This is just one more reason to support YaCy, which is uncensorable.
YaCy's results are far from perfect and it's a little slow, but it cannot be censored and your searches are not saved on a server somewhere that can be subpoenaed later.
I currently run two nodes, even though I still tend to Google everyday things.
It's hilarious how you bozos still trot out "copyright length" as the reason you steal a movie or album that was released last week.
I don't see that as a reason to infringe on copyright at all.
I do however view it as the main reason as to why nothing enters the Public Domain anymore and why the rights holders are reneging on the original copyright deal between the public and creators.
I also see it as being extremely counterproductive to the original intent of copyright, which was to be an incentive to create new works. Seriously, why create something new, when one can rest on their laurels until their children's children are dead?
I don't side with either the broadcasters or Aereo but what Aereo has done is violate the rights of the broadcasters.
In your opinion only. As for me, I'll wait and see what SCOTUS decides.
This is no different than distributing pirated content.
Wrong. It's different enough that this issue has made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Aereo is simply trying to argue that it has the right to use that content since broadcasters are using the public spectrum.
That's not what Aereo is arguing at all. It's arguing that time-shifting and place-shifting are not infringement based on previous court rulings and that it is simply providing a service to do those things.
Fact is, Aereo is taking content that is protected by copyright law, by which they have no copyright claim to and stealing that content to rebroadcast it and to make money from it.
You saying something is "fact" doesn't make it so. At all.
Aereo is simply storing a copy of copyrighted content for each antennae and then rebroadcasting it.
That's exactly what my DVR does and it's completely legal.
In the end, Aereo is going to lose and they are going to lose big when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision.
We'll see. But I tend to disagree based on the fact that 3 out of 4 courts have already found Aereo's setup legal.
NO matter how much Aereo claims that it's offering a valuable service...
The simple fact that people ARE paying Aereo for this service (which is already free if you put up an antenna yourself) seem to indicate it has value.
...the fact remains that it has engaged in copyright theft of licensed content that remains under the control of the broadcasters.
First off, that's not a "fact" at all. That's you projecting. The courts are still deciding this. Secondly, infringement is not theft. Thirdly, since we are talking about broadcast signals that are transmitted, for free, to anyone with an antenna, how much "control" do the broadcasters have at that point anyways? I can have one TV or I can have a thousand in my house and it still makes no difference.
Aereo hasn't convinced me that what it has done should project itself from copyright lawsuits.
Who cares if you are convinced or not? It only matters if the Justices are convinced.
I'm simply shocked that ICE hasn't seized its domain name since it's distributing pirated content. "Seizing" a transmission should automatically be seen by Federal authorities as violating FCC rules and regulations and I sincerely doubt that they have been granted the right to do that either.
Wait a minute. Are you seriously advocating that the Federal Government rushes in and shuts down a business based on, well nothing, since it's never been established in a court that Aereo is actually breaking the law? Really?
You make me wish common sense actually was more common.
Torture? Seven months of solitary confinement (with outdoor rec every day) is torture?
According to the UN's Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, the answer is YES:
Solitary confinement 60. Prison regimes of solitary confinement often cause mental and physical suffering or humiliation that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. If used intentionally for purposes such as punishment, intimidation, coercion or obtaining information or a confession, or for any reason based on discrimination, and if the resulting pain or suffering are severe, solitary confinement even amounts to torture (A/66/268, paras. 76, 87 and 88). Solitary confinement should be imposed, if at all, in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and with established safeguards in place after obtaining the authorization of the competent authority subject to independent review. (emphasis mine) Source
Except they didn't. Because now everyone who rented out properties to Airbnb in certain cities are getting in quite a bit of trouble and the company is leaving them out to dry.
Do you have a link or two to these stories? I know that Airbnb has run into some problems in NYC due to the entrenched regulatory capture in the hotel industry there, but you make it sound like it's happening in a lot more places.
Also, Airbnb is simply a booking service, no one rents their properties to Airbnb at all, it's a private transaction between the property owner and the guest that is facilitated by Airbnb.
