I don't think you appreciate how sophisticated the machine in question is. It's not something you just knock together in a back corner of your factory.
You're right, but completely missing the point, which is that this method is stupid and unfairly punishes the purchaser. It would be simple, and far better for the manufacturer's supposedly valuable customers, to have the machine freely movable within a set area, which could be a building, city or even country.
You don't necessarily need to be found guilty of such an act of conspiracy, you merely have to be threatened by these serious charges in order to make to take a plea deal. Techdirt and others have covered this tactic quite extensively. A law like this would give the DoJ the ability to make even scarier threats, and increase the chances of innocent people pleading guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the possibility, however unlikely, of being found guilty of a much more serious crime.
Security researchers do not operate in their own little bubble. If you find an exploitable weakness and discuss it with other researchers or knowledgeable people, and then later on do something to attract the DoJ's attention, their history would indicate your discussions could quite easily be turned into 'conspiring' in order to threaten you with serious charges.
Remember, we're not talking about common-sense interpretations here, but about how the laws can be and have been twisted by the DoJ for their own purposes, like making heavy-handed threats as part of a plea bargain.
"Not only is the letter riddled with grammatical errors (and covered with Kirsten's coffee)..."
After seeing the photo of the letter and leaping to a conclusion, I was really disappointed not to read that she'd treated the letter with the respect it deserved and used it to wipe her ass...
"You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP..."
No, he doesn't realise that, because it's demonstrably FALSE. That fact that so many (too many) things are covered by IP laws does not mean 'IP' is the reason they exist. You weaken any argument you try to make with this ridiculous claim.
"So anything that hurts piracy helps us all by letting society reward those who do the work."
Your theory seems to leap right from "stop piracy" to "people give me money", missing out the critical step in the middle where the customer decides whether the price you're asking matches how much they value your work. It doesn't matter what you think is a fair return, you're not the one paying.
Note also that there's currently nothing stopping society rewarding those who do the work.
"You have NO credibility with such egregious comparison."
And you have no credibilty because your reading comprehension is so terrible. Mike was not comparing the scale of this case to the MegaUpload one, he was comparing the DoJ's similarly incompetent actions in each case.
Is English even your first language? Coz you really struggle with understanding it sometimes.
Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.
"Content is only created when profits are possible."
To refute this claim I offer the entirety of human history as proof you're completely wrong.
""The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet." -- WOW, what a revelation, Mike! Yeah, people who put MONEY in producing content want to get it back and then some. They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without."
Definitions of 'free':
adjective 1. able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another. 2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
adverb 1. without cost or payment.
When you confuse the adjective with the adverb, you look like a complete moron. Again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
"Then we should be ashamed of ourselves."
If it were anyone else then yes, but this one's a special case. The quality of his commenting really is that low. You'll note there are no other regular commenters who receive such treatment.
Funny, my experience is the exact opposite. I love watching videos on Vimeo because they always work and they always look good. I frequently find YouTube to be a frustrating experience.
Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
Because someone who is clearly not the real OOTB wrongly thought it would be clever to post under that name, maybe forgetting that OOTB's reputation is so bad that his comments get reported regardless of the content.
Those three 'The People's View' links are chock full of outright lies and info that's been proven wrong in the 4-6 months since they were posted. You might want to look for a better source.
"My guess is that google would prefer a search result about Ian Watkins to provide a picture of the corresponding Ian Watkins, not some other Ian Watkins."
And as soon as Google invents a technology that can read the minds of users via their internet connection, they'll be able to tell which of the many thousands of Ian Watkins in the world was actually being searched for by that particular user at that particular time. In the mean time, Google (and those of us with a grasp on reality) accept that the current method of returning search results works pretty damn well nearly all of the time, and unlikely coincidences like this are unfortunate but not worth trying to fix by making Google work less effectively.
"There's also the issue where it seems things which are popular get preferential treatment"
Wait, you're complaining about a search engine working exactly like a search engine should? Exactly what order do you think thousands of search results should be displayed? Alphabetical? The level of stupid in your complaint is almost painful.
"if what i'm searching for isn't very popular it's very likely i'll have to be super specific with the keywords or dig through results, or in some cases, i can't find it at all"
Wow, so you've figured this out about ten years after the rest of us.
