Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 2:17am
But it basically says the law [snip] says we should use the higher standard, so we should.
"The law is the law and shouldn't change"? Wow, what a compelling argument, you sold me. Better get those darkies back in chains and build some more prisons for all the homos then..... /sarcasm
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 12:11pm
Re: Re: A FACT or two
I'm with you and I'm beginning to suspect that may be exactly this AC's plan - to stop reasonable debate about hte subject at hand with panto-type arguments. After all none can be that...... oh never mind.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 10:09am
Re: Re: Re:
you have taken those people out of the economy
Says he ignoring that such a thing does not necessarily happen, that there's little or no hard evidence either way to suggest the 2 are or are not related even where you can show a reduction, that such things naturally happen whether by "piracy" or not as the economy/technology evolves (horse and buggy effect), that other different jobs are created "over there" where the money was spent to replace or augment the ones perhaps lost "over here" from the money not being spent... and so on and so on... Overall a masterpiece of picking the bits you like and ignoring the rest. Bravo *tips hat politely*
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 9:17am
Re: Re: Could be worried about display "theft"?
Hit the nail on the head. This just pisses off customers who, when the company in question does something like this, will say "Okay, then I just won't come here and use your services again! NYAH!" which they have the right to do!
Yeah but this way they can blame someone else. "Copyright infringement lost us a customer and we lost gazillions in potential books sales because they infringed our copyright."
Oooo *ping!* Lightbulb moment! That's how all those lost sale stats are made up!"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 3:45am
Re: This just in:
Seems strange they wouldn't attempt some sort of control by asking these respondents if they had abused phone etiquette.
Or indeed some questions to establish exactly what the person they were asking thought "phone etiquette" actually included. I don't recall ever having seen a set of written rules or anything. Ask a few hundred people that and you'd get anything from people who thought getting your phone out in public was bad to people who thought anything short of bludgeoning the guy next to you to death with it was fine.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 3:38am
Re: Re:
Not as much effect I think as what happened to WikiLeaks on Amazon - now that to my mind makes you think twice about cloud services.
It adds to the pile though and is another case of the legal framework of individual countries not coping with the implications of technology and putting an almost imaginary wrapper round it (or trying to put a real wrapper around something essentially imaginary perhaps).
When you're talking about virtualisation and cloud just how do you determine jurisdiction? The natural reaction seems to be "Oh, well of course it's the country the server is in", except that can change minute to minute with current tech, possibly automatically in response to demand, load, time, or a host of other reasons. Or perhaps even running in all of them simultaneously, even more so if you're talking about a service rather than server. So location of the user then? Can be equally tricky to track through proxy or VPN.
It always seems that laws end up being shoe-horned to fit, some seem to fairly well, others look like the ugly sister trying on the glass slipper. It makes me wonder if what's needed is for the "internet" to be created as almost a separate country in its own right with perhaps a committee-like "government" that creates a (light) regulation based on international agreement and compromise of what is "acceptable". Utopian perhaps and obviously fraught with complications and dangers, but the question remains how do you sensibly apply the rule of (at least some) law where you have no real sense of location? Or do you need to at all?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 2:14am
Can't resist the classic Yes Prime MInister.....
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 1:49am
perhaps....
If you follow the "time shifting is legal" logic a bit further then it gets a bit odd to say "Well it's legal to watch that time-shifted TV show whenever you want, but this identical content you got from a bit torrent client is illegal". Looked at that way all the infringing content around becomes in and of itself legal and only becomes infringing at the point of use by someone who doesn't have the "rights" to consume it.
Of course that would be totally unenforceable, so it's just a mental exercise but it does make a point about the arbitrary boundaries put on content. Technology has already destroyed the lines and the artificial boundaries are the Emperor's New Clothes.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 3:19am
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
but it seems just as likely that some percentage of infringers would have done so if it were the only means of obtaining a copy
Now all you have to do is show a system in which buying a copy is the only possible way of consuming the content. Perhaps some kind of DNA-tagged super-encrypted stream beamed directly to your personal retina/timpanic membrane on a pay-per-view basis with concurrent memory wipe to stop you repeating it?
Not that I'm claiming in any way that copying never results in a potential sale vanishing, but that was a pretty silly statement. It makes it appear that the whole decision process is a single factor, single decision position and that's just funny.
