"Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway."
Given the engineering demands of aircraft are far higher than for cars, I think any "flying car" will be far more accurately described as a drivable plane.
" It's true that there are some factors that might make flying cars safer than commercial jetliners. They would travel at lower speeds and lower altitudes, for instance."
I'm not sure makes them inherently safer. The cruising altitude and speed of airliners doesn't really contribute to the likelihood of death if it all goes wrong, because even at the altitude and speed a flying car will be at, falling out of the sky is likely to be fatal. The survivability of light aircraft crashes doesn't seem to be any better than for airliners.
I don't know why you think Mike doesn't understand all of that already, or why that makes any difference. Just because this is the result of using an algorithm (calling it AI is going a bit too far...) doesn't mean they don't deserve to be criticized for it and the topic publicly discussed. The more this is discussed the more likely Google will improve their policies and algorithm, and/or (more likely) people will switch to competitors that will grow as a result.
I wonder if the people cheering on Thiel trying to shutter Gawker are also okay with Trump wanting to do the same to WaPo. If you think you can justify the former then you have also justified the latter.
We'd all love to live in this fairytale land of yours where anyone can make fair use of big media companys' content without any risk of cripplingly expensive litigation, but we ain't there yet.
Asking for "formal permission" is not legally required for fair use, but think of it instead as asking whether or not the content owner intends to sue you if you use it. Whatever you do it's pretty smart to have that info so you can make an informed decision yes?
"I am surprised they paid - that seems a little daft to me..."
I'm not surprised and I don't think it's daft, because the other options are drop the quotes or expect a far more expensive lawsuit with no guarantee of success. It's wrong, but that's the absurd reality of the modern copyright world.
"If you have permission, it can't be a fair use. Fair use only exists where a use is prima facie infringing; permission from the rights holder means it isn't infringing, so no fair use. "
This is all quite wrong. Fair use means no infringement is taking place. In a genuine fair use case whether you have permission or not is legally irrelevant.
How about you put just as much effort into explaining why anyone, let alone a self-aggrandising sleaze bag like Hogan, could suffer $130M worth of harm over this.
"Theil did not go around filing lawsuits to bankrupt the company..."
Actually that's exactly what he did. Have you missed all the stories discussing this? You seem to be terribly ignorant about this whole story here, which is possibly why the entire point of this article has gone right over your head.
"I don't know why so many people, including the Techdirt writers, are missing this point. "
That's not something you should be accusing other of...
"The problem I run into with Snowden (and to a lesser extent that transgender military dudette) is that they were not whistle blowing on any one particular area."
So now we can add transphobia to your list of distinguishing personality traits?
"Rather, the extracted the maximum number of documents with the hope that someone would find something bad in them."
Snowden did not "hope" someone would find something bad, he knew damn well they would find lots of it.
"Snowden could have accomplished the same thing without (a) exposing almost every covert agent and sympathizer in every country, and (b) without harming the relationship between the US and other countries."
(a) Citation please, and (b) it's was the US government's actions that hurt their reputation, not Snowden.
"She goes around poking the bear (read gamers) and then is surprised she gets hate."
Nice victim blaming there. Anyone with even an ounce of decency knows that there is no justification for the vile behaviour you casually dismiss as "hate" just because "it's the internet".
"The reality is way more complex, and has as much to do with the FCC grabbing a power that it may not really have - to rule the internet."
Oh great, yet another who can't tell the difference between an ISP and the Internet! The FCC is attempting to better regulate the behavior of ISP's. They've done nothing that could be described as trying to "rule the Internet", even if such a thing could actually be done.
You don't see the danger of letting billionaires abuse free speech rights and the court system for the purpose of personal vendettas? What if it was a billionaire you didn't like trying to sue a website you like out of existence? Would you be shrugging if off then?
Or maybe never had those principles to begin with.
I've always strongly felt that in order reach such incredible levels of wealth, being really smart or having great ideas is simply not enough. You also have to be an asshole, or at least have some asshole-ish qualities, even if they're not obvious to many. In modern Western capitalist systems you don't get that rich by being the nice guy.
So Mike writes 700 words explaining his views on the topic, which you ridiculously boil down to simply calling everything stupid and ridiculous, and then suggest that it's actually Mike who's stupid and ridiculous, without offering any rebuttal at all. There's irony here alright, but you're looking in the wrong direction.
...even if this means we have all three subscriptions...
Nope, not happening. Just like I have no interest in going to three different stores for my groceries, I have no desire to prop up their decrepit business model by having multiple subscriptions. Exclusive licences are anti-consumer and should only ever be viewed with scorn.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Never.
