Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.
What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...
And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit. You don't care for complete strangers to whom you sell a little more wasted time (life). You care if you tell them "get out of here" (theater) or "drop this subscription and get off the couch" (at home) "and do something real with your money." idk, like have a kid--buy the kid some art supplies and learn something together, transmit [worthwhile] "values"...
But should a group invest in a project and it fails...let them claim their legal entitlement in court to disgorge the wrongful takings as well as lost opportunities and enjoyment and whatever else they can validly claim, don't drop a SPECIFIC "they were entitled" in the middle of discussing GENERAL copyright infringement as a protest "slimy pretentious publicaly-vapid assholes who think [their own] emotion is everything don't care about us!" WAAAAAAA The problem in a liberal society is their kind of mental illness can go unchecked (and it spreads); the problem in a conservative one is that worse actors simply won't limit the beatings to superficiality but extend it as far and wide as possible. xD
Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.
What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...
And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit.
"I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to,
or common sense.
It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.
You mean, like talking to a psychopath's tanks? There are wackjobs and radicals who don't want solutions, they want their way: if in their irrational furor they'll nuke you but they're rational enough to want to self-preserve, and know that you in your rational prejudice respecting such things you'll nuke back out of principle, then they probably won't make that move. Certain great leaders wrote in their own journals how the damn accursed evil unfair B52s circling them (loaded with nukes) at all times made them think before every move, and kept them from expanding further...blasted capitalist rats!
"capitalistic" simply means "unfettered human cooperation", and it's the "unfettered" that's the problem; but your socialist rhetoric is about two hundred years out of date and every experiment ever done in it failed miserably. The problem isn't "capitalism", but that we have the wrong fetters: none for the greedy and powerful in the name of protecting the [true] needy and weak from their under-feet, all in the name of protecting the latter to restrain and impair their ability to compete--to join-together. Government stance: "it's for your own good don'tcha know...so break the rule and we'll fuck you."
xD Wasn't saying that it's the only factor. x)~ And the intention wasn't to say it is cut-off that brings collapse, either; if you can be cut-off, then perhaps you're cutivation of a given set of skills, and mores and beliefs underneath them (that is, as drive, direction, etc.), are together simply less effective to animate and spur you in the face of another set of ideas. Or perhaps you're just small; perhaps your mores are alright but in a week generation autokrats, kleptocrats, or some other crushing/corrupting/taking regime rises and ruins you for the impending onslaught. BUT...a commonality is that whether because these take over an area or because you're cut-off despite not being like these...you fall. So I think it may be a significant, though by no means the only, factor.
xD
"Entitlement" is clearly understood...and people are assholes about it. And "entitled to other people's work" is simple: it's what you get when "the customer is always right" is believe or practiced, hence all the beat-up (like an abused dog) service workers crushed between both the scumbags that have been referenced here and the supposed "corporate-enslaved" folks whining because the impossible hasn 't been done and, "GIVE ME YOUR MANAGER, I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU DEAL WITH!!!" (though they're idiots who won't be getting nuttin').
e.g. easiest example: the thousands of calls I've taken with huffy people demanding we refund them "cause I can't use my service and haven't been able to for weeks!!!!!" (their device is broken).
For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered. Whether that's achieved through one or another means, it means you're a tax on an other's life.
There are some arguable exceptions, e.g. a truly public-beneficiary water system or [GASP!] hospital system (if you can afford it) unlike, say, what we have where the boomers have promised themselves their children's and children's children's inheritances so they can live fat and drive-up the prices of housing for millions around the globe as they begin flocking to Panama, Belize, and etc. (like the old crass, careless European classes were once notoriously hated for), all while ignoring that what they're buying was stolen from some poor farmer to build their cute little abode by an ocean/golf course/exotic mountain/suburban home (--this is a big one, ask the farmers).
p.s. simply put, there is a remedy (hard to obtain in this day and age of progressive jurisprudence married with no-natural law): it's called disgorgement. I care for government-funding of studios only to the extent it robs poor people of the ability to held themselves and society of the charity that could be granted to the ones who want to, while access to shit packaged as media you just must swallow as the next big thing, shit that ain't your shit, I care not at all about: it doesn't truly help the leisure class or those whom they stomp on while whining they're put upon.
p.s. being willing to pay still doesn't entitle you to service, nor does it mean that them accepting your pay woudn't actually be in many ways harmful to them, e.g. doing business in a jurisdiction like Russia is always a bad idea should they try to reinterpret the laws and apply the new school ex post facto. There's this thing call natural liberty, which means neither payment nor force entitles you to what is another's. On the other hand, if you want to pay someone here to ship you a movie and the government tries to stop them...then they (not you) have a valid suit for abuse of law, conspiracy to wield government as a hedge for business interests and to do the bidding of a cartel, etc.
e.g. those who argue that a man's law should be upheld simply because that man is powerful...I have no interest in doing business with (do you wonder why the bureaucrats scream for class-status and laws protecting their "right" of access to businesses and services, as does everyone else?). Similarly, your "willing to pay" tidily goes along with the class of assholes who like to buy others' rights, "I'm willing to pay!"
