Furthermore, we have a reply button for you to use.
I don't think kenichi understands the concept of a threaded forum and/or doesn't understand proper forum etiquette (ie: at the very least quoting something from the comment you are responding to), which is very weird since he claims to run "one of the most frequented anime and manga communities online".
What about generic terms we use every day? Kleenex, Band Aid, Coke...
Using the word "Coke" when you are referring to any carbonated beverage isn't that common. It's mainly used only in the southern states. Most everyone else uses "soda", "pop" or "soda pop".
There it is. Ken "Popehat" White just proved just how stupid uneducated people like himself are. "Stupider"? That's not even a word. It's "stupid" or "more stupid".
Methinks you just proved that you stupider than the average bear.
"Stupider" is a word. It's listed in a lot of the major dictionaries and Ken's usage was correct.
Yeah, communism has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. At all.
Actually, Stalin regarded religion as incompatible with the Marxist spirit of scientific materialism and subsequently repressed most organized religion in USSR in the 1920's and 30's.
IP networks built to "surf the web" have always been oversold....
Funny how you admit this...but still believe that it's the high-demand start-up (who pays for thier bandwidth) or the customer (who also pays for their bandwidth) who is to blame for creating the situation.
No, it's not. Removing the software from the device nullifies the problem. You can put non-IOS software on Cisco gear for example.
Are you seriously suggesting the way to nullify the problem is to brick the device and potentially make it useless?
The First-sale Doctrine is widely upheld by our courts (with the exception of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc). If it wasn't, there wouldn't be millions of computers, phones, mp3 players, gaming consoles, watches, coffee pots, etc.. for resale on Ebay and Craigslist, would there?
Your device manufacturer has a special license to put software on the device and sell the whole package to you. You do not have that license. If you want to sell the device your recipient cannot use the software included and must get their own license.
Please explain how this differs from reselling a dead-tree book.
The publisher has a special license to print the copyrighted content and sell the whole package to me. I do not have that license. BUT, I can still sell my copy to someone else because of the First-sale Doctrine.
Re: Re: Re: But GOOG is still a pirate haven dedicated to taking from content producers
But Google refuses to negotiate.
Negotiate what? There are no ads on Google News and it drives page views to the original articles. What is there to negotiate exactly?
Not too long ago a business had to pay thousands of dollars a year to be listed in the Yellow Pages. Now you seem to think the Yellow Pages should have pay you to be listed. That sounds a bit crazy to me.
Should point out too that even with Netflix being willing to purchase prefential service, it's still going to take a long while to get it all hooked up and working. There are no instant solutions... just Netflix blaming others for their business model failings.
So much wrong in that sentence...
First off, the conflict was between Verizon and Netflix (and Level3 after Verizon pulled them into it).
Verizon "fixed" the problem by spending 5 minutes and a couple thousand dollars for a new port card, but only after Netflix payed up.
Couldn't Shaffer's band just play the music and pay a compulsory license as a live cover?
Or does that change because it's broadcast on TV? How does that work for any other band who records their live performances of covers and releases the videos?
Amazon doesn't like the version of 1984 on your rented kindle...so they remove it...just like that.
Heh. That's the main reason why I de-DRM anything I purchase for my Kindle (also everything my wife purchases for hers) and save them to a USB drive for safe keeping.
It's also in case I end up getting a non-Amazon reader in the future. I've never had to re-purchase my entire dead-tree book collection whenever I got a new bookshelf in the past and I'm not going to start now.
He seems to completely ignore the part of trademark law that's about protecting the markholder's goodwill. It's a valid point.
No he doesn't. The linked article talks about a study that shows MOST people purchasing counterfeits are not fooled into thinking they are buying an original. They buy the fakes until they can afford the real thing and 46% actually do end up buying an original.
It doesn't seem that protecting the markholder's goodwill is as important as you are making it out to be. Policy should be based on facts, not some arbitrary fear of some near non-existent bogeyman.
I'm not sure that would also make the illegitimate sender of a takedown notice a government actor, since then, they would only be purporting to be acting under color of law--they wouldn't actually be doing so.
Perhaps this is why the penalty of perjury was included in the language for the laws regarding DMCA takedowns. It could be that Congress realized that if the sender wasn't the copyright holder, then DMCA notices could easily run afoul of the First Amendment since the speech would remain protected. I'm going to have to do some research on this myself.
But that whole line of thinking turns on the notion that copyright is *only* about incentives to produce.
That what the Framers originally thought when they included in the Constitution, isn't it? Just because it's gotten twisted into something else along the way doesn't make it correct.
I don't think that's true, hence automatic copyright that subsists whether the author is incentivized by the rights or not.