Now if that book in school had been a bible, we would be seeing the opposite reaction here. Most of the people would be going crazy to have it removed.
I'm not sure that's a true statement.
First off, the books were being given away at a local park, not at school, so the whole separation of church and state wouldn't apply to this situation. Plenty of people give bibles away to teens and it's not a problem.
Also, when I was in high school back in the early 80's my school did have a class (I never took it, but friends did) named "The Bible as Literature" which was the study of the bible not from a religious standpoint, but from a literary standpoint.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dealerships Are An Indispensable Part of Process
Dealerships work for you, often they will go above and beyond in trying to get the best....
If the dealerships offer all of that value, why are they so worried about competition from online in the first place then? If your sales pitch really is the truth, then no one will want to purchase online anyways because they don't offer all of that....um.....stuff you mentioned.
As an aside: Your sales pitch doesn't really sound all that great to me personally, it sounds like you'd rather have an uninformed customer over someone with knowledge and that's not someone I really want to do business with.
Your argument for fair use merely quotes the judge (who I already think misread the Perfect 10 case) and you seem to add nothing new to the argument.
Yes, I was quoting the judge saying that the Fair Use defense was "persuasive" and "dispositive", which implies it would likely win and settle this case.
They did not do anything with the script (transform, parody, critique etc). They just said here is something stolen and go read it yourself.
They were reporting on it, which is a valid Fair Use defense and always has been.
I also do not think Fair Use applies to things that are stolen.
Of course not, but this case isn't about theft, it's about infringement.
As someone else mentioned the rules of First Publication should apply and as QT never published it it is just stolen.
It wasn't stolen, it was copied. But even so, if your logic is to be believed then all of the news outlets reporting on and displaying the Snowden documents would be breaking the law. They are not.
Can you parody or transform a stolen work? Maybe but doubtful. But Gawker didn't do anything...
A Fair Use defense for reporting on something newsworthy doesn't need to parody or transform the work, not sure why you think it would. It would be kind of silly if the news organizations had to "change" the original documents they are reporting on.
So Gawker should not be able to wash their hands of contributory infringement based on that ruling. So far the judge IS allowing this. But I disagree....
I get what you are arguing here concerning the Perfect 10 ruling and this case, although I'm not sure I agree with it 100%. Linking and contributory copyright infringement is still a kind of fuzzy area of copyright law.
But, even if what you say holds true, I don't believe it's really applicable in this case. The majority of Gawker's defense was Fair Use, which the court didn't rule on at this point (IE: no contributory infringement means a Fair Use defense is not needed). But the Court itself hints that the Fair Use argument would probably win on it's own merit with this comment:
In this case, Defendant devotes many pages to its argument that Plaintiff's contributory infringement claim is barred by the doctrine of "fair use" codified at 17 U.S.C. §107. However, the Court concludes that the fair use arguments, albeit persuasive and potentially dispositive, are premature and the Court declines to consider those arguments until Plaintiff has had an opportunity to demonstrate that he can state a viable claim for contributory copyright infringement. (emphasis mine)
And how does that differ from the Aereo situation?
It doesn't. At all.
But, we are dealing with people who think that "criminal interference with a business model" is an actual, real legal doctrine instead of a derisible, sarcastic term.
The big problem: at no point anywhere in the process above, did Tarantino's lawyer show how Gawker's actions resulted in anyone infringing on anyone's copyright. That makes it quite hard to pin "contributory infringement" when there's no direct infringement in the first place:
Isn't this the same type of argument that the DOJ has tried with Dajaz1 and others? That contributory infringement and conspiracy to commit contributory infringement MUST have occurred without the burden of having to prove that any direct infringement actually happened.
On the post: Airbnb Under Pressure, Agrees To Hand Over Data To NY's Attorney General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety issues
Do all New Yorkers call tourists and visiting business people "transients"?
If so, then you might not have much to worry when it comes to AirBnb, because that by itself could quash any interest in visiting your city.
On the post: Florida Lawmakers Aim To Restore Childrens' Rights To Openly Carry Pop Tart 'Guns' On Campus
Re: Common Sense
Common sense was never outlawed, but apparently there is zero tolerance for it these days.