"and that's why google (and all other search engines) PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well you're fully entitled to not use any of them. That'd obviously make your web surfing much less infuriating and hence far more productive...
"Sure Google is useful, but it's still a big insult to the authors."
Yes, having excerpts of your works able to be easily found by fans and potential customers, or people researching your work for academic purposes, must be so damn insulting! Obscurity would be so much more rewarding!
"On the whole, most authors would rather be able to pay for food and health insurance instead of having their book show up on the fifth page of some Google search."
Since one does not preclude the other in any way, shape or form, your point is completely irrelevant.
"Remember, most authors don't get free food and health insurance like the programmers at Google."
Neither do millions of other self-employed workers, so again your point is completely irrelevant.
"It's you who is out of touch with the needs of the millions of creative people who work hard and just ask for the chance to control what happens to their work, just like every other worker in the economy."
If that's the case then it looks like "millions of creative people" are completely clueless about the working conditions of "every other worker in the economy", most of whom have little to no control over "their work" once it's completed.
"Even the richest artists have 1/1000 the wealth of the Google billionaires."
If you want sympathy for your cause I suggest you leave the millionaire winners of the copyright lottery system out of the discussion. Most of us are not going to feel sorry for someone worth millions who's jealous of someone worth billions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
"You do understand what Google's doing, right?"
No, he clearly doesn't, which is why most of his comments come off as ignorant rants that border on comedy. I also get a whiff of failed author/artist/creator who blames everybody but himself for his lack of success.
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
"You're just a copyright denier."
Way to sound like an idiot. A 'copyright denier' would be someone who denies copyright even exists, like the way Holocaust deniers claim the Holocaust didn''t happen or was greatly exaggerated. Are you sure that's the accusation you're trying to make? Most people here are complaining about the overreach by and abuse of the copyright system, which pretty much implies they acknowledge its existence.
Care to try explaining yourself a little better?
"Publishers always experiment with bundling rights in different ways because they want the customers to be happy."
At this point there are very few customers who believe that their happiness is a high priority for publishers.
"But getting things for free is not sustainable no matter how happy it makes people."
Decades of free-to-air TV and radio would disagree with you. But you seem to have gone off track because this article is not about getting books for free. If you think it is then you're as clueless about Google's book scanning project as the Author's Guild.
On the post: Latest Twist On DRM Of Physical Products: Machines Locked Down By Geolocation
Re:
On the post: Latest Twist On DRM Of Physical Products: Machines Locked Down By Geolocation
Re:
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/dmg-mori-gildemeister-maho-cnc/mori-ellison-gyroscope-unlo cking-273841/#post2145512
On the post: Latest Twist On DRM Of Physical Products: Machines Locked Down By Geolocation
Re: HOLY CRAP! TECHDIRT IS STILL IN THE 20TH CENTURY!
On the post: Latest Twist On DRM Of Physical Products: Machines Locked Down By Geolocation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wat
On the post: Senator Leahy Tries To Sneak Through Plans To Make Merely Talking About Computer Hacking A Serious Crime
Re: Re: Re: Not really
On the post: Senator Leahy Tries To Sneak Through Plans To Make Merely Talking About Computer Hacking A Serious Crime
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, we're not talking about common-sense interpretations here, but about how the laws can be and have been twisted by the DoJ for their own purposes, like making heavy-handed threats as part of a plea bargain.
On the post: Remodeler Sues Woman Over Negative Reviews, Helps Force Another Critic Out Of Her Own Home
After seeing the photo of the letter and leaping to a conclusion, I was really disappointed not to read that she'd treated the letter with the respect it deserved and used it to wipe her ass...
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
No, he doesn't realise that, because it's demonstrably FALSE. That fact that so many (too many) things are covered by IP laws does not mean 'IP' is the reason they exist. You weaken any argument you try to make with this ridiculous claim.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
Your theory seems to leap right from "stop piracy" to "people give me money", missing out the critical step in the middle where the customer decides whether the price you're asking matches how much they value your work. It doesn't matter what you think is a fair return, you're not the one paying.
Note also that there's currently nothing stopping society rewarding those who do the work.
On the post: The Full Story Behind The RIAA & FBI's Insanely Wasteful Prosecution Of The Dude Who Streamed Guns 'N Roses Album
Re: This is NOTHING like Megaupload, Mike.
