I actually think "tinfoil hat stuff" is usually just as good to read. See, I read the articles Mike posts but I form my own opinion. Yeah, I read Mike's opinion too, as I like taking in everybody's opinions when I can (if I read every comment on every article I'd go bonkers!) and while there does seem to be an increase in the "tinfoil hat" type stories, I find it to be because the governments of the world (I am Australian and ours isn't any better than the US government!) are doing more things lately that would justify this kind of story.
I don't wear a tin foil hat myself. I don't believe they would be effective. [sarc]If it was that simple to stop "alien mind probes" then the aliens obviously need to develop better mind probing technology.[/sarc] Besides: We only have aluminium foil now, not tin foil.
"It doesn't matter who you are doing business with, if you need the piracy infrastructure to make your model work, you are sort of failing to me."
Dear AC, there is no such thing as piracy infrastructure. The unauthorized distribution of files on the internet is happening on infrastructure that was designed to carry files regardless of authorization. USENET was originally designed for news bulletins (hence "bulletin board service"), BitTorrent is a way to distribute large files (such as OpenOffice or Linux) and even the codecs, such as MP3, were developed for a reason other than to be "piracy infrastructure" (MP3 was developed, I believe, for use in digital radio!) ~ Yes, all of these things are used extensively for "piracy", I will not deny that, but, as has been pointed out more times than a paranoid buys tinfoil to buy hats, it does also have very legitimate, legal, authorized uses.
Think of it this way: Would you rather work for a steady pay or work freelance in the hopes of getting paid? Kirby's work may have value now, but back then he needed value on the spot (i.e. to be paid) to support his family.
In my opinion the whole situation is bullshit: Kirby got ripped off but on the other hand, why should his heirs now reap the rewards for his work? Why should Marvel/Disney make money off work done 30+ years ago? But, when you think about it, why SHOULDN'T they all make money off it?
If the characters were all public domain by now (and, let's face it, this applies EQUALLY to DC and Marvel) I think there'd still be a market for them (obviously there would be), comic book artists and writers could make their own comics of these characters (thus adding value to the characters) plus the OFFICIAL versions would still come from Marvel and DC.
When I found out that Marvel had been bought by Disney, I was genuinely surprised. It's totally unlike their main division's output. But then I realised that Disney had probably bought Marvel for the same reason that Warner Bros still holds on to DC: They need SOMETHING to keep the ideas flowing for movies.
"Maybe you should start posting about the wicked old witch"
Well, there's currently some copyright debates going on THERE at the moment, too. Apart from the fact that the movie is now PUBLIC DOMAIN in almost every country EXCEPTING for the United States, a judge has recently declared that the MANNERISMS of characters depicted in the movie may be the subject of copyright.
So mock discussing comic books and family movies all you like, when copyright law is extended just to protect the copyright on some cartoons about a MOUSE that are from 1928, it is still appropriate for the subject of copyright.
And what about us people who don't live in the United States who don't get the legitimate option anyway. What are we supposed to do? Where's our legal options?
"Sons Of Anarchy" took two years to get to Australia and then it wound up on the channel oneHD which not everybody can get unless they have a high definition digital tuner AND live in an area that actually GETS that channel. And if we miss an episode? Wait for the DVD? Oh, OK, we'll play by the rules and wait until September to see it. Unless, of course, the DVD company changes their mind (which probably won't happen for "Sons Of Anarchy" but HAS happened for other shows!)
Why? Because I don't live in the United States, I must therefore be a second class citizen who has to wait for Hollywood to finish screwing around and get the content to the WORLD. And the world is a pretty big market.
Sure, our local channels offer what they call "Catch up TV" with SOME shows streaming - assuming that they can get the streaming rights (well done ABC Australia there) but that's assuming that we have high speed internet access which a LOT of Australians don't yet (because they CAN'T get it and I'm talking infrastructure here, not price)
You know, I'm gonna stop now or I'll end up on my "video on demand" rant which always falls on deaf ears anyway. I demand a video on demand service. The best way of getting one outside of the United States? ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS!
>>>Sung to the tune of "My Heart Will Go On"
Every night in my room
I hear it, I fear it
The high pitched voice of Ms Dion
They play it on the AM
The TV, The FM
You cannot escape this song
Near, far, wherever you are
You will hear this damn song** and
This song just drags on and on
**even though it came out almost 15 years ago now! She had better songs but the radio stations keep playing this frikken one!
Seriously, I like Celine Dion apart from THAT song I parodied above. And taking down those pictures? Low. She clearly has the world's worst publicist or something along those lines.
Incidentally, under section 203, that song parody is allowed to stay on this site unless the editors of the site deem otherwise. It is also "fair use" by being a parody. So too bad if Ms Dion's lawyers don't like it. Only Techdirt staff can take it down. And you can't get them in trouble if they don't! Nyah!
Building walls creates jobs too =)
Until the walls are finished being built.
