Surely even that isn't neutral? A truly neutral search engine would return all pages with equal probability, or, to put it another way, would give a random selection of results for any query. Yay.
This report suggests that only 11.5% of Armenians owned a personal computer in 2006, so that's just 329,000 people facing jail time. Unfortunately these people tend to be young, educated and from higher socioeconomic groups, but never let a country's progress stand in the way of copyright reform.
(Yes, I know I've assumed 93% of computer users infringe, rather than 93% of software infringes, but they're probably not too different.)
This can be a difficult call to make, and (as Mike said) it was probably reasonable for the police to investigate. But they should have quickly concluded that there was no real threat and let him off with a slap on the wrist. The airport authorities stated that no inconvenience was caused by the message (though that was not true for the subsequent police investigation).
Also, what's the difference if they charged him with another law as oppose to the bomb threat law.
He appears to have charged under the Communications Act 2003 because, unlike the Criminal Law Act 1977 (the bomb threat law), there was no need to "show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to induce in another person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present."
Under the Communications Act, it isn't necessary for the message reasonably to be thought of as a real threat by the authorities, or even for the authorities to receive (or be aware of) the message at all. It is enough that he sent it and that someone believes the message is menacing.
This potentially criminalises a whole swathe of personal communication. If I make a poor joke about a bomb threat with friends socially, nothing will happen. But if I post the same joke on someone's Facebook wall, it could potentially be indexed by Google and turn up later when the police are trawling the internet. In both cases the intended audience is the same (an audience I know won't take the joke seriously), but only one of them could be taken grossly out of context and lead to a criminal conviction.
Paul Chambers wasn't standing up in the airport, making bomb threats at the top of his voice. He wasn't trying to do the online equivalent of this either. This was a message he only intended his friends to read. Yes it was a silly thing to say, but perhaps you should take a look at the messages you send to friends. Strip away the context and knowledge of your common history and see how many of those could potentially lead to you being charged under this law. (Material that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" - not to you or the recipient, but to a "reasonable person".)
Apparently not. They all appear to have been removed from the store now. I did find some positions apps (search "love positions"), though they are illustrated with figure outlines only.
The removed apps seem to fall closer to the swimsuit calendar category than anything else, at least judging from the screenshots via Google.
If your info is kept secret, what's to keep copyright holders from suing again? And does the company make sure it covers all copyright holders for a piece of content? Will it indemnify users if they're threatened or sued again?
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME OR MAY CONCERN, KNOW THAT
The RELEASOR, in consideration of the settlement amount received from RELEASEE on DATE, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, releases and discharges the RELEASEE, RELEASEE's heirs, successors, and assigns from and against all claims, causes of actions, lawsuits, damages and demands whatsoever, specifically arising from, relating to, or in connection with CASE NUMBER.
This Liability Release applies only to the foregoing CASE NUMBER and extends to no other claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages and demands, which, if existing, shall survive this Liability Release.
So it's only these copyright holders for these alleged infringements. Download again tomorrow and they can threaten to sue again. And presumably the same if they sign up another copyright holder of an already infringed work, or if the copyright holder employs another company like this one to threaten the same people again.
In fact there could be big cost savings here if these firms just shared their databases of alleged infringers, maybe alongside a score of how likely they are to pay up (much like a credit rating), and took it in turns to offer pre-settlements.
Also from the FAQ
Q: Can I pay multiple settlements at one time?
A: Yes, once you have signed in to the settlement system you have the option to pay multiple settlements simultaneously.
Couldn't agree more. I thought it was a well written article, but not a terribly well argued one.
Surely the solution of their complaint about blocking CPM adverts is to develop an ad blocker that downloads the adverts but doesn't display them? Then everyone will be happy.
Or, to put it another way, Ars has just said that they don't really care about serving up ads that actually appeal to their visitors and work for their advertisers, they mostly care about displaying as many ads as possible.
Contrary to what they claim, their business model is starting to suck. They wouldn't have tried this stunt otherwise. And it's going to start sucking even more in the future as advertisers improve their metrics and visitors block more ads. An awful lot of newspapers had been around for much longer than 12 years before they folded. Hopefully they'll find some good answers before it's too late.
Actually the timing on this is pretty good. The US has already exported much of its manufacturing sector overseas. This is a great opportunity to get out of the service sector too, maximise profits by suing each other and leave all of that pesky innovation and value creation to the Chinese, Indians, et al.
"You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility."
Also via BB, Geoff Gerber points out that Mann is complaining about infringement of her publicity rights, not her copyrights as Heavy Ink assert.
"There is no absolute defense to a right of publicity claim based upon parody," and "It should also be noted that it is not clear that Celebrity Showdown would be considered a parody."
He also wonders why she's complaining about this particular comic and not the decidedly racier issue from Sinful Comics also featuring her. :)
I agree with your point, but doesn't the report advocate charging the ad networks, rather than the sites hosting them (presumably because they're easier targets)? (Haven't read the original as my French isn't up to much.)
