Uhm... "gaming consoles like the Amiga, Atari and Sinclair"?
Wth?
I may sound like a nitpicker but calling these computers gaming consoles is simply wrong. They were a whole lot more than gaming consoles and gaming alone was never their sole purpose, especially when it comes to the Amiga and Atari.
Agreed 100%. That is no punishment for being a launch day buyer, it's a punishment for being stupid. If you know a product is crap and you still buy it, don't complain. Give the product back and buy something else. How hard can that be? It's not as if your life depends on playing that game, right?
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of all these time- and money burning lawsuits? And especially of Apples' unbelievable hyprocrisy, when they're not ashamed of suing for basically "meanlingless" design patents but whining when they're supposed to pay for something that is really important (and most probably far more patent-worthy)?
Yes, they cold do that. But there is one *big* problem. As it is now, there some kind of "guilty until proven innocent" state regarding GEMA. In other words: The GEMA can contact each and everyone who plays music publicly and demands money until it is proven that the artist(s) played at an event are not GEMA-members. In other words: The clubs have to give prove that each and every song they play isn't one for the GEMA has rights to collect money for. If the clubs can't do that, they're screwed.
Sorry, but I pretty much fail to see why Twitters' idea should stop any patent trolls. I mean, there are already enough companies that act like patent trolls with patents they already own. And nothing that Twiter may do in the future will make them stop, as far as I can see. Plus, it seems that a lot of them already made crazy amounts of money, so what would stop them to just go on buying patents from Twitter and just break the conctract (and maybe pay some fine, if that is even legal). Am I missing something?
"It still amazes me that so many companies don't recognize how badly these kinds of things will backfire."
It still amazes me that so many people think that such behaviour will actually backfire (in a significant way).
It won't. How many cases are there where such behaviour actually made a difference? The truth is: Even though there may be an outrage among some groups, there are still more then enough who will buy the product, see the movie etc. People are fast with condemning companies, but when it comes to their real life behaviour, most of that is usually forgotten.
I really don't know what is there to celebrate or what makes this even worth being in the news. After all, we already know that all too often the music companies don't care for "art" as such, but for the money.
What is far more worrying though is that behaviour like this doesn't help anything regarding the current or future situation of artists. What I mean is the peoples' behaviour in general: Even if they they know that some music company screws their artist and the fans, the people *still* buy the stuff. Yes, I know, the argument is that it's to support the artist. But the *problem* is that the music companies are *still* making money from this. In doing so, the fans directly support the very industry mechanism they claim to despise.
Obviously you have never been creative in your whole life. Or, if you've been and state that your art depends on nothing but your own imagination, then you are a lyer or you are decepting yourself. There are *very, very* few innovations that have no "blueprint" somewhere else. I am sure if you dig deep enough (often even not so deep) you will find all the popular jokes, all the rhythms that we listen to and all the stories we read in some slight variant before whomever claims copyright on it. Just read interviews with honest artists and they usually love to tell you about their own favourite artists.
It's absolutely impossible to not be influenced by the things you hear, even less from people you admire. Taking already existing ideas in art and vary them to something new is not at all something unusual, it's the rule.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Stephan.
Well, people like trump were sooner or later beheaded or poisoned in the good old days. Maybe we should get back to that standard as well, hm?
Uhm... "gaming consoles like the Amiga, Atari and Sinclair"?
Wth?
I may sound like a nitpicker but calling these computers gaming consoles is simply wrong. They were a whole lot more than gaming consoles and gaming alone was never their sole purpose, especially when it comes to the Amiga and Atari.
Re:
Agreed 100%. That is no punishment for being a launch day buyer, it's a punishment for being stupid. If you know a product is crap and you still buy it, don't complain. Give the product back and buy something else. How hard can that be? It's not as if your life depends on playing that game, right?
Sick and tired
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of all these time- and money burning lawsuits? And especially of Apples' unbelievable hyprocrisy, when they're not ashamed of suing for basically "meanlingless" design patents but whining when they're supposed to pay for something that is really important (and most probably far more patent-worthy)?
Re: A new collection society
Yes, they cold do that. But there is one *big* problem. As it is now, there some kind of "guilty until proven innocent" state regarding GEMA. In other words: The GEMA can contact each and everyone who plays music publicly and demands money until it is proven that the artist(s) played at an event are not GEMA-members. In other words: The clubs have to give prove that each and every song they play isn't one for the GEMA has rights to collect money for. If the clubs can't do that, they're screwed.
What's the point?
Sorry, but I pretty much fail to see why Twitters' idea should stop any patent trolls. I mean, there are already enough companies that act like patent trolls with patents they already own. And nothing that Twiter may do in the future will make them stop, as far as I can see. Plus, it seems that a lot of them already made crazy amounts of money, so what would stop them to just go on buying patents from Twitter and just break the conctract (and maybe pay some fine, if that is even legal). Am I missing something?
"It still amazes me that so many companies don't recognize how badly these kinds of things will backfire."
It still amazes me that so many people think that such behaviour will actually backfire (in a significant way).
It won't. How many cases are there where such behaviour actually made a difference? The truth is: Even though there may be an outrage among some groups, there are still more then enough who will buy the product, see the movie etc. People are fast with condemning companies, but when it comes to their real life behaviour, most of that is usually forgotten.
And that is good how...?
I really don't know what is there to celebrate or what makes this even worth being in the news. After all, we already know that all too often the music companies don't care for "art" as such, but for the money.
What is far more worrying though is that behaviour like this doesn't help anything regarding the current or future situation of artists. What I mean is the peoples' behaviour in general: Even if they they know that some music company screws their artist and the fans, the people *still* buy the stuff. Yes, I know, the argument is that it's to support the artist. But the *problem* is that the music companies are *still* making money from this. In doing so, the fans directly support the very industry mechanism they claim to despise.
Re: Re: What a load of bs
lyer -> liar, decepting -> deceiving
(English is my second language only)
Re: What a load of bs
Obviously you have never been creative in your whole life. Or, if you've been and state that your art depends on nothing but your own imagination, then you are a lyer or you are decepting yourself. There are *very, very* few innovations that have no "blueprint" somewhere else. I am sure if you dig deep enough (often even not so deep) you will find all the popular jokes, all the rhythms that we listen to and all the stories we read in some slight variant before whomever claims copyright on it. Just read interviews with honest artists and they usually love to tell you about their own favourite artists.
It's absolutely impossible to not be influenced by the things you hear, even less from people you admire. Taking already existing ideas in art and vary them to something new is not at all something unusual, it's the rule.