kvnchrist

I am a confirmed bachelor, I've had my chances when I was young, but I guess I was to stupid or just lacked enough confidence in myself to take on the responsibility of another person. I didn't even think about that another person could add to my world instead of detract from it. Not until I was old enough to notice that the flash and glitter of the world of my youth was only window dressing. The world has changed considerably, since those times and those I knew as a youth, are either dead, because they remained in the world of their youth, or had grown past me and had made preparations for a better life I was too blind to see. I guess it is my experiences with myself that drives me to take the viewpoint I have about Governments roll in our lives. I know personally how it effected me, when I didn't take responsibility for myself. It lead to having nothing and living my life, hand to mouth and being dependent on the good graces of those who have made it in life. Though I hold a job and pay my way, I have nothing of substance to show for working my whole life. I have recently been looking, but All that I have found are those like myself that have sloughed off their lives and now just look for someone to cling to so they can continue being the persons they always have been. I dislike what I've done with my life and refuse to take on take on a mirror of myself. I think in all relationships each person need to reduce the baggage they bring into it and repair their situation enough to have something to bring to the table. If not then I will be a drain on the one that will have me. As far as traits go, I think honesty, trust and loyalty is the key for the starting of a relationship. I think without it, there is no relationship. I thank True love comes with the finding of those traits that you admire in others along with the individual quirks and individual styles that bring the joy into your life that has never been there before. To me I need someone to stimulate my mind as well as my soul, but not enough that the relationship isn't too one sided. I need a partner, not a teacher. I want someone to experience life with, to dance and sing together, to frolic in the sand, to observe the beauty in this world that I've forgotten in the hustle and bustle of this pressure cooker we call life.

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority? It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products. The problem is securing such an agreement, for every case. If just this site has to contact 4 or 5 different publishers, imagine what other sites would have to do, let alone how many those publishers must get. THAT is the stupidity of this bill. It doesn't pertain just to illegally uploaded movies and video, but to ANY "public transmission of copyrighted work". And THAT is the problem. I always thought that forums like this were already known to the people who own the material we are discussing. It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes such products. What financial loss could be applied to having pictures, that promote a product. My whole take from this is that people who can be proven that they have caused a financial loose to the owner of the material need only be worried about it. Maybe I'm above my head here, if I am then I stand corrected. Well, that would all depend on the definition of "financial loss". Some could interpret the posting of material from a game as an 'unveiling of a mystery', which may prompt the viewer to NOT buy the game....... (I know, quite a stretch, but, given some of the crap I have seen fly in our legal system, SOMEONE would attempt just such an argument.) Well, I've seen a grandma sue McDonalds for getting burned after she put a cup of steaming coffee between her legs and remove the top, in a moving car, so I can see your scenario happening. My only hope that if it does happen the judge will be fair enough to require satisfactory proof of this loss.

I love to talk with people from other countries. I just don't want to do it, when I need assistance on something that I'm interested in and might not be able to communicate my problem clearly.

If you had a Child come up missing and you found the person who was responsible. If this person was a known sexual predator and no one but you knew you had this person. Would you do everything in your power, including torture to find your child, or would you turn this person over to the authorities, after seeing these people lawyer up and have their rights protected, while your child is placed on the back burner.

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority? It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes products. The problem is securing such an agreement, for every case. If just this site has to contact 4 or 5 different publishers, imagine what other sites would have to do, let alone how many those publishers must get. THAT is the stupidity of this bill. It doesn't pertain just to illegally uploaded movies and video, but to ANY "public transmission of copyrighted work". And THAT is the problem. I always thought that forums like this were already known to the people who own the material we are discussing. It would seem to me that a forum like this promotes such products. What financial loss could be applied to having pictures, that promote a product. My whole take from this is that people who can be proven that they have caused a financial loose to the owner of the material need only be worried about it. Maybe I'm above my head here, if I am then I stand corrected.

I know there are a lot of people who are not from the U.S. but I would be interested in finding out, where you were and what you were doing, when you heard of this event. I remember it well, because I was had just delivered my load inside the beltway, in Washington D.C. I had pulled around to a street, where the consinee said I could take my break. I'd just stopped the when I heard a knock on my driver's side door. I looked down and there was a guy standing there. I was hestant to open up, since there are so many panhandlers everywhere. Finally I did and the guy told me that a plane just flew into the World trde center and the Pentagon. I was less than 5 miles fron the pentagon, so I was almost sure I'd have heard something like that. I was first skeptical, but he said, turn on your radio and I did. A terrible day, for a lot of people.

