Patents are (at least supposed to be) on implementations, not ideas. As long as Apple's location-aware-mobile-app is implemented differently than Google's, it should be able to patent it. It will also have to name it something different (Longitude maybe?), but that's a trademark issue.
Fair Use or not doesn't matter since this isn't a case of copyright infringement (which would be a civil case). She is charged with "camcordering in a theater" which is a criminal offense, so even if fair use would apply to the resulting infringement it doesn't help her in the criminal case.
8% is at the low end but still pretty common for first-time authors. The average is around 10%. The absolute top end for a well-established, best-selling author is 15%. Even 8% is generous compared to royalties in the music industry.
There are real safety problems with counterfeit goods like counterfeit toothpaste and baby formula from China containing melamine, counterfeit (and not counterfeit) toys with lead paint or electrical/electronic goods with a fake UL Approval seal; however from what I've read, ACTA does absolutely nothing to address these issues. It's all to protect industry, not to protect consumers.
While I too fear that adding the do-not-record flag to any broadcast sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to adding it to everything, some of the arguments presented here don't make a lot of sense. Time-shifting is indeed a legal, fair use of broadcast content, but why would it be necessary to time-shift a video-on-demand program which in which the consumer sets the schedule? That's what the "on-demand" part of video-on-demand means (and the difference from pay-per-view, in which the broadcaster sets the schedule). All the systems I've read about allow you to start the program whenever you want, as well as pause it and resume later. Also, it's not really a broadcast, it's a streaming video that is only viewable and controllable by the purchaser, so I'm not sure if the fair use for time-shifting set out in Sony v Universal (a.k.a. "The Betamax Case") would really apply to video-on-demand.
Aside from the technophobic jabbering he does have a point. If I want to read a tweet or blog about some subject, I'll do it directly on the internet. Having a CNN anchor reading tweets and blog comments on the air is not what I tune into CNN for. It's just a lazy way to fill up air time on a slow news day when they should be doing some of that in-depth reporting that supposedly only journalists can do.
This article about Carey giving away magazines with her CDs reminds me of the Good Old Days when you bought an LP and it came with gorgeous cover art, copious liner notes and often little extra's like folded-up mini-posters. Fast forward to today where you don't even get a plastic CD jewel case anymore, you get a cardboard sleeve (is it really to be "environmentally friendly" or is it just to reduce costs).
How would long copyright affect the creation of new music? Answer is that it should not. It might affect the re-recording of other people's songs, or the re-release of them, but it doesn't stop any new songs from being made.
Did you read the article (or even the summary)? It affects the creation of new music because record companies focus their promotion and distribution budgets on their back catalog instead of promoting new artists (or even new music from old artists). It's a lot easier to slap together yet-another-greatest-hits-album than to go out develop new talent.
Google makes their money off of other people's work - they have discovered that getting in the middle of billions of transactions every day is the best way to make money. They are entirely dependant on IP - everyone else's IP, that is.
Lots of companies make their money by getting in the middle of transactions. FedEx makes lots of money delivering products from producers to consumers. Should the producer get upset because FedEx is making money off his customers, with his products? Or should he be thankful that they supply a valuable service to him and his customers, allowing everyone to make more money?
Yes, the Walter article is clearly written from a writer's point-of-view (it also points out the publisher is actively seeking submissions, something only potential authors would be interested in).
While the no-DRM policy is certainly good news for consumers, it sounds like the eBook arm of Harlequin (Carina Press) will be separate from the main publisher and use a separate pool of (mostly unknown) authors. Kinda like the big record companies that set up 'indy' labels on the side; always a good strategy to keep your eggs in more than one basket.
Unlike ABC in the US, the Austrialian ABC is a public broadcaster (like the BBC in Britain or PBS in America). As such, they are less under the control of the copyright lobby and the chances of seeing a fair-and-balanced report on copyright is much more likely than on US ABC (owned by Disney), NBC (owned by GE/Universal) or CBS (owned by Paramount/Viacom).
Billboard didn't even count PAID downloads (i.e. iTunes) prior to 2005. They count radio play, but not streaming (i.e. internet radio). They need to update their system or risk becoming irrelevant.
1) The spectrum chart is logarithmic, not linear. Broadcasting looks like it takes up a lot of the spectrum, but it's mostly at the low frequency end which is "stretched out".
2) The invisible hand of the market doesn't understand physics. For example, certain frequencies are absorbed by clouds which make them useless for satellite/long-range communications but are OK for other purposes.
3) If the market decides frequency allocation, what happens to applications that don't produce money but still need dedicated frequencies (emergency services, navigation, meteorology, radio astronomy, military, amateur radio, etc.)?
4) Each country decides it's frequency allocations, but radio doesn't recognize borders. Allocations need to be coordinated with other countries. How is this possible with "the market" making constant, random changes?
