I was under the impression that it was the other way around for ICE, that they started with counterfeit because it's part of "protecting the borders", and then they just kind of drifted into copyright and online dealings.
“this is the kind of crap I have no patience for.”
Sounds a bit like the person is overworked. Could it be that politicians are making promises and then expecting others to keep them? No, that could never happen.
Then again, the law is named "FOIL". Should have been your first clue as what to expect. ;-)
"just like the best way to stop piracy is to shut down all the websites that offer 'legitimate' content. that way there is nothing to copy and therefore nothing to pirate."
I so hope this is some sort of attempt at sarcasm, because it just doesn't make sense. There was online piracy long before there was online stores offering the products.
As far as I know, very rarely is an pirate copy a copy of something sold online. More often it's a "rip" from physical medium, if for no other reason than the simple fact that you can get those sooner.
No, the way to "stop piracy" is to actually start to offer the content for sale in a good way online. If they don't want to sell me the product I want, then they can't complain about not getting my money. Simple as that.
(And for the record; I bend over backwards every now and then, trying to find an online store that wants to sell me the movies I want, but I have yet to find one that I can use.)
Owning a picture does not equal owning the copyright for said picture.
If I were to print out this picture, then I would own that printout (overlooking the fact that I can't find the cable to the printer of course ;-)), but not the copyright.
Then the person who used the remote TOOK the picture, but the person who set up the shot (that is, did the actually creative portions of the photo) owns the copyright.
That is however irrelevant in this case, since the owner of the camera explicitly said that he had nothing to do with setting up the shoot whatsoever.
Had it been a human who accidentally took the pictures the way the monkey did (i.e. a toddler playing with a camera), then that human could potentially argue ownership of the copyright.
Actually, this is a bad case for outdated copyright laws, as the laws clearly works as intended (the photographs belongs in the PD).
It is however a perfect case of people not understanding how the copyright laws works, and think that because you own the picture you automatically own the copyright.
And the comment you answered was also a perfect example of someone not understanding that.
If you were to grab my camera and take a picture with it, you would be the one holding the copyright.
And since it (officially, making your theory that it was a publicity stunt irrelevant) was the monkeys who took the pictures, either they own the copyright or there isn't one.
So, basically, if someone trademarks my name, and I then get famous (still holding out for someone in Hollywood to randomly cast me in the next mega movie), I can get sued for this? For not looking up my own name in whatever registry there is over trademarks, and then change my own name because of it?
Or is it the "DJ"-part that all of a sudden makes it a trademark?
This reminds me a bit of "Gaming Factory X" (or whatever their name was), you know the company that was going to buy up TPB. Only in reverse. In GFX plan everyone was going to get paid, even the downloaders, without anyone paying.
In this case, everyone is paying, but no one (or rather only one) gets paid.
I keep wondering who they are hurting with those pizzas. My guess would be that the targets simply say that they haven't ordered any pizza, meaning that the poor pizza-place end up to pay the bill. Doesn't seem all that nice.
My first thought was that Second Life perhaps had a case? They probably had to spend some manhours on dealing with this, could they get that money back?
So basically they have changed it in a way that should suit you? They have made it so that it doesn't affect the middle class.
And you are complaining why? Your main "argument" seems to be that they can lower that "bar" again, but if they removed the tax altogether it would never ever come back again?
Is it REALLY that much harder to add a new tax than to change one?
And 55%? Wow, we should all be so lucky. Last number I heard about here in Sweden was closer to 75%.
Actually I think there might be something to this. Now I don't know EXACTLY how these things work, but I'm pretty sure you win/loss ratio is a part of judging if you're "good" or not. And that it directly affect how much money you can make.
Obviously "can I win this?" isn't the only thing they take into account, but rather "will this benefit me in the long run?".
I think the problem is the fact that ISPs/carriers seem to think it's okay to sell you something they don't actually have.
It's like the "bandwidth-hog"-arguments; if your system can't handle me using the 10 mbit I pay for, then don't effing sell me 10 mbit!
It's like if someone sold you a timeshare, but they conveniently "forgot" to mention that it's a timeshare, and you now think you own the house. Who's the bad guy in that scenario?
Obviously under such law no-one would accept a bribe unless they had some way of ensuring that they weren't reported. And I shudder to think about how that system would be.
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: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
On the post: Why Hasn't ICE Been Talking About Its Latest Domain Seizures?
On the post: Why Hasn't ICE Been Talking About Its Latest Domain Seizures?
