I didn't mean that these would be the only reasons that one could register a domain, so I apologize if it seemed that way. What I meant for these rules was a away to settle disputes...
Only Elton John could register eltonjohn.music...
Likewise, only a member or the manager could register wu-tangclan.music, or someone from Universal Studios would have to register universalstudios.movie, and so on...
As for the question as to who qualifies as a band or gets to decide, the answer is no one. You couldn't register a band name that you weren't part of or that someone else already has. Trent Reznor is NIN, so he could register both, but you couldn't register nineinchnails.music because you have no affiliation with them. As an individual, talent is not required (as can be seen by many in the "established" music industry), so if you wanted to register a personal music domain for whatever audio vomit you (or myself for that matter) could piece together in the basement, then that would be perfectly fine. I think notanelectricrodent.music has a nice ring to it.
All I was trying to assert is that common sense should easily be able to determine who can register what on the platform. There shouldn't be someone saying yes this group can have one but not that group because they aren't signed to a label. If the purpose of the TLD is to provide exposure for the bands/studios, then they shouldn't have to worry about someone else taking the domain of their name, but any individual should be free to register one of their own. I couldn't register metallica.music, but there's no reason I shouldn't be able to get ryzzossadisticexperience.music if I wanted it.
Leaving it up to the MAFIAA to determine who gets a domain is prejudicial and discriminatory. A simple set of rules should suffice to maintain control and prevent abuse:
1. You can't register a person's name unless it's your own or your legally registered pseudonym.
2. You can't register a band's name unless you are an agent or current member of the band.
3. You can't register a game/movie studio name unless it's your studio.
4. You can't register a song/movie/game unless you are the content owner.
This isn't really rocket science, and a little common sense goes a long way. To allow the MAFIAA to determine who can and cannot register one of these domains is simply nothing more than a power play to control a new way for artists and creators to gain exposure. With more independent artists realizing every day that they can make it on their own without gatekeeper support, the old guard are doing everything they can to try and hang on to their outdated way of thinking.
Option 2: Sign up for digital service or enter in payment info if it's a 1-time digital purchase, stream/download movie, watch
Option 2.5: Get frustrated at the DRM and proprietary formats of "approved" digital offerings, locate DRM free torrent on thepiratebay, click, make popcorn while downloading, watch... :D
And for the record, Option 3 is absolutely insane... I thought Ultraviolet was a stupid idea, but this one takes the cake... also... the cake is a lie!
My understanding (IANAL) is that if something is locked a warrant would be required to compel the act of unlocking. I can't see how this would be any different if the lock is digital as opposed to physical. And beyond that, if they can't open it themselves, you could potentially stand on the 5th amendment to refuse.
For instance, if a police officer pulls you over, with probable cause, they could do0 a plain sight inspection of the contents of your vehicle, but if they wanted to get in the trunk or a locked glovebox, they would need a warrant. Likewise, in the example illustrated in the article of an address book, they could look through the book and view what pertained to whatever prompted the search but would need to exclude anything that was unrelated to why they flipped it open even if it was evidence of a separate crime. If the address book or diary had a lock on it, they could not force it open without your consent or a warrant. I would think (read: hope) that applies the same to digital locks.
I know this is all off topic, but I just order a Pi and am planning on using it for the same thing. A 35 buck Media Center that does 1080p video is too good to pass up! This is going to be my first experience with Linux, but I'm really looking forward to learning it now. It's something I've wanted to do for a while now but now I finally have the motivation. Thanks for the shapeways link on the case! I expected the 3d community to pick this up pretty quick, and they didn't fail to live up to that expectation. I'm trying to talk an artist friend into making me a one off case (maybe wood), but I'm not holding my breath based on how long most of his projects take, lol
Aereo is doing the networks a favor by letting their legitimate viewers watch their program outside of their home. They are helping the networks reach an audience that they themselves have chosen not to serve. Aereo charging a subscription fee is understandable as they have to pay employees and for bandwidth. The networks could be doing this themselves but choose not to.
What is really troubling to me is that PBS would be a part of this lawsuit?!?! The more people that watch PBS broadcasts, the greater the chance of viewers finding value in the programming and choosing to donate and support them. It doesn't surprise me when the normal troll dinosaurs freak out about things like this, but for PBS to join suit seems like they are only shooting themselves in the foot.
No one is disputing that the production investment is significant or that it is not occurring before the fact. What we're trying to point out is that there is a potential revenue stream that is is completely separate from the current revenue streams and that it is being left totally ignored.
