"...you can't really truly prove your age without some sort of properly autheticated document..."
Like Obama's birth certificate which, being a properly authenticated document, has proven Obama's citizenship so far beyond a doubt that it has shut up the birthers.
Sorry for the sarcasm -- which wasn't aimed at you, by the way. I just used your remark as an excuse to take an aside potshot. But my real point is that if you accept such a document, you're trusting the document. And the fact is that such documents can be forged, and not everybody is an expert in spotting forged documents, and not everybody knows all the details of the origins of every document, and even if the document is legitimate then you're trusting the word of every person who authenticated it. Ultimately all the document proves is that the document agrees with who you say you are, and at most that the government agrees.
"...or some sort of number that can uniquely identify you."
I'd make some remark here about arm tattoos but I'd seriously risk invoking Godwin's Law.
"Note that this wouldn't solve anything either, because little miscreants could still use their parents id number/document to create an account."
Exactly the point I would have made.
Facebook would have to personally identify and verify every applicant. Period. A trusted database (which so far our government has proven incompetent at creating or maintaining) would be useless without personal verification.
I think you missed the point. She's talking about automatic copyright, not all copyright. And I don't think she's saying that artists are the enemy. She's merely pointing out the potential for abuse. In fact, I get the feeling that she's trying to address a specific argument.
So many of you seem to be skipping over that word, "automatic". Automatic copyright gives you a copyright on your every merest utterance, free, with no effort required on your part. And it's good for 70 years past your death.
Is that really a good thing? Used to be to get a copyright you had to register the work with the copyright office, which tends to separate the trivial from works that actually were worth the cost and effort, and the copyright only lasted for, what, a couple decades? I forget exactly but it wasn't 70 years past the bloody heat death of the bloody universe.* With today's laws this message I'm writing is protected so long that probably nobody reading it will live to see it enter the public domain. Why? I certainly don't value it that much. It's good for a day or two, then it falls off the edge. The most I can hope for is that somebody finds it insightful enough that it gets an honorable mention this weekend and it lives on for a few extra days. I certainly wouldn't expend any effort to copyright it. I don't want it copyrighted. That's severe overkill, like putting an armed guard around a blade of grass on my lawn.**
That kind of overkill tends to trivialize the value of copyrighting. Everything is copyrighted, no matter how worthless. And making it effortless tends to further devalue it in the eyes of most people. Hey, it's free, how much can it be worth? Right?
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who miss my point, just as there were many that missed Nina's point. To those I say: willful ignorance is worse than ordinary ignorance.
Instead of trying to argue why Nina is wrong, please go try to figure out why she may be right. Then even if you still disagree, at least your arguments will make sense.
*That's called "hyperbole". It's exaggeration for effect. (Though in this case the effect is mostly me letting off some anger and frustration without resorting to abuse.) Please don't take it literally.
I don't understand a word of Russian (...OK, maybe three words... five tops) but I'll occasionally watch one of these just for the heck of it. What impresses me most is that these videos are properly lip-synched in both versions.
That means they didn't just take the English version and slap Russian dialog over it, they fixed the animation as well. Since I don't understand Russian I don't know how natural the dialog is but I'd bet the adjusted whatever timing they needed to make it work.
One of these days I'll play the English and Russian versions of one of these side-by-side to see what kinds of timing differences there are. But not today, I have some Steam games to play. :)
And as That Anonymous Coward pointed out, requiring Google to not pass on to CE is attempting to add legal conditions to the DMCA that he has no right to add. Google is merely refusing to accept.
In case you can't view the image, he provides the text. I can think of a number of reasons why you wouldn't be able to view the image, up to and including if a reader were blind.
"Great idea! By the way, it's illegal to copy protected media, and all the DVDs you market are protected, so there can't be any legal copies made of your movies. You don't get a cut. Have a nice day!"
*smirk*
a) I know it wouldn't work and b) I also realize I'm applying US law (DMCA) to Sweden, but since Sweden seems so eager to do that to themselves, I figure, why can't I get in on the fun?
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re:
Like Obama's birth certificate which, being a properly authenticated document, has proven Obama's citizenship so far beyond a doubt that it has shut up the birthers.