Re:
On the post: New York City Freedom Of Information Requests Fail Miserably
Sounds a bit like the person is overworked. Could it be that politicians are making promises and then expecting others to keep them? No, that could never happen.
Then again, the law is named "FOIL". Should have been your first clue as what to expect. ;-)
On the post: It's Baaaaaaack, Yet Again: Totally Pointless, Unnecessary & Damaging Fashion Copyright Bill Returns
Re:
"just like the best way to stop piracy is to shut down all the websites that offer 'legitimate' content. that way there is nothing to copy and therefore nothing to pirate."
I so hope this is some sort of attempt at sarcasm, because it just doesn't make sense. There was online piracy long before there was online stores offering the products.
As far as I know, very rarely is an pirate copy a copy of something sold online. More often it's a "rip" from physical medium, if for no other reason than the simple fact that you can get those sooner.
No, the way to "stop piracy" is to actually start to offer the content for sale in a good way online. If they don't want to sell me the product I want, then they can't complain about not getting my money. Simple as that.
(And for the record; I bend over backwards every now and then, trying to find an online store that wants to sell me the movies I want, but I have yet to find one that I can use.)
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: You need to take the photos down immediately
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: My mind could be melting...
If I were to print out this picture, then I would own that printout (overlooking the fact that I can't find the cable to the printer of course ;-)), but not the copyright.
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
That is however irrelevant in this case, since the owner of the camera explicitly said that he had nothing to do with setting up the shoot whatsoever.
Had it been a human who accidentally took the pictures the way the monkey did (i.e. a toddler playing with a camera), then that human could potentially argue ownership of the copyright.
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re:
It is however a perfect case of people not understanding how the copyright laws works, and think that because you own the picture you automatically own the copyright.
And the comment you answered was also a perfect example of someone not understanding that.
On the post: EU Court Disagrees With Pretty Much Every Other Court; Says Ebay May Be Liable For Third Party Trademark Infringement
Re:
http://cgi.ebay.com/250-Pieces-NEW-LOreal-Cosmetics-Wholesale-Makeup-/200449569448?pt=LH_Default Domain_0&hash=item2eabb9b2a8
Infringing? If you're not 100% sure by the time you have read this sentenced, you have just proved yourself wrong.
And if you are 100% sure (either way), you have just proven that you don't understand what "100% sure" means.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: long time tech dirt follower.
And since it (officially, making your theory that it was a publicity stunt irrelevant) was the monkeys who took the pictures, either they own the copyright or there isn't one.
On the post: Washed Up On The 'Jersey Shore': The 'Original DJ Paulie' Sues DJ Pauly D
Names vs Trademarks.
Or is it the "DJ"-part that all of a sudden makes it a trademark?
On the post: Dubious Record Label Insists It Has A 'Patent-Pending' Method To Guarantee A Platinum Selling Album
Reminds me of something...
In this case, everyone is paying, but no one (or rather only one) gets paid.
On the post: International Lulz: Anonymous Aids Rebellions in Tunisia, Algeria and Libya
Re:
On the post: Senators Reveal That Feds Have Secretly Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act
Re:
On the post: No Punishment For Bogus DMCA Notices If Service Provider Doesn't Take Down The Content
What about SL?
On the post: From Tasini To The Winklevi: Greed, Retroactively Breaking Deals And Feeling Entitled To What's Not Yours
Re: Re: Re: That goes for all "entitlements"
And you are complaining why? Your main "argument" seems to be that they can lower that "bar" again, but if they removed the tax altogether it would never ever come back again?
Is it REALLY that much harder to add a new tax than to change one?
And 55%? Wow, we should all be so lucky. Last number I heard about here in Sweden was closer to 75%.
On the post: Hacker Behind Largest Credit Card Number Heist Now Claiming US 'Authorized' His Crimes
Re: Re: Re: Well, yeah
Obviously "can I win this?" isn't the only thing they take into account, but rather "will this benefit me in the long run?".
On the post: Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
Selling something that doesn't exist.
It's like the "bandwidth-hog"-arguments; if your system can't handle me using the 10 mbit I pay for, then don't effing sell me 10 mbit!
It's like if someone sold you a timeshare, but they conveniently "forgot" to mention that it's a timeshare, and you now think you own the house. Who's the bad guy in that scenario?
On the post: Economist Explains Why Paying Certain Bribes Should Be Legal
Safety first?
Next >>