Posted on 06/28/2002 8:09:49 AM PDT by RicocheT
Ah, another advocate of the Sarah Brady philosophy of attacking the inanimate object rather than the miscreant. I thought the natural home of these folks was DU, not FR.
Easily. There are civil and criminal laws against copyright infringement. Enforce them against copyright infringers when they are found. Duh.
And watch the slander
I stated that your position is that inanimate objects, not misbehaving individuals, should be the objects of legal enforcement. You have just confirmed this to be true. Truth, by definition, cannot be slander. QED.
This claim is constantly made to support the xxAA's agenda, but the evidence simply does not support it. Certainly, the industry's revenues remain high, despite the recession (and despite their use of Enronomics to understate their income and thereby chisel on various percentage-based payments).
A few years ago I bought a DVD player and big screen TV, thinking that I would never go back to a theatre, but each month when I look over the DVD releases, I see nothing but junk. The studios are afraid to release their really good work for fear that someone will copy it.
Leaving aside the dubious claim that anything out of Hollywood these days constitutes "really good work", how many major motion pictures can you name that are not released on video within a few years of theatrical debuts?
Yeah. but how much money did they give his campaigns? How much did Microsoft give? I agree with you that there's no obvious legitimate reason he should be so concerned about this, so we might as well start following the money.
Yeah right.
The vast majority is excercising their "fair use" rights.
And the vast majority of loser liberals are oppressing me for my own good too.
I am a functional moron and swallow all those claims.
Best regards.
I've never heard of such a thing - IIRC, the reason Lambos are modified is to keep them in line with emissions requirements, not because there's some upper limit to horsepower. When you can get a street-legal modded Viper with 850 HP, it seems clear to me that any such restriction is so high as to make no practical difference. ;)
Not saying you're lying or wrong, now - just that I've never heard that, so I'd be interested in learning more...
LOL! This is the excuse used for half of the leftists' subversions of the notion that the Constitution means what it says rather than what the leftists think it ought to say.
First Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to crack down on "hate speech" and "campaign finance abuses".
Second Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to get "Saturday Night Specials"* and "Assault Weapons"** off the streets.
*Definition: Any firearm less than twelve inches in length.And it's nearly impossible to trace back.
**Definition: Any firearm spanning one foot or more.
Actually, in general it's quite trivial to trace back. The only obstacle is that the industry doesn't want to take the PR hit of targeting the individual violators.
And stuff your "duh" where the sun don't shine, you haven't presented a solution.
I haven't presented a solution that you like. That's too bad. There's ceiling to the amount of horsepower a car can be sold with in the US
Do I really have to explain the fallacy of using one unjustifiable policy to justify another unjustifiable policy?
you really don't need to do that any faster
That's the excuse used for the other half of the aforementioned leftist subversions (e.g. "Rich people don't really need all that money").
And since you're insult was based on a deliberate misstatement of my position yes indeed it is slander.
There is no misstatement. You and Sarah agree that law-abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning items because they might misuse them.
On the other side you can just follow a simple rule: never say anything on line that would get you popped in the face in person.
I've observed that people who prefer to blame inanimate objects tend to have poor impulse control. It's a convenient way of shifting blame, I suppose.
That may be true, but why should that imply though-crime laws like the DMCA or invidious chips like Fritz? I don't want this in my computer, and won't buy it if I can avoid it. Short of a law making it mandatory, I can't think of any consumer, or anyone who has the smallest care for their own privacy, who would buy this. Which indicates this is the wrong approach.
At best this is a poison chalice Microsoft will drink deeply from. At worst, this is the end of PCs their owners can actually control and keep secure form external inspection.
More likely, there isn't really any connection either way and the whole thing is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy.
And if you don't want your money to be stolen don't convert it into the form of a long string of ones and zeroes on a machine-readable medium.
It would be incumbent upon the owners of any copyrights violated there, and the appropriate law enforcement agencies, to shut it down after due process of law.
I said DVD, not video. If you doubt my complaint, just go to amazon.com's DVD page and look over the new DVD releases.
A meaningless distinction (videotapes are, if anything, easier to bootleg because their security, such as it is, is well behind that of the DVD format). Even accepting it for the sake of argument, let's look at that Amazon page:
hmmm... 3rd season of ST:TNG... 1776... 2nd season of M*A*S*H*... The Fellowship of the Ring... 2nd season of The Simpsons.... nope, I'm afraid your claim simply did not survive its collision with the facts.
Obviously for reasons other than fear of bootlegging -- if anything, the mass-market blockbusters (that are routinely coming out of both DVD and tape formats within months of theatrical release) are more at risk than releases that cater to more specialized tastes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.