I found this following at cbsnews.com. Further searching turned up this article at USA Today.
Looks like the parents put the kid in an unsteady chair, he started to fall and grabbed a food tray with the cheese on it to steady himself. The cheese fell and hit his face. He was treated at a local hospital and released.
My question is... why did the parent's have a toddler in an unsteady chair to begin with? Babies, toddlers and small children are not known for their dexterity or ability to sit still. It's likely the cheese was on the hot side, but the parents are also at fault for putting the child in an unsteady chair to begin with. To be honest, I believe it's the parents actions that precipitated the event and they are the ones that should deal with the repercussions.
/my oldest son had an accident in a store at age 4
//split lip requiring 8 stitches
///did not sue, didn't even consider it
You missed the part where you don't actually have to pay to get files from Hotfile. The premium membership is so that you get to skip advertisements and get to the download a little faster. If you really don't care about the ads or can tolerate them, you can get the file the same as any premium member.
Think of it as a VIP pass to the download line. You pay the fee, you get to go to the front of the line. Since they have an infinite supply, as long as you're patient, you'll get your copy.
I didn't read it as a justification for stealing. It's more of an example for corporations to help them understand that people's attitudes towards piracy are partly due to frustration.
To put on my "old man" hat for a second, it used to be that "Adrian Verne" in the UK would never have known that version 4 was out unless he had friends in the USA who used the app. He would have seen that the most recent version in stores was v3 and bought that. Unfortunately, in the current age of instant communication, everyone around the world has the ability to find out that version 4 has shipped.
Can you honestly say that you'd be happy to hear that while there's a newer version of a product out, the company won't sell it to you because you happened to be born in the "wrong" country? Even worse, when you contact the company to find out if there's an option for you to eventually get that latest version, you're stonewalled? Finally, given major corporations fanatic obsession with alerting the public about piracy in their attempts to stamp it out, is it any wonder that more and more people see it as an option, even if it's contrary to written law?
More and more, because of corporate overreach, I'm seeing people react to copyright and patents the same way they react to speed limits. They're seeing it as a guideline of where the boundries are supposed to be, but also realize that it's also yet another way for someone else to separate you from your money. Some people still follow the limit. Others go over, but only by a few miles an hour. A few reckless folks ignore the limits completely and run the risk of getting caught.
Something has to change because the system, as it stands, is horribly broken. Unfortunately, the corporations have all the power right now, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Oh, but you just used the words to descibe the sporting event last night. Did you pay the appropriate license fee to the NFL for that? After all, they own the copyright.
Are you being sued by a copyright attorney?
Do you believe you've been falsely accused?
Are you part of the defendant class in a class action copyright lawsuit?
Then call Wegonna, Fightem & Getrich to sign up for our class defense package and join the hundreds who have already signed up. Share the burden of your expenses with others in the same situation. Depending on your circumstances, we may even work on a pro bono basis if you assign fees and damages to us!!!
Let's put this in physical terms so that you have a point of comparison.
Say we meet outside a cybercafe. You tell me you'd like a DVD copy of the movie Red w/ Bruce Willis. I say sure and hand you a custom made DVD case with a hand drawn label that I created myself and say "you can get a copy of the movie in there". You then go into the cybercafe, download a torrent of the movie, burn it to DVD and place it inside the box. You then go outside and tell me "Thanks for the movie". At no point did I tell you whether or not obtaining the movie was legal in your current jurisdiction, I just told you a location where you COULD get it.
This is almost the same as embedding. The sites that are getting seized are doing nothing more than providing a created wrapper. You, the user, via your computer and web browser are actually contacting a SECOND site and making a copy of the content from the SECOND site. The first site (the one getting seized) is doing nothing more than telling YOU where to go so that YOU can perform the infringement.
While the underlying acts were illegal, it wasn't CL doing the advertising - it was the users. Yes, CL put in filters, but only after the AG's started raising the issue.
First they wanted filters. Then they wanted age verification. Finally, the AG's came in and said "remove it or get sued". Each time, it was prefaced with a public news conference and public lambasting of CL. Never once did the press stop to ask "how will blocking this one channel solve the underlying problem" or, as Gordon above pointed out, "why can't you use this tool to locate and capture the predators instead of getting them to hide deeper".
And if you think hiding it makes it that much harder for the public to get involved, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, they may have to spend an extra 5 minutes searching, but for the people participating, that 5 minutes is trivial. Even if it's an extra hour or two, will that really stop them?
You say it's not about stopping them all, but what about the biggest offenders? Use the tools available to build a case and get them locked up. Instead of actually protecting their electorate, all they did was drive the trade out of the public eye making it that much harder for the police to stop them in an effort to win the next election.
I think the press should take part of the blame here. The AG's hold their press conferences and the media lap up their diatribes without question and pass them along to their readers/watchers. At no point do they bother to do any investigation or questioning of what's being said.
