Hohoho! Except you can't exercise free speech on their own dime either.
If you have any kind of signage that opposes or bad mouths Olympics, even if it's on private property, the police will have the right to bust down your door to take it down.
It's not really Vancouver's winter olympics, but more like the Beijin Olympics all over again.
Vancouver has sinked so low that we have similar tactics with China...
P.S. I am a Canadian living in Vancouver and it's not pretty down here right now...
She didn't try to write the law, she is "open to reasonable argument" whereas some people are "close to any argument."
We all know that laws are written loosely for judges/lawyers to interpret it. That's why you see the most obscure laws being applied in places not intented to.
You are using activists in a derogatory way. If you dislike "activists" so much, perhaps you should consider moving to China. The Chinese government will protect you from any "activists" that you are so afraid of.
I think a lot of comments in this post is really missing the point.
No one is here to argue about To Ban or Not to Ban. That issue is already passed. The glitch is disruptive to regular player so ppl are told not to do it and if you do you'll get a temporary ban so you won't cause grief to other players.
HOWEVER, what MS is doing is banning people completely off Xbox live, which seems to be overly broad and over the top. Xbox is a device that ties into the online service so much that if you cannot connect to xbox live, the machine is quite useless.
If you have problem comprehending the issue, consider this. A person is found to repeatly yelling in a library disrupting all other users. However, the city government sent him a notice to ban him from all city owned facilities including but not limit to, the library, the swimming pool, the skating arena, the motor vehicle branch, the city hall building, public parks...etc. How is that an appropriate action?
MS is either overdoing the punishment, or they simply lack the ability to ban an account from using one single service inside Xbox live services. If it's the first then they are a whole bunch of a**holes. If it's the latter then it's really something they have to implement, quickly.
either way, MS is really demonstrating how one should NOT buy an xbox because MS can tread all over you, when it wants and however it want.
Whenever you "demand" someone to do something, you effectively shuts down the conversation and decrease the chance of influencing others to do your bidding. The word "demand" or a carefully crafted letter with various legal threats just piss.people.off, like DMCA take down notices.
If any of those PR ppl are reading this. Have you ever heard of good will?
PR people, I thought you guys are professionals? How did you miss this negotiation 101? Or do you believe that you are powerful enough like the King of Ye Olde England who can behead anyone who has an opinion you don't like?
It was never like that, ever. Not capitalist government, not communist government, not conservatives nor liberals. Not jewish, not muslim, not christian, not buddist nor atheist. Not black, brown, yellow nor white.
to be honest, the whole ACTA thing just leaves me with feelings of defeat.
Limited number of people KNOWS something the general public doesn't know. However, we are SO POWERLESS to stop them. The general public is either apathetic or ignorant. They don't give a damn! Most of them won't realize that the army is coming until someone busted their doors and pointed a gun on their head.
It's nice to see we are fighting back and those involved in ACTA is fighting back, but they are all JUST TALKS.
That hideous thing is still going on as we fight a stupid flame war on paper/blog/Internet. No matter what we said, no matter what we do, they are still full steam ahead.
Does people have to start pouring gasoline on themselves and burn in front of the white house before anyone gives a damn on what we say?
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set up a process—called the Selectable Output Control (SOC) rule—that would enable us to provide that protection so content owners have the confidence they need to distribute their high-value content sooner."
No they didn't set that up. YOU and YOUR BUDDIES proposed that and you want FCC to force everyone to implement it. And FCC has NOT set that up and in fact strike the idea down couple times already.
He's trying to spin it making it sound like FCC has already approved it, and all you oppositions are going against FCC's regulation. Shouldn't this be illegal to falsely representing a government body?
One of the commentor on ars I strongly agrees with.
If they so desperately need this, just talk to the consumer electronic manufactures to produce units that contains SOC.
If this really is a CHOICE given to consumers then let both types of equipments which does or does not contain SOC exists in the market. If you want early content releases, go head and buy equipments with the added "enhancement". If you don't, just buy a regular equipment.
Instead, they go crying to FCC to have this implemented on EVERYTHING.
Why is that?
