I don't see anything wrong here. Advertising is fair game, and if you aren't "intelligent" enough(since whether or not you like to shop is the be-all and end-all of intelligence measurements), then you may end up holding up the economy! Shocking no? And this manufactured desire, once satiated, will provide the person with some manufactured happiness, at least for a short time. Most people win from this arrangement, yet there is so much resentment here. Why?
Without advertising, I doubt so many people would be buying things they don't need and overextending their credit to do so. While the world wouldn't grind to a financial halt, it would slow down significantly, probably causing a major recession/depression. The economy is unfortunately very dependent on the stupid people of the world who use their paycheck as a ticket to shop till they drop for useless crap.
I can't figure out why you hold a grudge against a group that does no personal harm to you, and that thankfully holds up the economy.
Thing I can't understand is, who on earth voted for Star Wars?!
It was all those ewoks, gungans, wookies, and a bunch of creatures that race that friggin Yoda comes from (all acting the way Yoda did in episode IV when first introduced). Now THAT'S quality comic relief!
Serenity was an important scifi film and will be talked about still in ten years, as will the Firefly series.
Having seen only the last 30 seconds of one firefly episode, I can't comment on the series, but I have seen the film. It wasn't at all bad, but I can't see anything in it that really merits significant conversation down the track. What would people talk about that it has that no other movie has? (Feel free to enlighten me/. - that question is more than just rhetorical)
The only way that I can see it being talked about is as an afterthought to the series, assuming it's good.
While it's undoubtedly not a religion, science is a kind of belief. It's the belief that our senses can tell us about our world. I personally hold a lot of stock in this belief, but I accept that others can (partially or fully) reject it. In this way it is similar to religion. Atheism for scientific reasons is the same.
It isn't marketing, it's opinion. It's his opinion that there is a distinction between losing a sale to a competitor and losing a sale to copyright infringement (piracy is such a misleading term). One benefits the music industry and is legitimate competition, the other is illegal and does not support the industry that created and supported it. Taking what you want when you want is generally unhealthy for industries and the economy.
And that does hold up to rational discourse. It is perfectly rational to feel moral obligations to reimburse the creators of things for their investment. It is also rational to assert that the industry will suffer because of the selfish people who download in the place of buying.
It is not particularly rational to consider copyright infringement just another competitor for the record industry, since it simultaneously hurts and relies upon the industry. It's not like we can solely rely on P2P; there needs to be labels to back 'em up. If the indie labels allow you to share their songs, so be it. But if the content creators (like the RIAA) don't want it, that is their right, and copyright law says that we should honour that.
Trying to regulate the internet is just wrong. I know that. However...
in the ministries is a virulent strain of "we have the right to decide how much of what Canadian viewers get to see in the name of protecting 'Canadian culture'."
As it stands, I don't think enforcing/subsidising the native culture is too bad. All that they're specifying is a ratio between Canadian content and foreign content. Out of the foreign content, you (the media consumers) can choose whatever you want. This just ensures that the market can try native Canadian culture, without it being washed out by the influential culture pouring from America. And it helps the economy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr Moderator. Very funny. I know you knew I was kidding. I will FIND you, and when I do... uh... I'll give you the negative modding of a lifetime.
Maybe so in some situations, but are you sure it's wise to persecute on such a subjective judgement call? How is the lawyer meant to know what is frivolous and what isn't (according to the courts)? They can tell apart cases that they probably won't win, but they can't say for sure. These are lawyers after all; if they want to get out of these penalties, they'll just have to say they believed there was a fair chance.
The way I see it, the client (if anyone) should pay. They maybe stupid gits, but it's the lawyer's job to help them through. If they don't, and the resulting case is deemed "frivolous", the client gets penalised, and the lawyer can be sued for damages. However, I think this whole idea of determining frivolous cases is too flimsy for the law.
I'd like to point out that the greatest works of art of all time were produced in an era where there were no such things as copyright laws. It's called patronage, and it worked for thousands of years.
