Now I don't think this guy should be extradited, but it is worth taking a look at what his site was. Here is the last capture I could find in the way back machine. This doesn't look like a search engine to me, more like a curated collection of links to copyrighted TV shows and movies. I couldn't say whether he was 'trying to follow the law' or not.
"""
7- Why are there so many Megavideo hosted videos on TV Shack? Can't you use another video host?
A: TV Shack staff is currently working toward providing many different alternatives to hosting sites that are accepted for submission. There is a movement taking place (thanks to our regulars) to provide an alternate link for all Megavideo links on the website as evidenced by The Megavideo Replacement Initiative. We have very little control over where videos are hosted being that we are not the ones hosting the videos ourselves. TV Shack simply links to these hosting sites. Nevertheless, please ask yourselves, would you rather not watch the video at all? Megavideo has "bad" aspects to it, such as limiting the time that you can watch. Fortunately, it also has very good aspects, such as good quality, very fast streaming and fast upload abilities.
Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). The following prices are in US dollars!
Prices for 1 adult to go to the movie theater:
Typical US movie theater ticket: $10
Typical US nacho-coke or popcorn-coke combo: $10
Typical US parking (if it's in garage such as at the mall): $5
Total for 1 adult to go to the movies: $25
Prices for 1 season of a popular show:
Scrubs - The Complete First Season (2001) bought at Walmart (link) (it's the cheapest place from what I have seen and heard):
Discounted: $34.86
List Price: $49.99
So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time.
In other words, yes, we will try to find videos on other hosts for our users. We will even try to provide alternate links for you to watch the video on whichever host you enjoy. However, when there is no other host which has the video, we will link to Megavideo because something is better than nothing (or having to spend quite a bit of money on it).
"""
I'd guess it's largely the nature of the Essay as a literary form. Some of the criticisms here are very reminiscent of those Arnauld and Pascal made regarding Montaigne's method and rigor.
True, but somewhat misleading, because lawmakers found other ways to effectively ban cars:
"backlash against these large speedy vehicles resulted in the passage of the Locomotive Act (1865), which required self-propelled vehicles on public roads in the United Kingdom to be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag and blowing a horn"
Anyone who has seen the wrath poured out on people who dislike (or disagree with) the oatmeal on its facebook page has to laugh a bit when the creator -- I forget his name -- is held up as a model of level-headed behavior.
I don't want to speak for the OP but he's probably referring to the character Mickey Mouse, which is already protected effectively in perpetuity by trademark law. So there doesn't seem to be a reason to distinguish copyright terms on that account.
You're right, there is zero logic in it. The whole paragraph is a total muddle really.
For better or worse there are international laws that protect copyright. They're essentially unenforceable. That these industries clamor for more laws and enforcement when the old ones don't work shouldn't surprise anyone.
The comical thing is that people do argue that infringement raises awareness of a product and thereby increases sales. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but if so it would certainly be at cross purposes to a boycott.
Really? I'm starting to feel the opposite: that these arguments by definition are getting tedious and deliberately miss the point. In much the same vein as the "marriage is only between a man and woman" variety.
The English verb "to steal" is certainly capable of meaning "to take without the right" regardless of whether physical property is involved. Not to mention the myriad of common idioms, like "So-and-so stole my idea." What else are people trying to express by its use in this case?
It's clear that the issue here is their legal right to exclusive distribution and transmission (or "state granted monopoly", if you prefer) of their work, not whether or not they "still have a copy". It can be disagreed with, but they have it and others distributing their work without permission diminishes it.
Not saying I disagree with you that it's the wrong way to go about things, but, I think if one is being honest, the argument over the use of word is telling on both sides and that some people are clearly trying to demonize those who use the word, in the same way that they feel they are being demonized by its use against them.
Yes, both sides are playing with semantics and what's more important is that, like a lot of questions of law breaking this boils down to question of rights and doing something which you clearly have no right to. Im not supporting the recording industry in any way but nobody has the rights to intrude upon someone else's, be it a recording company, and if you dont like the way they do things you have the right to refrain from doing business with them, not pirate their stuff.
Quite right. Especially using Valve -- a company that refuses to disclose anything substantive, but could* play the reddit community, who worships it, like a fiddle -- as the prime example that it's a service problem isn't particularly convincing and should be challenged.
* I say 'could'...whether they do or not is unknown to me.
this is probably the other quote you're thinking of. it all seems to be from Gates' perspective, however. Isaacson fundamentally did not understand the relationship between nextstep and mac os x, that's for sure. it really is a dreadful book. i think some of these criticism are overblown tho. i doubt Isaacson is using "kernel of the NeXT technology" in the operating system sense, but who knows given how muddled it all is.