Would they be illegal if there was an agreement between the owner of this site and the owning authority?

Lets stop the quote pyramid here. You know very well what my point is. If the companies don't care why would they sue. You seem to think that laws are not disobeyed anywhere in the world. All you need to do is go to any torrent site to see how many people obey laws already on the books. You guys seem to think this bill is some type of a death sentence. Companies don't have the time or money to go around stamping out every fire that pops up. They are not going to shut down anybody, unless there is a clear effect on their bottom line. It's simply not cost efficient. My entire problem with this whole thing is the seeming overwhelming attitude on the internet that property don't matter and profit is an ugly word. I've had this conversation before, on other sites and it is always the same thingt. The nasty companies are out to destroy everyone's right to someone else's property and how dare they take actions to protect what is theirs. I bet if these companies stopped creating these products, it would be there fault as well. Illegally downloading games and streaming video from the games are not even close to being the same thing. For profit and morality of companies, that's for another thread. Also, people don't like to obey copyright laws. How would this bill help then? Who's property is it? What is the definition of theft. If the laws that have been created before this bill was created, were obeyed, do you really think anyone would have brought this bill up. There hardly would have been the need. Theft is obtaining someones property without the contest of the owner. That is not what streaming video games is, that is what downloading video games is. What images are being used to create these streaming threads Who is the owning authority? Precisely, which will again make the authorities create another bill, and another one after that. I have my values, which I have stated. My question to you is if everybody will end up doing what they want anyway, why is this bill so appalling to so many.

http://youtu.be/GJtq6OmD-_Y

I'm from Kansas City, Ks. I spent several years in the military, spending several years in Korea and Germany and ending up back in Kansas. Big thrill, huh!

Lets stop the quote pyramid here. You know very well what my point is. If the companies don't care why would they sue. You seem to think that laws are not disobeyed anywhere in the world. All you need to do is go to any torrent site to see how many people obey laws already on the books. You guys seem to think this bill is some type of a death sentence. Companies don't have the time or money to go around stamping out every fire that pops up. They are not going to shut down anybody, unless there is a clear effect on their bottom line. It's simply not cost efficient. My entire problem with this whole thing is the seeming overwhelming attitude on the internet that property don't matter and profit is an ugly word. I've had this conversation before, on other sites and it is always the same thingt. The nasty companies are out to destroy everyone's right to someone else's property and how dare they take actions to protect what is theirs. I bet if these companies stopped creating these products, it would be there fault as well. Illegally downloading games and streaming video from the games are not even close to being the same thing. For profit and morality of companies, that's for another thread. Also, people don't like to obey copyright laws. How would this bill help then? Who's property is it? What is the definition of theft. If the laws that have been created before this bill was created, were obeyed, do you really think anyone would have brought this bill up. There hardly would have been the need.

Lets stop the quote pyramid here. You know very well what my point is. If the companies don't care why would they sue. You seem to think that laws are not disobeyed anywhere in the world. All you need to do is go to any torrent site to see how many people obey laws already on the books. You guys seem to think this bill is some type of a death sentence. Companies don't have the time or money to go around stamping out every fire that pops up. They are not going to shut down anybody, unless there is a clear effect on their bottom line. It's simply not cost efficient. My entire problem with this whole thing is the seeming overwhelming attitude on the internet that property don't matter and profit is an ugly word. I've had this conversation before, on other sites and it is always the same thingt. The nasty companies are out to destroy everyone's right to someone else's property and how dare they take actions to protect what is theirs. I bet if these companies stopped creating these products, it would be their fault as well.

