But hey, keep on repeating previously debunked stuff. It makes you look soooooo informed.
As for the other link. I read Adrian Chen's NYT's Op-Ed and you know what? He doesn't really give any reasons as to why he thinks that Bitcoin is doomed other than his personal feelings on the issue.
Run the linked article through Google Translate and you get this:
AppWork had by his own admission no knowledge of the existence of the functionality, since a comprehensive control is apparently carried out before the official release.
If you have user submitted code, it is your duty to audit it before releasing it. What else is there in the code? Trojans? Malware? Who knows, we just get the binary, and they don't audit until they get sued...
Then look at what is on Jdownloader's beta testing download page:
JDownloader 2 is not in a stable final state. The current JDownloader 2 version is ment to be used for testing purposes only. This means that there will be unfinished features, bugs, many updates and even untested modules, code & plugins.
These installers require a internet connection for installation, because they download the latest version directly from our update servers.
Re: "making third parties liable for [harmful] actions they did not do" but are in position to police.
This isn't exactly "third party", it's the code base they control.
Did you even read the article? We are talking about a nightly beta (is in test) release. The company stated that it does carefuly review the code for the actual releases.
And now everyone knows to police it rigorously.
Or move out of Germany.
Listen, kids: "innovation" is EASY when it's to steal and disrupt the good; building is the difficult part.
Ummm. They are "building". What do you think they are trying to produce, chopped liver?
Any silly holding that all "innovation" must be allowed and that all responsiblity can be dodged is anti-civilization.
Who, beside you, has ever stated that? Nice strawman.
Even if Mike is absolutely right about problems, he has no solutions to even suggest.
Well except for Mike suggesting, all the time, that we hold those actually responsible for the problems accountable, not the makers of the tools or the providers of the platform that are used.
So people who stand up for themselves and demand dignity and equitable treatment in the workplace should somehow apologize for that to people who have not done it in their own workplace? Sorry, I don't think so.
Hmm. Maybe you should stop looking down your nose at the *real* world around you. Your ivory tower view is a bit distorted.
First point: Unions only represent less than 12% of the US workforce. Less than 7% if you remove government workers.
Secon d point: Union support by the general populace is waning. Michigan, one of the traditional places were union support runs high recently passed a "Right to Work" law that made it illegal to prevent someone from working at a union shop even if they don't join the union or pay the dues. Nationwide support for these type of laws is at 74%.
Third point: Most innovation and 39% of the GDP comes from small business, not major corporations. Small businesses have the viable option of going out of business, instead of bowing to unreasonable union demands when forced with unionization. Not much bargaining power for unions there.
And if the software guys formed labor unions the way that the motion picture industry workers have, they'd have such a "sweet deal". Clearly the software industry generates the income to provide those things for their hourly workers, but asking politely will never get you there.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that the software industry has good benefits also. That wasn't really my point.
I was just reminding you that the majority of your customer base, the people who spend money on your products, don't consider things like affordable health care and retirement benefits as an automatic given these days. It's not the 1980's anymore.
When a website owner is not doing anything to curb the behavior of inappropriate content, then the owner of the site SHOULD be held liable. After all, website owners all around the world are being held liable for the content posted by their members.
You realize (well maybe you don't, based on your previous comments) that you wouldn't have been able to post your comment here without Section 230 in place, right? Web 2.0 wouldn't exist at all because of the liability concerns.
But software doesn't suffer from nearly the amount of piracy that music, motion picture and television do.
Incorrect. Here's a quote from PCMAG. Although, they are using the BSA, RIAA and MPAA numbers, which I think are all overinflated:
According to the Business Software Alliance's most recent report, 42 percent of all software used in the world is pirated, and the commercial value of unlicensed software put into the market last year totaled $59 billion—nearly double the figure from 2003. By comparison, a study cited by the Recording Industry Association of America claims a total annual loss of $12.5 billion. The Motion Picture Association of America doesn't break out its own share but cites the total loss to digital piracy of all kinds as $58 billion. Source
Nor (at least as far as I know) do the people who write software receive residual benefit from their work. In the motion picture industry, retirement plans, health insurance and income (SAG, WGA and DGA) are funded by the downstream revenue that's subject to the corrosive effect of piracy.
