You're all too late. Captain Jean Luc Picard already successfully argued that Lt. Commander Data has rights as a person. And that was in the ummm.. oh wait...
Google's changes to the algorithms are going to be more difficult than many expect. That are a lot of multi-author content sites out there and not all of them are spammy. Every multi-author blog can be considered a blog farm and in the same way, each can be called a content farm. The quality of each one depends on who's in charge of checking the content. And then again, low quality doesn't mean no value.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the leftists hanging out around here are, or in the world for that matter. Every retarded bill that's passed in the US filters out to the developing countries (like where I live) because of the strings attached to things like "financial aid".
As your constitutional rights get voted out of existence, don't say you weren't warned by sites like this. I do not care what you think about infringement cases against the moneychangers and the gatekeepers. The only infringement I care about are the infringements against the Bill of Rights. And who is protecting them? It certainly isn't the US government at this point.
I moved away from the US in 2006, cutting almost all ties. We have cable TV here, but I never watch it. My wife, a Filipino by birth, watches the Filipino dramas every day with it because there isn't any other reliable source. Of course, it's cheaper than cable TV in the US. Less than $20 a month (although I don't know the exact amount due to the conversion rate).
The only American TV I get is via the Asian versions of HBO, Cinemax, etc. and a local provider called "Solar" which seems to be 3 or 4 weeks in showing current specific popular TV series.
I find getting TV shows to be a lot easier via torrents - even if the same shows appear through other avenues because things like recurring brownouts prevent me from being able to see them using traditional methods.
If it wasn't for the wife, the cable never would have been installed.
I think you're reading something into the discussion that isn't there. There is no one here saying that copyright in itself is wrong and shouldn't exist.
The problem is that the original intent of copyright has been twisted into something it was never designed to do. Copyrights were established as short-term methods to get the authors paid for that work and then to encourage them to create more.
Copyright was never intended to be a royalty system and that's what the entertainment industries have managed to do with it. By doing so, they deprive the public the ability to build on that work.
I have a book in storage that was written in 1939. According to the copyright law as it now stands, I'm not allowed to make a copy of it and give it to someone else. I'm not allowed to use substantial portions of it to write a related novel. The author is dead, for Pete's sake. His family isn't making any money off the book because it's been out of print for decades. Still, if I did either of those things and his heirs found out about it, they could sue me for violating his copyright.
This is what's wrong with the copyright law and no argument about theft vs. copyright infringement is going to make a difference if the law is only going to get more draconian as time passes.
For those who argue about copyright infringement without reading what the copyright act actually says. It is defined as infringement in the act itself, so this is not some made up point or any attempt to be disingenuous.
So, regardless of what the dictionary says, the actual law says what it is. Not so in the case of theft. There is no "copyright theft" law.
I obtain a lot of content without infringing on copyrights, but I also obtain a lot of content while infringing on copyrights (supposedly). Because I live in the Philippines (although I'm a US citizen), many sites in the US that sell content are either blocking the country or the IP range or both. There is a great deal of content I can only get from file-sharing sites, even though I'm willing to pay for it.
Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.
Re: The entire US government is the stupidest bunch of turds in the punch bowl
I already did and I live in the Philippines! You can read or hear news of how bad it is here, but you'll find a lot less government anything here than in Hicktown, USA.
It's obvious that Facebook put those terms into place so that you can only access your data via their interface. If you don't, then they don't make money off the advertisements.
Facebook makes a lot of money off those advertisements.
I don't get that all. You mean *you* didn't control the slug? That's crazy. Maybe more news sites should switch to WordPress software, where this wouldn't be an issue. There are no duplicate slugs with WP software - ever.
Wow. The article was about an unnecessary C&D response and a bad PR move and people throw more unrelated stuff into the mix than related.
AT&T sucks. AT&T has always sucked and will continue to suck until they no longer exist. With enough bad PR like this, that may come sooner than later.
And as per usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're assuming Dilbert is read by everyone who gets it with their newspaper. The web comic is targeted to people who read/view it. The newspaper comic is targeted at everyone and only a fraction will read/view it.
This is the reason I stopped linking to news articles from the AP, UPI, and just about any "real" news source. They play URL shenanigans that break all my links and I don't feel like spending even a fraction of my time finding out where they are when the redirects aren't in place.
You sir, are a moron. The "masnick writing style" is exactly how you're supposed to write articles on the Internet, linking to your other relevant content. This is how search engines work and this is how people find that other content.
When you figure out how to be something other than TAM, let us know.
Copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement have specific requirements that point to an individual (or group), not an owner. If this wasn't the case, then internet cafes and other publicly accessible computer owners (like libraries) could be liable.
If the owner of a vehicle, who isn't driving, gets a red light ticket, the ticket will get thrown out if the owner appears in traffic court since the ticket is for a driver, not an owner. If this wasn't the case, rental car companies could be liable.
