We could say that if France wants to be forgotten, then we should forget them. But that is too simple. France has contributed to culture in the form of some great wines, cheeses, cuisine, art, and probably some other things. Things we probably shouldn't forget.
But their silly concept of trying to allow people with severe, or even minor, cases of butt hurt to try and hide their shame (shame that is often if not always deserved) will not help the cause of culture move into the future. The possible outcome of trying to hide shame just might be that everything gets hidden. And the shame of that is that France actually has some things to be proud of.
She was gathering dandelions. I took a look at that picture, and am having a hard time seeing someone 87 years old hopping that fence, or breaking open a gate which is not shown. While the property was owned by a club, it was vacant, with an apparently open gate, or a break in the fence. A vacant lot and the club called the police because they felt threatened by an 87 year old lady?
She doesn't speak English, so they try Spanish. That doesn't work because she is Greek. Then they refused to allow her family to translate (one presumes both from and to her) at the police station.
I sure hope these cops don't run into anything that is actually life threatening, one can only guess what their reaction might be, but you can be sure shots will be fired.
Maybe Chief Etheridge should take that class in Tulsa. He could learn a thing or two about victimization.
I think it's because shiny beats sensible every time. Being cool is better than being safe, especially when the 'danger' is unseen and ethereal. There is also a severe lack of technical understanding.
While I agree that the number of works that continue to make a reasonable revenue for more than a few years is a small number, it seems to many of us that they want to capitalize any use of a property they own. To them, why leave money on the table?
A question that I have proposed several times is, what does that cost them? If they were to take all of their expenses in 'protecting their IP' vs the income received from things, let's say older than 10 years, would they actually have a profit? By all of their expenses I mean the lawyers, contributions to agencies like MPAA or RIAA, lobbyists, campaign contributions, so called researchers, etc..
Re: 'They're drug dealers! ... probably... okay maybe.'
My understanding is that the whole asset forfeiture thingy was originally targeted at drug dealers, I am OK with the expansion to other crimes. What I am not OK with is why the original rule/law did not include a conviction requirement.
I suspect they thought taking the money from drug dealers would help to destroy their business, even without a conviction, but they certainly did not think things through. Or did they?
Then there's:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." and "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." certainly seem to make the whole concept unconstitutional. The problem appears to be that not only has law enforcement absconded with their money, the cost to retrieve that money is so burdensome that taking a case to a higher court for Constitutional review appears to be prohibitive. So far.
Some legal do-gooder organization needs to step in, in the right case so that appeals become necessary, and need to do things right in the early stages so that appeals are not tossed for procedural issues.
Further, if the artist or their families receive little or no royalties, then the +70 years does them no good at all. Not now, and not in the future.
Which means there are only the gatekeepers benefiting from the +70 years, and hoping, hoping, hoping they don't go bankrupt in the meantime. Of course if they do go bankrupt, the new entity that obtains some copyrights will argue that they aren't dead...yet.
I am not in the business, so I don't have a clear picture of the rates various players pay, or receive. What makes you think Google has a different rate than others?
I have heard discussions about rights holders arguing with some streaming services demanding more, even though those services were very close to having no profit. That makes one wonder how they go about valuing their products.
Then I have to ask, which Google service are you referring to Google Play or YouTube, or something else? Then, why do you think they get some special rate? Or are you accusing them of keeping more? Apple gets 30% for their service, are you saying Google gets more?
Then I have to ask, seriously, what are you doing to move your fans to sites that make more for you? Denigrating one site or another probably wouldn't be a good idea. But promoting those that you favor might work.
I haven't looked that closely, but I did notice things in the books that were not in the movies, and they were missed. Not so sure about the reverse, though books do have a tendency to invoke the imagination where movies try to fill those holes in, sometimes well, sometimes badly, very badly.
I remember listening to some 'old time' radio dramas. Funny thing was, they were always in color.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
Handbrake isn't that hard to use, and the support is good. I had an issue, that in the end had nothing to do with them and was resolved on a Linux update, but they responded and checked all the logs I sent in.
Well I think that might go two ways. One way is that they include some portion of the rent/lease price to cover such events. The other is that they suggest the plaintiffs to go sue the EU for making such a system required.
Of course, as some copyright trolls have found, they might need more evidence than an IP address, and that when a company pushes back they run away.
I am thinking Google will find a new market for itself and rent or lease their filter to others. I don't think they will be very afraid of a little competition so long as they continue to listen to the marketplace and respond to their needs.
How long will this new income source take to pay Google back for their investment in their own filter? A year or two?
Now we will wait and see if WB goes after costumed attendees or possibly the providers of those costumes. How far will they go to obliterate free advertising?
