Re: peeved ... I would have expected insane NAMELESS.ONE style rants at this point ...
I'm not sure that there is no future for the AP or an organization like them. I think there is PLENTY of future for such an organization, it just will take a different form. Let me explain.
Newspapers and other news orgs are hurting right now, many of them are going to go the way of the dinosaur. Think of as the internet is to traditional news and media what the Chixulub asteroid was to the dinosaurs. A mass extinction is coming. I'm sure many of them will die out, but not all of them are going to disappear. Some have already started to get it, they are evolving to fit into the new ecology along with other new species that are evolving to fill the holes left behind by the old dinosaurs (ie birds and mammals replacing dinosaurs). The news orgs of the future are going to be smaller and more streamlined than the giant dinosaurs that died out.
We are awash in news today. Not only from traditional news sources but new ones such as blogs and local media too. There is far too much out there for any news organization to reliably keep up with. I think the future of an AP type organization is going to be more like a paid news aggregation service. They will comb the internet and various other news sources for stories. Of course, they could use a simple web spider for that. That just gets you the raw news though. The valueadd here is that this organization would then have HUMANS look at the content and catalog it (we are still better than machines at some things) so that if you have 15 identical copies of the same story with no new information they get lumped together on, say, level 2 of the story. If a site had additional information it had dug up on a story then it would get added to level 1 of the story, etc.
Haha, with any luck the AP or Reuters or someone will pick up on it and report it.
Too bad we can't get someone with enough balls and money to go to court and ask for a declaratory judgement in the matter. Think about it, it could be a win either way. Either the court rules that such uses ARE fair use and takes all the wind out of their sails or the court rules that it ISN'T fair use and the AP and other news orgs find themselves in a world of hurt for "stealing" content from others without attribution. Then they could start getting sued by blogs and each other. There is a good chance that many of the lawsuits would be a low enough amount to fall into small claims court and they would be hemmorraging money trying to defend against small claims lawsuits all over the coutry.
This makes me wonder. Many times radio stations (here in the States at least) will do remote units. They will send out a truck and a radio personality to a remote location (often in conjunction with a sale at a store or some other event). When they do they set up a PA system playing their station outside. Would they be expected to pay TWICE to do this? Or would the business end up getting sued for it?
That is only true if the term "public" includes horses. These are the same asshats who tried to sue a stable for not paying a license for playing the radio for their HORSES! Then there was the garage that got sued because a mechanic was listening to his radio while working on cars in the garage area which was NOT open to the public. I could go on and on but it would get boring.
Yeah, I don't think there's much chance of the US Government having him arrested and extradited to Pakistan. Especially given section 230 arguments, First Amendment, etc.
While I hate this whole patent nuclear war thing, sometimes it can be almost amusing. I just hope that if they do this that Google has something to smack them back with. Microsoft too since I believe I read something about them supporting this open standard as well. And I know THEY have a nice portfolio of video encoding patents.
If I buy A book in NJ for 10.00 and pay 5% tax I just paid 10.50, but now I have to pay NC another 5% use tax so now its 11.00.
If I buy the same book in NC for 10.00 and pay 5% tax I pay 10.50 total.
If it worked that way then you would be correct, however I don't believe that it does. Instead I believe that you are responsible for paying the DIFFERENCE in tax. I.e. if your neighboring state charges a 2.5% state tax rate and your state has a 5% state tax rate then you are responsible to pay the difference of 2.5% to your state. I believe it only deals with the state tax rates as well, not the local tax rates.
Actually, I believe the line in the movie/album (which can be found on bit torrent) is "Bring down the wall." I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like to me.
"Buy used music CDs. The music's yours and it's legal (for now), but the international music conglomerates and all of these alleged musical collection societies can't milk profits out of a used music CD (yet)."
There, fixed it for you.
I don't for a second doubt that the RIAA, MPAA, et al are pushing to have a special tax applied to all sales of used music, movies, etc. Each time the disc is sold it a few bucks goes to them.
