I don't know if Brazil has any ISDS agreement with the US and that corporations sued over "lost expected profits", which is a ridicule in itself, but:
ISDS is about expropriation by government. Eli Lilly could spin and twist the rules to interpret it "not granting a patent" is somehow "expropriating intellectual property" (two jokes in one sentence).
But I seriously doubt that Boeing could spin a story that somehow make a lost contract into expropriation of corporate assets. That would be so ridiculous I can't imagine even the ISDS court would stomach it. (Then again, I may be naive)
Even if it came to be, I think the proper reaction from Brazil would be to terminate the appropriate trade agreements with the US.
Here's some: "The Model S battery is guaranteed by Tesla Motors for eight years or 125,000 mi (201,000 km) for the base model with the 60 kW·h battery pack. All models with the 85 kW·h battery pack are guaranteed for eight years and unlimited miles.[72]
A battery replacement option may be purchased for a cost of US$10,000 for the 60 kW·h battery and US$12,000 for the 85 kW·h battery and will provide a replacement battery anytime after the 8th year of operation of the original battery.[73]"
In case you're not a paid shill, I can't believe people in their right mind would think that burning liquified dinosaur corpses (which will run out in the near future, already sparking conflicts and war. aka US War on Tehror) at 20% efficiency is somehow more progressive than using a power source that can be produced much more environment friendlyer (like nuclear power plants, renewable energy etc)
I'd wait for him to do the explaining himself before making an opinion on his actions.
Maybe he's adapting Ron Wyden's "I let you fuck yourself" tactics, or he were pressured into the situation (who's fault is it that he had to ask asylum from Russia?).
The list of permissions it requires alone should ward off anyone from touching this piece of spyware. Then ofc, there are the ones who don't even read it before installing..
Of course I don't believe the ISPs can't handle the traffic, but it's what they consistently use as an excuse to justify their extortion schemes.
About the ISP backbone and handling Netflix traffic: x user paid for a y bandwidth line. The equation is this simple: backbone minimum bandwidth = x*y (omitting overhead and the like). If at any point they can't produce this, then they oversold their bandwidth. They don't sell their packages by saying something like "Oh, you can access our router with a blazing 50Mbps! The rest of the internet.. well.. 10kbps"
They're already charging you for network upgrades. It's called subscription fee for a service they sold you and a lot of people but unable to provide to all of you at once.
Why should Netflix or any service provider would have to pay more for their bandwidth then you?
This is what I find ridiculous in the ISP's argument: you and Netflix and YT and Hulu already paid for the bandwidth you're using. Then humbly fuck you and provide what you're paid for.
The usual excuse of ISPs is that certain services are 'congesting' the net with their high bandwidth content (let's call it Youtube for now), and they should pay more.
But! I as a subscriber paid for a certain bandwidth, as did Youtube for a certain upload bandwidth. In theory, they can't send more traffic than they already paid for, so what's the problem?
The problem is the ISPs are selling more bandwidth than they can really provide, trusting in that their subscribers together won't use more than the real capacity at any given time. Let's call this actual capacity usage.
High bandwidth services raise the actual capacity usage, because more and more subscribers use their line to full capacity by watching Youtube.
So, the ISP comes to a decision: 1. Either fix their current maximal capacity to the sold value (and spend money on expanding the infrastructure) 2. OR charge Youtube for "premium lines" and dissuade other services from 'clogging up the lines' (not spending but earning more $)
Furthermore, any mandatory intra-EU routing may raise questions with respect to compliance with the EU's trade obligations with respect to Internet-enabled services
Like the US gives a fuck about obligations when it's not about screwing other countries.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
Again, you erect strawmen.
"So, in other words, you think that authors should be granted no privileges to their work, for any length of time? "
No, and I didn't said that. Invoking Disney is a bad example, since they already ignoring everyone else rights, while being obnoxious about theirs.
"Again, you called the law unnecessary which implies that it should be removed when you're talking about changing things. "
Again, no. I called the law outdated, and needing to be adjusted to social behavior.
"I doubt most of them think about it at all, or feel like there's a gun pointed at their head."
Yes, that were the point of the article. As I said, when you bring TPP to the picture, this will be the case, because it requires governments to crack down on infringement, no matter what.
You seriously need to improve your comprehension skills, since you answered none of my points correctly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
First, you contradict yourself: "I never said anything about fan art. Nor that commercial spin offs were themselves bad. I said that making a spin-off without permission was not a desirable thing. "
"It's all one law. "
Then you don't address my answer, which were about spin-offs AND fan art.
". If you're trying to argue that it's unnecessary, then you're arguing that the whole of Japan's copyright law is unnecessary and should be removed. If that is not your intent, you need to be more precise. "
No, you simply need to look up the interpretation of "/", which is "OR", and voila! Everything make sense.
You're being difficult on purpose, dim or trolling. In either case, F U.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
commercially publishing fanfiction
The question is still: why is it bad? Most of today's movies, books etc are based on already existing works, and I find it distasteful to grant privileges on who can make things out of them.