You're saying that if you release what people want at at the price that they want it for, some of the people who pay you more money for the traditional product will switch to the cheaper one. And because of this possibility you can't serve that segment of the market. To be blunt... that is just stupid. Until you find out what the actual effects will be, you're basing the argument off of fear and speculation. Sure you may lose a few higher paying subscribers to the cheaper alternative, but that doesn't mean you won't make more money overall, not to mention create the goodwill that turns new customers into lasting customers based on the convenience of the experience.
You are conflating legality with morality... As a growing majority continues to view your illegal activity as acceptable, at which point do you concede that it's no longer illegal?
No one here is "violating the laws and then deflecting the blame to other parties for not making it easy to get what they want." People are breaking the laws as a result of not being able to get the content they want to legitimately. Trying to turn this around as an after-the-fact excuse and not the primary force driving the majority of this behavior is a much better example of 3rd grade logic at best...
What's being discussed here is the market they are missing, not the market they already have... Their 28 million subscribers is great and all, but how many people are turning to illegitimate sources because they are being underserved?
The reality is that in a few clicks anyone on this planet can have almost any piece of content they want for free. This cannot be changed through any amount of legislation. Of these dirty freetarding pirates, many of them are perfectly happy to pay for the content if it was available, convenient, and priced reasonably. These are the customers that are not being served, and they are the lost opportunity here. This IS the reality! What keeps being said over and over and over again is that you can compete with free but you are choosing not to, and it is pissing a lot of people off to the point where they are seeking the convenient alternative. Telling a company what you want as a consumer is how the market works not entitlement. If you fail to provide what the consumer wants, you do not have the right to complain when they seek it out elsewhere.
The fact that you actually take the time out of your busy day of kicking puppies and screwing over artist and the public to daydream of me fapping just made my whole day... Make sure your fantasy is as accurate as possible though... I will always be wearing socks that don't match during the fap, covered in bacon grease, and there will be German techno blaring in the background behind the shrine I've setup to your mom... Think Friday the 13th meets Super Troopers... Hope that helps complete the picture :D
Got the ad hom, false dichotomy, and not one, but two chubby's!
I had to subtract 2 points for explaining it was trolling, and you could have shot for the moon if you'd have blamed it on Google, emphasized some words with /derp/, or insulted the overall techdirt community.
And you'll find the exact same restoration was done for that show as well by pirates. It's sad when you have to resort to illegal means to enjoy the original version of a part of your childhood nostalgia.
The sentence you quoted contains the definition you are looking for...
"They" = "those who continue to insist that EFF is merely a front group for Google."
I don't think it can be much clearer than it already is which seems to be the substance of Dementia's post. To further the definition though, I believe Mike is referring to the legion of trolls that come here and insist that the EFF is in Google's pocket and that the EFF is Google's private lobbying group. To be even more specific, daryl, bob, and "chubby" seem to stick out as frequent offenders...
My question to you is what do you mean when you say "it's possible that the EFF is with Google on the copyright issue"? Could you elaborate on "the copyright issue"?
Giving instructions on how to do something is absolutely legal and covered under protected speech. Hosting the software may be a gray area, but the speech itself should be protected.
Telling someone how to do something should always be protected under the 1st amendment. If the act is illegal and they then actually perform the act, then they would be liable for breaking the law, but you should have no liability for sharing the information.
It's not to say that some jackass lawyer might not try to sue for spreading the information but no competent judge should allow the case to proceed.
In a nutshell, the law allows for a 3rd party to mintor the IP addresses registered to internet customers. When one of these IP addresses is found in connection with a peer to peer service (like bittorrent or limewire), and the file being shared is one that is under copyright protection, the 3rd party notifies the ISP and the ISP sends a warning letter indicating that their IP address was used for filesharing and they have received their first strike. Once they receive their 3rd strike, their information is sent to a prosecution team that can have the subscriber disconnected from the internet for 2 months to a year.
The problems posed by this legislation are many...
1st issue: An IP address is not a person, nor does it indicate a guilty party. A stranger could be using your open wifi (or could have hacked your secured wifi), it could be a public terminal that anyone can use, it could be a roommate or a child, but you are punished as the bill payer with absolutely no evidence that you actually committed the infringement.
2nd issue: As I understand it, the disconnection can happen before you have a chance to appeal... ie: you receive punishment before presenting your defense. This is the due process issue that many are unhappy about.
3rd issue: The punishment is disproportionate. In the world we live in, many people depend on an internet connection to pay bills, to do business, and as a very important part of their personal lives. To completely remove this aspect of their lives over alleged copyright infringement is being seen by many as a human rights violation.
There are additional problems, but these are the main focus, and I hope that summary helps.
