Calories from fats vs. total calories is not "Useless data". Knowing that a product has a high ratio of calories from fat doesn't mean much if your are looking at butter, but it does if you are looking at processed foods. (I know, processed foods are almost always evil, but ...) If you have a choice between two similar products and one is 70% calories from fat and the other is 30%, you have a choice to make depending on if you are trying to avoid direct fats or are trying to add them to complete your desired recipe outcome.
I'm sure there will be arguments that this is/is not true; Either way it should be if we have any desire to have a healthy growing society, much less a healthy growing economy.
Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
Well Richard, someone wrote and distributed the sheet music and song lyrics they used, so unless they themselves wrote the music and lyrics they are infringing on someone's copyright.
It may be hyperbole to imaging someone demanding compensation in this example. But this illustrates the idiocy of infringement claims.
I do not think it is okay to copy and re-sell someone else's copyright, but I do think the copyright holder actually benefits when the general public hears, performs and reuses their works in non-commercial i.e. profit seeking ways.
I am only relying on the description of the video (I have not viewed it), but it seems to me there is a significant difference between it and the tweets of William Cassidy. The YouTube video made reference that the performer was going to do harm to the subject, while the Mr. Cassidy declared that the subject should do harm to herself. Distasteful behavior in either case but one can easily be construed as a direct threat of harm while the other is (less clearly) an expression of dislike.
The people using domains that are similar to trademarked domain names are not typically selling product in nature that may be sold by the trademarked domain holders, it is unlikely that consumers would mistake the 'similar' domains and content as that of the trademarked ones. (Those that are trying to actually mimic trademarked domains and content that are clearly in the 'wrong' for trademark infringement.) If the trademarked domain holders are upset that someone is using a similar domain name for OTHER purposes then they should have purchased any domains they felt were "too similar" in order to "protect" their "rights."
(yes, I put those words in quotes because I probably do not agree with some rights-holder's interperetations of them.)
Do you have actual documented proof that 50's YT channel is not infact operated and maintained by Interscope or UMG, that 50 himself sits down with his laptop and posts stuff?
Re: "... vast majority of torrent traffic is infringing ..."
True or Not that is NOT the point.
If there is a guilty party there it is the person(s) who are OFFERING the infringing content. Search engines are not in business to offer content, infringing or otherwise. They are in business to sell advertising. To do this they try to get as many people as they can to visit their website to see the adds. They entice visitors by offering something the visitor needs, a way to find what he or she is searching for. The search engine is NOT responsible for the irresponsible actions of other people who choose to post infringing content online. An often used analogy is that you can't sue the automaker for a driver's negligence in operation of the automobile.
Why do so many people think that this is a reasonable expectation? That because a website is popular then it becomes the websites responsibility to be accountable for an individual person's actions?
Yes. Yes I do expect them to do that. Because that is a another version of what they expect sites like You Tube to do; sift through ALL the content looking for the infringement. If you are going to make that demand of others you had better already be doing it to yourself!
I know I am making generalizations about supporters of tighter copyright but the point stands.
On the post: Will The Food Industry Ever Swallow Transparency's Bitter Pill?
Re: Caloric data
On the post: Rep. Lamar Smith Decides Lying About, Insulting And Dismissing Opposition To SOPA Is A Winning Strategy
Can we do something to get this PIG out of office?
Please?
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Re: clarify
Its a sad use for Shazam ©
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: What is broken
Here is a link to a recent post that describes why I hold this opinion. posted by Anonymoose Custard (profile), Jan 3rd, 2012 @ 2:28pm
it starts out:
The problem is that Copyright came with a promise similar to the promise that Patents have: That once the creator has profited from the work, the work enters the collective cultural domain. The reasoning is that then the Public will always have access to the works.
I'm sure there will be arguments that this is/is not true; Either way it should be if we have any desire to have a healthy growing society, much less a healthy growing economy.
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: clarify
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
It may be hyperbole to imaging someone demanding compensation in this example. But this illustrates the idiocy of infringement claims.
I do not think it is okay to copy and re-sell someone else's copyright, but I do think the copyright holder actually benefits when the general public hears, performs and reuses their works in non-commercial i.e. profit seeking ways.
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
On the post: David Carr Explains Why Everyone Should Be Against SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eventually
On the post: When Does Speech Go From Legal To Lethal?
Tweets vs. the YouTube video
On the post: As GoDaddy Deals With SOPA Fallout, Hollywood Wants To Punish GoDaddy For Enabling Infringement
Re: Re: Once again
The people using domains that are similar to trademarked domain names are not typically selling product in nature that may be sold by the trademarked domain holders, it is unlikely that consumers would mistake the 'similar' domains and content as that of the trademarked ones. (Those that are trying to actually mimic trademarked domains and content that are clearly in the 'wrong' for trademark infringement.) If the trademarked domain holders are upset that someone is using a similar domain name for OTHER purposes then they should have purchased any domains they felt were "too similar" in order to "protect" their "rights."
(yes, I put those words in quotes because I probably do not agree with some rights-holder's interperetations of them.)
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have actual documented proof ... YADA YADA ...
It appears that you are making assumptions too.
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have actual documented proof that 50's YT channel is not infact operated and maintained by Interscope or UMG, that 50 himself sits down with his laptop and posts stuff?
It appears that you are making assumptions too.
On the post: Louis CK: Over $1 Million In Sales In Just 12 Days For DRM-Free Download
But but but ...
On the post: MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
Re: Re:
On the post: Lessig On The Daily Show: The Corruption And Extortion Of Congress
Re: Culture
Though I admit it is not this simple.
On the post: Lessig On The Daily Show: The Corruption And Extortion Of Congress
Re:
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: "... vast majority of torrent traffic is infringing ..."
If there is a guilty party there it is the person(s) who are OFFERING the infringing content. Search engines are not in business to offer content, infringing or otherwise. They are in business to sell advertising. To do this they try to get as many people as they can to visit their website to see the adds. They entice visitors by offering something the visitor needs, a way to find what he or she is searching for. The search engine is NOT responsible for the irresponsible actions of other people who choose to post infringing content online. An often used analogy is that you can't sue the automaker for a driver's negligence in operation of the automobile.
Why do so many people think that this is a reasonable expectation? That because a website is popular then it becomes the websites responsibility to be accountable for an individual person's actions?
On the post: Dutch Collection Society Found To Be Source Of Infringing Content
Re: "... filter all of it's web traffic ..."
I know I am making generalizations about supporters of tighter copyright but the point stands.
On the post: 96% of Congressmen Agree: Bad Legislation Is Easier To Craft In Secret
Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits To Returning Domain While RIAA Threatens Dajaz1 With More Legal Actions
^THIS!^
^THIS!^
^THIS!^
Next >>