And you have just put forth a compelling argument as to why copyright should go back to opt-in. If automatic copyright isn't an incentive for the creation of new works, then it should be removed from copyright law to comply with the Copyright Clause.
What burden of proof? It's a takedown notice, not a lawsuit. I don't see how it's unconstitutional. Could you explain?
You, Karl and I had a lengthy discussion about this awhile ago and I know that you believe (incorrectly IMO) that DMCA takedowns cannot violate the Constitution because they are not from a government actor. Karl and I disagreed because regardless of who actually sends the notice it's still backed by the might of the Federal government.
In this case we are talking about something completely different though, we are talking about takedowns issued by those who do not hold the copyright in question. Since neither party is actually the copyright holder it would never be established that a copyright violation occurred and the speech would remain protected by the First Amendment wouldn't it?
It seems to me that in this type of situation it's most certainly a First Amendment violation by using the power of the government to quash protected speech.
Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
What Uber and Lyft claim on their web sites isn't necessarily the truth. Just ask the family of a 6 year old girl killed in San Francisco by an Uber driver.
What exactly are you claiming is untrue?
And why bring up a single incident involving Uber? If you are really worried about pedestrian safety then your focus should really include traditional taxicabs too.
In Manhattan, about 16 percent of pedestrian crashes that led to death or serious injury involved a taxi or livery cab. Taxis account for only 2 percent of vehicles registered in the city, but at some times of day, they can make up nearly half of Manhattan’s traffic, according to some estimates... Source
Also, I lived 3 doors down from a convicted felon who passed Uber's alleged background check.
Anecdotal references are meaningless. Got [citation]?
So please forgive my naive question: What is tech dirt's stance on the content that it posts on this site. Can I just take it and email it to my friends, post it on my own website with or without my own comments and edits, seek advertisers to support my website based on the copies and comments I post there? Unfortunately I don't see a license agreement here. It would be nice if you prominently posted an agreement signed by you that gives all of us readers a royalty-free license to display, reproduce, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies of what appears here, forever and for whatever reason.
Will this article where Mike lays out his views on other people copying Techdirt do for you?
Basically, you are free to do all of the above things. The only exception I see is trying to copyright Mike's work as your own, which would be a fraudulent copyright anyways.
On the post: Even If Google Could Improve Its Recommendations, Is It The Government's Job To Tell It To Do So?
Re: Re: Re:
What "government-aided monopoly" are you talking about?
Citation please.
On the post: White House Says Its Rules Limiting Drone Attacks To Avoid Civilians Don't Apply In Syria
Re: Re:
I don't think kenichi understands the concept of a threaded forum and/or doesn't understand proper forum etiquette (ie: at the very least quoting something from the comment you are responding to), which is very weird since he claims to run "one of the most frequented anime and manga communities online".
On the post: San Diego Comic-Con Fighting With Salt Lake City Comic Con Over Trademark
Re: Yup
Using the word "Coke" when you are referring to any carbonated beverage isn't that common. It's mainly used only in the southern states. Most everyone else uses "soda", "pop" or "soda pop".
http://www.tableausoftware.com/blog/do-you-say-coke-soda-or-pop-map-visualization-shows-your-li kely-answer
On the post: The Worst Legal Advice Ever, Presented By A Clueless Blogger For An Insurance Company
Re:
Methinks you just proved that you stupider than the average bear.
"Stupider" is a word. It's listed in a lot of the major dictionaries and Ken's usage was correct.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/stupid
On the post: Scammers Using FBI And NSA Logos, Claiming Legal Actions And Demanding Payment Via GreenDot MoneyPak
MonkeyPak ??
Is that a typo or is it a bit of humor that I don't get?
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, Stalin regarded religion as incompatible with the Marxist spirit of scientific materialism and subsequently repressed most organized religion in USSR in the 1920's and 30's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Religion
On the post: Web Inventor Tim Berners-Lee Gets To The Core Of Net Neutrality Debate: You Need An Open Internet To Have A Free Market
Re: Re: Nice but...
Is it? Governor Christie didn't seem to get into much trouble for doing exactly that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
On the post: Web Inventor Tim Berners-Lee Gets To The Core Of Net Neutrality Debate: You Need An Open Internet To Have A Free Market
Re: Re: Re: Nice but...
Funny how you admit this...but still believe that it's the high-demand start-up (who pays for thier bandwidth) or the customer (who also pays for their bandwidth) who is to blame for creating the situation.
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re: Re:
Are you seriously suggesting the way to nullify the problem is to brick the device and potentially make it useless?
The First-sale Doctrine is widely upheld by our courts (with the exception of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc). If it wasn't, there wouldn't be millions of computers, phones, mp3 players, gaming consoles, watches, coffee pots, etc.. for resale on Ebay and Craigslist, would there?
