TomOfTTB

7 ms·

1.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
The point is people who have good intentions can be reasoned with. The Cold War didn't end with bombs it ended with talk. Because the intentions were good on both sides. Someone like pg could just as easily go to media companies and say "
2.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
But it isn't. It's the machinations of SOME of the old-guard media. Other parts of the old-guard media, who want those extra revenue streams, feel the same way you do. That's the problem with wanting to kill the entire industry. You los
3.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Follow the logic here. Denying Netflix content for a little longer might hurt Netflix because people will come to Netflix during that time, look for the content, and not find it. So if that's true wouldn't it just be easier to never give
4.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
> Well, then they should be running honest businesses that won't be disrupted by some startup trying to give artists a good deal, rather than the raw deals they so frequently get, and they will therefore have nothing to fear. But see th
5.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right but for the record pg started it. If you call the people in Hollywood mean and advocate taking their livelihood away and I have friends in Hollywood that means you're disrespecting them. Second I don't think c
6.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I understand your point but for the record he was attacking my friends and everyone else. He specifically advocated tearing down the entire industry. That means everyone. As for the downvote I have to say when you go into a topic like thi
7.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Who said I was better? That said the idea that everyone is equal regardless of their contribution is laughable. That's not to say people who have contributed more are "better" but it is to say they've proven themselves to some extent.
8.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
For God's sakes if you're going to use a phrase at least know what it means. Ad Hominem means "an argument appealing to emotion" or "attacking an opponents motives rather than the content of their points". I did neither of those things. I
9.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Karma is a (imperfect) measure of contribution. Time is just time. As far as Hollywood killing themselves that's not what he was doing. I quote from his post... "The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they cou
10.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Not the title but this paragraph... "Hollywood appears to have peaked. If it were an ordinary industry (film cameras, say, or typewriters), it could look forward to a couple decades of peaceful decline. But this is not an ordinary industry.
11.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I get pissed because of the rhetoric. Not just from this side. I have many friends in the entertainment industry and from there it's all about "thieves". So you have "hate" and "kill" on this side and "theft" and "arrest" on that side an
12.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
But Hollywood funds artists. My issue with pg's post is it's a clarion call to kill an industry without considering what that industry does and who that industry supports. If someone can think up a better system I'm all for it. There's no
13.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Point count is the equivalent of contribution. It means you perhaps said something that opened someone else's eyes or led the conversation in a positive direction. Guidelines are to prevent people who don't contribute valuable ideas (e.g.
14.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Everyone says "most of the artists get screwed by studios" but it generally isn't true and you know this because artists tend to start studios when they get money and those studios always end up acting in the same way as existing studios di
15.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
But they aren't wasting resources. They're producing media that's consumed by millions and millions of people. pg's argument is you should try to kill them off even though they haven't proven their obsolescence. My argument is they haven
16.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Do you think Steve Jobs also had bad intentions? If not why did he regularly meet with Murdoch on social occasions? Why did they have a friendly relationship? I could see Jobs biting his tongue to get business done but you don't have to
17.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I'm sorry but you're wrong. Because serfdom was largely destroyed by the death of feudalism. Feudalism died largely because it couldn't compete with societies that were adopting open trade policies around the ideas of Smith's Wealth of Na
18.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
First Mr. 278 Karma I think my 7000+ karma has earned me the right to call pg an ass when he's making an ass out of himself guidelines be damned. Second, plenty of people are wrong every day. That doesn't mean they and their industry deser
19.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
You’re an ass. Pardon the bluntness of that statement but I’m home right now because this pissed me off so much. So my tone is less measured. Have you even contemplated all the things the industry you’re trying to “kill” does? Make note o
20.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think he makes a valid point but then gets lost in emotionalism. Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves and like the mone
21.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Lets say you're completely right. What then would be the productive thing to do next? To my mind the obvious answer to that is to work on gaining more support. Anonymous doesn't have anywhere near the power or support to change the world
22.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think his Point #1 & #4 are the main drawbacks. In the consumer market it's great to have a closed ecosystem where everything just works. But in a school environment cross platform is a must-have. The irony is Apple's success with t
23.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I agree with you in many ways but it's important to remember copyright is in the constitution in the first place. If you surveyed most people I doubt they'd even know that.
24.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I don't think there will be one until the bills are re-evaluated in February. To the best of my knowledge the only significant chance is the removal of the DNS restriction (Which the sponsor himself said was a change). Even if you do find
25.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Honestly this is pretty straight forward wishful thinking. It certainly isn't Keynes (who believed in paying debts down during upswings). Here is the article's point in his own words... "The US government only has to make sure that the US
26.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Disclaimer: I heard the Editorial via my Audible subscription this morning and sometimes those editions are abridged. Though normally not in the Editorial section. I thought the article was pretty fair to be honest. It called out the DNS
27.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
And financial requirements. Because public universities have subsidies and donations coming in they can afford facilities required by some of the more arcane standards. Private Universities have to charge an arm and a leg and basically bu
28.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think this article misses the point. The problem with our University system right now is they have a monopoly. A correct market price can only be set if competition is allowed and that only happens when everyone is allowed to compete.
29.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think you're missing the strategic issues here. SOPA is really about the 2012 election. On the content providers' side they see a close election for both the Presidency and the Senate (the House is likely to stay GOP no matter what). Th
30.
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think the author is singling out IP-Law when his problem is with our legal system in general. For better or worse our modern legal system is built around overly strict limits that are, by design, rarely enforced. To give an example consi

More ›