I only wish they'd sell e-books for less than they do now. At current prices, it means I'm better off buying the paper...
Amazon's ebooks have been falling (at least, on the ones I've been looking for.) One book I've been waiting to buy for a while dropped recently from twice the price of the hardback to just above the paperback, and that was nearly overnight. I can only find one book that I was interested in that hasn't fallen, and it was made into a movie recently.
I suspect that even if the government lawsuit doesn't go anywhere, the days of super-high ebook prices are history. Now, get them down to ~$2-3 a book with bestsellers at $4-5, and I'll be interested in reading more (than the ones I've already been picking up for that price.) The only ones I've bought greater than $3 so far are the ones I already know I'll like. If the ebook prices were less, I'd even explore and pick up books that are recommended that I don't know if I'd like or not.
There's two issues: the copyrighted work restricted by DRM, and the DRM system itself. Often the entity that can give permissions around the first doesn't control the second. But I think it is socially responsible to give whatever permissions one can to circumvent DRM given the horrible policy environment. If you look closely at GPLv3 it addresses both cases as best it can (2nd if someone is silly enough to use GPLv3 code in a DRM implementation). See section 3 of https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ... hopefully CC 4.0 licenses will do something along these lines as well.
I don't believe the DVD in question had DRM beyond the easily broken DVDCSS which was required by the encoding. I am not sure though. They didn't use any DRM at all on the Freedom Downtime VCR tapes, and I seem to remember some discussion at the time (though I cannot find it with a cursory search now,) on the part from Emmanuel Goldstein about releasing it to DVD and dealing with the DVDCSS encoding as a result. They were happy to have people copy it, and even made the video available to watch online. I had bought two copies of the DVD and one copy of the VCR tape, because I wanted to let folks borrow them, as I often do, and was happy that 2600.org didn't restrict this activity when they released them (I just watched Freedom Downtime not to long ago, and the video is not dated at all...the problems discussed in the documentary are as important now as they were at the time. A good watch for anyone who is interested in the backstory of Kevin Mitnick and the government's prosecution of "cyber terrorists."
I don't think that is accurate (and couldn't find anything supporting it). TSR did have a legal brouhaha with rec.games.frp.dnd around user-created add-ons to D&D, but that was about trademarks and supposed copyright violations directly relating to TSR materials, not about the concept of using paper & pencil.
Are you talking about something else?
Wasn't this eventually the basis of D20? The push by WotC to "open source" their stuff by allowing their fans to use the concepts of the game without using the WotC/TSR trademarked Dungeons & Dragons(TM) name?
If I remember correctly, it was more a brouhaha over their trademark than any copyrights -- they were fine with their fans coming up with new material (and they even paid for the rights to publish a great deal of them) so long as they didn't use Dungeons and Dragons or D&D on their material. I have a lot of D20 (yes, I still am nerdy enough to play D&D, still prefer first edition rules, though I like some of the stuff they did in 3rd edition to make the game easier,) and nowhere does the material say Dungeons & Dragons. I believe I even went so far as to sign the D20 license at one point because I wanted to produce stuff myself.
What else are you doing instead? "Enquiring Minds Want To Know!" - and it better not be pumping gas with Elvis.
I've downloaded episodes of South Park from SouthParkStudios.com (which, by the way, is pretty much the only reason, beyond Mythbusters, that I stayed on so long with Cable.) I wish Mythbusters would put full episodes up on a website too, but at least they are fairly current with their DVD releases. I wish they would release the DVDs quicker, but 6 months isn't bad. Anything on HBO I'd like to watch (including Game of Thrones,) I wait until they are available for rent on Netflix.
Also you point out that 90% of users were downloaders only, What's your point?
I uploaded pictures I took by myself to Megaupload and made available to many folks, for free, to download. I also used Megaupload (and other sites) to store pictures and written documentation (I wrote myself.) These were also placed on Google Docs, but I put them on Megaupload because Google Docs is notorious for "problems" when it comes to sharing documents with people who don't have accounts or who are coming in from foreign sites. Since I was sharing with people all over the world, Megaupload (and the other file lockers) were places where I could put stuff that would be available to anyone.
Before I started using it myself, I was made aware of it through XDA and android mods (Cyanogenmod and Revolver) and various open source game companies who would use it to share their stuff.
Anyone who says there wasn't legitimate reasons to use Megaupload is going to have to prove the negative.