Then a lot of wall makers will be out of a job.
Oh! I know how to fix that: Make the walls higher!
I think more people have gone with Telstra as a matter of convenience and going with "what is well known" (or, in Telstra's case, "better the devil you know") - A quick look at the forums on Whirlpool http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/ will show (amongst hardcore internet users) plenty of Telstra haters - myself, I have them for home phone but wouldn't touch them with a forty foot pole for internet!
I mean, they are the biggest telephone provider across Australia with a wholesale virtual-monopoly on most of Australia's phone lines and, apparently, they sometimes don't even let competitors access their exchanges in order for them to install non-Telstra DSLAMs for ADSL2+ connectivity. Heck, do an internet search for "simon hackett telstra" to read about some of the problems he and his ISP Internode have had with them over the years.
Unfortunately, our NBN, IF it ever gets implemented across Australia, is going to be no better than what America has now, with a wholesale level monopoly: Yes, ISP's can set their own NBN prices, but they'll be based on the wholesale prices set by NBN Co or whoever buys it should the government sell it off (rumoured to most likely be bought by TPG).
Finally, unrelated to my points above, please show me one ISP in Australia now who does not count uploads in their ADSL2+ caps - no sarcasm, PLEASE do show me one if you can!
The biggest question is "was any ACTUAL harm done?"
A bit of extra internet use? No big deal
Was anybody injured? No
Did any of the computers crash as a result of the added software? No
Anything illegal downloaded to the store's computers? No
Anything nasty done with the photos of the users? No
So was any ACTUAL harm done by this guy? No
No potential harm happened either. I say, no crime committed.
But, on the other hand, I wouldn't blame the staff if they decided to kick him out of the store either!
This movie is actually PD in most parts of the world (minus the music publishing rights) and so now I'm wondering does the fact that it was digitally remastered in 2008 for re-release in 2009 for the 70th Anniversary put it back under copyright?
In other words does a re-master and restoration effort renew the copyright at all?
I think what she is trying to get at is that software can be given away free, as can art. Art can be re-worked. Software can be re-worked. For example, I frequently use a re-worked version of ReplayGain called MP3Gain.
Now, the main gist of this post is freedom. Free software is free not just as in it costs nothing to obtain but also that you are free to do with it what you want. Nina is asking why do some people say something is free and then restrict how you use it? That restricts a freedom. It may still be free as in it costs nothing to obtain and use but you are not free to do with it what you want.
On the post: CommonSense's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't wear a tin foil hat myself. I don't believe they would be effective. [sarc]If it was that simple to stop "alien mind probes" then the aliens obviously need to develop better mind probing technology.[/sarc] Besides: We only have aluminium foil now, not tin foil.
On the post: CommonSense's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: George Carlin
1) Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGU2Z1WJwXs
2) LISTEN CAREFULLY
3) Take action
4) PROFIT!!!
The thing is, it's a long long LONG way between steps 3 and 4
On the post: CommonSense's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dear AC, there is no such thing as piracy infrastructure. The unauthorized distribution of files on the internet is happening on infrastructure that was designed to carry files regardless of authorization. USENET was originally designed for news bulletins (hence "bulletin board service"), BitTorrent is a way to distribute large files (such as OpenOffice or Linux) and even the codecs, such as MP3, were developed for a reason other than to be "piracy infrastructure" (MP3 was developed, I believe, for use in digital radio!) ~ Yes, all of these things are used extensively for "piracy", I will not deny that, but, as has been pointed out more times than a paranoid buys tinfoil to buy hats, it does also have very legitimate, legal, authorized uses.
On the post: Jack Kirby Declared A Mere Marvel Workerbee... Heirs Can't Reclaim Copyrights On Hulk Or X-Men
Think of it THIS way.....
In my opinion the whole situation is bullshit: Kirby got ripped off but on the other hand, why should his heirs now reap the rewards for his work? Why should Marvel/Disney make money off work done 30+ years ago? But, when you think about it, why SHOULDN'T they all make money off it?
If the characters were all public domain by now (and, let's face it, this applies EQUALLY to DC and Marvel) I think there'd still be a market for them (obviously there would be), comic book artists and writers could make their own comics of these characters (thus adding value to the characters) plus the OFFICIAL versions would still come from Marvel and DC.
On the post: Jack Kirby Declared A Mere Marvel Workerbee... Heirs Can't Reclaim Copyrights On Hulk Or X-Men
Re:
On the post: Jack Kirby Declared A Mere Marvel Workerbee... Heirs Can't Reclaim Copyrights On Hulk Or X-Men
Re: How old are you people?
Well, there's currently some copyright debates going on THERE at the moment, too. Apart from the fact that the movie is now PUBLIC DOMAIN in almost every country EXCEPTING for the United States, a judge has recently declared that the MANNERISMS of characters depicted in the movie may be the subject of copyright.
