It's not terribly surprising that the mittens would cost $300. I mean, she apparently buys more than 100 of them at a time, and johnny-ungrateful wants no more than 100. With only 100 mittens, why you might have to wear the same pair twice in a single cold season.
Precisely. Had CBS offered their own content online years ago, people would be coming to their site to watch the shows letting CBS monetize it how they wish. Instead, they left open a gap for someone to come in and serve their customers. They could have made a service that would make Dish irrelevant. They still can. But they choose the court room instead.
Re: Re: Re: i think of better things you want hidden
Actually, just tell them you're going to start following them around everywhere.
And then do it. If surreptitiously, send them a video or some other record of what they did. If not, make sure you are up next to them, close enough to hear phone conversations, read text messages/emails/etc. It'll freak them out.
That quote bothers me and is nothing but spin. Copyright isn't something the owner gets. It's something the government takes away from everyone but the owner. An exception in this case isn't limiting the property rights of the owner, it's restoring the rights to those it was taken away from.
I've been doing something similar. The idea is to make the experience worse so that your loved one can more easily kick the habit. Though I suspect this is safer than the asbestos I've been adding to my son's crack stash.
This is late because I was on vacation, and you'll probably never see this, but...
You are changing the goal posts here. Airplane mode and/or powering off are not the same as dimming the screen and putting it into vibrate mode, nor does airplane mode/powering off give you discounts. I did not say that you needed more than one button to put your phone in a state appropriate for a theater. I said if pushing one button to get your phone in a state appropriate for a theater AND getting discounts is a bad thing, then go without the discounts. Your phone can turn off with one button, so can mine. Your phone can go into airplane mode with one button, so can mine. But you won't get any discounts (and neither will I because I wouldn't install this app, but that is beside the point).
The government is just as interested in all your data as private companies are. SCOTUS ruled that your data is not protected by the 4th amendment if another holds it, so the government wants private companies to pay for the data collection and cross-linking, then they can swoop in with a warrant (or less) and get everything about you.
It's true that in general the government isn't interested in you. But once they do get interested in you, they want everything about you, whether it's relevant to the reason they originally got interested in you or not, and whether the original reason was related to crime or just simple curiosity.
If you consider an app that puts your phone into a mode with one button that takes other people more buttons and also rewards you with discounts for tapping that one button a bad thing, then by all means, push more buttons on your phone and go without the discounts.
So what if you shouldn't have to? You can continue your crusade against movie texters (which I'm not, so let's just head that discussion off) in a negative enforcement manner, but if positive enforcement works better then you'd be a fool to not use it.
Saying you shouldn't have to so you're not going to is the same mentality that copyright maximalists have. They say that people shouldn't be copying their works (texting in movies), they shouldn't have to change their business model (offer this app or discounts), etc. but in their case the negative enforcement is costing them a lot of time, money, effort, goodwill, etc (extra employees monitoring the theaters, signs, those commercials at the beginning of every movie cost money and annoy me, even though I agree with what they are trying to do) and yet still not doing anything to stop the copying (people are still texting during movies).
Sure you could up the ante and bring down heavier enforcement, but this app gives out benefits to people who text and to people who don't text. You make happy both people who are rude and people who agree with the cause. Sure it might cost something (the app and the discounts) but now you are building goodwill, return customers, and possibly getting the behavior you want (that's still to be seen). So who cares whether you should have to or not? If doing so leaves you and your customers better off, you'd be a fool not to do it.
This is what I came here to point out. Let's say the RIAA lawyers' interpretation of Locke was correct. Fine, the creator has his work. Copyright infringement, whether it be wholesale copying or use in another work, mashup, transformation, etc, is copying, not taking. The creator still has his work, now someone else ALSO has it. Creator is not deprived of his property.
These lawyers and everyone else needs to get it through their heads. Copyright is not property. It's not even a right. It's a limitation of everyone else's rights to make copies. Copyright doesn't grant you anything, it takes something away from everyone else.
I agree with you except for the attribution issue. I worry about having to attribute every last little thing. See Nina Paley's post about it. She says it much better than I could.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the purpose of Pirate Party's proxies? -- Infringement.
Can we just be done and say that copyright holders are facilitating copyright infringement until the they come up with unbreakable copy protections AND ensure that all of their newly created works (no matter what stage in the creation process[1]) are locked up in that unbreakable copy protection?
[1] Remember, internal leaks account for almost all pre-released infringing content, and a lot of post-release infringing content as well. So every step of the process needs to be unbreakably copyprotected. Sure, it's going to be hell to create stuff when a group of creators can't easily copy their work to each other, but that's what you get for wanting entitites further and further away from the actual infringement to be held responsible for facilitating said infringement.
