Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 11:25am
Re:
Obviously a wide open website open all over the world can be subject to the laws of those countries.
Under that logic:
Anyone involved in the production or consumption of pornography would need to be extradited to various Middle East countries including Iran.
Anyone advocating for Taiwan to be recognized as an independent country would need to be extradited to China (PROC).
Anyone expressing religious (or lack thereof) views would need to be extradited to various countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
There are no borders on the Internet. Just because a bunch of Luddite, prehistoric, shit-for-brains, corrupt legacy companies who can't compete in the real world want to live in magical fairyland doesn't mean the rest of us do.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:58am
Re: Re: Re:
I recommend people get their information from less biased sources,
Oh, yes, lawyers and shills that are paid by the legacy content industries who have repeatedly ratcheted copyright law to absurd levels that were never intended are not biased.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:53am
Re: Re: Re:
I don't see how the value of the public performance to a YouTube poster could be worth more than $2,5000, so that's not an issue.
Did you intentionally ignore the "or to the copyright owner" part?
Say someone records a video of a concert and uploads it to Youtube. Tickets to the concert cost $50. 50 people watch it. Got a calculator handy? Mine tells me that's $2500.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 6:55am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no legal requirement for them to show cause or move with charges unless someone pushes the issue. The case can stay open for years.
And you don't see this as a massive abuse of due process?
You seem to have no problem with the government seizing a business under questionable interpretations of the law, giving the owners no recourse or information on who to talk to resolve it, and not filing charges for years.
What if you were a lawyer and it was your firm they seized?
that the speed of the court system is way to slow to deal with internet related issues.
Other than the rubber-stamped warrant, and the just now filed lawsuit, the court system was not involved. So saying that it is too slow is disingenuous.
I'm pissed off because the government is trampling people's rights at the behest of private corporations. If you want to give up your rights, you can, but you better expect those of us who care about them to resist in every manner possible.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 6:18am
Re:
I'm not sure why this gaming industry has gone this route, but all they've done is to ensure I'll wait for Gamestop's $9.99 price point before I buy a title anymore.
Its not just the gaming companies, and its nothing new. Movie studios do the same thing to critics. Music labels do the same to DJs and radio stations. Computer hardware companies, same.
It is a direct result of treating your customers as passive consumers who will buy what you sell them, instead of really connecting with them to see what they want and working with them to provide it.
"Then, as Superintendent Evers pointed out in his letter, financially and operationally cutting WiscNet off from Wisconsin institutions will cripple its efforts.
"The provision in this legislation will very likely make it impossible for WiscNet to continue offering Internet access," he noted. "If our schools and libraries must use other Internet providers, most will pay at least 2-3 times more than what WiscNet now charges."
And:
To put it in comparative terms, UW Chief Information Officer Ed Meachen told WTN News that because of the different bandwidth pricing approaches, WiscNet costs the UW system $2 million a year. BadgerNet would cost $8 million.
Badernet is "Wisconsin's state wide-area-network, which depends heavily on AT&T as its primary vendor."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jun 2011 @ 1:21pm
Re: Re: Re: Smelling the blood in the water ...
100% agree.
Also the schadenfreude of these startups making a complete mockery of copyright, legacy content companies, and their armies of lawyers is just a delicious bonus.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jun 2011 @ 1:04pm
Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
And the substance of the assignment was clear enough on its face.
C'mon, really? I'll give you credit for apologizing to Karl above, but you're just being willfully blind on this point. Reality is reality, no matter what some legal document claims.
It is abundantly clear that Stephens Media never had the slightest intention of allowing Righthaven to have anything other than a "right to sue." That's why "retain" was used. That's why S.M. had the ability to reclaim any copyright at any time for any reason. The judge clearly saw it for the sham it is.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jun 2011 @ 12:14pm
Re:
which are part of ongoing criminal cases.
Do you have a different definition of "ongoing" than the rest of the universe?
An ongoing criminal case would imply either that criminal charges have been filed, or that an investigation is still underway.
The first round of domain seizures was more than 6 months ago. Are they really still investigating those sites, because charges sure as heck haven't been filed.
It would be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.
It would be incredibly naive to think this is anything other than an attempt by ICE to hope the problem will just go away if they don't talk about it so they can keep on seizing sites at the behest of private interests without worrying about due process of law.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jun 2011 @ 11:44am
Re: Re:
4G expansion as well as Uverse/DSL requires money. It's impossible to improve infrastructure without it.
The $39 billion they're paying for T-Mobile is money.
The $1.3 billion in straight cash that they're sitting on is money.
I'm all for it so long as it improves service/coverage and for as long as their is at least 1-2 other choices for the consumer.