That's because the software guys are focusing more on creating the next cool thing instead of resting on their laurels waiting for the residual check to show up. As for the health care and retirement plans, that's a sweet deal - too bad the average joe sweating it out on a hourly job in the real world doesn't get such things these days.
How does taking the creative output of others and monetizing it for yourself get characterized as "innovation"?
I just love it how you guys downplay the "creative output" of those who write the software and build the systems. It's almost like they are second class citizens to you, instead of on equal footing when it comes to creativity.
It is possible to innovate without violating the law...
Do you mean someone like Aereo, who innovated and purposely took insane precautions to remain within the current laws and got sued for their trouble anyways?
I want to search for a professional assassin in the Yellow Pages. Waa waa, I can't!!
Leaving aside you conflating the traditionally civil crime of copyright infringement with a serious criminal charge of killing someone, your analogy still doesn't hold much water.
Search engines are not like the Yellow Pages. More like the White Pages - if there's a phone number it's included, unless you specifically request an unlisted number. The Yellow Pages are more like the sponsored links on Google - they pay for placement.
The White Pages most certainly do not vet the owner of each and every number and (AFAIK) the Yellow Pages does not vet the businesses they list either. If you pay them, you get listed. Nor do I believe that listing a professional assassin would even be illegal. If someone was really stupid enough to do that, more power to them. It's like putting a giant flashing arrow above your head for the authorities find you.
Nope. You are being the douchebag here. We are talking about the freedom to search for what we are looking for. Which is not even remotely close to illegal downloading.
It's like removing a Flea Market from Google Maps because someone in one of the booths was selling knock-off designer handbags.
Look up "moral rights" and specifically Berne Convention 1928. USA is a signatory to it even though it hasn't really been implemented.
Moral rights are NOT covered by copyright laws in the US. Period. Full stop.
Congress side-stepped that by stipulating that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.
But you do not understand respect for an artist, his/her wishes, or respect for an artist's work.
No offense, but none of those things have anything to do with copyright, fair use or any of the legal issues in play in this instance.
Copyright is not about "the wishes of the artist" at all. It's a bargain between the creators and the public which grants certain, specific rights to the creators in order to promote the progress of culture and learning for everyone.
On the post: Police Chief To Be Paid In Bitcoin, But Mostly As A Publicity Stunt Gimmick
Re: Let no publicity stunt go unmentioned on Techdirt!
Mike already set you straight on that one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131107/02364625162/as-silk-road-20-pops-up-government-needs-t o-avoid-temptation-moral-panic.shtml#c208
But hey, keep on repeating previously debunked stuff. It makes you look soooooo informed.
As for the other link. I read Adrian Chen's NYT's Op-Ed and you know what? He doesn't really give any reasons as to why he thinks that Bitcoin is doomed other than his personal feelings on the issue.
On the post: German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Run the linked article through Google Translate and you get this:
On the post: German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community
Re:
Look up the definition of "beta release" first:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta
Then look at what is on Jdownloader's beta testing download page:
Beta testing is ALWAYS at your own risk.
On the post: German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community
Re: "making third parties liable for [harmful] actions they did not do" but are in position to police.
Did you even read the article? We are talking about a nightly beta (is in test) release. The company stated that it does carefuly review the code for the actual releases.
And now everyone knows to police it rigorously.
Or move out of Germany.
Listen, kids: "innovation" is EASY when it's to steal and disrupt the good; building is the difficult part.
Ummm. They are "building". What do you think they are trying to produce, chopped liver?
Any silly holding that all "innovation" must be allowed and that all responsiblity can be dodged is anti-civilization.
Who, beside you, has ever stated that? Nice strawman.
Even if Mike is absolutely right about problems, he has no solutions to even suggest.
Well except for Mike suggesting, all the time, that we hold those actually responsible for the problems accountable, not the makers of the tools or the providers of the platform that are used.
On the post: MPAA 'Settles' Another 'Victory' Against Hotfile For $80 Million That No Artists Will Ever See
Re: MPAA wins, Mike whines. Nothing new here.
I guess *our* vacation, where we had reasonable, adult discussions taking place, is over. OOTB is back.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. Maybe you should stop looking down your nose at the *real* world around you. Your ivory tower view is a bit distorted.
