I think AC's point is it's a lot harder to do that with an, ahem, 'respected' entity like the NY Times.
Your point is certainly valid, but I think the difference if it was NYT instead of Wikileaks is that the NYT wouldn't have released the trove, but sanitized snippets, thus perhaps limiting the exposure of Manning since the entire world wouldn't have seen the incriminating evidence the gov't doesn't want seen.
They are still light years ahead of Verizon's offering. I imagine Comcast and other cable companies are similar.
Tivo invented something completely new and is selling it. It's reasonable to argue the patents are invalid - that's a debatable point.
But to say that because their products aren't 'competitive' they should forfeit their patents? That's not in patent law. You invent something, you get X number of years monopoly on that something. Period.
It's up to them how they use that monopoly, but either you don't want ANY patents, or you have to accept how Tivo actively uses their patents to make products. Note I said 'accept' and not 'agree with'.
But Tivo? Tivo's DVRs are still miles ahead of the DVRs from most people. They've offered to license their technology to the CableCo's for their DVRs and the balked.
Patents serve a purpose. Is the system perfect? Of course not. But Tivo is actually making and selling products, which is the usual complaint against a 'patent troll'.
Agreed, for all the bashing about Patent Trolls, Tivo actually created something and is actively selling it. The problem is usually a company buying a patent and *only* suing others. That is not the case here.
Tivo created something phenomenal, and rightfully is using the limited duration patent period to make money off that invention.
Bashing Tivo here is like bashing the concept of Patents entirely. If you don't believe in patents please just say so, but they have a purpose and Tivo is actively using their patents to bring products to market.
If perhaps the patents are ruled invalid that's a different story, but the article here clearly seems to accuse Tivo of being unfair simply for enforcing its patents.
I hope they do overturn it. It will seriously bankrupt them. Because if Sony vs Betamax is overturned, VCRs and by extension, DVD players are 'illegal'.
And since Hollywood makes something like 50% of it's revenue from DVD sales...byebye revenue stream.
Even more stupid, I don't intend to watch tomorrow, I intend to watch today...I just start 10 minutes into the show so I can skip the commercials and still end up at the same place.
Yet according to them that would not be infringement because it's 'same day'. *headdesk*
As soon as timeshifting is legal, and it is, what I do with that timeshifted signal is up to me, it's 'mine' (not the copyright, but the use)
Well to be fair, 500 TV channels pushing you content 24/7 is a LOT of material to upload ;-)
Hollywood would reasonably argue that the 'profitable' (most views) videos on YouTube are more likely to be the infringing ones, hence why YouTube is 'piracy' fueled.
Isn't the RIAA allowed to put 'signatures' of their music into YouTube's filters so it can find possibly infringing things if it matches? Seems like that could be done for video relatively easily. Maybe you don't even need the 'video' portion but just the audio portion?
Of course it begs the question if I just change the sampling or something else in the stream (like less than a frame per second that wouldn't be noticeable to humans) would that change it enough to once again bypass the filters.
Just like Mike usually makes the argument that blocking a site because it's current majority use is illegal isn't fair. It isn't fair to say you could never auto-filter user-generated content in the future when processing power catches up with the leveling off of input at some future date.
I'm not sure the last paragraph of your blog is really fair. Just because a company fails doesn't mean the IP is released into public domain does it?
With your laudable updates to the available information, this seems much like this guy actually did invent something novel and new and Mitsubishi shared that with other people and now he is suing as is his right.
That is what the patent system is for is it not? Sure he used famed patent troll people, but that doesn't make him a patent troll does it?
Joe operates an open Wifi network that Sally uses to pirate everything from.
Sally operates an open Wifi network that Joe uses to pirate everything from.
This summary of the ruling seems to absolve them of liability since someone else was doing the pirating.
To use the obligatory car reference, if Joe's car is seen at the scene of multiple bank robberies, he's going to be a very high priority suspect of the police. Obviously if Joe lent his car to Sally that would help in his establishment of an alibi. (I know criminal vs civil...just devils advocate here)
What seems to be a perfect way around the law above only encourages more draconian restrictions to be proposed by paid for politicians in the name of [piracy|terrorism|children|all 3] etc. Just like the use of encryption is encouraging the FBI to ask for back doors to almost everything.
If you're making the music it's not a copy, but you playing the same music so I would say no it's not a 'copy' or duplication.
Now if you're stripping the audio straight off the music and voicing over it, maybe, perhaps, but then again it's not a song but a video at least in this case so you aren't 'copying' the original but transforming it.
Filelocker sites. A new way to distribute files globally.
By claiming that file lockers are 'evil, bad and kill puppies' it makes it hard for people to decide to start up new technology that *could* be used to infringe.
Phones *could* be used for harassment, so we obviously should label phone companies as aiding and abetting harassment right?
Wanted to show my wife the original War Games movie. We have Netflix streaming. Hmmm, not available?
1 hr later it was downloaded via torrent.
I would gladly have gotten it through legal channels, but it simply isn't available in the most convenient matter. As a product producer, if you're answer is 'tough you get it how I want', you have failed in your job.
On the post: Would Bradley Manning Face The Same Charges If He Leaked Same Info To NYTimes Instead Of Wikileaks?
Re: Re: Re:
Your point is certainly valid, but I think the difference if it was NYT instead of Wikileaks is that the NYT wouldn't have released the trove, but sanitized snippets, thus perhaps limiting the exposure of Manning since the entire world wouldn't have seen the incriminating evidence the gov't doesn't want seen.
