I'm pretty sure that they do remember replacing free-to-air antenna with pay cable service and the broadcasters complaining loudly about it. They just don't want to see that happen to them as well. I hope they lose this fight but I don't honestly expect them to just roll over.
Unfortunately, I think that some poor uninformed politicians actually think that they ARE protecting us by taking away our freedoms. In fact I think that many of them start that way. However, the power will probably corrupt even the best of them....
The proper response to being ordered to do something distasteful as an ambassador is to resign and publicly release every non-classified reason why you did so.
I think the same thing. In my opinion, I don't care WHO provides the information as long as it is true. I understand that PR firms may not be neutral however, there are already rules against posting inaccurate or unsupported information.
I haven't seen this particular music video either but a great many rap videos contain what could be considered to be threats against people and property. I've never seen a prosecution or restraining order based solely on a music video though.
Re: Re: If your violating "unknown Patents" and are unable to determine which ones ...
And I believe that this is the problem. Why isn't independent invention a defense? It's completely possible for two independent groups to invent the same thing at the same time.
If he'd asked for an exorbitantly large amount of money that could have possibly been paid like $100 million dollars I'd be with him because then it might make the companies think about trying to pay him off which would help him make his point. However, this amount will automatically make them fight against his lawsuit.
OK, I'll step up and get flamed if need be. I DON'T believe that simply linking to an illegal thing should be illegal. As far as infringing content is concerned if I don't host it or distribute it then I haven't done anything wrong. A hyperlink for example is a bunch of text. If that particular hyperlink text violates someones copyright, patent, or trademark then I've done something actionable.
Copyright is, as a bit of an over-simplification, the RIGHT to make COPIES. Hyperlinks don't copy anything so a linker isn't breaking any laws as I see it.
The same thing goes for your rather extreme child pornography example. I've seen some interesting and complex ASCII art in my time but I doubt that I can formulate a valid hyperlink that would qualify as child porn.
Now I believe that there is a special place in hell for people who abuse children however I can't personally make the logical leap between the producers of that sort of material and a person typing out a hyperlink like I just did above.
Qik streams live but it only uploads a copy of the complete recording after you hit stop. If you phone gets destroyed or if the Qik app Force Closes while recording you lose the recording IIRC.
I think that this one falls under the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' definition. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a malls public bathroom stall for example and recording me there without my permission is not legal. However, in the rest of the mall where said bathroom exists there is NO reasonable expectation of privacy so I have no say over if I am recorded taking a crap in a potted plant. I saw an actual video of a guy doing that on YouTube...damned friends >_
I'm hoping that the administration is just trying to get a Supreme Court decision one way or another so that this issue will be settled once and for all.
Just stick a personal router between your AT&T provided UVerse router and all of the other systems in your house. That way your router logs will just have your internet usage recorded and not the IPTV or VOIP services.
I've been thinking a bit and would it really be THAT hard to have a link on the application description page that links to a .zip containing the source code? If you make a requirement that any code licensed such that source code was required be submitted with a compressed copy of said code, then you just stick it on a site somewhere, link to it, and you're done.
Honestly, I agree with you (and Microsoft) and I understand stipulation one about the source-code bundling. That would be quite difficult to pull off but numbers two and three, regarding derivative works and free redistribution how exactly would Microsoft be on the hook for that?
Two and three without number one sounds like a Creative Commons Share Alike license which doesn't require that you do anything but not charge. If I were to license a piece of software that way and post it in the Windows Phone 7 App Store all I (and MS) would have to do is offer it for free.
Oddly enough, there are pieces of hardware that, when installed, will call (or text) a phone if you go over the speed limit. I think that the shock could be figured out if you tried.
This is my question, I can envision a future where you can intercept signals on the optic nerve between the eye and the brain and store the video on a storage device implanted in the body or even in the brain itself.
