I experimented with being a Mechanical Turk (wanted to see what it was all about). I saw several HITs like this one, but I never did them. There are a lot of shady HITs and I never wanted to do any that I thought would contribute to spam (there are a lot of HITs where you read something and then type it into various fields). The higher the payout, the more suspicious the tasks (usually). It is interesting to see it used this way, though I would never participate.
Think about this: YouTube has not intrinsic way of knowing whether a video is infringing or not. It has create tools, in conjunction with content owners, to help identify which contents does and then deal with it. No site that allowed people not affiliated with the site would be able to host any content. Each content owner would have to have their own site. This cumbersome system would not be able to survive.
Granted, this is probably what big content owners want. But I don't think that is what the people want. The bottom line is that if big content doesn't survive, we still will. There will always be interesting things to do, see and listen to.
I think you miss the point. I am do not believe she is actually saying that you can, or that you will be in the future. There is a certain level of hyperbole, a little over the top for a chuckle.
I think the main point is that businesses love monopolies and will use their organizational skills and resources to try to expand what they can get a monopoly on. The patent system is a tool that has been fairly effective in granting those monopolies beyond the intended purpose of a patent. It would not be a stretch of the imagination for some entity to try and so some as ridiculous as patent emotions (if they haven't done it already.
I generally don't like this argument. You can be an art critic without being an artist. However, the AC did not actually add anything of substance. He/She/It did not tell us why it thought the cartoon missed the mark and did not proffer any ideas or thoughts of the subject in general.
So I would say, either:
a) Show us your superior creative work; or
b) Please provide a clear, articulate explanation of why you don't think Nina quite hit the mark on this one.
Congress does not seem adverse to changing copyright law to make it worse. It is like a hobby to them... or maybe a drug. I wonder what sort of high they felt like after passing the DMCA?
The only ones that seem to be the Kool-Aid drinkers are the ACs that come and just make attacks against Mike without adding anything of substance to the conversation.
There are a lot of people here that share, to some degree, the posters' views. However, there are also interesting conversations where people don't agree, but they give reasons. That is what a real conversation looks like. Your comment added nothing. If you don't agree with the subject matter of the post. Tell us why. The other ACs in this tread at least took a position and stated an opinion. You, on the other hand, are just a waste of space.
A matter or days or weeks would probably be often too late in itself. My point in general is that the executive authority will often overreact and use a "standard of reasonableness" that is based on its own desire and ease. Basically, you cannot trust the executive authority to consistently make good judgement calls because its judgment is one-sided. When it does prevent the speech, even if that prevention is later declared improper, the damage is already done.
I think you "wall of china" argument is good, but not in the way you mean it. The wall is long and it is hard to get around. Granted, there are a few people willing to make the journey, but those are the exception and not the rule.
However, I am still skeptical about your claim to their being many viable codecs that are not controlled somehow by MPEG-LA. HTML5 is its own patent mess. WebM may be in trouble (it has several defensive patents).
This made me chuckle. To think that the terrorists are debating whether to pirate a copy of Marry Poppins instead of buying it so they can spend an extra $15 on bombs. In other news, the more people use iTunes, the less bombs there will be in the world.
Other than scope of employment, there must me a written instrument that expressly makes the work a work-for-hire (17 U.S.C. 101). So if there is no contract that expressly states that the music was a work-for-hire, then it absolutely is not.
The central argument is who gets to determine what is reasonable? I would say, based on all of your examples, that it is the court's job. Therefore, BART/police/whoever should be required to go to court, with a full adversarial hearing with someone advocating for the free speach rights of the citizenry, including appeals, in order to make those "reasonable" exceptions.
On the post: Newspaper Claims Satirical Blogger Mentioning Its Name Is Trademark Infringement
On the post: Can A Computer Pick Out Fake Online Reviews When Humans Can't?
On the post: Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'?
Re:
On the post: Yet Another 'Rogue Site' List Proposed, This Time With YouTube Right On Top
Re:
Granted, this is probably what big content owners want. But I don't think that is what the people want. The bottom line is that if big content doesn't survive, we still will. There will always be interesting things to do, see and listen to.
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I think the main point is that businesses love monopolies and will use their organizational skills and resources to try to expand what they can get a monopoly on. The patent system is a tool that has been fairly effective in granting those monopolies beyond the intended purpose of a patent. It would not be a stretch of the imagination for some entity to try and so some as ridiculous as patent emotions (if they haven't done it already.
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Put up or shut up
So I would say, either:
a) Show us your superior creative work; or
b) Please provide a clear, articulate explanation of why you don't think Nina quite hit the mark on this one.
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: Re:
No, you!
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re:
Anonymous Coward, did you get a patent on truly horrible comments?
On the post: Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
On the post: Righthaven CEO Explains Losses: 'We've Blazed Some Trails; There Are Differences Of Opinion'
Re: Normally I agree
On the post: New Research: Internet Censorship To Stop Protests... Actually Increases Protests
Re: Re:
There are a lot of people here that share, to some degree, the posters' views. However, there are also interesting conversations where people don't agree, but they give reasons. That is what a real conversation looks like. Your comment added nothing. If you don't agree with the subject matter of the post. Tell us why. The other ACs in this tread at least took a position and stated an opinion. You, on the other hand, are just a waste of space.
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Do We Really Want The First To Come Up With An Invention To Own The Market?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, I am still skeptical about your claim to their being many viable codecs that are not controlled somehow by MPEG-LA. HTML5 is its own patent mess. WebM may be in trouble (it has several defensive patents).
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again; Told To Pay $34,045.50 In Legal Fees
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Musicians: The RIAA Is About To Totally Screw You Over (Again!)
Re: But copyright should have TOTALLY expired by 35 years!
On the post: Dear Musicians: The RIAA Is About To Totally Screw You Over (Again!)
Re:
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again; Told To Pay $34,045.50 In Legal Fees
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Next >>