If it is this easy to "accidentally" infringe on someone's copyright with a full legal team, how are those of us without one supposed to navigate these maze of what is okay and what isn't?
This is why there should be exemptions for non-commercial infringement, along with very defined rules for what "non-commercial" means.
Despite my foolishness, merely saying we discussed something yesterday doesn't mean that because we discussed it yesterday it is a fact. It means that it was discussed yesterday. Linking to that discussion would just tell me "Here it is if you'd like to read it."
Maybe that's your problem, you think everything in the past is fact? Or maybe every discussion results in a solution? I don't know.
Like how many companies will intentionally neglect to research patents in the area they are working in to make it easier to put up a defense against "willful infringement"?
The link in this post makes it appear that a copyright bubble is a fact, not just a concept from a writer.
"As in the post we had yesterday about the copyright bubble, the general consensus was that the younger generation today has learned to disregard copyright law."
Furthermore, linking to the article you are referencing doesn't imply that the destination is a fact, only that it is what you're talking about. For example: "This guy is a tool." The link doesn't prove (or disprove) a fact, is merely referenced in greater detail the subject of the sentence.
I think they still respect the creators and understand the ideas, but they have been brought up in a mob mentality that makes copyright an optional concept.
If a monopoly is optional, then it's not a monopoly. The fact that the younger generation sees copyrights as an *option* when they are no doubt using their parent's money to purchase things is only going to get worse when they have to use their own, presumably hard-earned money.
You've got it backwards, little guy. Those people who push for stronger IP laws all the while ignoring current IP laws when it suits them are the ones living in a glass house and throwing stones.
Really, dude. Even your snarky (?) comments are getting pretty lame. Time for a break?
No, what bloggers do is use AP's 25 words or 50 words.
Well, assuming that the entire article is only 25 or 50 words long, that would be a clear case of copyright infringement. Please note that AP did not invoke copyright infringement, they instead used a so-called "hot news" doctrine. They are trying to say that the actual wording in irrelevant, and it's the *facts* about the story they are attempting to "own".
Now that you have been educated on the matter, do you see the amusement Mike sees? No, probably not. The AP says the facts of a story (a woman's brain was sent back in her personal effects) that are protected by this doctrine, and then they turn around and do *exactly* what they say bloggers can't do.
You, Mr. Once-it's-out-there-it's-infinite, are saying that removing DRM risks wider piracy? Once *one copy* leaks out then that's as wide as it gets. DRM *might* slow down piracy for a few days, but in this case the DRM has *already* been defeated.
Might as well continue to lock your door after all your windows are removed.
reward is a few whiners made happier
As was already said, these "whiners" are the people who give them money. Removing the reasons to whine should be job one.
It's not hard to see the right choice from where they sit.
No, it's not. However, since they're doing the exact opposite of the right choice, it does make things confusing, now, doesn't it?.
I'd bet that Real was planning on charging for this program and the studios wanted a cut.
They didn't get it, so they brought the hammer down on Real.
It's the only thing that makes sense, since there are so many (more functional) DVD rippers out there. (Handbrake?) Why pick RealDVD, which cripples its copies and not go after all the others that don't?
I'm still not sold on how this will cost the loss of a single, solitary job in *any* state. He's not asking to change *anything* on the trade agreement, he just thinks we should see the damn thing.
What *if* the senator from California asked this question? Will the movie studios move out of Hollywood, to Nevada?
I said "slightly less silly", in that, there is zero way that there could be a copyright case, but if the Mexican government has some sort of "abandoned property" law that allows them to claim abandoned properties, they could "own" the ruins, and then use them in some sort of commerce, as a logo of sorts. Hey, it's *possible*. :)
On the post: NY Police Destroy Counterfeit Clothes Rather Than Giving Them To The Homeless
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NY Police Destroy Counterfeit Clothes Rather Than Giving Them To The Homeless
Marketing
or
[Insert a picture of a homeless woman in designer clothing] Who needs food when you can look this good?
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
lightbulb
Nice one.
On the post: As ISPs Look To Charge Per Byte... How Accurate Are Their Meters?
Re: Re: Ridiculous
I wonder if we can get google to lobby against this for us. Hmm..
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Legal Staff (heehee!)
This is why there should be exemptions for non-commercial infringement, along with very defined rules for what "non-commercial" means.
I'm such a dreamer.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe that's your problem, you think everything in the past is fact? Or maybe every discussion results in a solution? I don't know.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re: Lawsuit
'Tis a sad world we live in.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore, linking to the article you are referencing doesn't imply that the destination is a fact, only that it is what you're talking about. For example: "This guy is a tool." The link doesn't prove (or disprove) a fact, is merely referenced in greater detail the subject of the sentence.
I think they still respect the creators and understand the ideas, but they have been brought up in a mob mentality that makes copyright an optional concept.
If a monopoly is optional, then it's not a monopoly. The fact that the younger generation sees copyrights as an *option* when they are no doubt using their parent's money to purchase things is only going to get worse when they have to use their own, presumably hard-earned money.
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
Re: Re: Flash of Genius
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: hypocrites
Enjoy.
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: Re: hypocrites
Really, dude. Even your snarky (?) comments are getting pretty lame. Time for a break?
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: copyrights
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re:
Or Sic if you really want to get fancy. :)
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re:
Well, assuming that the entire article is only 25 or 50 words long, that would be a clear case of copyright infringement. Please note that AP did not invoke copyright infringement, they instead used a so-called "hot news" doctrine. They are trying to say that the actual wording in irrelevant, and it's the *facts* about the story they are attempting to "own".
Now that you have been educated on the matter, do you see the amusement Mike sees? No, probably not. The AP says the facts of a story (a woman's brain was sent back in her personal effects) that are protected by this doctrine, and then they turn around and do *exactly* what they say bloggers can't do.
On the post: Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD
Re: Re: Why?
You, Mr. Once-it's-out-there-it's-infinite, are saying that removing DRM risks wider piracy? Once *one copy* leaks out then that's as wide as it gets. DRM *might* slow down piracy for a few days, but in this case the DRM has *already* been defeated.
Might as well continue to lock your door after all your windows are removed.
reward is a few whiners made happier
As was already said, these "whiners" are the people who give them money. Removing the reasons to whine should be job one.
It's not hard to see the right choice from where they sit.
No, it's not. However, since they're doing the exact opposite of the right choice, it does make things confusing, now, doesn't it?.
On the post: Responding To SoundExchange... By Their Numbers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Responding To SoundExchange... By Their Numbers
Re:
On the post: Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD
Likely?
They didn't get it, so they brought the hammer down on Real.
It's the only thing that makes sense, since there are so many (more functional) DVD rippers out there. (Handbrake?) Why pick RealDVD, which cripples its copies and not go after all the others that don't?
On the post: Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
What *if* the senator from California asked this question? Will the movie studios move out of Hollywood, to Nevada?
On the post: Mexican Gov't Says Starbucks Can't Use Images Of Mexican Artifacts On Mugs... Without Paying Up
Re: Re: Question.
Still silly, don't get me wrong.
Next >>