Re: Re: The real target for all these "non-lethal" solutions are the average citizens
It's actually questionable IF tazers are non-lethal. At least one Canadian police agency has been instructed by the courts and a coroner to treat them as such after a nasty death at Vancouver International Airport some years back.
(The RCMP, by the way, and, in the way of the RCMP there's no knowing if they've actually complied.)
Re: Response to: bjupton on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 1:15am
Oh!!! You mean you get little white bags of white nose candy safely on Capitol Hill?????
Shhhhhhh, don't say that out loud! The place would fill up with only the most ignorant, unqualified and useless people! We can't have that!! Gotta keep some of the perks quiet, you know.
Sorry Mr Speaker. I may be out of order. But I also see it's too late because it's already happened.
There's no recycling program for used politicians because they're far, far too toxic. So the only recycling is to Lobbies'R'Us where they become even more toxic.
Oh dear.
"When you pick up a copy of an album in two different countries, and the packaging is different, the labelling is different, or anything like that, you are looking at local government interference."
Or not. It makes no sense to package a CD or DVD using English, for example, in a part of the world where English isn't the dominant language.
Or simply marketing. A picture of a band in front of the US Capitol building for a CD called, oh say, "Fight For Your Rights" is going to get an entirely different iconic reaction in the US and the Western world than it would in Latin America where, thanks to the Munroe Doctrine that America is often held to be a more nasty and despicable imperial power than, say, either the French or the British.
And on it goes. None of which needs government interference. Just plain old marketing smarts.
We do have an artist's tax on blank CDs,DVDs and BluRay discs but not on ones that the RIAA and it's Canadian ally/slave produce.
Record companies do know how to market shiny plastic discs. So if something is going to offend a market, not get across the message they want due to cover art and so on, it'll be different than it is in the States not because of government interference but because the marketing folks know it's best not to piss off the buyers. (Now, it they could have figured that one out for the Internet!)
So not every change is blamable on mean old government. A lot, the majority, are dictated by marketing.
For all of that the geographic restrictions that, say, don't allow me to download or listen to a piece of music (legitimately) because I'm in Canada and not the United States makes no sense at all. Particularly when NAFTA is in place. Or that I can't view a clip from a TV show I probably otherwise wouldn't view for the same reason. It's ludicrous.
The donkey here, sadly for you, isn't government as much as it is the movie, record and television industries themselves and how they carved up the world way back in the 1950s or earlier.
So Mike is pinning the tail on the correct donkey.
By your rather twisted logic then the following has to apply:
1) I crack a bone in my fingers because I misused a ratchet therefore I get to sue SnapOn
2) I whack my thumb (again!!!) with a hammer so I get to sue Sears?
3) I cut half my foot off misusing the tiller attachment to my Echo power head therefore I must be able to sue Echo. Right?
All have a strong vested interest in me as a customer NOT doing that but none are responsible for me doing any of that.
Every piece of software you use is a tool. From the OS, to Office package, to photo touchup to whatever is a tool that lets you do something.
The browser that got you here is a tool. (Well, it's a complex collection of tools.) It executes client side instructions on pages ending in .asp or .php. It allows you or me to upload to places like YouTube and Flickr.
IF I upload infringing material to YouTube or Flickr then I'm responsible for that. Not YouTube or Flickr. I am.
If and when YouTube or Flickr get a LEGITIMATE takedown notice and respond within the law they have done their duty under that law. They aren't responsible for me putting it there to start with. Even if they could monitor all activity and screen uploads for signs of infringement, which they do, the tools to do that are primitive and likely to stay so for the foreseeable future.
Keeping in mind that there are and may be legitimate and perfectly legal reasons that I uploaded what MAY be infringing under different circumstances. Which leads us to fair use/fair dealing both of which I also assume you want ended along with safe harbours.
All nicely locked away in the walled garden then the world will be safe from piracy. Except, of course, that it won't be.
So why should I lose my right to do perfectly legal things to protect industries that don't NEED protection as they're still obscenely profitable? Or to keep a publishing house in business because it can't adapt?
That's the question you never answer, and won't answer because then you will have to admit that it's corporations and NOT artists you're interested in.
He'd actually be more comfortable in the first half of the 15th Century before Gutenberg developed the movable type press. Then again, had patents existed then he'd have been instantly sued by some Chinese company saying they'd done that some 400 years earlier and had the documents to prove it. And they would, too.
It's attitudes like yours that will, inevitably, doom the entire concept of copyright and it's, sadly, limited good as it currently protects the income of just about everyone BUT the often cited artist. (Unless, of course, that artist is one of the very, very few who make it from creation to publication without having to sign their copyright away. Publication, in this case, meaning books, recordings, DVDs, CDs so it covers authors, songwriters, commentators and so on.)