Thanks for the clarification... I was really worried since I masnic all the time!
Masnicking: the act of being a damned-dirty-fatboy-freetarded grifter
Masnicing: the art the art of making a sandwich so exquisitely perfect and delicious that nearby babies cease to cry, small dogs stop yapping, and a nearby Lamar Smith or Chris Dodd will actually get a momentary glimpse of reality. Side effects known to include transcendence to a higher plane of existence, a realization that mint chocolate chip is the most superior of all ice cream flavors, and possibly being nominated for GQ's sexiest man of the year (Applies to female masnicers just the same).
On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave
Re: My guess
On the post: Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only Elton John could register eltonjohn.music...
Likewise, only a member or the manager could register wu-tangclan.music, or someone from Universal Studios would have to register universalstudios.movie, and so on...
As for the question as to who qualifies as a band or gets to decide, the answer is no one. You couldn't register a band name that you weren't part of or that someone else already has. Trent Reznor is NIN, so he could register both, but you couldn't register nineinchnails.music because you have no affiliation with them. As an individual, talent is not required (as can be seen by many in the "established" music industry), so if you wanted to register a personal music domain for whatever audio vomit you (or myself for that matter) could piece together in the basement, then that would be perfectly fine. I think notanelectricrodent.music has a nice ring to it.
All I was trying to assert is that common sense should easily be able to determine who can register what on the platform. There shouldn't be someone saying yes this group can have one but not that group because they aren't signed to a label. If the purpose of the TLD is to provide exposure for the bands/studios, then they shouldn't have to worry about someone else taking the domain of their name, but any individual should be free to register one of their own. I couldn't register metallica.music, but there's no reason I shouldn't be able to get ryzzossadisticexperience.music if I wanted it.
On the post: Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy
Re: Re:
Leaving it up to the MAFIAA to determine who gets a domain is prejudicial and discriminatory. A simple set of rules should suffice to maintain control and prevent abuse:
1. You can't register a person's name unless it's your own or your legally registered pseudonym.
2. You can't register a band's name unless you are an agent or current member of the band.
3. You can't register a game/movie studio name unless it's your studio.
4. You can't register a song/movie/game unless you are the content owner.
This isn't really rocket science, and a little common sense goes a long way. To allow the MAFIAA to determine who can and cannot register one of these domains is simply nothing more than a power play to control a new way for artists and creators to gain exposure. With more independent artists realizing every day that they can make it on their own without gatekeeper support, the old guard are doing everything they can to try and hang on to their outdated way of thinking.
On the post: MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
Sorry, Bobby :(
On the post: Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Option 2: Sign up for digital service or enter in payment info if it's a 1-time digital purchase, stream/download movie, watch
Option 2.5: Get frustrated at the DRM and proprietary formats of "approved" digital offerings, locate DRM free torrent on thepiratebay, click, make popcorn while downloading, watch... :D
And for the record, Option 3 is absolutely insane... I thought Ultraviolet was a stupid idea, but this one takes the cake... also... the cake is a lie!
On the post: Court Confirms Police Don't Need A Warrant To Do A Limited Search Of A Mobile Phone
Re:
For instance, if a police officer pulls you over, with probable cause, they could do0 a plain sight inspection of the contents of your vehicle, but if they wanted to get in the trunk or a locked glovebox, they would need a warrant. Likewise, in the example illustrated in the article of an address book, they could look through the book and view what pertained to whatever prompted the search but would need to exclude anything that was unrelated to why they flipped it open even if it was evidence of a separate crime. If the address book or diary had a lock on it, they could not force it open without your consent or a warrant. I would think (read: hope) that applies the same to digital locks.
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re:
On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?
Re: Re: Not about the length of the cord
Aereo is doing the networks a favor by letting their legitimate viewers watch their program outside of their home. They are helping the networks reach an audience that they themselves have chosen not to serve. Aereo charging a subscription fee is understandable as they have to pay employees and for bandwidth. The networks could be doing this themselves but choose not to.
What is really troubling to me is that PBS would be a part of this lawsuit?!?! The more people that watch PBS broadcasts, the greater the chance of viewers finding value in the programming and choosing to donate and support them. It doesn't surprise me when the normal troll dinosaurs freak out about things like this, but for PBS to join suit seems like they are only shooting themselves in the foot.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're saying that if you release what people want at at the price that they want it for, some of the people who pay you more money for the traditional product will switch to the cheaper one. And because of this possibility you can't serve that segment of the market. To be blunt... that is just stupid. Until you find out what the actual effects will be, you're basing the argument off of fear and speculation. Sure you may lose a few higher paying subscribers to the cheaper alternative, but that doesn't mean you won't make more money overall, not to mention create the goodwill that turns new customers into lasting customers based on the convenience of the experience.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Off topic
No one here is "violating the laws and then deflecting the blame to other parties for not making it easy to get what they want." People are breaking the laws as a result of not being able to get the content they want to legitimately. Trying to turn this around as an after-the-fact excuse and not the primary force driving the majority of this behavior is a much better example of 3rd grade logic at best...
