Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:17am
Re:
This is only for music of unknown provenance. You could have 16GB of MP3 you picked up at Piratebay and the Apple will scan and match them in the cloud with pristine 256K itunes files that you can then play on any of your machines.
That's assuming Apple can match those MP3s to what they've got in iTunes.
What if they can't? According to All Things Tech on NPR yesterday, if it ain't in iTunes, it won't be available to synch to your devices.
Tracks from artists who release their stuff free? Obscure artists? Foreign artists? Remixes? Mashups?
$25 a year so Apple can synch up only part of my music library? Screw that. Where's my Google music invite?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 1:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Single transactions are relatively meaningless, yes. But that's exactly the same pit that all of the "anonymized" databases that were released fell into.
Everyone has the entire transaction database, by design.
Yes, both parties can create single use accounts for every transaction, but that's a logistical nightmare for a retail business.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 11:15am
Re:
The whole point of using these digital currencies is because they're untraceable if done right.
That is quite incorrect and shows your lack of understanding how BitCoin works.
The whole point of BitCoin is a currency that no central authority (ie governments) can control or devalue.
The difference between bitcoin and cash is that for cash, you'd have to have a mailing address to send the cash to.
Actually, the difference between cash is that unlike cash, anyone can observe BitCoin transactions in near real-time and view/monitor the entire chain of transactions for particular bitcoins.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:36am
Re: What's interesting
Their wording is quite clear and matches what is meant. The other quote:
The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate...
The report says that even if evidence supports it and a person is convicted of copyright infringement, it is still a civil rights violation to cut off their Internet access, because it is disproportionate to the crime.
The government doesn't send someone to jail for 5 years for driving 5 miles over the speed limit, that would be disproportionate. Nor should the government cut someone's Internet access off for sharing a few bytes of infinitely copyable information.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:37am
Re:
The factual situation in this case was that the people accused of inducing infringement were well aware that the other people (who, as it turns out are patentees) were making these products, and rightfully would have assumed that they would have at least tried to patent it since they were very new designs for products (deep fryers to be exact).
Why should you have to assume that a company making something as simple as a deep fryer has a patent on it? What's so special about this deep fryer that deserves a patent?
The accused folks did hire a patent attorney to do a clearance search BUT and here's the big ol' BUT they totally neglected to tell the attorney "oh hey btw, we already know who probably tried to patent this thing because they've been making it for awhile".
Aren't patents supposed to be very clear on what they cover to someone knowledgeable in the art? Shouldn't it be clearly obvious on even a cursory search?
That said, I feel like it was a decision rendered because they were pissed off at the particular bad actor in front of them
And now it becomes case law that can be used to extort money from those who are innovating?
Though, if congress wants to they can simply tack "actual" on in front of "knowledge" and solve the whole issue.
I'm not a lawyer, so I have a hard time wrapping my head around the difference between "knowledge" and "actual knowledge." Is there "fake knowledge" in the eyes of the law?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:08am
Re: Evil
Copyright is a necessarily evil,
Wrong. Copyright is not necessary at all. The stated goal of the idea of copyright is to promote the creation of new works.
The origin of copyright law started only 300 years ago - Statute of Anne, 1709. Everything created before then did not require it.
Automatic copyright without registration has only been in existence for 35 years (Act of 1976). Anything created before then that wasn't registered did not require it.
Extensions to existing copyright are even more absurd. How does extending the copyright term of an already existing work help to promote the creation of it?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:12pm
Re: I've been waiting for them to do this.
The likely defendants in the first round of cases – people who use enticements of free iPads to push spyware or something equally sleazy – will have weak lawyers.
You're missing a huge step.
The scammers only need lawyers if Apple can find them, and manage to file suits in their home country.
They're already hacking and committing fraud and pretty much getting away with it. Why would Apple's TOS bother them in the slightest?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:29am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Argh. Cut and paste error.
Net, they are still on the right track.