I'd prefer John Stewart, who's far more honest and fair than CNN, ABC, CBS or Fox News.
Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I watch Jon for the fair and honest news (though I realize he has a bias, he is clear with it and has a lot of fun with it, especially his "Socialist" play two nights ago,) and Stephen for his making fun of the real news outlets.
The higher this number is above 42, then the more likely that the sites links are infringing, and should not be clicked on. I won't personally click on any going to an IP address higher than 127.0.0.0.
Hey...that is my IP address (127.0.0.1.) I spend most of my time there.
Oh well. Guess I am just one of those pirates after all.
How the heck do you have more copyright? The copyright laws have not be expanded to cover more, they haven't added more than wasn't covered in the past. Time ranges have shifted, but copyright hasn't expanded.
Take a look at: History of copyright law. In particular, Copyright did not exist before 1501 (beforehand, authors put curses in their books to prevent copying, which worked about as effectively.) The Statute of Anne is when modern copyright first came into being, and that was limited to 14 years. Over time, the copyright laws have expanded from 14 years to 95 or author's life +70. Also note that Copyright was a series of state laws before the Federal laws expanded it. Originally copyright covered books, maps and charts.
Please, can you spend some time just reading the material available to you freely on line? That way you'll know that Leigh is not lying.
I for one am very happy that there is a barrier for entry into the medical field. Perhaps you get your medical help from Bob out back by the dumpster, but I prefer to deal with a licensed professional. That you would even try to argue differently shows how much you are wrapped up in all of it.
What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class in Medical school?
Oh, yeah..."Doctor."
Just because someone graduated from medical school doesn't mean they are any good as a Medical Doctor, nor any other line of work. I agree with Greevar, licensing does not make good Doctors, good Doctors make good Doctors. In my line of work, those who have certifications are actually at a disadvantage, because we tend to look at them and think "that guy is really set in his ways," or "can she think outside of the box when we need her to?" They give out those certifications like candy, and just because someone takes a test doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, especially with the quality of tests for certification (I've had people who wrote whitepapers or the software the certification authority asked a question on refute the question/answer with the authority, and in most cases, the authority says...you may be the expert in the field, but we're always right even when we are wrong.
Licensing does not help public safety...in most cases it makes subjective restrictions on what the person in charge wants for a job, and not the objective of making sure the best person is in the job.
I see the point of your comment. You are wrong, but I see the point. Learn the difference in the various types of copyright, and you might stop ranting and start moving forward in life.
In your opinion (since you never provide facts or proof to back anything up,) he is wrong. However, most of us disagree. Once you give up on copyright and become a human being, you might stop ranting and start moving forward in life too.
For example: if you released a DVD, encoded with the (required) DRM, you would have to make it explicit that circumventing the DRM would be legal if that circumvention is for the purposes of any activities allowed in the license. In other words, you would have to say explicitly that the DRM could be broken if you're sharing the movie non-commercially.
I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but I believe this is what the 2600.org folks did when they released Freedom Downtime on DVD. If I remember correctly, the packaging said that you could circumvent the DVD encoding to copy the video for non-commercial purposes. I don't believe they added anything other than the DVD encoding that already existed as part of the authoring process.
That's pretty funny considering I haven't known anyone to buy a CD in years.
I bought three CDs a couple weeks ago. From the independent artist themselves, for $5 a piece. I immediately ripped them and put the mp3s on my music player. Like every other CD I have ever bought, they are nothing more than physical backups for my mp3s (and any mp3 I download online gets dumped to a CD for backup.) I realize it is easier to just back everything up to the internet, but at the same time, I think having physical access to the backup is sometimes better if only for the feeling of knowing I have one.
Just curious if you have data showing that all of the notices you deem problematic are in fact directed at sites already authorized by the rights holder to host some or all of the content.
Why does IMDB or NME or the New York Post need authorization from the "rights holder" to talk about the content? Sure, if they actually copied the content, I can see your request making sense, but talking about it/reviewing it is not the same as copying it. If anything, this is proof that the DMCA has some very, very serious First Amendment issues in regards to prior restraint.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
FYI, statutes are not frozen in one particular pose. They're the things upon which most law is based.
Correct eejit, it is statutes, not statues. Thanks for the clarification. Darn internal spellchecker not working this early in the morning...need more coffee.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
This is getting tiresome... it is merely an old and oft quoted and misunderstood adage, it is not "law". I hope for your sake you never buy a car that turns out to be stolen.
