Re: So anyone has a right to set up camera and broadcast the game?
In one aspect you are correct, it is on UW property and they can bar you from the property with a camera, thereby controlling whether or not you can broadcast. But they can control it ONLY because they can choose to not permit the camera, otherwise, you can use the camera for whatever you want, including broadcasting.
So by extension, if they want to control the use of twitter (phones, tablets, etc), then they need to prohibit the possession of any device that can be used to tweet. While they can legally do this, they will not, because then they will most likely have a game without anyone but the players and coaches there. I mean just how many would be willing to go without a phone?
I agree, he convinced me long ago that it's a consequence of our system. I have pointed many people to a number of his videos on our election system, I even made my kids watch them.
They can if they want, but that would seem to not be in their best interest. While reviews are not really their business, I know many people (myself included) that use them as kind of unofficial review site, and not just about books. I would think that the avilablity of reviews is one of the major traffic drivers for them. So if they have questionable review policing policies they may in fact reduce their own traffic.
I was thinking the same thing, but if you notice all of the examples seem to be listing at the lower price and then raising when you check out. You can almost be sure that if it worked in the reverse that the bug in question would be fixed within a day.
The reply to link seems to be working just fine for me.
Why do you ask?
I made two posts on this thread, the first was done as a comment to the main article, the second as a reply to Mike's comment about my thoughts. This post makes number 3 and is a reply to you. And everything looks correct on screen.
I concede, I had not thought of specialized courts in that manner. Also, not being all that familiar with the current varieties of courts available, I did not realize that we basically had a similar system already in place at the appeals level, which apparently has already shown this idea to useless.
I also agree (and have for many years) with those who suggested that we need to get rid of software patents. Actually, since reading Techdirt, I have expanded that view to just about all patents; I think they all need to go.
First (and sorry to all of you Big Government haters out there) is that all patent cases need to be handled by a special court that only deals in patent cases. This would be located in only one physical location. The jury, if one is involved, should be comprised of people who have knowledge of the industry in which the patent was issued for. In other words, using the above case as an example, the jury members must have some working knowledge of software development and/or website design. Since no matter where you would physically locate the court you would never have a large enough pool of people for the jury, make the jury pool the entire United States. The jury selection can be done remotely (maybe a teleconference video system at the local level to allow them to participate in jury selection). The cost of travel, lodging, etc. of the jury is by default assigned to the plaintiff and is taken out of any awards (or becomes a bill if they lose). What you get with this type of system is that 1) you get a judge that understands patents and jury that should understand the industry, 2) you increase the cost to file, hopefully raising the bar and weeding out the patient trolls on the little claims.
The second thought I had when reading this, is that it’s a shame that the patient office cannot be sued directly over ridiculous patents. There needs to be away to independently have patents revoked and to effect the work records of the people involved in granting questionable patients. And if an individual has too many losing judgments against them, then they should be subject to termination. It can work like the calling out sick point system that a lot of companies use. You can only have so many points before actions are taken. Point fall off after so long, so this would really only effect people that are intentionally issuing bad questionable patents or those that are truly just bad at the job; the patent office really doesn't need either of type working for it.
So Fox is guilty of 'unauthorized' use of music by lending their buddy Universal some music.
This sounds speciously like Piracy!!!
So the RIAA (or I guess in this case AFM) needs to be filing a lawsuit in order to treat everyone the same, since you know corporations are people too. By RIAA math, we have 4 years of usage for say 225 days a year, for 12 hours a day, with the song played every 2 minutes or so. So we are looking at them stealing our music 324,000 times with a fine rate of $250,000 per infraction, bring the total bill to 81,000,000,000 (81 Billion).
So now I think we have the RIAA's problem solved. See all of that lost revenue is not from the everyday average Joe pirate; but from their own industry (entertainment) blatantly stealing and sponging off their hard work. If Universal and Fox had only paid the proper royalties then the music industry would never have had to lay off workers, and there might even have been enough money left over after the music execs got their pittance, that even the musicians may have gotten a few bucks.
Only thing left to say is Doh!!!
Next up, how to solve world hunger by handing out moon cheese and not make it a socialist program, so Bubba in Louisiana feels good about God, Country, and Capitalism.
I have been through a merger before. I had no say in anything about who the new owners would be or about my position within the company after it was sold. Just like nearly everyone else at the company.
So sounds like a normal situation. What's your point? Why should musicians be any different from any other non-executive level employee?