"Google has had no qualms about pulling high profile companies like BMW from its index in the past. It will be interesting to see if it will do the same with some of these newspapers who appear to be pushing the boundaries."
And if/when Google does this, watch the newspapers start screaming even more for gov't protection and how Google is being unfair and doing it to hide their sites so that they get the traffic instead.
Are we sure she might not be a GIRLfriend-stealing milkaholic? Just sayin' she's apparently shown some tendencies like that before apparently.
But, yeah, saying that the baby is based on her is tantamount to admitting to that. I wonder if she is willing to go to court and testify under oath that that baby is like her. I'm PRETTY certain that a single name isn't enough to establish a factual basis under the law. Otherwise you would never a see a John, Tom, Robert or other similarly common names.
Call me crazy, but is seems to me that if it is something that so very many varied and disparate devices with no real relationship to each other that whatever the patent is for is either A) so exceedingly obvious that every electronic device on the planet makes use of it or B) something that is inherently part of what makes an integrated circuit possible and, as such, probably goes back to the earliest days of the device and should no longer be covered by patent protection (sort of like how all vertebrates have certain features in common because we all go back to a common ancestor).
I wonder, if they took down the story, replaced the name of the center with something almost, but not quite, the Global Wildlife Center and then put it back up if they would get into trouble.
I mean, if the whole point of a patent is to ostensibly foster innovation by giving you an exclusivity period on your idea and you aren't making use of said idea then obviously the greater good is not being served and someone else should be allowed to make use of it.
I still believe that there needs to be a use it or lose provision with patents as well. I.e. if you patent something you have x period of time to produce a product using it in some way (or at least be able to prove you have one in active development), say two to three years. If you are not making use of your patent by that point then you lose your ability to sue others over it. I would imagine this would drastically cut back on patent troll companies and make it a lot less profitable. It would also serve as a nice nuclear disarmament of companies stockpiling nuclear arsenals of patents to block all competitors.
I suppose now that I think about it more that there would have to be some sort of provision where licensing the patent to a company who is producing a product using it would count. So you might very well see an upswing of patent trolls filing lawsuits and such to force a licensing settlement. Still, though, I think that it might help enough to be a net plus since it would get rid of a lot of the thickets that make it so hard to do anything truly innovative, especially if it were combined with an independent invention defense.
There is no way in HELL any reasonable review could choose McAfee as the most effective. I imagine the review went something like this:
Exec 1: We have to do something about all of these people getting their accounts stolen by this malware stuff.
Exec 2: We should give them a deal to protect themselves. Who has the best security software?
Exec 3: Well these two over here are rated as really good.
Exec 1: Well McAfee says that they'll pay us for every time somebody downloads their software through us and they'll pay us MORE if they actually buy it!
On the post: AP's New Policy: If They Speak To You, They Can Reprint Anything For Free?
Re: peeved ... I would have expected insane NAMELESS.ONE style rants at this point ...
Newspapers and other news orgs are hurting right now, many of them are going to go the way of the dinosaur. Think of as the internet is to traditional news and media what the Chixulub asteroid was to the dinosaurs. A mass extinction is coming. I'm sure many of them will die out, but not all of them are going to disappear. Some have already started to get it, they are evolving to fit into the new ecology along with other new species that are evolving to fill the holes left behind by the old dinosaurs (ie birds and mammals replacing dinosaurs). The news orgs of the future are going to be smaller and more streamlined than the giant dinosaurs that died out.
We are awash in news today. Not only from traditional news sources but new ones such as blogs and local media too. There is far too much out there for any news organization to reliably keep up with. I think the future of an AP type organization is going to be more like a paid news aggregation service. They will comb the internet and various other news sources for stories. Of course, they could use a simple web spider for that. That just gets you the raw news though. The valueadd here is that this organization would then have HUMANS look at the content and catalog it (we are still better than machines at some things) so that if you have 15 identical copies of the same story with no new information they get lumped together on, say, level 2 of the story. If a site had additional information it had dug up on a story then it would get added to level 1 of the story, etc.
On the post: AP's New Policy: If They Speak To You, They Can Reprint Anything For Free?