So mock discussing comic books and family movies all you like, when copyright law is extended just to protect the copyright on some cartoons about a MOUSE that are from 1928, it is still appropriate for the subject of copyright.
On the post: That Didn't Take Long: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market
Radio Patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio
On the post: That Didn't Take Long: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market
Radio Patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re:
"Sons Of Anarchy" took two years to get to Australia and then it wound up on the channel oneHD which not everybody can get unless they have a high definition digital tuner AND live in an area that actually GETS that channel. And if we miss an episode? Wait for the DVD? Oh, OK, we'll play by the rules and wait until September to see it. Unless, of course, the DVD company changes their mind (which probably won't happen for "Sons Of Anarchy" but HAS happened for other shows!)
Why? Because I don't live in the United States, I must therefore be a second class citizen who has to wait for Hollywood to finish screwing around and get the content to the WORLD. And the world is a pretty big market.
Sure, our local channels offer what they call "Catch up TV" with SOME shows streaming - assuming that they can get the streaming rights (well done ABC Australia there) but that's assuming that we have high speed internet access which a LOT of Australians don't yet (because they CAN'T get it and I'm talking infrastructure here, not price)
You know, I'm gonna stop now or I'll end up on my "video on demand" rant which always falls on deaf ears anyway. I demand a video on demand service. The best way of getting one outside of the United States? ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS!
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
A Joke
Because you have to jump through (Hulu) HOOPS to watch it!
On the post: Celine Dion Shuts Down Blog Of Ridiculous Pictures
Re: The Dion Effect
But "The Striesand Effect" sounds cooler IMO
On the post: Celine Dion Shuts Down Blog Of Ridiculous Pictures
>>>Sung to the tune of "My Heart Will Go On"
Every night in my room
I hear it, I fear it
The high pitched voice of Ms Dion
They play it on the AM
The TV, The FM
You cannot escape this song
Near, far, wherever you are
You will hear this damn song** and
This song just drags on and on
**even though it came out almost 15 years ago now! She had better songs but the radio stations keep playing this frikken one!
Seriously, I like Celine Dion apart from THAT song I parodied above. And taking down those pictures? Low. She clearly has the world's worst publicist or something along those lines.
Incidentally, under section 203, that song parody is allowed to stay on this site unless the editors of the site deem otherwise. It is also "fair use" by being a parody. So too bad if Ms Dion's lawyers don't like it. Only Techdirt staff can take it down. And you can't get them in trouble if they don't! Nyah!
On the post: Gatekeepers And The Economy
Creating Jobs
Until the walls are finished being built.
Then a lot of wall makers will be out of a job.
Oh! I know how to fix that: Make the walls higher!
[/sarc]
Good strip, Nina =)
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Telstra's Dominance
I mean, they are the biggest telephone provider across Australia with a wholesale virtual-monopoly on most of Australia's phone lines and, apparently, they sometimes don't even let competitors access their exchanges in order for them to install non-Telstra DSLAMs for ADSL2+ connectivity. Heck, do an internet search for "simon hackett telstra" to read about some of the problems he and his ISP Internode have had with them over the years.
Unfortunately, our NBN, IF it ever gets implemented across Australia, is going to be no better than what America has now, with a wholesale level monopoly: Yes, ISP's can set their own NBN prices, but they'll be based on the wholesale prices set by NBN Co or whoever buys it should the government sell it off (rumoured to most likely be bought by TPG).
Finally, unrelated to my points above, please show me one ISP in Australia now who does not count uploads in their ADSL2+ caps - no sarcasm, PLEASE do show me one if you can!
On the post: Swedish Occupational Psychologist First To Recognize The Debilitating Effects Of Heavy Metal Music
Oh, wait... Written by Tim Cushing and NOT by Mike Masnick
It's NOT serious :)
On the post: Charlie Sheen's Ex Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Mentions Her Name On Comedy Central
LOL?
How much coke did Charlie Sheen use?
Enough to kill two and a half men =)
[/pointless-post]
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Harm done?
A bit of extra internet use? No big deal
Was anybody injured? No
Did any of the computers crash as a result of the added software? No
Anything illegal downloaded to the store's computers? No
Anything nasty done with the photos of the users? No
So was any ACTUAL harm done by this guy? No
No potential harm happened either. I say, no crime committed.
But, on the other hand, I wouldn't blame the staff if they decided to kick him out of the store either!
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
PD or not PD?
In other words does a re-master and restoration effort renew the copyright at all?
On the post: Marcel de Jong's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Nortel
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Re:
Now, the main gist of this post is freedom. Free software is free not just as in it costs nothing to obtain but also that you are free to do with it what you want. Nina is asking why do some people say something is free and then restrict how you use it? That restricts a freedom. It may still be free as in it costs nothing to obtain and use but you are not free to do with it what you want.
That is my interpretation of Nina's post.
Next >>