I heard another rumor that Arthur had rented Tarkovsky's Stalker and was sorely disappointed that it wasn't about a charming and un-threatening police officer making some moves.
Are you kidding me? You ask me if I believe something and then when I say I do, you say PROVE IT? LOL Not likely. I do believe it. I provided evidence for that belief in that I provided several year old articles that a LOT of them are being paid a lot of money and that there is a program for content providers to be paid and the percent that are being paid is growing and they have a deal with ASCAP etc etc etc. BUT I don't have to come up with exact numbers because you asked if I believed it. I do, but if YOU don't think they do, then it's up to YOU to prove they don't. You can't foist your desire for info on You-Tubes policies and percentages as some reason for me to spend my evenings proving you wrong (yet again)
Fine. Had I simply taken a few more seconds to cite a few more responses, it would become clear that you did in fact set out to demonstrate the veracity of your "belief," and that by citing an article which made claims about a mere 14 percent of YouTube content, you "believed" that you had in fact done so.
Ah, not at all. You asked a question about my beliefs. I said I did and provided evidence to show it wasn't an unfounded belief. As for this 14%, well of You-Tube content that in fact is a huge amount considering how much fluff that has been loaded with the creators full consent for others to view it. As to things like snippets from a MP movie, the copywrite holders can easily do a content search, periodically and either prevent use of their material or arrange to get renumerated, or they can decide that the snippets introduce new people to their work and thus aids in continuing sales, but the fact is, You-Tube is a model for intenet sharing of content and also providing renumeration to the people who create content. Which is what I've been arguing for all along. That there is NO REASON that the internet can't be used for free/cheap access to information and at the same time compensate the creators of content or the holders of the current copywrite for their work.
Actually, I agree. The problem is, this is also why I am against SOPA and PIPA. What I don't understand is how you do not see that such legislation--without drastic revision--will be damaging to sites such as, well, YouTube, for instance.
Well who said I didn't support revision? From my first posts on this I've said that the legislation would need revision. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2874470&postcount=2 You say you support the concept but you are arguing against legislation that is still being reviewed and changed to meet the objections of the involved parties.
Well, frankly the correlation between the concept and the proposed legislation is not nearly as strong as some would make it out. The obvious parallel here is the music industry's efforts to thwart piracy back in the 70's and early 80's when audio cassettes became cheap and readily available, but personally, I see stronger parallels with the industry's efforts to thwart bootlegging--as in, bootlegging proper; that is, ROiOs--and plunderphonics. The former has largely abated, but the latter is an ongoing battle. I don't have the time to elaborate at the moment, but in short: I am very much opposed to people profitting from piracy--but, as to piracy itself, there are some very serious complications which arise simply in trying to define "piracy." Until these matters are resolved, if ever, efforts to legislate and enforce such legislation will undoubtedly bring about some serious "unintended consequences." Although, such "consequences" will likely only seem "unintended," as per one's reading of the purported intent of the legislation.
Good article over at Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...would_be_a_social_and_economic_disaster_.html There’s no evidence that the United States is currently suffering from an excessive amount of online piracy, and there is ample reason to believe that a non-zero level of copyright infringement is socially beneficial. Online piracy is like fouling in basketball. You want to penalize it to prevent it from getting out of control, but any effort to actually eliminate it would be a cure much worse than the disease. [...] This is not to say that we should have no copyright law or that there should be no penalties for piracy. Used book stores may slightly depress sales of new books, but they don’t threaten to destroy the entire publishing industry. Large-scale, unimpeded, commercialized digital reproduction of other people’s works really could destroy America’s creative industries. But the question to ask about the state of intellectual property policy is whether there’s a problem from the consumer side. If infringement got out of hand, we might face a bleak scenario in which bands stop recording albums and no new TV shows are released. But we’re clearly not living in that world. There are plenty of books to read, things to watch, and music to listen to. Indeed, the American consumer has never been better-entertained than she is today. The same digital frontier that’s created the piracy pseudo-problem has created whole new companies and made it infinitely easier for small operations to distribute their products. Digital technology has reduced the price we pay for new works and made them cheaper to create. I can watch a feature film on my telephone. The American economy has plenty of problems, but lack of adequate entertainment options is not on the list. SOPA isn’t just an overly intrusive way to solve a problem, it’s a “solution” to a problem that’s not a problem.
As parmalee has already pointed out, the fact that people are insulting you in the process of dismantling your arguments does not constitute an ad hominem fallacy. Ironically, your response there is *exactly* an ad hominem fallacy. It's also flat-out incorrect on its face, since parmalee has not, by any means, limited his responses to insults. Do try to be a little bit less sophomoric, eh?
And yet it's been clear in these discussions that people have also vastly overstated the negative potential impacts. Hell, I've been labeled TREASONOUS, just for supporting the intent of the bill, showing how out of touch with reality some of the comments are.
no, when you post just an insult you are in fact attacking the man, and thus trying to use that to diminish the validity of the argument. Pointing out that that is the sign that your argument is weak is not an ad hominum.
Seems fair, considering how vastly overstated the negative impacts that the bills are supposed to address are, in the first place. That's another ad hominem fallacy from you. You should probably stop committing them so frequently, if you want to accuse others of such in every thread.
Right, definition of "insult." That does not follow. You can insult someone totally independently of any response (or not) to any of their arguments. To qualify as an ad hominem fallacy, you must actually make some link between the insult and the validity of the argument. That's exactly what it is. Instead of providing any actual argument that the statement in question is weak, you are complaining that your opponent is employing insult, and then following that with a totally-unsubstantiated assertion that this means that whatever they are arguing must be "weak." That is a classic, textbook ad hominem fallacy. There is absolutely no reason at all that a person can't produce perfectly valid, strong arguments and also insult you mercilessly at the same time. By all means, complain that insults are rude, mean, or otherwise reflect poorly on the character of whoever issues them. But the moment you make the leap to dismissing the substance of their arguments on those grounds, you are engaged in a classic ad hominem fallacy.
You're old enough to remember the controversy when VHS first came out, and the debate of VHS versus Betamax right? And laws can't be abused, right? Are you in favour of allowing anticompetitive business practises?
