“As a supporter of this movement I'm offended Huff Po allows Chase a full advertisement on the home page and Chevron to have a "We agree" green-washing advertisement on this OWS story to spread their propaganda. Not cool Huff Po, not cool.”
tpstarpp on Nov 15, 2011 at 09:09:00
“HP is in the 1%”
jjaguns on Nov 15, 2011 at 09:01:45
“Your suprised that a company wants to make money regardless of where the dollars come from.”
“I guess my issue is that blanket generalizations from both sides don't advance the debate. I believe that there are different degrees to piracy and it shouldn't all be defined as illegal. Should a person download an entire album or movie off a torrent...probably not. But that's different than recording audio off of entertainment released by the artist or label in the public domain. I really like sports, but the teams I root for aren't broadcast in my region so I turn to streaming sites. I watch the same commercials as everyone else in the part of the country in which the game is airing, yet what I am doing is considered illegal. I just don't get how all these different actions can be lumped together. Once the problem is properly defined then we can move on to a real discussion about solutions, which my gut is telling me would be a complete overhaul of outdated delivery systems.”
Midnight Son on Feb 19, 2012 at 21:16:41
“The heart of the problem is essentially twofold:
1.) The artists aren't paid enough by the labels that pretend to act in their interest.
2.) The labels charge too much for the product they sell, and often have been caight illegally rigging the market.
This simply results in a situation where the majority of the population sees nothing wrong with ripping off entertainment companies, as those companies have made ripping people off their business model.”
“In your original post, you were talking about music. I brought up the recording of publicly broadcast material onto a DVR to show that there is no difference between someone like me ripping the audio off of a YouTube video that the artist willing posted and enjoying recorded content on my DVR. Your stealing is stealing argument fails to hold water.”
Midnight Son on Feb 19, 2012 at 19:45:33
“I;m sure you can find a solid number of recording artists that would be angry about people recording their audio or video off of youtube, if they were under the notion that youtube would spawn record sales. But, for all of thm, there are also people like me ho just looked at youtube as a means of generating interest for a live performance. What I find particularly frustrating is that, for all the concern trolling that is done on behalf of the recording industry with my supposed interests in mind, it is never mentioned that I've often made more money through one tour stop alone than I ever did through all the royalties that got paid to me via a label. That had jack squat to do with piracy. That had to do with the fact that, via statute, the contracts I signed set the bar for labels having to pay me roughly $0.08 to $0.10 per song per album sold. It's why I don't really have any anger towards pirates when, after getting such a royalty deal, the consumer are expected to spend $15-$20+ for my art. I don't feel ripped off by the pirates at all in that regard.”
“So if I record a concert that was broadcast on my DVR and save it to enjoy multiple times later is that stealing? What if I did the same with music videos, is that stealing?”
Jimmy Boy on Feb 19, 2012 at 19:03:33
“We are talking about going to unauthorized sites an downloading music and DVDs for free when you know darn well that it is wrong. But that is the trouble with it all. People like you use your little cute legalisms to justify doing something you know you should not be.
But to answer you idiotic question. None of the entertainment industry is screaming about dvrs. They are talking about downloading a movie that would cost $10 for free.”
“You're blurring tons of lines with this argument. I agree people shouldn't make money off other peoples property. But when it is broadcast to the public, then it is in the public domain. I save a bunch of tv shows to re-watch on my DVR. According to you that's not stealing. So by that logic when I rip the audio of a YouTube video that the artist has posted, or a live performance that was broadcast on television, then I am not pirating if I just keep it for personal use. I totally agree with this but I think this contradicts some of your other statements on this board.”
We took a little-known, open-sourced medium and made it forever change the trajectory of human potential. We've used the platform of the internet to share and improve ideas on every aspect of human life. People power has emerged. Dictators have fallen, world economies have grown and human creativity and sharing are at an all-time high thanks to Generation Y. Through our efforts and improvements you can access much of the world's information in the palm of your hand. An amazing feat to say the least. We've even made it possible for you today to romanticize about your accomplishments to thousands of strangers you've never met. Wake up, our impact is all around you.”
“Exactly. I really enjoy live music with a string section. A couple of years ago an artist named Brandi Carlile was touring the country playing with the symphony of the city she was in. I ripped the audio of her Seattle concert that attendees had posted on YouTube and listened to it for months. Then much to my surprise her record company released a higher quality version of the same concert on cd and iTunes. Guess what? I bought it because the sound was 10x better. There are so many opportunities to expand their revenue streams if the record companies would give the public what it wants, and how it wants it.”
“I've had a collection of History Channel shows like "The Universe" and "Engineering An Empire" on my DVR for over 3 years. I really enjoy re-watching them late at night. Any reasonable person would not consider this stealing.
I rip the audio of many BBC concerts and performance's from YouTube. They were broadcast live over Radio One and some even aired on television. For some strange reason, you can't buy these live versions of songs. Many people consider this an act of piracy.
Why is one so different than the other?”
PenFighter on Feb 19, 2012 at 13:51:52
Record companies don't even begin to realize the marketing opportunities they would have if they embraced the technology instead of felonizing it. They run the board at every one of these live concerts. They could post online copies by subscription for band fans. They could live-feed sold out shows. There are so many completely untapped revenue streams that they are too ossified to even contemplate.”
“1) Yes it is legal to play. What is illegal is to have a poker site or payment processors (the companies that move money to and from the poker sites) based in the U.S. This is all do to a rider attached to a Homeland Security Bill under the Bush administration.
