The average person infringes on copyright at least thrice daily.
Also this argument was rejected by courts when some guy called Joel Tannenbaum claimed that piracy (of music) was some kind of speeding in information superhighway and that everyone and their dog is doing it daily. And while his father has warned repeatedly that the copyright infringement is illegal, he still continued his illegal practices and then courts decided to stop it with huge damage award and preventing him continue his practices. See https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=1:03-cv-11661-NG&s=&d=40802
you’re not even (in)famous enough for a stub of a Wikipedia page.
This isn't true. My work is well recognized in the phone area. Wikipedia even has a page which claims our organisation was run by soviet-style practices.
The average person infringes on copyright at least thrice daily.
this is only true for career criminals. Not true for average persons. Basically if you're doing copyright infringement this often, you deserve to be burned in courts when copyright owners call the bluff.
I partly blame the lack of enforcement actions from copyright owners for this undesirable outcome that makes some people think that average persons are some kind of career criminals. When copyright is not properly enforced, "average" people will lose sight of what activity is actually allowed, and what is illegal things to do. But these pirates will see their day in court, once the copyright owners run with the ball.
You’ve literally said that people should be fined billions of dollars for violating even one copyright
maybe these people shouldn't do copyright infringement in the first place? You know it's against the law to do copyright infringement, still you think that somehow everyone must be doing infringement and no product development could ever be attempted without violating someone's copyright. The legal eagles disagree. Copyright infringement is not forced by laws of physics. People can just opt to not do it at all. You just need attitude that other people's property is valuable and destroying it is not desirable property for any product that you develop.
Just don't expect it to be useful or have someone pay you more money for it.
Why would anyone pay for a review where reviewer is idiot enough that they cannot do commercial quality video material? The material needs to be created by the reviewer. Any reviewer that relies on clips from the movies do not really deserve our money.
what human do you think is going to sign up for your personal exploitation plan
I don't need to tell the subjects beforehand. Techdirt has suitable pawns available and they're far enough on the other side of the internet that if the experiment blows up in our face, the resulting explosion doesn't reach finland where we're located.
It depends on how you calculate the user counts. Based on views and downloads, it has users. Based on money, it doesn't have users. Both are true at the same time. There's no schrödinger's cat needed in this situation. It just depends on how you do the measurements.
I expect you to therefore report your crimes to the RIAA immediately so it can ruin you financially and eventually execute you in public,
That's your evilness speaking. Maybe you need some more positive attitude. Your current attitude would not be suitable for any reasonable business. The values required are just significantly less evil.
"Meshpage is the best because I have no users, and therefore nobody commits copyright infringement with it unlike that filthy disgusting Blender" to "well actually I totally have users and I should get more money".
you didn't consider the possibility that both of them are true at the same time. When you're skipping the wall of text and not memorizing the text like it was bible's 2nd coming, you'll get shallow view of the situation and it has problems like you found. It's your poor reading ability that causes the problem. Maybe if you learned to deal with brainwashiing properly by memorizing the whole text and all the details in it, you'd be much better off and the story would be significantly more consistent.
If an "entrepreneur" takes a hammer, knocks down the walls of your house (or mansion) and demands that you pay him for his work, would you give him the money?
there is important rule in meshpage's (and builder's) development. The activity must not do damage to other people's property (including not violating copyright).
You're hinting that the activity is causing damage to some properly. I challenge you to explain carefully what property is being damaged....
This would be a problem if my business was drawing graffitti to other people's property. But happily it can always be avoided by buying some property of your own, and then practicing your art skills on your own property, so if the value drops because of the nice art attached, then you yourself get the consiquences and it's not "someone else's" property that gets damaged.
That would require moving the valuable copyright to the company. Why do you think that only the companies who pay salaries should be allowed to get benefit from copyright?
why a 3 minute trailer is meant to entice people into paying for a movie, while a 3 minute positive review that utilises clips in a similar way should be illegal
It has to do with who actually creates the trailer. Owner of a copyright never needed to obtain licenses to his own work, so making a trailer is not a problem. Positive review is created by some other people, so license arrangements need to be done, if the review uses material from the movie.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
nope. I expect you'll be idiot enough to change the page...
