I don't understand all the legalese, but section 5 states (paraphrased) that the value of the loss from a breach is $20m (12m pounds). Does this directly translate to a penalty?
Or does it just mean that's what the cost to Wikileaks would potentially be?
Section talks of injunction and any other order a court my impose.. would they then be given an order to repay by the court?
I pledged but was a bit disappointed to see it tied to Amazon. Is kickstarter tied to amazon for payments or just Nina? I've never used Kickstarter before so I am genuinely curious.
Really? You mean all of the advances of digital technology being applied to photography, putting professional looking output into the hands of budding photographers the world over, therefor increasing competition had nothing to do with it? The only thing these photographer friends of hers can do is point to CC, as if thats the magic bullet that will bring the money back?
What a fucking crock of shit.
About 8-10 years ago I did a few weddings for about $300 when the couples were typically quoted $1500-2000. Sure, I didn't have much experience, thats why I only charged them $300. But they got high quality images, on CDROM, that they could do whatever they pleased with. I didn't insist on any copyrights being maintained, etc. I guess what I'm saying is, going digital allows just about anyone who is proficient to shoot events, photojournalism, art and nature photography, all without the cost of developing, film, etc. People learn a lot faster when the results are right there in front of them, and nothing is going to turn that back around. Go ahead, you daft cunt, push for the abolition of CC. If it ever comes to pass, photographers are not magically going to stop "going out of business." They will have just as much competition to deal with due to other forces at work.
I saw that showing of the Big Lebowski, too. For my first time at the Dryden (a shame, I will admit) I was impressed with the fact that it sold out and the audience was very considerate. I probably got some looks for laughing at things I was the only one who thought were funny, but I digress.
The only time I have an issue with theaters is when I go to dollar theaters on busy nights. Its only happend once or twice and I'm mature enough to not let other people bother me in second run movies.
Which brings me back to the quote from the theater owner. Does he honestly think people are going to pay $30 at home for a movie that can be seen for $1, $1.50, or $2 second run? He must really hate his own theater experience. I much prefer theater atmosphere and sound than my living room. Especially with my girlfriend, who loves the going out part. You know. Like a date.
Which is why I jumped at the opportunity to see the Big Lebowski on a theater screen (with obviously like minded individuals)
Oh brother.. I already did, and yeah, there are some real doozies there, like one person saying you CAN'T do whatever you want with something you bought (and this beautiful strawman to go with it) because you shouldn't have the right to take something you own and harm someone with it. (or take a plate and throw out the window with intent to harm someone)
He obviously missed the context of the conversation that people are referring to modifying, destroying, or otherwise altering the products they own, not harming or infringing on the rights of others.
Considering my phone is 2% phone and 98% computer, no "checkup" needed, except maybe for you to realize that I have a browser I can access anywhere, maps I can access anywhere, a GPS unit I can use for geocaching/trail tracking, and access to video sites, my music, and about 5000 things I'd rather being doing with my phone than placing phone calls. I, personally, didn't buy a phone with a keyboard so I could make phone calls on it. I txt my SO about 50 times a day, and talk in person when we get home.
Might be the case with Mike as well, I'm pretty sure he recently got an Android phone.
So, if the phone in my pocket was only capable of phone calls and nothing else, you might have an argument there.
My phone is also: A flashlight, camera, camcorder, radio (via internet), calendar, work and personal email device, remote control for VLC on my computer, stargazing aid, a LightSaber, a Looooooooooongcat, a wifi analyzer, a stud finder, a gaming machine, an alarm clock, a barcode scanner, a calculator, an SSH/telnet client, a photo gallery, a memo pad, in car navigation, paypal payment/receipts device, a spirit level, a stopwatch, a comic strip viewer and also lets me check the weather.
Nothing more to it than that, so if you kool-aid drinkers wouldn't mind fucking off now. (Directed at the trolls, and its like they say, if you are looking around and you can't figure out who the trolls are, its you)
Guilty? What court case? Where was it proven that anyone infringed anything? The larger issue (the reason for the "seizure" was child pornography.) has nothing to do with copyright.
What do those sites have to do with people that are "guilty" of copyright infringement? Well, if you take down a domain that has 84,000 subdomains on the suspicion that 10 out of those 84,000 are distributing child porn, and 83990 of those sites are not, you've just witnessed what is called "prior restraint" Those 83990 sites were taken down when they had no reason to be taken down. Business websites, personal blogs, etc etc. Those 83990 sites have suddenly disappeared for no reason other than they used the same domain as some suspected child pornographers.