Even with the more and more Internet-enabled devices, people still share those devices. How can the actual infringer be positively identified with only an IP address? Unless the IP address can be corroborated with a picture or a fingerprint (it can't), it could be any person using that device.
Unfortunately, with civil cases, there is no burden of proof requirement. The court (or jury) only has to believe you're guilty and you are.
I'm a US citizen living abroad in a country where human rights seem to be violated daily, but human rights is like everything else. It's in the eye of the beholder.
US politicians like to try telling other countries how to behave, even though the the other countries' behavior is perfectly acceptable by their own standards.
Once again, Mike nails it on the head - clean up you own back yard before you try to clean up someone else's.
Because EMI owns it, I'm not buying a copy of the song or the album (is there an album?) and I like the song. Simple as that. I haven't bought music from a label since the RIAA sued the first person.
On the post: When Will We Have To Grant Artificial Intelligence Personhood?
Personhood
On the post: Google Effectively Puts Demand Media On Notice Days Before Planned IPO
All blog farms are content farms
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
How about a huge belly laugh?
As your constitutional rights get voted out of existence, don't say you weren't warned by sites like this. I do not care what you think about infringement cases against the moneychangers and the gatekeepers. The only infringement I care about are the infringements against the Bill of Rights. And who is protecting them? It certainly isn't the US government at this point.
On the post: Oh Look, More Cord Cutters: Time Warner Cable Loses 155,000 TV Subscribers
Cable TV in the Philippines
The only American TV I get is via the Asian versions of HBO, Cinemax, etc. and a local provider called "Solar" which seems to be 3 or 4 weeks in showing current specific popular TV series.
I find getting TV shows to be a lot easier via torrents - even if the same shows appear through other avenues because things like recurring brownouts prevent me from being able to see them using traditional methods.
If it wasn't for the wife, the cable never would have been installed.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Some questions
The problem is that the original intent of copyright has been twisted into something it was never designed to do. Copyrights were established as short-term methods to get the authors paid for that work and then to encourage them to create more.
Copyright was never intended to be a royalty system and that's what the entertainment industries have managed to do with it. By doing so, they deprive the public the ability to build on that work.
I have a book in storage that was written in 1939. According to the copyright law as it now stands, I'm not allowed to make a copy of it and give it to someone else. I'm not allowed to use substantial portions of it to write a related novel. The author is dead, for Pete's sake. His family isn't making any money off the book because it's been out of print for decades. Still, if I did either of those things and his heirs found out about it, they could sue me for violating his copyright.
This is what's wrong with the copyright law and no argument about theft vs. copyright infringement is going to make a difference if the law is only going to get more draconian as time passes.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
I call dumbass
So, regardless of what the dictionary says, the actual law says what it is. Not so in the case of theft. There is no "copyright theft" law.
On the post: ACLU Suing Homeland Security Over Laptop Searches... Even Though Other Cases Have All Failed
Re:
On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites
Just give me my stuff!
Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re: The entire US government is the stupidest bunch of turds in the punch bowl
On the post: Could Accessing Your Own Data On Facebook Make You Criminally Liable?
Show me the money!
Facebook makes a lot of money off those advertisements.
On the post: Are Yahoo & The AP Manipulating Comments? Or Are They Just Really Bad At The Internet? [Updated]
Re: How AP works
On the post: Did AT&T Really Threaten A Customer With Legal Action For Emailing Feedback To CEO? [Updated]
Off on a tangent
AT&T sucks. AT&T has always sucked and will continue to suck until they no longer exist. With enough bad PR like this, that may come sooner than later.
On the post: Scott Adams: The Economic Value Of Content Is Going To Zero, But Maybe It's Okay
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The numbers don't correlate and never will.
On the post: Are Yahoo & The AP Manipulating Comments? Or Are They Just Really Bad At The Internet? [Updated]
On the post: What's Left Of The Sony Betamax Decision?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you figure out how to be something other than TAM, let us know.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Stupid Lawyers
Copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement have specific requirements that point to an individual (or group), not an owner. If this wasn't the case, then internet cafes and other publicly accessible computer owners (like libraries) could be liable.
If the owner of a vehicle, who isn't driving, gets a red light ticket, the ticket will get thrown out if the owner appears in traffic court since the ticket is for a driver, not an owner. If this wasn't the case, rental car companies could be liable.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Stupid Lawyers
Unfortunately, with civil cases, there is no burden of proof requirement. The court (or jury) only has to believe you're guilty and you are.
On the post: Sen. Durbin To Introduce Bill Sanctioning Companies That Don't Protect Human Rights Abroad; But What About At Home?
Sanctioning Who?
US politicians like to try telling other countries how to behave, even though the the other countries' behavior is perfectly acceptable by their own standards.
Once again, Mike nails it on the head - clean up you own back yard before you try to clean up someone else's.
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
I watched the video but I'm not buying
On the post: Wait, Someone Expects People To Pay To Let People Know When They're Being Sarcastic? That'll Work
Why not just an explicit HTML tag?
<sarcasm></sarcasm>
??
Next >>