It may be tiresome for you being wrong, but whatever. It is true that the adage is misunderstood, but it isn't wrong. English common law is a law, it is just not one that we base our law on (our laws are statue based, not common law based, but you will find some places that have taken common law and turned them into statues (i.e. domestic partnership/laws dealing with common law marriage/laws dealing with spousal abuse/etc.)
If you buy a car on good faith, then it isn't receiving stolen property (you can be charged with anything, but most prosecutors would throw it out because they know they can't prove it in court.) Sure if it turns out later to be stolen, then you'll lose the car, but at that point you can go back and sue the person you bought it from because you bought the car in good faith. Things like escrow exist because of the fact that some people may lie and you cannot control the entire chain of purchase (you cannot be responsible for a dealer faking the documentation, only for what you did or didn't do.)
If someone walks up to you and tries selling you a car with dodgy paperwork for a great deal, and any normal person would realize there is something wrong, and you still buy it anyway, then you didn't buy the car in good faith and could (depending on a court,) be successfully prosecuted for receiving stolen property. Ignorance of law won't get you anywhere in law, but ignorance of fact can.
Your link neither backs up what you're saying nor does it prove what I am saying is wrong. If you actually read it, you'll notice that what I said agrees with what the link says, and the link nowhere says that "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a misconception or that it is not true. It merely points out that it isn't a law, but more a common belief.
Since you're talking about using force to keep something that's not yours, then in terms of legality, it's still not true
What do you think law is? Law is the use of force to enact a social constraint. If it wasn't for force, law would be nothing.
However, the non-snarky answer to your comment: possession being 9/10ths of the law is not a misconception. It is an old English common law which basically means that those who claim possession of something who don't have possession of that something have the burden of proof while those who have that something don't.
It is true, even in current laws in most states in the US that unless you can prove you own something, it defaults to the person who possesses it. This is certainly true in cases of auto-theft or robbery. If you take something I am possession of through force or intimidation, you have robbed me even though I may not be the owner of that item (hence store clerks are victims as well as owners for robberies at stores.) If someone lends me a car, and you take it from me, I am still a victim even though I was not the registered owner of the vehicle.
This is a common misconception - possession is NOT nine tenths of the law.
Depends. If there are cops around that will listen to you, then that might be true. If there aren't, and you are willing to use force to keep possession, then it is true.
And then they expect Google to be able to magically determine what's infringing and what's not.
Agree, though I think it might be that they don't want Google to determine anything other than to just block what they don't want. At least, that is the picture I get when hearing them whine. They just want Google to hand them the capability of blocking whatever they don't like, whether it be independent, parody, or their competitors. And the sad thing is that they will probably get it, and abuse it as they seem to be the best at doing.
On the post: Not Only Can You 'Compete With Free' You Have To If You Don't Want Your Business Overrun By Piracy
Re:
Amazon's ebooks have been falling (at least, on the ones I've been looking for.) One book I've been waiting to buy for a while dropped recently from twice the price of the hardback to just above the paperback, and that was nearly overnight. I can only find one book that I was interested in that hasn't fallen, and it was made into a movie recently.
I suspect that even if the government lawsuit doesn't go anywhere, the days of super-high ebook prices are history. Now, get them down to ~$2-3 a book with bestsellers at $4-5, and I'll be interested in reading more (than the ones I've already been picking up for that price.) The only ones I've bought greater than $3 so far are the ones I already know I'll like. If the ebook prices were less, I'd even explore and pick up books that are recommended that I don't know if I'd like or not.
On the post: Fair Use, Public Domain And Creative Commons: They're Not All The Same
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM restrictions in CC license?
I don't believe the DVD in question had DRM beyond the easily broken DVDCSS which was required by the encoding. I am not sure though. They didn't use any DRM at all on the Freedom Downtime VCR tapes, and I seem to remember some discussion at the time (though I cannot find it with a cursory search now,) on the part from Emmanuel Goldstein about releasing it to DVD and dealing with the DVDCSS encoding as a result. They were happy to have people copy it, and even made the video available to watch online. I had bought two copies of the DVD and one copy of the VCR tape, because I wanted to let folks borrow them, as I often do, and was happy that 2600.org didn't restrict this activity when they released them (I just watched Freedom Downtime not to long ago, and the video is not dated at all...the problems discussed in the documentary are as important now as they were at the time. A good watch for anyone who is interested in the backstory of Kevin Mitnick and the government's prosecution of "cyber terrorists."
