That AT&T mockup that mentions free access to iTunes...does that mean free access to the iTunes website/catalog browser only or would the content as well have been "free" (all music tracks, podcasts, videos etc)?
...no-one is ever in control over their own reputation. Reputation isn't the sole province of any one particular being. It has to do with how Party A sees Party B. There's no way Party B can exclude Party from the equation. If anyone was in control over their own reputation, then each person would be able to declare "I'm a great person" and sue everyone else the instant anyone said otherwise.
Given that this article talks about a free trade agreement between [a] Columbia and the US...I'd think they're talking about the country. You don't do free trade agreements with a territory considered part of your nation...and even if such a thing happened, it wouldn't be worded as between X and (Country Name here), because then that would implicate that X is not part of the country.
Nope, I've never heard of that song. Never ever ever. I most definitely did not hear the tunes in my head before I clicked the play button, that song has never once been played by anyone since we lost the ability to pay Mozart or his heirs or the people he could have sold the copyrights to.
For a country so ruddy scared of anyone hearkening back to the "good ol' days" of the tyrannical Nazi regime (to the point you can't even have swastikas in a game about killing said Nazis), they sure don't have a problem acting tyrannical, don't they?
If stored as a page, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's available via some online-system or in a non-connected system. It means that anyone could have looked up this dude's credit card details with no problem whatsoever. Besides, since he booked online, it would have had to be stored digitally to begin with.
Even though it is his credit card, it should have at the very least, been redacted to some degree. For example, just this minute, I've checked my credit card details on Amazon. Despite the fact that I just authenticated who I am with them by entering my user name and password, the image that is given to me only shows the last four digits of my credit cards.
That was a great comment and a great article. Only one thing struck me as odd...I didn't comment on it! I honestly cannot explain why. I was certainly far more vocal in 2012 than I am right now.
Well, I'm from the perspective that Sony would be a very valuable customer to NetSOL, so if I were in charge of billing there, I'd be very curious why this big customer of mine has suddenly gone incommunicado.
I'm wondering why Network Solutions, once they realised they weren't getting a response from this huge multi-national corporation, didn't phone or fire off a letter. I can understand if they don't bother for small sites and/or companies, but surely they should have asked Sony of all people if they're sure about not paying their bills?
Imagine if this happened to the White House, and some clerk there just forgot to pay the phone bill...
...wasn't this what copyright's original purpose was *not* to be, the blocking of publications of new work? Copyright was established to promote the authorship and publication of new works, not to block them.
Yeah...Hulu...lemme try that...yep, as expected the "We don't let no damn furrenurs see our shows!" message. I could try a VPN, but that costs extra money and can slow down my internet connection.
When a business feels it has to legislate in order to survive, that's the time when you should let it die, since it clearly has forgotten the one and only way of survival...serving the market what it wants at a price it is willing to pay.
"Whining about police officers protecting themselves is nutty." This article isn't whining about officers protecting themselves (body armour and such)...but about the increasingly militarized tactics that they use. Read the frikkin' article - a flashbang grenade thrown into a house into a baby's crib during a no-knock raid just to serve a warrant?
...and why should they have to pay at all for the "right to resell"? This is content that is broadcast in the clear open air, with no encryption or protection of any kind, available for anyone to "hear". As I've said before, imagine if this were a guy preaching in a public square, shouting loudly to a crowd. Imagine I'm way in the back, and I can't quite hear him, so I pay someone else to record it using some equipment and play it back for me. The preacher is doing nothing at all to restrict his content, he has no right whatsoever to demand that the guy doing the recording has to pay him.
This report is total bullshit. It assumes from the get go that content is a thing that is only produced by a small group of people or companies. Only if that were true, can you have this DRS it talks about, where one is able to track content, rights, and licences. However that is not true. ANYONE is able to create content. That means the 7 billion plus people on this planet. Just what sort of system can keep track of which of those 7 billion people created which "original" content, and keep track of which of those 7 billion people have "valid" licences to which content?
The only system is one that is indistinguishable from complete and total surveillance.
Oh yes, and how dare P2P users actually use the bandwidth that they have paid for! Only a criminal actually uses all the petrol in his car that he bought. Why, if you drive until your tank is empty, that must mean you're up to no good!
"Your Honour, the accused receives lots of delivery packages, therefore when we accused him of receiving stolen goods, simply the fact he receives lots of packages must mean he is guilty".
That's how I see it. I use P2P software to share Linux distros all the time. In fact, that and Youtube are what make up the bulk of my bandwidth usage in the past couple of months.
"tries to base its business by capturing broadcast signals and re-transmitting those signals without licensing that content from the broadcasters."
Here's where you and those Supreme court judges failed to think. What exactly is being broadcast? A signal over-the-air that is unencrypted. The signal is being intentionally sent out over the air, with nothing preventing anyone from copying it (no encryption). Since that is the case, there is no reason why a broadcaster should then have control over recordings made using someone else's hardware. It'd be like you were to stand out in the middle of the street, preaching via megaphone and ten different people recorded with their smartphones, and then for some reason demanded that we buy a licence from you to distribute those recordings. Why should I pay a licence fee to use what I recorded or captured using my own equipment and will distribute using my own equipment, when you spoke or broadcast completely in the clear, doing nothing at all to prevent or restrict any potential copying? That is something that you don't want, and yet don't want to take the effort to prevent on your own. Since you are misusing property terms, let me misuse them as well. It'd be like you complaining that the valuable games consoles you just left out on your front lawn were stolen in the middle of the night; from a lawn that is completely unbarred by neither fence nor wall, and then demanding that people can't walk around at night. If you want to protect what you deem is your property, it is you who has to protect it. The content of the recording may or may not be yours (I am firmly in the may not category but that is a different discussion), but you are acting like the only thing that needs considering is the content. What about everything else? What about the hardware, the content deliveryservice or mechanisms? Aereo was putting forth real effort into serving a market that the broadcasters of the original transmission simply didn't want to serve.