Its like someone else has stated, would you take down the entire empire state building if only a handful of the offices within are being used for some suspected illegal activity? I think not.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Not music related, completely, but my own anecdote:
1) I got to watch the first episode of The Walking Dead on AMC's website. I liked it so much (and I was about 2 or 3 weeks behind at that point) that I downloaded every single episode of the show. There were only 6 that season.
I like them all SO MUCH that I bought the first three comics (more money directly to the author/publisher, so that he can make more of the source works), got 2 people at work into it, one of whom bought all the episodes on Amazon AND has bought at least 6 of the comics AND planned to purchase the DVD when it became available.
I plan to buy the entire comic book series. I also have the DVD which my GF bought for me.
There's not a lost sale in that bunch anywhere. In fact, the act of my downloading cause considerable buying.
2) There was a time when Twin Peaks Season Two was never going to be made available in the US on DVD. Well, I'm not going to buy a VHS copy cause.. I don't WANT it. So i got all the episodes in some shitty 320x240 format with awful visual quality. I wait and I wait. Now that it is out on DVD I BOUGHT IT. Another download that turned into a sale (Keeping count, we're up to at least 3 on 2 aggregate downloads)
As far as music goes? Well, whats the take on people recording off the radio? Recently, I have mostly purchased my music (King of Limbs from Sandbag, Royksopps Junior from Amazon, Daft Punk Discovery from Amazon, etc.) So, if there's a song I like, and I play it on the web stream, and then record it, how is that different than recording it off the radio? And typically, if theres stuff I want to here at that moment, I search it on Youtube and listen to it there with the browser minimized. Am I infringing?
I have lots of albums on cassette. I downloaded a few here and there. Since I already paid, am I infringing?
torrents are, even if some of you please will claim otherwise, *mainly* a means to distribute Linux ISO's, World of Warcraft patches, and ready to distribute content like "Sita Sings the Blues", and "The Yes Men Fix the World"
This reminds me of what a food or beverage maker did some years ago. They had this awesome flavor, and it was the one flavor of their product that was always sold out on the shelves. Apparently one day they decided to stop making that flavor. Wtf? Why stop making the one flavor that sells? I dunno, at this point 10 years later my mind thinks they did it so the other flavors would sell >
On the post: Julian Assange Doesn't Do Irony Well: Threatens His Own Internal Leakers With $20 Million Penalty
Or does it just mean that's what the cost to Wikileaks would potentially be?
Section talks of injunction and any other order a court my impose.. would they then be given an order to repay by the court?
On the post: Help Fund Nina Paley's Minibooks About Intellectual Pooperty
On the post: Off The Deep End: People Claiming That Supporting Creative Commons Is Being Anti-Creator
Re:
Its called competition! People are using CC licensed photos because THEY CAN!
If the pros don't know how to deal with competition, maybe they should get another line of work (as noted in comments here)
On the post: Off The Deep End: People Claiming That Supporting Creative Commons Is Being Anti-Creator
Re:
http://twitter.com/#!/LeslieBAP/status/67724692605243392
Really? You mean all of the advances of digital technology being applied to photography, putting professional looking output into the hands of budding photographers the world over, therefor increasing competition had nothing to do with it? The only thing these photographer friends of hers can do is point to CC, as if thats the magic bullet that will bring the money back?
What a fucking crock of shit.
About 8-10 years ago I did a few weddings for about $300 when the couples were typically quoted $1500-2000. Sure, I didn't have much experience, thats why I only charged them $300. But they got high quality images, on CDROM, that they could do whatever they pleased with. I didn't insist on any copyrights being maintained, etc. I guess what I'm saying is, going digital allows just about anyone who is proficient to shoot events, photojournalism, art and nature photography, all without the cost of developing, film, etc. People learn a lot faster when the results are right there in front of them, and nothing is going to turn that back around. Go ahead, you daft cunt, push for the abolition of CC. If it ever comes to pass, photographers are not magically going to stop "going out of business." They will have just as much competition to deal with due to other forces at work.
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/massachusetts-district-court/52957/tif fany-gouch-v-the-recording-industry-association-of-america/summary/
So she sued the RIAA (from Massachusetts), again Pro Se like this case.
She states in this filing she moved to California in 2007. She doesn't mention going back to MA that I remember.
On the post: Studios Offering $30 Movie Rentals; Theater Owner Complains That He Can't Compete With That
Re: Re: A bit short sighted...
The only time I have an issue with theaters is when I go to dollar theaters on busy nights. Its only happend once or twice and I'm mature enough to not let other people bother me in second run movies.