Your book list or the book you are currently reading can be a private thing, and it doesn't have to be salacious or otherwise embarrassing stuff. Some people might get queasy if they knew you were reading about bombs, even though you don't intend to detonate one. Your boss might be interested in the fact that you are reading a book on how to get employed somewhere else, or about laws concerning working conditions, etc. Or maybe you just don't want anybody to know you are reading Charles Dickens.
The great thing about these screensavers is that the owner gets to decide what is private. If you want everyone to know you're reading list, feel free to share it. If someone else doesn't, they have that option.
This. I have read precisely two articles related to the shootings, and they were both from Techdirt today and that's only because I read all of the articles here. I first heard about it on the radio after work, and immediately turned off the radio. Have not watched the news (do I ever?) about it at all. It's not because I don't care about what happened, but because my instantaneous knowing of all the latest details and speculations doesn't do a thing for the people who are trying to cope. Let them grieve for crying out loud.
Society has sent a message that it is unacceptable. Society has also sent a message the picking your nose in public is unacceptable. People still do it, and it's perfectly legal to pick your nose. In a free and open society there are going to be people that don't follow the norms. That's part of a free society. Get over yourself.
No one is saying we want terrorists or possible-future-terrorists to love anyone; not even the title of this article. The report simply says that taking away avenues of speech is not only undesirable for a free and open society, it's also not effective. This is like the painter who said "I may be slow, but I'm shoddy." Why would you do something that both isn't conducive to a free society and doesn't do what was intended?
"It will be interesting to find out whether there are applications that will take advantage of a 1 Gbps service," Marcus said. "If there is, we will provide it.
That would be interesting Rob Marcus. You know what would also be interesting? If we slightly change that quote:
"It will be interesting to find out whether there are applications that will take advantage of an unlimited broadband service," Marcus said. "If there is, we will provide it.
Interesting indeed, and yet, TWC is doing all they can to introduce broadband caps.
My suspicion is that 97% accuracy number is way too generous. I bet there's a lot more that aren't legitimate. But Google is actually going beyond the law here to verify that the DMCA request is accurate. It's the filer who swore under penalty of perjury that it is, and Lenz v Universal taught the DMCA filers that they must consider fair use. Legally, Google doesn't have to do any verification, so any work they do is work (and money) they shouldn't have to spend. Given that, my guess is they are simply doing a very quick audit of file names or other basic checks.
Does it take longer to actually determine infringement? Absolutely.
Could the files really be fair use, public domain, or otherwise not copyright infringement? Certainly.
Is it Google's responsibility to determine that? Not in the slightest. But they do have an interest in not removing links from their search engine, or content from their other services, so they've added a basic check over and above what is their legal responsibility.
The real problem is that "under penalty of perjury" isn't really getting enforced, so there is no incentive on the part of the DMCA filers to get it right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
It could be a lot simpler. This is how bob wishes it would work.
1) Type "Batman" in the youtube search bar
2) Each result shows a "Remove from Youtube" button
3) He clicks the button (does not look at the actual video)
Once the button is clicked, the content disappears from Youtube, all Google accounts the submitter had are immediately zipped up and sent to the RIAA/MPAA before being deleted from Google servers (including backups), and an anonymous tip is sent to the FBI that a terrorist-funding kingpin has been found.
I don't care who funds it. Here's the difference: One is a powerful entity that can screw over your life, send you to prison, impose large fines, take away everything you have, etc; the other is not.
On the post: Amazon Patent Looks To Make Receiving Lousy Gifts A Thing Of The Past
Re: Re:
On the post: Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award?
Re:
On the post: Police Use HIPAA To Justify Charging Citizen For Recording Them
Re: Upload it!
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: i think of better things you want hidden
And then do it. If surreptitiously, send them a video or some other record of what they did. If not, make sure you are up next to them, close enough to hear phone conversations, read text messages/emails/etc. It'll freak them out.
Disclaimer: I have never done this.
On the post: Australia Says 'Let's Update Copyright For The Digital Economy;' Legacy Industries Say 'Let's Pretend It's Still 1968'
Re:
On the post: Dad Hires Digital Assassins To Murder His Son (Digitally)
Re: Re:
On the post: Rather Than Punishing Moviegoing Texters, Why Not Provide Incentives For Them To Put Down Their Phones?
