And if you'd bothered to read the second half of the same paragraph you quoted, you would have seen this little tidbit:
"I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy."
As for not having "permission" to modify, or edit, the content, that's where we get into laws contradicting each other (again see first sale doctrine) and ppl pretending they can just sell a "license", but not bothering to include all the normal benefits to the consumer that a license provides (if something I license wears out from normal use, you have to replace it for me, etc.).
Pretending that first sale somehow doesn't apply in these so called special cases is what fails, and is one of many reasons that copyright no longer protects the consumer and creator equally, the way it was originally intended to.
Wow, I was going to respond to some individual posts, but then I saw just how many clueless idiots claiming, in one way or another, how morally wrong it somehow was to want censored content either for yourself or your children, that it just makes more sense to put up my own....
Economics 101: if the service wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.
Fact is, there are a LOT of movies out there with great stories, but where some idiot decided the main actor had to swear every third word or a director thought they had to throw in a sex scene somewhere just to broaden the audience, and removing the swearing or that sex scene does absolutely nothing to the story of the film itself. Just look up Titanic, as an example.
As far as movies where removing the sex removes the film, obviously it would be pointless for such a service to try to edit them. Trying to pretend that all movies that have some sex in them fit that scenario is just ridiculous.
And then there are all those pretending that my desire to filter what comes into my home for my children is somehow deluding myself into thinking they'll NEVER see that kind of stuff. Of course they'll encounter it, you think I'm an idiot? If I want to teach them that it's the sleazy filth that it is, that in no way pretends that they'll never see it. Obviously they will grow up to make their own choices as to what they watch, my sharing with them the values I feel are important in no way removes their freedom to choose for themselves when they grow up.
The only one of these commenters I would agree with is that it's ridiculous to filter content based solely upon a persons age. The idea that viewing something is ok for an adult but somehow not appropriate for a child is stupid. The only thing is, I flip the intent of that comment on it's head. Pornography is not appropriate for anyone, IMHO, regardless of age. That is, of course, my OPINION, so I have every right to it.
And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???
As surely as we do not call you stupid or idiotic names for choosing the values you do, do not do so to us.
And a final note for all those who question the legality of these services:
Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original. Look up First Sale Doctrine if you don't believe that. I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy.
Ok, now you have proven that you are a complete idiot.
Why don't you take your own advice and think before you reply. Here, I'll do it for you:
If he's working as an IT consultant remotely, that has to mean he's sending and receiving private information whose owner would want to KEEP private.
Nothing illegal, nothing dishonest, no piracy involved, yet somehow, for some stupid reason, we still want privacy. Ya, we MUST be the stupid ones! /sarcasm
The child doesn't need to understand that 'mama' is somewhere else, they just understand that when they can't see 'mama' right now, 'mama' could come up on the screen.
I have two small children myself right now, and they both could easily have worked that out by the time they were 6 months.
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
The failure in both your and the previous post arguing this same point is that you've failed to separate the copyright from the item being copyrighted.
Yes, of course you OWN the actual piece of property you created. Anyone would be an idiot for trying to say you don't. But then again, NO ONE SAID YOU DON'T, you simply misunderstood.
It's the supposed "right" to make and distribute COPIES of the item you own that Mike is talking about here. The problem he's discussing is also beautifully demonstrated in your post by your completely missing the distinction. You believe that there is some inherent right that anyone who creates something has to be the only one allowed to create and distribute copies of what they've created, and that it is somehow morally or inherently wrong for anyone else to do so.
And therein is the problem. While most of us here would agree that for some short period it would be appropriate to grant that person such a privilege, there is no inherent right demanding somehow that that be done, and the whole problem with current copyright law is that it takes this idea and runs rampant with it, granting this "right" practically add-infinitum now.
Hopefully this helps you see what the real issue being discussed here is, and understand what the distinction between your property and copyright is.
Ok, I know that fascism has historically been almost entirely on the conservatist side of the scale, but that is honestly part of the problem now.
Things have changed, and if you really look at what the liberals are doing and advocating right now, it fits the fascist ideology almost word for word.