In that case if you let me inside of your 'private home' then you implied that I was allowed to use my eyes to see whatever I saw as long as I didn't go through cabinets behind your back or something. The problem here is that the law doesn't differentiate between storage and optics.
Is it OK to use the human eye and mechanical storage? Is it OK to use a mechanical eye and storage in the brain? What about the ultimate holy grail of man-machine interfaces, the ability to pull video out of memories. Could I use the video that was stored in my brain via my human eyes?
Eventually the law will have to deal with these cases. I just hope that we have sensible lawmakers doing so when the time comes.
On the post: Did CISPA Actually Get Better Before Passing? Not Really
Re: Re:
On the post: Boxee Ramps Up Its Fight To Stop The FCC From Letting Cable Companies Effectively Break Its Device
Re: History Repeats
On the post: USTR Claims TPP Has 'Unprecedented' Transparency, But It Won't Reveal The Details Unless You're A Big Industry Lobbyist
Re:
On the post: Canadians Respond To Internet Spying Bill By 'Revealing All' To Politician Backing It
Re: Re:
On the post: Full Text Of Slovenian Ambassador's Apology For Signing ACTA
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia
Re:
On the post: Gov't Able To Keep Details Entirely Private In 'Public' Hearing Over Twitter Subpoena
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...when was it
On the post: When Does Speech Go From Legal To Lethal?
Re: Tweets vs. the YouTube video
On the post: Kansas Governor Apologizes After Staff Gets High School Student In Trouble For Tweet About The Governor
Re:
On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Microsoft Patent Shakedown Over Android Is An Antitrust Violation
Re: Re: If your violating "unknown Patents" and are unable to determine which ones ...
On the post: Guy Suing Google For $500 Billion, Now Suing Microsoft For The Same Amount
Re: Why 500 Billion?
On the post: Police Arrest A Bunch Of Folks In Europe For Linking To Infringing Content
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is, as a bit of an over-simplification, the RIGHT to make COPIES. Hyperlinks don't copy anything so a linker isn't breaking any laws as I see it.
The same thing goes for your rather extreme child pornography example. I've seen some interesting and complex ASCII art in my time but I doubt that I can formulate a valid hyperlink that would qualify as child porn.
Now I believe that there is a special place in hell for people who abuse children however I can't personally make the logical leap between the producers of that sort of material and a person typing out a hyperlink like I just did above.
On the post: Miami Beach Police Tried To Destroy Video From Bystanders, Holding Them At Gunpoint
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an app for that?
On the post: Australian Anti-Trolling Law Put To The Test After Guy Broadcasts Having Sex Via Skype
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
On the post: Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court To Determine If FCC Can Fine ABC For Showing Charlotte Ross Naked
Just trying to get a Supreme Court decision?
On the post: AT&T Jumps Into The Metered Broadband Pool; 150 Gig Limit For DSL
Re: Re: Metered Broadband
On the post: Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?
Why not make it easy to offer source code?
On the post: Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?
Re: I hate to do this.
Two and three without number one sounds like a Creative Commons Share Alike license which doesn't require that you do anything but not charge. If I were to license a piece of software that way and post it in the Windows Phone 7 App Store all I (and MS) would have to do is offer it for free.
On the post: Instead Of Bad Drivers, What If Speed Cameras 'Caught' Good Drivers Instead?
Re:
On the post: When Recording Everything We See Is Standard, What Happens To Copyright?
Re: Re:
In that case if you let me inside of your 'private home' then you implied that I was allowed to use my eyes to see whatever I saw as long as I didn't go through cabinets behind your back or something. The problem here is that the law doesn't differentiate between storage and optics.
Is it OK to use the human eye and mechanical storage? Is it OK to use a mechanical eye and storage in the brain? What about the ultimate holy grail of man-machine interfaces, the ability to pull video out of memories. Could I use the video that was stored in my brain via my human eyes?
Eventually the law will have to deal with these cases. I just hope that we have sensible lawmakers doing so when the time comes.
Next >>