On the post: Cisco Has Enough Of TiVo Patent Claims, Files To Invalidate TiVo Patents
Re: Re:
Tivo invented something completely new and is selling it. It's reasonable to argue the patents are invalid - that's a debatable point.
But to say that because their products aren't 'competitive' they should forfeit their patents? That's not in patent law. You invent something, you get X number of years monopoly on that something. Period.
It's up to them how they use that monopoly, but either you don't want ANY patents, or you have to accept how Tivo actively uses their patents to make products. Note I said 'accept' and not 'agree with'.
On the post: Cisco Has Enough Of TiVo Patent Claims, Files To Invalidate TiVo Patents
Re: Re: Take Their Patents
Patents serve a purpose. Is the system perfect? Of course not. But Tivo is actually making and selling products, which is the usual complaint against a 'patent troll'.
What would you have them do?
On the post: Cisco Has Enough Of TiVo Patent Claims, Files To Invalidate TiVo Patents
Re:
Tivo created something phenomenal, and rightfully is using the limited duration patent period to make money off that invention.
Bashing Tivo here is like bashing the concept of Patents entirely. If you don't believe in patents please just say so, but they have a purpose and Tivo is actively using their patents to bring products to market.
If perhaps the patents are ruled invalid that's a different story, but the article here clearly seems to accuse Tivo of being unfair simply for enforcing its patents.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re:
And since Hollywood makes something like 50% of it's revenue from DVD sales...byebye revenue stream.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: About "consumer choice"...
Choice indeed ;-)
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re:
if you don't get it look here:
Telescreen
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re:
Yet according to them that would not be infringement because it's 'same day'. *headdesk*
As soon as timeshifting is legal, and it is, what I do with that timeshifted signal is up to me, it's 'mine' (not the copyright, but the use)
On the post: YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For 'Objectionable' Material?
Re: Re: Re: Bu, bu, but . . . . Piracy!
Hollywood 'could' reasonable argue...
On the post: YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For 'Objectionable' Material?
Re: Bu, bu, but . . . . Piracy!
Hollywood would reasonably argue that the 'profitable' (most views) videos on YouTube are more likely to be the infringing ones, hence why YouTube is 'piracy' fueled.
On the post: YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For 'Objectionable' Material?
Automating filtering
Isn't the RIAA allowed to put 'signatures' of their music into YouTube's filters so it can find possibly infringing things if it matches? Seems like that could be done for video relatively easily. Maybe you don't even need the 'video' portion but just the audio portion?
Of course it begs the question if I just change the sampling or something else in the stream (like less than a frame per second that wouldn't be noticeable to humans) would that change it enough to once again bypass the filters.
Just like Mike usually makes the argument that blocking a site because it's current majority use is illegal isn't fair. It isn't fair to say you could never auto-filter user-generated content in the future when processing power catches up with the leveling off of input at some future date.
On the post: Guy Who Was Buying & Selling Foreclosed Homes In Florida Wins $124 Million Patent Lawsuit
Re: Re: Where is the patent lawsuit?
With your laudable updates to the available information, this seems much like this guy actually did invent something novel and new and Mitsubishi shared that with other people and now he is suing as is his right.
That is what the patent system is for is it not? Sure he used famed patent troll people, but that doesn't make him a patent troll does it?
On the post: Common Sense Wins: Finnish Court Says Open WiFi Owner Not Liable For Infringement By User
Re: Devils Advocate
Sally operates an open Wifi network that Joe uses to pirate everything from.
This summary of the ruling seems to absolve them of liability since someone else was doing the pirating.
To use the obligatory car reference, if Joe's car is seen at the scene of multiple bank robberies, he's going to be a very high priority suspect of the police. Obviously if Joe lent his car to Sally that would help in his establishment of an alibi. (I know criminal vs civil...just devils advocate here)
What seems to be a perfect way around the law above only encourages more draconian restrictions to be proposed by paid for politicians in the name of [piracy|terrorism|children|all 3] etc. Just like the use of encryption is encouraging the FBI to ask for back doors to almost everything.
On the post: How Can You Tell If Uploading Your Cover Song To YouTube Is Infringing? You Can't
Re: Reproduction?
Now if you're stripping the audio straight off the music and voicing over it, maybe, perhaps, but then again it's not a song but a video at least in this case so you aren't 'copying' the original but transforming it.
On the post: Prolific DVD Bootlegger Is 92 Year-Old WWII Veteran
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prolific DVD Bootlegger Is 92 Year-Old WWII Veteran
Re: Re:
meaning if they don't prosecute this clearly intentional (willful) crime, doesn't that affect their ability to go after any other infringers?
Anybody know the specifics of this?
On the post: Prolific DVD Bootlegger Is 92 Year-Old WWII Veteran
Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re:
By claiming that file lockers are 'evil, bad and kill puppies' it makes it hard for people to decide to start up new technology that *could* be used to infringe.
Phones *could* be used for harassment, so we obviously should label phone companies as aiding and abetting harassment right?
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Your quote is off slightly...
Wanted to show my wife the original War Games movie. We have Netflix streaming. Hmmm, not available?
1 hr later it was downloaded via torrent.
I would gladly have gotten it through legal channels, but it simply isn't available in the most convenient matter. As a product producer, if you're answer is 'tough you get it how I want', you have failed in your job.
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
"In any other industry..."
Why doesn't it apply here? Serious question, I'm legitimately confused...
Next >>