You seem to be under this strange impression that organization like the NYT make the news. They don't. They are not the source material for the news (at least not most of the time). They talk about the news, just like everybody else. There was a time that their ability to put people in places around the world allowed them to aggregate that news more easily than the average person, but that time is over.
The NYT is nothing more and a news aggregator and commentator.
"The key is that many of those people "organizing facts" are using papers such as the NYT as source material for their facts."
Or, just maybe, with this internet thing being all over the place, people that are actually close to the newsworthy events (people in an earthquake for example?) are supplying all the raw materials.
It's not quite as clear cut as you make it sound. TV has certainly moved steadily into the realm of 'paid' being the standard (although I would argue that has been in large part due to legally setup monopolies). Radio on the other hand has remained free and attempts to move it towards a 'paid' model have had limited success for a number of reasons. Radio is even bring in new free options with HD radio (although I think the HD moniker is a bit misleading).
So maybe if we forced monopolies into various internet sectors we could move it all to a paid system?
"It would also allow the publisher to present content in other manners outside of the restrictions of traditional browsers."
To be clear there is nothing about a payment system that allows a publisher to do anything. They can put their content on whatever they want.
I highly doubt this is a trend that will catch on. More and more content is being made available for free all over the place. More importantly news, as a form of content, is coming less and less from the 'mainstream' press and more from social connections.
Sorry that is not in the current incredibly short and pathetic list of exceptions. Note that even making backup copies of your own personally bought DVD's is technically a violation of the DMCA.
I think Mike might also disagree because it defies common sense that donations coming from California should push the jurisdiction into California when the physical location of those donations had no bearing on the actions.
So we have two separate discussions; does it have a legal impact and should it have a legal impact.
Mike clearly thinks it shouldn't (as he says "should not"). Re-reading the article I don't get a clear sense that Mike is making a legal "does not" argument.
Personally I think it 'should' not matter. I lack the legal background to know if it actually does matter.
To the best of my understanding the DMCA does not allow for a fair use claim for circumvention. You can even be violating the law if none of your activities are illegal, but you circumvent some protections. The only legal circumventions allowed are those specifically listed by the Library of Congress.
This is outrageous, but is the law as far as I know.
Theft is:
" person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
There is no act of even for a moment depriving somebody in the case of infringement.
It could actually be argued that, as copyright law continues to push for longer terms, that the various copyright agencies (RIAA, MPAA, ...) are colluding with the government on the wholesale theft of IP from the general population.
"...for example, if the choice would be made to maintain the picture of the African small child, the child could be depicted with a large diamond ring, or with a shiny car in the background, or slumping in front of a TV..."
By their own logic she would just be setting herself up to be sued by DeBeers, Mercedes, or Sony.
I'm not defending the AC, but the policies were put in place by a Repub controlled congress and Pres. They were further continued and expanded by a Demo controlled congress and Pres.
Both parties suck. Anybody who thinks {party} is the problem isn't paying attention.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
And certainly some downloaded copies turn into sales that never would have happened, either through word of mouth, a desire to support the artist, or a want of the physical among other reasons.
My money is this is just about getting that $900 million dollar number into the news. Then it will get pushed through several 'news' (they will be mainstream, but not doing their job) organizations and the original publication will be obscured. Then it will just be 'fact' that can't be argued against because there is nothing there to argue against but a number.
Haven't read the original article with the line in question, but I'd tend to agree. Unlike most instances brought up here this one brings his professional reputation into question.
Now if it was done in an obvious joking manner, which it may have been, then I would probably end up changing my tune on this.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The NYT is nothing more and a news aggregator and commentator.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, just maybe, with this internet thing being all over the place, people that are actually close to the newsworthy events (people in an earthquake for example?) are supplying all the raw materials.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So maybe if we forced monopolies into various internet sectors we could move it all to a paid system?
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be clear there is nothing about a payment system that allows a publisher to do anything. They can put their content on whatever they want.
I highly doubt this is a trend that will catch on. More and more content is being made available for free all over the place. More importantly news, as a form of content, is coming less and less from the 'mainstream' press and more from social connections.
On the post: Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
Re:
On the post: Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
Re: Re: Re: Question
On the post: Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
On the post: Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
So we have two separate discussions; does it have a legal impact and should it have a legal impact.
Mike clearly thinks it shouldn't (as he says "should not"). Re-reading the article I don't get a clear sense that Mike is making a legal "does not" argument.
Personally I think it 'should' not matter. I lack the legal background to know if it actually does matter.
On the post: Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
Re: Question
This is outrageous, but is the law as far as I know.
On the post: Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim
Theft
" person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
There is no act of even for a moment depriving somebody in the case of infringement.
It could actually be argued that, as copyright law continues to push for longer terms, that the various copyright agencies (RIAA, MPAA, ...) are colluding with the government on the wholesale theft of IP from the general population.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Wins Lawsuit Supressing Artwork About LV-ish Bag -- Or Genocide, Maybe
Wrong picture?
On the post: Louis Vuitton Wins Lawsuit Supressing Artwork About LV-ish Bag -- Or Genocide, Maybe
Not Quite Louis
By their own logic she would just be setting herself up to be sued by DeBeers, Mercedes, or Sony.
On the post: Guy Who Undressed For TSA Search (With 4th Amendment Written On Chest) Sues Over Airport Detention
Re:
Doesn't matter if you are in the legal right, doesn't matter if the government is trampling over your rights.
If you do anything that even expresses a disagreement with the government you deserve everything you get!
On the post: Guy Who Undressed For TSA Search (With 4th Amendment Written On Chest) Sues Over Airport Detention
Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
Both parties suck. Anybody who thinks {party} is the problem isn't paying attention.
On the post: Guy Who Undressed For TSA Search (With 4th Amendment Written On Chest) Sues Over Airport Detention
On the post: Administration's New IP Enforcement Recommendations Will Only Serve To Make IP Less Respected
Re: The tears of pro-piracy trolls always tastes sweet
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?
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?
And those would be gained sales.
On the post: No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
I believe we've seen this before.
On the post: NBA Ref Sues Reporter Over Tweet
Re:
Now if it was done in an obvious joking manner, which it may have been, then I would probably end up changing my tune on this.
Next >>