Ehm, so if you paid to produce a film, then the ad-agencies suddenly refuse to do business with you?
I think what you mean is that if you paid to produce the film you can't turn a PROFIT on ads alone. But no one are suggesting you do that alone. All we're saying is that if there really are that much money to be made by offering your content for easy download, then why don't they do it and get a share of that cake?
The idea is deceptively logical at the surface. I'm pretty sure they could even get around the principle of forcing people to pay.
The real problem comes with the question "who gets the money?". Then people, organizations and companies will line up and ask for their cut. And soon that few bucks a month will dwarf your house-mortgage.
So, you think that one or a couple of them getting caught speeding or missing water curfew is basically the same as the entire Parliament getting cut off from the Internet?
About the probability; the only thing we know is that A; the system is designed to be easy for the rightsholders to use (which mean it's hard to defend yourself) and B; people are already working hard on getting Parliament cut off.
I caught this news yesterday when I read (somewhere, thought it was here) about someone who reported that he had gained access to their network, and that he was in progress of downloading and sharing craploads of stuff.
So yes, I think it's more or less a guarantee that they'll at least receive a warning or two.
Unlike humans, computers won't be restricted to the capabilities of our eyesight. Being able to have low-light/infrared vision would probably help a lot.
On top of that, a car would know immediately it starts loosing traction, unlike a human.
I think especially for us that gets a lot of snow cars without an ego or an overestimation of their own capabilities, will be a lifesaver.
I know that here in Sweden the money is divided based on how often a song/artist is played on the bigger radio-channels.
So it wouldn't surprise me if such a small number of people got most of the money. Especially since, if I understand it correctly, only Swedish artists gets paid in Sweden. Would think the same applies in the UK.
I guess Sweden got it right for once. Over here it's illegal for the government (and private actors too if I remember correctly) to even ASK about a reporters sources. And said reporters have a legal OBLIGATION to protect the confidentiality of their sources.
I really don't see the problem. If they want to put their name on something, then let them take responsibility for it.
To me it should be treated exactly as if the doctors/whatever themselves wrote the article. That is, if it's found to be fraudulent, then they get to answer for it in court.
But I don't think that the very act of signing someone else' work should be illegal. It should however be a breach of contract with the publication.
That's all the answer we really need. If they were following the law, then the answer would be zero. If they don't know for certain that the answer IS zero, then by definition they have broken the law.
Guns and ammo might work, but it's probably better to invest in something that can be reused, where you can fairly easily make new ammo. Me, I'm going for a crossbow. ;-)
Food and water is probably not worth the time, what you want is a replenishing source of food and water, i.e. a farm.
Gold and silver is definitely not worth it. When the going gets tough, people will realize that gold and silver can't be eaten, and they make for crappy ammo (except for against werewolfs of course).
Have I thought about this way too much? Yes, I have.
But patents, at least the way things are now, are hindering people from making profits from their inventions.
Just look at the so called "patent-thicket" around smartphones; is anyone really depending on that to invent newer and better phones? Or does it mean that if you're not "big enough", then you will not be able to survive the "patent war"?
On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: A Few Things
I think what you mean is that if you paid to produce the film you can't turn a PROFIT on ads alone. But no one are suggesting you do that alone. All we're saying is that if there really are that much money to be made by offering your content for easy download, then why don't they do it and get a share of that cake?
On the post: Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'
Re: Empty rhetoric on both sides
The reason he mentions this is because it is troubling, and you just agreed that something that SHOULDN'T have any risks, now have them.
On the post: Court Says College Can Snoop On Students' Email
Re: still use mine
On the post: Journalist Bemoans Fact People Won't Pay For Online Content; Suggests Users Be Forced To Pay For Online Content
Re:
On the post: Journalist Bemoans Fact People Won't Pay For Online Content; Suggests Users Be Forced To Pay For Online Content
Re:
Then again, the end results aren't exactly in on the NYT paywall yet.
On the post: Journalist Bemoans Fact People Won't Pay For Online Content; Suggests Users Be Forced To Pay For Online Content
The real problem comes with the question "who gets the money?". Then people, organizations and companies will line up and ask for their cut. And soon that few bucks a month will dwarf your house-mortgage.
On the post: Could New Zealand's Parliament Lose Its Internet Connection Under Its Own Three Strikes Law?
Re:
About the probability; the only thing we know is that A; the system is designed to be easy for the rightsholders to use (which mean it's hard to defend yourself) and B; people are already working hard on getting Parliament cut off.
I caught this news yesterday when I read (somewhere, thought it was here) about someone who reported that he had gained access to their network, and that he was in progress of downloading and sharing craploads of stuff.
So yes, I think it's more or less a guarantee that they'll at least receive a warning or two.
On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)
Re: Re:
I'm that guy in a million! Then again, since I know I'm a bad driver I don't drive, so perhaps I don't count? ;-)
On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)
Re:
On top of that, a car would know immediately it starts loosing traction, unlike a human.
I think especially for us that gets a lot of snow cars without an ego or an overestimation of their own capabilities, will be a lifesaver.
On the post: Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work
Re: Interesting statistic
So it wouldn't surprise me if such a small number of people got most of the money. Especially since, if I understand it correctly, only Swedish artists gets paid in Sweden. Would think the same applies in the UK.
On the post: Judge Slams Feds For Its Attempt To Punish Another Whistleblower
The Swedish way...
On the post: Should Doctors Who Put Their Names On Ghostwritten 'Journal' Articles For Big Pharma Be Sued For Fraud?
To me it should be treated exactly as if the doctors/whatever themselves wrote the article. That is, if it's found to be fraudulent, then they get to answer for it in court.
But I don't think that the very act of signing someone else' work should be illegal. It should however be a breach of contract with the publication.
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Re: Re: Re: Techwho?!?
On the post: Ron Wyden Puts Hold On FISA Amendments Act; Wants Answers To How Many Americans Have Been Spied On
There's your answer...
That's all the answer we really need. If they were following the law, then the answer would be zero. If they don't know for certain that the answer IS zero, then by definition they have broken the law.
On the post: Ron Wyden Puts Hold On FISA Amendments Act; Wants Answers To How Many Americans Have Been Spied On
Re:
On the post: Ron Wyden Puts Hold On FISA Amendments Act; Wants Answers To How Many Americans Have Been Spied On
Re: I know..
Food and water is probably not worth the time, what you want is a replenishing source of food and water, i.e. a farm.
Gold and silver is definitely not worth it. When the going gets tough, people will realize that gold and silver can't be eaten, and they make for crappy ammo (except for against werewolfs of course).
Have I thought about this way too much? Yes, I have.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures' Response To This American Life: Oh Those Crazy Reporters Don't Understand Disruption
Re: Re: Re:
Just look at the so called "patent-thicket" around smartphones; is anyone really depending on that to invent newer and better phones? Or does it mean that if you're not "big enough", then you will not be able to survive the "patent war"?
On the post: UK Appeals Court Agrees That Clicking A Link And Opening A Website... Is Infringing
Who's copying?
And if said server is the newspapers server, then that shouldn't be an infringing copy?
Or have I totally missed the point here?
On the post: New Filing In Colorado Says That Righthaven Is An Illegal Law Firm In Disguise
On the post: Judge Agrees That Perhaps It Would Be Best For Someone Else To Review His Claim That WiFi Isn't A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
I have had the feeling that words in laws tend to not mean what you would normally mean by it.
Next >>