Everyone remember the period of time where cops would play copyrighted music loudly during arrests, in order for citizen journalists' video to get copyright strikes?
This citizen was just playing the most litigious company's (Disney) most recognizable song to prevent others from recording the guard's actions!
HEAVY sarcasm in this post, just in case it wasn't obvious.
Was that a bit of Freudian slip in the third-to-last paragraph where you called the streaming service by the current president's name, and not "Truth+"?
(ick either way)
Is it fair to compare these two time periods, one of which includes the other time period as well? Unless it's a typo, the "10 assaults" covers 6 months, and the "79 assaults" includes the same 6 months and then another 12 months after.
realizes something
Oh my god, is that why states are all building tons of new prisons, including a new FEMA-paid-for Alligator Alcatraz at a cost of $500,000 a year per inmate?
I'm hoping that this is a trick by Paul Weiss, to immediately take a specific case where a President revoked an executive order in exchange for offers specifically friendly to a partisan President. An order that was placed supposedly due to how blatantly "partisan" and "illegal" the dealings of the company. An order that apparently wasn't all that important if the company donates ~$40 million to said President.
I can't see this as anything other than blatant extortion:
"Nice law firm you got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it. Oh, by the way, I'd really love for you to gift me $40 million in free law work over the next few years. Oh, you will? Then I forsee nothing bad happening to you (by mecoughcough) for the time being."
I don't understand this claim (that Democrats are pro-fraud). No honest person in any country would support fraud, corruption, or waste. The problem here is that only the person with the waste-destroying hammer gets to claim what is and isn't fraud and waste.
The wielder of this hammer is using it to remove congressionally-appointed agencies and organizations. The executive branch does not get to override previous congressional laws, Congress does.
The wielder of this hammer is using it to force dramatic cuts to government jobs that provide services to the public.
The wielder of this hammer is operating without any oversight, self-reported "savings" that are often lies, and not using government-level care to ensure that our public information is kept secure and not exposed to foreign adversaries.
Disagreeing about the use of foreign aid does not mean the money is "fraud" or "corruption". Disagreeing about the use of DEI does not mean that anyone making appeals to cultural openness is malevolent or anti-white racism.
The funny thing about government jobs is that the money spent on them goes to Americans, not to foreign countries. Not only does the money go to an American (and this money is circulated in the economy), but the job performs some service that benefits the American public. Often, the money spent on these services SAVE the government more money elsewhere than was spent on the service.
Even if we paid someone to literally sit around and do nothing (which I have yet to see happening, no matter how much our "golf" president claims is done by remote workers), this money isn't really "wasted", as it will be used in the American economy, which benefits everyone.
We have a Brother printer. Some time a month ago, it just stopped printing. This happened around the same time we replaced the ink cartridges with non-official cartridges for 1/4 the price of official ones.
After a ton of troubleshooting, we eventually had to uninstall and reinstall the printer (network), and the ink replacement was just a coincidence. So it must have been a VERY broken driver or firmware update to detect the cartridge. And the only point to updating the printer to detect this was to nag at us for not over-paying for their liquid gold?
Interesting idea. Can we extend that idea to other things?
-If you don't watch a movie, then you cannot criticize the content of it you hear from others, even if they were truthfully summarized to you?
-If you don't drive a car, then you cannot criticize drivers who run you over?
-If you don't buy guns, then you cannot criticize those that shoot you with one?
-If you don't vote Republican, you cannot criticize the Republican party/president candidate or the policies they enact that effect you?
The idea that you are not allowed to criticize something unless you specifically patronize it is so bizarre, I'd like to see the idea truthfully adhered to. Society would break down so f***ing fast it'd be laughable, were it not so sad.
David Bowie would NEVER have written the song Space Oddity (1969) if he knew that a game released in 2010 would be allowed to have the exact same song playing over the same end credits 14 years later.
/s
The link in this sentence:
"Like recently, when Congress included language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that made it harder than ever for the public to track private jet travel."
Improperly leads to a "subscribe-to-thread" link instead of any article.
I was just coming down here to the comments to bring that up. With the utter hostility that websites have against ad-blockers, I can't help but feel that this paragraph is on my side:
I find ads on a lot of sites EXTREMELY "objectionable", and am irked at sites attempts to prevent me from avoiding them. Mostly, it's the animation, constantly shifting there on the sidebar, repeatedly drawing my eyes away from the sites content for YET MORE denture cream (or whatever else these ads seem to think I am suffering from).
But ad blockers also protect us from malicious ads that attempt to hijack browsers or redirect you to hostile sites.
I've had two interactions with ISPs in the last few years.
