I hate to be the word police. I really do, but I've seen this word "monitize," (correctly spelled "monetize") creeping into a number of posts. It does not mean what you think it means. To "Monetize" something is to give it legal value as currency. The word you're thinking of is "commodify," or to turn into a commodity (an item for sale).
Although I agree with what you're saying in a sense, there is no excuse that justifies this form of criminal behavior. I don't think that people are just gloating about superior circumstances when they crack what you so eloquently termed "dick and fart jokes" or "drop the soap jokes." I think that they're engaging in a socially acceptable means of retribution: people fear crime, they fear the criminals who commit them, yet it does not fall to them to punish said criminals. Exaggerated bravado is one way to deal with it, and calling people who use those means as an outlet "slackjawed knuckle draggers" puts you on that level.
Two fact checks: Prohibition ended for a number of reasons, one of the greatest of which was the "lobbyists" (who were, back then, just "concerned" citizens with a bundle of $$$ from certain manufacturers to share with concerned congressmen) from St. Louis and Milwaukee. Kind of like the lobbyists from Hollywood and NY pushing for DRM...
Second, you really need to read 1984. The novel talks about a totalitarian government that watched its citizens' every act and had absolute control over the media and language, and by extension, thought. All broadcasts were not only accessible to citizens, but they were required viewing: "news sites you can't quote or screenshot" wouldn't make an appearance because the populace was encouraged to accept whatever they saw on the broadcast as truth, and quoting it as such would benefit, not harm, Big Brother.
Even now, you can "quote" from news sites, you just have to attribute your quote - something that someone like you, who plagiarized his thoughts from a bad cyberpunk novel, might not understand.
None of the instances in this thread are applicable: VCR manufacturers were sued in the 80s, Sony was sued for blank tapes in the late 70's. The home recording act (which this case is about) states that you can't sue or be sued for development of, or use of, a device that records broadcast media, which is broadcast over
publicly owned
frequencies. XM is different in two ways: first, it is a paid service and a distributor. TiVo is a paid service, but just a recorder, DVR is the same. XM also does not operate within publicly owned or regulated bandwidths.
No. The burden of proof still lies with the music company: the judge's verdict only affirmed their right to their day in court. It basically said, "there is a possibility of fault that a court can decide." The possibility of fault does NOT prejudice the case: a parallel would be a criminal trial in which the DA has enough evidence to suggest guilt - perhaps not enough to convict - but the issue of guilt is still in doubt. The trial judge will be a different judge than the one seated at the hearing.
Yes. In major civil cases - say, someone suing a music company because their teenaged son offed himself after listening to Ozzy Osbourne's "Mr. Crowley" - a jury may be convened in order to determine negligence. In many instances, however, the jury's verdict may be overturned or ignored by the seated judge.
There is no law requiring citizens to carry identification. This has actually led to the controversy over having a "National ID" for voting: because the right to vote is reaffirmed not just within the articles of the constitution, but also within several amendments, barring a constitutional amendment requiring a national identification card to be presented when voting, there won't be any laws requiring a national id for a while. Implementation of such a law would be prohibitively expensive. See here for a more in-depth discussion.
Umm... have you ever heard of emusic? They don't use DRM, either. They pay royalties to the indie labels; however, some lesser known artists from larger labels are part of their catalog. The difference is that AllOfMp3 pays an amount settled upon by the Russian copyright group (org? association? I'm not sure), not one dictated by the American cartel.
Either a set of generic constraints differentiates the rhetorical artifact enough to qualify it as a separate genre, or it is an embodied generic artifact. "Nerdcore" is still rap; although it may be parodic - I've never heard any nerdcore. Parody is special - it is a "meta genre" used for commentary. Genres can evolve and expand - social interaction alone dictates that even recurring rhetorical situations will change based on evolving environment/social conditions/linguistic variations; however, subdividing genre only shows that the generic label is no longer adequate on its own: you're labeling new genres, not subdividing old ones. Genres that are too broad to be accurately labeled as such are more accurately described as memes - understood cultural ideas such as artifacts or modes of expression.
I agree. I knew a/.-esque nerd whose wife would do anything to get his attention away from whatever Medal of Honor or GTA game he had just purchased. She would walk by him naked, telling him it was bedtime, and he'd ignore her completely. Made me wonder - she was stacked.
Agreed - mod up! The best part of early games was gameplay. Infinitely hard puzzles don't make games more fun, nor does graphic violence that leaves nothing to the imagination. Consider Tetris - simple to learn and play, addictive as hell, and tough to boot. The violence was more entertaining in Castlevania & Zelda (NES) or River Run & Combat (Atari) than it is in most contemporary games, IMHO.
Technically, there is no such thing as a "subgenre." According to Carolyn Miller, one of the most influential founders of the North American school of genre theory, "genre" is defined as a patterned set of responses to a recurrent rhetorical situation ("Genre as Social Action" Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1984).
Please elaborate as to what exactly constitutes a "minor form of terrorism." Unless an event is great enough to inspire terror, it doesn't constitute terrorism. I'll agree with part of what you're writing, but when you get to that point, I'm tempted to ask you to remove your head from your own ass.
Regardless of borders, the OED is the recognized source by the MLA, the main American academic organization devoted to the study of Modern Languages... Its entries include American vernacular, and mark those uses as such. American Heritage, Webster, neither is as complete.
Slashdot Mirror
so download it, burn it to a cd, and then rip it in mp3 format. DRM isn't preventing you from doing that.