Re:
Too bad we can't get someone with enough balls and money to go to court and ask for a declaratory judgement in the matter. Think about it, it could be a win either way. Either the court rules that such uses ARE fair use and takes all the wind out of their sails or the court rules that it ISN'T fair use and the AP and other news orgs find themselves in a world of hurt for "stealing" content from others without attribution. Then they could start getting sued by blogs and each other. There is a good chance that many of the lawsuits would be a low enough amount to fall into small claims court and they would be hemmorraging money trying to defend against small claims lawsuits all over the coutry.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Radio remotes
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re:
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
not clear what they hope to accomplish
On the post: Pakistani Lawyer Apparently Seeks Death Penalty For Facebook Founders Because Of User Contest
Re: Re: Guess who's not going to Pakistan!
On the post: PA AG's Twitter Subpoena Also Told Twitter It Couldn't Reveal Subpoena's Existence
Re: Here's my proposed response
On the post: MPEG-LA Gearing Up To Go Patent Nuclear On Google's Decision To Release Open Video Standard
On the post: North Carolina Demands Amazon Reveal Every Detail Of Purchases By NC Residents
Re: Re: Use Tax is constitutional
If it worked that way then you would be correct, however I don't believe that it does. Instead I believe that you are responsible for paying the DIFFERENCE in tax. I.e. if your neighboring state charges a 2.5% state tax rate and your state has a 5% state tax rate then you are responsible to pay the difference of 2.5% to your state. I believe it only deals with the state tax rates as well, not the local tax rates.
On the post: Judge Tells IsoHunt To Wave Magic Wand; Block All Infringement
Re: IF you live in canada wave your hands up
On the post: Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms
Re:
There, fixed it for you.
I don't for a second doubt that the RIAA, MPAA, et al are pushing to have a special tax applied to all sales of used music, movies, etc. Each time the disc is sold it a few bucks goes to them.
On the post: Newspapers Gaming Google With Questionable Tactics
And if/when Google does this, watch the newspapers start screaming even more for gov't protection and how Google is being unfair and doing it to hide their sites so that they get the traffic instead.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Sues E*Trade For $100 Million; Says Baby Was Based On Her
Re:
But, yeah, saying that the baby is based on her is tantamount to admitting to that. I wonder if she is willing to go to court and testify under oath that that baby is like her. I'm PRETTY certain that a single name isn't enough to establish a factual basis under the law. Otherwise you would never a see a John, Tom, Robert or other similarly common names.
On the post: If You're Going To Sue For Patent Infringement, It Helps To Say What Actually Infringes
maybe obvious?
On the post: Judge Orders Satirical Site To Remove Joke Story About Fictional Giraffe Attack
change the name?
On the post: Could Looking At London's 2012 Olympics Logo Land People In Prison?
don't really see it
On the post: The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed
Re: Re: Use it or lose it
On the post: The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed
Use it or lose it
I suppose now that I think about it more that there would have to be some sort of provision where licensing the patent to a company who is producing a product using it would count. So you might very well see an upswing of patent trolls filing lawsuits and such to force a licensing settlement. Still, though, I think that it might help enough to be a net plus since it would get rid of a lot of the thickets that make it so hard to do anything truly innovative, especially if it were combined with an independent invention defense.
On the post: If A Video Is Filmed By Chimps... Who Owns The Copyright?
Okay, off topic, I know, but I couldn't resist.
On the post: Facebook Requires McAfee Scan If There's A Security Breach? Is This Security Or A Marketing Program?
marketing, pure and simple
Exec 1: We have to do something about all of these people getting their accounts stolen by this malware stuff.
Exec 2: We should give them a deal to protect themselves. Who has the best security software?
Exec 3: Well these two over here are rated as really good.
Exec 1: Well McAfee says that they'll pay us for every time somebody downloads their software through us and they'll pay us MORE if they actually buy it!
Exec 2: Great! McAfee it is then.
Exec 1: Should I fire up the phishing emails?
Exec 2+3: Go for it!
Next >>