I see a real first amendment issue in with the concept that bloggers can't blog about something recauses they got a gift card from a retailer. What's why the FTC warned Ann Taylor and not the bloggers.
"It's unclear how a trojan would block some software from alerting the crew that there was a problem with the aircraft."
There are applications where timely alerts are critical, and can't be put off by extra processing overhead malware produces. It seems most likely [if malware is the cause] that some real time process was impacted. The alerts would have happened eventually, but in this case, too late.
should be abolished completely except for doctor's offices and hospitals. The whole point of the prescription system, is for your doctor to decide you need something, not a commercial.
To me, it's all about the fact they all just want to much for their product. $20 dollars for a DVD? Too much. $15 if it's good. $3 or more for a streaming rental? Don't make me laugh. And it goes on and on. I don't think kids want it free, they just recognize value that isn't worth the price.
There are some things that have given me a lot of content for my money. Interestingly enough, it's usually video games. Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Dragon Age......
Media companies have overvalued their products tremendously. The only one that gets it close is Netflix @ $10/month
Another point that I didn't mention is that there is currently no good way to skip the commercials in an avi player. Major headache of them, eliminated.
If the TV execs would get their heads out of their butts and realize file sharing is here to stay, they would be smart to start their own torrent trackers. Embed commercials into the avi file. Get paid by the advertisers based on the swarm data for the torrent. Thousands of seeds, $$$ per seed, distribution cost of near ZERO.
Their argument is:
1) "We don't want torrent sharing to go mainstream."
2) "People will re-edit the file and take out commercials."
My answer is, those things are already happening. Your way, you get no money. My way, you get paid for something that's happening anyway.
The case is ridiculous, obviously. But consider if something similar actually won, pitting the carriers against the media companies. Imagine the battles in court and Congress. "A titan against a titan." Glorious. It would take something like that for the government to fix the innovation mess we're in.
"There is a difference. Claiming to be someone and copying someone are two different things."
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. It makes no difference when you can't tell the difference anymore. Hence the slippery slope I'm trying to point out.
Someone can pass Ried's link and claim it's Angle's current site, which it isn't. That would be a logical basis for a civil complaint.
The non copy protection dynamic is the double standard issue this post represents.
Countless examples here of fair use given at Techdirt, which I agree with BTW. Now we have an example of verbatim copying and the best argument is, 'it's the internet, I can do what I want'.
It's exactly the type of justification media companies want for eliminating fair use altogether, If we can't tell the difference.
On the post: Jailbreaking Your iPhone? Legal! Jailbreaking Your Xbox? 3 Years In Jail!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Money
On the post: Hollywood Got The FCC To Break Your TV Because It Thought You'd Pay $30 For A PPV Movie?
You can't compete with......reasonably priced
On the post: Judge Indicates LVRJ May Have Offered An 'Implied License' To Copy In Righthaven Lawsuits
If the share link is there, it's a license
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store
Bloggers can't blog because of gift cards?!?
On the post: Is Malware To Blame For Plane Crash That Killed 154?
Malware can effect real-time processing
There are applications where timely alerts are critical, and can't be put off by extra processing overhead malware produces. It seems most likely [if malware is the cause] that some real time process was impacted. The alerts would have happened eventually, but in this case, too late.
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re:
On the post: FDA Tells Novartis That 'Facebook Sharing' Widget On Its Site Violates Drug Ad Rules
Prescription drug advertising
On the post: Congress About To Pass 'The ______Act of____' (These Are The People We Elect?)
They're radifying ACTA
On the post: How The Pentagon's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Like The RIAA's Reaction To Napster
The American people
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
On the post: Wishful Thinking: Hollywood Believes Next Generation Of Kids Will Pay For Content
To me it's all about overvalued product
There are some things that have given me a lot of content for my money. Interestingly enough, it's usually video games. Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Dragon Age......
Media companies have overvalued their products tremendously. The only one that gets it close is Netflix @ $10/month
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Re: Torrents with embedded commercials
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Torrents with embedded commercials
Their argument is:
1) "We don't want torrent sharing to go mainstream."
2) "People will re-edit the file and take out commercials."
My answer is, those things are already happening. Your way, you get no money. My way, you get paid for something that's happening anyway.
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Re: Re: Y'know...
On the post: Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...
A win could be interesting
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. It makes no difference when you can't tell the difference anymore. Hence the slippery slope I'm trying to point out.
Someone can pass Ried's link and claim it's Angle's current site, which it isn't. That would be a logical basis for a civil complaint.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Too late
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing Mike's point
Countless examples here of fair use given at Techdirt, which I agree with BTW. Now we have an example of verbatim copying and the best argument is, 'it's the internet, I can do what I want'.
It's exactly the type of justification media companies want for eliminating fair use altogether, If we can't tell the difference.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing Mike's point
Next >>