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Lies Again: Attributes Millions Of Jobs To IP Laws Based On Flimsy Correlation
Re: Re: Re:
Are you talking about something else?
Wasn't this eventually the basis of D20? The push by WotC to "open source" their stuff by allowing their fans to use the concepts of the game without using the WotC/TSR trademarked Dungeons & Dragons(TM) name?
If I remember correctly, it was more a brouhaha over their trademark than any copyrights -- they were fine with their fans coming up with new material (and they even paid for the rights to publish a great deal of them) so long as they didn't use Dungeons and Dragons or D&D on their material. I have a lot of D20 (yes, I still am nerdy enough to play D&D, still prefer first edition rules, though I like some of the stuff they did in 3rd edition to make the game easier,) and nowhere does the material say Dungeons & Dragons. I believe I even went so far as to sign the D20 license at one point because I wanted to produce stuff myself.
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
Re: Re:
So, what you're saying Gwiz is that Techdirt should be illegal because you spend more time here than watching Cable? :-)
On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've downloaded episodes of South Park from SouthParkStudios.com (which, by the way, is pretty much the only reason, beyond Mythbusters, that I stayed on so long with Cable.) I wish Mythbusters would put full episodes up on a website too, but at least they are fairly current with their DVD releases. I wish they would release the DVDs quicker, but 6 months isn't bad. Anything on HBO I'd like to watch (including Game of Thrones,) I wait until they are available for rent on Netflix.
And I do pump gas with Elvis.
On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss
Re: Re:
I uploaded pictures I took by myself to Megaupload and made available to many folks, for free, to download. I also used Megaupload (and other sites) to store pictures and written documentation (I wrote myself.) These were also placed on Google Docs, but I put them on Megaupload because Google Docs is notorious for "problems" when it comes to sharing documents with people who don't have accounts or who are coming in from foreign sites. Since I was sharing with people all over the world, Megaupload (and the other file lockers) were places where I could put stuff that would be available to anyone.
Before I started using it myself, I was made aware of it through XDA and android mods (Cyanogenmod and Revolver) and various open source game companies who would use it to share their stuff.
Anyone who says there wasn't legitimate reasons to use Megaupload is going to have to prove the negative.
On the post: News Corp. Wonders If There Could Possibly Be Any Arguments Against Anti-Piracy Efforts
Re: Re: Re: intellectually honest
Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I watch Jon for the fair and honest news (though I realize he has a bias, he is clear with it and has a lot of fun with it, especially his "Socialist" play two nights ago,) and Stephen for his making fun of the real news outlets.
On the post: Irish Charity Told It Needs To Pay A License Fee To Link To A Newspaper Article
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey...that is my IP address (127.0.0.1.) I spend most of my time there.
Oh well. Guess I am just one of those pirates after all.
On the post: Fair Use, Public Domain And Creative Commons: They're Not All The Same
Re: Re: Re:
Take a look at: History of copyright law. In particular, Copyright did not exist before 1501 (beforehand, authors put curses in their books to prevent copying, which worked about as effectively.) The Statute of Anne is when modern copyright first came into being, and that was limited to 14 years. Over time, the copyright laws have expanded from 14 years to 95 or author's life +70. Also note that Copyright was a series of state laws before the Federal laws expanded it. Originally copyright covered books, maps and charts.
Please, can you spend some time just reading the material available to you freely on line? That way you'll know that Leigh is not lying.
On the post: Fair Use, Public Domain And Creative Commons: They're Not All The Same
Re: Re: Re: Re: Faith? Balance?
What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class in Medical school?
Oh, yeah..."Doctor."
Just because someone graduated from medical school doesn't mean they are any good as a Medical Doctor, nor any other line of work. I agree with Greevar, licensing does not make good Doctors, good Doctors make good Doctors. In my line of work, those who have certifications are actually at a disadvantage, because we tend to look at them and think "that guy is really set in his ways," or "can she think outside of the box when we need her to?" They give out those certifications like candy, and just because someone takes a test doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, especially with the quality of tests for certification (I've had people who wrote whitepapers or the software the certification authority asked a question on refute the question/answer with the authority, and in most cases, the authority says...you may be the expert in the field, but we're always right even when we are wrong.
Licensing does not help public safety...in most cases it makes subjective restrictions on what the person in charge wants for a job, and not the objective of making sure the best person is in the job.