Those are lost sales/profits.
No, those are lost opportunities to sell someone something. A lost sale is if they buy it and then return it. until they hand over money it's only a potential sale. And no profits are lost as no money is removed from the company. If I went around suing companies for loss of earnings because they'd given a job I'd applied for to a less qualified candidate because they'd work for less money I'd look pretty silly wouldn't I?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 2:46am
Re: Paranoia...?
one of the roles of government is to facilitate improvements in commerce; and conversely to protect consumer rights.
It's what? No the government's role is to create a stable structure in which commerce can exist, not to have anything to do with commerce itself and its role is not to protect consumer rights, but to protect all the rights of its citizens without any prejudice to a subset.
Private companies would work to use this information to drive their bottom line in any way they can. And they should.
No, they really shouldn't. Not without the permission of everyone involved and certainly not with the help of the government without permission.
However, what other consequences can you envision that would outweigh the conceivable benefits of a genuine database containing the minutae of the human genome?
Every good usage I can think of for such a database doesn't involve knowing who the person you are studying is. Every usage I can think of for knowing who a person is is subject to abuse and history is replete with governments and private companies abusing any kind of identifying data. I choose not to give them another weapon against me thank you they are already significantly and sufficiently well armed.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 9:09am
Re:
When "pirates" are not out to make money, it is hard to compete with them. I know that I would rather pay a few extra dollars to get good content legally, but not everyone is like me.
Doesn't really matter because:
A/ The question is not "would you rather buy it legally?" but instead "does it offer value for money?" with value being a personal calculation that can include ease of access, price, ease of use, legality and a host of other value adds and that includes your DRM gripe, which is valid, as well as "competing with free".
B/ The question is also not "How do I get everyone [who receives the content] to buy it?", but instead "How do I get enough people to buy it to turn a profit, and what price do I set to maximise that profit versus people willing to pay the price?". And again that's a question of offering value.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Mar 2011 @ 1:33am
Re:
I suspect HP realized that the similarities are vague, the devices themselves different, and the operating systems different enough to make proving anything difficult, if not pointless. They would have to go into a whole bunch of discovery to discover, well, nothing.
Yes, because that's always stopped major companies suing before. Yup, common sense based on lack of anything beyond superficial resemblance, works every time.....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 6:18am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know I've come VERY late to this discussion but I just couldn't ignore this one because OMG!
It isn't hard to prove.
You summon the rights holder.
"Did you permit this usage?"
"no".
"So the feed is illegal?"
"yes".
End discussion. The illegal act has been shown (without having to actually bring the case, there is no requirement for conviction, only proof of the existing crime). Then you move with "aiding and abetting" and it's all done.
So you're saying that the legal standard for deterimining guilt is in fact asking an interested party? Wow. SO you don't need to establish at all whether the party you asked actually owned the content in question? You don't need to ask the accused whether they think there was an agreement to distribute the content, or whether it had been supplied by another source they had reason to believe was legal? You don't need to investigate anything beyond asking the person who claims rights over the content whether or not someone they can extract cash from is guilty or not? Just "He dun it Your Honour" and straight off to jail.
That's excellent. I can accuse you of having infringed here upon my copyrighted work (doesn't really matter what, I don't have to demonstrate ownership after all) and have you carted of to jail? Sounds like a winner to me. Then I can also sue you and techdirt (oo as direct infringers too probably so the same lack of evidence applies, brilliant) for a gazillion pounds. Score!
On the post: US Gov't Supports Keeping Patents Difficult To Invalidate
"The law is the law and shouldn't change"? Wow, what a compelling argument, you sold me. Better get those darkies back in chains and build some more prisons for all the homos then..... /sarcasm
On the post: Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected
Re: Re: A FACT or two
On the post: Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 8-Track Piracy Is Killing The Music Business.... In 1976
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How To Create A Survey That Makes A Problem Seem Bigger Than It Is: 'Do You Know Anyone...'
Re: Re: Re: This just in:
On the post: Barnes & Noble Forbids Photos & Word Of Mouth Promotion With Bogus Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Could be worried about display "theft"?
Oooo *ping!* Lightbulb moment! That's how all those lost sale stats are made up!"
