Taking a photo in certain streets or buildings are forbidden.
I know of one street in Rotterdam where it's explicitly forbidden to take pictures there, because of copyright: http://www.flickr.com/photos/klaver_46/299456095/ (This is a public facing street open from all sides, but on the street itself it's forbidden to take pictures.)
Oh it can be very accurate, but is it transparant?
For a good democratic process, the voters need to be able to check the results. Which is easily done with a paper trail (just count every single ballot)
but a voting computer, you don't have access to the source code of each and every machine.
Who is to say that there isn't a subroutine put in there, that says every 10 votes, 1 vote goes to X party, no matter what the vote said. So if you were the tenth person, and you voted for Party L, the voting machine would say "Party L" on the screen when you press "VOTE", but it would register "Party X".
Now at the end of the day, the folks at the ballot station will then press a few buttons and out comes a result, but that result would be false.
But party L can't demand a recount, because what are you going to recount?
You press the same buttons on the same machine and the same result comes out.
And now you have created a murky democratic process, not transparant at all.
Fancy stuff, voting computers, but they make the whole process needlessly troublesome. And for what? So that you can have a result a few hours earlier?
1) industry group... check
2) known history of mistakes by other industry groups... check
3) not learning from those mistakes... check.
This is news how?
It'd be news if they had actually learned from those mistakes.
*head desk* Dear publishers, learn from those other mistakes otherwise you too will disappear, just like the record industry and the movie industry.
Learn to not have your legal team be in charge.
Apparently the Irish government bought all machines in one go, and they have it already in storage there.
Weird thing, the spokesperson of Nedap claims that the voting machines are just industrial machines which don't require stringent rules regarding secure storage.
But I'd say if they aren't stored securely, anyone could then go in and hack into the machines, thus rendering the machines basically useless for a transparant democratic process.
CDs, DVDs, touring tickets, posters, commission work, artists attention...
All are scarce goods, which can be sold or made money from.
If an artist can't make money off of his or her work, then perhaps it's probably not the main job for the artist, and he or she will have to find something else to suplement their income. Many writers have to do the same. Does that mean bad quality, perhaps, perhaps not.
Music doesn't have to be the ONLY form of income of artists.
Dear RIAAtards (and that includes all of the offshoots in other countries as well, and also the movie industry asshats and the publishing industry morons across the world)
Get your heads out of your asses and just change your business models.
Your time has come, you have had your time in the limelight, made a few quick bucks off of us the public. Now it's over. Your old ways of thinking doesn't work in a world without scarcity.
You can't put the Internet genie back in the bottle. You failed to embrace the change when Napster came along. Instead of striking a deal, you decided to litigate. YOU have taught a whole generation about 'piracy' through those acts, and YOU have glorified the word 'pirate' through the media.
YOU have brought on your own demise.
Copyright is a deal between content creator, and content user. Creator gets a SHORT amount of time of monopoly on the work to make money of it, and after that SHORT amount of time, it belongs to the public. It was never supposed to be a wellfare system for lazy corporations and some artists.
If you want to make money, make content that people want to pay money for. Make an interesting/good movie/album/book/magazine/newspaper, and people will pay money for it to see/hear/read it.
I, as a member of the public, for one, am sick and tired of these bozos completely missing the point of copyright, and keep spouting lies and more damn lies. And of these very same people running their own industry into the ground and blame us, the public, for their own stupidity and short-sightedness.
Yes, change is difficult, and work is hard. But money doesn't grow on trees. You can't get money for nothing.
So what, if you can't afford the penthouse in the center of New York any more, join the club. Work for your money, it's good for you.
The way I see it, if I have to pay 30 to 50 euros for a game, so it had better be a decent game, not one you can blaze through, and then wonder what the heck just happened.
2 Hours of entertainment for 30 euros is ludicrous!
Imagine movies (about 2 hours of entertainment) costing you 30 euros... I'm sure the whole world would raise a big stink, and movie companies would suddenly see their market dropping immensely, in favour of so-called 'piracy'.
I agree, with 40 hours, the game might become repetitive and/or boring. But let's say if it offers 10 to 20 hours of entertainment/gameplay fun. I call that bang for my buck.
Sure, if the game costs you about 5 euros, then I'd expect a shorting lifespan in the game (though I have been surprised)
Most important in a game is gameplay, but if the game only offers you 2 hours of gameplay, then I wouldn't want to pay 30 euros or more for it.
That's because they have paid their dues to SoundExchange to be able to get their money.
Yes, indeed 'famous' artists generally aren't on that list, because most of them are signed to labels, and the label will make sure that they extract the money from SoundExchange. But SE refuses to do its job in finding the artists it is collecting royalties for (that includes indy-artists and in some cases even creative common artists.)