But work for? I help people fix computers. So be careful with who you libel and accuse, lest God judge you. x)~
xD Says the guy who uses "corporate slaves." I'm not moaning about entitlement--I didn't pick that up from the media or libertarians or even conservatives. I picked it up working in thousands of houses of ordinary Americans demanding free services, products, extra attention, etc., which neither I (nor those I worked for, including companies large and small) could afford. Neither I (nor those I usually work for--often including the larger companies) could even always afford what we install or build, yet those chatter-boxes would yammer-on how you can do without. "Entitled asshole" comes from recent experiences which I would write here, but I think I might try to publish them cause, ya know, the potential to make some money for your experience is nice when you're homeless. To you people who think you deserve entertainment and comfort yet would likely vote against something like a damn ratty-looking homeless guy living next door...YOU terrorize people, enslave them, and then cry about tyranny you've brought on yourselves: if you want it to stop you not only have to not pay those corporations you whine about (and demand from, which in turn to be "profitable", i.e. remain operating must become more and more psychopathic, even while they do, indeed, harm themselves by promoting the mentality of "you deserve it"), but also stop consuming their dung. You do want to avoid eating dung, don't you?
Either your government is in some kind of treaty that we also hate, or else you're just not looking hard enough, but you don't have a right to consume entertainment--neither do I. You can make your own--it has nothing to do with discrimination--and I don't shill for anyone: I do tech support these days and deal with assholes who feel like we should give them everything and more all day, as though they deserve (all the services + also all our labor + setting-up all their networking, configuring all their computers, cleaning them because they won't stop surfing porn--or let us know when it would be useful--and worse).
If you were crying about access to textbooks then I'd side with you--maybe (if our system weren't so twisted). But you feel discriminated and butthurt cause you can't catch an episode of the Walking Dead, 24, or the next movie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
To put this into perspective folks: I'm homeless. I work out of hotspots for my job, and I don't feel like I MUST be able to watch anything, and basically I don't. Yet all around me people who say how you just have to have this or that, a smartphone, such and such style, be able to read something, etc...I would settle living in a tent off a campus and having access to a university library.:(
You're importing separate issues. I wasn't speaking of justice or injustice regarding their misbehaviors, but the entitlement felt by Americans to access everyone else's.
You're speaking like a "conservative" screaming "government intervention" when their leadership propagandizes, or "liberal" screaming that the rich are behind a nefarious scheme to put down the poor when told by their masters (while those opposed are advocating eliminating some kind of thing that actually harms the poor the most). But the worst part is, you're using libertarian rhetoric to do it, and injecting emotion-laden buzzwords to get a reaction ain't thinkin'.
In the US context, "[...] government-enforced monopolies on ideas and methods" happens to pertain to PA-TENTS, , a separate class of objects altogether.
Access to copyrighted works recently-made with little merits or contribution to the advancement of useful arts and sciences, in any way, is neither a public good nor a public right; they are copy-righted, by their creators, to extract a return for their efforts and basically because they want to, and nobody really actually disagrees with this (openy and publicly); personally I'm fine with monopolizing-away Hanna Montana bullshit. (If you want to see how television effects children, take a sample of the Disney-raised little princesses that watched that shit over the last six or seven year.)
But vast collections of facts, cleverly arranged and not really a creative act (though courts like to find, wherever possible, how it could possibly be creative)? Nope on that. (I'm looking at various kinds of 'scholarly' works.)
But patents should never be granted on facts of nature or mathematics or merely exploitative or derivative consequences: the supreme court never pretended they (or their isomorphisms, ideas and methods) were patentable, on the grounds that anything so fundamental to knowledge, science work, and being human, violates and does violence to men's natural rights...until they not only stopped caring about those but even questioned that they exist (even the Conservatives: pick-up Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America" and you'll find a quasi-libertarian Authoritarian 'as-long-as-process-is-followed'" statist).
Movies however belong to the domain of copyright. And these days, they're barely even artistic, thinly-veiled engagements of the most prurient interests; appeals to emotion; some either substituting a identity-less character so you can step-in (a well-known trick to make something explode in popularity because the consumer feels as though everything is happening directly to them) or celebrations of those with personality cults (hence, no real acting anymore: just people playing themselves with a different name and context).
And then there is that useful distinction that stands quite well: idea vs. expression. Now if the optimal and only expression, such as a scientific formula mathematically derived, then no it's not...copyrightable (a different class); but any of the material "pirated" in this scenario isn't of that nature. It was just appropriated by all with the chance to see what they want, when they want...