I hate to be the word police. I really do, but I've seen this word "monitize," (correctly spelled "monetize") creeping into a number of posts. It does not mean what you think it means. To "Monetize" something is to give it legal value as currency. The word you're thinking of is "commodify," or to turn into a commodity (an item for sale).
That is all. Thank you.
But I miss "miserable failure!"
Although I agree with what you're saying in a sense, there is no excuse that justifies this form of criminal behavior. I don't think that people are just gloating about superior circumstances when they crack what you so eloquently termed "dick and fart jokes" or "drop the soap jokes." I think that they're engaging in a socially acceptable means of retribution: people fear crime, they fear the criminals who commit them, yet it does not fall to them to punish said criminals. Exaggerated bravado is one way to deal with it, and calling people who use those means as an outlet "slackjawed knuckle draggers" puts you on that level.
Two fact checks: Prohibition ended for a number of reasons, one of the greatest of which was the "lobbyists" (who were, back then, just "concerned" citizens with a bundle of $$$ from certain manufacturers to share with concerned congressmen) from St. Louis and Milwaukee. Kind of like the lobbyists from Hollywood and NY pushing for DRM... Second, you really need to read 1984. The novel talks about a totalitarian government that watched its citizens' every act and had absolute control over the media and language, and by extension, thought. All broadcasts were not only accessible to citizens, but they were required viewing: "news sites you can't quote or screenshot" wouldn't make an appearance because the populace was encouraged to accept whatever they saw on the broadcast as truth, and quoting it as such would benefit, not harm, Big Brother. Even now, you can "quote" from news sites, you just have to attribute your quote - something that someone like you, who plagiarized his thoughts from a bad cyberpunk novel, might not understand.
I don't think it was looking for a date. Kind of looks like my mother in law, though...
oops - didn't mean to make a bulleted list.
- publicly owned
frequencies. XM is different in two ways: first, it is a paid service and a distributor. TiVo is a paid service, but just a recorder, DVR is the same. XM also does not operate within publicly owned or regulated bandwidths.No. The burden of proof still lies with the music company: the judge's verdict only affirmed their right to their day in court. It basically said, "there is a possibility of fault that a court can decide." The possibility of fault does NOT prejudice the case: a parallel would be a criminal trial in which the DA has enough evidence to suggest guilt - perhaps not enough to convict - but the issue of guilt is still in doubt. The trial judge will be a different judge than the one seated at the hearing.
Yes. In major civil cases - say, someone suing a music company because their teenaged son offed himself after listening to Ozzy Osbourne's "Mr. Crowley" - a jury may be convened in order to determine negligence. In many instances, however, the jury's verdict may be overturned or ignored by the seated judge.
There is no law requiring citizens to carry identification. This has actually led to the controversy over having a "National ID" for voting: because the right to vote is reaffirmed not just within the articles of the constitution, but also within several amendments, barring a constitutional amendment requiring a national identification card to be presented when voting, there won't be any laws requiring a national id for a while. Implementation of such a law would be prohibitively expensive. See here for a more in-depth discussion.
I, for one, enjoyed your Lawrence Lessig plagiarism.
Umm... have you ever heard of emusic? They don't use DRM, either. They pay royalties to the indie labels; however, some lesser known artists from larger labels are part of their catalog. The difference is that AllOfMp3 pays an amount settled upon by the Russian copyright group (org? association? I'm not sure), not one dictated by the American cartel.
Either a set of generic constraints differentiates the rhetorical artifact enough to qualify it as a separate genre, or it is an embodied generic artifact. "Nerdcore" is still rap; although it may be parodic - I've never heard any nerdcore. Parody is special - it is a "meta genre" used for commentary. Genres can evolve and expand - social interaction alone dictates that even recurring rhetorical situations will change based on evolving environment/social conditions/linguistic variations; however, subdividing genre only shows that the generic label is no longer adequate on its own: you're labeling new genres, not subdividing old ones. Genres that are too broad to be accurately labeled as such are more accurately described as memes - understood cultural ideas such as artifacts or modes of expression.
I agree. I knew a /.-esque nerd whose wife would do anything to get his attention away from whatever Medal of Honor or GTA game he had just purchased. She would walk by him naked, telling him it was bedtime, and he'd ignore her completely. Made me wonder - she was stacked.
Agreed - mod up! The best part of early games was gameplay. Infinitely hard puzzles don't make games more fun, nor does graphic violence that leaves nothing to the imagination. Consider Tetris - simple to learn and play, addictive as hell, and tough to boot. The violence was more entertaining in Castlevania & Zelda (NES) or River Run & Combat (Atari) than it is in most contemporary games, IMHO.
Window shade. Handy little bugger that didn't require me to minimize, then go to the damn dock every time I want to see what's behind a window.
Technically, there is no such thing as a "subgenre." According to Carolyn Miller, one of the most influential founders of the North American school of genre theory, "genre" is defined as a patterned set of responses to a recurrent rhetorical situation ("Genre as Social Action" Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1984).
Good point. Politics don't seem to equal policy anymore.
Move along...nothing to see here.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion; you're also entitled to be wrong.
Please elaborate as to what exactly constitutes a "minor form of terrorism." Unless an event is great enough to inspire terror, it doesn't constitute terrorism. I'll agree with part of what you're writing, but when you get to that point, I'm tempted to ask you to remove your head from your own ass.
What does enforcement of actual "fair use" have to do with enforcing piracy claims? The RIAA suits are a different ball of wax.
Regardless of borders, the OED is the recognized source by the MLA, the main American academic organization devoted to the study of Modern Languages... Its entries include American vernacular, and mark those uses as such. American Heritage, Webster, neither is as complete.