amazing how you keep asking me to give you stuff for free while complaining about other people doing the same thing to you.



in response doc said

according to you
Doc meant that i had to do all the work to PERSONALLY drive 100/sales day
therefore never walk away from the site

you all knew that doc was deliberately creating a kill condition on the deal (since it violated my show him and walk away condition) and your all such scum bags not one of you called him on it.

if fact you are still pretending that i backed out of the deal.



well then why not put your money where your mouth is then.

why would you try out techniques of someone who doesn't "know what you are talking about"

if i was showing you shit you know would not work you just agree not to use it and get all your money back

if i showed you something that was so promising you need to test out you by 1 solo girl masturbation scene for like $300

test it out, the entire loss would be capped at that $300 level

It's one person's opinion, and here's the best part:

"The commissioner did not provide any definitive answers as to what should replace the current copyright system"


:1orglaugh

Of course I do, but that's not the point of the statements made at the conference. She well knows cloud access to digital material is an business model being developed by just about all of the media companies. What ISN'T in their plan is access shifting so that a million others can get it, too, who haven't paid for it.

If you had even the slightest knowledge of what you think you're talking about you'd realize these committees are set up to help improve their income base. What's "wrong" with the current copyright laws is that it exports the money somewhere else. Or the money never gets there due to rampant piracy, caused by the unavailability of the content in that territory.

I'm starting to change my mind about this. I still think the opposition has exaggerated some claims and I would encourage people to actually read the part of the law that says it applies only to sites dedicated to nothing but infringement. However, when the Business Software Alliance, a group dedicated to protecting copyright, says the law is too broad that says something. The BSA is all about protecting copyright and even they say the bill should be improved to more narrowly target the worst offenders. I hereby withdraw any comments I made in support of the bill, while still supporting the idea of actually reading any bill or at least a fairly unbiased summary.

access shifting fixes this problem, if the copyright holder doesn't licence it to that territory then anyone within that territory can get it and fill that need.

It the same principle as time shifting : tv stations provided time shifting it was called re runs

the still could provide reruns if they wanted too, in fact they did

however they lost the ability to stop other people from competing (VCR) in the fair use time shifting space.

that competition resulted in a market so big that it exceed all other markets combined (home viewing market)

no one figured out what should replace the slavery model either


no one figured out what would replace monopolies like standard oil either.

imagine the world we would have lived in if the excuse "you haven't figured out what to replace the fucked up model with so we should just keep that model until you do" worked.

as I have said many times on this board. the funny thing is, Sony is actually who fought for time-shifting. Universal Studios sued them for copyright infringement and that was their defense.

The Supreme court of the US has deemed time-shifting as fair use.

exactly the point

in the current access shifting debate people like Kane and the copyright holders are saying that they are already providing access shifting because they will licence the content for that area 6 months or a year later

it exactly the same bull shit argument as saying that re runs were adequate time shifting

bought the book and started reading it

you bald face lied about semisonic

500k was not spent before anyone knew who they were

they recorded their own demo album called pleasure

they had a development with cherrydisc which paid them back album in exchange for copyright and a future committement

cherrydisc spent a little money promoting them at the local level and they got radio play for some of their songs

the 500k you misrepresented as marketing before they were ever heard on the radio included buying out their old contract and paying cherrydisc (aka the 10 fold payback of the contract for every dollar they invested)

so it just another example of small promo, followed by big promo if you prove your worth again.

Your still zero examples of your made up story about record companies investing in unknown acts.

Looks like trying to justify the same old thieving arguments to me.

Some people will try to justify, rationalize and plain old lie to get what they want.:2 cents:

Fuck the thieves. Support SOPA and Protect IP Act.:thumbsup

Not a fan of this direction

please explain the situation only kicks in if you are NOT licencing it to a region

that zero revenue situation therefore there is not even income to take

even if you want to use your insanely stupid your stealing my potential sales bullshit it doesn't apply

because there is no income to steal what so ever

http://i43.tinypic.com/1426fqp.jpg

.

The term backlash has such a peaceful history behind it