It is of utmost importance to note that the "unprecedented attacks on IP rights" have been entirely in response to "unprecedented attacks on civil rights" done by the whining entertainment industry aided by their lobbyists and "bought and paid for" political puppets.
I have had enough and am about an inch away from boycotting these producers. So far I have continued to purchase my entertainment though as of late I have been aware and favouring the products by companies not trying to control the world.
Perhaps Google is in the process of changing their business model, but historically they haven't sold their software instead they have sold the users of their software. Anything that reduces the number of users reduces their traditional product inventory. But hey maybe they are planning on selling software instead but I doubt that too many users will be willing to be a marketed product and pay the same company that sells them as such for software. I just think people will believe that is asking too much.
Wait and watch what happens, the value of money is all psychological and without the Canadian penny their 5 cent piece will be demoted to the new perceived worthless coin and the public perception about the value of the Canadian dollar will begin to adjust downward with it. If you wish to verify this trend that has happened around the globe many times before including in the US, watch the exchange rates with other currencies and see what happens with the Canadian Dollar. Sometimes you have to go in the hole in certain areas in order to stay profitable in other larger areas, and that is the case with pennies and the way they prop up the value of their respective dollars.
The minting of excessively high value US coins just like all the over printing and minting being done of late, it is just another way to fleece the American public. Watch this one as well while the US dollars continues it's value drop around the globe.
To stop secret things from going on in your phone such as this, is exactly why there should be phones that ship with BOTH software AND hardware that is entirely open. Ideally including a DRM free, open source app store. Then the snooping and malicious acts would at least have to be done by a service provider/carrier or at the other end.
installed by a computer professional and thus they have not agreed to anything. In reality I think some contents of many EULAs are completely unenforceable.
There are some EULAs that go so far as to contain a clause to the effect by using the software you give all intellectual property rights of any content you use in the application to the software publisher. It could be a very slippery slope for the software publisher to try take possession of content using this technique. Suppose as is common that a computer guy not the person using the software clicked agree on the EULA and suppose that's irrelevant anyway because the IP rights belong to their employer or someone else. Then the company's contract is not with the person who used the software and the person who did use the software couldn't give those rights away anyhow.
I am no lawyer but this doesn't seem too complicated to me.
Would it not be like someone who hires a clothing designer to make a suit or a dress or a painter to paint on canvas or any other work that a person then carries with them in public or anywhere they may go. It would seem to me that since the tattoo on film would be like a painting shown within a movie or a designer dress worn by an actress in a movie and not in any imaginable way a sales competition to the original artist's related works that it must be fair use.
I would also think that normally tattoos would be considered a work for hire except in cases such as this one where Copyright/IP is agreed to. Doesn't copyright simply prevent someone from making unauthorized, derivative, competitive, works that are not modified to an extent that they could be considered as fair use? I can't see how this could be anything but fair use since it is in no way competitive. I also believe that it would be impossible for anyone to believe the artist has suffered any lost sale of the work or derivatives. Copyright infringement irrelevant but no less the case the additional exposure of the artist's work would almost certainly have a promotional sales effect.
I can't see how a movie could possibly be considered as infringement on any legally licensed copy of any copyright/IP product unless the movie was two hours of nothing but displaying that item.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
"unprecedented attacks on IP rights."
I have had enough and am about an inch away from boycotting these producers. So far I have continued to purchase my entertainment though as of late I have been aware and favouring the products by companies not trying to control the world.
On the post: Google Maps Exodus Continues As Wikipedia Mobile Apps Switch To OpenStreetMap
Re: Re: your argument makes no sense
On the post: DailyDirt: Spare Some Change?
Not so smart
The minting of excessively high value US coins just like all the over printing and minting being done of late, it is just another way to fleece the American public. Watch this one as well while the US dollars continues it's value drop around the globe.
On the post: Microsoft Releases Utterly Bizarre And Confusing Anti-Piracy Video
Typical Microsoft - Yet another F. U. D. Campaign.
If you are not familiar with FUD, look up Microsoft leaked Halloween Documents.
open source software "is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it,"
In spite of the above Microsoft internal statement they are going to try and try again just the same.
On the post: Leaked Memo Confirms Apple, Nokia & RIM Gave Indian Gov't Backdoors
Simple Fix
On the post: How Did The iTunes Terms Of Service Become A Cultural Phenomenon All Its Own?
Don't many people have the software and updates
There are some EULAs that go so far as to contain a clause to the effect by using the software you give all intellectual property rights of any content you use in the application to the software publisher. It could be a very slippery slope for the software publisher to try take possession of content using this technique. Suppose as is common that a computer guy not the person using the software clicked agree on the EULA and suppose that's irrelevant anyway because the IP rights belong to their employer or someone else. Then the company's contract is not with the person who used the software and the person who did use the software couldn't give those rights away anyhow.
On the post: 'Geek Power': Best Buy Sends C&D To Newegg Over Marketing Campaign
How about that,
1. The common power indicator symbol. (Wow I wished I owned that, the revenue from licensing to PC makers must be big. Idiots)
2. The work "Geek" (I'll Call them idiots again here.)
3. Clueless computer salesmen in wait for it.. BLUE SHIRTS. (Now I'll call them dumba_____.)
No wonder I don't buy from Best Buy anymore.
On the post: Microsoft Blaming 'Piracy' Rather Than Basic Economics For Its Struggles In China
Re: Embattled CEO
On the post: Who Owns The Copyright On A Tattoo?
Would it not be like someone who hires a clothing designer to make a suit or a dress or a painter to paint on canvas or any other work that a person then carries with them in public or anywhere they may go. It would seem to me that since the tattoo on film would be like a painting shown within a movie or a designer dress worn by an actress in a movie and not in any imaginable way a sales competition to the original artist's related works that it must be fair use.
I would also think that normally tattoos would be considered a work for hire except in cases such as this one where Copyright/IP is agreed to. Doesn't copyright simply prevent someone from making unauthorized, derivative, competitive, works that are not modified to an extent that they could be considered as fair use? I can't see how this could be anything but fair use since it is in no way competitive. I also believe that it would be impossible for anyone to believe the artist has suffered any lost sale of the work or derivatives. Copyright infringement irrelevant but no less the case the additional exposure of the artist's work would almost certainly have a promotional sales effect.
I can't see how a movie could possibly be considered as infringement on any legally licensed copy of any copyright/IP product unless the movie was two hours of nothing but displaying that item.
Next >>