If this does come to pass and I were a big cheese at Google, I'd get together with my fellow rounds of Roquefort at Yahoo and Microsoft and block France for a day. See who blinks first.
However, a much bigger question is why eBay should be liable at all. It's not eBay doing the selling, but users on the site.
My understanding is that brand owners within the EU are allowed to use trademark law to control the channels through which their products are sold. LVMH apparently does not allow its products to be sold in supermarkets or other discount shops, limiting sales to boutiques that are more in line with the brand image they wish to project. Here, they are trying to do the same to stop eBay selling cheap stuff.
A related case from 2002 is the European Court of Justice's ruling against Tesco (a UK supermarket) for importing grey market Levi jeans and selling them cheaply.
At least I think that's right. My knowledge of EU trademark law is extremely limited.
According to the link, Boesen's most profitable patent is this one, which covers an on screen keyboard. But the claimed innovation is not the on screen keyboard itself, for which patent admits prior art exists, it's for an on-screen keyboard *that cannot be moved, resized or closed*.
Just like the little on screen keyboard in Windows CE 2 (released 1997) that predates the patent (filed Aug 2000), except that the Windows CE one can be hidden to give more screen space when not required.
Oh, wait.
Computer programs may require input only randomly. Many ask for user input and then present the results. As it would clearly hamper the presentation of results, data or other information to have an on-screen keyboard present at all times, it is desirable to provide an on-screen keyboard which may be selectively called up as a subroutine or subprogram by a variety of programming.
How can they possibly justify unbundling? The MS Office licence specifically states that you aren't allowed to split its components between different machines - it's licensed as a whole, not as individual products. I imagine the same is true for other BSA members' software.
Does this mean legally licensed software can't be unbundled, but illegal / 'illegal' software can be?
2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device. That device is the “licensed device.” A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.
a. Licensed Device. You may install and use one copy of the software on the licensed device.
b. Portable Device. You may install another copy on a portable device for use by the single primary user of the licensed device.
c. Separation of Components. The components of the software are licensed as a single unit. You may not separate the components and install them on different devices.
Sure, good marketing is required so people find out about your music. But these people haven't done particularly good marketing. Of course you're right that no-one would have heard of them without these gimmicks, but you need more than that.
Like Lefsetz, I watched Moldover's video. It's cool. And like Lefsetz, I felt no urge to listen to his music. There's no upselling in the video, there's no apparent connection between the Theremin CD case and his music. (Maybe it's the same style as the music in the video, but he could just as easily have been getting down to a backing beat.)
Compare it with these two, as featured on BoingBoing recently. It's a funny, light, linkable song, but also one that gives a real insight into their style. It inspired me to click further and listen more.
And I really think they're great. I'm going to buy the album. In fact, this is the first time since Pandora was blocked that I have got this excited about new tunes. The other artists may well have offered "compelling reasons to buy", but they didn't offer compelling reasons to buy their music.
On the post: A Recommendation Is Not The Same As Corruption
Re: Uhhh... someone doesn't remember the past
On the post: Armenia Decides It Needs Incredibly Strict Copyright Laws
Excellent.
(Yes, I know I've assumed 93% of computer users infringe, rather than 93% of software infringes, but they're probably not too different.)
On the post: Do We Really Want To Criminalize Bad Jokes?
Re:
This can be a difficult call to make, and (as Mike said) it was probably reasonable for the police to investigate. But they should have quickly concluded that there was no real threat and let him off with a slap on the wrist. The airport authorities stated that no inconvenience was caused by the message (though that was not true for the subsequent police investigation).
Also, what's the difference if they charged him with another law as oppose to the bomb threat law.
He appears to have charged under the Communications Act 2003 because, unlike the Criminal Law Act 1977 (the bomb threat law), there was no need to "show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to induce in another person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present."
Under the Communications Act, it isn't necessary for the message reasonably to be thought of as a real threat by the authorities, or even for the authorities to receive (or be aware of) the message at all. It is enough that he sent it and that someone believes the message is menacing.
This potentially criminalises a whole swathe of personal communication. If I make a poor joke about a bomb threat with friends socially, nothing will happen. But if I post the same joke on someone's Facebook wall, it could potentially be indexed by Google and turn up later when the police are trawling the internet. In both cases the intended audience is the same (an audience I know won't take the joke seriously), but only one of them could be taken grossly out of context and lead to a criminal conviction.
Paul Chambers wasn't standing up in the airport, making bomb threats at the top of his voice. He wasn't trying to do the online equivalent of this either. This was a message he only intended his friends to read. Yes it was a silly thing to say, but perhaps you should take a look at the messages you send to friends. Strip away the context and knowledge of your common history and see how many of those could potentially lead to you being charged under this law. (Material that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" - not to you or the recipient, but to a "reasonable person".)
