The Anthony Cumia Show

DiggerNick

Well-Known Member
Donator
All this shit over Anthony?

His book is a shameless whitewash, no question. But who expected anything different? The only time Ant ever stepped outside of his comfort zone was for the Big Jay roast, and it was a disaster. And he was still unable to admit to it.
 
The only time Ant ever stepped outside of his comfort zone was for the Big Jay roast, and it was a disaster. And he was still unable to admit to it.
""It looks like the 50s space program here."

Maybe that line used to get the lols when he posted it on Stormfront years ago but to think that would work when he was surrounded by people that actually know comedy is internationally beloved guitar superstar Brother Joe Cumia level retarded.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Clearly, you don't either.
I absolutely know what I’m talking about when it comes to high value intellectual property, as a matter of fact I’m going to a Christmas party tonight with about a dozen IP attorneys.
So, you haven’t shown us yet where the evil eggplant was mean to you
 

Lord Zero

Registered User
I absolutely know what I’m talking about when it comes to high value intellectual property, as a matter of fact I’m going to a Christmas party tonight with about a dozen IP attorneys.
And yet I, who doesn't even believe in intellectual property, had to explain what a royalty was to you.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
And yet I, who doesn't even believe in intellectual property, had to explain what a royalty was to you.
:rolleyes: Are your eyes brown? Because you’re full of shit you delusional butt pirate
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
That’s completely deranged. The only one who is to blame for suicide is the coward that killed themself.
Yes and no. Ultimately yes, a person who commits suicide is responsible for their own actions, but a person’s suicide doesn’t always exist in a vacuum. There are people out there that can make a person feel absolutely worthless. Suicides related to being mercilessly bullied are well documented. I don’t know if any of that applied to Steve C though.

What I do think is bullshit is people being held legally accountable for someone’s suicide. There was that thing at Rutgers years ago when a guy’s roommate secretly taped him banging another guy. Gay guy ends up jumping off the GWB. I forget all the details, but I believe he was given some kind of charge responsible with the death. I guess you could have charged the guy with illegal surveillance of some kind of invasion of privacy thing, but anything related to the actual suicide is bullshit. There was also the more recent case of that that chick convincing her “boyfriend” to kill himslef. And she was convicted of the responsibilitm charge against her.
 

Foggy

all mayo is actually my cum
Donator
:rolleyes: Are your eyes brown? Because you’re full of shit you delusional butt pirate
Why be gay when you can make the sex with this



I've never been hard and jelly at the same time.
 
Why be gay when you can make the sex with this



I've never been hard and jelly at the same time.

In Anthony's defense, he moved on from dating simians to dating the autistic and transgender which I guess is a step up on the biological species list.

 

Lord Zero

Registered User
:rolleyes: Are your eyes brown?
Why yes they are, and they're dazzling.
Because you’re full of shit you delusional butt pirate
I'm willing to bet that you've never researched the history, philosophy, or full economic effect of the concept of intellectual property as presented by either side of the debate, pro or con. So you don't get to throw out terms like "delusional" at someone who has simply because you're comfortable with (and personally profit, via marriage, from) the status quo.
 
Last edited:

Lord Zero

Registered User
In Anthony's defense, he moved on from dating simians to dating the autistic and transgender which I guess is a step up on the biological species list.

The fuck is with that shirt he's wearing? He's dressed like an extra in Clerks.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Why yes they are, and they're dazzling.

I'm willing to bet that you've never researched the history, philosophy, or full economic effect of the concept of intellectual property as presented by either side of the debate, pro or con. So you don't get to throw out terms like "delusional" at someone who has simply because you're comfortable with (and personally profit, via marriage, from) the status quo.
Huh, there you go again, you do realize that I was a semipro photographer for close to 20 years? That I worked in the photo processing business for 15. And part of my job there was to produce “copy work”? And I had to take training on intellectual property protection, long before I met my wife? Who happens to be an intellectual property attorney for a large multinational company. Anyone that doesn’t believe that a creator/inventor does not deserve protection against the theft of their property is an absolute shit head, and, a shit head who obviously has never actually produced anything, instead you think it’s perfectly acceptable to steal the labor and talent of others. Bravo leach
 