You go with it or quit. Several of the higher level employees for my company had non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, so they couldn't quit unless they wanted to find a new industry. Sounds pretty much like these musicians to me. Stay and deal or quit and do something else.
So again, what are you looking for? No one’s treating these guys any different than millions of other employees are treated every day of the year.
The solution to this is to separate the Service and the Access.
What I mean is to simply not allow any company to be engaged in both providing communication bandwidth and a service over that bandwidth. The Access is by far the more costly of the two, since you have to build and maintain something physical. Like most other industries that must build and maintain access points (water, electricity, sewage) the Access company(s) should be granted monopoly rights but regulated. Having only one set of physical items to maintain should actually help to reduce costs. We would have to give public grants in order to extend coverage to lowly populated areas, but they aren't served well even now.
Almost everyone reading here understands the difference between the two, but I believe that most people still do not realize that all of these ‘different’ communication services (TV, Phone, Internet, etc.) are essentially delivered using the exact same network. Once enough people do, I think we will see more demand for the Services and the Access to be split.
Once this split occurs, it then makes sense for the Access to be sold mainly by throughput with no caps. Also this separation means that the company selling you access has no interest in how the communication is used and the whole mess with net neutrality should become a non-issue.
As for the Service side of things, they can continue to sell the services that they currently do, without having to deal with the actual network. I do believe that the market would adjust and that the service choices would need to adapt, but that is just a normal changing market. The current companies won’t be happy but would still be plenty of opportunity for them.
or Apple will end up claiming that they created the clock (whole thing not just the design) and will initiate their own court case for infringement, claiming at least a hundred billion in lost sales from all of these clocks being used throughout the world. Also as part of the settlement, we will have to change Swiss to Apple when referring to anything about time; so there will be Apple Watches and Timepieces. Watch out Switzerland or your knife could next.
Don’t bites the Apple or you may be assimilated!!!
(Sorry not sure from which deep recess of my mind this came from, but seemed too good to pass up)
You are assuming the husband even knew of his wife’s infringement. The story indicated that they are/were in divorce proceeding. What makes you think he even knew before he got summoned to court?
Sure it’s possible that he know and did nothing about it, but even then, how does that make him more liable than his wife?
Your problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges.
I think everyone agrees that the owner of the internet connection is responsible for the 'charges', as your analogy. But this was not a fully formed analogy.
Where you fail is not realizing that an infringement is beyond the charges associated with using the phone (or internet connection) and therefore not the responsibility of the owner but the person which performs the action.
Let’s get the analogy framed in the proper context.
Using your situation, you own a phone and someone (in your family) uses it to call a television station (out of your local area so you have your long distance charge) during a live telecast and make all kinds of slanderous statements against a politician. You should expect someone to show up at your door since you are the owner of the phone and the person of record that pays for the item, but should you also expect to be sued for it? You certainly did not make the call or say the false accusations.
Or how about you own a car and you let neighbor borrow it. If they run a red light hit a pedestrian who dies but drives off (hit and run), would you expect to be convicted on murder charges while your neighbor is fined for running a red light (because they were caught by an intersection camera) just because you own the car? This is basically what happened with the wife being fined for negligence but the husband being convicted of infringement.
I don't think any rational person would consider the phone or car own responsible in either case. So why should the owner of an internet connection be responsible for what someone else does, especially when they admit it in court.
I read the linked discussion and I say it was just EA bullshit.
They aren't waiting for the new consoles because of some whacky notion that franchises do better during the initial few months of a new console.
They are waiting because the next gen consoles are going to try to cut out the used game market. It has been repeatedly stated that both Sony and Microsoft will have 'features' (one time activation codes, always on internet, digital distribution only, etc.) that will virtually make it impossible to let someone else play your copy of a game (without buying their own access code).
It's all about the DRM! Cut out piracy and the Gamestop's of the world, cause in the end they are both the same to EA, just a bunch of freetards, stealing their goodtimes.
So what you are saying is that we should now be on the lookout for a regulation or trade agreement that requires all software to contain DRM or they will be in violation of the DMCA?
Yea, I can see the DRM industry lobbying for that.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. As far as I know I do not have a fixation on the entertainment industry and I think my post only had a cursory connection to it. Other than to state that copyright issues are just a symptom and then an analogy that I thought readers here would connect with and understand in comparing the government (US, but I think it can apply to any of them) in not adapting to the changes that the Internet as made in the World.