SE has shown it can't be arsed to do its job. If a simple Google search gives you the name and address of most of these artists, and they still claim they can't find them. Then they are clueless numbskulls who are unfit to run a business.
There are numerous occasions where old content is still very much locked up behind Copyright, which can't be preserved because of it, and therefore disappear from our culture.
By making the copyright laws more stringent and longer lasting, the less culture is preserved.
For decades before copyright law was (re)written, artists used ideas from eachother to come up with better ideas. Standing on top of shoulders of giants so to speak.
Today, that has become a legal minefield. Is this still copyrighted? Is this even parody or infringement?
Copyright laws should not be used as a wellfare for artists, but as an incentive to create new stuff.
If I were to redesign the law, it would have provisions against reselling of copyright. It belongs to the creator and no-one else. Period.
And copyright holders only have a monopoly on their works for a short amount of time. I believe a British university had calculated that 15 years was optimal time. After that, it defaults to the public domain.
Video games are just this generation's Rock'n'Roll.
Same happened then (Rock n Roll causes our youth to worship the devil)
And with comic books (mysogyny is rampant among our youth, because of those comic books)
And with violent movies (Our youth are immitating those heroes, we should ban violent movies)
Sadly, it's just a symptom of time, and I, for one, am sick and tired of the 'get off my lawn'/'think of the children' mentality that we see in our society today.
On the post: EFF Agrees That Copyright In Second Life Is A Mess
I know of one street in Rotterdam where it's explicitly forbidden to take pictures there, because of copyright:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/klaver_46/299456095/ (This is a public facing street open from all sides, but on the street itself it's forbidden to take pictures.)
On the post: Ireland Latest To Scrap E-Voting Machines
Re: Is it really that hard?
For a good democratic process, the voters need to be able to check the results. Which is easily done with a paper trail (just count every single ballot)
but a voting computer, you don't have access to the source code of each and every machine.
Who is to say that there isn't a subroutine put in there, that says every 10 votes, 1 vote goes to X party, no matter what the vote said. So if you were the tenth person, and you voted for Party L, the voting machine would say "Party L" on the screen when you press "VOTE", but it would register "Party X".
Now at the end of the day, the folks at the ballot station will then press a few buttons and out comes a result, but that result would be false.
But party L can't demand a recount, because what are you going to recount?
You press the same buttons on the same machine and the same result comes out.
And now you have created a murky democratic process, not transparant at all.
Fancy stuff, voting computers, but they make the whole process needlessly troublesome. And for what? So that you can have a result a few hours earlier?
On the post: German Music And Book Publishers Demand ISPs Block File Sharing Sites
2) known history of mistakes by other industry groups... check
3) not learning from those mistakes... check.
This is news how?
It'd be news if they had actually learned from those mistakes.
*head desk* Dear publishers, learn from those other mistakes otherwise you too will disappear, just like the record industry and the movie industry.
Learn to not have your legal team be in charge.
btw, Streisand effect again? :)
On the post: Ireland Latest To Scrap E-Voting Machines
Re:
On the post: Ireland Latest To Scrap E-Voting Machines
News update
Sorry, only a Dutch link at this time:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/57404/stemcomputerbouwer-nedap-vraagt-ierland-uitleg.html
Transla tion services are blocked on my end, so I can't offer any of those links and say whether they're decent or not.
Nedap claims that the news came out of the blue.
Apparently the Irish government bought all machines in one go, and they have it already in storage there.
Weird thing, the spokesperson of Nedap claims that the voting machines are just industrial machines which don't require stringent rules regarding secure storage.
But I'd say if they aren't stored securely, anyone could then go in and hack into the machines, thus rendering the machines basically useless for a transparant democratic process.
On the post: It's Not Twitter's Power To Misinform That We Should Be Worried About...
Re: Others on the Twitter bashing wagon!!!!
On the post: New Consortium Says If Others Can Monetize Better Than We Can... We Deserve Their Money?
Re:
On the post: Pirate Bay Loses A Lawsuit; Entertainment Industry Loses An Opportunity
Re: Re: Re: Long term solution..?
All are scarce goods, which can be sold or made money from.
If an artist can't make money off of his or her work, then perhaps it's probably not the main job for the artist, and he or she will have to find something else to suplement their income. Many writers have to do the same. Does that mean bad quality, perhaps, perhaps not.
Music doesn't have to be the ONLY form of income of artists.
On the post: Canadian Recording Industry Puts Out Copyright Law FAQ... Which Gets Almost Everything Wrong
Video killed the radio star
Dear RIAAtards (and that includes all of the offshoots in other countries as well, and also the movie industry asshats and the publishing industry morons across the world)
Get your heads out of your asses and just change your business models.
