Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t matter since you are allowed to copy your own digital media for the purpose of dealing with that exact situation. A rental shop would legally be allowed to make a backup copy of every disc they have in case it gets damaged.
Hmm, are they allowed to rent out the backup copy if the original breaks? I thought rental was based on first sale doctrine and backup copies are based on fair use. I'm not sure if you can combine the 2.
The Big [Censored] Theory
661–670 of 891 posts
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#662Earlier quoted context omitted.
>people of China didn't choose this Of course they did. PRC is country that skews old and conservative. Half the reason behind media crack down are cantankerous parents and grand parents telling governments they don't want loose western morals spoiling impressionable minds. Outside of western reporting, PRC libtards are relatively extinct compared to vast amount numbers of papa / grandpa wang who don't want to accide…
Whether or not they would choose it if they could is orthogonal to the fact that they did not and could not choose.
Implying formal enfranchisement is required to choose when being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity. There's a reason Chinese trust in government is near record levels compared to declining trust in western systems which sure are good at choosing but miserable at delivering. Being performative is orthogonal to being performant. "They can't choose" is such a tired and useless gotcha when plurality of "choosers" / voters in prominenant democracies don't actually think voting is useful mechanism for choosing, until compared to highly performant authoritarian systems. Then it is, because reasons.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#663Where is the diversity we advocate? Must the whole world accept one value? We accept homosexuality so we won't accept other people like Muslims not accepting it? So WE are definitely right and people who are different from us are absolutely wrong?
A dictatorship that disregards the will of the people it governs has only committed wrong in the eyes of these sensitive modern westerners, right? CCP tells the world its subjugates are happy and fulfilled so who are we to judge?
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#664Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#665Censorship is obviously a bad idea to those of us in developed countries, and disastrous to those of us who have experienced it first hand. But when many consider the opposite, which is the requirement that you fight to defend your enemy’s right to freedom of expression, they find censorship to be preferable.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#666I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is it really a bad thing if different countries have different understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.
Because the people of China didn't choose this: their oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#667Earlier quoted context omitted.
People (or NPCs/bots, like you call them) downvote you because not only is it a bad take and does have questionable grammar, it's also full of misinformation. Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in C…
>censorship is not inherently bad Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable? They simply have a different definition of what counts as objectionable, that's all, and it's well within their rights to enforce their different cultural values within their borders, just like you argue that a "democracy" has this right. Also, when I go to Netflix and search for "LGBT", I se…
There is a difference between banning content that is objectively harmful (e.g. child porn) and banning content to control and suppress minorities. Just because they can doesn't mean it's good.
> So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie
I never argued this.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#668Earlier quoted context omitted.
The joke about the chicken is interesting to me. I see to your point, the joke leans to imply that Chinese people will lie about the ingredients served in their restaurants to save some money. This stereotype, however, is predominant amongst Chinese people in China. This joke would fit right in on any Chinese TV show, questioning the legitimacy of the meat at a cheap restaurant is a joke older than the country. This…
> It would be the equivalent of a Chinese sitcom where a character might suggest that visit a Texas Barbecue you might get shot by some revolver-wielding cowboy. I don't think many Americans would take offense. That’s fair enough, maybe I’m over analyzing. But you probably wouldn’t find that joke on TV in America either.
To the point: it definitely would not be removed from Foreign-made media before shown on American services. Especially as a result of some government-driven mandate.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#669Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 10 second clip of a movie that is designed to be stitched with 710 other 10 second clips isn't fair use, it's just copyright infringement. "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:[8] the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of t…
We're talking about first sale doctrine here, not fair use. If I did the exact same thing with a VHS tape, cutting out 10 second strips of tape and renting them out to people, that'd be totally legal under first sale doctrine. Doing that with VHS would be totally impractical but legal. Doing it with a digital file would be totally practical but illegal, since currently first sale doctrine doesn't apply to digital dis…
I see that what you're saying is that User X could watch the first 10 seconds and then the second 10 seconds while you start you're first 10 seconds but that would be sort of a ridiculous use case for the following reasons:
1. your system would include a bunch of extra work for your solution to make this work, easier and cheaper to buy 10,000 copies of the movie and stream as needed.
2. people pause movies thus your solution becomes even more expensive because it would need to calculate out who has paused their ten seconds at the 5 second mark etc. etc.
Thus it seems likely that any solution being built on the model of we have physical copy we stream you copy will be built with showing complete movie and not any clever cutting up of movie to make the number of physical copies we have stretch further. The way the law works each different use case - cutting up movie, showing complete movie - would probably be challenged and there is no reason to suppose that they would all be allowed to pass, in fact since the showing complete movie was not allowed to pass in the real world it seems unlikely that the weird edge case cutting up movie would be allowed to pass even if law was changed to allow showing complete movie was changed.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#670Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it slightly amazing how often commenters here (hello aero-glide2) fail to see that the people in a country are not the same as the dictators controlling the country. When such misunderstandings are common here at HN, where people are a bit brighter that elsewhere (or so I think) -- then, such misunderstandings must be dangerously common outside HN. I wonder what consequences follow from that
That's because the people who say this are the only ones who believe it. In particular, Chinese people themselves don't believe it, and do believe their government is the same thing as "them" and represents them, so they still take it personally/nationalistically when you criticize the government.