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reality is that in a few clicks anyone on this planet can have almost any piece of content they want for free. This cannot be changed through any amount of legislation. Of these dirty freetarding pirates, many of them are perfectly happy to pay for the content if it was available, convenient, and priced reasonably. These are the customers that are not being served, and they are the lost opportunity here. This IS the reality! What keeps being said over and over and over again is that you can compete with free but you are choosing not to, and it is pissing a lot of people off to the point where they are seeking the convenient alternative. Telling a company what you want as a consumer is how the market works not entitlement. If you fail to provide what the consumer wants, you do not have the right to complain when they seek it out elsewhere.
On the post: Reductio Ad Absurdum: Eternal Copyright Is Crazy... But What About Today's Copyright Term?
Re:
On the post: Did Universal Music Try To Expense The Costs Of Eminem's Producers Suing Over Unpaid Royalties... Back To Eminem's Producers?
Re:
Got the ad hom, false dichotomy, and not one, but two chubby's!
I had to subtract 2 points for explaining it was trolling, and you could have shot for the moon if you'd have blamed it on Google, emphasized some words with /derp/, or insulted the overall techdirt community.
Also, needs more cowbell :P
On the post: La La La La La: The Internet Routes Around Copyright Censorship To Restore Daria
Re: I know how you feel
On the post: EFF Condemns Google For Circumventing Safari Privacy Protections
Re: Re: Re:
"They" = "those who continue to insist that EFF is merely a front group for Google."
I don't think it can be much clearer than it already is which seems to be the substance of Dementia's post. To further the definition though, I believe Mike is referring to the legion of trolls that come here and insist that the EFF is in Google's pocket and that the EFF is Google's private lobbying group. To be even more specific, daryl, bob, and "chubby" seem to stick out as frequent offenders...
My question to you is what do you mean when you say "it's possible that the EFF is with Google on the copyright issue"? Could you elaborate on "the copyright issue"?
On the post: Canadians Respond To Internet Spying Bill By 'Revealing All' To Politician Backing It
Re:
Such is the plight of the boy named Sue :P
On the post: MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content
Re:
Telling someone how to do something should always be protected under the 1st amendment. If the act is illegal and they then actually perform the act, then they would be liable for breaking the law, but you should have no liability for sharing the information.
It's not to say that some jackass lawyer might not try to sue for spreading the information but no competent judge should allow the case to proceed.
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a nutshell, the law allows for a 3rd party to mintor the IP addresses registered to internet customers. When one of these IP addresses is found in connection with a peer to peer service (like bittorrent or limewire), and the file being shared is one that is under copyright protection, the 3rd party notifies the ISP and the ISP sends a warning letter indicating that their IP address was used for filesharing and they have received their first strike. Once they receive their 3rd strike, their information is sent to a prosecution team that can have the subscriber disconnected from the internet for 2 months to a year.
The problems posed by this legislation are many...
1st issue: An IP address is not a person, nor does it indicate a guilty party. A stranger could be using your open wifi (or could have hacked your secured wifi), it could be a public terminal that anyone can use, it could be a roommate or a child, but you are punished as the bill payer with absolutely no evidence that you actually committed the infringement.
2nd issue: As I understand it, the disconnection can happen before you have a chance to appeal... ie: you receive punishment before presenting your defense. This is the due process issue that many are unhappy about.
3rd issue: The punishment is disproportionate. In the world we live in, many people depend on an internet connection to pay bills, to do business, and as a very important part of their personal lives. To completely remove this aspect of their lives over alleged copyright infringement is being seen by many as a human rights violation.
There are additional problems, but these are the main focus, and I hope that summary helps.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics...
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnicking: the act of being a damned-dirty-fatboy-freetarded grifter
Masnicing: the art the art of making a sandwich so exquisitely perfect and delicious that nearby babies cease to cry, small dogs stop yapping, and a nearby Lamar Smith or Chris Dodd will actually get a momentary glimpse of reality. Side effects known to include transcendence to a higher plane of existence, a realization that mint chocolate chip is the most superior of all ice cream flavors, and possibly being nominated for GQ's sexiest man of the year (Applies to female masnicers just the same).
Next >>