You are also talking about reputable dealers, not mom and pop people like I was speaking about. There is a difference between someone potentially making money off something that carrys the likeness of a copyrighted material and someone just popping together a vid for show. What I can't really understand is why are we defending people doing nefarious things with the property of others. Don't people have the right to defend their property? If not, why should they even consider putting forth the effort to create anything at all. People do have the right to defend their property. The game companies oppose this bill and people buy games to play them. I still can't understand why you think this bill is fine. If they were losing profit they would support the bill. I don't like thieves. Not in any fashion or form. Wither they wear a business suit, an evangelistic collar or a hackers smile. I couldn't care less about if I can benefit by their actions. Nothing is free and end the end people have to pay one way or the other. People who shoplift, cause the price of groceries to rise. People who steal from businesses cause the businesses to raise their prices. I'd rather cut out the masked middleman and purchase the original product from the original owner. And just how does this bill address that? Does it make anything that isn't taking money out of someones pocket now, any more illegal? How does posting gameplay footage as a walkthru, or whathaveyou, or even a demo of a mod..... qualify as piracy? Is the poster making money? Is the poster that uploads it taking money away from anyone? If this bill passes, the demo video for Reclaiming Sancre Tor becomes illegal. How does that make any sense at all?? It puts control back into the hands of those who own the product. If you want to do something with it, you ask first. There are people who sell cheat guides that make money, both for them and for the owner. It doesn't side step anyone. I'm sorry. I'm old school. I'm not apart of this internet age where ethics are an option as long as someone can claim there are benefits to the small guy. Well we shouldn't even be discussing gaming on this forum should we? Lets go ask the companies before we start posting. You seem to think that you should ask the creator to do ANYTHING even if it doesn't effect profit. It never fails to amuse me when people try to take things to the extremes when they get frustrated over debates.

You are also talking about reputable dealers, not mom and pop people like I was speaking about. There is a difference between someone potentially making money off something that carrys the likeness of a copyrighted material and someone just popping together a vid for show. What I can't really understand is why are we defending people doing nefarious things with the property of others. Don't people have the right to defend their property? If not, why should they even consider putting forth the effort to create anything at all. People do have the right to defend their property. The game companies oppose this bill and people buy games to play them. I still can't understand why you think this bill is fine. If they were losing profit they would support the bill. I don't like thieves. Not in any fashion or form. Wither they wear a business suit, an evangelistic collar or a hackers smile. I couldn't care less about if I can benefit by their actions. Nothing is free and end the end people have to pay one way or the other. People who shoplift, cause the price of groceries to rise. People who steal from businesses cause the businesses to raise their prices. I'd rather cut out the masked middleman and purchase the original product from the original owner. And just how does this bill address that? Does it make anything that isn't taking money out of someones pocket now, any more illegal? How does posting gameplay footage as a walkthru, or whathaveyou, or even a demo of a mod..... qualify as piracy? Is the poster making money? Is the poster that uploads it taking money away from anyone? If this bill passes, the demo video for Reclaiming Sancre Tor becomes illegal. How does that make any sense at all?? It puts control back into the hands of those who own the product. If you want to do something with it, you ask first. There are people who sell cheat guides that make money, both for them and for the owner. It doesn't side step anyone. I'm sorry. I'm old school. I'm not apart of this internet age where ethics are an option as long as someone can claim there are benefits to the small guy.

I don't see how. Most people are born a complete and total invalid. <snip> What I meant, was that a person is not born with social and political laws hardwired into their brain; those things come over time. In other words, a person is born to this world with absolutely no bounds, until society (and the laws of physics :rolleyes: ), tell them otherwise. I know what you mean, man. I don't think you take your words to the logical conclusion. Being an invalid doesn't necessarily mean a physical abnormality. Being unaware is an intrinsic part of being a child. This is a total state that works both ways. being unaware of both your restrictions and capabilities doesn't make you free. It makes you an invalid.

You are also talking about reputable dealers, not mom and pop people like I was speaking about. There is a difference between someone potentially making money off something that carrys the likeness of a copyrighted material and someone just popping together a vid for show. What I can't really understand is why are we defending people doing nefarious things with the property of others. Don't people have the right to defend their property? If not, why should they even consider putting forth the effort to create anything at all. People do have the right to defend their property. The game companies oppose this bill and people buy games to play them. I still can't understand why you think this bill is fine. If they were losing profit they would support the bill. I don't like thieves. Not in any fashion or form. Wither they wear a business suit, an evangelistic collar or a hackers smile. I couldn't care less about if I can benefit by their actions. Nothing is free and end the end people have to pay one way or the other. People who shoplift, cause the price of groceries to rise. People who steal from businesses cause the businesses to raise their prices. I'd rather cut out the masked middleman and purchase the original product from the original owner.

You are also talking about reputable dealers, not mom and pop people like I was speaking about. There is a difference between someone potentially making money off something that carrys the likeness of a copyrighted material and someone just popping together a vid for show. What I can't really understand is why are we defending people doing nefarious things with the property of others. Don't people have the right to defend their property? If not, why should they even consider putting forth the effort to create anything at all.

Somehow, I think the picture is in error.