Note however, I already appropriate (for those who used the link) for fair-use, though only through reference, a copyrighted work: it's called fair-use.
But...if you were thinking before you posted, you would know that they are separate issues, that there are methods of critiquing copyright, but shouting "government-enforced monopolies" and sleighting with "ideas and methods" would get-up the cheering of the horde here because they're near-and-dear words that play to certain prejudices...whereby you poison the well [of thinking] before it can commence.
Speaking of the Supreme Court: it is to such stupidity, whether libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, etc., that words by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes are wise, that is, that men should think not in words but in things.
In Japan, MtGox is not liable because bitcoins aren't money (i.e. nothing real was lost).
["Verifiable" citation needed.]
Ty for not asserting something on your own authority making it necessary for everyone else to go check if they want to engage you...oh right, an AC. Dang it.:(
No, not the point: I mean that for those customers, it's often not a "trivial" task, but I get your point--and I would still charge myself not because of the added revenue as much as it also ensure they'll be calling me about it. x*D
The nice thing about mammoths is they are found all the time, in pristine condition, so well-preserved in ice that they're still edible (for a lot of money per steak)...some of the endeavors with them include research on the viability of eggs and sperm from them, though the likelihood is that a modified elephant egg (using parts from a mammoth's if possible--radically simplifying 'a bit') is to be the recipient of factors for fertilization...and then another and another and another for a long time.
If folks have been smart, they've been capturing good samples of DNA for mammoths for quite a while now. No word on whether that's what's been happening, though.
I deal with ignorant, easily-angry, huffy, unwilling-to-learn boobs whose conception of "the internet" is "my computer is on it's the internet, off it's not!" all day. (People who call angry demanding we don't charge them for internet service because the computer's broke.) Metro isn't user-friendly AT ALL.
AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THINGS AREN'T DISCOVERABLE (thought that's major).
Windows was an evolution: e.g. in little things the control panel improved year to year, (they broke this in Metro to remove features and things and force people to go through metro). That said, by things not changing too much, even willful-idiots could get by. Metro attempts to force everyone to use Microsoft's new paradigm to force the willful-idiots (who only begrudgingly learned what was already there because they can't understand why the damn thing just can't read their mind--and I'm not really exaggerating that much) to become familiar so MS can dominate different platforms with one interface: trouble with this idea is that MS (as you say) hasn't made an intuitive interface, e.g. the search for the start screen is hidden in Windows 8.0, but not just because of that: it's the fact that even if everything was exposed desktop+tablet=unuseable; you can't mix them for different forms, such that the willful idiots can use Android apps because they don't really have to learn much, just pick-up some muscle memory, while with Microsoft the expectations they had already and so could rely upon are gone--they're as pissed as we are.
Basically people like me are happy to recommend what software they need to restore the look and functions to Windows 7, and which apps they need to restore the crap that MS removed or moved for no other reason than to make the desktop less efficient/convenient/useable to force people into Metro, not to mention to recommend (if I discover they just nee "the internet") leaving Microsoft altogether.
But RMS's predition about them trying to cartel-ize and make that move away from them impossible, as we've seen, is always tenuously close, e.g. Microsoft locked-in all the businesses to ActiveX (most of them are still virtualizing or running XP or Server200x for that reason), sent its execs to take-over and ruin Nokia (legislators on boths sides of the pond 'mysteriously' doing nothing to prosecute intentional and obvious incompetence to ruin and under-value a stock before MS tries to take over), 'influence' and lock-in Netflix with their tech (after making deals promising DRM built-in to the kernel, which also happens to make it less stable and secure by nature of adding code), etc. such that those studios also pressured Netflix. If people weren't idiots they'd choose to read a book rather than pout about being more free but unable to use Netflix, as though TV is essential rather than a drain on most lives.
Problem with this is, they're decisions also affect you and I. Not to mention, the "oo shiny" that also infects the minds of the FOSS community's devs means things are constantly being broken that don't need to be: when that sort of indiscipline results in a community where discipline can't be imposed, oh no...right now I rather put people on Windows 7 than risk Linux breaking things, but I'm sure in a couple years updates from MS will begin to flow that break little things to 'encourage' upgrades.
Until it becomes unacceptable to permit people who believe mere existence requires you somehow contribute money to their personal interests to be in any position of power, which includes not only the business interests but the political elites they back, this sort of thing won't continue. It's interesting to note this: the tacit compromise the parties consistently make is to deny the equality of rights, as they define new ones that take the old ones away, or that they are natural rather instead of constructed, so that they can define new ones and take the old ones away, or speak as though rights are like interests, that they can contradict instead of move around one another.
