Ever notice how these old-business model entities keep attacking their own customers (and potential future customers)? In this day and age, where many businesses offer points and rewards for repeat business, these behemoths are so worried about limited short-term gains, they they have no qualms with losing long-term customers. And they wonder why their businesses are hurting?
Except that Thomson is in the process of selling the textbook division. The money gained from that transaction is being used to finance the takeover of Reuters.
Have you ever travelled across the Canada-US border? You drive up to primary inspection. hand over your identification, answer whatever questions are asked and do whatever the border personnel ask you to do (like opening doors, like getting out of your vehicle so they can 'inspect' your trunk and so on). If all is fine, they let you go on your merry way.
Sometimes, they may not like your answers so they send you to secondary inspection. Other times, the computer will randomly pick that vehicle for secondary inspection (that's happened to me and the border agent even apologized).
They tag your car and you drive over to secondary. You get out and walk into secondary. Again, they will take your id, ask more questions. Meanwhile, agents are 'inspecting' your vehicle. More often than not, they let you go.
Those other times, they will do more in-depth research, using whatever means possible. Your entry into any country is at the discretion of the customs/border agents.
Type "Andrew Feldmar LSD" into Google and the very first hit should be Mr. Feldmar's paper. The war on drugs claims another 'victim". Meanwhile, Customs had no problems letting in all of the 9/11 terrorists. Is America any safer because Mr. Feldmar was refused entry?
I'm suspicious. You seem to make a lot of phone calls to 911. Perhaps you are confusing it with 411 or 311. Then again, knowing your thought processes and overall paranoia, I'm not surprised you are calling 911.
DRM increases costs, which decreases profits. People will tend to buy less of something when it fails to work as expected. I had several Disney DVDs that will not work with several standalone DVD players. Once I rip a copy, remove the copy protection, and burn a new copy, they play perfectly in said DVD players.
I've been able to make copies of all my kids DVDs using tools that until recently were freely available. I put the original DVD away and make as many copies as I want - no more worrying about damage to or losing the DVD. I also made xvid versions, enabling me to copy 5 or more movies onto a single DVD - a god send on long trips. Screw you MPAA. Screw you RIAA.
The key phrase is "over time it proved useful and became popular". The granting of the patent and the filing of the lawsuit was granted in the SAME DAY.
Exactly what product or service did I-LOR, LLC create between receiving approval of the patent and suing Google for infringement? Stop protecting people that have ideas - protect people that innovate.
Tickets should not be purchasable above the original price
Why not? If I bought the ticket, I should be free to sell it for whatever price I am able to negotiate. After all, everybody else, from the venue to the artist to the ticket seller, earned their cut when I paid face value for that ticket. I'm not hurting their ability to earn money.
I've encountered a few DVDs that refused to play or pause/skip in 5 different DVD players (two standalone, a PS2, and internal DVD reader and an external DVD writer). Fortunately, I have the right software and was able to rip a copy (sans FBI warning, copyright warning and all previews). Exactly why should customers hand money over to these companies for defective products?
Please explain how DoubleClick is responsible for "1/2 of the malware spyware" attempts on your computers? There are DoubleClick banner ads on Techdirt and I have yet to experience any attempts of malware spyware to reach my computer.
The phrase "such as" means 'for example' or 'not limited too'. The actions listed after "purposes such as" list some obvious uses of Fair Use but do not represent an exhaustive or 'reserved' list of possible Fair Use situations. The meat of Section 107 is in the four factors.
1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes?
The purpose is to display relevant links to news based on generic terms such as "top stories" or specific search terms. The character of the use is the display of links, with a brief clip (usually one sentence) and a possible picture. There are no ads on the page, so the 'commercial nature' aspect does not come into play. Clicking on the link takes the user to the originating website - the Google News site drives traffic to originating websites.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work?
The copyrighted works are published news articles, many based on publicly available facts, typically available through various media outlets (tv, radio, newspapers, blogs, websites, etc). We are not talking government or trade secrets here - we are talking information that is widely available.
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole?
Google only displays the title of story, maybe a one or two sentence clip from the story and/or a image, and the name of the source. The entire article is not reprinted on the Google News page and there are no cached versions. The link points to the originating website.
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Google News drives traffic to originating websites, therefore, it's effect upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work is a positive one. Typically, in the business world, the more positive exposure your product or service has, the better the likelihood that your product or service will succeed.
This armchair attorney believes that Google News is fair use that only increases the value of the original content.
If XM and Sirius don't merge, even more people will lose their jobs when one of the two companies files for bankruptcy protection. I pick the lesser of two evils.
The sponsors and the IOC have the same protection that every other company has. They want additional protection on top of that.
Let's say I own a B&B in Vancouver. I have a web site. If use the phrase "Come enjoy winter in Vancouver in 2010", there is a good chance I will get sued by the Canadian Olympic organization. Any other year, no problem. That is complete bull.
As to these events not existing, maybe that is a good thing. Perhaps, the IOC would have to cut the fat, reduce the number of events and perhaps, just perhaps, make use of existing facilities instead of sucking public funds to build new 'state of the art' facilities. Maybe, we could focus on the athletes and events, not on the sponsors?
And when has DRM or as it was called in the 'old days', copy protection, ever stopped the distribution of music, movies and software? Why bother with something that adds no value to the consumer?
Of course the RIAA wants to stop it. Reznor is doing a better job marketing his album then the record company. The RIAA can't have artists cutting out the middle man aka record labels.