Which brings me back to the quote from the theater owner. Does he honestly think people are going to pay $30 at home for a movie that can be seen for $1, $1.50, or $2 second run? He must really hate his own theater experience. I much prefer theater atmosphere and sound than my living room. Especially with my girlfriend, who loves the going out part. You know. Like a date.
Which is why I jumped at the opportunity to see the Big Lebowski on a theater screen (with obviously like minded individuals)
On the post: Microsoft Wants To Make It Illegal To Buy From An Overseas Company That Uses Unauthorized Software
Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
What has "allready" been with software?
What's it to you who mike likes or doesn't?
Turnabout is fair play: again, I guess you don't like Mike do you darryl?
Then again you don't like anyone who questions the fairness or constitutionality of a law.
On the post: Geohot Goes On Vacation; Sony Accuses Him Of Fleeing Legal Action
Re:
He obviously missed the context of the conversation that people are referring to modifying, destroying, or otherwise altering the products they own, not harming or infringing on the rights of others.
On the post: Phone Calls Are So Last Century
Re:
Might be the case with Mike as well, I'm pretty sure he recently got an Android phone.
So, if the phone in my pocket was only capable of phone calls and nothing else, you might have an argument there.
My phone is also: A flashlight, camera, camcorder, radio (via internet), calendar, work and personal email device, remote control for VLC on my computer, stargazing aid, a LightSaber, a Looooooooooongcat, a wifi analyzer, a stud finder, a gaming machine, an alarm clock, a barcode scanner, a calculator, an SSH/telnet client, a photo gallery, a memo pad, in car navigation, paypal payment/receipts device, a spirit level, a stopwatch, a comic strip viewer and also lets me check the weather.
So, how about them phonecalls?
On the post: Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy
Re: Not smart.
"For those saying "I'm going to regret being principled", etc. Probably not. Android App sales have been more than good to me."
What were you saying?
On the post: Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy
Koush posted comments on Reddit in regards to this, he turned down an interview, not a job, out of principle. And Android app sales "have been more than good" to him.
Nothing more to it than that, so if you kool-aid drinkers wouldn't mind fucking off now. (Directed at the trolls, and its like they say, if you are looking around and you can't figure out who the trolls are, its you)
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do those sites have to do with people that are "guilty" of copyright infringement? Well, if you take down a domain that has 84,000 subdomains on the suspicion that 10 out of those 84,000 are distributing child porn, and 83990 of those sites are not, you've just witnessed what is called "prior restraint" Those 83990 sites were taken down when they had no reason to be taken down. Business websites, personal blogs, etc etc. Those 83990 sites have suddenly disappeared for no reason other than they used the same domain as some suspected child pornographers.
Its like someone else has stated, would you take down the entire empire state building if only a handful of the offices within are being used for some suspected illegal activity? I think not.
On the post: No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
1) I got to watch the first episode of The Walking Dead on AMC's website. I liked it so much (and I was about 2 or 3 weeks behind at that point) that I downloaded every single episode of the show. There were only 6 that season.
I like them all SO MUCH that I bought the first three comics (more money directly to the author/publisher, so that he can make more of the source works), got 2 people at work into it, one of whom bought all the episodes on Amazon AND has bought at least 6 of the comics AND planned to purchase the DVD when it became available.
I plan to buy the entire comic book series. I also have the DVD which my GF bought for me.
There's not a lost sale in that bunch anywhere. In fact, the act of my downloading cause considerable buying.
2) There was a time when Twin Peaks Season Two was never going to be made available in the US on DVD. Well, I'm not going to buy a VHS copy cause.. I don't WANT it. So i got all the episodes in some shitty 320x240 format with awful visual quality. I wait and I wait. Now that it is out on DVD I BOUGHT IT. Another download that turned into a sale (Keeping count, we're up to at least 3 on 2 aggregate downloads)
As far as music goes? Well, whats the take on people recording off the radio? Recently, I have mostly purchased my music (King of Limbs from Sandbag, Royksopps Junior from Amazon, Daft Punk Discovery from Amazon, etc.) So, if there's a song I like, and I play it on the web stream, and then record it, how is that different than recording it off the radio? And typically, if theres stuff I want to here at that moment, I search it on Youtube and listen to it there with the browser minimized. Am I infringing?
I have lots of albums on cassette. I downloaded a few here and there. Since I already paid, am I infringing?
I'd say obscurity is worse than piracy.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
Re:
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_journalism
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
Try fucking again. Harder next time. Try fucking AND try again.
(This is in response to the libriarian not having a web profile you could find. Her site goes back to 2009)
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
https://readersbillofrights.info/librariansagainstDRM
"These images were created for us by cartoonist and QuestionCopyright.org artist-in-residence Nina Paley."
What was that you were saying?
Next >>