* Posts by danimal

9 posts • joined 17 Apr 2008

Ofcom slaps MTV with £255k fine

danimal

Oh, now I see. . .

At first I thought that we were dealing with a small group of complainers, and then I realized, if 3 or 4 people at a time are calling in to complain about MTV. That's probably 100% of the viewership for such a program. MTV should change it's name to Ill-thought out and poorly executed "reailty" dating show television, but I guess that's too many letters.

World realizes Google home page is 'illegal'

danimal

And another thing . . .

For those of you saying you just need to "search Google" you can't without accepting their privacy policy, as others have pointed out. But secondly, typing in "Google Privacy Policy" and clicking "I'm feeling lucky" which brings up the top result gives you the page before their Privacy policy. So anyway you slice it it's somewhat hidden. That said it's not like anyone smart enough to understand a privacy policy couldn't find the Google privacy policy.

danimal

Wrong!

It's actually three clicks off the homepage. One to an about Google page, one to a privacy policy page, and one to actually get the text of their policy. At least it was for me when I just tried it. Does that make it tripley (sp?) illegal?

9/11 an inside job, says Irish pop folkster

danimal
Paris Hilton

Some points

Firstly, I hate the term conspiracy theorist. The correct term should probably be historian. What I want to know is why so many of you seem to think they're can never be conspiracies. I suppose the lot of you blame Brutus solely for Caesar's death too, eh? Secondly, why are so many of you mainstreamers out there having to resort to attack by proxy. Several of you have brought up the moon landing and how dumb it is to doubt that. But last I checked 9/11 and the moon landing were not the same event. All you're doing is criticizing one set of beliefs by assuming we share both sets of beliefs because YOU have applied a label on us.

And finally. To all you 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda (an orginzation which even the Pentagon has admitted doesn't really exist as an actual organization, per se), answer me these questions:

1) How come several of the "hijackers" have been found alive, because they weren't the hijackers?

2) How were we able to know who the hijackers were by the passports that fell out of the plane, when everything else (including the nearly indestructible "black boxes") was destroyed?

3) Why did the pilots of the intercept jets claim to fly "full throttle" all the way to New York when a simple distance to time calculation reveals they flew at about half throttle?

4) Are you seriously going to tell me that the Pentagon (head of military operations for a country that spends more on military tech. than all other nations combined) has no system to shoot down a plane headed right for it that has been flying off course in restricted Air Space at several points in its flight, which lasted hours?

5) Why do you assume it's hard to fool the American people when we were duped into believing that Bush was a legitimate President in the first place. I hypothesize that we've had too much BS crammed down our throats and that GW himself could have detonated bombs himself live on Fox News, and later that evening Bill O'Reilly would be talking about how the "The President's fireworks show was interupted, by liberal Al Qaeda terrorist wannabes." Well, actually that sounds more like Glenn Beck.

-Paris cause she's no doubt the average intelligence of someone who buys the party line

Garage sale genius juices software-hawking eBayers

danimal
Coat

Software licenses aren't even legal

Start license:

1. This is my license, hereafter referred to in vague and specific terms both as the license or sometimes, it.

2. It, here, referring to the license (and not any other "it") establishes a contract between "you" (collective or singular) and "me" defined as myself individually or by someone "I" (referring solely to the Author of it (referring to the license, and not any other "it")) appoint to act as "my" (as pertains to the author if it, the license and not any other "it").

3. Such contract falls under no specific jurisdiction other than that assigned to it by a panel of "experts." (Experts must be listed an preapproved to be used in jurisdictional assignments by other experts only).

4. Upon completion of this sentence. You (collectively or singularly (in isolation and in union with specified or unspecified others (as may be the case)) agree to furnish me with cheap wine and three hundred and sixty five billion dollars.

- Mine's the one with the copy of Black's Law dictionary and a copy of my license.

Texas man tries to cash $360bn cheque

danimal

@ Anon Coward

Abstinence only sex-education means only the dumbest breed. That and close proximity to Louisiana and Oklahoma also probably rubs off.

danimal
Coat

Good start, bad finish.

Stealing and forging checks is good for an upcoming record exec, it shows initiative. Starting off your company with $360 billion is smart because it tells outside investors you take risk-assesment very seriously from a fiduciary perspective. Stealing from your girl's family is also a smart move, because in all likelihood WHEN you hit big you won't want to be with the same girl all the time, so he freed himself up there rather nicely. But having a gun in a bank and not robbing it . . . I thought we were out to get street cred. What gives? Everyone knows you've got to use the $360 billion dollar check as a diversion and take hostages into the vault. There you can use a handheld recorder, and record your soon to be hit "My stupid ass is gonna be in prison, fool" featuring Jay-Z, taking advantage of the vaults great acoustics and the naturalistic screams of fear as you fire your glock. Shame too, he was headed down such a good path.

Mine's the one with the check, the gun, and the dope.

Pirate Bay to sue music industry

danimal
Coat

JonB

Okay, my rebuttal.

1: "I buy a hotel, leave it to my kids, they carry on running the business renting out rooms. There's no time limit on that." Okay, fine, but they're making all the pertinent business decisions including all the creative marketing and everything that running a business consists of. Therefore there is a substantial difference between that scenario and just making money by having your daddy or mum right a song. You're talking about an example that uses physical property. Therefore a more apt comparison would be if I wrote a song and pressed a ton of CDs and left them to my kid, which is entirely different than a copyright.