Your time has come, you have had your time in the limelight, made a few quick bucks off of us the public. Now it's over. Your old ways of thinking doesn't work in a world without scarcity.
You can't put the Internet genie back in the bottle. You failed to embrace the change when Napster came along. Instead of striking a deal, you decided to litigate. YOU have taught a whole generation about 'piracy' through those acts, and YOU have glorified the word 'pirate' through the media.
YOU have brought on your own demise.
Copyright is a deal between content creator, and content user. Creator gets a SHORT amount of time of monopoly on the work to make money of it, and after that SHORT amount of time, it belongs to the public. It was never supposed to be a wellfare system for lazy corporations and some artists.
If you want to make money, make content that people want to pay money for. Make an interesting/good movie/album/book/magazine/newspaper, and people will pay money for it to see/hear/read it.
I, as a member of the public, for one, am sick and tired of these bozos completely missing the point of copyright, and keep spouting lies and more damn lies. And of these very same people running their own industry into the ground and blame us, the public, for their own stupidity and short-sightedness.
Yes, change is difficult, and work is hard. But money doesn't grow on trees. You can't get money for nothing.
So what, if you can't afford the penthouse in the center of New York any more, join the club. Work for your money, it's good for you.
On the post: Daytona Beach Charity Movie Night Put On Hold Due To Copyright
Re: Public Domain
On the post: Daytona Beach Charity Movie Night Put On Hold Due To Copyright
Re:
I guess PBS, NPR and other *non-commercial* radio/tv stations should rethink their donation drives then.
Also, trying to create a community is a commercial purpose?
On the post: Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work
...I know, don't feed the troll...
On the post: What's Wrong With Video Games That You Can Finish In Three Hours?
2 Hours of entertainment for 30 euros is ludicrous!
Imagine movies (about 2 hours of entertainment) costing you 30 euros... I'm sure the whole world would raise a big stink, and movie companies would suddenly see their market dropping immensely, in favour of so-called 'piracy'.
I agree, with 40 hours, the game might become repetitive and/or boring. But let's say if it offers 10 to 20 hours of entertainment/gameplay fun. I call that bang for my buck.
Sure, if the game costs you about 5 euros, then I'd expect a shorting lifespan in the game (though I have been surprised)
Most important in a game is gameplay, but if the game only offers you 2 hours of gameplay, then I wouldn't want to pay 30 euros or more for it.
On the post: How Come SoundExchange Is Holding Onto Over $100 Million?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, indeed 'famous' artists generally aren't on that list, because most of them are signed to labels, and the label will make sure that they extract the money from SoundExchange. But SE refuses to do its job in finding the artists it is collecting royalties for (that includes indy-artists and in some cases even creative common artists.)
SE has shown it can't be arsed to do its job. If a simple Google search gives you the name and address of most of these artists, and they still claim they can't find them. Then they are clueless numbskulls who are unfit to run a business.
On the post: Populist Outrage Over AIG Bonuses Scaring Private Investors Away From Buying Toxic Assets
And then we are surprised that they do a similar thing again?
The company deserves to go bankrupt.
On the post: How To Create A Moral Panic: Ask A Question, Get Opinions, But Ignore Facts
no wai! ROFLMAO
On the post: Extending Copyright Law Is Like Banning Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re:
By making the copyright laws more stringent and longer lasting, the less culture is preserved.
For decades before copyright law was (re)written, artists used ideas from eachother to come up with better ideas. Standing on top of shoulders of giants so to speak.
Today, that has become a legal minefield. Is this still copyrighted? Is this even parody or infringement?
Copyright laws should not be used as a wellfare for artists, but as an incentive to create new stuff.
If I were to redesign the law, it would have provisions against reselling of copyright. It belongs to the creator and no-one else. Period.
And copyright holders only have a monopoly on their works for a short amount of time. I believe a British university had calculated that 15 years was optimal time. After that, it defaults to the public domain.
On the post: Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use
Didn't say it was a smart ploy.
On the post: School Shooting In Germany Immediately Leads To Calls To Ban Violent Video Games
Same happened then (Rock n Roll causes our youth to worship the devil)
And with comic books (mysogyny is rampant among our youth, because of those comic books)
And with violent movies (Our youth are immitating those heroes, we should ban violent movies)
Sadly, it's just a symptom of time, and I, for one, am sick and tired of the 'get off my lawn'/'think of the children' mentality that we see in our society today.
On the post: New Zealand Scraps Plan To Get Artists Paid Multiple Times For A Single Piece Of Work
Re: Does New Zealand value skilled workers?
Next >>