I dunno, Peppermint Swirl AC, I think it's a bit harsh to refer to Minty Snowflake AC as a fanboi-- since Apple isn't exactly forthcoming with the knowledge that they can remotely mess with your device, your average user may not even know about it.
If the part about DRM free books are true, I may actually buy ebooks from Apple one day. Okay, maybe not, but I *considered* it. Which is more than Amazon or B&N got from me. :)
I can't tell if you're a confused person who does not speak english as a first language or an idiot, so I'm going to assume you're the former.
The patent office is supposed to reject patents that are applied for "inventions" that are obvious to someone skilled in that field, among other reasons. Clearly, they do not and the result is many "bad" patents are approved. Since whomever applied, and received, the "bad" patent feels they have the law on their side, they then begin to sue every large corporation that may be using their "Shutdown an OS" patent. (or whatever) If the resulting confrontation makes it to the court room, a jury of 12 *non-experts in the field* get to decide if the patent is valid or not. (Which was the patent examiner's job, you see?)
Please note, if the patent office was performing as required, very few "bad" patents would make it through the approval process so less people would get sued, and everyone would be less afraid to actually innovate.
Or, if that was tl;dr for you: The patent office is no longer a filter and has become a pump.
Yes, it can be enforced, but looking at the big picture, it is a losing battle. The *only* way the rights holders can stop piracy is to remove everyone's privacy. You can't possibly be so deluded to feel that the loss of privacy is worth propping up a failing business model. (I hope)
this really isn't (and never was) a legal matter, it is an economic matter. People don't need a middle man to make copies for them. It isn't the general public's fault that creators tired their profits directly to the middle men's profits. A new business model is needed, not new laws. Of course, no one here expects you to believe that, as it is in your best interests to keep it a legal matter.
Are all law students as dense as you? You just (inadvertently) hit the nail on the head. There has been no trial, only allegations. It has yet to be shown if you have wronged him in any way. Yet, he gets access to your personal information? That seems to be an invasion of privacy where I stand.
It is becoming clear that no matter what logic is shown to you, you will stick to your guns out of stubbornness. You have aspirations of becoming an IP lawyer, I bet.
Are all law students as dense as you? You just (inadvertently) hit the nail on the head. There has been no trial, only allegations. It has yet to be shown if you have wronged him in any way. Yet, he gets access to your personal information? That seems to be an invasion of privacy where I stand.
It is becoming clear that no matter what logic is shown to you, you will stick to your guns out of stubbornness. You have aspirations of becoming an IP lawyer, I bet.
You misunderstand. He has your ip address. He feels you have wronged him and wants to sue you, for emotional distress or something. He goes to a court and says you have wronged him but all he knows is this string of numbers that may or may not actually be you and wants all the personal information your ISP has on the account linked to that IP address. You see no problem with that?
What he is saying, and I agree, is that the law was written with the assumption that anyone infringing would be devoting a large amount of money to do so, so it assumes a financial return. Going after people who infringe non-commercially for huge fines is simply a perversion of the law. The law no longer fits with the times. It sucks for people who depended on the law in question to make a living, but that, sadly, is the way it has to be. The only other option, e.g. attempting to prevent infringement, requires a very strict police state to be successful. And before you jump on that bandwagon you should check to see if you have the rights to your avatar image.
Further, saying that it is right to abuse the law because no judge, lawyer, or congress has changed it is foolish. It weakens your argument.
When will you learn that an IP address isn't a person? If I thought someone with brown hair copied my book, I don't automagically get to know personal information on everyone with brown hair.
Exactly what other avenues for change have been left to us, then?
I believe the saying goes: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box. In that order.
If you ask me, we are somewhere between Soap and Ballot. I imagine this particular problem will never get past the jury box stage. (That's just my opinion, of course.)
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Own Your Ebooks; Amazon Locks Customer Out And Doesn't Respond To Help Requests
Re: Re: Not for the iPad
If the part about DRM free books are true, I may actually buy ebooks from Apple one day. Okay, maybe not, but I *considered* it. Which is more than Amazon or B&N got from me. :)
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Own Your Ebooks; Amazon Locks Customer Out And Doesn't Respond To Help Requests
Re: Unique to Software
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Own Your Ebooks; Amazon Locks Customer Out And Doesn't Respond To Help Requests
New Business model?
On the post: How The Patent Office Outsourced Its Job To Non-Expert Jurors
Re: "Just created" ?
The patent office is supposed to reject patents that are applied for "inventions" that are obvious to someone skilled in that field, among other reasons. Clearly, they do not and the result is many "bad" patents are approved. Since whomever applied, and received, the "bad" patent feels they have the law on their side, they then begin to sue every large corporation that may be using their "Shutdown an OS" patent. (or whatever) If the resulting confrontation makes it to the court room, a jury of 12 *non-experts in the field* get to decide if the patent is valid or not. (Which was the patent examiner's job, you see?)
Please note, if the patent office was performing as required, very few "bad" patents would make it through the approval process so less people would get sued, and everyone would be less afraid to actually innovate.
Or, if that was tl;dr for you: The patent office is no longer a filter and has become a pump.
On the post: Funding To Edit 200 Hours Of Pirate Bay Documentary Footage Raised In Just Three Days
Re: and keeps growing....
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
this really isn't (and never was) a legal matter, it is an economic matter. People don't need a middle man to make copies for them. It isn't the general public's fault that creators tired their profits directly to the middle men's profits. A new business model is needed, not new laws. Of course, no one here expects you to believe that, as it is in your best interests to keep it a legal matter.
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
It is becoming clear that no matter what logic is shown to you, you will stick to your guns out of stubbornness. You have aspirations of becoming an IP lawyer, I bet.
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
It is becoming clear that no matter what logic is shown to you, you will stick to your guns out of stubbornness. You have aspirations of becoming an IP lawyer, I bet.
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, try not to confuse money and lobbying power with justice.
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Why?
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, saying that it is right to abuse the law because no judge, lawyer, or congress has changed it is foolish. It weakens your argument.
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re:
On the post: Warner Bros. Upset About Harry Popper Condoms
Re:
On the post: FBI Prioritizes Copyright Issues; Not So Concerned About Missing Persons
Re: Violent overthrow of the US government?
I believe the saying goes: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box. In that order.
If you ask me, we are somewhere between Soap and Ballot. I imagine this particular problem will never get past the jury box stage. (That's just my opinion, of course.)
On the post: FBI Prioritizes Copyright Issues; Not So Concerned About Missing Persons
Re: Fringe
Next >>