of fans to enjoy?
Your argument is that there weren't more works because it was harder to get a single work to more people. That's invalid, and you are changing the question to fit your answer. Try addressing the answer to answer the question, and see what happens.
I think your real objection is not to the free market aspect, but to the rules created for that market by artificially limiting copying by law.
I think your objection is that you want to get paid more for your gay porn. Your assertion of other's beliefs will only ever be offensive. So you should probably find a way to discuss without explicitly telling others what they think. Perhaps, rather than just speaking to hear your own voice, you might want to ask a question, or take pause to listen to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Hola, one of the largest (because it's free) was successfully blocked. The pay ones were mostly all blocked, but have a pay incentive to fix it, so many did before their users noticed. Now it's an arms race.
Nope. They never were. That was all lies to cover for the fact that the US did invade Russia, with the White Army to overthrow the Reds. The US did the worst of what they accused the commies of, and that we'd do it is proof that they would, though they didn't. They were interested in the atomic bomb, and other things, but didn't ever try to overthrow the US government.
It is non-binding precedent, but is precedent none the less.
So, trying to comply with election law is a sign of government oppression? By whom? The Republicans who passed the laws?
Anti trump shirts wouldn't be considered part of his campaign. A pro-Bernie shirt from a well-meaning supporter is a campaign activity. As such, it is regulated by election law, and if the seller doesn't folllow that law, Bernie can go to prison.
Do you see the difference now?
And you places yourself as a pro-trump idiot. Why didn't you point to the anti Hillary shirts at Cafepress? There many of those. There are even anyi-Bernie shirts on CafePress, and Bernie hasn't gone after them. Because allowing them wouldn't get him put in prison.
The idiots on Slashdot think they know Fair Use and don't know any other laws, and complain that because their wrong opinion on Fair Use isn't used, everyone else is wrong.
It is in this case. licensing and permitting it would be officially making them part of the Bernie Sanders' campaign. Given how they've operated so far, that'd land Bernie in prison. He has to shut them down because they are engaging in a political action in a campaign cycle without meeting the appropriate laws.
Also note, Expendables (or one of the sequels) was delayed for an election cycle for The Governator. Appearing in a movie in a campaign cycle was deemed to be a promotion. So 3rd party non-political uses of likenesses has been ruled to be political in election times. So someone selling Bernie's likeness could get Bernie in prison for election fraud. So it'd be stupid for him to not shut down their illegal operation.
Political speech (As in the speech of and by politicians) is one of the most regulated speeches. Mainly to legalize bribes, but also to present the appearance of fairness.
They know they have no legal ground but sue as a bullying tactic. Sad.
The Bernie campaign didn't sue anyone. When your hate is so large you can't even English, you need to seek help. The site was doing something illegal. The Bernie campaign asked them to stop.
The site is claiming that being asked to stop doing something obviously illegal is bullying. The site is run by the bullies and idiots.
None. In most cases, the patches are controlled by the phone maker or carrier, and they don't patch regularly.
This does not say anything about quantity or quality of Writings and Discoveries. I have no idea where you got the idea that it did.
I didn't. Review. You said "Why are you focusing only on quantity and ignoring quality?" and I pointed out that "quality" was not a requirement. You've taken the fact that quantity isn't either to mean I'm wrong, when I never said anything contrary to that.
Go on, Slashdot is threaded. Read again. Slower, and this time, for content.
Are you claiming that people who are not friends or family actually want to read what I've written?
No. I'm making no such claim. Nor do I see how me making and such claim would have been relevant.
I can easily imagine a world without copyright, and I think it would be a disaster, unless we had something to replace it.
So, you are like the people who in the 1800s tried to imagine a world without horses. It would be a disaster. It's a disaster because you can't comprehend it. I don't disagree that the first few years would be complete chaos, but Copyright was invented relatively recently, and not to "promote the progress" of anything. It's always been about control. Control profit. Control distribution of information. And *never* about promoting progress. The US tried to do that differently, and the narrow minded people like yourself reject it.
T-Mobile isn't a US company. T-Mobile US is, though owned and controlled by T-Mobile (a subsidiary of DT), so I consider T-Mobile a foreign company. The last time I looked, the board and executives were chosen by Germans, even if they chose Americans to keep the local look of the company.
I'm one block from the edge of Comcast and two from Wave.