2) Since Black Friday, only small sites are available for poker. These sites still have delays with the payment processors so I would make a decision based on how fast withdraws are being processed. Check the poker forums for real time info. I'd suggest the forums on 2+2 poker or pocket 5s.”
A CEO, a Tea Party member and a Union Member sit down at a table with 12 cookies. The CEO takes 11 and turns to the Tea Party Member and says. "Watch out, that Union guy is trying to take your cookie".”
Nov 15, 2011 at 11:16:57
“He is still selling a product that uses its profits to lobby Congress for preferential treatment regarding financial legislation. I am glad he's supporting the arts, but wouldn't the greater good be lending his celebrity voice to how these financial institutions enslave the poorest and most financially unfortunate in our country.”
“The real question that you should be asking is why should you have to work 70 hrs. a week.”
Just logic on Nov 8, 2011 at 14:59:00
“Thats because I took loans out for my business and cant afford to hire someone when I have to already give 30% of my income to the gov every 3 months. I have to work hard to make the business succeed. I dont get paid hourly I get paid on my performance. So finally I get success and my reward is to give more money to someone who never had a job.”
“Converting the economy to renewables and a person making the decision to live a little greener are separate subjects. Retooling our grid will take several generations and you're correct that we have to be careful about implementation so it don't adversely effect the poor. The decision to live a greener lifestyle is another story. Being more aware of wasteful habits can financial aid the middle class in these uncertain economic times. It's simple math. Take a typical family that lives in a house. They have average wages and expenses. By exploring a greener lifestyle, they'd soon learn that there wasteful habits are costing them lots of money. They caulk their windows ($30), buy an adjustable thermostat ($50) and set it at a reasonable temperature to cut 25% of their electric bill. If that bill is $120, they make their investment back in 3 months and rest its another $30 dollars of disposable income that can be put back into the economy in other places. Same can be said about buying a car. Get the Prius (35mpg) instead of the SUV (22mpg). Say it saves them one trip to the gas station each month ($40). Extended over a year and that's $480 of would be gas money that can be spent elsewhere. You end your post talking about how Americans need to financially deleverage. Living a greener lifestyle is part of the solution. There is no any family should be pumping good money monthly into wasteful, inefficient systems or products.”
Sooladgaf on Sep 23, 2011 at 17:19:08
“I don't disagree with your assessment on the advantages of the greener lifestyle. Yes there are advantages to caulking / thermostat, ect. But it seems to me that the radical enviromentalist disagree with the carefulness of implementation. That is what I defend. renewables are absolutely necessary for our future in energy. My opinion, as incremental energy, not use to displace coal. Cap/Trade will kill coal. Coal is a vital part of the reliablity and affordability of electricity. As for vehicles, I'm sorry but $480 a year isn't enought to compensate for the additional $20k for a hybrid van/SUV. A prius won't cut it in a 6 family household.
Living a greener lifestyle can be a solution, yet pushing a radical green agenda isn't.”
“Read the article. The poker site was using PLAYER money to fund their lavish spending sprees. They stole my hard earned money. When the site shut down it was as if I had lost a well-paying part time job. This summer I had to slave away at several jobs just to make ends meet. I am one of the thousands of worldwide victims in all this still trying very hard to manage a difficult situation and I am absolutely offended by your suggestion. Was there risk involved? Sure, but to purpose the idea that my money should then stolen by hackers and given to food banks is really insensitive and idiotic. That's like saying the money that was stolen from Madoff victims should go to food banks and not back to the retirement accounts of people who live off that income.
BTW- How does Rosie's snotty ignorant comment get 4 favs? Would this crowd kindly go back to the YouTube comment section from which you came.”
“Look Faux news fiends, a loud-mouthed Liberal on MSNBC just made an apology. Quick, project! Time to over-dramatize the situation to reinforce your false narrative. Its a card you learned to play so well. My favorite will always be the "reverse racists" allegations.
......We've really passed the troll quota on in this thread. Reminds me of the comment section on YouTube. I need a shower.”
“LOL, typical answer from someone who links a fox news opinion piece as a source. If you think your response above wins an argument then you are truly one of the lowest common denominators to whom politicians and corporations constantly pander.”
Chamique Parker on Jul 7, 2011 at 18:35:04
“How's that cap and trade legislation progressing?”
"So eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty are now part of the climate debate."
This is the most telling line of the op-ed. First, it's only a debate on the right. In the scientific community there is a consensus. Second, the report says eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty its part of the solution to a more sustainable world. The author's line above was lampooning this statement from the UN report:
“Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 percent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe.”
Personally, I can't think of money better spent.”
Chamique Parker on Jul 7, 2011 at 14:46:24
“I can think of money better spent and so can the vast majority of Americans. So you lose the argument.”
First, the link you provided is to an opinion piece. One more click into the article, you'll find something actually worth reading. The UN Report cited takes a thorough look at the complexities of adding 2 billion more people (by 2050) on a planet that is already strained for resources. What the author of the op-ed labels as the world "going green" and "wealth distribution" is actually an sobering assessment of everything the world will have to do in the next 40 years for everyone to enjoy an average standard of living in a sustainable way.
The op-ed author, as well as you, like to just focus on the cost. Both imply that if we do nothing, it wont cost us anything. Which is absolutely wrong. Excluding the cost of climate change, damn near every piece of infrastructure in this country will need to be either upgraded or replaced and certainly expanded over the next 50 years. The UN report calculates these cost for all countries with the finite number of resources this planet has.
Chamique Parker on Jul 7, 2011 at 14:43:50
“I think focusing on cost when you're talking about that much money is important, don't you?”