Basically, the tables have begun to turn, and things are not what they have always been....Those who HAVE taken courses in pol science may need to scrap what they thought they learned and look more carefully at how things are moving today compared to how they used to be
I HATE spammers, so it's great that this idiot got caught and has some sort of punishment coming.
But $873 MILLION for spamming??? What the heck was that judge smoking? Is this seriously considered an ok punishment for this kind of crime, or is it because it's based on how many ppl he actually spammed?
Thankfully, we still have laws that make things like this illegal, even if they have it written into a contract. They can say whatever they want in their TOS, that doesn't immediately make it enforceable in court.
Actually, you're right. The law specifically talks about monitoring P2P networks for infringers, but there's absolutely nothing in place to check that that's where the IP's came from.
This law gets worse and worse every time I look at it....
You assume, again, that whether or not you actually infringed makes a difference. Go read the law again. They don't care if you're actually guilty.
In fact, the way it reads, all they do is monitor the P2P networks and grab IP's off of them. Knowing how Hollywood thinks, I'll bet they just grab every IP they see using any P2P for anything and send it off to HADOPI.
Much of the complaint against this law is that it takes "guilty until proven innocent" and tosses it out the window, giving complete power to whoever wants to kick anyone off the internet.
Thus, his math, while certainly simple, is unfortunately accurate. I personally don't think it will take nearly as long as he says to get everyone off.
Oh, and the 150,000/day figure? Ya, that comes directly quoted from the article. Go read it again.
This is truer than you might think. Based on an estimated population of 62,277,432 in 2008, and 150,000 people per day, everyone would be off in about 415 days.
Give it an extra month or two for the 3 strikes to hit, and all of France will be disconnected from the rest of the world in about a year and a half.
Considering how many people are behind NAT's (get your internet through an apartment complex, share with neighbors, etc.), it might happen a lot sooner even than that.
I wonder how long it will be before people start rioting?
"It is also not illegal for a big group of people to take jumbo jet flying lessons and to not be at all concerned with how to land one."
Very true. And in a land where we believe you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, we accept the fact that there are risks with letting people do things like this that, while they could appear suspicious, are not harming anyone.
"This article is typical Techdirt: dripping with contempt for authority of all kinds. It's certainly not possible that a TSA agent would be mature enough to check into a reported incident, find nothing to be concerned about, and go about her business, right?"
Of course not, but since you didn't bother to read the poster shown here, you didn't realize that that is NOT what is being encouraged. The poster clearly tells them to call the police over something that is both simple and legal, namely someone taking pictures from an area they have every right to be in (outside the fence). You don't call the police on someone who hasn't done anything illegal.
That is what is wrong with this poster. You don't really care about that, though, since your post clearly demonstrates that your intent is to demean Techdirt, no matter how far you have to twist the facts to do so.
"Those are product reviews, in which case noting that the QA is sufficiently poor that the manufacturer is shipping DOA units is a legitimate consumer complaint about the product. That Newegg quickly ships replacements is a sign of good service on Newegg's part, not an indicator that the quality of the product is good."
Only when one hasn't got the first clue how electronics work. Getting a DOA unit doesn't say anything about a companies QA. Electronics can be burnt out far too easily, anyone who understands that knows that it is expected to have a certain percentage of units go dead in transit for all sorts of reasons, hence why complaining about getting one that did go bad just because you were the unlucky one is just stupid.
"most of them disappear in short order without distribution. exceptional cases like xkcd exist online, but they are rare"
Of course they're rare. This is WHY execution is everything, because it's the HARD part. Lots of people try, only a few end up successful from it.
"the point is more that scott adams is pissing on the very industry that made him rich and famous, as opposed to being the real life dilbert he was before"
No, the point is that you missed the point entirely. Yes, Scott used that old business model to build up his success. Back then that was the way to do it. The fact that things are changing now does not discredit what has been done before. Oh, and just to point out, the industry didn't make him famous, they simply provided a way to connect him to people. His work made him famous. Execution is what counts.
"Oh, and I want the FCC disbarred and not replaced by anyone. The public airwaves should be free for public use."
You do realize that the only thing that would do is make the airwaves completely useless to all of us, right? There are only so many frequencies available, with everyone trying to randomly use them, the only outcome would be chaos.