Re: Re: Re:
You are changing the goal posts here. Airplane mode and/or powering off are not the same as dimming the screen and putting it into vibrate mode, nor does airplane mode/powering off give you discounts. I did not say that you needed more than one button to put your phone in a state appropriate for a theater. I said if pushing one button to get your phone in a state appropriate for a theater AND getting discounts is a bad thing, then go without the discounts. Your phone can turn off with one button, so can mine. Your phone can go into airplane mode with one button, so can mine. But you won't get any discounts (and neither will I because I wouldn't install this app, but that is beside the point).
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Re: Hammer them all
It's true that in general the government isn't interested in you. But once they do get interested in you, they want everything about you, whether it's relevant to the reason they originally got interested in you or not, and whether the original reason was related to crime or just simple curiosity.
On the post: Rather Than Punishing Moviegoing Texters, Why Not Provide Incentives For Them To Put Down Their Phones?
Re:
On the post: Rather Than Punishing Moviegoing Texters, Why Not Provide Incentives For Them To Put Down Their Phones?
Re: I don't agree
Saying you shouldn't have to so you're not going to is the same mentality that copyright maximalists have. They say that people shouldn't be copying their works (texting in movies), they shouldn't have to change their business model (offer this app or discounts), etc. but in their case the negative enforcement is costing them a lot of time, money, effort, goodwill, etc (extra employees monitoring the theaters, signs, those commercials at the beginning of every movie cost money and annoy me, even though I agree with what they are trying to do) and yet still not doing anything to stop the copying (people are still texting during movies).
Sure you could up the ante and bring down heavier enforcement, but this app gives out benefits to people who text and to people who don't text. You make happy both people who are rude and people who agree with the cause. Sure it might cost something (the app and the discounts) but now you are building goodwill, return customers, and possibly getting the behavior you want (that's still to be seen). So who cares whether you should have to or not? If doing so leaves you and your customers better off, you'd be a fool not to do it.
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Re:
These lawyers and everyone else needs to get it through their heads. Copyright is not property. It's not even a right. It's a limitation of everyone else's rights to make copies. Copyright doesn't grant you anything, it takes something away from everyone else.
On the post: The Fastest Growing Emerging Economies Are Also Those With The Weakest IP Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: BPI Threatens To Sue UK Pirate Party Leaders Personally Due To Internet Proxy
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the purpose of Pirate Party's proxies? -- Infringement.
[1] Remember, internal leaks account for almost all pre-released infringing content, and a lot of post-release infringing content as well. So every step of the process needs to be unbreakably copyprotected. Sure, it's going to be hell to create stuff when a group of creators can't easily copy their work to each other, but that's what you get for wanting entitites further and further away from the actual infringement to be held responsible for facilitating said infringement.
On the post: Buy Your Kindle At Waterstones? You're Now Locked Into One Screensaver... The Waterstones Logo
Re: Re: Re:
The great thing about these screensavers is that the owner gets to decide what is private. If you want everyone to know you're reading list, feel free to share it. If someone else doesn't, they have that option.
On the post: Pundits And Politicans Very Quick To Blame Video Game & Movie Violence For Newtown
Re:
On the post: Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us
Re: WTF
No one is saying we want terrorists or possible-future-terrorists to love anyone; not even the title of this article. The report simply says that taking away avenues of speech is not only undesirable for a free and open society, it's also not effective. This is like the painter who said "I may be slow, but I'm shoddy." Why would you do something that both isn't conducive to a free society and doesn't do what was intended?
On the post: Time Warner Cable Doesn't Think There's Demand For Google Fiber
Re:
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
Does it take longer to actually determine infringement? Absolutely.
Could the files really be fair use, public domain, or otherwise not copyright infringement? Certainly.
Is it Google's responsibility to determine that? Not in the slightest. But they do have an interest in not removing links from their search engine, or content from their other services, so they've added a basic check over and above what is their legal responsibility.
The real problem is that "under penalty of perjury" isn't really getting enforced, so there is no incentive on the part of the DMCA filers to get it right.
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
1) Type "Batman" in the youtube search bar
2) Each result shows a "Remove from Youtube" button
3) He clicks the button (does not look at the actual video)
Once the button is clicked, the content disappears from Youtube, all Google accounts the submitter had are immediately zipped up and sent to the RIAA/MPAA before being deleted from Google servers (including backups), and an anonymous tip is sent to the FBI that a terrorist-funding kingpin has been found.
On the post: Homeland Security Pays San Francisco To Buy Surveillance Equipment That Records Video AND Audio On City Buses
Re: Re: I'm a bit confused
Next >>