First point: Unions only represent less than 12% of the US workforce. Less than 7% if you remove government workers.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/much-american-workforce-composed-labor-unions-60087.html
Secon d point: Union support by the general populace is waning. Michigan, one of the traditional places were union support runs high recently passed a "Right to Work" law that made it illegal to prevent someone from working at a union shop even if they don't join the union or pay the dues. Nationwide support for these type of laws is at 74%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Third point: Most innovation and 39% of the GDP comes from small business, not major corporations. Small businesses have the viable option of going out of business, instead of bowing to unreasonable union demands when forced with unionization. Not much bargaining power for unions there.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/opadhome/mtdpweb/sbfacts.htm
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I'm pretty sure that the software industry has good benefits also. That wasn't really my point.
I was just reminding you that the majority of your customer base, the people who spend money on your products, don't consider things like affordable health care and retirement benefits as an automatic given these days. It's not the 1980's anymore.
On the post: German Court Tells Wikimedia Foundation That It's Liable For Things Users Write
Re:
Not in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
You realize (well maybe you don't, based on your previous comments) that you wouldn't have been able to post your comment here without Section 230 in place, right? Web 2.0 wouldn't exist at all because of the liability concerns.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect. Here's a quote from PCMAG. Although, they are using the BSA, RIAA and MPAA numbers, which I think are all overinflated:
Nor (at least as far as I know) do the people who write software receive residual benefit from their work. In the motion picture industry, retirement plans, health insurance and income (SAG, WGA and DGA) are funded by the downstream revenue that's subject to the corrosive effect of piracy.
That's because the software guys are focusing more on creating the next cool thing instead of resting on their laurels waiting for the residual check to show up. As for the health care and retirement plans, that's a sweet deal - too bad the average joe sweating it out on a hourly job in the real world doesn't get such things these days.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just love it how you guys downplay the "creative output" of those who write the software and build the systems. It's almost like they are second class citizens to you, instead of on equal footing when it comes to creativity.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
The other side of that coin is:
If your business model depends solely on holding back innovation, that's also a bad business model.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Do you mean someone like Aereo, who innovated and purposely took insane precautions to remain within the current laws and got sued for their trouble anyways?
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Leaving aside you conflating the traditionally civil crime of copyright infringement with a serious criminal charge of killing someone, your analogy still doesn't hold much water.
Search engines are not like the Yellow Pages. More like the White Pages - if there's a phone number it's included, unless you specifically request an unlisted number. The Yellow Pages are more like the sponsored links on Google - they pay for placement.
The White Pages most certainly do not vet the owner of each and every number and (AFAIK) the Yellow Pages does not vet the businesses they list either. If you pay them, you get listed. Nor do I believe that listing a professional assassin would even be illegal. If someone was really stupid enough to do that, more power to them. It's like putting a giant flashing arrow above your head for the authorities find you.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
Nope. You are being the douchebag here. We are talking about the freedom to search for what we are looking for. Which is not even remotely close to illegal downloading.
It's like removing a Flea Market from Google Maps because someone in one of the booths was selling knock-off designer handbags.
On the post: News From The Techdirt Insider Shop: Bitcoins, Black Friday & The 2013 Holiday Bundle
Re: Happy holidays, jerks!
- You get to take DH to a Blackhawks game while making him wear a Chris Chelios Red Wings jersey.
- DH concedes to all of The Real Micheal's religious fanaticism for 1 week.
- DH publicly admits that the Detroit Lions don't suck this year.
(This list is still open - any suggestions?)
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
"That's why I say hey man, nice shot" -Filter
Pretty sure this is Fair Use. Please don't sue me whoever holds the copyright on that song!
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
I guess that never came to my attention because when we talk about copyright here it usually deals with copies and rarely stuff like sculptures.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Respect
Moral rights are NOT covered by copyright laws in the US. Period. Full stop.
Congress side-stepped that by stipulating that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Respect
No offense, but none of those things have anything to do with copyright, fair use or any of the legal issues in play in this instance.
Copyright is not about "the wishes of the artist" at all. It's a bargain between the creators and the public which grants certain, specific rights to the creators in order to promote the progress of culture and learning for everyone.
Next >>