2: "Builders don't make money on hotel room rentals. They make money from building hotels." Why the obsession with hotels? Once again, are you equating building a hotel with writing a song? So what if builders make money by building hotels, what's your point? Mine was that artists do not make the bulk of their money from recordings and that this actually represents a small portion of most artists income. Now I realize your'e talking about the song writing credit, most likely but that is a prime point, my friend. Builders are paid 1 time when they build a hotel. It may be spread into installments, but it's still basically a payment for finishing the building. So that payment scheme is absolutely not comparable to the IP payment scheme. Everyone else who gets paid for a job in the world gets paid once for it, except doctors, lawyers, patent holders, and IP copyright holders. Why should a song writer get to make money over and over again on one song, when the kid pumping out nikes in a sweatshop only gets paid the once. The kids contribution to the shoe shows just as much "creative influence" as Ringo Starr had on the typical Beatles album.

3. "No, they should be paid for their contribution, and I suspect they're long dead anyhow." So we're going to pay everyone for their "contribution?!?" How would that work. Take for example bluegrass music. It was invented by Bill Monroe, he literally decided to make a new style of music, his contribution to music then is that he created a genre. Not even Bill Monroe would expect to get money from every bluegrass act. Likewise, with Hip-Hop, John Cage was the first one to play two records at once and record it, so should he be paid for every hip-hop album? It's an idealic fantasy that you can pay people according to their contribution in a song. And getting to that, what if you don't even write the song. For example the Knack's "My Sharona" seems to me, the bulk of the money from that hit should go to the parents who named her Sharona, since that's pretty much the only lyric.

4. "No, the owner of the lift decides they want music in it, the record companies want to be paid for providing that music." - obviously you misunderstand my post. Record companies are paid by the lift owner I realize that. I'm saying that record companies are paid by a way of calculating how many "listeners" they are reaching in the lift, which is why they calculate the royalty and allot money according to how often a song is played/how many hours the drum is on, etc. Average volume of the store in question etc, all play a part. So yes, the end result is that record companies are getting paid based on the premise that people in lifts are listening to the music, when in fact a good deal of us want to blast it into oblivion.

5. "What about when you've already paid for a hotel room? Is it yours forever? Are you allowed to sublet it?" Okay to begin, you basically call me a retard, and then post this? I'm asking why in the hell I should be paying a song writing or phonographic recording royalty for songs that I've already paid all those royalties on numerous times before, especially if I'm also having to pay the mechanical royalty on those same songs multiple times. There are some songs I've paid for eight or nine times because of different circumstances, but in those cases, when I decide to listen to a song that's also on a DVD I load up my iPod. My point is that the music industry is out of control. Mechanical royalties are still paid out even though technically most of the money now is made selling music through non-mechanical means. It literally defies logic. Another illogical example, turntablists are given songwriting credit, although in reality what they are doing is arranging and not songwriting, for which a different royalty is reached. And none of these royalties has anything to do with helping the creator of music make music. All of the royalties exist, have existed, and will ever exist for is the betterment of the bulk of the copyright holders who are overwhelmingly not the creators of the music. Once again your hotel analogy fails, me paying for a hotel stay and being billed multiple times would be more akin to me buying a CD and a DVD that has the same song as one on the CD and paying three different royalties twice.

As to me being as you called it a freetard, I'll have you know I buy my music, even though I think it's stupid to support the music industry at this point when their business model is obviously broken, but they're like a drug cartel, they have what I need, and they've made it prohibitive to do otherwise. However, the notion of copyrights runs contrary to logic, which is why lobbyists and politicians had to create it out of the same slime-mold that spawned them, which is why copyrights as a concept is under 300 years old. It's a failed model like Soviet Communism, or mid-east peace negotiations, or day-light savings time.

Mine's the one with the bible I stole from the Hotel. Take that!

danimal
Thumb Down

@ BKB

The idea that copyrights are somehow real is just insane. They aren't really enforceable, and when they are it seems arbitrary and capricious. The reality is that copyrights are simply a way for large companies to make money on something for years, when it's something that probably shouldn't be made for money. How can you compare making a TV with making a song? Have you ever assembled something electronic or written a song. I've done both, and I've got to say there's an inherent feeling that writing a song shouldn't be about money.

But to further explain how copyrights are NOT REAL:

1. They are the only thing I know of that you are entitled to make money on for at least 75 years after you've died. If I make a TV (following your example) and I sell it to you am I going to make royalties (transferrable to my offspring) when they sell it at your estate sale? Hell no.

2. Artists don't make money on recordings . . . and traditionally they never have. This is for two reasons, firstly, record companies made all the money, and secondly artists have always made more money through live shows and benefactors

3. The idea that you can copyright music is absurd. George Harrison got dinged because his song My Sweet Lord used the same chord progression as some song that slips my mind now. George handled it well but it's still dumb. Following that same logic we should find the person who first did a I-IV-V chord progression and throw him all the money from every rock act since before rock and roll. Same with the person who developed 4/4 time

4. What about the reverse? Where in the bleepity bleep bleep is my bleeping money for everytime I've been somewhere listening to music I didn't want to be listening to? Like did you know they have a special way of calculating royalities for elevator muzak! This means that the record companies want to be paid for forcing me to listen to music I don't even want to listen to.

5. What about when you've already paid for a song? How come I never seem to get a discount on something I already own. I owned Nick Drake CDs before a copy of the Royal Tennenbaums, even though included in my price for the DVD there was a bit of a built in royalty for his work on there. I didn't get a price break, instead his estate was paid twice. There are some songs that I have that I've probably paid artists five or six times over for. Shoot buy one or two Queen's greatest hits and you'll be paying song writing royalties and I think mechanicals on some songs two or three times. That's like six tiny .08 cent payments but still, it's six-times higher than it probably should be, right?

had to give myself the thumbs down, didn't mean for it to be this long.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019