What I was saying was that we as a nation (US), and truthfully as a world, have some very, very big wealth imbalances. Now there have always been imbalances (regardless of the system of government that you look at); but in today’s world, we have the best educated and most well informed (as a collective global whole) population in history thanks to the Internet. They see what is going on in the world and most are not happy with it. I think that most people realize that life is inherently unfair and they are OK with that, as long as it’s not too unfair. The problem is that it has probably already past that point and the speed of today’s communication lets everyone see it.
No, Copyright/Piracy issues are but a symptom of the real problem. A problem that increasing looks like it will eventually lead to deaths.
The imbalance of wealth has grown too large. There are many factors at play that have caused this buy my opinion that the root cause is simple greed; be it for money, power, or both. The system (government) is in need of a reset. It’s grown too complicated and contradictory for even those supposedly running it.
As an added problem for the US, is globalization. Being the poster child for Capitalization that we are, when globalization became feasible we did what we were taught to do, which is capitalize on the situation (exploit). The effect of this has not made our people happy though. Why? Because this moving jobs to the cheaper locations so we can make more money. Since the US (at the time) was one of the wealthiest nations, that means that just about anywhere else is cheaper (labor/material/laws). This action, while good for the “companies” bottom line was not so good for the people. Most have lost wealth (and still in the process of losing wealth) and won’t stop until we reach parity with the rest of the world. This just extends that gap.
In order to deal with the situation, those with power are doing with they have always done in the past. Restrict information as much as possible and have distractions so what does get out is ignored. But much like RIAA/MPAA is finding out, the Internet has changed the game and the world governments have not adapted with it. The Internet makes it too easy and fast to distribute information, and once it’s out, it has a tendency to stick around. Those in power are becoming to realize this and that is why they are starting to make all of this legislation, much in secret. They are hoping to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. I do not think they can and I think this will lead to violence before all is said and done. I see this happening not just in the US but in most of the world. The questions for me are when will it occur (I used to believe it would take several decades, possibly a century, but know I am not so sure) and what will be left behind? Will the current powers succeed in retaining their way? Will a new more balanced system emerge? Will the new system actually be worse? Or my biggest concern of all, will we even have a cohesive government when all is said and done. Given the weapons available to people at this time, we could very easily cause our own extinction.
Yes, I know, heavy thoughts from such a common topic, but it’s something that’s been bouncing around in my thoughts for a while and the more news I see the solid my concerns become. So when Pixelation mentioned bloodshed and the AC made a reply that was an attempt to make them look like an idiot, I just had to let it out.
On the post: University Of Washington's Defense Of Twitter Limits On Journalists More Ridiculous Than The Restrictions Themselves
Re: So anyone has a right to set up camera and broadcast the game?
So by extension, if they want to control the use of twitter (phones, tablets, etc), then they need to prohibit the possession of any device that can be used to tweet. While they can legally do this, they will not, because then they will most likely have a game without anyone but the players and coaches there. I mean just how many would be willing to go without a phone?
On the post: Sergey Brin To All Elected Politicians: Withdraw From Your Parties And Go Independent
Re:
On the post: Amazon Freaks Out About Sock Puppet Reviews And Deletes A Bunch Of Real Reviews
Re: They can't fire us. Slaves have to be sold.
On the post: Bug In Kobo's Online Store Offers Up Random eBook Prices [Update]
Re:
On the post: Digital River Loses Patent Suit Despite Doing What Was In The Patent Two Years Before Patent Was Filed
Re: Re: Courts vs. Judges, to Rick Smith, #52
On the post: Digital River Loses Patent Suit Despite Doing What Was In The Patent Two Years Before Patent Was Filed
Re: Re: Courts vs. Judges, to Rick Smith, #52
Why do you ask?
I made two posts on this thread, the first was done as a comment to the main article, the second as a reply to Mike's comment about my thoughts. This post makes number 3 and is a reply to you. And everything looks correct on screen.
On the post: Digital River Loses Patent Suit Despite Doing What Was In The Patent Two Years Before Patent Was Filed
Re: Re: This story gave me two thoughts...
I also agree (and have for many years) with those who suggested that we need to get rid of software patents. Actually, since reading Techdirt, I have expanded that view to just about all patents; I think they all need to go.
On the post: Digital River Loses Patent Suit Despite Doing What Was In The Patent Two Years Before Patent Was Filed
This story gave me two thoughts...