Historically, similar mergers which limit consumer choice have lessened quality of service and increased price. If this goes through, there's only 2 choices left, and Sprint is more like 3/4ths since there are some areas their coverage is pretty poor - and if Verizon wants to compete, they've almost gotta buy Sprint out (that'd be an ugly merger for all sorts of reasons).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jun 2011 @ 10:58am
Re: There is a danger because this is data agregation
By running facial recognition facebook is making data aggregation public.
:facepalm:
The data is already public.
Here's how it worked before:
1) Alice uploads photo with Bob in it to Facebook.
2) Alice takes 3 seconds to tag photo with Bob's name.
Here's how it works now:
1) Alice uploads photo with Bob in it to Facebook.
2) Facebook runs facial identification and suggest that the photo has Bob in it.
2) Alice takes 1 second to click OK to tag photo with Bob's name.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 9:09am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they choose to do what owners can do, that is to say not share it with anyone, there is no way legally to force them to do it.
And that is why today's copyright law is exactly like burning a book and destroying the knowledge contained within.
If I'm not being clear: Copyright law = burning books
There used to be a balance between a copyright owner and the public. In order to promote the creation of new works and knowledge, the creator was given a short monopoly on it, after which the public got complete access to it to use however they wanted. The public has been completed eliminated from copyright law now, and that's not what the writers of our Constitution intended.
Do you really think they are holding the original manuscripts?
I couldn't care less about what is "original" and what is a copy.
Ideas and knowledge being infinitely copyable is a wonderful thing. Unless you're a lawyer who makes money off artificially limiting who can access it - in that case, its a horrible thing which needs to be burned and destroyed.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:29am
Re: Re: Re:
Unless we are experiencing a Fahrenheit 451 moment in history,
That's an interesting idea. I'm glad you brought it up.
What is the qualitative difference between burning a book, and locking way the knowledge in that book so no one can get at it for longer than they will be alive?
I don't see any difference.
I guess that means we are in "a Farenheit 451 moment." I guess its just ironic that its actually book publishers that are behind it.
On the post: Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?
Re:
Under that logic:
Anyone involved in the production or consumption of pornography would need to be extradited to various Middle East countries including Iran.
Anyone advocating for Taiwan to be recognized as an independent country would need to be extradited to China (PROC).
Anyone expressing religious (or lack thereof) views would need to be extradited to various countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
There are no borders on the Internet. Just because a bunch of Luddite, prehistoric, shit-for-brains, corrupt legacy companies who can't compete in the real world want to live in magical fairyland doesn't mean the rest of us do.
On the post: Senators Unconcerned About Massive Unintended Consequences Of Criminalizing People For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yes, lawyers and shills that are paid by the legacy content industries who have repeatedly ratcheted copyright law to absurd levels that were never intended are not biased.
On the post: Senators Unconcerned About Massive Unintended Consequences Of Criminalizing People For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re:
Did you intentionally ignore the "or to the copyright owner" part?
Say someone records a video of a concert and uploads it to Youtube. Tickets to the concert cost $50. 50 people watch it. Got a calculator handy? Mine tells me that's $2500.
On the post: China Accused Of Putting Recording Devices In All Dual-Plate Hong Kong/China Cars
Re: Coodos
Yeah, except the ones who talked about freedom within audio range of their cars. They're probably now in jail.
Guess that's not a problem to you.
On the post: How Did The iTunes Terms Of Service Become A Cultural Phenomenon All Its Own?
56 pages?
Apologies to the insightful, constructive, and well meaning lawyers that read and comment, but your profession is absurdly out of control.
On the post: ICE Stalling On More FOIA Requests Concerning Domain Name Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you don't see this as a massive abuse of due process?
You seem to have no problem with the government seizing a business under questionable interpretations of the law, giving the owners no recourse or information on who to talk to resolve it, and not filing charges for years.
What if you were a lawyer and it was your firm they seized?
that the speed of the court system is way to slow to deal with internet related issues.
The. Government. Has. Not. Yet. Filed. Criminal. Charges.
Other than the rubber-stamped warrant, and the just now filed lawsuit, the court system was not involved. So saying that it is too slow is disingenuous.
I'm pissed off because the government is trampling people's rights at the behest of private corporations. If you want to give up your rights, you can, but you better expect those of us who care about them to resist in every manner possible.
On the post: Duke Nukem PR People Publicly Threaten Those Who Give Bad Reviews
Re:
Its not just the gaming companies, and its nothing new. Movie studios do the same thing to critics. Music labels do the same to DJs and radio stations. Computer hardware companies, same.
It is a direct result of treating your customers as passive consumers who will buy what you sell them, instead of really connecting with them to see what they want and working with them to provide it.