Given the engineering demands of aircraft are far higher than for cars, I think any "flying car" will be far more accurately described as a drivable plane.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Probably dead no matter what you're flying
I'm not sure makes them inherently safer. The cruising altitude and speed of airliners doesn't really contribute to the likelihood of death if it all goes wrong, because even at the altitude and speed a flying car will be at, falling out of the sky is likely to be fatal. The survivability of light aircraft crashes doesn't seem to be any better than for airliners.
On the post: Google's Arbitrary Morality Police Threaten Us Yet Again; Media Sites Probably Shouldn't Use Google Ads
Re: "Any normal, living, thinking human being"
On the post: Trump Implicitly Suggests That His DOJ Would Take Down Amazon For Antitrust
Re: First Thiel, then Trump.
On the post: Gawker Files For Bankruptcy, Begins Process Of Auctioning Itself Off
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
If you don't believe money can trump merit in the court system, you haven't been paying enough attention.
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re:
Asking for "formal permission" is not legally required for fair use, but think of it instead as asking whether or not the content owner intends to sue you if you use it. Whatever you do it's pretty smart to have that info so you can make an informed decision yes?
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re:
I'm not surprised and I don't think it's daft, because the other options are drop the quotes or expect a far more expensive lawsuit with no guarantee of success. It's wrong, but that's the absurd reality of the modern copyright world.
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re:
This is all quite wrong. Fair use means no infringement is taking place. In a genuine fair use case whether you have permission or not is legally irrelevant.
On the post: Gawker Files For Bankruptcy, Begins Process Of Auctioning Itself Off
Re: Mike It's Not About Thiel
How about you put just as much effort into explaining why anyone, let alone a self-aggrandising sleaze bag like Hogan, could suffer $130M worth of harm over this.
On the post: Gawker Files For Bankruptcy, Begins Process Of Auctioning Itself Off
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Actually that's exactly what he did. Have you missed all the stories discussing this? You seem to be terribly ignorant about this whole story here, which is possibly why the entire point of this article has gone right over your head.
"I don't know why so many people, including the Techdirt writers, are missing this point. "
That's not something you should be accusing other of...
On the post: RIAA Demands Takedown Of ThePirateBay.org, But EasyDNS Refuses Over Lack Of Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same reason people buy lottery tickets.
On the post: This Is Bad: Court Says Remastered Old Songs Get A Brand New Copyright
Re: Two questions to CBS
And when I read your comments I expect you to stick to the topic of music engineers and not bring up "computer experts", which are quite different.
On the post: If, As Eric Holder Now Admits, Snowden Did 'A Public Service,' Why Does He Still Want Him In Jail?
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
So now we can add transphobia to your list of distinguishing personality traits?
"Rather, the extracted the maximum number of documents with the hope that someone would find something bad in them."
Snowden did not "hope" someone would find something bad, he knew damn well they would find lots of it.
"Snowden could have accomplished the same thing without (a) exposing almost every covert agent and sympathizer in every country, and (b) without harming the relationship between the US and other countries."
(a) Citation please, and (b) it's was the US government's actions that hurt their reputation, not Snowden.
On the post: The DMCA Should Not Be An All Purpose Tool For Taking Down Content; And It's Espeically Bad For Harassment
Re: Re: Let me guess...
Nice victim blaming there. Anyone with even an ounce of decency knows that there is no justification for the vile behaviour you casually dismiss as "hate" just because "it's the internet".
On the post: House Budget Bill Guts Net Neutrality, Kills FCC Authority -- All Because The FCC Dared To Stand Up To Comcast & AT&T
Re:
Oh great, yet another who can't tell the difference between an ISP and the Internet! The FCC is attempting to better regulate the behavior of ISP's. They've done nothing that could be described as trying to "rule the Internet", even if such a thing could actually be done.
On the post: Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel Accused Of Financing Hulk Hogan's Ridiculous Lawsuits Against Gawker
Re:
On the post: Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel Accused Of Financing Hulk Hogan's Ridiculous Lawsuits Against Gawker
Re: Re: Wealth is Truth
I've always strongly felt that in order reach such incredible levels of wealth, being really smart or having great ideas is simply not enough. You also have to be an asshole, or at least have some asshole-ish qualities, even if they're not obvious to many. In modern Western capitalist systems you don't get that rich by being the nice guy.
On the post: Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel Accused Of Financing Hulk Hogan's Ridiculous Lawsuits Against Gawker
Re: Re: Re: Tired blather...
On the post: Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel Accused Of Financing Hulk Hogan's Ridiculous Lawsuits Against Gawker
Re: Re:
On the post: As Netflix Locks Down Exclusive Disney Rights, The New Walled Gardens Emerge
Re:
Nope, not happening. Just like I have no interest in going to three different stores for my groceries, I have no desire to prop up their decrepit business model by having multiple subscriptions. Exclusive licences are anti-consumer and should only ever be viewed with scorn.
Next >>