The second thought I had when reading this, is that it’s a shame that the patient office cannot be sued directly over ridiculous patents. There needs to be away to independently have patents revoked and to effect the work records of the people involved in granting questionable patients. And if an individual has too many losing judgments against them, then they should be subject to termination. It can work like the calling out sick point system that a lot of companies use. You can only have so many points before actions are taken. Point fall off after so long, so this would really only effect people that are intentionally issuing bad questionable patents or those that are truly just bad at the job; the patent office really doesn't need either of type working for it.
On the post: Universal And Fox Sued Over Simpson's Theme Park Ride... By A Musicians' Union
And now for some RIAA finance calculations...
This sounds speciously like Piracy!!!
So the RIAA (or I guess in this case AFM) needs to be filing a lawsuit in order to treat everyone the same, since you know corporations are people too. By RIAA math, we have 4 years of usage for say 225 days a year, for 12 hours a day, with the song played every 2 minutes or so. So we are looking at them stealing our music 324,000 times with a fine rate of $250,000 per infraction, bring the total bill to 81,000,000,000 (81 Billion).
So now I think we have the RIAA's problem solved. See all of that lost revenue is not from the everyday average Joe pirate; but from their own industry (entertainment) blatantly stealing and sponging off their hard work. If Universal and Fox had only paid the proper royalties then the music industry would never have had to lay off workers, and there might even have been enough money left over after the music execs got their pittance, that even the musicians may have gotten a few bucks.
Only thing left to say is Doh!!!
Next up, how to solve world hunger by handing out moon cheese and not make it a socialist program, so Bubba in Louisiana feels good about God, Country, and Capitalism.
On the post: Big Name Musicians Threaten To Strike Over Parlophone Sell-Off After Discovering They're 'Just Assets'
Re: Union bashers
So sounds like a normal situation. What's your point? Why should musicians be any different from any other non-executive level employee?
You go with it or quit. Several of the higher level employees for my company had non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, so they couldn't quit unless they wanted to find a new industry. Sounds pretty much like these musicians to me. Stay and deal or quit and do something else.
So again, what are you looking for? No one’s treating these guys any different than millions of other employees are treated every day of the year.
On the post: FCC Boss: Broadband Caps Are Good... No, Bad... No, Good... Wait, Who Am I Talking To Again?
My 2-cents
What I mean is to simply not allow any company to be engaged in both providing communication bandwidth and a service over that bandwidth. The Access is by far the more costly of the two, since you have to build and maintain something physical. Like most other industries that must build and maintain access points (water, electricity, sewage) the Access company(s) should be granted monopoly rights but regulated. Having only one set of physical items to maintain should actually help to reduce costs. We would have to give public grants in order to extend coverage to lowly populated areas, but they aren't served well even now.
Almost everyone reading here understands the difference between the two, but I believe that most people still do not realize that all of these ‘different’ communication services (TV, Phone, Internet, etc.) are essentially delivered using the exact same network. Once enough people do, I think we will see more demand for the Services and the Access to be split.
Once this split occurs, it then makes sense for the Access to be sold mainly by throughput with no caps. Also this separation means that the company selling you access has no interest in how the communication is used and the whole mess with net neutrality should become a non-issue.
As for the Service side of things, they can continue to sell the services that they currently do, without having to deal with the actual network. I do believe that the market would adjust and that the service choices would need to adapt, but that is just a normal changing market. The current companies won’t be happy but would still be plenty of opportunity for them.
On the post: Apple Accused Of 'Violating The Rights' Of Iconic Swiss Railway Clock
Swiss Railway has to do this
Don’t bites the Apple or you may be assimilated!!!
(Sorry not sure from which deep recess of my mind this came from, but seemed too good to pass up)
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure it’s possible that he know and did nothing about it, but even then, how does that make him more liable than his wife?
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re:
I think everyone agrees that the owner of the internet connection is responsible for the 'charges', as your analogy. But this was not a fully formed analogy.
Where you fail is not realizing that an infringement is beyond the charges associated with using the phone (or internet connection) and therefore not the responsibility of the owner but the person which performs the action.
Let’s get the analogy framed in the proper context.
Using your situation, you own a phone and someone (in your family) uses it to call a television station (out of your local area so you have your long distance charge) during a live telecast and make all kinds of slanderous statements against a politician. You should expect someone to show up at your door since you are the owner of the phone and the person of record that pays for the item, but should you also expect to be sued for it? You certainly did not make the call or say the false accusations.