Sorry for the sarcasm -- which wasn't aimed at you, by the way. I just used your remark as an excuse to take an aside potshot. But my real point is that if you accept such a document, you're trusting the document. And the fact is that such documents can be forged, and not everybody is an expert in spotting forged documents, and not everybody knows all the details of the origins of every document, and even if the document is legitimate then you're trusting the word of every person who authenticated it. Ultimately all the document proves is that the document agrees with who you say you are, and at most that the government agrees.
"...or some sort of number that can uniquely identify you."
I'd make some remark here about arm tattoos but I'd seriously risk invoking Godwin's Law.
"Note that this wouldn't solve anything either, because little miscreants could still use their parents id number/document to create an account."
Exactly the point I would have made.
Facebook would have to personally identify and verify every applicant. Period. A trusted database (which so far our government has proven incompetent at creating or maintaining) would be useless without personal verification.
On the post: Europe's Copyright Strategy: Have Europeans Send As Much Money As Possible To US Companies
Re: Re: Re: You've just admitted stronger enforcement brings more revenue.
On the post: Since When Did US Diplomats Become Microsoft Sales Staff?
On the post: Printing Error Shows Flaw In 'Lock-It-Up' Video Game Business Model
On the post: Paxfire Sues The Lawyers And Individual Who Filed A Class Action Lawsuit Over Its Search Redirects
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Hypocrisy
On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
Re: Get Real
Please stop thinking in absolutes.
On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
Automatic copyright
Is that really a good thing? Used to be to get a copyright you had to register the work with the copyright office, which tends to separate the trivial from works that actually were worth the cost and effort, and the copyright only lasted for, what, a couple decades? I forget exactly but it wasn't 70 years past the bloody heat death of the bloody universe.* With today's laws this message I'm writing is protected so long that probably nobody reading it will live to see it enter the public domain. Why? I certainly don't value it that much. It's good for a day or two, then it falls off the edge. The most I can hope for is that somebody finds it insightful enough that it gets an honorable mention this weekend and it lives on for a few extra days. I certainly wouldn't expend any effort to copyright it. I don't want it copyrighted. That's severe overkill, like putting an armed guard around a blade of grass on my lawn.**
That kind of overkill tends to trivialize the value of copyrighting. Everything is copyrighted, no matter how worthless. And making it effortless tends to further devalue it in the eyes of most people. Hey, it's free, how much can it be worth? Right?
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who miss my point, just as there were many that missed Nina's point. To those I say: willful ignorance is worse than ordinary ignorance.
Instead of trying to argue why Nina is wrong, please go try to figure out why she may be right. Then even if you still disagree, at least your arguments will make sense.
*That's called "hyperbole". It's exaggeration for effect. (Though in this case the effect is mostly me letting off some anger and frustration without resorting to abuse.) Please don't take it literally.
**Note: not a car analogy. :)
On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
Re:
On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.
Russian localization?
I don't understand a word of Russian (...OK, maybe three words... five tops) but I'll occasionally watch one of these just for the heck of it. What impresses me most is that these videos are properly lip-synched in both versions.
That means they didn't just take the English version and slap Russian dialog over it, they fixed the animation as well. Since I don't understand Russian I don't know how natural the dialog is but I'd bet the adjusted whatever timing they needed to make it work.
One of these days I'll play the English and Russian versions of one of these side-by-side to see what kinds of timing differences there are. But not today, I have some Steam games to play. :)
On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.
Re:
O_o
On the post: The Insane Chain Of Sampling Rights: How A Folk Song Collector Became A 'Co-Author' On A Jay-Z Song
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Insane Chain Of Sampling Rights: How A Folk Song Collector Became A 'Co-Author' On A Jay-Z Song
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lomax profiting on this
That is the stated purpose of copyright, yes? Here we can see how well it works.
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Big Time Music Producer Sues Artists For Defamation For Suggesting He Copies Their Songs
Re:
On the post: Big Time Music Producer Sues Artists For Defamation For Suggesting He Copies Their Songs
On the post: Twitter Keeps Suspending Accounts Based On Highly Questionable DMCA Claims
Re: Have you ever actually read the DMCA?
On the post: Twitter Keeps Suspending Accounts Based On Highly Questionable DMCA Claims
Re:
On the post: Dear Sweden: Will You Tax Hard Drives And Give Me A Cut Every Time Someone Visits Techdirt?
Only "legal" copies? Oh, really?
*smirk*
a) I know it wouldn't work and b) I also realize I'm applying US law (DMCA) to Sweden, but since Sweden seems so eager to do that to themselves, I figure, why can't I get in on the fun?
Next >>