"The one never ending truth about groups in conflict is, the larger group always wins in the end"
Not to debunk this too far, but the problem with this statement is that far too often, that isn't what happens. For proof, just look at the revolutionary war.
Now that's a nice example because it had good results, but there are too many cases where small groups manage to win out for all sorts of reasons. We should be very concerned about what's going on here.
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re: Re: Child abuse???
"I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy."
As for not having "permission" to modify, or edit, the content, that's where we get into laws contradicting each other (again see first sale doctrine) and ppl pretending they can just sell a "license", but not bothering to include all the normal benefits to the consumer that a license provides (if something I license wears out from normal use, you have to replace it for me, etc.).
Pretending that first sale somehow doesn't apply in these so called special cases is what fails, and is one of many reasons that copyright no longer protects the consumer and creator equally, the way it was originally intended to.
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Child abuse???
Economics 101: if the service wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.
Fact is, there are a LOT of movies out there with great stories, but where some idiot decided the main actor had to swear every third word or a director thought they had to throw in a sex scene somewhere just to broaden the audience, and removing the swearing or that sex scene does absolutely nothing to the story of the film itself. Just look up Titanic, as an example.
As far as movies where removing the sex removes the film, obviously it would be pointless for such a service to try to edit them. Trying to pretend that all movies that have some sex in them fit that scenario is just ridiculous.
And then there are all those pretending that my desire to filter what comes into my home for my children is somehow deluding myself into thinking they'll NEVER see that kind of stuff. Of course they'll encounter it, you think I'm an idiot? If I want to teach them that it's the sleazy filth that it is, that in no way pretends that they'll never see it. Obviously they will grow up to make their own choices as to what they watch, my sharing with them the values I feel are important in no way removes their freedom to choose for themselves when they grow up.
The only one of these commenters I would agree with is that it's ridiculous to filter content based solely upon a persons age. The idea that viewing something is ok for an adult but somehow not appropriate for a child is stupid. The only thing is, I flip the intent of that comment on it's head. Pornography is not appropriate for anyone, IMHO, regardless of age. That is, of course, my OPINION, so I have every right to it.
And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???
As surely as we do not call you stupid or idiotic names for choosing the values you do, do not do so to us.
And a final note for all those who question the legality of these services:
Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original. Look up First Sale Doctrine if you don't believe that. I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy.
On the post: Does Your ISP Care About Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re:
Then stop doing it.
On the post: Does Your ISP Care About Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Boy Who Mistook An iPhone For His Mother
Re: Re: Maybe even simpler
The child doesn't need to understand that 'mama' is somewhere else, they just understand that when they can't see 'mama' right now, 'mama' could come up on the screen.
I have two small children myself right now, and they both could easily have worked that out by the time they were 6 months.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Yes, of course you OWN the actual piece of property you created. Anyone would be an idiot for trying to say you don't. But then again, NO ONE SAID YOU DON'T, you simply misunderstood.
It's the supposed "right" to make and distribute COPIES of the item you own that Mike is talking about here. The problem he's discussing is also beautifully demonstrated in your post by your completely missing the distinction. You believe that there is some inherent right that anyone who creates something has to be the only one allowed to create and distribute copies of what they've created, and that it is somehow morally or inherently wrong for anyone else to do so.
And therein is the problem. While most of us here would agree that for some short period it would be appropriate to grant that person such a privilege, there is no inherent right demanding somehow that that be done, and the whole problem with current copyright law is that it takes this idea and runs rampant with it, granting this "right" practically add-infinitum now.
Hopefully this helps you see what the real issue being discussed here is, and understand what the distinction between your property and copyright is.
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Fascist sides not what they used to be
Things have changed, and if you really look at what the liberals are doing and advocating right now, it fits the fascist ideology almost word for word.
Basically, the tables have begun to turn, and things are not what they have always been....Those who HAVE taken courses in pol science may need to scrap what they thought they learned and look more carefully at how things are moving today compared to how they used to be
On the post: Canadian Spammer Who Ignored US Judgment Discovers Canadian Courts Are Willing To Uphold US Rulings
Mixed feelings
I HATE spammers, so it's great that this idiot got caught and has some sort of punishment coming.