I thought the Olympics were about showcasing amateur athletes? Guess I was wrong. They are all about protecting commercial interests.
In 2010, during the winter, I'll be heading to Vancouver to play some games and, hopefully, strike some gold. I may stop by a jewellery store and buy a silver bracelet or some medals. Then I'll drive up to Whistler and look for a bronze statue. On my tenth run down the mountain, I'll remember that I don't have a sponsor, and no way to get back home.
Screw you IOC. This Canadian won't be watching your two-week long commercial for your sponsors.
On the post: Australia Extradites Head Of Software Copying Ring To US
On the post: Premier League, Jealous Of Viacom, Sues YouTube As Well
Re: They don't understand the ROI
On the post: Two In One Week: Now Reuters May Be Acquired
Re:
On the post: Denied Entrance Into The US Thanks To A Google Search Of Your Permanent Record
Re:
Sometimes, they may not like your answers so they send you to secondary inspection. Other times, the computer will randomly pick that vehicle for secondary inspection (that's happened to me and the border agent even apologized).
They tag your car and you drive over to secondary. You get out and walk into secondary. Again, they will take your id, ask more questions. Meanwhile, agents are 'inspecting' your vehicle. More often than not, they let you go.
Those other times, they will do more in-depth research, using whatever means possible. Your entry into any country is at the discretion of the customs/border agents.
Type "Andrew Feldmar LSD" into Google and the very first hit should be Mr. Feldmar's paper. The war on drugs claims another 'victim". Meanwhile, Customs had no problems letting in all of the 9/11 terrorists. Is America any safer because Mr. Feldmar was refused entry?
On the post: Telcos' Biggest Marketing Strategy: Inertia
Re: Re: Dorpus rant
On the post: Repeating The Claim That DRM Enables Things Won't Make It True
Re:
On the post: Repeating The Claim That DRM Enables Things Won't Make It True
Re: Re: There is one thing..
On the post: Google Sued For Infringing On Just Granted 'Enhanced Hyperlink' Patent
Re: Re: where?
Exactly what product or service did I-LOR, LLC create between receiving approval of the patent and suing Google for infringement? Stop protecting people that have ideas - protect people that innovate.
On the post: Ticketmaster Sues Competitors For... Well, Being Competitors
Re: Can't believe...
Why not? If I bought the ticket, I should be free to sell it for whatever price I am able to negotiate. After all, everybody else, from the venue to the artist to the ticket seller, earned their cut when I paid face value for that ticket. I'm not hurting their ability to earn money.
On the post: Sony DRM Making DVDs Not Work In Many DVD Players?
Re: Re: UK version ok?
On the post: Microsoft Turns The Tables, Challenges DoubleClick Purchase On Antitrust Grounds
Re:
On the post: All Quiet On The DoubleClick Front... Or Not
Re: Most evil ba******s on the planet
On the post: NAB Shill Says He Didn't Flip-Flop, Adds Sky Is Green And Down Is Up
Re: Re: #7
On the post: Why Google Isn't Stealing Newspaper Content
Re: Google's Copying
1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes?
The purpose is to display relevant links to news based on generic terms such as "top stories" or specific search terms. The character of the use is the display of links, with a brief clip (usually one sentence) and a possible picture. There are no ads on the page, so the 'commercial nature' aspect does not come into play. Clicking on the link takes the user to the originating website - the Google News site drives traffic to originating websites.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work?
The copyrighted works are published news articles, many based on publicly available facts, typically available through various media outlets (tv, radio, newspapers, blogs, websites, etc). We are not talking government or trade secrets here - we are talking information that is widely available.
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole?
Google only displays the title of story, maybe a one or two sentence clip from the story and/or a image, and the name of the source. The entire article is not reprinted on the Google News page and there are no cached versions. The link points to the originating website.
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Google News drives traffic to originating websites, therefore, it's effect upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work is a positive one. Typically, in the business world, the more positive exposure your product or service has, the better the likelihood that your product or service will succeed.
This armchair attorney believes that Google News is fair use that only increases the value of the original content.
On the post: How Can New Satellite Radio Merger Analysis Be 'Independent' When The NAB Paid For It?
Re: Radio
On the post: Sports Groups Follow Olympics' Lead On Stifling Speech And The Media
Re:
Let's say I own a B&B in Vancouver. I have a web site. If use the phrase "Come enjoy winter in Vancouver in 2010", there is a good chance I will get sued by the Canadian Olympic organization. Any other year, no problem. That is complete bull.
As to these events not existing, maybe that is a good thing. Perhaps, the IOC would have to cut the fat, reduce the number of events and perhaps, just perhaps, make use of existing facilities instead of sucking public funds to build new 'state of the art' facilities. Maybe, we could focus on the athletes and events, not on the sponsors?
On the post: What's Worse Than Letting The Lawyers Run Your Entertainment Company?
Re:
On the post: RIAA Tries To Stop Trent Reznor's Promotional Campaign For New Concept Album
Re:
On the post: DVD Jukeboxes Found Legal; DVD Group Whines About How It Will Slow Down High Def DVDs
On the post: Sports Groups Follow Olympics' Lead On Stifling Speech And The Media
In 2010, during the winter, I'll be heading to Vancouver to play some games and, hopefully, strike some gold. I may stop by a jewellery store and buy a silver bracelet or some medals. Then I'll drive up to Whistler and look for a bronze statue. On my tenth run down the mountain, I'll remember that I don't have a sponsor, and no way to get back home.
Screw you IOC. This Canadian won't be watching your two-week long commercial for your sponsors.
Next >>