On the post: Apple Needs To Offer More, Less Porn, Depending Who You Ask
Re: PTC points to the good stuff
The removed apps seem to fall closer to the swimsuit calendar category than anything else, at least judging from the screenshots via Google.
On the post: Are There More Copyright 'Pre-Settlement' Groups Setting Up Shop In The US?
Limited liability release
The deal they're offering looks extremely limited. Their liability release sample states
So it's only these copyright holders for these alleged infringements. Download again tomorrow and they can threaten to sue again. And presumably the same if they sign up another copyright holder of an already infringed work, or if the copyright holder employs another company like this one to threaten the same people again.
In fact there could be big cost savings here if these firms just shared their databases of alleged infringers, maybe alongside a score of how likely they are to pay up (much like a credit rating), and took it in turns to offer pre-settlements.
Also from the FAQ
Well, I'm excited.
On the post: Will The Authors Guild Freak Out About Text To Speech On The iPad?
Perhaps we can expect publishers to release two versions of each book, just like iTunes' DRM free tracks.
$9.99 for the book
$11.99 for the book with text-to-speech allowed
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
CPM Ads Dishonesty
Surely the solution of their complaint about blocking CPM adverts is to develop an ad blocker that downloads the adverts but doesn't display them? Then everyone will be happy.
Or, to put it another way, Ars has just said that they don't really care about serving up ads that actually appeal to their visitors and work for their advertisers, they mostly care about displaying as many ads as possible.
Contrary to what they claim, their business model is starting to suck. They wouldn't have tried this stunt otherwise. And it's going to start sucking even more in the future as advertisers improve their metrics and visitors block more ads. An awful lot of newspapers had been around for much longer than 12 years before they folded. Hopefully they'll find some good answers before it's too late.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Lending Its Patents To Members To Sue Others
On the post: If You're A Terrorist, You're Not Allowed To Use iTunes
Along similar lines, Sun prohibits the use of Java for running nuclear facilities, whether or not you're on a watch list.
"You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility."
On the post: Online Comic Book Store Stands Up To Olivia Munn Lawyers Over Parody Comic Book
"There is no absolute defense to a right of publicity claim based upon parody," and "It should also be noted that it is not clear that Celebrity Showdown would be considered a parody."
He also wonders why she's complaining about this particular comic and not the decidedly racier issue from Sinful Comics also featuring her. :)
On the post: The Value Of The Link vs. The Value Of The Content
Counting the links
One possibly similar case is the BBC iPlayer. It has great content, but most of it is only available for a week before it disappears.
Using Yahoo's Site Explorer, we can see how many links from other sites there are to iPlayer overall (85,967), the permanent radio pages (7258) and the transient programmes (11). Ouch.
(I know the comparison isn't perfect as the NYT content will only be inaccessible to frequent visitors rather than everyone after a week.)
On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels
Re: Where the company's based
If this does come to pass and I were a big cheese at Google, I'd get together with my fellow rounds of Roquefort at Yahoo and Microsoft and block France for a day. See who blinks first.
On the post: French Courts Continue To Penalize eBay For Actions Of Users
My understanding is that brand owners within the EU are allowed to use trademark law to control the channels through which their products are sold. LVMH apparently does not allow its products to be sold in supermarkets or other discount shops, limiting sales to boutiques that are more in line with the brand image they wish to project. Here, they are trying to do the same to stop eBay selling cheap stuff.
A related case from 2002 is the European Court of Justice's ruling against Tesco (a UK supermarket) for importing grey market Levi jeans and selling them cheaply.
At least I think that's right. My knowledge of EU trademark law is extremely limited.
On the post: A Look Behind The Curtain: How A Patent Hoarder Makes Money
Just like the little on screen keyboard in Windows CE 2 (released 1997) that predates the patent (filed Aug 2000), except that the Windows CE one can be hidden to give more screen space when not required.
Oh, wait.
So just like the Windows CE one, then. Stunning.
On the post: Network World Highlights BSA's Dirty Extortion Tricks
Unbundling
Does this mean legally licensed software can't be unbundled, but illegal / 'illegal' software can be?
On the post: Music And Marketing -- You Need Them Both
Like Lefsetz, I watched Moldover's video. It's cool. And like Lefsetz, I felt no urge to listen to his music. There's no upselling in the video, there's no apparent connection between the Theremin CD case and his music. (Maybe it's the same style as the music in the video, but he could just as easily have been getting down to a backing beat.)
Compare it with these two, as featured on BoingBoing recently. It's a funny, light, linkable song, but also one that gives a real insight into their style. It inspired me to click further and listen more.
And I really think they're great. I'm going to buy the album. In fact, this is the first time since Pandora was blocked that I have got this excited about new tunes. The other artists may well have offered "compelling reasons to buy", but they didn't offer compelling reasons to buy their music.
Next >>