Wait... what? Of course they go over copyright's bounds. The point of the GPL is that you get a lot MORE permissions if you follow the terms of the license. The L stands for license. If you don't follow those terms, then things revert to standard copyright, and you're a copyright infringer. It's not terribly hard to understand.
Why in the hell should copyright pass on to heirs as any kind of property? The point of copyright is that it is to encourage new works... the heirs didn't do that work. Copyright should at minimum die with the author.
Good, it's not just me. I always wondered what they thought they were protecting against, because there were lots of ways I could think of to easily get weapons into those parks.
Just because it's standard doesn't make it right. Especially considering the subject matter the contest is about, it makes the inequity and abuse that much more glaring.
It's sad that Hollywood has so much pull in the government... in any other industry, Netflix would have been able to push back and place blame appropriately.
If you don't read TOS contracts, and I don't read TOS contracts, and the VAST majority of people don't read them, are their terms still binding? They make them so easy to click through because the know people won't read them. They force you to scroll to the bottom, but that's no guarantee of reading, comprehension, or even the user being of legal age to agree to such terms. TOS "agreements" are almost always unfair to the consumer, and there should be a guarantee of an acceptable level of service in return for the rights you give up. Otherwise the courts should see them for the scams they are.
Why does it have to be a battle? Perhaps that fee is more than I'm willing to pay to satisfy my curiosity, or want to learn. Or even better, some school kid's.
But even more importantly... how can you defend any increase in fees that's not directly tied to administration costs that makes it more difficult for you to know what laws you're expected to obey? The US wasn't founded as a nation of "secret" laws. We shouldn't have to pay to know what is and is not legal.
Ubisoft's mistake in this whole thing is their hubris in thinking that they are irreplaceable. That people won't go elsewhere if they feel abused enough. That line is different for every person, but it's still a line. It's the same line the music and movie industries have run into... you abuse your customers enough with inferior product and try to lock them into that, and they will go elsewhere.
I assume you personally burn every receipt you have, too? Shredding them can let someone put them back together.
There is such a thing as too paranoid. A nice multi-pass wipe on a modern drive will make all but maybe a few bytes recoverable, and you won't be able to do anything with those. Context matters.
I find the concept of "protecting" children from experiences odd. You should be giving safe ways to have experiences, not protecting them from experiencing things. Otherwise you're basically kicking a lot of 18 year old emotional toddlers out of the house to sink or swim, and a lot of them will sink.
I don't know if Absolute Software needs to take the fall, but the police definitely do. I don't think that the accessing of the pictures should be illegal. There needs to be a way to tie a specific person to the use of the computer, because we all know from various Bittorrent lawsuits and such that an IP address isn't identification by itself.
If Absolute Software had blacked out the nudity, they may have been accused of tampering with evidence in the defense. So they sent the evidence unmodified to the police. Sounds perfectly reasonable, and it should still preserve her privacy as much as is warranted. The police could have kept the original on file and printed out an edited one. Or Absolute could have done the same, but it's not really their job to do so. It IS the job of the police to do that, though. Where things got out of hand was the officers having the printout and saying the shit they did while arresting her. Abusing their position as law-enforcement personnel to further their moral agenda well outside of the law.
Just because other countries are worse doesn't mean that Thailand should get kudos for "not being as bad". That line of reasoning only leads to destruction, because you only have to be a little better than someone else in some way.
We run into that problem here in the US, too. We say people need freedom of speech, but don't like it when people say things we don't like and demand that it be taken down, and justify it by saying "it's not as bad as X country!". It's hypocritical when the US does it and is destructive to free speech as a whole. Don't fall into the same trap. Moral relativism is bullshit.
You can tell Thailand to go pound sand if you want to, all day long. Just make sure you don't subsequently go there yourself, because then that does put you in their jurisdiction and damned if they'll use it.
Mike didn't write that. It's a direct quote. You can tell because the couple paragraphs there were in italics and indented.
Really... you would think that people would be sure they were literate enough to understand the conventions of the posting before criticizing the writing of others, if for no other reason than to properly direct their snark.
The thing is, what Hoover did was illegal. It happens, but that doesn't make it legal. What the Thai government is doing is perfectly within their laws, and the laws are immoral.
Just because people do shitty things doesn't make it excusable. What makes this more unconscionable than what Hoover did is that it's enshrined in law.
On the post: Author Puts Article Online, Insists That Due To Copyright, You Cannot Link To It
Re:
On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: California Politician Discovers That You Can't Ban Specific Type Of Music; Admits 'I Didn't Know What Was Going On'
Re:
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Copyright to... heirs?
On the post: TSA Force Breast Cancer Patient To Submit To Patdown, Refuse To Let Her Show ID Card About Implants
Re:
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting
Grammar nazi here again
That said, I'm part of the hordes of cable cutters ;) I have an antenna hooked up to my MythTV PC, and I have Netflix on my PS3. No cable.
On the post: FOIA Info Reveals That BART Shut Down Cell Service With One Email To Telco Partner
Re:
I'm gonna have to Godwin this thread and reference Martin Niemöller.
You should care because what they did was absolutely wrong. Not because it affected you directly.
On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count
Re:
On the post: Massive Exodus From Netflix Over Fee Increase
Pass the buck
On the post: Thou Shalt Not Sue Sony
Re: The sad truth
On the post: Federal Courts Making It More Expensive To Access Records, Even As They're Swimming In Cash
Re: Re: Re:
But even more importantly... how can you defend any increase in fees that's not directly tied to administration costs that makes it more difficult for you to know what laws you're expected to obey? The US wasn't founded as a nation of "secret" laws. We shouldn't have to pay to know what is and is not legal.
On the post: Printing Error Shows Flaw In 'Lock-It-Up' Video Game Business Model
Re: Resale value
On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?
Re: Re: Re: Not very good at his job
There is such a thing as too paranoid. A nice multi-pass wipe on a modern drive will make all but maybe a few bytes recoverable, and you won't be able to do anything with those. Context matters.
On the post: DOOM No Longer Considered Harmful To Children In Germany, Allowed Into The Country
Re:
On the post: Secretly Snapping Naked Pics Of The Woman Who Ended Up With A Stolen Laptop Might Just Be Illegal
Re: Re:
On the post: Secretly Snapping Naked Pics Of The Woman Who Ended Up With A Stolen Laptop Might Just Be Illegal
Re: Why isn't the PD being sued as well?
If Absolute Software had blacked out the nudity, they may have been accused of tampering with evidence in the defense. So they sent the evidence unmodified to the police. Sounds perfectly reasonable, and it should still preserve her privacy as much as is warranted. The police could have kept the original on file and printed out an edited one. Or Absolute could have done the same, but it's not really their job to do so. It IS the job of the police to do that, though. Where things got out of hand was the officers having the printout and saying the shit they did while arresting her. Abusing their position as law-enforcement personnel to further their moral agenda well outside of the law.
On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
Re:
We run into that problem here in the US, too. We say people need freedom of speech, but don't like it when people say things we don't like and demand that it be taken down, and justify it by saying "it's not as bad as X country!". It's hypocritical when the US does it and is destructive to free speech as a whole. Don't fall into the same trap. Moral relativism is bullshit.
On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
Re:
On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
Really... you would think that people would be sure they were literate enough to understand the conventions of the posting before criticizing the writing of others, if for no other reason than to properly direct their snark.
On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
Re: The King and I?
Just because people do shitty things doesn't make it excusable. What makes this more unconscionable than what Hoover did is that it's enshrined in law.
Next >>