The first was for my personal home, where we attempted to change from our locale's ONLY fixed-lined provider's maximum rate of 80/10 Mbps. We were contacted by a door-to-door salesman for Verizon over their 4G wireless modems. We have always been hesitant to try it, but the speed was triple our current line, and cost the exact same cost. During the talk with the rep, he mentioned in massing that the cost could be reduced even further with the "ACP program" as well. I took one glance at the description and realized it was a subsidy for low income, which did not apply to our family for SURE, so I ignored it. (Postscript Verizon: We dumped it, because after a week or so we started getting disconnects every day that lasted several minutes. We work from home, so a reliable internet is more important than faster speeds)
Later, while setting up Comcast internet for a friend, I was forced to call them to set up the modem. Despite me not mentioning anything about financials and with them in full knowledge that I was a friend and not a member of the house, the phone rep mentioned (again) the ACP to me in their end-spiel. This family probably could qualify for it.
At that point I realized that the ISPs are simply pushing this not for their customer's sake, but most likely because they get to keep a few extra bucks (I believe the government pays out more to the ISP than the ISP reduces customer's costs by, so it's an incentive for them to advertise). Feels pretty icky that ANY money of a customer-based support bill is given to pad the pockets of any ISPs too.
Well, this was expected, even if completely wrong. Since it is obviously not an exact copy of the original song, it shouldn't have been allowed to be taken down. Content ID should not have triggered on this, since the lyrics are different enough that their song's ID doesn't match this one.
But I wonder if this is good news? You mention that UMG has been previously ordered by a court to take into account fair use when issuing takedowns. I wonder if this being a blatant violation of a court order can result in actual punishment, if someone were inclined to pursue it that far?
While this comment is obvious SEO spam, I... honestly am thinking of a way to figure out if its blatant copying of the original article's text is allowed under a "fair use" exemption.
If the music groups are happy to send takedown requests on CLEARLY FREE USE parody on the expectation that the other side won't resist...
Why would they hesitate when given a short joke-y description that the previous content was CLEARY FREE USE parody? You are expecting the music groups (and youtube content-id bots, and under-paid youtube dispute interns) to watch not only the entire video, but know enough about copyright law to back down after seeing that text wall?
I can't wait until we get to the "Feel free to opt out of providing us the monthly subscription by sending a registered, notarized letter to: P.O. Box bla-de-bla-etc......"
For years, the DSL at my house had been a pair of phone lines at 40 down, 6 up each (total: 80 down, 12 up). A few months ago, each line "mysteriously" increased to 53.xxx down, and 7.xxx up (total 106.xxx down and 15.xxx up). Just in time for this new update to broadband internet, my ISP snuck in under the wire for the down pipe.
There was no other reason to increase the down speed, so I suspect it was to be able to boast that it is broadband. If that is the case, though, I expect my upload will also sneak up a few mbps within the coming months.
But he was just helping!
Everyone remember the period of time where cops would play copyrighted music loudly during arrests, in order for citizen journalists' video to get copyright strikes? This citizen was just playing the most litigious company's (Disney) most recognizable song to prevent others from recording the guard's actions! HEAVY sarcasm in this post, just in case it wasn't obvious.
Was that a bit of Freudian slip in the third-to-last paragraph where you called the streaming service by the current president's name, and not "Truth+"? (ick either way)
Is it fair to compare these two time periods, one of which includes the other time period as well? Unless it's a typo, the "10 assaults" covers 6 months, and the "79 assaults" includes the same 6 months and then another 12 months after.
realizes something Oh my god, is that why states are all building tons of new prisons, including a new FEMA-paid-for Alligator Alcatraz at a cost of $500,000 a year per inmate?
I'm hoping that this is a trick by Paul Weiss, to immediately take a specific case where a President revoked an executive order in exchange for offers specifically friendly to a partisan President. An order that was placed supposedly due to how blatantly "partisan" and "illegal" the dealings of the company. An order that apparently wasn't all that important if the company donates ~$40 million to said President. I can't see this as anything other than blatant extortion: "Nice law firm you got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it. Oh, by the way, I'd really love for you to gift me $40 million in free law work over the next few years. Oh, you will? Then I forsee nothing bad happening to you (by mecoughcough) for the time being."
I don't understand this claim (that Democrats are pro-fraud). No honest person in any country would support fraud, corruption, or waste. The problem here is that only the person with the waste-destroying hammer gets to claim what is and isn't fraud and waste. The wielder of this hammer is using it to remove congressionally-appointed agencies and organizations. The executive branch does not get to override previous congressional laws, Congress does. The wielder of this hammer is using it to force dramatic cuts to government jobs that provide services to the public. The wielder of this hammer is operating without any oversight, self-reported "savings" that are often lies, and not using government-level care to ensure that our public information is kept secure and not exposed to foreign adversaries. Disagreeing about the use of foreign aid does not mean the money is "fraud" or "corruption". Disagreeing about the use of DEI does not mean that anyone making appeals to cultural openness is malevolent or anti-white racism. The funny thing about government jobs is that the money spent on them goes to Americans, not to foreign countries. Not only does the money go to an American (and this money is circulated in the economy), but the job performs some service that benefits the American public. Often, the money spent on these services SAVE the government more money elsewhere than was spent on the service. Even if we paid someone to literally sit around and do nothing (which I have yet to see happening, no matter how much our "golf" president claims is done by remote workers), this money isn't really "wasted", as it will be used in the American economy, which benefits everyone.