Providing support for 2.5 million jobs, $56 billion in crop value...
California Farm Bureau Federation is a nonprofit organization of farmers and ranchers consisting of county Farm Bureaus from nearly every county in California, established in 1919 to work for the betterment of family farmers and ranchers in California. We are deeply committed to our mission, which is to improve the well-being and quality of life for California farmers and ranchers. We do this through advocacy, ongoing outreach, and economic services and products for those involved in agricultural production.
A membership organization that likely charges some sort of dues, though I did not see that cost listed on their website
The membership should ask for the return of their dues, or seriously consider suing them for fraud. The Federation claims to represent the farmers and ranchers but, at least in this instance they represented equipment manufacturers.
My VPN leads me to servers, all over the world (including in the EU), but it does not block any IP addresses. Sure, I could use my VPN and get what I want from the EU (use a US server and not get blocked or use an EU server and get blocked), but they don't seem to want anyone else's business, otherwise they wouldn't be doing things close their system.
If the EU want's, nay demands, isolation, I say give it to them. Is there an app that can turn off EU IP addresses? Let's not leave this to the corporations to decide, let individuals weigh in.
That is not to suggest that they should take on more cases as some of their work has been pretty shoddy. Personally I would prefer quality over quantity, but given the work load history I don't see why it couldn't be both.
My point about anyone having the ability to pay a so called 'expert' to prove whatever side of a particular position one wants (and there could be more than two) is shown yet again. It doesn't mean the 'expert' has to believe in what they are claiming, just that they are getting paid.
The form of pay might come in a variety of ways. In this case it might be that 'anti-piracy' organization is actually a copyright troll entity who is engaging in fraudulently accusing IP addresses of piracy with a minimum of evidence and the assumption that whomever is paying for that IP address is guilty. In other cases it might be an 'expert' who is hired to testify in court. In other cases it might be the 'expert' is part of a panel in front of a group or is just in front of a radio or TV interviewer expounding a partisan point of view, and the pay comes because they work for some foundation that takes on partisan positions.
So, we can deduce that the 'expert' is expert at receiving pay and spouting whatever point of view they can conjure 'evidence' (often with statistics from bogus studies) for. Being 'expert' on anything else is pure conjecture, even if they have 'credentials'. The 'credentials' mean nothing when the objectivity of the speaker is compromised.
The question then becomes, how can we go about verifying experts so that we know they are giving us objective facts rather than the party line rhetoric?
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
Pride vs Shame
But their silly concept of trying to allow people with severe, or even minor, cases of butt hurt to try and hide their shame (shame that is often if not always deserved) will not help the cause of culture move into the future. The possible outcome of trying to hide shame just might be that everything gets hidden. And the shame of that is that France actually has some things to be proud of.
That is if they don't surrender first.
On the post: Police Officers At A Tactical Disadvantage Bravely Tase 87-Year-Old Woman Into Submission
Look out police, that is only your shadow
She was gathering dandelions. I took a look at that picture, and am having a hard time seeing someone 87 years old hopping that fence, or breaking open a gate which is not shown. While the property was owned by a club, it was vacant, with an apparently open gate, or a break in the fence. A vacant lot and the club called the police because they felt threatened by an 87 year old lady?
Why dandelions? There is an explaination for that at the end of this post at Appellate Squawk.
She doesn't speak English, so they try Spanish. That doesn't work because she is Greek. Then they refused to allow her family to translate (one presumes both from and to her) at the police station.
I sure hope these cops don't run into anything that is actually life threatening, one can only guess what their reaction might be, but you can be sure shots will be fired.
Maybe Chief Etheridge should take that class in Tulsa. He could learn a thing or two about victimization.
On the post: California Eyes Questionable Legislation In Bid To Fix The Internet Of Broken Things
Re: Why buy these things?
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, noes! Techdirt's greatest fear: creators getting paid!
While I agree that the number of works that continue to make a reasonable revenue for more than a few years is a small number, it seems to many of us that they want to capitalize any use of a property they own. To them, why leave money on the table?
A question that I have proposed several times is, what does that cost them? If they were to take all of their expenses in 'protecting their IP' vs the income received from things, let's say older than 10 years, would they actually have a profit? By all of their expenses I mean the lawyers, contributions to agencies like MPAA or RIAA, lobbyists, campaign contributions, so called researchers, etc..
I have a hard time thinking they would.
On the post: Couple Get Back $10,000 Seized By State Trooper After Local Media Starts Asking Questions
Re: 'They're drug dealers! ... probably... okay maybe.'
