I wonder how this compares to the situation in Bejing during their 'Athletic celebration of an Ancient Greek tradition named after the mountain where the gods resided'.
Oops, did I actually mention, Greece, someone might work out what I meant and think "Olympics" in their head, and thus infringe on this vital-to-the-UK-economy piece of IP!
It's an inspiration, but so it's based on the usual stupidity by content controllers - and a wish for Schadenfreude with them getting their karmic come-uppance.
Plus I'd just read the other recent articles and was all steamed up :)
The whole pointo if it being a fallacy is that value is actually being destroyed (the window being broken) as the owner of the window still has to spend money replacing something that shouldn't have needed replaced (it's not like windows have a sell-by date). Therefore he has less money to spend on other things, hurting him. In the broken window fallacy, although the same amount of money is available, and is just redistributed, there is a clear winner (the glass-fitters) and a clear loser (the innocent window owner) for no actual improvement to society, and in fact, since it could potentially suck money from productive elements of society, it's likely to be a net loss overall.
Technically, since there is no protection for format-shifting in British law, yes you're breaking the law, even though that is beyond stupid. Only time-shifting is allowed, even if the effect here is just time-shifing in another way.
So I can save a BBC program onto my DVR or video, but the moment I try and copy it to my laptop I'm a dirty commie evil thieving law-breaking pirate. Even though I can go onto iPlayer and 'legally' download it for a week. Then it magically becomes 'illegal' for me to possess a copy.
And the takedowns are *always* issued by people who have all the rights to that item, and are doing it correctly for stuff even when they issued it themselves?
On-topic, let's hope that the censorship inherent in these ham-fisted attempts, as well as the abuse of copyright and patent law, can all be routed around.
It's like the daft idea of having to 'apply' to get certain political speech or 'pr0n' allowed on your computer - who will decide what is 'ok', what hoops will you have to jomp through to do so, and which insecure government lists and databases will you end up on?
'In the latest move to end the recession in the UK, the British Government has allowed for retroactive patents and copyright to be applied. The first person in the queue was Sir Tim Berners-Lee, applying to patent the entire World-Wide Web.
"Due to retroactive patenting of the Web" said Sir Tim in an interview yesterday, "I have been able to assert copyright on everything published via the Web, and any entity stealing money from the UK without a licence will be sued for statutory damages of £200 per infringement, plus 3x profits. This will end the recession in the UK and lead to a glorious future of technological progress and innovation."
When asked about future and retroactive licensing costs, Sir Tim replied "Licences will be available from a body to be set up by the government some time next year. Costs fir using the Web will simply be your firstborn, but if you wish to make money on it you will have to buy a licence, nominally charged at £1 per person. No, that's based on the number of people able to view the content, so about £2 bn a pop should be fine. We have worked out fair and equitable costs based on the best evidence and methodologies developed by the content industries."
A parliamentary spokesman also later clarified another part of the bill, regarding who would be liable for what. "In order to simplfy liability for 17 years of illegal use of the UK's World-Wide Web service, it has been decided that all content publishers are liable for their own content, wherever it may be found. So if a dozen people publish 'Avatar' over the Web, then James Cameron is liable as the creator/publisher of the content for each one and its availability to all 7 billion people on the planet."
Rumours that costs would also be applied to all exoplanets within 17+ light years on the basis of the Earth's population on each were strongly denied by Parliament.'
I'm sort of curious, what does a 'homosexual neighbourhood' have to do with the topic at hand, other than injecting some utterly gratuitous homophobia? Even if you really meant 'permissive' - what does that have to do with anything?
On the post: Huh? Totally Clueless German Court Says ContentID Isn't Good Enough, YouTube Must Block Infringement By Keywords
Re: Re:
On the post: London 2012 Olympics Win Gold Medal For Cluelessness By Banning Video And Photo Uploads To Social Media During Games
Re: Re: Re:
Oops, did I actually mention, Greece, someone might work out what I meant and think "Olympics" in their head, and thus infringe on this vital-to-the-UK-economy piece of IP!
On the post: Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose
Re:
Did you miss the day at school when they explained metaphors?
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re:
Oh, I so badly want a 'text-customisable' button on here...
butts = Prince joffrey.
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re: Re:
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Says UK's Net Spying Plans Would Be 'Destruction Of Human Rights'
Re: Re: Parliament should do this:
Plus I'd just read the other recent articles and was all steamed up :)
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re:
So I can save a BBC program onto my DVR or video, but the moment I try and copy it to my laptop I'm a dirty commie evil thieving law-breaking pirate. Even though I can go onto iPlayer and 'legally' download it for a week. Then it magically becomes 'illegal' for me to possess a copy.
On the post: Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad
Re: foreign markets
On the post: Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad
Re: Re: Isn't this just a licensing dispute?
On the post: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Most striking
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Says UK's Net Spying Plans Would Be 'Destruction Of Human Rights'
It's like the daft idea of having to 'apply' to get certain political speech or 'pr0n' allowed on your computer - who will decide what is 'ok', what hoops will you have to jomp through to do so, and which insecure government lists and databases will you end up on?
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Says UK's Net Spying Plans Would Be 'Destruction Of Human Rights'
Parliament should do this:
"Due to retroactive patenting of the Web" said Sir Tim in an interview yesterday, "I have been able to assert copyright on everything published via the Web, and any entity stealing money from the UK without a licence will be sued for statutory damages of £200 per infringement, plus 3x profits. This will end the recession in the UK and lead to a glorious future of technological progress and innovation."
When asked about future and retroactive licensing costs, Sir Tim replied "Licences will be available from a body to be set up by the government some time next year. Costs fir using the Web will simply be your firstborn, but if you wish to make money on it you will have to buy a licence, nominally charged at £1 per person. No, that's based on the number of people able to view the content, so about £2 bn a pop should be fine. We have worked out fair and equitable costs based on the best evidence and methodologies developed by the content industries."
A parliamentary spokesman also later clarified another part of the bill, regarding who would be liable for what. "In order to simplfy liability for 17 years of illegal use of the UK's World-Wide Web service, it has been decided that all content publishers are liable for their own content, wherever it may be found. So if a dozen people publish 'Avatar' over the Web, then James Cameron is liable as the creator/publisher of the content for each one and its availability to all 7 billion people on the planet."
Rumours that costs would also be applied to all exoplanets within 17+ light years on the basis of the Earth's population on each were strongly denied by Parliament.'
On the post: It's Time To Re-Establish That If A Patent Blocks Progress, It's Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Countries In TPP Negotiations Begin To Wonder Why They Should Let The US Push Them Around
Re: Re:
On the post: Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?
Re: If you can't make a good movie, get a room
On the post: It's Time To Re-Establish That If A Patent Blocks Progress, It's Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
On the post: Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?
Re: A better idea...
Next >>