301–310 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do. It's a very "leverage your info to make money no wait not like that" schem…
That's why i would rather see insider trading made legal, but transparent. Instead of quarterly filings, if you are considered an insider (or is affiliated with one), you are required to have your trades be instantly reported and be public the nanosecond you make them. You are allowed to make use of the insider info, as long as you adhere to these transparency measures.
That doesn't do anything at all to remedy the situation. Better would be to require trades by insiders (and the particulars of those trades) to be locked in and publicly announced at least seven calendar days in advance. You need not announce the reason for the trade, but you must announce the amount of whatever it is you're selling and/or buying and the date at which the transaction will happen.
Yes, I'm aware of the whole "scheduled stock sale" thing that folks at a certain level have to do when trading in the stock & etc of the company they work for. IMO, that should be mandatory for all employees and their families.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really has nothing to do with Sony as such though. This is a common finding; 9:0 is also a clear message. If service providers are held accountable then arms producers also have to be held accountable. Or politicians who drive up prices via racket scheme such as a certain guy using orange powder on his wrinkly face. Someone is stealing money from stock exchange - that is also becoming increasingly clear from the t…
It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do. It's a very "leverage your info to make money no wait not like that" schem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
It really has nothing to do with Sony as such though. This is a common finding; 9:0 is also a clear message. If service providers are held accountable then arms producers also have to be held accountable. Or politicians who drive up prices via racket scheme such as a certain guy using orange powder on his wrinkly face. Someone is stealing money from stock exchange - that is also becoming increasingly clear from the t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for Music / Movies / Shows, sure, for Software? Probably not so simple.
Some would argue software shouldn't be copyrightable at all. And their arguments aren't entirely without merit, either. Hard to make them on a site dedicated to selling software and its byproducts, perhaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but then the question becomes: which tactics does MPAA and the like will now resort to. Because we know they won't exactly say 'I guess that's it then'.
The MPAA has limited options given they aren’t any sort of government entity with any real enforcement power. All they can do is keep suing as they hope for a different outcome and/or try new forms of DRM.
the MPAA has money, and they will go after the government to fix their problem