Control which Anonymous Howard proposes removing because the authors don't crack down on fans being fans.
Again dat strawman. I said if authors don't crack down on fans, then the law should reflect this attitude toward fans. If laws would reflect the socially acceptable behavior, then there would be no need to selectively enforce it (formal complaint/no complaint).
I don't think any fan art creator like the gun at his head that this maybe-maybenot copyright bullshit presents. They should know when they break a law, and it should not depend on someone else making a complaint about it.
This is like arguing "the falling tree is only makes sound if someone hears it"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
The big concern which Mike's article fails to convey is that under current copyright law in Japan, the owner of a work has to make a formal complaint before any prosecution for a violation of their copyright can take place.
This is what exactly would change if TPP in its current form would came to be.
Also, you argued - imho mistakenly - that commercial spin-offs are bad. You seem to think that building on someones work (spin-off and fan art) and *gasp* making money off your _own_work_ is somehow takes out money of the original artist's pocket, which is in many case the opposite.
That's not what Anonymous Howard is suggestion. He's suggesting that the authors not exercising their rights in this one subset of circumstances justifies wholesale abolishment of all of the author's rights.
You're erecting strawmans. Let me quote myself Isn't this the prime indicator of an outdated/unnecessary law?
As I see, the real issue is not spyware being accessible to domestic audience.
The real problem is the mess what smartphones call "security". My wife got a smartphone, and honestly, I couldn't tell what programs are running (actually, instead of a short list of "maybe"-s), with what rights, which program has access to certain features of the phone, incoming and outgoing traffic etc etc.
You have less then little control over what you allow your phone and apps to do. Smart devices need decent process explorer like tools, firewall, antivirus and management tools, like any decent operating system.
This is the main reason I'll never buy a smartphone.
On the post: Brazil Passed On Boeing For $4.5 Billion Fighter Jet Deal Because Of Concerns Over NSA Surveillance
Re: Re: How Long...
ISDS is about expropriation by government. Eli Lilly could spin and twist the rules to interpret it "not granting a patent" is somehow "expropriating intellectual property" (two jokes in one sentence).
But I seriously doubt that Boeing could spin a story that somehow make a lost contract into expropriation of corporate assets. That would be so ridiculous I can't imagine even the ISDS court would stomach it. (Then again, I may be naive)
Even if it came to be, I think the proper reaction from Brazil would be to terminate the appropriate trade agreements with the US.
On the post: FTC Goes To Bat For Tesla: Says States Shouldn't Limit Tesla Sales Model
Re: electric cars, worlds biggest con!
Here's some:
"The Model S battery is guaranteed by Tesla Motors for eight years or 125,000 mi (201,000 km) for the base model with the 60 kW·h battery pack. All models with the 85 kW·h battery pack are guaranteed for eight years and unlimited miles.[72]
A battery replacement option may be purchased for a cost of US$10,000 for the 60 kW·h battery and US$12,000 for the 85 kW·h battery and will provide a replacement battery anytime after the 8th year of operation of the original battery.[73]"
In case you're not a paid shill, I can't believe people in their right mind would think that burning liquified dinosaur corpses (which will run out in the near future, already sparking conflicts and war. aka US War on Tehror) at 20% efficiency is somehow more progressive than using a power source that can be produced much more environment friendlyer (like nuclear power plants, renewable energy etc)
On the post: Backlash Aftermath: King Suddenly Turns Amicable In Trademark Disputes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Snowden Asks Putin Live On TV If Russia Carries Out Mass Surveillance; But Why?
Don't judge just yet
Maybe he's adapting Ron Wyden's "I let you fuck yourself" tactics, or he were pressured into the situation (who's fault is it that he had to ask asylum from Russia?).
On the post: Los Angeles Law Enforcement Looking To Crowdsource Surveillance
Re:
On the post: Yes, Net Neutrality Is A Solution To An Existing Problem
Re: Re: The problem
Of course I don't believe the ISPs can't handle the traffic, but it's what they consistently use as an excuse to justify their extortion schemes.
About the ISP backbone and handling Netflix traffic:
x user paid for a y bandwidth line. The equation is this simple: backbone minimum bandwidth = x*y (omitting overhead and the like). If at any point they can't produce this, then they oversold their bandwidth.
They don't sell their packages by saying something like "Oh, you can access our router with a blazing 50Mbps! The rest of the internet.. well.. 10kbps"
On the post: Yes, Net Neutrality Is A Solution To An Existing Problem
Re: A prediction
Why should Netflix or any service provider would have to pay more for their bandwidth then you?
This is what I find ridiculous in the ISP's argument: you and Netflix and YT and Hulu already paid for the bandwidth you're using. Then humbly fuck you and provide what you're paid for.
On the post: Yes, Net Neutrality Is A Solution To An Existing Problem
The problem
But! I as a subscriber paid for a certain bandwidth, as did Youtube for a certain upload bandwidth.
In theory, they can't send more traffic than they already paid for, so what's the problem?
The problem is the ISPs are selling more bandwidth than they can really provide, trusting in that their subscribers together won't use more than the real capacity at any given time. Let's call this actual capacity usage.
