You do realize that in 1984, the Ministry of Truth did not simply drop the matter when people erroneously remembered persons or events that the Ministry of Truth said did not happen.
If chicken sandwiches can be copyrighted, then what you are referring to is actually a derivative work under copyright law. See the recent article about copyrighting pictures of food.
If the pictures can be copyrighted, why not the food itself?
Why not the derivative works that flow from the result of consuming it? ("flow" may be the wrong word?)
Isn't this the very substance of what copyright law is about?
Patents are definitely the way to go for chicken sandwiches. Not copyright.
The careful USPTO examination process makes use of a room full of kittens with "PATENT GRANTED" stamps affixed to their feet.
I hear you not only can patent a method of swinging in a circular motion on a public park swing, but you can also patent rectangles with rounded corners. Bouncy scrolling. The possibilities are endless. Why not chicken sandwiches.
The Eastern District of Texas is definitely the venue to use in order to get the vast rewards you are entitled to for having the creative boldness and innovative genius to conceive of a chicken sandwich.
Still, once a chicken sandwich is fixed in a tangible medium, then doesn't the creative expression of the chick sandwich become eligible for copyright?
The RTBF (right to be forgotten) creators didn't forsee this failure mode. But they can amend it to correct this deficiency.
The failure mode is that an RTBF can not recursively, pre-emptively take down all future articles critical of RTBF requests.
Heck, why not allow a single RTBF request to take down all future articles / discussion forums / tweets / etc...: * about this RTBF request * about this particular subject, person, etc. * criticism such as your suggesting the mere possibility that the RTBF could be abused
Ashley Madison you have it all wrong with the DMCA
You are wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
You need to see the light and STOP using the DMCA to try to deal with this.
You should be using the new super dooper RTBF ! (Right To Be Forgotten)
The new RTBF has advantages over the outdated DMCA. 1. While the DMCA can only be used within worldwide jurisdiction, the RTBF can be used in even wider worldwide jurisdiction! 2. You can't use the DMCA to take down articles critical of DMCA requests, but you CAN use RTBF to take down articles critical of RTBF requests! 3. Coming Soon!... the ability to recursively take down all future articles about an RTBF request! (just try that with the puny DMCA.) 4. You don't have to be an actual copyright owner to use RTBF. (although it is doubtful that you need copyright ownership to use DMCA.)
The United States proudly decrees that it shall be the law of the land that: π is equal to 3. Gravity is a hoax. Reality is that the Earth is a flat disk. The sun is only 100 miles above the surface of the disk and moves in a circular motion about the surface. The disk is on the back of the first of an infinite stack of tortoises. The final tortoise of that infinite stack is propelled by a rocket at 9.8 meters / second ^ 2 using a perpetual motion machine, thus giving the illusion of gravity.
All contrary information will be subject to a Right To Be Forgotten Request.
You cannot say that an article existed when the Ministry of Truth has said that it doesn't exist and never did exist.
It is your duty to comply with Ministry of Truth requests to remove erroneous historical information which could cause outer party members to come to erroneous conclusions. Look to comrade Winston as your example.
Imagine if this technology could be modified so that it would be just as easy to locate a major criminal as it currently is to locate an innocent witness to a crime?
Then, instead of using a No Knock Warrant, executed by a paramilitary force that could take over some small countries, and possibly at the wrong address, the police could simply quietly arrest the major criminal in a setting that is safe and convenient.
It is unfortunate that this technology only works for finding witnesses or small time crooks.
Re: Honest mistakes happen too -- just like on "file sharing" sites -- and Youtube is not about to attempt judging!
This is not a pro-piracy idea.
It is clearly an anti-piracy idea. You ask everyone else to come up with how to fix the problems for you. When good ideas are given, you dismiss them.
I think a better idea is that there should be a statutory fine of $150,00 per bogus takedown. Where bogus means one of several things: * the takedown is not from a copyright owner or registered agent * the material clearly does not infringe, on its face. (Example: personal recording of nature sounds, birds singing does not infringe major copyright holder's music) * the takedown was based on insufficient investigation (which would have immediately prevented the prior example of nature sounds). Example: filing a takedown based simply on the title. Oh, it has a word from my title, so it MUST be infringement!
These ideas are not pro piracy. These ideas protect LEGITIMATE CONTENT PRODUCERS. People who put videos up on YouTube that do NOT infringe copyright. People whose channels are threatened by careless or malicious DMCA notices.
I'm not talking about a DMCA notice that has a minor defect. I'm talking about DMCA notices that should never have been filed without making sure of what they are filing over. Or that were not filed by someone authorized to file.
What is your opinion on that?
It helps legitimate content producers. So you should be in favor of it.
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Re:
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Re:
The Ministry of Truth removed that from existence along with other persons who suggest that it is real.
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Re: Can I send an RTBF request to retroactively take down all future articles about a crime I'm about to commit?
Ooops, I said that word.
On the post: Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich
Re:
If the pictures can be copyrighted, why not the food itself?
Why not the derivative works that flow from the result of consuming it? ("flow" may be the wrong word?)
Isn't this the very substance of what copyright law is about?
On the post: Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich
Re: Patents?