WHO ELSE IS ABOUT TO ABANDON/. UPON BETA UPGRADE????????? AND GO AROUND WARNING ALL THEIR NETWORK CONTACTS ETC. TO STAY AWAY FROM SOMETHING RUN BY THOSE WHO DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR USERBASE????????
Except that according to the general rules "astrology" is THE proper word for "astronomy", but since the spiritualists hooked onto it the former was eschewed for the latter: in other Germanic languages and concept-related/history-shared languages "astrology" (modified to fit the language) is used, e.g. in German and in French. So it's not a poor concept of English, it's a lack of exposure to the domain-specific conventions of certain disciplines who arbitrarily avoid one for another to avoid spiritualist associations.
p.s. I get the joke, I just wanted to put that out there since it might enrich the thought processes of somebody: this sort of realization that background and experience is everything not only to processing, but getting why people process or recognize or choose in certain ways in a language, is related to a lot more than just conceptions about what constitutes good use/familiarity with language.
p.s. is nobody going to mention and detail in-depth, and cross-related, the same effect on outcomes, dependent on word choice, when taking surveys and polls?
In the US our constitution usually trumps all other law. Look to the old "Jim Crowe" laws we used to have. They were basically like this, rules that at first appearence appeared to be meant to do one thing but what they actually did was infringe on constiutional rights. They were all struck down eventually.
Don't put your hope in that: the courts have concocted the equal application doctrine, meaning that a law which facially is not discriminatory in application will be deferred to or ruled, essentially, " Constitutional" so long as it appears to be intended for a supposedly " Constitutional" purpose, even when it is intended to harm someone, persecute a group, etc., e.g. zoning laws against poor, blacks, and now hispanics; "anti discrimination" laws targeting the religious (hence LGBT actively targeting religious people and anything they do to make a living by demanding they provide services/support/approval/etc., e.g. to things they couldn't possible provide support to in good conscience). It was actually a doctrine contrived by authoritarian statists on either of the political divide's sides who sit on the bench because one can concoct fake rights and serve constituencies their privileges while the other can take real rights and justify their racism as law based on authority that isn't attacking anyone in particular.
And this doesn't sound like a law, but a police contrivance up with which no court need put. You know the courts and powers give a damn/do the right thing not when it's in the name of something popular (free speech) but something unpopular that their own enemies could twist as [fill in the blank: racist, sexist, homophobic, pro-greed, anti-freedom, anti-"rights", pro-"rights", pro-religious, anti-religious...].
The US government accessing all the data and metadata of private companies by the companies involuntarily compliance, without permission or need or notice to affected parties that dealing with those companies or services means serving the data to the government, and under gag orders with criminal penalties for saying anything--and with the government requiring entry for any of its agents to their facilities to take-over machines and interface at the government's will, is the same as what companies are doing with the metadata.
Legal tender is whatever type of payment you are REQUIRED to accept.
If you eat at a restaurant and when the bill comes you try to pay with a check, they can say "we don't accept checks." If you refused to pay with anything other than a check, they could call the police or sue you for the $12. They can also say "we don't accept credit cards.". They HAVE to accept cash. If they refused your cash and then tried to sue you, the judge would laugh and tell them to read the $20 bill. It says right on the bill "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private.". That means you can't refuse cash and then claim that someone didn't pay. THAT is legal tender.
How is this insightful? The treasury and Fed alike both themselves deny this is the case. The original intent behind "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private" was, indeed, to force that kind of thing--but only for private actors who demanded FDR and his progressive buddies (who scummily auctioned-off rights, allowed the titans of industry to openly collude and fix prices, and any number of other feloneous and subversive acts) actually pay, as the Constitution requires, their contracts in gold. He didn't want to so he tried to force fake money down their debt-holders' throats and, in fact, he lost--in the Supreme Court! Until...he tried to stack it (the cowards on the Supreme Court have been "deferring" up-shit making ever since to justify ever-expanding Federal lawlessness).
If you walk into my bar and I have a sign, very plainly stating--or even if it's just generally understood--"this bar only accepts Bitcoin", and you drink then produce a bill, guess what? You haven't met your contract obligations and have acted in bad faith--you're going to jail and I'm going to get a judge to make you buy however many BTC my prices were set in, and then fork-up.
What do you think the trading, commodities, gold, Forex, etc. markets do all day every day? Again, go and read the government's own announcements on these issues--you aren't required to accept payment in US dollars anywhere with the exception, sometimes, since the federal level is so imperial and lawless, the Feds are forced to cough-up dough to you--even then it's not guaranteed anymore. It could go either way because there are still the true-believers in the fake bullshit up-made by FDR and allies and rammed down the courts' throats, and frankly reminding the courts of this bitter subjugation and threat to their independence is probably a means to only widen continually the gap between that doctrine from actual enforceability.
p.s. my primary sources on these matters are a Constitutional lawyer and son--the son being a high-clearance forensic investigative auditor and fraud examiner for the Feds.