On the post: Wisconsin Kills WiscNet, Because The Only Good Infrastructure Is AT&T Infrastructure
Re:
Incorrect. It will actually cost taxpayers MORE if schools and libraries have to find an alternative.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/wisconsin-public-internet-fights-tel ecoms-attempts-to-kill-it-off.ars
"Then, as Superintendent Evers pointed out in his letter, financially and operationally cutting WiscNet off from Wisconsin institutions will cripple its efforts.
"The provision in this legislation will very likely make it impossible for WiscNet to continue offering Internet access," he noted. "If our schools and libraries must use other Internet providers, most will pay at least 2-3 times more than what WiscNet now charges."
And:
To put it in comparative terms, UW Chief Information Officer Ed Meachen told WTN News that because of the different bandwidth pricing approaches, WiscNet costs the UW system $2 million a year. BadgerNet would cost $8 million.
Badernet is "Wisconsin's state wide-area-network, which depends heavily on AT&T as its primary vendor."
On the post: Michael Robertson Tempts Copyright Fate Yet Again With DAR.fm
Re: Re: Re: Smelling the blood in the water ...
Also the schadenfreude of these startups making a complete mockery of copyright, legacy content companies, and their armies of lawyers is just a delicious bonus.
On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions
Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
C'mon, really? I'll give you credit for apologizing to Karl above, but you're just being willfully blind on this point. Reality is reality, no matter what some legal document claims.
It is abundantly clear that Stephens Media never had the slightest intention of allowing Righthaven to have anything other than a "right to sue." That's why "retain" was used. That's why S.M. had the ability to reclaim any copyright at any time for any reason. The judge clearly saw it for the sham it is.
On the post: ICE Stalling On More FOIA Requests Concerning Domain Name Seizures
Re:
Do you have a different definition of "ongoing" than the rest of the universe?
An ongoing criminal case would imply either that criminal charges have been filed, or that an investigation is still underway.
The first round of domain seizures was more than 6 months ago. Are they really still investigating those sites, because charges sure as heck haven't been filed.
It would be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.
It would be incredibly naive to think this is anything other than an attempt by ICE to hope the problem will just go away if they don't talk about it so they can keep on seizing sites at the behest of private interests without worrying about due process of law.
On the post: ICE Stalling On More FOIA Requests Concerning Domain Name Seizures
Re: 11th Commandment
On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions
Re: Quote for truth
On the post: Dumb Arguments: AT&T - T-Mobile Merger Would Be Good For The Children
Re: Re:
The $39 billion they're paying for T-Mobile is money.
The $1.3 billion in straight cash that they're sitting on is money.
I'm all for it so long as it improves service/coverage and for as long as their is at least 1-2 other choices for the consumer.
Historically, similar mergers which limit consumer choice have lessened quality of service and increased price. If this goes through, there's only 2 choices left, and Sprint is more like 3/4ths since there are some areas their coverage is pretty poor - and if Verizon wants to compete, they've almost gotta buy Sprint out (that'd be an ugly merger for all sorts of reasons).
On the post: There Really Are Privacy Issues Out There; Facebook Using Facial Recognition Is Not One Of Them
Re: There is a danger because this is data agregation
:facepalm:
The data is already public.
Here's how it worked before:
1) Alice uploads photo with Bob in it to Facebook.
2) Alice takes 3 seconds to tag photo with Bob's name.
Here's how it works now:
1) Alice uploads photo with Bob in it to Facebook.
2) Facebook runs facial identification and suggest that the photo has Bob in it.
2) Alice takes 1 second to click OK to tag photo with Bob's name.
On the post: Once Again, The Freedom Of Information Act Is Proving To Be Just That: An Act
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that is why today's copyright law is exactly like burning a book and destroying the knowledge contained within.
If I'm not being clear: Copyright law = burning books
There used to be a balance between a copyright owner and the public. In order to promote the creation of new works and knowledge, the creator was given a short monopoly on it, after which the public got complete access to it to use however they wanted. The public has been completed eliminated from copyright law now, and that's not what the writers of our Constitution intended.
Do you really think they are holding the original manuscripts?
I couldn't care less about what is "original" and what is a copy.
Ideas and knowledge being infinitely copyable is a wonderful thing. Unless you're a lawyer who makes money off artificially limiting who can access it - in that case, its a horrible thing which needs to be burned and destroyed.
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Re: Re:
That's an interesting idea. I'm glad you brought it up.
What is the qualitative difference between burning a book, and locking way the knowledge in that book so no one can get at it for longer than they will be alive?
I don't see any difference.
I guess that means we are in "a Farenheit 451 moment." I guess its just ironic that its actually book publishers that are behind it.
On the post: DailyDirt: Better Food Through Science
Re: Re: Nitpicking
Not that a deep friend hamburger itself isn't already asking for an immediate heart attack, so I guess it doesn't really matter in the long run.
On the post: Ideas Do Matter, But That Has Nothing To Do With 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re:
Next >>