The careful USPTO examination process makes use of a room full of kittens with "PATENT GRANTED" stamps affixed to their feet.
I hear you not only can patent a method of swinging in a circular motion on a public park swing, but you can also patent rectangles with rounded corners. Bouncy scrolling. The possibilities are endless. Why not chicken sandwiches.
The Eastern District of Texas is definitely the venue to use in order to get the vast rewards you are entitled to for having the creative boldness and innovative genius to conceive of a chicken sandwich.
On the post: Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich
Patents?
Still, once a chicken sandwich is fixed in a tangible medium, then doesn't the creative expression of the chick sandwich become eligible for copyright?
C'mon, RIAA? MPAA? Call your lobbyists.
On the post: Ashley Madison Continues To Use Dubious Legal Takedown Threats To Try To Disappear The Data It Failed To Protect
Re: Re: Ashley Madison you have it all wrong with the DMCA
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Re: What's the failure mode here?
The failure mode is that an RTBF can not recursively, pre-emptively take down all future articles critical of RTBF requests.
Heck, why not allow a single RTBF request to take down all future articles / discussion forums / tweets / etc...:
* about this RTBF request
* about this particular subject, person, etc.
* criticism such as your suggesting the mere possibility that the RTBF could be abused
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Re: Re: Turtles All The Way Down
/sarcasm
On the post: Ashley Madison Continues To Use Dubious Legal Takedown Threats To Try To Disappear The Data It Failed To Protect
Ashley Madison you have it all wrong with the DMCA
You need to see the light and STOP using the DMCA to try to deal with this.
You should be using the new super dooper RTBF ! (Right To Be Forgotten)
The new RTBF has advantages over the outdated DMCA.
1. While the DMCA can only be used within worldwide jurisdiction, the RTBF can be used in even wider worldwide jurisdiction!
2. You can't use the DMCA to take down articles critical of DMCA requests, but you CAN use RTBF to take down articles critical of RTBF requests!
3. Coming Soon!... the ability to recursively take down all future articles about an RTBF request! (just try that with the puny DMCA.)
4. You don't have to be an actual copyright owner to use RTBF. (although it is doubtful that you need copyright ownership to use DMCA.)
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Re:
This is in contrast to the DMCA where you cannot use a DMCA to remove an article critical of DMCA.
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
Turtles All The Way Down
π is equal to 3.
Gravity is a hoax.
Reality is that the Earth is a flat disk.
The sun is only 100 miles above the surface of the disk and moves in a circular motion about the surface.
The disk is on the back of the first of an infinite stack of tortoises.
The final tortoise of that infinite stack is propelled by a rocket at 9.8 meters / second ^ 2 using a perpetual motion machine, thus giving the illusion of gravity.
All contrary information will be subject to a Right To Be Forgotten Request.
On the post: Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request
It never existed in the first place
It is your duty to comply with Ministry of Truth requests to remove erroneous historical information which could cause outer party members to come to erroneous conclusions. Look to comrade Winston as your example.
On the post: Police Regularly Use Stingrays Without A Warrant To Find Petty Criminals, Then Try To Hide That Fact
Imagine if Stingray technology could be modified
Then, instead of using a No Knock Warrant, executed by a paramilitary force that could take over some small countries, and possibly at the wrong address, the police could simply quietly arrest the major criminal in a setting that is safe and convenient.
It is unfortunate that this technology only works for finding witnesses or small time crooks.
On the post: Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns
Re: Honest mistakes happen too -- just like on "file sharing" sites -- and Youtube is not about to attempt judging!
It is clearly an anti-piracy idea. You ask everyone else to come up with how to fix the problems for you. When good ideas are given, you dismiss them.
I think a better idea is that there should be a statutory fine of $150,00 per bogus takedown. Where bogus means one of several things:
* the takedown is not from a copyright owner or registered agent
* the material clearly does not infringe, on its face. (Example: personal recording of nature sounds, birds singing does not infringe major copyright holder's music)
* the takedown was based on insufficient investigation (which would have immediately prevented the prior example of nature sounds). Example: filing a takedown based simply on the title. Oh, it has a word from my title, so it MUST be infringement!
These ideas are not pro piracy. These ideas protect LEGITIMATE CONTENT PRODUCERS. People who put videos up on YouTube that do NOT infringe copyright. People whose channels are threatened by careless or malicious DMCA notices.
I'm not talking about a DMCA notice that has a minor defect. I'm talking about DMCA notices that should never have been filed without making sure of what they are filing over. Or that were not filed by someone authorized to file.
What is your opinion on that?
It helps legitimate content producers. So you should be in favor of it.
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re: A match made in heaven.
Despite almost daily evidence to the contrary, people no longer seem to think of the DMCA as a travesty of justice.
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re: Re:
On the post: Contractor Who Cleared Snowden For His NSA Position Fined $30 Million By The DOJ
Re:
On the post: Illinois Attorney Discipline Board Finally Moves Against Prenda Mastermind John Steele
Duffy's passing is a loss to the world
On the post: TSA At The Movies: Theater Chain Looks To Bring Security Theater To The Movie Theater
Re:
It depends on whether that is enjoyable.
I think not.
Next >>