Slashdot Mirror
Not the point. The point is distraction from the actual issue: yours wasn't even a counter-point. It's a separate issue. ;)
Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.
What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...
And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit. You don't care for complete strangers to whom you sell a little more wasted time (life). You care if you tell them "get out of here" (theater) or "drop this subscription and get off the couch" (at home) "and do something real with your money." idk, like have a kid--buy the kid some art supplies and learn something together, transmit [worthwhile] "values"...
But should a group invest in a project and it fails...let them claim their legal entitlement in court to disgorge the wrongful takings as well as lost opportunities and enjoyment and whatever else they can validly claim, don't drop a SPECIFIC "they were entitled" in the middle of discussing GENERAL copyright infringement as a protest "slimy pretentious publicaly-vapid assholes who think [their own] emotion is everything don't care about us!" WAAAAAAA The problem in a liberal society is their kind of mental illness can go unchecked (and it spreads); the problem in a conservative one is that worse actors simply won't limit the beatings to superficiality but extend it as far and wide as possible. xD
Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.
What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...
And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit.
"I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, or common sense.
It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.
You mean, like talking to a psychopath's tanks? There are wackjobs and radicals who don't want solutions, they want their way: if in their irrational furor they'll nuke you but they're rational enough to want to self-preserve, and know that you in your rational prejudice respecting such things you'll nuke back out of principle, then they probably won't make that move. Certain great leaders wrote in their own journals how the damn accursed evil unfair B52s circling them (loaded with nukes) at all times made them think before every move, and kept them from expanding further...blasted capitalist rats!
"capitalistic" simply means "unfettered human cooperation", and it's the "unfettered" that's the problem; but your socialist rhetoric is about two hundred years out of date and every experiment ever done in it failed miserably. The problem isn't "capitalism", but that we have the wrong fetters: none for the greedy and powerful in the name of protecting the [true] needy and weak from their under-feet, all in the name of protecting the latter to restrain and impair their ability to compete--to join-together. Government stance: "it's for your own good don'tcha know...so break the rule and we'll fuck you."
It's not that simple.
xD Wasn't saying that it's the only factor. x)~ And the intention wasn't to say it is cut-off that brings collapse, either; if you can be cut-off, then perhaps you're cutivation of a given set of skills, and mores and beliefs underneath them (that is, as drive, direction, etc.), are together simply less effective to animate and spur you in the face of another set of ideas. Or perhaps you're just small; perhaps your mores are alright but in a week generation autokrats, kleptocrats, or some other crushing/corrupting/taking regime rises and ruins you for the impending onslaught. BUT...a commonality is that whether because these take over an area or because you're cut-off despite not being like these...you fall. So I think it may be a significant, though by no means the only, factor. xD
Even ancient empires, once cut-off from trade from across the world, tended to wither. x*D
"Entitlement" is clearly understood...and people are assholes about it. And "entitled to other people's work" is simple: it's what you get when "the customer is always right" is believe or practiced, hence all the beat-up (like an abused dog) service workers crushed between both the scumbags that have been referenced here and the supposed "corporate-enslaved" folks whining because the impossible hasn 't been done and, "GIVE ME YOUR MANAGER, I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU DEAL WITH!!!" (though they're idiots who won't be getting nuttin').
e.g. easiest example: the thousands of calls I've taken with huffy people demanding we refund them "cause I can't use my service and haven't been able to for weeks!!!!!" (their device is broken).
For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered. Whether that's achieved through one or another means, it means you're a tax on an other's life.
There are some arguable exceptions, e.g. a truly public-beneficiary water system or [GASP!] hospital system (if you can afford it) unlike, say, what we have where the boomers have promised themselves their children's and children's children's inheritances so they can live fat and drive-up the prices of housing for millions around the globe as they begin flocking to Panama, Belize, and etc. (like the old crass, careless European classes were once notoriously hated for), all while ignoring that what they're buying was stolen from some poor farmer to build their cute little abode by an ocean/golf course/exotic mountain/suburban home (--this is a big one, ask the farmers).
p.s. simply put, there is a remedy (hard to obtain in this day and age of progressive jurisprudence married with no-natural law): it's called disgorgement. I care for government-funding of studios only to the extent it robs poor people of the ability to held themselves and society of the charity that could be granted to the ones who want to, while access to shit packaged as media you just must swallow as the next big thing, shit that ain't your shit, I care not at all about: it doesn't truly help the leisure class or those whom they stomp on while whining they're put upon.
p.s. being willing to pay still doesn't entitle you to service, nor does it mean that them accepting your pay woudn't actually be in many ways harmful to them, e.g. doing business in a jurisdiction like Russia is always a bad idea should they try to reinterpret the laws and apply the new school ex post facto. There's this thing call natural liberty, which means neither payment nor force entitles you to what is another's. On the other hand, if you want to pay someone here to ship you a movie and the government tries to stop them...then they (not you) have a valid suit for abuse of law, conspiracy to wield government as a hedge for business interests and to do the bidding of a cartel, etc.
e.g. those who argue that a man's law should be upheld simply because that man is powerful...I have no interest in doing business with (do you wonder why the bureaucrats scream for class-status and laws protecting their "right" of access to businesses and services, as does everyone else?). Similarly, your "willing to pay" tidily goes along with the class of assholes who like to buy others' rights, "I'm willing to pay!"