On the post: Commander Hadfield's Amazing Cover Of David Bowie's Space Oddity Disappears Today, Thanks To Copyright
Re:
Would you feel the same way if it was Richard Branson doing the same thing from a Virgin Galactic commercial flight?
Just curious.
On the post: Dangerous Ruling: EU Says Google Must Help People Disappear Stuff They Don't Like From The Internet
YaCy's results are far from perfect and it's a little slow, but it cannot be censored and your searches are not saved on a server somewhere that can be subpoenaed later.
I currently run two nodes, even though I still tend to Google everyday things.
On the post: Biden, Goodlatte Preach To The IP Maximalist Choir, Vow To Make 'Second-Rate' Countries Bend To US IP Laws
Re:
I don't see that as a reason to infringe on copyright at all.
I do however view it as the main reason as to why nothing enters the Public Domain anymore and why the rights holders are reneging on the original copyright deal between the public and creators.
I also see it as being extremely counterproductive to the original intent of copyright, which was to be an incentive to create new works. Seriously, why create something new, when one can rest on their laurels until their children's children are dead?
But hey, that's just my opinion.
On the post: Movie Theater Owners Hope To Jam Up Phone Users
Too Funny!
I don't think Techdirt had the Identicons back in 2005, but looking back now you can see that 90% of these comments are from the same IP address.
This person's head must be more crowded than Sybil's with all those different personas and conversations in there.
On the post: Broadcasters' Lawyer Lays Out Every Bogus Trope Possible Against Aereo
Re:
In your opinion only. As for me, I'll wait and see what SCOTUS decides.
This is no different than distributing pirated content.
Wrong. It's different enough that this issue has made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Aereo is simply trying to argue that it has the right to use that content since broadcasters are using the public spectrum.
That's not what Aereo is arguing at all. It's arguing that time-shifting and place-shifting are not infringement based on previous court rulings and that it is simply providing a service to do those things.
Fact is, Aereo is taking content that is protected by copyright law, by which they have no copyright claim to and stealing that content to rebroadcast it and to make money from it.
You saying something is "fact" doesn't make it so. At all.
Aereo is simply storing a copy of copyrighted content for each antennae and then rebroadcasting it.
That's exactly what my DVR does and it's completely legal.
In the end, Aereo is going to lose and they are going to lose big when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision.
We'll see. But I tend to disagree based on the fact that 3 out of 4 courts have already found Aereo's setup legal.
On the post: Broadcasters' Lawyer Lays Out Every Bogus Trope Possible Against Aereo
Re:
The simple fact that people ARE paying Aereo for this service (which is already free if you put up an antenna yourself) seem to indicate it has value.
...the fact remains that it has engaged in copyright theft of licensed content that remains under the control of the broadcasters.
First off, that's not a "fact" at all. That's you projecting. The courts are still deciding this.
Secondly, infringement is not theft.
Thirdly, since we are talking about broadcast signals that are transmitted, for free, to anyone with an antenna, how much "control" do the broadcasters have at that point anyways? I can have one TV or I can have a thousand in my house and it still makes no difference.
Aereo hasn't convinced me that what it has done should project itself from copyright lawsuits.
Who cares if you are convinced or not? It only matters if the Justices are convinced.
I'm simply shocked that ICE hasn't seized its domain name since it's distributing pirated content. "Seizing" a transmission should automatically be seen by Federal authorities as violating FCC rules and regulations and I sincerely doubt that they have been granted the right to do that either.
Wait a minute. Are you seriously advocating that the Federal Government rushes in and shuts down a business based on, well nothing, since it's never been established in a court that Aereo is actually breaking the law? Really?
You make me wish common sense actually was more common.
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And today's other headline in "Mundane News" is:
"Angry, Washed-up Musician Shakes Fist at Molehill"
On the post: DOJ Is Still Investigating Wikileaks
Re:
According to the UN's Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, the answer is YES:
On the post: DOJ Is Still Investigating Wikileaks
Re: Manning
WTF? Are you seriously arguing that Manning imposed long-term solitary confinement upon herself while in the custody of the USG?