We have a Brother printer. Some time a month ago, it just stopped printing. This happened around the same time we replaced the ink cartridges with non-official cartridges for 1/4 the price of official ones. After a ton of troubleshooting, we eventually had to uninstall and reinstall the printer (network), and the ink replacement was just a coincidence. So it must have been a VERY broken driver or firmware update to detect the cartridge. And the only point to updating the printer to detect this was to nag at us for not over-paying for their liquid gold?
The Magic Underwears
Interesting idea. Can we extend that idea to other things? -If you don't watch a movie, then you cannot criticize the content of it you hear from others, even if they were truthfully summarized to you? -If you don't drive a car, then you cannot criticize drivers who run you over? -If you don't buy guns, then you cannot criticize those that shoot you with one? -If you don't vote Republican, you cannot criticize the Republican party/president candidate or the policies they enact that effect you? The idea that you are not allowed to criticize something unless you specifically patronize it is so bizarre, I'd like to see the idea truthfully adhered to. Society would break down so f***ing fast it'd be laughable, were it not so sad.
Chuck Norris might have something to say about all those "Walkers".
David Bowie would NEVER have written the song Space Oddity (1969) if he knew that a game released in 2010 would be allowed to have the exact same song playing over the same end credits 14 years later. /s
Broken Link
The link in this sentence: "Like recently, when Congress included language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that made it harder than ever for the public to track private jet travel." Improperly leads to a "subscribe-to-thread" link instead of any article.
I was just coming down here to the comments to bring that up. With the utter hostility that websites have against ad-blockers, I can't help but feel that this paragraph is on my side: I find ads on a lot of sites EXTREMELY "objectionable", and am irked at sites attempts to prevent me from avoiding them. Mostly, it's the animation, constantly shifting there on the sidebar, repeatedly drawing my eyes away from the sites content for YET MORE denture cream (or whatever else these ads seem to think I am suffering from). But ad blockers also protect us from malicious ads that attempt to hijack browsers or redirect you to hostile sites.
I've had two interactions with ISPs in the last few years. The first was for my personal home, where we attempted to change from our locale's ONLY fixed-lined provider's maximum rate of 80/10 Mbps. We were contacted by a door-to-door salesman for Verizon over their 4G wireless modems. We have always been hesitant to try it, but the speed was triple our current line, and cost the exact same cost. During the talk with the rep, he mentioned in massing that the cost could be reduced even further with the "ACP program" as well. I took one glance at the description and realized it was a subsidy for low income, which did not apply to our family for SURE, so I ignored it. (Postscript Verizon: We dumped it, because after a week or so we started getting disconnects every day that lasted several minutes. We work from home, so a reliable internet is more important than faster speeds) Later, while setting up Comcast internet for a friend, I was forced to call them to set up the modem. Despite me not mentioning anything about financials and with them in full knowledge that I was a friend and not a member of the house, the phone rep mentioned (again) the ACP to me in their end-spiel. This family probably could qualify for it. At that point I realized that the ISPs are simply pushing this not for their customer's sake, but most likely because they get to keep a few extra bucks (I believe the government pays out more to the ISP than the ISP reduces customer's costs by, so it's an incentive for them to advertise). Feels pretty icky that ANY money of a customer-based support bill is given to pad the pockets of any ISPs too.
Well, this was expected, even if completely wrong. Since it is obviously not an exact copy of the original song, it shouldn't have been allowed to be taken down. Content ID should not have triggered on this, since the lyrics are different enough that their song's ID doesn't match this one. But I wonder if this is good news? You mention that UMG has been previously ordered by a court to take into account fair use when issuing takedowns. I wonder if this being a blatant violation of a court order can result in actual punishment, if someone were inclined to pursue it that far?
While this comment is obvious SEO spam, I... honestly am thinking of a way to figure out if its blatant copying of the original article's text is allowed under a "fair use" exemption.
If the music groups are happy to send takedown requests on CLEARLY FREE USE parody on the expectation that the other side won't resist... Why would they hesitate when given a short joke-y description that the previous content was CLEARY FREE USE parody? You are expecting the music groups (and youtube content-id bots, and under-paid youtube dispute interns) to watch not only the entire video, but know enough about copyright law to back down after seeing that text wall?
I can't wait until we get to the "Feel free to opt out of providing us the monthly subscription by sending a registered, notarized letter to: P.O. Box bla-de-bla-etc......"
Your honor, I wasn't evading arrest, I was attempting to maintain a 25 foot distance from the cop chasing me.
For years, the DSL at my house had been a pair of phone lines at 40 down, 6 up each (total: 80 down, 12 up). A few months ago, each line "mysteriously" increased to 53.xxx down, and 7.xxx up (total 106.xxx down and 15.xxx up). Just in time for this new update to broadband internet, my ISP snuck in under the wire for the down pipe. There was no other reason to increase the down speed, so I suspect it was to be able to boast that it is broadband. If that is the case, though, I expect my upload will also sneak up a few mbps within the coming months.