I would like to add that I'm actually prepared to pay even these high prices, as long as someone (OH GOD PLEASE SOMEONE!) starts offering me the products/services I want.
Every time someone talks about how much money the contentindustry is loosing I always ask "what's wrong with MY money!?".
"So those that want to engage in free speech have set up their own DNS."
There, fixed it for ya!
Secondly; do you REALLY believe that no innocent will get hurt by this? Under what rock have you been hiding? Have you not read all the mad lists of "rogue sites" that the "experts" want "taken care of"?
"[...] but I guess as long as it makes sure that Universal and Warner Bros. can prop up their profits for a few more years... it's all good."
But this won't help anyone's profits. It will help WB and Universal to feel like nothing is changing for a little while longer, but it won't ACTUALLY change anything.
The first one, with the submission, is NOT a transfer of rights, it just means that you assign them a license (potentially an unlimited one). You still have the right to do whatever you want with it though.
Should you WIN however, you transfer all your rights to the work, meaning that you can't do anything with it anymore.
1. Because it's not the marketers that agreed to the license, it's the original customer. I have a feeling that it would be hard to lay the blame on the resellers.
But mostly it's because they (EA and so on) still thinks that the "brick and mortar" stores are the most important ones, and don't want to screw with them to much.
I don't get it. What's the point in being "first" on something like this? You will at best beat the competition by a couple of minutes!
If it was a brand new story that no one else knew about, that would be one thing, but "breaking" a ruling in a case like this is worthless. Especially if you add the possibility of screwing it up like this.
Even if they hadn't pushed the "wrong button", there would still be the risk of being called out on the fact that you made pretty much everything up. Is that risk REALLY worth those extra minutes?
You're not a programmer are you? I think the idea was that the function would always return 0, which means that everything would come back as "infringing" (or rather "not appoved" (sic)). ;-)
On the post: One Of The Most Successful NY Startups... Is Dedicated To Infringing Activities (According To The Entertainment Industry)
Re: Re:
Every time someone talks about how much money the contentindustry is loosing I always ask "what's wrong with MY money!?".
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
Re:
There, fixed it for ya!
Secondly; do you REALLY believe that no innocent will get hurt by this? Under what rock have you been hiding? Have you not read all the mad lists of "rogue sites" that the "experts" want "taken care of"?
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
But this won't help anyone's profits. It will help WB and Universal to feel like nothing is changing for a little while longer, but it won't ACTUALLY change anything.
On the post: Belgian Court Orders Blocking Of The Wrong PirateBay Domain
Re: Re: "the-technoligically-clueless" -- Those who can't spell?
Ever heard of RSS? ;-)
On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should you WIN however, you transfer all your rights to the work, meaning that you can't do anything with it anymore.
On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead
Safe?
And has everyone really gotten a nice big lock on their mailboxes nowadays?
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Re: Re: Games
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Re: Re: Games
But mostly it's because they (EA and so on) still thinks that the "brick and mortar" stores are the most important ones, and don't want to screw with them to much.
(Obviously I'm just guessing)
2. I believe it was Redbox.
On the post: Amanda Knox Is Guilty... Of Making Newspapers Jump The Gun On Guilty Headlines
Why first?
If it was a brand new story that no one else knew about, that would be one thing, but "breaking" a ruling in a case like this is worthless. Especially if you add the possibility of screwing it up like this.
Even if they hadn't pushed the "wrong button", there would still be the risk of being called out on the fact that you made pretty much everything up. Is that risk REALLY worth those extra minutes?
On the post: Phony Bologna: More Evidence Of Indiscriminate Pepper Spraying, As Police Defend Actions
Re:
On the post: Phony Bologna: More Evidence Of Indiscriminate Pepper Spraying, As Police Defend Actions
Re: Time for a few federal arrests.
On the post: Usenet Provider Ordered To Wave Magic Wand And Make Infringing Content Disappear
On the post: Usenet Provider Ordered To Wave Magic Wand And Make Infringing Content Disappear
Re: Re: One more money waster by BREIN
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: Re: Re: DENIAL of service
On the post: Usenet Provider Ordered To Wave Magic Wand And Make Infringing Content Disappear
Re: Re: oh mikey
What about text? What about pictures? What about music? You will be hard pressed to throw those out with a size cap.
And here's the kicker; the company will be on the hook for a crapload of money if someone finds a picture that's copyrighted.
No sane company takes that risk. Which means that the only way to comply with the courtorder is to shut down.
There is no other way.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re:
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: Re:
Then again, it probably is just a case of most people not knowing the difference.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Usenet Provider Ordered To Wave Magic Wand And Make Infringing Content Disappear
Re: Re:
You're not a programmer are you? I think the idea was that the function would always return 0, which means that everything would come back as "infringing" (or rather "not appoved" (sic)). ;-)
On the post: FBI Successful In Breaking Up Yet Another Of Its Own Plots To Bomb The US
Re: What I've read...
Next >>