But work for? I help people fix computers. So be careful with who you libel and accuse, lest God judge you. x)~
xD Says the guy who uses "corporate slaves." I'm not moaning about entitlement--I didn't pick that up from the media or libertarians or even conservatives. I picked it up working in thousands of houses of ordinary Americans demanding free services, products, extra attention, etc., which neither I (nor those I worked for, including companies large and small) could afford. Neither I (nor those I usually work for--often including the larger companies) could even always afford what we install or build, yet those chatter-boxes would yammer-on how you can do without. "Entitled asshole" comes from recent experiences which I would write here, but I think I might try to publish them cause, ya know, the potential to make some money for your experience is nice when you're homeless. To you people who think you deserve entertainment and comfort yet would likely vote against something like a damn ratty-looking homeless guy living next door...YOU terrorize people, enslave them, and then cry about tyranny you've brought on yourselves: if you want it to stop you not only have to not pay those corporations you whine about (and demand from, which in turn to be "profitable", i.e. remain operating must become more and more psychopathic, even while they do, indeed, harm themselves by promoting the mentality of "you deserve it"), but also stop consuming their dung. You do want to avoid eating dung, don't you?
Either your government is in some kind of treaty that we also hate, or else you're just not looking hard enough, but you don't have a right to consume entertainment--neither do I. You can make your own--it has nothing to do with discrimination--and I don't shill for anyone: I do tech support these days and deal with assholes who feel like we should give them everything and more all day, as though they deserve (all the services + also all our labor + setting-up all their networking, configuring all their computers, cleaning them because they won't stop surfing porn--or let us know when it would be useful--and worse).
:(
If you were crying about access to textbooks then I'd side with you--maybe (if our system weren't so twisted). But you feel discriminated and butthurt cause you can't catch an episode of the Walking Dead, 24, or the next movie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
To put this into perspective folks: I'm homeless. I work out of hotspots for my job, and I don't feel like I MUST be able to watch anything, and basically I don't. Yet all around me people who say how you just have to have this or that, a smartphone, such and such style, be able to read something, etc...I would settle living in a tent off a campus and having access to a university library.
You're importing separate issues. I wasn't speaking of justice or injustice regarding their misbehaviors, but the entitlement felt by Americans to access everyone else's.
You're speaking like a "conservative" screaming "government intervention" when their leadership propagandizes, or "liberal" screaming that the rich are behind a nefarious scheme to put down the poor when told by their masters (while those opposed are advocating eliminating some kind of thing that actually harms the poor the most). But the worst part is, you're using libertarian rhetoric to do it, and injecting emotion-laden buzzwords to get a reaction ain't thinkin'.
In the US context, "[...] government-enforced monopolies on ideas and methods" happens to pertain to PA-TENTS, , a separate class of objects altogether.
Access to copyrighted works recently-made with little merits or contribution to the advancement of useful arts and sciences, in any way, is neither a public good nor a public right; they are copy-righted, by their creators, to extract a return for their efforts and basically because they want to, and nobody really actually disagrees with this (openy and publicly); personally I'm fine with monopolizing-away Hanna Montana bullshit. (If you want to see how television effects children, take a sample of the Disney-raised little princesses that watched that shit over the last six or seven year.)
But vast collections of facts, cleverly arranged and not really a creative act (though courts like to find, wherever possible, how it could possibly be creative)? Nope on that. (I'm looking at various kinds of 'scholarly' works.)
But patents should never be granted on facts of nature or mathematics or merely exploitative or derivative consequences: the supreme court never pretended they (or their isomorphisms, ideas and methods) were patentable, on the grounds that anything so fundamental to knowledge, science work, and being human, violates and does violence to men's natural rights...until they not only stopped caring about those but even questioned that they exist (even the Conservatives: pick-up Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America" and you'll find a quasi-libertarian Authoritarian 'as-long-as-process-is-followed'" statist).
Movies however belong to the domain of copyright. And these days, they're barely even artistic, thinly-veiled engagements of the most prurient interests; appeals to emotion; some either substituting a identity-less character so you can step-in (a well-known trick to make something explode in popularity because the consumer feels as though everything is happening directly to them) or celebrations of those with personality cults (hence, no real acting anymore: just people playing themselves with a different name and context).