[/sarc]
On the post: Documentary About RNC 'Bomb Plot' Raises Serious Questions About How Feds Prosecute
Well I didn't bother to read the article but.....
You support bombers you vicious ba****d... MASNICK SUPPORTS TERR....
Oh, um sorry came over all anonymous for a moment there.. :-) *blushes and crawls back under rock*
On the post: How To Create A Survey That Makes A Problem Seem Bigger Than It Is: 'Do You Know Anyone...'
Re: This just in:
On the post: Did Japan And Korea Just Make Life Really Difficult For Any Cloud Service Provider?
Re: Re:
It adds to the pile though and is another case of the legal framework of individual countries not coping with the implications of technology and putting an almost imaginary wrapper round it (or trying to put a real wrapper around something essentially imaginary perhaps).
When you're talking about virtualisation and cloud just how do you determine jurisdiction? The natural reaction seems to be "Oh, well of course it's the country the server is in", except that can change minute to minute with current tech, possibly automatically in response to demand, load, time, or a host of other reasons. Or perhaps even running in all of them simultaneously, even more so if you're talking about a service rather than server. So location of the user then? Can be equally tricky to track through proxy or VPN.
It always seems that laws end up being shoe-horned to fit, some seem to fairly well, others look like the ugly sister trying on the glass slipper. It makes me wonder if what's needed is for the "internet" to be created as almost a separate country in its own right with perhaps a committee-like "government" that creates a (light) regulation based on international agreement and compromise of what is "acceptable". Utopian perhaps and obviously fraught with complications and dangers, but the question remains how do you sensibly apply the rule of (at least some) law where you have no real sense of location? Or do you need to at all?
On the post: How To Create A Survey That Makes A Problem Seem Bigger Than It Is: 'Do You Know Anyone...'
Can't resist the classic Yes Prime MInister.....
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
On the post: Did Japan And Korea Just Make Life Really Difficult For Any Cloud Service Provider?
perhaps....
Of course that would be totally unenforceable, so it's just a mental exercise but it does make a point about the arbitrary boundaries put on content. Technology has already destroyed the lines and the artificial boundaries are the Emperor's New Clothes.
On the post: No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Not that I'm claiming in any way that copying never results in a potential sale vanishing, but that was a pretty silly statement. It makes it appear that the whole decision process is a single factor, single decision position and that's just funny. No, those are lost opportunities to sell someone something. A lost sale is if they buy it and then return it. until they hand over money it's only a potential sale. And no profits are lost as no money is removed from the company.
If I went around suing companies for loss of earnings because they'd given a job I'd applied for to a less qualified candidate because they'd work for less money I'd look pretty silly wouldn't I?
On the post: Dutch Chief Of Police Suggests National DNA-Database For All Citizens
Re: Paranoia...?
On the post: Dutch Chief Of Police Suggests National DNA-Database For All Citizens
Alternative suggestion
On the post: Copyright Boss Thinks It's Possible To 'Starve' Infringement Sites
Re:
A/ The question is not "would you rather buy it legally?" but instead "does it offer value for money?" with value being a personal calculation that can include ease of access, price, ease of use, legality and a host of other value adds and that includes your DRM gripe, which is valid, as well as "competing with free".
B/ The question is also not "How do I get everyone [who receives the content] to buy it?", but instead "How do I get enough people to buy it to turn a profit, and what price do I set to maximise that profit versus people willing to pay the price?". And again that's a question of offering value.
On the post: Copyright Boss Thinks It's Possible To 'Starve' Infringement Sites
Point of order
There.... FTFY!
On the post: HP And RIM Produce Similar Device... Don't Freak Out
Re:
On the post: Twitter Decides To Kill Its Ecosystem: How Not To Run A Modern Company
Danged kids!
On the post: Bath & Bodyworks Goes To Court To Explain To Summit Entertainment That The Word Twilight Existed Before The Movie
Oh well
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's excellent. I can accuse you of having infringed here upon my copyrighted work (doesn't really matter what, I don't have to demonstrate ownership after all) and have you carted of to jail? Sounds like a winner to me. Then I can also sue you and techdirt (oo as direct infringers too probably so the same lack of evidence applies, brilliant) for a gazillion pounds. Score!
Next >>