Because they themselves and CE manufactures know that the so called "enhanced" products will be a bomb and no one will buy them except a very tiny percentage of people.
The iPod example he raises is highly misleading. Apple didn't force EVERYONE to use their DRM. They didn't ask FCC to make every single audio player to adhere to their DRM. On the other hand, pro-SOC lobbyist are.
What I find in McSlarrow's article is that at first glance it all looks good and nice. However, the more times you read it the more you find it deceiving. The problem is that an average person probably won't read into it as much as us so this kind of junk still works.
Hey AC, do you know what "Google bomb" is? If you don't, look it up on wiki.
Now after you learned about google bombing, tell me if it's a good idea that the world know about how google's algorithm works and EVERY WEBSITE tries to google bomb itself.
Now it's not that good of an idea for google to discuss their algorithm anymore isn't it?
to be honest, I would be quite interested in those incidents if they are okay to be published and you are willing.
It probably could be turn into an essay or a in-dept article.
"Techdirt vs copyright trolls: a study of invalid copyright claims and frivilous lawsuits", in which you will find, let say, 10 case studies showing the most common invalid claims.
In fact, it might be a good educational/reference for other bloggers that might be facing simliar challenges...
On the post: DigiProtect Now Handing Pre-Settlement Threat Amounts Over To Collections Agencies
Re: FDCPA
Do you actually have DEBT they are trying to collect?
I am sure any "rational" country would have law to punish people who try to collect non-existant debt on you.
at least I hope that's the case...
On the post: Vancouver Olympics Silences Indie Rock Acts With Contractual Gag Order
Re: Biting the hand that feeds?
If you have any kind of signage that opposes or bad mouths Olympics, even if it's on private property, the police will have the right to bust down your door to take it down.
It's not really Vancouver's winter olympics, but more like the Beijin Olympics all over again.
Vancouver has sinked so low that we have similar tactics with China...
P.S. I am a Canadian living in Vancouver and it's not pretty down here right now...
On the post: Judge Finalizes Tenenbaum Ruling, Trashes Nesson For Chaotically Bad Defense
Re:
We all know that laws are written loosely for judges/lawyers to interpret it. That's why you see the most obscure laws being applied in places not intented to.
You are using activists in a derogatory way. If you dislike "activists" so much, perhaps you should consider moving to China. The Chinese government will protect you from any "activists" that you are so afraid of.
On the post: Judge Finalizes Tenenbaum Ruling, Trashes Nesson For Chaotically Bad Defense
Re: Re: Lost opportunity
On the post: SOCAN Wants To Charge Buskers Performance Fees
probably something to do with the olympics
Maybe they think the buskers will make a fortune from all the tourist and they want a cut.
On the post: Does It Make Sense To Ban Players From Xbox Live Just For Using A Glitch?
Lots of people missing the point
No one is here to argue about To Ban or Not to Ban. That issue is already passed. The glitch is disruptive to regular player so ppl are told not to do it and if you do you'll get a temporary ban so you won't cause grief to other players.
HOWEVER, what MS is doing is banning people completely off Xbox live, which seems to be overly broad and over the top. Xbox is a device that ties into the online service so much that if you cannot connect to xbox live, the machine is quite useless.
If you have problem comprehending the issue, consider this. A person is found to repeatly yelling in a library disrupting all other users. However, the city government sent him a notice to ban him from all city owned facilities including but not limit to, the library, the swimming pool, the skating arena, the motor vehicle branch, the city hall building, public parks...etc. How is that an appropriate action?
MS is either overdoing the punishment, or they simply lack the ability to ban an account from using one single service inside Xbox live services. If it's the first then they are a whole bunch of a**holes. If it's the latter then it's really something they have to implement, quickly.
either way, MS is really demonstrating how one should NOT buy an xbox because MS can tread all over you, when it wants and however it want.
On the post: Yes, We Can Write Our Opinions Without Contacting The Company We're Writing About First
PR people? really?
If any of those PR ppl are reading this. Have you ever heard of good will?