For example, take the attack on Craigslist adult personals. The claim was that it had to be shut down to stop human trafficking and prostitution. At no point did anyone publicly ask "specifically how will shutting down Craigslist adult personals accomplish this instead of just driving the perpetrators to other unknown channels?"
As Chris Tolles pointed out, it's the public reaction the AG's are using as their stick, not the law and not common sense. If only we could find a way to get the press back to a point where they ask relevant and occasionally difficult to answer questions. Of course, since news is now entertainment instead of true information reporting, we know that will never happen.
... as they've already pissed off some people. I've been getting the "log in please" prompt for months now and have completely stopped clicking on NYT links. If the story interests me that much, a quick Google search usually turns up 5-10 other sources that are just as, if not more detailed.
You should now expect a call from Warner Brothers Pictures for infringing on their property "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and the trademark phrase from the movie... :-)
So by your logic, the major labels should have their web sites taken off the Internet and credit processors should no longer deal with them since they performed over 300,000 acts of copyright infringement in Canada.... right? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Or do you really mean that only the sites the major labels don't like and the labels get to do whatever they want.
With regard to Twitter, I think it depends on the celebrity. Some are in it for themselves (the aforementioned 50 cent), some are in it for self-promotion (Steve Martin and his occasional plugs for events or his music) and some are in it to promote but also communicate and share (Wil Wheaton). As kyle clements says above, authenticity and relevance can make a big difference and if advertisers paid attention to that, their ads would likely be a lot more effective.
I was going to make a snide comment about a correction needed (security => security THEATER), but figured I'd go read the blog first. As I was skimming through the comments, I ran across this entry which exemplifies exactly why it's nothing more than theater and until every airport everywhere is "secured":
So if scanning and/or patting down is CRITICAL to security, why aren't you patting people down at airports that don't have these scanners? How stupid do you think these terrorist are that they wouldn't go to a small regional airport, get through the metal detectors, and fly to a major airport...pat downs and scanners easily avoided by the ones you are really trying to catch.
1) The major labels end up paying $45 million for over 300,000 cases on infringement. That works out to $150 per incident and yet they want $150,000 per incident here in the USA.
2) The labels get to CONTINUE to perform the acts of infringement as long as they "promise" to pay the artists infringed against in a "timely" fashion.
Yeah... and they wonder why we call them two-faced...
I'm reading the latest Stephen King book and the story 1922 has that year as it's initial setting. At a couple places in the story, characters mention party lines that were common back then. I see the Internet as very similar to a party line in that it allows people from mutliple locations to carry on a conversation simultaneously and feel as if they "belong" to the group - whether or not that is actually true. It also has the side effect of keeping some people OUT of the conversation when they don't make an effort to participate - much like the main character who does not have a party line.
On the post: Forget Hot Coffee, Now Disney Is Sued For Severe Burns From Nacho Cheese
Picture worth 1000 words...
Looks like the parents put the kid in an unsteady chair, he started to fall and grabbed a food tray with the cheese on it to steady himself. The cheese fell and hit his face. He was treated at a local hospital and released.
My question is... why did the parent's have a toddler in an unsteady chair to begin with? Babies, toddlers and small children are not known for their dexterity or ability to sit still. It's likely the cheese was on the hot side, but the parents are also at fault for putting the child in an unsteady chair to begin with. To be honest, I believe it's the parents actions that precipitated the event and they are the ones that should deal with the repercussions.
/my oldest son had an accident in a store at age 4
//split lip requiring 8 stitches
///did not sue, didn't even consider it
On the post: Recording Industry Persecution Complex: Claiming EMI's Plight Is Due To File Sharing
Semi-appropriate
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110209
On the post: MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile
Re:
Think of it as a VIP pass to the download line. You pay the fee, you get to go to the front of the line. Since they have an infinite supply, as long as you're patient, you'll get your copy.
On the post: If You Don't Offer Legit Versions, Is It That Big A Surprise That People Want Unauthorized Copies?
Re: Re: Consumer is the king
To put on my "old man" hat for a second, it used to be that "Adrian Verne" in the UK would never have known that version 4 was out unless he had friends in the USA who used the app. He would have seen that the most recent version in stores was v3 and bought that. Unfortunately, in the current age of instant communication, everyone around the world has the ability to find out that version 4 has shipped.
Can you honestly say that you'd be happy to hear that while there's a newer version of a product out, the company won't sell it to you because you happened to be born in the "wrong" country? Even worse, when you contact the company to find out if there's an option for you to eventually get that latest version, you're stonewalled? Finally, given major corporations fanatic obsession with alerting the public about piracy in their attempts to stamp it out, is it any wonder that more and more people see it as an option, even if it's contrary to written law?
More and more, because of corporate overreach, I'm seeing people react to copyright and patents the same way they react to speed limits. They're seeing it as a guideline of where the boundries are supposed to be, but also realize that it's also yet another way for someone else to separate you from your money. Some people still follow the limit. Others go over, but only by a few miles an hour. A few reckless folks ignore the limits completely and run the risk of getting caught.
Something has to change because the system, as it stands, is horribly broken. Unfortunately, the corporations have all the power right now, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Pay up Joe!!
