Comments on: The FACT Farce: II

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:41:51 +0000

Bureacracies? Corrupt? Whoever mentioned anything about that. Again you’re missing my point of the post, which was to give MY view on situations, so people could see what it’s like for someone a bit younger, to see what I’m feeling about it and what I would like done.

Most people would say we don’t care about copyright and DRM and crap, but we do. We want it, but we don’t want to be restricted by it. We want it because we have to have it, if we didn’t, everything would collapse on itself. there’s be no law involved.

As for politics and anything else you confused me with, I have no idea where you’re coming from, but when I saw that sign on the street, that is what I thought. I didn’t for a second think about Tony Blair with a big light bulb next to his head thinking “OMG! The file sharers are paying for the trafficers! We’re saved!”

You make a good arguement, don’t get me wrong, but you’re argueing a point I didn’t even touch on, nor intend to.

huds601

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:36:17 +0000

The bug was fixed a few weeks back, which is how I got my account! Big thanks to Jon for getting that sorted!

Oh, and call me huds or Dan

Cheers for the comment though

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:13:06 +0000

Daniel, you made the assumption that someone was actually thinking about the issue at hand. That’s not necessarily a good assumption to make when analyzing the actions of the corrupt bureacracy of a corporation, where ruthless, back-stabbing weasels are trying to climb higher up the org chart. Their decisions are based totally on internal politics, and are due to confound an outside observer as completely illogical.

–TG

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:25:20 +0000

If they’re not trying to convice me, then what is the point in placing an ad in the paper, or in a shop window. They’re trying to convince consumers, of which I do believe I am one.

This is how I see it from my perspective, as a 16 year old kid growing up in an age of computers and technology, and in an age of file sharing.

This is my view on it. It might not be wholey truthful in regards to facts, but it’s how I’ve seen it and see it right now, and how I’ve made up my mind with what they have done.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:16:29 +0000

Dan:

They are not trying to scare YOU or convince YOU. They are trying to convince legislators to see things their way. To permit idiotic schemes which ultimately prevent me from easily delivering to you software I wrote and own.

That last part may not directly be their goal, but it is what will happen if I am unable to set up a computer which can create removeable readable material and send it to you. And, when you look at it technically, how are they going to ‘protect’ themselves otherwise? If I can video myself falling into water and forward it to you for your enjoyment, then I can video a movie and do the same. If I can speak into my computer mike and send you a copy of what I was saying, then I can let my Walkman [Aaaaghh!! Trade mark of Sony, sorry to use, please excuse! Oh, my God, Sony is a trademark, too and I used it, and... Oh! S**t! Now I've done it again. Clearly I'm off to Hell for this cruel and unjust abuse of a Corporation.] do the talking.

The best way to challenge them is to ask your legislative representative to check how much they pay in taxes BEFORE he considers any copy-protection legislation. The odds are the multi-nationals pay close to, well… nothing! Then ask him if legislation is worthwhile to protect non-voting, non-taxpaying imaginary entities.