Or how about you own a car and you let neighbor borrow it. If they run a red light hit a pedestrian who dies but drives off (hit and run), would you expect to be convicted on murder charges while your neighbor is fined for running a red light (because they were caught by an intersection camera) just because you own the car? This is basically what happened with the wife being fined for negligence but the husband being convicted of infringement.
I don't think any rational person would consider the phone or car own responsible in either case. So why should the owner of an internet connection be responsible for what someone else does, especially when they admit it in court.
On the post: EA: Withholding The Next Great Videogame Franchise For The Next Console Is Good Business
Just a smoke screen...
They aren't waiting for the new consoles because of some whacky notion that franchises do better during the initial few months of a new console.
They are waiting because the next gen consoles are going to try to cut out the used game market. It has been repeatedly stated that both Sony and Microsoft will have 'features' (one time activation codes, always on internet, digital distribution only, etc.) that will virtually make it impossible to let someone else play your copy of a game (without buying their own access code).
It's all about the DRM! Cut out piracy and the Gamestop's of the world, cause in the end they are both the same to EA, just a bunch of freetards, stealing their goodtimes.
On the post: Ubisoft Learns Hitting Customers Over The Head And Calling Them Thieves Is Not Good Policy
Re:
Yea, I can see the DRM industry lobbying for that.
On the post: NSA Whistleblower Explains How The NSA Is Collecting Data On All Of You (And He's Sorry About It)
Re: Re: Re:
Go watch this video by C.G.P. Grey for what I believe to be a really good explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=share&list=EC87DB3F7E8107A4AE
On the post: Infographic Shows Why You Should Be Worried About The TPP... And What You Can Do
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
What I was saying was that we as a nation (US), and truthfully as a world, have some very, very big wealth imbalances. Now there have always been imbalances (regardless of the system of government that you look at); but in today’s world, we have the best educated and most well informed (as a collective global whole) population in history thanks to the Internet. They see what is going on in the world and most are not happy with it. I think that most people realize that life is inherently unfair and they are OK with that, as long as it’s not too unfair. The problem is that it has probably already past that point and the speed of today’s communication lets everyone see it.
On the post: Infographic Shows Why You Should Be Worried About The TPP... And What You Can Do
Re: Re: I wonder
The imbalance of wealth has grown too large. There are many factors at play that have caused this buy my opinion that the root cause is simple greed; be it for money, power, or both. The system (government) is in need of a reset. It’s grown too complicated and contradictory for even those supposedly running it.
As an added problem for the US, is globalization. Being the poster child for Capitalization that we are, when globalization became feasible we did what we were taught to do, which is capitalize on the situation (exploit). The effect of this has not made our people happy though. Why? Because this moving jobs to the cheaper locations so we can make more money. Since the US (at the time) was one of the wealthiest nations, that means that just about anywhere else is cheaper (labor/material/laws). This action, while good for the “companies” bottom line was not so good for the people. Most have lost wealth (and still in the process of losing wealth) and won’t stop until we reach parity with the rest of the world. This just extends that gap.
In order to deal with the situation, those with power are doing with they have always done in the past. Restrict information as much as possible and have distractions so what does get out is ignored. But much like RIAA/MPAA is finding out, the Internet has changed the game and the world governments have not adapted with it. The Internet makes it too easy and fast to distribute information, and once it’s out, it has a tendency to stick around. Those in power are becoming to realize this and that is why they are starting to make all of this legislation, much in secret. They are hoping to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. I do not think they can and I think this will lead to violence before all is said and done. I see this happening not just in the US but in most of the world. The questions for me are when will it occur (I used to believe it would take several decades, possibly a century, but know I am not so sure) and what will be left behind? Will the current powers succeed in retaining their way? Will a new more balanced system emerge? Will the new system actually be worse? Or my biggest concern of all, will we even have a cohesive government when all is said and done. Given the weapons available to people at this time, we could very easily cause our own extinction.
Yes, I know, heavy thoughts from such a common topic, but it’s something that’s been bouncing around in my thoughts for a while and the more news I see the solid my concerns become. So when Pixelation mentioned bloodshed and the AC made a reply that was an attempt to make them look like an idiot, I just had to let it out.
On the post: Yes, Friends Can Share Your Facebook Profile With The Police
Re: Re: Re: about law
Why must I be one of those button pushers when I see a big red button that says 'Don't Push!'.
I will remember this sir!
Next >>