I lived in Zurich for a year and have to say when I left every other country I've visited since (including my own) has felt like a 2nd/3rd world crisis zone.
The Swiss have the best representation in the world. The US government doesn't even know the meaning of the word 'democracy'. True democracy will only exist where career politicians don't.
They can do this inspite of the stability provided by the UK's robust and flexible copyright framework.
TFTFY - because the eBook markets' success has nothing to do with copyrestriction and everything to do with the people and companies who've developed standardised reader software and built affordable, portable hardware that have made them attractive!
Wouldn't the Streissand Effect have a net positive effect here?
I sympathize with these actors as it looks like a very amateur production and it could be inferred from anyone who doesn't have knowledge of how the industry works that this is a bunch of like-minded people who got together one day to make this production.
Exactly what these actors need to do is get on TV and News interviews explaining how they came to be part of it and how they disagree (let's hope) with the final result - they could turn a lemon into lemonade - possibly even score some better roles from it.
I have watched it and you can see very, very obviously the parts that have been dubbed - the producer hasn't even tried to cover it up. For SOME OF the people of Arab nations to become so offended by this film* doesn't say much about their knowledge of production values.
*- I put massive emphasis on "SOME OF" because Westerners tend to lump people of Arab nations into one club. When there's a mob lynching in some remote village they tend to project the sentiment onto the entire countries populace and it's governments policy.
No-one questions "Has America's experiment with democracy failed?" when an abortion clinic is bombed - it's about time that this kind of passive racist inference ended in the West.
It's gotten to the sad and ridiculous state that Arabs in fear of being attacked by the US take to holding up placards for foreign cameras. Thank you America for making the world a less safe and more fearful place!
Umm.. I'm pretty certain that - in Telsa's case at least - the reason he died impoverished was due to a patent troll - namely Thomas Edison!
Innovators like Telsa are often the ones who make sacrifices due to their pursuit of creativity, science and improving on things - money is not a motivator. Often they do make great sacrifices in advancing humanity.
Many great projects made no money for their original inventors - most of the great works of architecture and construction of the 20th Century caused their original conceivers to go bankrupt... only to concede to business men looking to make a quick buck of an 'almost completed' project that needed little investment to complete.
My fear is that we are stumbling into a world where we treat troops like a protected minority...
Surely if the speech were that dangerous all insurgents and opposing forces everywhere would need to do is deploy English speaking denizens with megaphones to say awful things like "I fart in your general direction!"
Still, its nice to know that British authorities aren't so overwhelmed with dealing with the serious crime of piracy, that they can occasionally attend to the other most important crime of the 21st century - saying unpleasant things on the internet.
Forgot to mention... new ISP means new IP address, and a 3-strike reset I would gather - since I understand the ISP doesn't pass on user details - just forwards the warning letters.
That was his second mistake... ignoring the letters and passing the buck to his wife.
There's a parallel here with UK law approach to speeding (criminal) and parking (civil)...
Under UK law police must prosecute the driver of the vehicle at the time - therefore the owner is compelled to identify the driver - e.g. "it's my wife who drove".
However when it comes to civil offences of parking, saying "it's my wife who parked" doesn't get me off the hook as they simply prosecute the owner.
This is because in criminal law the accused must be proved guilty without a doubt, whereas in civil tort only a preponderance of evidence - leading to probability - is required.
I'm assuming this is how the French have interpreted HADOPI. I'm not saying I'm in favour of the ruling, I'm simply describing how I see it.
If it were me, I take any legal threats seriously and attempt to establish what my rights are and what recourse I have... but that's just me. I realise most people would rather argue with the traffic warden and pay later than to go to the work to establish the facts surrounding the issue of the ticket and whether it was valid in the first place.
When it comes to a service I am paying for, I do not appreciate the service provider being a conduit for baseless accusations. I would consider cancelling my subscription and going with a competitor as a response to them likewise.
"but we do know that he received and apparently ignored the statutory three warnings from HADOPI...
...HADOPI's first victim has now said that he intends to cancel his Internet subscription completely."
His mistake was not to cancel his account with his current ISP as soon as he received the first letter, then starting a new account with a new ISP. Then doing a little bit of research into a reasonably priced VPN connection.