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
Also this argument was rejected by courts when some guy called Joel Tannenbaum claimed that piracy (of music) was some kind of speeding in information superhighway and that everyone and their dog is doing it daily. And while his father has warned repeatedly that the copyright infringement is illegal, he still continued his illegal practices and then courts decided to stop it with huge damage award and preventing him continue his practices. See https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=1:03-cv-11661-NG&s=&d=40802
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This url proves you wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UF0zIMI2xA
This was the same video that prompted the teenagers to write review of meshpage in their blog.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
This isn't true. My work is well recognized in the phone area. Wikipedia even has a page which claims our organisation was run by soviet-style practices.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
this is only true for career criminals. Not true for average persons. Basically if you're doing copyright infringement this often, you deserve to be burned in courts when copyright owners call the bluff.
I partly blame the lack of enforcement actions from copyright owners for this undesirable outcome that makes some people think that average persons are some kind of career criminals. When copyright is not properly enforced, "average" people will lose sight of what activity is actually allowed, and what is illegal things to do. But these pirates will see their day in court, once the copyright owners run with the ball.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
only a sith believes in absolutes. I do what I must....
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
maybe these people shouldn't do copyright infringement in the first place? You know it's against the law to do copyright infringement, still you think that somehow everyone must be doing infringement and no product development could ever be attempted without violating someone's copyright. The legal eagles disagree. Copyright infringement is not forced by laws of physics. People can just opt to not do it at all. You just need attitude that other people's property is valuable and destroying it is not desirable property for any product that you develop.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would anyone pay for a review where reviewer is idiot enough that they cannot do commercial quality video material? The material needs to be created by the reviewer. Any reviewer that relies on clips from the movies do not really deserve our money.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't need to tell the subjects beforehand. Techdirt has suitable pawns available and they're far enough on the other side of the internet that if the experiment blows up in our face, the resulting explosion doesn't reach finland where we're located.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
It depends on how you calculate the user counts. Based on views and downloads, it has users. Based on money, it doesn't have users. Both are true at the same time. There's no schrödinger's cat needed in this situation. It just depends on how you do the measurements.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
That's your evilness speaking. Maybe you need some more positive attitude. Your current attitude would not be suitable for any reasonable business. The values required are just significantly less evil.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes, i have registered trademark meshpage.org(R)...
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re:
you didn't consider the possibility that both of them are true at the same time. When you're skipping the wall of text and not memorizing the text like it was bible's 2nd coming, you'll get shallow view of the situation and it has problems like you found. It's your poor reading ability that causes the problem. Maybe if you learned to deal with brainwashiing properly by memorizing the whole text and all the details in it, you'd be much better off and the story would be significantly more consistent.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
there is important rule in meshpage's (and builder's) development. The activity must not do damage to other people's property (including not violating copyright).
You're hinting that the activity is causing damage to some properly. I challenge you to explain carefully what property is being damaged....
This would be a problem if my business was drawing graffitti to other people's property. But happily it can always be avoided by buying some property of your own, and then practicing your art skills on your own property, so if the value drops because of the nice art attached, then you yourself get the consiquences and it's not "someone else's" property that gets damaged.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I need to handle both since my hosting service is located in usa.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re:
How this $48 is divided:
so the actual end result software is not in high demand.
=> looks like software development is not worth the effort...
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
That would require moving the valuable copyright to the company. Why do you think that only the companies who pay salaries should be allowed to get benefit from copyright?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re:
github links to private repos are working like that. Its like a paywall... if you pay enough money, you get access to the repo.
are you now claiming that demanding money for repo access is a red flag?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so, if these entreoewneurs are not allowed to demand money for the work they do, where are they supposed to get the money for food?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has to do with who actually creates the trailer. Owner of a copyright never needed to obtain licenses to his own work, so making a trailer is not a problem. Positive review is created by some other people, so license arrangements need to be done, if the review uses material from the movie.
Next >>