SOPA will do nothing at all to stop file sharing/piracy. Get that into your thick skull to begin with. Human nature, being what it is, file sharing will actually increase if for no other reason than to stick it to "da man". The entire spectrum of reasons is too long to get into here but humans don't like barriers existing for "harm" that actually doesn't exist. It MIGHT hurt artists but anyone who knows how Hollywood and the book publishing business works knows it's only a tiny minority of creators with the situation being what it is now.
Not only that but humans naturally and rightfully object when culturally important items are locked into walled gardens as humans feel, correctly, that culture belongs to us all. (And no I'm not talking about Disney's vast library poorly told if brilliantly animated retellings of fairy tales or Mickey Mouse.)
Safe harbours to exist for a number of other reasons than file sharing, of course, and it's the principle that the host isn't responsible for what someone puts on their site until the alleged infringement is brought to their attention.
Of course, as yet, you haven't shown one business that relies on pro piracy business models. AND makes a ton of money doing it.
Don't bother with Google because to accuse them means you're accusing Bing and Yahoo of the same thing.
(semi-serious) As someone who has a seizure condition I would ask that you not equate us with the non-thinking patterns of Average Joe when he's in troll mode. Even if that's 98% of the time. (end -- semi serious)
It's this from of "thinking" that keeps me wondering how Average Joe ever gets more then a FAIL scrawled in bright red across his assignments. Even by law school standards, if one the often expressed opinion that it's law school people end up with when they fail in every other faculty or major. (I don't really, but there are times I wonder.)
Getting locked into one line of thought and unable or to get out of it is early onset senility, not a seizure disorder. ;-)
Ahhh, what a tangled web we weave. I'd be interested in the judge's reaction to this if Reliance did overstep it's bounds.
As for censorship, whoops!, blocking somehow makes infringement go way then this "Oh, and apparently the block hasn't worked... as a DVD screener copy of the film was ripped and is being widely shared online." should put an end to that. I can see the film being dowloaded even more widely now. Not only in India but in the wider Indian diaspora.
There's just not much to comment on here because it's so ridiculous.
Though it looks, I guess, that Northern California must need copyright infringement lawsuits in the same way East Texas needs patent violation lawsuits. Even trolls gotta have a home. Now we know the copyright trolls have a nice home amongst the redwoods in Northern California while patent trolls have one in the dust, tornadoes and hurricanes of East Texas!!
It gets even more complex if you bring the British Museum into the picture as by setting rights too strictly the Museum fails at its charter that it make all works available for study and research.
I have no idea what the British Library's charter is so I might look that up later today.
As for newspapers I doubt the BNA is the only organization that has an extensive collection of British newspapers so we'll have to wait and see what happens when other collections are digitized. If even one of them chooses less restrictive use agreements then the pressure will come onto the BNA and others to loosen up too.
Cambridge is under no such public restriction though I suspect the "it cost a lot of money to do this" argument will rear it's ugly head at some point. Depending on what they're digitizing scanning so that the original isn't damaged is very hard to do. For example an illuminated codex or book made before the arrival of the printing press.
But you see, if the copyright exists for the 50 years after you die then you can have some cute angel bring you the cheques and eventually get a better cloud and a better harp!
See, that's why you want it! The added advantages of flirting with the cute angel entire beside the point of course :)
Does Lieberman NOT understand that censoring the Taliban will only bring more attention to them?
As noted by Pete Austin, the Brits tried this and failed.
Countries have made denying the holocaust a "Hate Crime" either by direct legislation or culturally and politically (which nicely draws the USA in and, Lieberman once again) which hasn't stopped that either.
Being a neo-Nazi is straight out illegal in Germany but there do seem to be an awful lot of them around these days.
White supremacist sites are often prosecuted as hate crimes in countries that have them yet they still thrive. Proving, if nothing else, that tribalism is alive and well and still as dangerous as it's always been.
(Something Lieberman, himself, proves over and over again in his unquestioning support of Israel.)
Censorship doesn't help anything. Driving what you censor underground almost always makes it worse (anti-drug laws). And always makes it harder for law enforcement agencies to keep track of that the genuinely dangerous ones are doing.
To quote Bob Dylan "When will we ever learn". (note: That's fair use!)
The other part that will be years before it's duplicated (if ever) was the immense cultural renaissance in Britain at the time which enabled bands like the Beatles, Stones and The Who, to name far to many to actually be aware of and know each other so that a competition formed that made them all better. Something that had nothing to do with record companies or management.
That and the influence of American black music which struck a cord with working class English kids who could relate to what the blacks were singing about.