But $873 MILLION for spamming??? What the heck was that judge smoking? Is this seriously considered an ok punishment for this kind of crime, or is it because it's based on how many ppl he actually spammed?
On the post: US ISP Suddenlink Claims The DMCA Requires They Disconnect Users
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked Report Admits That Hadopi First Strike Accusations Won't Be Reviewed For Accuracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: 150,000 a day???
This law gets worse and worse every time I look at it....
On the post: Leaked Report Admits That Hadopi First Strike Accusations Won't Be Reviewed For Accuracy
Re: Re: 150,000 a day???
In fact, the way it reads, all they do is monitor the P2P networks and grab IP's off of them. Knowing how Hollywood thinks, I'll bet they just grab every IP they see using any P2P for anything and send it off to HADOPI.
Much of the complaint against this law is that it takes "guilty until proven innocent" and tosses it out the window, giving complete power to whoever wants to kick anyone off the internet.
Thus, his math, while certainly simple, is unfortunately accurate. I personally don't think it will take nearly as long as he says to get everyone off.
Oh, and the 150,000/day figure? Ya, that comes directly quoted from the article. Go read it again.
On the post: Leaked Report Admits That Hadopi First Strike Accusations Won't Be Reviewed For Accuracy
Re: Re:
Give it an extra month or two for the 3 strikes to hit, and all of France will be disconnected from the rest of the world in about a year and a half.
Considering how many people are behind NAT's (get your internet through an apartment complex, share with neighbors, etc.), it might happen a lot sooner even than that.
I wonder how long it will be before people start rioting?
On the post: TSA Warns Against Evil Photographers Taking Pictures Of Planes
Re:
Very true. And in a land where we believe you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, we accept the fact that there are risks with letting people do things like this that, while they could appear suspicious, are not harming anyone.
"This article is typical Techdirt: dripping with contempt for authority of all kinds. It's certainly not possible that a TSA agent would be mature enough to check into a reported incident, find nothing to be concerned about, and go about her business, right?"
Of course not, but since you didn't bother to read the poster shown here, you didn't realize that that is NOT what is being encouraged. The poster clearly tells them to call the police over something that is both simple and legal, namely someone taking pictures from an area they have every right to be in (outside the fence). You don't call the police on someone who hasn't done anything illegal.
That is what is wrong with this poster. You don't really care about that, though, since your post clearly demonstrates that your intent is to demean Techdirt, no matter how far you have to twist the facts to do so.
On the post: Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List
Re: Re: Re: Negative Reviews
Only when one hasn't got the first clue how electronics work. Getting a DOA unit doesn't say anything about a companies QA. Electronics can be burnt out far too easily, anyone who understands that knows that it is expected to have a certain percentage of units go dead in transit for all sorts of reasons, hence why complaining about getting one that did go bad just because you were the unlucky one is just stupid.
On the post: Scott Adams: Ideas vs. Execution
Re:
Of course they're rare. This is WHY execution is everything, because it's the HARD part. Lots of people try, only a few end up successful from it.
"the point is more that scott adams is pissing on the very industry that made him rich and famous, as opposed to being the real life dilbert he was before"
No, the point is that you missed the point entirely. Yes, Scott used that old business model to build up his success. Back then that was the way to do it. The fact that things are changing now does not discredit what has been done before. Oh, and just to point out, the industry didn't make him famous, they simply provided a way to connect him to people. His work made him famous. Execution is what counts.
On the post: Debunking Reasons For ACTA Secrecy: Just Enforcement Doesn't Tell The Whole Story
Re: Re: Re: Re: hmmmm
You do realize that the only thing that would do is make the airwaves completely useless to all of us, right? There are only so many frequencies available, with everyone trying to randomly use them, the only outcome would be chaos.
On the post: Debunking Reasons For ACTA Secrecy: Just Enforcement Doesn't Tell The Whole Story
Re: Re: hmmmm
Not to debunk this too far, but the problem with this statement is that far too often, that isn't what happens. For proof, just look at the revolutionary war.
Now that's a nice example because it had good results, but there are too many cases where small groups manage to win out for all sorts of reasons. We should be very concerned about what's going on here.
Next >>