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
I can see the results if granted now...
Do you believe you've been falsely accused?
Are you part of the defendant class in a class action copyright lawsuit?
Then call Wegonna, Fightem & Getrich to sign up for our class defense package and join the hundreds who have already signed up. Share the burden of your expenses with others in the same situation. Depending on your circumstances, we may even work on a pro bono basis if you assign fees and damages to us!!!
Call today and don't go it alone!!
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Say we meet outside a cybercafe. You tell me you'd like a DVD copy of the movie Red w/ Bruce Willis. I say sure and hand you a custom made DVD case with a hand drawn label that I created myself and say "you can get a copy of the movie in there". You then go into the cybercafe, download a torrent of the movie, burn it to DVD and place it inside the box. You then go outside and tell me "Thanks for the movie". At no point did I tell you whether or not obtaining the movie was legal in your current jurisdiction, I just told you a location where you COULD get it.
This is almost the same as embedding. The sites that are getting seized are doing nothing more than providing a created wrapper. You, the user, via your computer and web browser are actually contacting a SECOND site and making a copy of the content from the SECOND site. The first site (the one getting seized) is doing nothing more than telling YOU where to go so that YOU can perform the infringement.
/programmer for 25+ years
On the post: Why Have We Let State AGs Become De Facto Internet Regulators?
Re: Re: Easy answer....
First they wanted filters. Then they wanted age verification. Finally, the AG's came in and said "remove it or get sued". Each time, it was prefaced with a public news conference and public lambasting of CL. Never once did the press stop to ask "how will blocking this one channel solve the underlying problem" or, as Gordon above pointed out, "why can't you use this tool to locate and capture the predators instead of getting them to hide deeper".
And if you think hiding it makes it that much harder for the public to get involved, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, they may have to spend an extra 5 minutes searching, but for the people participating, that 5 minutes is trivial. Even if it's an extra hour or two, will that really stop them?
You say it's not about stopping them all, but what about the biggest offenders? Use the tools available to build a case and get them locked up. Instead of actually protecting their electorate, all they did was drive the trade out of the public eye making it that much harder for the police to stop them in an effort to win the next election.
On the post: Why Have We Let State AGs Become De Facto Internet Regulators?
Easy answer....
For example, take the attack on Craigslist adult personals. The claim was that it had to be shut down to stop human trafficking and prostitution. At no point did anyone publicly ask "specifically how will shutting down Craigslist adult personals accomplish this instead of just driving the perpetrators to other unknown channels?"
As Chris Tolles pointed out, it's the public reaction the AG's are using as their stick, not the law and not common sense. If only we could find a way to get the press back to a point where they ask relevant and occasionally difficult to answer questions. Of course, since news is now entertainment instead of true information reporting, we know that will never happen.
On the post: Metered Bandwidth Isn't About Stopping The Bandwidth Hogs; It's About Preserving Old Media Business Models
Re: Bad practice forced on competitors
http://i.imgur.com/M3G7f.png
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Time for the police to step in?
The CopyRight Automated Police have added $0.99 to your next monthly Internet bill for copying text from a techdirt.com blog post into your comment on the techdirt.com thread found at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110129/23354512882/just-under-100000-sued-mass-copyright-infringe ment-suits-since-start-2010.shtml
Please pay you bill promptly and have a nice day!
On the post: Details Leak For The NY Times Paywall
Too late...
/bye bye NYT
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Obviously there's only one way to settle this
On the post: Third Parties Increasingly Targeted In Infringement Cases
Re:
Or do you really mean that only the sites the major labels don't like and the labels get to do whatever they want.
/somehow, I think it's the latter.
On the post: Still Trying To Track Down Who Controls Patent Used Against Reddit, Digg, Fark, Slashdot & TechCrunch
Simple...
It doesn't, but don't expect the lawyers and IP maximilists to agree with you on that.
On the post: Celebrity Endorsement Deals Almost Always A Bad Deal For Brands
Re:
On the post: TSA Warns That If You Wear Scanner Resistant Clothing, They'll Have To Grope You
So if scanning and/or patting down is CRITICAL to security, why aren't you patting people down at airports that don't have these scanners? How stupid do you think these terrorist are that they wouldn't go to a small regional airport, get through the metal detectors, and fly to a major airport...pat downs and scanners easily avoided by the ones you are really trying to catch.
January 7, 2011 9:16 PM
On the post: Major Record Labels Agree To Pay $45 Million For Copyright Infringement In Canada
Re: Let me see if I get this right...
* cases of infringement
On the post: Major Record Labels Agree To Pay $45 Million For Copyright Infringement In Canada
Let me see if I get this right...
2) The labels get to CONTINUE to perform the acts of infringement as long as they "promise" to pay the artists infringed against in a "timely" fashion.
Yeah... and they wonder why we call them two-faced...
On the post: Community Is About Enabling People To Be Heard; And You Need Community To Succeed Online
An OLD analogy...
Next >>