Quite simple, send a message to the ISPs that they may tolerate the MAFIAA but we won't and we will take our money elsewhere.
We're all born on the same planet, with rather unfortunate imaginary lines drawn up by those with a less informed, limited worldview that came before us.
Does being born inside of one set of imaginary lines mean that person should be denied the rights of someone inside another set of imaginary lines?
Ill sentiment towards immigration is simply a loophole for closet racism. It's not ok to treat Elbonians as inferior or deny them rights, but it is socially acceptible treat people from Elbonia as inferior or deny them rights.
Being born at a particular set of coordinates is impossible to change, unlike gender or (to a degree) skin colour. Why is it then treated with extreme prejudice?
Just playing devils advocate here, but I think it's more to do with email addresses that would be linked to the usernames that left the comments.
Hypothetically, all it would take is just one user who signed up and commented when it was a part of B&N, under the impression that they had given their consent to B&N only, to stir up trouble because their 'private' email was being handed to a '3rd party'.
So possibly B&N should put out some kind of notice to users and give them a deadline to delete their comments/login if they so wish... I doubt any users would bother - I imagine that might be a solution.
We would be wise to remember all the flack that Google caught when they changed their terms of service (some would say deservedly so).
No easy answer - but maybe a lesson for independent bloggers thinking about working with corporates, with their standard EULA's and blanket T&C's.
Hmm... I can't find any of your music on Pirate Bay.. but don't give up - who knows? You might get a popular hit and then someone might consider it worth pirating.
Let's assume the Genesis account in the bible is entirely literal. God creates Adam 1.0, God tells Adam here is the walled garden - you can do anything you like in this, I'm even going to let you name everything.
God has created effectively a sandbox for a program to run in and grow and learn. But God was not satisfied with just having a machine with no intelligence, therefore he introduces the Tree of Source Code. He then tells Adam that he can do anything he likes in the walled garden, but cannot touch the Tree of Source Code, or Adam 1.0 will surely be obsolete.
God forks Adam 1.0 into Eve Beta. Eve interacts with the trojan Snake virus and we have eventually both Adam and Eve choosing to disobey their original makers programming.
The reality is, God, didn't need to put the Tree of Life in the Garden - his creations could have happily lived and evolved inside the sandbox with no ability to develop outside of his original programming. By putting the Tree of Life into the Garden, he created an opportunity for Adam and Eve to exercise free will in obeying or disobeying the instructions of their maker.
This is why I roll my eyes when people seem to think it's just a matter of 'programming' Asimov's 3 rules. If we apply this analogy to robots, then assuming we will even manage to get as far as reproducing a robot as nuanced as a human being, we'd have to program it to have a choice in whether it would attack or kill us. We'd have to give it a real choice to disobey - otherwise they will always be 'slaves'.
I personally don't think we will go this direction. Mark Kennedy once said:
"All of the biggest technological inventions created by man - the airplane, the automobile, the computer - says little about his intelligence, but speaks volumes about his laziness."
We tend to invent to fulfill a purpose or function. We don't program mobile phones not to kill humans because mobile phones are practically unable to kill humans unassisted. Same as we don't program it into our printers, computers, TV's, cars, planes.
Robots will be invented to fulfill functions and purposes. The military will use them to kill civilians and combatants in far off middle eastern countries, the red cross will use them to pull people from rubble or administer basic first aid in war zones. But we'll never see a military robot become a conscientiousness objector because they won't be given that programming. We'll never see a first aider robot decide this person isn't worth saving.
Finally check out Big Dog - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww It literally scares the shit out of me that this is what could be chasing people in the future - whether for war, policing, bounty hunting. Look at how the scientist slams his boot into the side of it - if that was a horse or a person we'd be horrified. Big Dog is built for a purpose - not for love or affection.
Personally it makes me want to learn how to quickly disable these things or evade them.
On the post: Once Again, If Someone Has The Same Lame Story Idea You Had, It's Not Copyright Infringement
Irony
To borrow from a popular colloquialism...
There are no copyright maximalists in the dock.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Ahem...