And you have no credibilty because your reading comprehension is so terrible. Mike was not comparing the scale of this case to the MegaUpload one, he was comparing the DoJ's similarly incompetent actions in each case.
Is English even your first language? Coz you really struggle with understanding it sometimes.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.
To refute this claim I offer the entirety of human history as proof you're completely wrong.
""The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet." -- WOW, what a revelation, Mike! Yeah, people who put MONEY in producing content want to get it back and then some. They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without."
Definitions of 'free':
adjective
1. able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another.
2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
adverb
1. without cost or payment.
When you confuse the adjective with the adverb, you look like a complete moron. Again.
On the post: Dan Bull Takes On YouTube's ContentID Changes, Stolen Revenue, With A Diss Track
Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
If it were anyone else then yes, but this one's a special case. The quality of his commenting really is that low. You'll note there are no other regular commenters who receive such treatment.
On the post: Dan Bull Takes On YouTube's ContentID Changes, Stolen Revenue, With A Diss Track
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dan Bull Takes On YouTube's ContentID Changes, Stolen Revenue, With A Diss Track
Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
On the post: NY Times Argues, Forcefully, That The US Should Offer Snowden Clemency
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former Pop Star Angry At Google News For Providing Relevant Search Results
Re:
And as soon as Google invents a technology that can read the minds of users via their internet connection, they'll be able to tell which of the many thousands of Ian Watkins in the world was actually being searched for by that particular user at that particular time. In the mean time, Google (and those of us with a grasp on reality) accept that the current method of returning search results works pretty damn well nearly all of the time, and unlikely coincidences like this are unfortunate but not worth trying to fix by making Google work less effectively.
On the post: Former Pop Star Angry At Google News For Providing Relevant Search Results
Re: fuck google
Wait, you're complaining about a search engine working exactly like a search engine should? Exactly what order do you think thousands of search results should be displayed? Alphabetical? The level of stupid in your complaint is almost painful.
"if what i'm searching for isn't very popular it's very likely i'll have to be super specific with the keywords or dig through results, or in some cases, i can't find it at all"
Wow, so you've figured this out about ten years after the rest of us.
"and that's why google (and all other search engines) PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well you're fully entitled to not use any of them. That'd obviously make your web surfing much less infuriating and hence far more productive...
On the post: Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling
Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Yes, having excerpts of your works able to be easily found by fans and potential customers, or people researching your work for academic purposes, must be so damn insulting! Obscurity would be so much more rewarding!
"On the whole, most authors would rather be able to pay for food and health insurance instead of having their book show up on the fifth page of some Google search."
Since one does not preclude the other in any way, shape or form, your point is completely irrelevant.
"Remember, most authors don't get free food and health insurance like the programmers at Google."
Neither do millions of other self-employed workers, so again your point is completely irrelevant.
"It's you who is out of touch with the needs of the millions of creative people who work hard and just ask for the chance to control what happens to their work, just like every other worker in the economy."
If that's the case then it looks like "millions of creative people" are completely clueless about the working conditions of "every other worker in the economy", most of whom have little to no control over "their work" once it's completed.
"Even the richest artists have 1/1000 the wealth of the Google billionaires."
If you want sympathy for your cause I suggest you leave the millionaire winners of the copyright lottery system out of the discussion. Most of us are not going to feel sorry for someone worth millions who's jealous of someone worth billions.
On the post: Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
No, he clearly doesn't, which is why most of his comments come off as ignorant rants that border on comedy. I also get a whiff of failed author/artist/creator who blames everybody but himself for his lack of success.
On the post: Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
Way to sound like an idiot. A 'copyright denier' would be someone who denies copyright even exists, like the way Holocaust deniers claim the Holocaust didn''t happen or was greatly exaggerated. Are you sure that's the accusation you're trying to make? Most people here are complaining about the overreach by and abuse of the copyright system, which pretty much implies they acknowledge its existence.
Care to try explaining yourself a little better?
"Publishers always experiment with bundling rights in different ways because they want the customers to be happy."
At this point there are very few customers who believe that their happiness is a high priority for publishers.
"But getting things for free is not sustainable no matter how happy it makes people."
Decades of free-to-air TV and radio would disagree with you. But you seem to have gone off track because this article is not about getting books for free. If you think it is then you're as clueless about Google's book scanning project as the Author's Guild.
Next >>