How long before automated speedtrap radars not only mail you a ticket but disable your accelerator as "friendly" reminder that you've exceeded the speed limit?
The health care debate is actually a good example of why morality shouldn't be involved in legal/legislative matters. Morality is relative. On one side, you have people saying it is immoral for the government to demand (some would even say "steal") an increasing amount of our hard-earned income in taxes. On the other side are those who say it is immoral to not use those funds for the greater good to provide health care to all regardless of whether they can afford it. The issue cannot be decided on morality when both sides claim the moral high-ground. It must be decided on more practical considerations, and copyright is no different.
So two wrongs make a right? How does that make sense.
It's far from an ideal solution but it at least levels the playing field. Webcasters already tried (and failed) to stop these fees; what other choice do they have but to force their competitors to pay the same fees?
Unfortunately, the kind of red-neck morons that watch Fox can't tell the difference between journalism and commentary ("Glenn Beck said Obama is Kenyian communist muslim terrorist, so it must be true.")
"Fonts" (computer files which reproduce typefaces on a computer system) are indeed protected under copyright, but the typefaces themselves are not protected by copyright. Any "Web 2.0" lawyer worth his fee should know that (look up Eltra Corp. V. Ringer if you want precedent). I don't know the details of the NBC case, but unless they are actually distributing font files, I think they're safe.
Nice website by the way. I hope you have paid license fees to the designers of Cambria Bold and Georgia Serif.
On the post: Apple Blocks Google App From iPhone While Trying To Patent The Same Invention?
Re: Prior Art?
On the post: Director Of New Moon Says Jailing Of Girl For Snippets Of Video Of His Movie Is 'Terribly Unfair'
Re:
On the post: This Is What's Wrong With eBooks: Amazon Loses $2 On Every eBook Sold
Re: Re: It's about Royalties
On the post: Study Shows Counterfeit Buyers Frequently Buy Real Products Later
ACTA doesn't address real counterfeiting problems
On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies
How much shift do you need?
On the post: Chicago Tribune Columnist: Hey You People Online With Opinions... Get Off My Lawn!
He does have a point.
On the post: Mariah Carey Showing How The New Music Business Model Works For Megastars
Old School RtB
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re:
Did you read the article (or even the summary)? It affects the creation of new music because record companies focus their promotion and distribution budgets on their back catalog instead of promoting new artists (or even new music from old artists). It's a lot easier to slap together yet-another-greatest-hits-album than to go out develop new talent.
On the post: Google Doesn't Rely On Intellectual Property For Its Leadership Position
Re:
Lots of companies make their money by getting in the middle of transactions. FedEx makes lots of money delivering products from producers to consumers. Should the producer get upset because FedEx is making money off his customers, with his products? Or should he be thankful that they supply a valuable service to him and his customers, allowing everyone to make more money?
On the post: Romance Publishing Giant Offering Ebooks Without DRM; Reporter Upset By This
Re:
While the no-DRM policy is certainly good news for consumers, it sounds like the eBook arm of Harlequin (Carina Press) will be separate from the main publisher and use a separate pool of (mostly unknown) authors. Kinda like the big record companies that set up 'indy' labels on the side; always a good strategy to keep your eggs in more than one basket.
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
Unauthorized Guides
On the post: Australian Radio Program On 'Piracy' What 60 Minutes Should Have Done
ABC is a public broadcaster
On the post: On The Media Takes On The Music Industry
Billboard Charts
On the post: How To Get Spectrum Back From TV For More Useful Purposes
A few points
2) The invisible hand of the market doesn't understand physics. For example, certain frequencies are absorbed by clouds which make them useless for satellite/long-range communications but are OK for other purposes.
3) If the market decides frequency allocation, what happens to applications that don't produce money but still need dedicated frequencies (emergency services, navigation, meteorology, radio astronomy, military, amateur radio, etc.)?
4) Each country decides it's frequency allocations, but radio doesn't recognize borders. Allocations need to be coordinated with other countries. How is this possible with "the market" making constant, random changes?
On the post: OnStar Used To Stop Carjacked Car
How long...
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Morality is relative
On the post: Pandora Continues To Push Users To Vote For Shameful Radio Performance Tax
Re: Re: What?
It's far from an ideal solution but it at least levels the playing field. Webcasters already tried (and failed) to stop these fees; what other choice do they have but to force their competitors to pay the same fees?
On the post: Freedom Of The Press? UK's The Guardian Barred From Reporting On Parliament
Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
On the post: NBC Sued For Over $2 Million... For Infringing On A Font
Re: copyright law
Nice website by the way. I hope you have paid license fees to the designers of Cambria Bold and Georgia Serif.
On the post: The Economist Brings Back Its Paywall... Perhaps It Should Hire An Economist
AMZ*Prime
And 90% of those are looking for AMZ*Prime ;-)
Next >>