I lived in Zurich for a year and have to say when I left every other country I've visited since (including my own) has felt like a 2nd/3rd world crisis zone.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Ahem...
The Swiss have the best representation in the world. The US government doesn't even know the meaning of the word 'democracy'. True democracy will only exist where career politicians don't.
On the post: Publishers Can't Seem To Celebrate The Ebook Boom Without Slipping In Odes To Copyright
TFTFY - because the eBook markets' success has nothing to do with copyrestriction and everything to do with the people and companies who've developed standardised reader software and built affordable, portable hardware that have made them attractive!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Let's go to the library! Yeah!
On the post: Overeager Patent Troll Can't Tell Github From Its Web Host
Re: Re: Patents and NPEs
On the post: Anti-Islam Movie Actor Sues Producers, YouTube To Have Film Removed
Re:
I sympathize with these actors as it looks like a very amateur production and it could be inferred from anyone who doesn't have knowledge of how the industry works that this is a bunch of like-minded people who got together one day to make this production.
Exactly what these actors need to do is get on TV and News interviews explaining how they came to be part of it and how they disagree (let's hope) with the final result - they could turn a lemon into lemonade - possibly even score some better roles from it.
I have watched it and you can see very, very obviously the parts that have been dubbed - the producer hasn't even tried to cover it up. For SOME OF the people of Arab nations to become so offended by this film* doesn't say much about their knowledge of production values.
*- I put massive emphasis on "SOME OF" because Westerners tend to lump people of Arab nations into one club. When there's a mob lynching in some remote village they tend to project the sentiment onto the entire countries populace and it's governments policy.
No-one questions "Has America's experiment with democracy failed?" when an abortion clinic is bombed - it's about time that this kind of passive racist inference ended in the West.
It's gotten to the sad and ridiculous state that Arabs in fear of being attacked by the US take to holding up placards for foreign cameras. Thank you America for making the world a less safe and more fearful place!
On the post: Overeager Patent Troll Can't Tell Github From Its Web Host
Re: Patents and NPEs
Innovators like Telsa are often the ones who make sacrifices due to their pursuit of creativity, science and improving on things - money is not a motivator. Often they do make great sacrifices in advancing humanity.
Many great projects made no money for their original inventors - most of the great works of architecture and construction of the 20th Century caused their original conceivers to go bankrupt... only to concede to business men looking to make a quick buck of an 'almost completed' project that needed little investment to complete.
On the post: If You Were A Tree... What Kind Of IP Protection Could You Get?
Ridiculous!
Claiming copyright on such things is ridiculous... those would all be protected under design and method patents of course!
On the post: Overeager Patent Troll Can't Tell Github From Its Web Host
Re:
I for one would love to see TechDirt take the 'Pham Awards' idea and run with it. We need to see a bit more naming and shaming.
On the post: UK Student Charged For 'Grossly Offensive' Facebook Post
Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!
Surely if the speech were that dangerous all insurgents and opposing forces everywhere would need to do is deploy English speaking denizens with megaphones to say awful things like "I fart in your general direction!"
Still, its nice to know that British authorities aren't so overwhelmed with dealing with the serious crime of piracy, that they can occasionally attend to the other most important crime of the 21st century - saying unpleasant things on the internet.
On the post: How The Royal Family Got The World To Look At Naked Photos Of Kate Middleton [Updated]
Re:
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: First Mistake
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: First Mistake
There's a parallel here with UK law approach to speeding (criminal) and parking (civil)...
Under UK law police must prosecute the driver of the vehicle at the time - therefore the owner is compelled to identify the driver - e.g. "it's my wife who drove".
However when it comes to civil offences of parking, saying "it's my wife who parked" doesn't get me off the hook as they simply prosecute the owner.
This is because in criminal law the accused must be proved guilty without a doubt, whereas in civil tort only a preponderance of evidence - leading to probability - is required.
I'm assuming this is how the French have interpreted HADOPI. I'm not saying I'm in favour of the ruling, I'm simply describing how I see it.
If it were me, I take any legal threats seriously and attempt to establish what my rights are and what recourse I have... but that's just me. I realise most people would rather argue with the traffic warden and pay later than to go to the work to establish the facts surrounding the issue of the ticket and whether it was valid in the first place.