PR people, I thought you guys are professionals? How did you miss this negotiation 101? Or do you believe that you are powerful enough like the King of Ye Olde England who can behead anyone who has an opinion you don't like?
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re:
On the post: No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction'
Re:
It was never like that, ever. Not capitalist government, not communist government, not conservatives nor liberals. Not jewish, not muslim, not christian, not buddist nor atheist. Not black, brown, yellow nor white.
The world has never run that way, ever.
On the post: No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction'
Limited number of people KNOWS something the general public doesn't know. However, we are SO POWERLESS to stop them. The general public is either apathetic or ignorant. They don't give a damn! Most of them won't realize that the army is coming until someone busted their doors and pointed a gun on their head.
It's nice to see we are fighting back and those involved in ACTA is fighting back, but they are all JUST TALKS.
That hideous thing is still going on as we fight a stupid flame war on paper/blog/Internet. No matter what we said, no matter what we do, they are still full steam ahead.
Does people have to start pouring gasoline on themselves and burn in front of the white house before anyone gives a damn on what we say?
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
Re:
I think people are right that if you get paid then you are considered professional, regardless of how much time you spend it.
You can stop being modest, we don't mind. ;-)
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
Re:
The deal is that if you copy for yourself it's probably okay, but if a retailer do it then it's not so okay since there is profit involved.
I have to say Walmart is just looking out for it's own ass and doesn't care about anything else. But we all know that already don't we?
On the post: Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders
Re:
On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies
Re:
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set up a process—called the Selectable Output Control (SOC) rule—that would enable us to provide that protection so content owners have the confidence they need to distribute their high-value content sooner."
No they didn't set that up. YOU and YOUR BUDDIES proposed that and you want FCC to force everyone to implement it. And FCC has NOT set that up and in fact strike the idea down couple times already.
He's trying to spin it making it sound like FCC has already approved it, and all you oppositions are going against FCC's regulation. Shouldn't this be illegal to falsely representing a government body?
On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies
If they so desperately need this, just talk to the consumer electronic manufactures to produce units that contains SOC.
If this really is a CHOICE given to consumers then let both types of equipments which does or does not contain SOC exists in the market. If you want early content releases, go head and buy equipments with the added "enhancement". If you don't, just buy a regular equipment.
Instead, they go crying to FCC to have this implemented on EVERYTHING.
Why is that?
Because they themselves and CE manufactures know that the so called "enhanced" products will be a bomb and no one will buy them except a very tiny percentage of people.
The iPod example he raises is highly misleading. Apple didn't force EVERYONE to use their DRM. They didn't ask FCC to make every single audio player to adhere to their DRM. On the other hand, pro-SOC lobbyist are.
What I find in McSlarrow's article is that at first glance it all looks good and nice. However, the more times you read it the more you find it deceiving. The problem is that an average person probably won't read into it as much as us so this kind of junk still works.
It's a sad world.
On the post: China Says Microsoft Violates IP With Windows, Bars Sales
Re:
good job Mike. XD
On the post: China Says Microsoft Violates IP With Windows, Bars Sales
Should I pat myself on the shoulder for a good job predicting this would happen in my previous comment?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1354186007.shtml#c176
On the post: Jenzabar Finds 'Expert Witness' Who Will Claim Google Relies On Metatags, Despite Google Saying It Does Not
Re:
Now after you learned about google bombing, tell me if it's a good idea that the world know about how google's algorithm works and EVERY WEBSITE tries to google bomb itself.
Now it's not that good of an idea for google to discuss their algorithm anymore isn't it?
On the post: Poet's Son Says No One Can Quote Father Without Paying Up... Even Academic Dissertations...
Re: Re: I have to ask, Mike....
It probably could be turn into an essay or a in-dept article.
"Techdirt vs copyright trolls: a study of invalid copyright claims and frivilous lawsuits", in which you will find, let say, 10 case studies showing the most common invalid claims.
In fact, it might be a good educational/reference for other bloggers that might be facing simliar challenges...
what do you say? XD
On the post: Viacom's General Counsel Lecture On Copyright Leaves Out Certain Facts
Re: Re:
Next >>