My understanding is that the whole asset forfeiture thingy was originally targeted at drug dealers, I am OK with the expansion to other crimes. What I am not OK with is why the original rule/law did not include a conviction requirement.
I suspect they thought taking the money from drug dealers would help to destroy their business, even without a conviction, but they certainly did not think things through. Or did they?
Then there's:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." and "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." certainly seem to make the whole concept unconstitutional. The problem appears to be that not only has law enforcement absconded with their money, the cost to retrieve that money is so burdensome that taking a case to a higher court for Constitutional review appears to be prohibitive. So far.
Some legal do-gooder organization needs to step in, in the right case so that appeals become necessary, and need to do things right in the early stages so that appeals are not tossed for procedural issues.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, noes! Techdirt's greatest fear: creators getting paid!
Which means there are only the gatekeepers benefiting from the +70 years, and hoping, hoping, hoping they don't go bankrupt in the meantime. Of course if they do go bankrupt, the new entity that obtains some copyrights will argue that they aren't dead...yet.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Re: Be careful what you wish for...
Oh, I forgot to mention DistroKid sounds awesome.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Be careful what you wish for...
I am not in the business, so I don't have a clear picture of the rates various players pay, or receive. What makes you think Google has a different rate than others?
I have heard discussions about rights holders arguing with some streaming services demanding more, even though those services were very close to having no profit. That makes one wonder how they go about valuing their products.
Then I have to ask, which Google service are you referring to Google Play or YouTube, or something else? Then, why do you think they get some special rate? Or are you accusing them of keeping more? Apple gets 30% for their service, are you saying Google gets more?
Then I have to ask, seriously, what are you doing to move your fans to sites that make more for you? Denigrating one site or another probably wouldn't be a good idea. But promoting those that you favor might work.
On the post: Success! Roanoke 'Harry Potter Festival' Changes Name To 'Generic Magic Festival' Due To WB's Bullying
Re: Re: Movie At the Park
I remember listening to some 'old time' radio dramas. Funny thing was, they were always in color.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
Handbrake isn't that hard to use, and the support is good. I had an issue, that in the end had nothing to do with them and was resolved on a Linux update, but they responded and checked all the logs I sent in.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave us alone...OK
One word. Sovereignty!
On the post: Success! Roanoke 'Harry Potter Festival' Changes Name To 'Generic Magic Festival' Due To WB's Bullying
Re: Memo to WB execs:
But what makes you think WB executives read the material they buy (or watch their own movies for that matter), or just look at media numbers.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Creating markets by government fiat
Of course, as some copyright trolls have found, they might need more evidence than an IP address, and that when a company pushes back they run away.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Creating markets by government fiat
How long will this new income source take to pay Google back for their investment in their own filter? A year or two?
On the post: Success! Roanoke 'Harry Potter Festival' Changes Name To 'Generic Magic Festival' Due To WB's Bullying
No good deed goes unpunished
On the post: Farmer Lobbying Group Accused Of Selling Out Farmers On Right To Repair Laws
Could this be fraud?
A membership organization that likely charges some sort of dues, though I did not see that cost listed on their website
The membership should ask for the return of their dues, or seriously consider suing them for fraud. The Federation claims to represent the farmers and ranchers but, at least in this instance they represented equipment manufacturers.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Leave us alone...OK
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Leave us alone...OK
On the post: Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List
Re: Re:
Over booked eh? The Supreme Court is at a low point in their workload.
That is not to suggest that they should take on more cases as some of their work has been pretty shoddy. Personally I would prefer quality over quantity, but given the work load history I don't see why it couldn't be both.
On the post: The Intellectual Dishonesty Of Those Supporting The Existing Text Of The EU Copyright Directive
Expert???? at what?
The form of pay might come in a variety of ways. In this case it might be that 'anti-piracy' organization is actually a copyright troll entity who is engaging in fraudulently accusing IP addresses of piracy with a minimum of evidence and the assumption that whomever is paying for that IP address is guilty. In other cases it might be an 'expert' who is hired to testify in court. In other cases it might be the 'expert' is part of a panel in front of a group or is just in front of a radio or TV interviewer expounding a partisan point of view, and the pay comes because they work for some foundation that takes on partisan positions.
So, we can deduce that the 'expert' is expert at receiving pay and spouting whatever point of view they can conjure 'evidence' (often with statistics from bogus studies) for. Being 'expert' on anything else is pure conjecture, even if they have 'credentials'. The 'credentials' mean nothing when the objectivity of the speaker is compromised.
The question then becomes, how can we go about verifying experts so that we know they are giving us objective facts rather than the party line rhetoric?
Next >>