And then there is that useful distinction that stands quite well: idea vs. expression. Now if the optimal and only expression, such as a scientific formula mathematically derived, then no it's not...copyrightable (a different class); but any of the material "pirated" in this scenario isn't of that nature. It was just appropriated by all with the chance to see what they want, when they want...
Note however, I already appropriate (for those who used the link) for fair-use, though only through reference, a copyrighted work: it's called fair-use.
But...if you were thinking before you posted, you would know that they are separate issues, that there are methods of critiquing copyright, but shouting "government-enforced monopolies" and sleighting with "ideas and methods" would get-up the cheering of the horde here because they're near-and-dear words that play to certain prejudices...whereby you poison the well [of thinking] before it can commence.
Speaking of the Supreme Court: it is to such stupidity, whether libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, etc., that words by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes are wise, that is, that men should think not in words but in things.
The belief you "deserve" an experience, or are entitled to the enjoyment of other's work.
In Japan, MtGox is not liable because bitcoins aren't money (i.e. nothing real was lost).
["Verifiable" citation needed.] Ty for not asserting something on your own authority making it necessary for everyone else to go check if they want to engage you...oh right, an AC. Dang it. :(
No, not the point: I mean that for those customers, it's often not a "trivial" task, but I get your point--and I would still charge myself not because of the added revenue as much as it also ensure they'll be calling me about it. x*D
There's also the case that the high price Dell is signalling that Firefox costs money and installing it is a non-trivial task [...]
Apparently you've never had to provide computing support directly to ordinary US customers.
The nice thing about mammoths is they are found all the time, in pristine condition, so well-preserved in ice that they're still edible (for a lot of money per steak)...some of the endeavors with them include research on the viability of eggs and sperm from them, though the likelihood is that a modified elephant egg (using parts from a mammoth's if possible--radically simplifying 'a bit') is to be the recipient of factors for fertilization...and then another and another and another for a long time.
If folks have been smart, they've been capturing good samples of DNA for mammoths for quite a while now. No word on whether that's what's been happening, though.
Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement!
Shady competition seeking to pay pittance for million+ Euro development, read all about it!
Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement!
This.
/. UPON BETA UPGRADE????????? AND GO AROUND WARNING ALL THEIR NETWORK CONTACTS ETC. TO STAY AWAY FROM SOMETHING RUN BY THOSE WHO DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR USERBASE????????
I deal with ignorant, easily-angry, huffy, unwilling-to-learn boobs whose conception of "the internet" is "my computer is on it's the internet, off it's not!" all day. (People who call angry demanding we don't charge them for internet service because the computer's broke.) Metro isn't user-friendly AT ALL.
AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THINGS AREN'T DISCOVERABLE (thought that's major).
Windows was an evolution: e.g. in little things the control panel improved year to year, (they broke this in Metro to remove features and things and force people to go through metro). That said, by things not changing too much, even willful-idiots could get by. Metro attempts to force everyone to use Microsoft's new paradigm to force the willful-idiots (who only begrudgingly learned what was already there because they can't understand why the damn thing just can't read their mind--and I'm not really exaggerating that much) to become familiar so MS can dominate different platforms with one interface: trouble with this idea is that MS (as you say) hasn't made an intuitive interface, e.g. the search for the start screen is hidden in Windows 8.0, but not just because of that: it's the fact that even if everything was exposed desktop+tablet=unuseable; you can't mix them for different forms, such that the willful idiots can use Android apps because they don't really have to learn much, just pick-up some muscle memory, while with Microsoft the expectations they had already and so could rely upon are gone--they're as pissed as we are.
Basically people like me are happy to recommend what software they need to restore the look and functions to Windows 7, and which apps they need to restore the crap that MS removed or moved for no other reason than to make the desktop less efficient/convenient/useable to force people into Metro, not to mention to recommend (if I discover they just nee "the internet") leaving Microsoft altogether.
But RMS's predition about them trying to cartel-ize and make that move away from them impossible, as we've seen, is always tenuously close, e.g. Microsoft locked-in all the businesses to ActiveX (most of them are still virtualizing or running XP or Server200x for that reason), sent its execs to take-over and ruin Nokia (legislators on boths sides of the pond 'mysteriously' doing nothing to prosecute intentional and obvious incompetence to ruin and under-value a stock before MS tries to take over), 'influence' and lock-in Netflix with their tech (after making deals promising DRM built-in to the kernel, which also happens to make it less stable and secure by nature of adding code), etc. such that those studios also pressured Netflix. If people weren't idiots they'd choose to read a book rather than pout about being more free but unable to use Netflix, as though TV is essential rather than a drain on most lives.
