Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 3:31pm
Re: Re:
I don't follow all this entirely. Don't we have some serious issues with the accuracy of the presumed damages being an order of magnitude higher than actual damages? Isn't that what this is about?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 3:25pm
Re:
More like cutting off your head to spite one of your nose hairs ... If it were anyone else I would have assumed it was sarcasm to illustrate absurdity, but I'm second guessing the author's intent there.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 1:19pm
Optimism
Perhaps this will get some sort of reasonable and well thought out (and well promoted/funded) response by Google or Microsoft about how silly this plan is? And perhaps that reasonable and well thought out response will draw light to these sorts of laws/problems in general?
I mean it shouldn't even take an alliance of these companies to fight this, it is the French we're talking about right?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 6 Jan 2010 @ 2:33pm
Re: Other considerations
"... if in a film a sign promoting Techdirt with Mike's photo on it is easily seen in the background of a scene depicting graphic child rape and murder, you would likely have an excellent case that such use of your trademarked name (assuming for the moment it is trademarked) and your image has caused you damage in the community by associating it with an image of an heinous crime."
Even in this case, is the best solution suing over such defamation? Is it worthwhile and effective to make a law to cover such things explicitly (putting peoples faces next to heinous crimes)? Is that something that's enforceable/determinable or even necessary to enforce?
If I call Mike (or you) a baby raporist (or make a film implying such) then whose reputation is more harmed, his or mine?
Despite the personal attacks, I think Henry Emrich really is criticizing your approach more than anything else.
"Anti-Mike" wanted (as per usual) to make a big effort to find some kind of "gripe" with what Mike had posted. As per usual, he failed. What possible relevance was it whether the original question the statement responds to was "leading" or not?
Take out the personal attacks ("as per usual"), and I think it's a rational concern that he raises to your response.
I'm still having trouble finding the "fuck-off" tone in their response. The exact quote in question seems to indicate "We believe the lack of transparency is unhelpful and do not believe that it is in the public interest." Why can't that be taken literally? The UK delegation said that, in context to a question asking about said transparency (or lack thereof)?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 6 Jan 2010 @ 9:05am
Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement
Is the actual internet location of the image considered the "display" of the image? or is it's inclusion on a web page considered the "display"? or is it it's final display on a computer monitor (or is it the code that instructed said computer monitor display? (which code?))?
I'm honestly confused/curious about this display thing. I've never heard it brought up before, so I can only assume that it's just obvious the actual internet location of the image is the display (as that would nullify the argument a bit), but why is that obvious?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 6 Jan 2010 @ 9:01am
Re: Re: Permission
You've certainly brought something up there about 17 USC section 106(5) that I don't think anyone else is responding too, but I don't think you can flat out deny the practical matter of the distributability of something that is placed on the web, regardless of the legal implications of such distribution. Even if it's illegal, it's most certainly very very very very easy, and not necessarily very easy to stop. So your response of "You're just simply wrong" I think simplifies things a little more than what the reality of the situation is.
All that said, Mike or Ima, got something to say to dnball's 17 USC section 106(5) display argument? I'd like to hear it ...
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 11:57am
Re:
And here we get to the core of the issue, Kyle's mom and the PTA she leads with an iron fist. How do you fight these book burners when sane and reasoned arguments fail?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 30 Dec 2009 @ 9:01am
Re: Streisand Effect?
Agreed.
Still, Google trends is an awesome indicator/proof of the Streisand effect, and I have little doubt this one will be one more notch in that belt when the stats rotate into there.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 4:40pm
Re: Impossible
So would it have been possible to spend 12 years developing their own engine to get ahead of everyone else's engines developed, improved, developed in that same time period?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 4:35pm
Re:
I understand you come from a background in music licensing, and maybe that's a different situation.
In software, licensing pieces is a greater hindrance to development than anything else imaginable. Software is iterative and reusable. When you use building blocks that cost money and require licensing, the costs of a potential end product grow infinitely because it's software built on top of software built on top of software ... etc.
There's 2 reasons royalties/licensed building blocks are used: (1) A standard has been built on them, and it's impossible to rewrite something to reproduce similar functionality (2) Short sighted thinking (intentionally or unintentionally) that gives the software developed no chance of growth or being reused elsewhere.
The friction created by royalties and licensing in software is immense, and growing.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 4:28pm
Re:
Having looked over some of the details in that opinion, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying?
The court agreed that Microsoft infringed on several of the concepts in the patent, and awarded i4i 200 million dollars for this infringement. Microsoft put together a product that included a myriad of concepts, a thousand times more than what's in the patent application that people wanted to buy and convinced them to do so. They succeeded in the market with their own code. I4i filed a patent application for some concepts that gave them a monopoly on the idea, which they attempted to sell to Microsoft.
Which is the sort of innovation you want to encourage? Patenting concepts or creating products? This reads like a repeat of windshield wiper dude to me ...
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 2:39pm
Why doesn't anyone care about the gas stations?
We have to protect the gas stations! Millions of dollars and thousands of jobs will be lost in years coming due to rampant growth of efficient electric motorcycles and cars.
Where will we buy our sugary snacks when these oasis's of the highways are gone? Nevermind that they were never actually in the business of selling gas (selling cds) and that this effort is really to protect the oil cartel (RIAA) or that gas stations will continue to exist through pumpless convenience stores like circle k and 7-11 (independent artists, new labels), we have to stop electric vehicles now before we lose our sugary gas station snacks for good!!
