I doubt EA and ilk would bother to get out of bed for a mere million dollars.
...but difficult to watch if you're squeamish about real-world evil.
The parodies that I've seen, though (of the approximately 700,000 of them on YouTube) are hit and miss, though I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of thing that's defensible as fair use.
This bill is about requiring ISPs to shut off service to repeat copyright infringers, which the ISPs estimate will cost them (and by proxy, consumers) 500 million pounds.
It's not a "tax" and none of the money is going to subsidise the record and film industries, that's just complete crap from the summary writer, as is the crusty old "update your buisiness model, wah wah wah" copperlite.
The bill is also completely retarded, but you do no service to your cause by misrepresenting (and apparently, not even understanding) the enemy.
All that tells me is that she doesn't like to laugh.
How can this be stealing?
Nothing physical was lost, only data was copied and Plurk lost nothing!
Also, it's not piracy, because we all know that piracy only happens on ships at sea!
Therefore, it is only logical that the title of this article be changed to "Microsoft Shares Code with Microblogging Startup".
The next big thing will be "Grunter" -- one syllable "grunts" that you can use to express your emotions to anonymous strangers on the internet who will pretend to be interested in you as long as you subscribe to their "grunts".
I've already patented this six ways from Sunday, so don't even think about getting your grubby dick-beaters anywhere near my idea.
Ugh! You heard it here first.
Confusion and nausea are the new action and excitement!
Get with the program! If you can't tell what the hell's going on, that means it's a thrilling action sequence!
Actually, I agree with you, and I think the organization's approach to the matter is dumb, and Google has every right to just remove the content.
I just think it's telling that of the actual quotes being addressed by
Question to poster: how does it follow from their statements that the music writers are clueless?
The individual songwriters' requests for compensation injects cognitive dissonance into the minds of the people who insist that only Big Evil Corporations with their Obsolete Buisiness Model want people to pay for music (to finance Lear jets and hot tubs full of hookers for fatcat executives), and that the Brave New World of music is that all music is free and all artists support themselves through touring and merchandise, and all the greedy recording executives are out of a job, and therefore you are entitled to download whatever copyrighted works you can find for free while congratulating yourself for helping to bring about a new utopia for musicians.
Therefore, the music writer's statements must be discarded as clueless, otherwise you have to accept that you're not just sticking it to The Man when you download free stuff, you're sticking it to the actual creator.
Just keep all your FLAC files on PC or NAS, and when you want to load them on a player, copy them from the MP3FS directory.
You don't need to keep duplicate lossy files around, and you don't have huge chunks of lossless music taking up space on a player that can't play them anyway.
So, what happens when they find the genetic marker that indicates homosexuality?
Will it be okay for parents to not select an embryo because he/she might grow up to be gay?