They brought about a similar renaissance in music and the arts in the United States which kicked off what may be looked back on as an incredible explosion, mixing and melding of white and black music there and in other art forms that still echos today. I'll go to my grave considering the period of 1964 to 1976 (to apply dates badly to it) as the most creative musical period in western civilization. One which spilled over into every other art form.
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: Re:
And it has nothing whatever do to with offshore sites but with the minor fact of censorship and First Amendment rights.
Go it now? I really, really did try to use short words so you'd understand it. And I even gave you a grammar hint for free!
On the post: DailyDirt: Defend Yourself! (Or Give Peace A Chance...)
Re: Re: The real target for all these "non-lethal" solutions are the average citizens
(The RCMP, by the way, and, in the way of the RCMP there's no knowing if they've actually complied.)
On the post: Heritage Foundation Says SOPA Threatens Free Speech
Re: Response to: bjupton on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 1:15am
Shhhhhhh, don't say that out loud! The place would fill up with only the most ignorant, unqualified and useless people! We can't have that!! Gotta keep some of the perks quiet, you know.
Sorry Mr Speaker. I may be out of order. But I also see it's too late because it's already happened.
On the post: Why Does The Recording Industry Complain When It's Often Its Own Worst Enemy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Return Policy Promotes Piracy
On the post: Why Does The Recording Industry Complain When It's Often Its Own Worst Enemy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The world is one
"When you pick up a copy of an album in two different countries, and the packaging is different, the labelling is different, or anything like that, you are looking at local government interference."
Or not. It makes no sense to package a CD or DVD using English, for example, in a part of the world where English isn't the dominant language.
Or simply marketing. A picture of a band in front of the US Capitol building for a CD called, oh say, "Fight For Your Rights" is going to get an entirely different iconic reaction in the US and the Western world than it would in Latin America where, thanks to the Munroe Doctrine that America is often held to be a more nasty and despicable imperial power than, say, either the French or the British.
And on it goes. None of which needs government interference. Just plain old marketing smarts.
We do have an artist's tax on blank CDs,DVDs and BluRay discs but not on ones that the RIAA and it's Canadian ally/slave produce.
Record companies do know how to market shiny plastic discs. So if something is going to offend a market, not get across the message they want due to cover art and so on, it'll be different than it is in the States not because of government interference but because the marketing folks know it's best not to piss off the buyers. (Now, it they could have figured that one out for the Internet!)
So not every change is blamable on mean old government. A lot, the majority, are dictated by marketing.
For all of that the geographic restrictions that, say, don't allow me to download or listen to a piece of music (legitimately) because I'm in Canada and not the United States makes no sense at all. Particularly when NAFTA is in place. Or that I can't view a clip from a TV show I probably otherwise wouldn't view for the same reason. It's ludicrous.
The donkey here, sadly for you, isn't government as much as it is the movie, record and television industries themselves and how they carved up the world way back in the 1950s or earlier.
So Mike is pinning the tail on the correct donkey.
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re: Re: Re:
1) I crack a bone in my fingers because I misused a ratchet therefore I get to sue SnapOn
2) I whack my thumb (again!!!) with a hammer so I get to sue Sears?
3) I cut half my foot off misusing the tiller attachment to my Echo power head therefore I must be able to sue Echo. Right?
All have a strong vested interest in me as a customer NOT doing that but none are responsible for me doing any of that.
Every piece of software you use is a tool. From the OS, to Office package, to photo touchup to whatever is a tool that lets you do something.
The browser that got you here is a tool. (Well, it's a complex collection of tools.) It executes client side instructions on pages ending in .asp or .php. It allows you or me to upload to places like YouTube and Flickr.
IF I upload infringing material to YouTube or Flickr then I'm responsible for that. Not YouTube or Flickr. I am.
If and when YouTube or Flickr get a LEGITIMATE takedown notice and respond within the law they have done their duty under that law. They aren't responsible for me putting it there to start with. Even if they could monitor all activity and screen uploads for signs of infringement, which they do, the tools to do that are primitive and likely to stay so for the foreseeable future.
Keeping in mind that there are and may be legitimate and perfectly legal reasons that I uploaded what MAY be infringing under different circumstances. Which leads us to fair use/fair dealing both of which I also assume you want ended along with safe harbours.
All nicely locked away in the walled garden then the world will be safe from piracy. Except, of course, that it won't be.
So why should I lose my right to do perfectly legal things to protect industries that don't NEED protection as they're still obscenely profitable? Or to keep a publishing house in business because it can't adapt?
That's the question you never answer, and won't answer because then you will have to admit that it's corporations and NOT artists you're interested in.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, if you assert they're profitable can you show me a balance sheet for them?