That's like saying slowly walking away from the shoreline will save your from the tsunami racing towards you. You better run your ass off to high ground if you want to survive. Also, if you can't run fast, get out of the way for everyone else.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:25am
Re: Re: Re:
Just stop with the strawman arguments. It is counterproductive to you ever gaining the slightest understanding of the real world.
If you just give up
No one, not even me, has told you that we expect the legacy industries to just give up.
Compare that to what business you have left when you take legal action against the people who are undermining your business.
If you don't cannibalize your own business model, someone else will do it for you.
This is not a legal problem, it is an economic one.
Net, they are still on the right track.
That's like saying
I don't think anyone can come up with a valid music business model that has as many dollars in it as the music industry does today.
I don't think that anyone could have come up with a valid buggy whip manufacturing business in 1910 that has as many dollars in it as the buggy whip manufacturing had in 1890.
Ok, that's flippant. But also true. I actually think your premise is wrong. How do you explain that every study of the entire music industry shows it is growing, not shrinking? People are spending more on concerts and shows, merchandise, and other things. All that's shrinking is recorded music - mostly on plastic discs, but paid downloads aren't growing much and won't ever match it.
Your old cash cow is dead. It doesn't matter how it died - if you keep expecting it to make you the same amount of money you'll be disappointed. There also is no silver bullet that will resurrect it, but waiting for someone else to figure one out for you only means they get the money and you don't.
On the post: Status Quo
Re: Re:
Five-Seven-Five syllables
You're doing it wrong
On the post: Apple Threatens Wireless Industry Group For Daring To List Out Other App Stores
Re: Crazy Apple Trademark List
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home To Recover Student Loan [Updated: Or Not]
Re: Update to the story
It is a massive abusive of power either way.
On the post: Apple's Music Match: Innovation By (Record Label) Committee
Re:
That's assuming Apple can match those MP3s to what they've got in iTunes.
What if they can't? According to All Things Tech on NPR yesterday, if it ain't in iTunes, it won't be available to synch to your devices.
Tracks from artists who release their stuff free? Obscure artists? Foreign artists? Remixes? Mashups?
$25 a year so Apple can synch up only part of my music library? Screw that. Where's my Google music invite?
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone has the entire transaction database, by design.
Yes, both parties can create single use accounts for every transaction, but that's a logistical nightmare for a retail business.
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, if you insist on using a name like FUDBuster, expect that anytime you spread FUD and lies, that you will be called on it.
You stated, and I will quote:
The whole point of using these digital currencies is because they're untraceable if done right.
You are saying that the whole reason for BitCoin is to be anonymous. This is provably untrue.
Lets ask 2 questions about both BitCoins and cash:
Is it possible to use BitCoins anonymously? Yes. Is it easy? Not really.
Is it possible to use cash anonymously? Yes. Is it easy? Yes.
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
Re:
That is quite incorrect and shows your lack of understanding how BitCoin works.
The whole point of BitCoin is a currency that no central authority (ie governments) can control or devalue.
The difference between bitcoin and cash is that for cash, you'd have to have a mailing address to send the cash to.
Actually, the difference between cash is that unlike cash, anyone can observe BitCoin transactions in near real-time and view/monitor the entire chain of transactions for particular bitcoins.
On the post: UN Report On Human Rights Condemns Three Strikes As Civil Rights Violation
Re: What's interesting
The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate...
The report says that even if evidence supports it and a person is convicted of copyright infringement, it is still a civil rights violation to cut off their Internet access, because it is disproportionate to the crime.
The government doesn't send someone to jail for 5 years for driving 5 miles over the speed limit, that would be disproportionate. Nor should the government cut someone's Internet access off for sharing a few bytes of infinitely copyable information.
On the post: Supreme Court Says It's Still Inducement Even If You Proactively Took Steps To Make Sure You Weren't Infringing
Re:
Why should you have to assume that a company making something as simple as a deep fryer has a patent on it? What's so special about this deep fryer that deserves a patent?