Most of them were contracted by the extremely wealthy. They made artworks that (mostly) were difficult to impossible to replicate (music being the obvious exception), and only the most wealthy had access to them. Even if the great pieces of music were produced today, they would just be recorded in concert, and distributed over P2P networks. The wealthy class wouldn't feel the buzz of owning exclusively a great piece of art, and they wouldn't finance it. In short, that was then. This is today.
Maybe if every teeny bopper whore who wants to pout at a camera, sing to an over-produced track and get paid millions for it suddenly can't make money because the artificial monopoly supporting such a business model vanishes, we wouldn't be innundated with mindless crap. Maybe we would all be better off if the only people who made art were the ones that were passionate enough to make it without thought of getting paid.
I have no idea why everyone seems to "blame" the success of pop music on copyright laws. The copyright laws help, but what really drives the market is... wait for it... demand! Yes, it is (and always has been) demand for certain products that ensures that they are created! IF you really want to get rid of these "teeny boppers", force people to share your taste in music!
You start threatening attorneys livelihood, especially when that livelihood is such a huge investment, you will see these cases go away.
To stop these lawsuits, there needs to be proper disincentives for the party filing the suit, right? Now that party is made up of lawyers and their clients. This raises the question: why the hell did you go for the lawyers and not the clients? The lawyers are just doing their jobs, while their clients take pot-shots at people without due dilligence. Who do you think is more deserving of punishment, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see anything wrong here. Advertising is fair game, and if you aren't "intelligent" enough(since whether or not you like to shop is the be-all and end-all of intelligence measurements), then you may end up holding up the economy! Shocking no? And this manufactured desire, once satiated, will provide the person with some manufactured happiness, at least for a short time. Most people win from this arrangement, yet there is so much resentment here. Why?
I would also sue Microsoft if they successfully marketed Vista to me.
... this is OLD news!
Yeah!
What a loser!
Imagine watching these movies, huh?
How could he be so... immature?
I'm SO much more mature than him.
I have a very, very large penis. Really. I do.
The only way that I can see it being talked about is as an afterthought to the series, assuming it's good.
While it's undoubtedly not a religion, science is a kind of belief. It's the belief that our senses can tell us about our world. I personally hold a lot of stock in this belief, but I accept that others can (partially or fully) reject it. In this way it is similar to religion. Atheism for scientific reasons is the same.
And that does hold up to rational discourse. It is perfectly rational to feel moral obligations to reimburse the creators of things for their investment. It is also rational to assert that the industry will suffer because of the selfish people who download in the place of buying.
It is not particularly rational to consider copyright infringement just another competitor for the record industry, since it simultaneously hurts and relies upon the industry. It's not like we can solely rely on P2P; there needs to be labels to back 'em up. If the indie labels allow you to share their songs, so be it. But if the content creators (like the RIAA) don't want it, that is their right, and copyright law says that we should honour that.
By monitoring and actively refusing some of the content from other countries?
In fact, get your regulatory hands OUT of your pockets, and stop this political wankfest!
dur, dur... I'm going to patent gorillas in pink tutus!
What did you think I was going to say?
You need to see a dentist.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr Moderator. Very funny. I know you knew I was kidding. I will FIND you, and when I do... uh... I'll give you the negative modding of a lifetime.
Come on people, it's April fools day! Have a sense of humour!
Yeah! Can I get modded redundant for no particular reason?
Maybe so in some situations, but are you sure it's wise to persecute on such a subjective judgement call? How is the lawyer meant to know what is frivolous and what isn't (according to the courts)? They can tell apart cases that they probably won't win, but they can't say for sure. These are lawyers after all; if they want to get out of these penalties, they'll just have to say they believed there was a fair chance.
The way I see it, the client (if anyone) should pay. They maybe stupid gits, but it's the lawyer's job to help them through. If they don't, and the resulting case is deemed "frivolous", the client gets penalised, and the lawyer can be sued for damages. However, I think this whole idea of determining frivolous cases is too flimsy for the law.
Whoops! It seems I failed to comprehend the title, didn't RTFS or TFA. I feel like a complete tool.