On the post: Pay Different Prices To Access Different Sites: Virgin Mobile Leaps Through Net Neutrality Exemption With Gusto
On the post: After CIA Angrily Denied Spying On Senate, CIA Admits It Did And Apologizes
On the post: NY Port Authority Claims To Own The NYC Skyline: Tells Store To Destroy Skyline-Themed Plates
Re:
If anyone was in control over their own reputation, then each person would be able to declare "I'm a great person" and sue everyone else the instant anyone said otherwise.
On the post: Colombian Student Facing A Minimum Of Four Years In Prison For Uploading An Academic Article To Scribd
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History
On the post: German Government Tries To Censor Publication Of Its List Of Censored Websites
On the post: Airlines, Travel Sites Hand Over Your Full Booking Credit Card, IP Info To Feds, Who Keep It Stored With No Encryption
Re:
Besides, since he booked online, it would have had to be stored digitally to begin with.
Even though it is his credit card, it should have at the very least, been redacted to some degree. For example, just this minute, I've checked my credit card details on Amazon. Despite the fact that I just authenticated who I am with them by entering my user name and password, the image that is given to me only shows the last four digits of my credit cards.
On the post: Italy's Public Prosecutor 'Seizes' Giant Webmail Provider And Cloud Storage Provider, Because Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Key Sony Gaming Websites Go Down Because They Let Their Domains Expire
Re: Re:
On the post: Key Sony Gaming Websites Go Down Because They Let Their Domains Expire
Imagine if this happened to the White House, and some clerk there just forgot to pay the phone bill...
On the post: Key Sony Gaming Websites Go Down Because They Let Their Domains Expire
"Or maybe you're Electronic Arts
"Or, hey, maybe you're Electronic Arts"
I'm noticing a trend here, but damn me if I can't figure out what it is and what it means!
On the post: Conan Doyle Estate Asks Supreme Court To Step In And Block Sherlock Holmes From Being Public Domain'd
...wasn't this what copyright's original purpose was *not* to be, the blocking of publications of new work? Copyright was established to promote the authorship and publication of new works, not to block them.
On the post: MPAA Stretches DMCA To Breaking Point With Questionable Take Down Request For Popcorn Time Repositories
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: France Passes Anti-Amazon Law Eliminating Free Shipping; Amazon Responds With 0.01 Euro Shipping Fees
On the post: ACLU Digs Deep Into The Law Enforcement War Machine
Re: The citizen have caused their own problems
This article isn't whining about officers protecting themselves (body armour and such)...but about the increasingly militarized tactics that they use. Read the frikkin' article - a flashbang grenade thrown into a house into a baby's crib during a no-knock raid just to serve a warrant?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: loophole
As I've said before, imagine if this were a guy preaching in a public square, shouting loudly to a crowd. Imagine I'm way in the back, and I can't quite hear him, so I pay someone else to record it using some equipment and play it back for me. The preacher is doing nothing at all to restrict his content, he has no right whatsoever to demand that the guy doing the recording has to pay him.
On the post: EU Publishers Present Their 'Vision' For Copyright: A Permission-Based Internet Where Licensing Is Required For Everything
However that is not true. ANYONE is able to create content. That means the 7 billion plus people on this planet. Just what sort of system can keep track of which of those 7 billion people created which "original" content, and keep track of which of those 7 billion people have "valid" licences to which content?
The only system is one that is indistinguishable from complete and total surveillance.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Allowed To Get Six Strikes Info From Comcast
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Allowed To Get Six Strikes Info From Comcast
Re: Re:
That's how I see it. I use P2P software to share Linux distros all the time. In fact, that and Youtube are what make up the bulk of my bandwidth usage in the past couple of months.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Here's where you and those Supreme court judges failed to think. What exactly is being broadcast?
A signal over-the-air that is unencrypted. The signal is being intentionally sent out over the air, with nothing preventing anyone from copying it (no encryption). Since that is the case, there is no reason why a broadcaster should then have control over recordings made using someone else's hardware.
It'd be like you were to stand out in the middle of the street, preaching via megaphone and ten different people recorded with their smartphones, and then for some reason demanded that we buy a licence from you to distribute those recordings.
Why should I pay a licence fee to use what I recorded or captured using my own equipment and will distribute using my own equipment, when you spoke or broadcast completely in the clear, doing nothing at all to prevent or restrict any potential copying? That is something that you don't want, and yet don't want to take the effort to prevent on your own. Since you are misusing property terms, let me misuse them as well. It'd be like you complaining that the valuable games consoles you just left out on your front lawn were stolen in the middle of the night; from a lawn that is completely unbarred by neither fence nor wall, and then demanding that people can't walk around at night. If you want to protect what you deem is your property, it is you who has to protect it.
The content of the recording may or may not be yours (I am firmly in the may not category but that is a different discussion), but you are acting like the only thing that needs considering is the content. What about everything else? What about the hardware, the content deliveryservice or mechanisms? Aereo was putting forth real effort into serving a market that the broadcasters of the original transmission simply didn't want to serve.
Next >>