The accused folks did hire a patent attorney to do a clearance search BUT and here's the big ol' BUT they totally neglected to tell the attorney "oh hey btw, we already know who probably tried to patent this thing because they've been making it for awhile".
Aren't patents supposed to be very clear on what they cover to someone knowledgeable in the art? Shouldn't it be clearly obvious on even a cursory search?
That said, I feel like it was a decision rendered because they were pissed off at the particular bad actor in front of them
And now it becomes case law that can be used to extort money from those who are innovating?
Though, if congress wants to they can simply tack "actual" on in front of "knowledge" and solve the whole issue.
I'm not a lawyer, so I have a hard time wrapping my head around the difference between "knowledge" and "actual knowledge." Is there "fake knowledge" in the eyes of the law?
On the post: The One Situation Where Record Labels Fear Federal Copyright: Old Sound Recordings
Re: Evil
Wrong. Copyright is not necessary at all. The stated goal of the idea of copyright is to promote the creation of new works.
The origin of copyright law started only 300 years ago - Statute of Anne, 1709. Everything created before then did not require it.
Automatic copyright without registration has only been in existence for 35 years (Act of 1976). Anything created before then that wasn't registered did not require it.
Extensions to existing copyright are even more absurd. How does extending the copyright term of an already existing work help to promote the creation of it?
On the post: Apple Says That You Can't Give Away A 'Free' iPad Or iPhone In A Contest
Re: I've been waiting for them to do this.
You're missing a huge step.
The scammers only need lawyers if Apple can find them, and manage to file suits in their home country.
They're already hacking and committing fraud and pretty much getting away with it. Why would Apple's TOS bother them in the slightest?
On the post: Apple Says That You Can't Give Away A 'Free' iPad Or iPhone In A Contest
Re:
/sarc
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Disruptive
But hey, that's just my opinion, and I am expressing it /in the proper venue/.
Who the fuck do you think you are to impose your views on others while claiming they are the ones with an entitlement issue?
You sir, are a fucking hypocrite.
Pardon me for being rude, these comments are entirely too respectful for the atrocious behavior displayed by our supposedly freedom loving government.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re:
Wow, if those are traits of rogue companies, I'm pretty sure every fortune 500 company is a "rogue" company.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: The problem with idiotic laws
Apple flew a pirate flag on their flagpole for quite awhile.
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Re: Re: RIAA & MPAA=MAFIAA
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Net, they are still on the right track.
That's like saying slowly walking away from the shoreline will save your from the tsunami racing towards you. You better run your ass off to high ground if you want to survive. Also, if you can't run fast, get out of the way for everyone else.
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Re: Re: Re:
If you just give up
No one, not even me, has told you that we expect the legacy industries to just give up.
Compare that to what business you have left when you take legal action against the people who are undermining your business.
If you don't cannibalize your own business model, someone else will do it for you.
This is not a legal problem, it is an economic one.
Net, they are still on the right track.
That's like saying
I don't think anyone can come up with a valid music business model that has as many dollars in it as the music industry does today.
I don't think that anyone could have come up with a valid buggy whip manufacturing business in 1910 that has as many dollars in it as the buggy whip manufacturing had in 1890.
Ok, that's flippant. But also true. I actually think your premise is wrong. How do you explain that every study of the entire music industry shows it is growing, not shrinking? People are spending more on concerts and shows, merchandise, and other things. All that's shrinking is recorded music - mostly on plastic discs, but paid downloads aren't growing much and won't ever match it.
Your old cash cow is dead. It doesn't matter how it died - if you keep expecting it to make you the same amount of money you'll be disappointed. There also is no silver bullet that will resurrect it, but waiting for someone else to figure one out for you only means they get the money and you don't.
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Re:
Neither is shooting yourself in the foot (or more like head in this case).
If they don't want their business model to be to sue their fans, then why are they doing it?
There are countless ways to adapt to the changing market. If they don't want to die, then fucking adapt.
It is that simple.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re:
That's last years stats. Its doubled to 48 hours of video uploaded per minute.
Next >>