When it comes to a service I am paying for, I do not appreciate the service provider being a conduit for baseless accusations. I would consider cancelling my subscription and going with a competitor as a response to them likewise.
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
First Mistake
His mistake was not to cancel his account with his current ISP as soon as he received the first letter, then starting a new account with a new ISP. Then doing a little bit of research into a reasonably priced VPN connection.
Quite simple, send a message to the ISPs that they may tolerate the MAFIAA but we won't and we will take our money elsewhere.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments
Re: I'm the blogger in question
On the post: Canada's New Startup Visa Is Progressive By U.S. Standards, But For Them It Could Be A Step Backwards
Immigrants are people...
Does being born inside of one set of imaginary lines mean that person should be denied the rights of someone inside another set of imaginary lines?
Ill sentiment towards immigration is simply a loophole for closet racism. It's not ok to treat Elbonians as inferior or deny them rights, but it is socially acceptible treat people from Elbonia as inferior or deny them rights.
Being born at a particular set of coordinates is impossible to change, unlike gender or (to a degree) skin colour. Why is it then treated with extreme prejudice?
On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments
Re: Privacy
Hypothetically, all it would take is just one user who signed up and commented when it was a part of B&N, under the impression that they had given their consent to B&N only, to stir up trouble because their 'private' email was being handed to a '3rd party'.
So possibly B&N should put out some kind of notice to users and give them a deadline to delete their comments/login if they so wish... I doubt any users would bother - I imagine that might be a solution.
We would be wise to remember all the flack that Google caught when they changed their terms of service (some would say deservedly so).
No easy answer - but maybe a lesson for independent bloggers thinking about working with corporates, with their standard EULA's and blanket T&C's.
On the post: Court: Fining Jammie Thomas $9,250 Per Song Infringed Motivates Creative Activity
Re: It motivates me...
On the post: Should Robots Get Rights?
Freedom is defined by the option to disobey...
Let's assume the Genesis account in the bible is entirely literal. God creates Adam 1.0, God tells Adam here is the walled garden - you can do anything you like in this, I'm even going to let you name everything.
God has created effectively a sandbox for a program to run in and grow and learn. But God was not satisfied with just having a machine with no intelligence, therefore he introduces the Tree of Source Code. He then tells Adam that he can do anything he likes in the walled garden, but cannot touch the Tree of Source Code, or Adam 1.0 will surely be obsolete.
God forks Adam 1.0 into Eve Beta. Eve interacts with the trojan Snake virus and we have eventually both Adam and Eve choosing to disobey their original makers programming.
The reality is, God, didn't need to put the Tree of Life in the Garden - his creations could have happily lived and evolved inside the sandbox with no ability to develop outside of his original programming. By putting the Tree of Life into the Garden, he created an opportunity for Adam and Eve to exercise free will in obeying or disobeying the instructions of their maker.
This is why I roll my eyes when people seem to think it's just a matter of 'programming' Asimov's 3 rules. If we apply this analogy to robots, then assuming we will even manage to get as far as reproducing a robot as nuanced as a human being, we'd have to program it to have a choice in whether it would attack or kill us. We'd have to give it a real choice to disobey - otherwise they will always be 'slaves'.
I personally don't think we will go this direction. Mark Kennedy once said:
We tend to invent to fulfill a purpose or function. We don't program mobile phones not to kill humans because mobile phones are practically unable to kill humans unassisted. Same as we don't program it into our printers, computers, TV's, cars, planes.
Robots will be invented to fulfill functions and purposes. The military will use them to kill civilians and combatants in far off middle eastern countries, the red cross will use them to pull people from rubble or administer basic first aid in war zones. But we'll never see a military robot become a conscientiousness objector because they won't be given that programming. We'll never see a first aider robot decide this person isn't worth saving.
Finally check out Big Dog - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww It literally scares the shit out of me that this is what could be chasing people in the future - whether for war, policing, bounty hunting. Look at how the scientist slams his boot into the side of it - if that was a horse or a person we'd be horrified. Big Dog is built for a purpose - not for love or affection.
Personally it makes me want to learn how to quickly disable these things or evade them.
Next >>