And you know of nobody who lives more than one block from you? Remember the claim isn't that there are gaps, but that "I live in Seattle and don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream."
Someone who points out you are an illiterate idiot must like Avatar? Your logic skills are weak. Try thinking before speaking. Scratch that. Try thinking. At least once. You've obviously not tried it yet. It's useful.
Like I said, what you accuse others of is only you seeing yourself.
So you live in North Bend and work in Bellevue, and tell everyone you "live in Seattle"? Because that's the only plausible scenario unless you are simply lying.
"Speed reading" used for skimming can be replaced by non-speed reading skimming. Read the first 5 words of every paragraph. Move to the next. Reading at normal speed and skipping unintelligently will give a similar result to speed reading. And yes, I've done speed reading. I just don't do it becauase it's useful for so little of my regular reading. I can speed-read TFA and get a result similar to slow-reading the headline. And most of my reading is pleasure reading, which gets no benefit from reading fast, except when I pick a book to read before seeing the movie, and have limited time, though usually, I find I like both the book and the movie better when I read the book after.
Why are you focusing only on quantity and ignoring quality?
Because the charter the laws are based on doesn't mention quality. If you want a lower quantity higher quality, then change the Constitution to support your opinion.
Would you rather read a polished and well-edited novel, or the one I wrote for National Novel-Writing Month last November and haven't edited since?
So we should base laws on what you think people should rather want to do, but not what they actually want, or what's coded in the Constitution.
It's not a good argument to say "we need copyright because I'm too small minded to imagine a world without it." but it looks like that's your only argument.
The idiot you see is your own reflection.
You need to figure out what "flop" means.
Most successful movie of all time at the time was a "flop"? I think you don't need to look far to find an ignorant shit.
Are you saying the Na'vi wouldn't share? They offered to share. It's the invaders who decided that they needed the deposit right under the sacred tree (where the tree may have grown *because* of the deposit). The Na'vi shared, but every "share" was taken by the invaders with another request to "share" soon after. It wasn't a sharing situation, but a complete invasion.
However, I also think it's important to remember that while the copyright term extensions are bad, in reality most piracy involves very recent works that would almost certainly still have been covered even under a much shorter and more reasonable term of protection
When everything is piracy, you might as well do it better. If you can't make a fan-fiction remake of North by Northwest, you might as well target a more recent blockbuster, as it'd be more popular. You are using an effect of the long copyright to justify its cause. If the terms were the original terms, there would be much more in the means of fan fiction and other derivative creative work. Copyright is anti-innovation and pro-profit. The creative motive is long lost, and your attempt to appeal to is indicates you don't really understand it.
Copyright does have its merits, and I don't see a lot of people proposing plausible alternatives so far.
It's a simple question. Do copyrights increase creative work, or not. If so, then they should be continued (even if adjusted). But if no copyright were to encourage more creative works (note, the standard isn't quality, nor breadth of distribution, but individual works in the public domain, so no more of your irrelevant red herrings), then the "plausible alternative" is none, for now. There's no motivation to come up with an alternative when the current system benefits the decision makers. I'm not saying no copyright is the best solution, but complete abolition of copyright is better than what we have now, and will motivate those involved to solve the problem, rather than making it worse, which they do with every treaty and extension.
They officially confirmed they would not use the winning name before the poll closed as well.
it's not the same thing or category as distributing a movie to millions of strangers.
Neither is downloading Hurt Locker via bittorrent, but it can get you in court as if it were.
Low hanging fruit. Ripping a DVD to your personal computer is illegal (According to the MPAA), under the same laws that make the commercial infringement illegal. So they are very much related.
They produced works equivalent to a modern movie or a show like Game of Thrones, with budgets running into the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars, paying for production teams and casts numbering hundreds if not thousands of people, and then made those works available to millions of fans to enjoy?
Your argument is that there weren't more works because it was harder to get a single work to more people. That's invalid, and you are changing the question to fit your answer. Try addressing the answer to answer the question, and see what happens.
I think your real objection is not to the free market aspect, but to the rules created for that market by artificially limiting copying by law.
I think your objection is that you want to get paid more for your gay porn. Your assertion of other's beliefs will only ever be offensive. So you should probably find a way to discuss without explicitly telling others what they think. Perhaps, rather than just speaking to hear your own voice, you might want to ask a question, or take pause to listen to them.