Of course, just as this case is getting thrown out, it's been leaking that the FTC's main focus in its planned antitrust attack on Google will be... Motorola Mobility and the licensing rates for these patents.
As the case is getting thrown out, the case is leaking the info?
How many of the millions and millions of takedown notices are sent in abuse? A handful.
How much censorship is an acceptable amount? I assure you, if it was your speech that was being limited, you'd be quite upset.
Turn it this way: you claim that a few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole barrel-- yet you'll happily denounce anything that has potential to be used for copyright infringement.
It seems like you're full of double standards and ad hom attacks, and very short on actual critical thinking and logic skills.
The problem is that when the law was written, it took considerable resources up front to commit copyright infringement on a scale that would matter to any copyright holder. Due to this overhead, it was assumed that there would be some kind of monetary reward for the acts of copyright infringement-- that is, that the infringer would be making money from the infringement, to recoup the costs of carrying out copyright infringement at that scale. So, the logic presumably goes, that a large fine would be appropriate for large scale infringement because large quantities of money would be involved.
Now, most people can't make it though the day without *inadvertently* infringing, let alone those that do it willfully-- and all without much, if any, up front cost. This means that people who have little to no extra income can infringe on a scale that copyright holders will notice, but without any money being involved.
The law just needs to be adjusted to where your average citizen sharing not-for-profit doesn't break the law. Of course, since that will never happen, we're better off just ignoring the law all together, and maybe it will go away.
I've set up two wifi networks on my router, an open one, and a closed one. I then set up QOS such that anything on the closed network takes priority over the open one.
I see that you are under the impression that no two people can come up with the same code independently. This false assumption breaks your entire theory.
How do you know you didn't recreate the same code as your competitors without seeing their code?
How do I know if I've achieved the same results with a different method if I don't know the method you used? I can only know that if I've seen the source.
I can't patent "achieving time travel by bending space-time" because that doesn't tell you *how* to do that. Similarly, if I just say "swipe to unlock a touch screen device" then I haven't told you how, just what. The how would be the source.
I was always under the impression that the "trade off" of patents was that the public gets to know how to make the thing once the patent expjres. So, why don't software patents include source code? A patent that describes making an image bounce when you overscroll is patenting an idea; with source included it patents a specific implementation of that idea.
You seem to be under the impression that you can't blame the victim. If someone does something foolish and it comes back to bite them, then they deserve to be called out on their foolishness.
Simply put, if you don't want nude pictures of yourself to be put on the Internet, don't take nude pictures of yourself. Otherwise, you're taking a gamble.
This almost certainly means that UMG paid through the nose, with the hope that it makes it more difficult for other artists to get similar rewards, and while allowing Universal to keep its secrets secret... for now.
Can't any other artist now sue UMG for the same thing, forcing UMG to make the same decision: Pay out big or let the world see their books? It seems like either way UMG loses.
On the post: Cisco VP Threatens To Stalk Memo Leaker... Driving More Attention Than Original Memo
Re:
On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star... Taken Down Because Of Music
Re: Re: Re: One small correction
On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star... Taken Down Because Of Music
Re: "How is that a good solution?"
On the post: Another Key Motorola vs. Apple Patent Trial Tossed Out By A Judge Frustrated With Apple's Games
"That guy"
As the case is getting thrown out, the case is leaking the info?
On the post: DMCA Censorship: 'Revenge Porn' Site Owner Tries To Censor Criticism With Bogus Takedown Notice
Re:
How much censorship is an acceptable amount? I assure you, if it was your speech that was being limited, you'd be quite upset.
Turn it this way: you claim that a few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole barrel-- yet you'll happily denounce anything that has potential to be used for copyright infringement.
It seems like you're full of double standards and ad hom attacks, and very short on actual critical thinking and logic skills.
On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tough
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Separate_WLANs
On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention idiots:
Good info, though.
On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court
Re: Re: Re: Attention idiots:
Do you think that this poor bastard cost this company 1.5 million dollars? Do you think it's even close?
On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged
Re: Re: Tough
On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court
Re:
Now, most people can't make it though the day without *inadvertently* infringing, let alone those that do it willfully-- and all without much, if any, up front cost. This means that people who have little to no extra income can infringe on a scale that copyright holders will notice, but without any money being involved.
The law just needs to be adjusted to where your average citizen sharing not-for-profit doesn't break the law. Of course, since that will never happen, we're better off just ignoring the law all together, and maybe it will go away.
On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court
Re:
On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged
Re: Re: Tough
On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you know you didn't recreate the same code as your competitors without seeing their code?
On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing
Re: Re: Re:
I can't patent "achieving time travel by bending space-time" because that doesn't tell you *how* to do that. Similarly, if I just say "swipe to unlock a touch screen device" then I haven't told you how, just what. The how would be the source.
On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing
Maybe off topic.
On the post: Marc Randazza Goes To War Against Revenge Porn Site Over Alleged 'Takedown Lawyer' Business Model
Re: Re:
Simply put, if you don't want nude pictures of yourself to be put on the Internet, don't take nude pictures of yourself. Otherwise, you're taking a gamble.
On the post: Anti-Pornography Guy Politicizes 10 Year Old Girl's Murder
Re: Meanwhile, the US murders children in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the post: Being A Jackass On Twitter Shouldn't Be Illegal; Public Shame Should Be Enough
His Apology.
He's still a douche canoe, of course, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
On the post: Universal Music Settles Key Fight Over Eminem Royalties... With Secret Agreement
It's a trap!
Can't any other artist now sue UMG for the same thing, forcing UMG to make the same decision: Pay out big or let the world see their books? It seems like either way UMG loses.
On the post: How A Drone Might Save Your Life
Re: How will it deliver aid?
Next >>