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life.
On the post: You Don't Have To Be Desperate To Believe That Trust Is A Good Thing
Re:
Do you have a link or two to these stories? I know that Airbnb has run into some problems in NYC due to the entrenched regulatory capture in the hotel industry there, but you make it sound like it's happening in a lot more places.
Also, Airbnb is simply a booking service, no one rents their properties to Airbnb at all, it's a private transaction between the property owner and the guest that is facilitated by Airbnb.
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Interesting comments here
I'm not sure that's a true statement.
First off, the books were being given away at a local park, not at school, so the whole separation of church and state wouldn't apply to this situation. Plenty of people give bibles away to teens and it's not a problem.
Also, when I was in high school back in the early 80's my school did have a class (I never took it, but friends did) named "The Bible as Literature" which was the study of the bible not from a religious standpoint, but from a literary standpoint.
On the post: FTC Goes To Bat For Tesla: Says States Shouldn't Limit Tesla Sales Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dealerships Are An Indispensable Part of Process
If the dealerships offer all of that value, why are they so worried about competition from online in the first place then? If your sales pitch really is the truth, then no one will want to purchase online anyways because they don't offer all of that....um.....stuff you mentioned.
As an aside: Your sales pitch doesn't really sound all that great to me personally, it sounds like you'd rather have an uninformed customer over someone with knowledge and that's not someone I really want to do business with.
On the post: UK Filters And The Slippery Slope Of Mass Censorship
Re:
Care to elaborate as to why you think it is misleading?
On the post: Quentin Tarantino Loses Big In Trying To Paint Gawker As A Copyright Infringer
Re: Re: I disagree
Yes, I was quoting the judge saying that the Fair Use defense was "persuasive" and "dispositive", which implies it would likely win and settle this case.
They did not do anything with the script (transform, parody, critique etc). They just said here is something stolen and go read it yourself.
They were reporting on it, which is a valid Fair Use defense and always has been.
I also do not think Fair Use applies to things that are stolen.
Of course not, but this case isn't about theft, it's about infringement.
As someone else mentioned the rules of First Publication should apply and as QT never published it it is just stolen.
It wasn't stolen, it was copied. But even so, if your logic is to be believed then all of the news outlets reporting on and displaying the Snowden documents would be breaking the law. They are not.
Can you parody or transform a stolen work? Maybe but doubtful. But Gawker didn't do anything...
A Fair Use defense for reporting on something newsworthy doesn't need to parody or transform the work, not sure why you think it would. It would be kind of silly if the news organizations had to "change" the original documents they are reporting on.
On the post: Quentin Tarantino Loses Big In Trying To Paint Gawker As A Copyright Infringer
Re: Re: Re: I disagree
I get what you are arguing here concerning the Perfect 10 ruling and this case, although I'm not sure I agree with it 100%. Linking and contributory copyright infringement is still a kind of fuzzy area of copyright law.
But, even if what you say holds true, I don't believe it's really applicable in this case. The majority of Gawker's defense was Fair Use, which the court didn't rule on at this point (IE: no contributory infringement means a Fair Use defense is not needed). But the Court itself hints that the Fair Use argument would probably win on it's own merit with this comment:
On the post: Mayor Ardis Defends Police Raid, Complains That Parody Twitter Account Used Up All The Free Speech
Re:
Wish I had more than one vote to give you.
On the post: Supreme Court Discussion In Aereo: At Least The Justices Recognize The Harm They Might Do
Re: Re: Re: Re: funny
It doesn't. At all.
But, we are dealing with people who think that "criminal interference with a business model" is an actual, real legal doctrine instead of a derisible, sarcastic term.
On the post: Quentin Tarantino Loses Big In Trying To Paint Gawker As A Copyright Infringer
Isn't this the same type of argument that the DOJ has tried with Dajaz1 and others? That contributory infringement and conspiracy to commit contributory infringement MUST have occurred without the burden of having to prove that any direct infringement actually happened.
Next >>