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re:
Please explain how this differs from reselling a dead-tree book.
The publisher has a special license to print the copyrighted content and sell the whole package to me. I do not have that license. BUT, I can still sell my copy to someone else because of the First-sale Doctrine.
Where is the difference?
On the post: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp: Still Failing To Understand The Internet After 20 Years Of Flops
Re: Re: Re: But GOOG is still a pirate haven dedicated to taking from content producers
Negotiate what? There are no ads on Google News and it drives page views to the original articles. What is there to negotiate exactly?
Not too long ago a business had to pay thousands of dollars a year to be listed in the Yellow Pages. Now you seem to think the Yellow Pages should have pay you to be listed. That sounds a bit crazy to me.
On the post: In The FCC's Own Words: Chairman Wheeler Has Proposed Online Discrimination, Paid Prioritization, And Exclusive Deals
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So much wrong in that sentence...
First off, the conflict was between Verizon and Netflix (and Level3 after Verizon pulled them into it).
Verizon "fixed" the problem by spending 5 minutes and a couple thousand dollars for a new port card, but only after Netflix payed up.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-t o-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml
On the post: David Letterman Mocks The Eagles Over Refusal To License Their Music
Just Curious
Or does that change because it's broadcast on TV? How does that work for any other band who records their live performances of covers and releases the videos?
On the post: Apple Finally Allows iPhone-Ers To Nix That U2 Album They Never Wanted From Their Phones
Re:
Heh. That's the main reason why I de-DRM anything I purchase for my Kindle (also everything my wife purchases for hers) and save them to a USB drive for safe keeping.
It's also in case I end up getting a non-Amazon reader in the future. I've never had to re-purchase my entire dead-tree book collection whenever I got a new bookshelf in the past and I'm not going to start now.
On the post: Intellectual Property Maximalist Lobbying Group Proposes A New Trademark SOPA (Plus Girl Scout Badges...)
Re: Re: Re:
No he doesn't. The linked article talks about a study that shows MOST people purchasing counterfeits are not fooled into thinking they are buying an original. They buy the fakes until they can afford the real thing and 46% actually do end up buying an original.
It doesn't seem that protecting the markholder's goodwill is as important as you are making it out to be. Policy should be based on facts, not some arbitrary fear of some near non-existent bogeyman.
On the post: Since Copyright Is So Handy For Censorship, It's Tempting To Use It To Censor Lots Of Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps this is why the penalty of perjury was included in the language for the laws regarding DMCA takedowns. It could be that Congress realized that if the sender wasn't the copyright holder, then DMCA notices could easily run afoul of the First Amendment since the speech would remain protected. I'm going to have to do some research on this myself.
On the post: Since Copyright Is So Handy For Censorship, It's Tempting To Use It To Censor Lots Of Content
Re: Re: It may actually make sense
That what the Framers originally thought when they included in the Constitution, isn't it? Just because it's gotten twisted into something else along the way doesn't make it correct.
I don't think that's true, hence automatic copyright that subsists whether the author is incentivized by the rights or not.
And you have just put forth a compelling argument as to why copyright should go back to opt-in. If automatic copyright isn't an incentive for the creation of new works, then it should be removed from copyright law to comply with the Copyright Clause.
On the post: Since Copyright Is So Handy For Censorship, It's Tempting To Use It To Censor Lots Of Content
Re: Re: Re:
You, Karl and I had a lengthy discussion about this awhile ago and I know that you believe (incorrectly IMO) that DMCA takedowns cannot violate the Constitution because they are not from a government actor. Karl and I disagreed because regardless of who actually sends the notice it's still backed by the might of the Federal government.
In this case we are talking about something completely different though, we are talking about takedowns issued by those who do not hold the copyright in question. Since neither party is actually the copyright holder it would never be established that a copyright violation occurred and the speech would remain protected by the First Amendment wouldn't it?
It seems to me that in this type of situation it's most certainly a First Amendment violation by using the power of the government to quash protected speech.
On the post: California Continues To Be Anti-Innovation: Tells Ridesharing Services That Carpooling Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
What exactly are you claiming is untrue?
And why bring up a single incident involving Uber? If you are really worried about pedestrian safety then your focus should really include traditional taxicabs too.
Also, I lived 3 doors down from a convicted felon who passed Uber's alleged background check.
Anecdotal references are meaningless. Got [citation]?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: What is tech dirt's license?
Will this article where Mike lays out his views on other people copying Techdirt do for you?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22065915716/you-can-copy-our-articles-all-you-want-pl ease-dont-claim-copyright-belongs-to-you.shtml
Basically, you are free to do all of the above things. The only exception I see is trying to copyright Mike's work as your own, which would be a fraudulent copyright anyways.
Next >>