(1) It's not necessary, as demonstrated by those rights holders who have moved forward (and by those others who will continue to do so)
(2) How is it a fair trade to break some consumers devices in order for a rights holder to be more confident? I mean, even if I accepted your argument that it's necessary (which I don't), how does that make sense for people that expect their devices to just keep working?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 1:21pm
Re: Patent protection
If there's a better case for why patents have failed in the real world, I don't know what it is. You have to have patents to defend yourself because everyone infringes and they know it (and the only reason us little guys get by is because we're too small of a target).
So many are aware of the reality of the situation, why do so few make the logical jump to "patents bad"?
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Umm, yeah
Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself
And then we get a redaction directly after the statement "Viacom has identified 63,000 unauthorized video clips ...".
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re: Re:
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re:
On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels
Optimism
I mean it shouldn't even take an alliance of these companies to fight this, it is the French we're talking about right?
On the post: Billboard Model Sues Filmmakers, Because Her Billboard Appears For 12 Seconds In The Movie
Re: Other considerations
Even in this case, is the best solution suing over such defamation? Is it worthwhile and effective to make a law to cover such things explicitly (putting peoples faces next to heinous crimes)? Is that something that's enforceable/determinable or even necessary to enforce?
If I call Mike (or you) a baby raporist (or make a film implying such) then whose reputation is more harmed, his or mine?
On the post: UK Agrees That ACTA Secrecy Is Not In The Public Interest
Re: Re: Re: Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
"Anti-Mike" wanted (as per usual) to make a big effort to find some kind of "gripe" with what Mike had posted. As per usual, he failed. What possible relevance was it whether the original question the statement responds to was "leading" or not?
Take out the personal attacks ("as per usual"), and I think it's a rational concern that he raises to your response.
I'm still having trouble finding the "fuck-off" tone in their response. The exact quote in question seems to indicate "We believe the lack of transparency is unhelpful and do not believe that it is in the public interest." Why can't that be taken literally? The UK delegation said that, in context to a question asking about said transparency (or lack thereof)?
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement
I'm honestly confused/curious about this display thing. I've never heard it brought up before, so I can only assume that it's just obvious the actual internet location of the image is the display (as that would nullify the argument a bit), but why is that obvious?
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Permission
All that said, Mike or Ima, got something to say to dnball's 17 USC section 106(5) display argument? I'd like to hear it ...
On the post: Why Schools Should Learn To Use Online Services Like Facebook & YouTube Rather Than Banning Them
Re:
On the post: Is It Illegal To Commit Seppukoo On Your Facebook Account?
Re: Streisand Effect?
Still, Google trends is an awesome indicator/proof of the Streisand effect, and I have little doubt this one will be one more notch in that belt when the stats rotate into there.
On the post: CAFC Upholds Huge Fine; Injunction Against Selling Microsoft Word
Re:
Hooray, small guy gets big payout from big company, who cares why or if it makes any sense at all, it's a compelling story.
On the post: Behind The Scenes Of The Duke Nukem Vaporware Party And Demise
Re: Impossible
On the post: CAFC Upholds Huge Fine; Injunction Against Selling Microsoft Word
Re:
In software, licensing pieces is a greater hindrance to development than anything else imaginable. Software is iterative and reusable. When you use building blocks that cost money and require licensing, the costs of a potential end product grow infinitely because it's software built on top of software built on top of software ... etc.
There's 2 reasons royalties/licensed building blocks are used: (1) A standard has been built on them, and it's impossible to rewrite something to reproduce similar functionality (2) Short sighted thinking (intentionally or unintentionally) that gives the software developed no chance of growth or being reused elsewhere.
The friction created by royalties and licensing in software is immense, and growing.
On the post: CAFC Upholds Huge Fine; Injunction Against Selling Microsoft Word
Re:
The court agreed that Microsoft infringed on several of the concepts in the patent, and awarded i4i 200 million dollars for this infringement. Microsoft put together a product that included a myriad of concepts, a thousand times more than what's in the patent application that people wanted to buy and convinced them to do so. They succeeded in the market with their own code. I4i filed a patent application for some concepts that gave them a monopoly on the idea, which they attempted to sell to Microsoft.
Which is the sort of innovation you want to encourage? Patenting concepts or creating products? This reads like a repeat of windshield wiper dude to me ...
On the post: Understanding The Decline And Fall Of The Major Record Labels
Why doesn't anyone care about the gas stations?
Where will we buy our sugary snacks when these oasis's of the highways are gone? Nevermind that they were never actually in the business of selling gas (selling cds) and that this effort is really to protect the oil cartel (RIAA) or that gas stations will continue to exist through pumpless convenience stores like circle k and 7-11 (independent artists, new labels), we have to stop electric vehicles now before we lose our sugary gas station snacks for good!!
On the post: Oh Look, People Are Already Looking At Expanding How Selectable Output Control Will Be Abused
Re: Re: Re:
(1) It's not necessary, as demonstrated by those rights holders who have moved forward (and by those others who will continue to do so)
(2) How is it a fair trade to break some consumers devices in order for a rights holder to be more confident? I mean, even if I accepted your argument that it's necessary (which I don't), how does that make sense for people that expect their devices to just keep working?
On the post: A Custom Cooling Method For Data Centers -- Patent Pending By Google
Re: Patent protection
So many are aware of the reality of the situation, why do so few make the logical jump to "patents bad"?
On the post: HTC Sends Cease & Desist To Developer Who Made Similar Android Widgets
Re: WHY???
And standard operating procedure.
On the post: Arizona Politician Accused Of Using Voter Database To Stalk Young Woman
Re: Re:
On the post: Arizona Politician Accused Of Using Voter Database To Stalk Young Woman
Re: Yikes
Next >>