I see the point of your comment. You are wrong, but I see the point. Learn the difference in the various types of copyright, and you might stop ranting and start moving forward in life.
In your opinion (since you never provide facts or proof to back anything up,) he is wrong. However, most of us disagree. Once you give up on copyright and become a human being, you might stop ranting and start moving forward in life too.
On the post: Fair Use, Public Domain And Creative Commons: They're Not All The Same
Re: Re: DRM restrictions in CC license?
I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but I believe this is what the 2600.org folks did when they released Freedom Downtime on DVD. If I remember correctly, the packaging said that you could circumvent the DVD encoding to copy the video for non-commercial purposes. I don't believe they added anything other than the DVD encoding that already existed as part of the authoring process.
On the post: Regina Spektor: I'm Lucky That People Can Get All My Music For Free
Re: Re: She's just an edge case.
I bought three CDs a couple weeks ago. From the independent artist themselves, for $5 a piece. I immediately ripped them and put the mp3s on my music player. Like every other CD I have ever bought, they are nothing more than physical backups for my mp3s (and any mp3 I download online gets dumped to a CD for backup.) I realize it is easier to just back everything up to the internet, but at the same time, I think having physical access to the backup is sometimes better if only for the feeling of knowing I have one.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Re:
Why does IMDB or NME or the New York Post need authorization from the "rights holder" to talk about the content? Sure, if they actually copied the content, I can see your request making sense, but talking about it/reviewing it is not the same as copying it. If anything, this is proof that the DMCA has some very, very serious First Amendment issues in regards to prior restraint.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
Correct eejit, it is statutes, not statues. Thanks for the clarification. Darn internal spellchecker not working this early in the morning...need more coffee.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
It may be tiresome for you being wrong, but whatever. It is true that the adage is misunderstood, but it isn't wrong. English common law is a law, it is just not one that we base our law on (our laws are statue based, not common law based, but you will find some places that have taken common law and turned them into statues (i.e. domestic partnership/laws dealing with common law marriage/laws dealing with spousal abuse/etc.)
If you buy a car on good faith, then it isn't receiving stolen property (you can be charged with anything, but most prosecutors would throw it out because they know they can't prove it in court.) Sure if it turns out later to be stolen, then you'll lose the car, but at that point you can go back and sue the person you bought it from because you bought the car in good faith. Things like escrow exist because of the fact that some people may lie and you cannot control the entire chain of purchase (you cannot be responsible for a dealer faking the documentation, only for what you did or didn't do.)
If someone walks up to you and tries selling you a car with dodgy paperwork for a great deal, and any normal person would realize there is something wrong, and you still buy it anyway, then you didn't buy the car in good faith and could (depending on a court,) be successfully prosecuted for receiving stolen property. Ignorance of law won't get you anywhere in law, but ignorance of fact can.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
Your link neither backs up what you're saying nor does it prove what I am saying is wrong. If you actually read it, you'll notice that what I said agrees with what the link says, and the link nowhere says that "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a misconception or that it is not true. It merely points out that it isn't a law, but more a common belief.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
What do you think law is? Law is the use of force to enact a social constraint. If it wasn't for force, law would be nothing.
However, the non-snarky answer to your comment: possession being 9/10ths of the law is not a misconception. It is an old English common law which basically means that those who claim possession of something who don't have possession of that something have the burden of proof while those who have that something don't.
It is true, even in current laws in most states in the US that unless you can prove you own something, it defaults to the person who possesses it. This is certainly true in cases of auto-theft or robbery. If you take something I am possession of through force or intimidation, you have robbed me even though I may not be the owner of that item (hence store clerks are victims as well as owners for robberies at stores.) If someone lends me a car, and you take it from me, I am still a victim even though I was not the registered owner of the vehicle.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
Depends. If there are cops around that will listen to you, then that might be true. If there aren't, and you are willing to use force to keep possession, then it is true.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re:
Agree, though I think it might be that they don't want Google to determine anything other than to just block what they don't want. At least, that is the picture I get when hearing them whine. They just want Google to hand them the capability of blocking whatever they don't like, whether it be independent, parody, or their competitors. And the sad thing is that they will probably get it, and abuse it as they seem to be the best at doing.
On the post: Senator Leahy Wants To Give At Least $5 Million To State Department To 'Combat Piracy'
Re: Re: Re:
Crimson Permanent Assurance
+1 for the Monty Python link...
Next >>