Problem with this is, they're decisions also affect you and I. Not to mention, the "oo shiny" that also infects the minds of the FOSS community's devs means things are constantly being broken that don't need to be: when that sort of indiscipline results in a community where discipline can't be imposed, oh no...right now I rather put people on Windows 7 than risk Linux breaking things, but I'm sure in a couple years updates from MS will begin to flow that break little things to 'encourage' upgrades.
Until it becomes unacceptable to permit people who believe mere existence requires you somehow contribute money to their personal interests to be in any position of power, which includes not only the business interests but the political elites they back, this sort of thing won't continue. It's interesting to note this: the tacit compromise the parties consistently make is to deny the equality of rights, as they define new ones that take the old ones away, or that they are natural rather instead of constructed, so that they can define new ones and take the old ones away, or speak as though rights are like interests, that they can contradict instead of move around one another.
WHO ELSE IS ABOUT TO ABANDON
Except that according to the general rules "astrology" is THE proper word for "astronomy", but since the spiritualists hooked onto it the former was eschewed for the latter: in other Germanic languages and concept-related/history-shared languages "astrology" (modified to fit the language) is used, e.g. in German and in French. So it's not a poor concept of English, it's a lack of exposure to the domain-specific conventions of certain disciplines who arbitrarily avoid one for another to avoid spiritualist associations.
p.s. I get the joke, I just wanted to put that out there since it might enrich the thought processes of somebody: this sort of realization that background and experience is everything not only to processing, but getting why people process or recognize or choose in certain ways in a language, is related to a lot more than just conceptions about what constitutes good use/familiarity with language.
p.s. is nobody going to mention and detail in-depth, and cross-related, the same effect on outcomes, dependent on word choice, when taking surveys and polls?
Don't put your hope in that: the courts have concocted the equal application doctrine, meaning that a law which facially is not discriminatory in application will be deferred to or ruled, essentially, " Constitutional" so long as it appears to be intended for a supposedly " Constitutional" purpose, even when it is intended to harm someone, persecute a group, etc., e.g. zoning laws against poor, blacks, and now hispanics; "anti discrimination" laws targeting the religious (hence LGBT actively targeting religious people and anything they do to make a living by demanding they provide services/support/approval/etc., e.g. to things they couldn't possible provide support to in good conscience). It was actually a doctrine contrived by authoritarian statists on either of the political divide's sides who sit on the bench because one can concoct fake rights and serve constituencies their privileges while the other can take real rights and justify their racism as law based on authority that isn't attacking anyone in particular.
And this doesn't sound like a law, but a police contrivance up with which no court need put. You know the courts and powers give a damn/do the right thing not when it's in the name of something popular (free speech) but something unpopular that their own enemies could twist as [fill in the blank: racist, sexist, homophobic, pro-greed, anti-freedom, anti-"rights", pro-"rights", pro-religious, anti-religious...].
Uh huh.
The US government accessing all the data and metadata of private companies by the companies involuntarily compliance, without permission or need or notice to affected parties that dealing with those companies or services means serving the data to the government, and under gag orders with criminal penalties for saying anything--and with the government requiring entry for any of its agents to their facilities to take-over machines and interface at the government's will, is the same as what companies are doing with the metadata.
You need to try again.
How is this insightful? The treasury and Fed alike both themselves deny this is the case. The original intent behind "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private" was, indeed, to force that kind of thing--but only for private actors who demanded FDR and his progressive buddies (who scummily auctioned-off rights, allowed the titans of industry to openly collude and fix prices, and any number of other feloneous and subversive acts) actually pay, as the Constitution requires, their contracts in gold. He didn't want to so he tried to force fake money down their debt-holders' throats and, in fact, he lost--in the Supreme Court! Until...he tried to stack it (the cowards on the Supreme Court have been "deferring" up-shit making ever since to justify ever-expanding Federal lawlessness).
If you walk into my bar and I have a sign, very plainly stating--or even if it's just generally understood--"this bar only accepts Bitcoin", and you drink then produce a bill, guess what? You haven't met your contract obligations and have acted in bad faith--you're going to jail and I'm going to get a judge to make you buy however many BTC my prices were set in, and then fork-up.
What do you think the trading, commodities, gold, Forex, etc. markets do all day every day? Again, go and read the government's own announcements on these issues--you aren't required to accept payment in US dollars anywhere with the exception, sometimes, since the federal level is so imperial and lawless, the Feds are forced to cough-up dough to you--even then it's not guaranteed anymore. It could go either way because there are still the true-believers in the fake bullshit up-made by FDR and allies and rammed down the courts' throats, and frankly reminding the courts of this bitter subjugation and threat to their independence is probably a means to only widen continually the gap between that doctrine from actual enforceability.
p.s. my primary sources on these matters are a Constitutional lawyer and son--the son being a high-clearance forensic investigative auditor and fraud examiner for the Feds.