"""
After informing Gassée that Apple was buying NeXT, Amelio had what turned out to be an even more uncomfortable task: telling Bill Gates. 'He went into orbit,' Amelio recalled. Gates found it ridiculous, but perhaps not surprising, that Jobs had pulled off this coup. 'Do you really think Steve Jobs has anything there?' Gates asked Amelio. 'I know his technology, it’s nothing but a warmed-over UNIX, and you’ll never be able to make it work on your machines.' Gates, like Jobs, had a way of working himself up, and he did so now: 'Don’t you understand that Steve doesn’t know anything about technology? He’s just a super salesman. I can’t believe you’re making such a stupid decision. . . . He doesn’t know anything about engineering, and 99% of what he says and thinks is wrong. What the hell are you buying that garbage for?' Years later, when I raised it with him, Gates not recall being that upset. The purchase of NeXT, he argued, did not really give Apple a new operating system. 'Amelio paid a lot for NeXT, and let’s be frank, the NeXT OS was never really used.' Instead the purchase ended up bringing in Avie Tevanian, who could help the existing Apple operating system evolve so that it eventually incorporated the kernel of the NeXT technology. Gates knew that the deal was destined to bring Jobs back to power. 'But that was a twist of fate,' he said. 'What they ended up buying was a guy who most people would not have predicted would be a great CEO, because he didn’t have much experience at it, but he was a brilliant guy with great design taste and great engineering taste. He suppressed his craziness enough to get himself appointed interim CEO.'
"""
Isaacson, Walter (2011-10-24). Steve Jobs (pp. 302-303). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
That's the passage. How could he not challenge Gates on that? Or clarify it. I'm not sure if he gets 100 percent what Gates is saying. This passage is just not accurate.
OS X's importance to Apple can't be understated. Apple, the company that kicked off the personal computer revolution and gave us the GUI, was behind technologically in the mid-1990s. Apple was in such bad shape that they had to buy someone else's OS. Can you imagine the current Apple allowing iOS to get into such bad shape that they have to buy someone else's mobile OS?
There is a big story there, and Isaacson doesn't touch it because he doesn't see the story. And this doesn't have to be a technical story.
It's a story that anyone can understand: Here is a tech company that didn't have good tech anymore. How did this happen and how did Jobs and NeXT save Apple with modern tech?
I haven't read the book, but is the thesis of this discussion that the book is fatally flawed because Isaacson didn't challenge Bill Gates on the details of how NeXTStep evolved into OS X? This doesn't really seem like THE crucial moment in the entire life of Steve Jobs.
It's an important part of Apple's story. It shows that Isaacson didn't get the important of NeXT to Apple and how the NeXT purchase saved Apple. It was more than just getting Jobs back.
A big question I'd have is, why did NeXT have so much better technology than Apple?
http://web.archive.org/web/20090629190857/http://tvshack.net...
The FAQ is particularly amusing:
""" 7- Why are there so many Megavideo hosted videos on TV Shack? Can't you use another video host?
A: TV Shack staff is currently working toward providing many different alternatives to hosting sites that are accepted for submission. There is a movement taking place (thanks to our regulars) to provide an alternate link for all Megavideo links on the website as evidenced by The Megavideo Replacement Initiative. We have very little control over where videos are hosted being that we are not the ones hosting the videos ourselves. TV Shack simply links to these hosting sites. Nevertheless, please ask yourselves, would you rather not watch the video at all? Megavideo has "bad" aspects to it, such as limiting the time that you can watch. Fortunately, it also has very good aspects, such as good quality, very fast streaming and fast upload abilities.
Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). The following prices are in US dollars!
Prices for 1 adult to go to the movie theater:
Typical US movie theater ticket: $10 Typical US nacho-coke or popcorn-coke combo: $10 Typical US parking (if it's in garage such as at the mall): $5
Total for 1 adult to go to the movies: $25
Prices for 1 season of a popular show:
Scrubs - The Complete First Season (2001) bought at Walmart (link) (it's the cheapest place from what I have seen and heard):
Discounted: $34.86 List Price: $49.99
So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time.
In other words, yes, we will try to find videos on other hosts for our users. We will even try to provide alternate links for you to watch the video on whichever host you enjoy. However, when there is no other host which has the video, we will link to Megavideo because something is better than nothing (or having to spend quite a bit of money on it). """