High bandwidth services raise the actual capacity usage, because more and more subscribers use their line to full capacity by watching Youtube.
So, the ISP comes to a decision:
1. Either fix their current maximal capacity to the sold value (and spend money on expanding the infrastructure)
2. OR charge Youtube for "premium lines" and dissuade other services from 'clogging up the lines' (not spending but earning more $)
On the post: Sen. Coburn Offers To Put An Outdated Agency Out Of Its Misery With His 'Let Me Google That For You' Bill
Re:
Wishful thinking
On the post: Patent Trolls Still Very Busy: These Two 'Innovators' Have Filed 22 Lawsuits Since January Of This Year
Re: Billy Goat Gruff?
On the post: USTR Warns That EU-Only Cloud To Avoid NSA Surveillance May Violate Trade Agreements
EU trade obligations
Like the US gives a fuck about obligations when it's not about screwing other countries.
On the post: Patent Trolls Still Very Busy: These Two 'Innovators' Have Filed 22 Lawsuits Since January Of This Year
Patents without product
On the post: Bracket Watch: EA Upset Early, Comcast Beats Monsanto For 'Worst Company' Award
Re: Re: Well...
Correction: play another game. Preferably not one from EA.
On the post: Everything Old Is Unavailable Again: How Copyright Has Ebooks Operating In The 1800s
Re: Re:
So this is the price for research material paid for by taxpayer money, submitted free of charge (or even the submitter paid a fee).
I still think it would be more cost effective and better usable if we simply dumped all journals on an ftp server...
On the post: Japanese Anime And Manga Fans Worried About How TPP Will Kill Important Fan Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
"So, in other words, you think that authors should be granted no privileges to their work, for any length of time? "
No, and I didn't said that.
Invoking Disney is a bad example, since they already ignoring everyone else rights, while being obnoxious about theirs.
"Again, you called the law unnecessary which implies that it should be removed when you're talking about changing things. "
Again, no. I called the law outdated, and needing to be adjusted to social behavior.
"I doubt most of them think about it at all, or feel like there's a gun pointed at their head."
Yes, that were the point of the article. As I said, when you bring TPP to the picture, this will be the case, because it requires governments to crack down on infringement, no matter what.
You seriously need to improve your comprehension skills, since you answered none of my points correctly.
On the post: Japanese Anime And Manga Fans Worried About How TPP Will Kill Important Fan Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
"I never said anything about fan art. Nor that commercial spin offs were themselves bad. I said that making a spin-off without permission was not a desirable thing. "
"It's all one law. "
Then you don't address my answer, which were about spin-offs AND fan art.
". If you're trying to argue that it's unnecessary, then you're arguing that the whole of Japan's copyright law is unnecessary and should be removed. If that is not your intent, you need to be more precise. "
No, you simply need to look up the interpretation of "/", which is "OR", and voila! Everything make sense.
You're being difficult on purpose, dim or trolling. In either case, F U.
On the post: Japanese Anime And Manga Fans Worried About How TPP Will Kill Important Fan Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
The question is still: why is it bad? Most of today's movies, books etc are based on already existing works, and I find it distasteful to grant privileges on who can make things out of them.
Control which Anonymous Howard proposes removing because the authors don't crack down on fans being fans.
Again dat strawman. I said if authors don't crack down on fans, then the law should reflect this attitude toward fans. If laws would reflect the socially acceptable behavior, then there would be no need to selectively enforce it (formal complaint/no complaint).
I don't think any fan art creator like the gun at his head that this maybe-maybenot copyright bullshit presents. They should know when they break a law, and it should not depend on someone else making a complaint about it.
This is like arguing "the falling tree is only makes sound if someone hears it"
On the post: Japanese Anime And Manga Fans Worried About How TPP Will Kill Important Fan Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for people, not the way around
This is what exactly would change if TPP in its current form would came to be.
Also, you argued - imho mistakenly - that commercial spin-offs are bad. You seem to think that building on someones work (spin-off and fan art) and *gasp* making money off your _own_work_ is somehow takes out money of the original artist's pocket, which is in many case the opposite.
That's not what Anonymous Howard is suggestion. He's suggesting that the authors not exercising their rights in this one subset of circumstances justifies wholesale abolishment of all of the author's rights.
You're erecting strawmans. Let me quote myself
Isn't this the prime indicator of an outdated/unnecessary law?
On the post: Japanese Anime And Manga Fans Worried About How TPP Will Kill Important Fan Fiction
Re: Re:
On the post: Mobile Spyware Use In Domestic Violence Ramps Up
Re:
The real problem is the mess what smartphones call "security". My wife got a smartphone, and honestly, I couldn't tell what programs are running (actually, instead of a short list of "maybe"-s), with what rights, which program has access to certain features of the phone, incoming and outgoing traffic etc etc.
You have less then little control over what you allow your phone and apps to do. Smart devices need decent process explorer like tools, firewall, antivirus and management tools, like any decent operating system.
This is the main reason I'll never buy a smartphone.
Next >>