Yet that won't stop them from Trumping up charges just to get it taken to court. Cause there is someone out there that would really actually push a case. You know how? They could claim why bother buying the game when you can catch the story by watching someone else play. Or they could claim that no ne bought the game because someone streamed video of how bad the game play or story was. You know it to be true that some company would claim that. What I know is that companies are out there for the big bucks and there isn't that much to be had when you pay a big time lawyer to go after something that doesn't effect their bottom line. At most they will send out a cease and desist notice. If someone wants to push them, then they are just asking to be made an example of. This bill is just a cover all bill that will give the companies the tools to go after people that are causing them trouble. I still say there is no reason why these companies would go after someone just posting some small sample of their product. Most companies do more than this, just to advertise. While you may not see any reason for it, that does not necessarily imply the companies think the same way you do. If they see an opportunity to prosecute a case, that may or may not have any merit, if it 'sets an example' that using the material in ANY way that doesn't make the company money...... they will sue. Corporate america is just like that. (even if it is FREE advertising.....) Companies think of the bottom line. If they bring suit against someone who can't pay, either way and they can't show where they are loosing money, then they will be the one's that front the entire cost of the litigation. Court fees and everything. Companies are not stupid. Ifr they were they wouldn't be companies they would be bankrupt.

This bill has nothing to do with piracy, I have said that quite a few times now... Streaming copyrighted movies and TV shows is already illegal. Downloading games is already illegal. Read the second post in this thread. If the owning authority has been financial effected, then what else can you call it. You want to use someone else's property, you ask them People buy games to play them, not to watch them. Its illogical to think that you can lose profit from streaming game play. Game companies do not want this bill to pass, do you really think this bill is for good? again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case. That won't stop them from suing though. Seems everyone loves litigation. May I remind you guys that in many states the looser has to pay the court costs. The corporate world is far less sue happy as many individuals are. They have much more to loose by running around trying to stamp out small fires everywhere.

I don't see how. Most people are born a complete and total invalid. The only freedom they have is to die of neglect. If, when they grow older they neglect themselves and what is around them then they don't grow up, but remain a child that quickly looses any freedoms because society as a whole will institute their own structure around them. The prisons are filled with people that expressed their versions of freedom. Total freedom never works, unless it can be supported by something. I have all the freedom to become a male model as long as food stamps are involved.

Yet that won't stop them from Trumping up charges just to get it taken to court. Cause there is someone out there that would really actually push a case. You know how? They could claim why bother buying the game when you can catch the story by watching someone else play. Or they could claim that no ne bought the game because someone streamed video of how bad the game play or story was. You know it to be true that some company would claim that. What I know is that companies are out there for the big bucks and there isn't that much to be had when you pay a big time lawyer to go after something that doesn't effect their bottom line. At most they will send out a cease and desist notice. If someone wants to push them, then they are just asking to be made an example of. This bill is just a cover all bill that will give the companies the tools to go after people that are causing them trouble. I still say there is no reason why these companies would go after someone just posting some small sample of their product. Most companies do more than this, just to advertise.

It is hard to understand what freedom is, when you grow up in a world that freedom is a watchword that is painted over everything, Like a familiar pet, you don't see any changes in it, as others morph it and shape it to their desires. You simply acknowledge it always being their and continue with your lives. But leave this place for awhile and then return and the stark reality of what has changed is a shock. You noticed that your once pudgy little pet has become a cadaverous reflection of it's former glory. Your once familiar room is now so small you hardly recognize it. It Is hard to appreciate freedom, unless that freedom is tested. I've noticed that the ones that truly appreciate what freedom is aren't the people who live in it. We who do so are just bickering amongst ourselves over trivial matters. Those who actually appreciate it are those who see it for the first time and embrace it, because what they have known, is nothing like it.

This bill has nothing to do with piracy, I have said that quite a few times now... Streaming copyrighted movies and TV shows is already illegal. Downloading games is already illegal. Read the second post in this thread. If the owning authority has been financial effected, then what else can you call it. You want to use someone else's property, you ask them People buy games to play them, not to watch them. Its illogical to think that you can lose profit from streaming game play. Game companies do not want this bill to pass, do you really think this bill is for good? again read the post. If they aren't loosing money they won't have a case.

I loved the beetle . I remember many times skating across many streets and avenues that other cars couldn't, and remembered seeing envy in the eyes of those who joked about my little car, when the weather was better. I really don't like the new bug. I think it's the looks. I might just be going through the same mindset I had, when I saw STAR TREK TNG, when I was expecting more of the original STAR TREK.. I can't help it. I'm a nostalgia addict. Just look at my avatar.