FAIL
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA will do nothing at all to stop file sharing/piracy. Get that into your thick skull to begin with. Human nature, being what it is, file sharing will actually increase if for no other reason than to stick it to "da man". The entire spectrum of reasons is too long to get into here but humans don't like barriers existing for "harm" that actually doesn't exist. It MIGHT hurt artists but anyone who knows how Hollywood and the book publishing business works knows it's only a tiny minority of creators with the situation being what it is now.
Not only that but humans naturally and rightfully object when culturally important items are locked into walled gardens as humans feel, correctly, that culture belongs to us all. (And no I'm not talking about Disney's vast library poorly told if brilliantly animated retellings of fairy tales or Mickey Mouse.)
Safe harbours to exist for a number of other reasons than file sharing, of course, and it's the principle that the host isn't responsible for what someone puts on their site until the alleged infringement is brought to their attention.
Of course, as yet, you haven't shown one business that relies on pro piracy business models. AND makes a ton of money doing it.
Don't bother with Google because to accuse them means you're accusing Bing and Yahoo of the same thing.
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's this from of "thinking" that keeps me wondering how Average Joe ever gets more then a FAIL scrawled in bright red across his assignments. Even by law school standards, if one the often expressed opinion that it's law school people end up with when they fail in every other faculty or major. (I don't really, but there are times I wonder.)
Getting locked into one line of thought and unable or to get out of it is early onset senility, not a seizure disorder. ;-)
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anonymous Actress Who Sued IMDB For Revealing Her Age Ordered To Reveal Her Name
Re: Re:
On the post: Indian ISP Blocks A Bunch Of Websites To Try To Prevent File Sharing Of A Single Movie
As for censorship, whoops!, blocking somehow makes infringement go way then this "Oh, and apparently the block hasn't worked... as a DVD screener copy of the film was ripped and is being widely shared online." should put an end to that. I can see the film being dowloaded even more widely now. Not only in India but in the wider Indian diaspora.
On the post: Copyright Tourism: Korean Companies Sue Guy From Australia For Copyright Infringement... In California
Re:
Though it looks, I guess, that Northern California must need copyright infringement lawsuits in the same way East Texas needs patent violation lawsuits. Even trolls gotta have a home. Now we know the copyright trolls have a nice home amongst the redwoods in Northern California while patent trolls have one in the dust, tornadoes and hurricanes of East Texas!!
On the post: How Firefly Fans Made One University's Campus Safe For Free Speech
Re: All that and he's a pirate too!!!
They'd have probalbly been almost as successful. ;-)
On the post: The Great Digitization Or The Great Betrayal?
Re: Re:
I have no idea what the British Library's charter is so I might look that up later today.
As for newspapers I doubt the BNA is the only organization that has an extensive collection of British newspapers so we'll have to wait and see what happens when other collections are digitized. If even one of them chooses less restrictive use agreements then the pressure will come onto the BNA and others to loosen up too.
Cambridge is under no such public restriction though I suspect the "it cost a lot of money to do this" argument will rear it's ugly head at some point. Depending on what they're digitizing scanning so that the original isn't damaged is very hard to do. For example an illuminated codex or book made before the arrival of the printing press.
On the post: The Great Digitization Or The Great Betrayal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I have this right
See, that's why you want it! The added advantages of flirting with the cute angel entire beside the point of course :)
On the post: Senator Joe Lieberman Follows Up His 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Letter By Asking Twitter To Block Pro-Taliban Feeds
Does Lieberman NOT understand that censoring the Taliban will only bring more attention to them?
Countries have made denying the holocaust a "Hate Crime" either by direct legislation or culturally and politically (which nicely draws the USA in and, Lieberman once again) which hasn't stopped that either.
Being a neo-Nazi is straight out illegal in Germany but there do seem to be an awful lot of them around these days.
White supremacist sites are often prosecuted as hate crimes in countries that have them yet they still thrive. Proving, if nothing else, that tribalism is alive and well and still as dangerous as it's always been.
(Something Lieberman, himself, proves over and over again in his unquestioning support of Israel.)
Censorship doesn't help anything. Driving what you censor underground almost always makes it worse (anti-drug laws). And always makes it harder for law enforcement agencies to keep track of that the genuinely dangerous ones are doing.
To quote Bob Dylan "When will we ever learn". (note: That's fair use!)
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That and the influence of American black music which struck a cord with working class English kids who could relate to what the blacks were singing about.
They brought about a similar renaissance in music and the arts in the United States which kicked off what may be looked back on as an incredible explosion, mixing and melding of white and black music there and in other art forms that still echos today. I'll go to my grave considering the period of 1964 to 1976 (to apply dates badly to it) as the most creative musical period in western civilization. One which spilled over into every other art form.
Next >>