Lord Zero

Registered User
Huh, there you go again, you do realize that I was a semipro photographer for close to 20 years? That I worked in the photo processing business for 15. And part of my job there was to produce “copy work”? And I had to take training on intellectual property protection, long before I met my wife? Who happens to be an intellectual property attorney for a large multinational company. Anyone that doesn’t believe that a creator/inventor does not deserve protection against the theft of their property is an absolute shit head, and, a shit head who obviously has never actually produced anything, instead you think it’s perfectly acceptable to steal the labor and talent of others. Bravo leach
Intellectual property laws don't "protect" inventors or creators; they protect the IP owner, who is, quite often:
1. The first of several people with the same idea to make it to a patent office, giving them the exclusive right to profit off that idea while locking the other inventors out of the profitable production of their own inventions. (E.g., all of the people who invented the telephone besides Alexander Graham Bell.)​
2. A bulk purchaser of IP, like Disney, or a publisher for whom a creator works, like Disney.​

In the realm of creators, let's use Batman as an example. Who created Batman? On the title page of every comic or movie featuring him, there appears in the opening credits the line, "Batman created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger."* But that's not really true. Bob Kane and Bill Finger were initial creators, obviously, but the Batman we see today was created just as much by later writers and artists, such as Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Paul Dini, Alan Moore, David Mazzucchelli, Brian Bolland, Jeph Loeb, Tim Sale, Bruce Timm, Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo, just to name few. (And it is just a few; those are just the writers and pencillers, not even the inkers and colorists. And that's not even touching on the people who create the actual physical or digitized final product, who I would argue deserve as much compensation as the writers and artists.) Batman is essentially new American folklore, being in a constant state of creation at the hands of many people.

*Bob Kane created the name "Bat-Man" and Bill Finger created the look of Batman and the name "Bruce Wayne". They created the rest together. For years, though, it was just, "Batman created by Bob Kane," and Bill Finger's estate had to fight for credit.

These people get compensated handsomely, of course (unlike the aforementioned printers and uploaders), but they just make a fraction of what DC itself (and above it, Warner Bros., WarnerMedia above that, and above that, as of June of this year, AT&T) makes, despite the fact that the legal entities known as "DC Comics" and the rest didn't do anything to create Batman then or now. They're entitled to nothing beyond what they invested, plus a risk premium. But because DC "owns" Batman, they (read: whoever is on the board of directors at the time) get to perpetually skim the profits generated by the labor of others: the writers, pencillers, inkers, colorists, print shop workers, digital distribution personnel, etc. If the entire production staff of all of the Batman titles from writer to printing press tech left to go make Batman comics independently, these creators and producers would be sued into oblivion, because DC "owns" Batman and therefore "owns" those comics that others produced with their own equipment and stock material. And if those comics featured appearances by other new folklore characters like Superman or Wonder Woman, they'd be sued for three times as much.

That's one character in one medium. That's not even mentioning all of the small moving parts that go into making a Justice League movie, the bulk of the profits from which go to DC and Warner Bros., which made nothing.

Property rights developed and evolved to deal with issues of scarcity whereas intellectual property relies on the state creating artificial scarcity. (And scarcity doesn't get much more artificial than limiting the creation of a folk story to one company or licensed group.) "Intellectual property", really meaning ideas and knowledge, aren't property at all and "protecting" them requires not only infringing on rights of actual, physical property to enforce (e.g., the independent-produced Batman comic. For an even more blatant example of this in the tech sector, look no further than the fact that no one can open a store dedicated to fixing Apple products without buying a license from Apple even if the store is openly advertised as being completely independent and unaffiliated with them and even though "Apple", like "DC", didn't really invent jack shit), but claiming the product of others' work as your own.


I started responding to another of your posts on this topic in another thread, but I think it makes more sense to respond to it here.
THE FEZ MAN said:
Hey shit head, she’s in charge of a 12 billion dollar patent portfolio for a fortune 50 pharmaceutical company
She's an IP lawyer for a pharmaceutical company!?! That's one of the most corrupt industries on Earth, and intellectual property laws are what prop it up; a huge chunk of the R&D goes into inventing and patenting redundant drugs to stop or slow the creation of cheap generic alternatives to expense brand-name drugs. What IP laws protect Big Pharma from is improvement, innovation, and competition.
...and works from home 50% of the time, so you don’t think I can say “hey honey how much do you think it costs a year to purchase the license for 30 u2 songs” and get an answer immediately? Or, I can walk over to a book shelf full of law books and look up a standard license agreement?
So your argument for JoeH getting paid mad royalties is that he pays U2 for a license?
 
Last edited:
Top