There's always been two versions of IP law. One for the status quo and one for everyone else.
The status quo such as Viacom is allowed fair use with full rights to parody, satire, and ridicule trademarks, etc. But the small time filmmaker is not.
Heck, Murdock is always talking out his mouth and ass. He argues against "theft" while "stealing" from anyone he wants.
Copyright no longer has anything to do with protecting works of art/music/literature and everything to do with ensuring the profits continue to flow from their government granted monopolies. It's not about protecting the works, it's about protecting and enlarging the monopolies.
"It's difficult to think of anything more ironic than..."
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of plagiarizing a song. What the frick?! Are you sure there's not some sort of April 1st holiday in Argentina around this time?
"When building software, you have various vendors making dozens of different parts that should do the same thing..."
And if the error/defect actually exists with the vendor's part, you would be dismissed from the lawsuit.
"This machine is then being controlled by the software you built, which is built using libraries others built that you can't control"
And if the error/defect actually exists within some third parties libraries you would be dismissed from the lawsuit.
"your program is sharing time with other programs that may interfere with your ability to run your program successfully"
And if the error/defect actually exists because of some interference created by a third party you would be dismissed from the lawsuit.
All of your "arguments" above merely assume that the software has no defect and the complained of defect comes from something else. As I pointed out, that only means you would not be liable as your software has no defects in it. You got anything else?
"you can't be certain that the answer that your system gives is correct until after shipping it"
Isn't that true of anything we build? Toyota was pretty certain of its braking system when it first shipped. History proved that belief incorrect. Your argument supports everything I said.
".... Better test a few more to make sure. What if those are the only right ones? Better test a few more...."
The automotive industry is still working on how much and on how to test, but yet it's still liable when its defects cause crashes.
"since pretty much all software has bugs. That's the nature of software"
Can anyone point to any physical thing that's completely perfect without any defects? Cars fail to start and sometimes crash due to defects, TVs stop working, laptop batteries explode, etc, etc, etc. There is simply no perfection in anything we do.
This exact same argument was used when tort laws were expanded back in the 1800s and 1900s. Somehow the manufacturing sector survived being held financially responsible for their defects. The software industry will somehow survive it too.
Back 70s and 80s my high school had a "senior skip day." One day in the last month of school where all the seniors would skip classes. It's amazing we accomplished such an amazing feat without the use of social networking or smart phones. Of course driving around with bald feet was a huge downside.
Wait just a gosh darned minute, are you saying that Maldives Scuba Diving sends divers to their water graves due to their unforgivable negligence? Is that what you're saying? That Maldives Scuba Diving actions have led to the death of an innocent person? Based on my subjective and utterly ignorant and highly sarcastic opinions, it would seem that divers who value their lives would avoid Maldives Scuba Diving at all costs, right?
My guess is this will become a new revenue stream for movies (and lawyers). Even if you get only a 100 people to pay a $4000 pre-lawsuit settlement, you're making a whopping $400,000. That's simply too much money to pass up. This will get worse way before it gets better. And I actually doubt it will ever get better.
Considering that, at least by my estimate, 40% of the people on the net cannot detect or recognize sarcasm, this law is going to screw over a lot of people.
I was thinking the exact same thing. If you want people to print more, buy or start a printer company and sell ink for a reasonable price. That'll get people printing far more than any asinine ad campaign.
The purpose of the DMCA was never to protect copyright but to protect business models. It's purpose has always been to eliminate any technological advancement. To stop the next player piano, the next radio, the next record player, the next cassette recorder, the next VCR, etc.
Every single time a new technology is released to play copyrighted material, the copyright industry goes ballistic. They finally got the idea to make all technological innovation per se illegal.
On the post: Real Copyright Law And File Sharing Copyright Law
The status quo such as Viacom is allowed fair use with full rights to parody, satire, and ridicule trademarks, etc. But the small time filmmaker is not.
Heck, Murdock is always talking out his mouth and ass. He argues against "theft" while "stealing" from anyone he wants.
Copyright no longer has anything to do with protecting works of art/music/literature and everything to do with ensuring the profits continue to flow from their government granted monopolies. It's not about protecting the works, it's about protecting and enlarging the monopolies.
On the post: Argentinian Politician's Proposal For New Anti-Plagiarism Law Plagiarizes Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Argentinian Politician's Proposal For New Anti-Plagiarism Law Plagiarizes Wikipedia
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of plagiarizing a song. What the frick?! Are you sure there's not some sort of April 1st holiday in Argentina around this time?
On the post: UK Court Says Software Company Can Be Liable For Buggy Software
Re: Re: #1
And if the error/defect actually exists with the vendor's part, you would be dismissed from the lawsuit.
"This machine is then being controlled by the software you built, which is built using libraries others built that you can't control"
And if the error/defect actually exists within some third parties libraries you would be dismissed from the lawsuit.
"your program is sharing time with other programs that may interfere with your ability to run your program successfully"
And if the error/defect actually exists because of some interference created by a third party you would be dismissed from the lawsuit.
All of your "arguments" above merely assume that the software has no defect and the complained of defect comes from something else. As I pointed out, that only means you would not be liable as your software has no defects in it. You got anything else?
"you can't be certain that the answer that your system gives is correct until after shipping it"
Isn't that true of anything we build? Toyota was pretty certain of its braking system when it first shipped. History proved that belief incorrect. Your argument supports everything I said.
".... Better test a few more to make sure. What if those are the only right ones? Better test a few more...."
The automotive industry is still working on how much and on how to test, but yet it's still liable when its defects cause crashes.
You got anything else?
On the post: UK Court Says Software Company Can Be Liable For Buggy Software
Can anyone point to any physical thing that's completely perfect without any defects? Cars fail to start and sometimes crash due to defects, TVs stop working, laptop batteries explode, etc, etc, etc. There is simply no perfection in anything we do.
This exact same argument was used when tort laws were expanded back in the 1800s and 1900s. Somehow the manufacturing sector survived being held financially responsible for their defects. The software industry will somehow survive it too.
On the post: Hot News Doctrine Already Being Stretched; Company Says Its Contact Database Is Hot News
"There's no law that covers this. Just a court decided it."
How about, "There's no statute that covers this. Just a court decision."
On the post: Facebook Ordered To Stop Helping Kids Skip Class In Argentina
Re:
On the post: Facebook Ordered To Stop Helping Kids Skip Class In Argentina
Re:
On the post: Facebook Ordered To Stop Helping Kids Skip Class In Argentina
On the post: Scuba Diving Organizer Sues Web Forum After Debate Over Scuba Death Liability
On the post: Bad Ideas: Hurt Locker Producers Preparing To Sue Tens Of Thousands Of File Sharers
On the post: Do We Really Want To Criminalize Bad Jokes?
On the post: Paper Industry Wishes You'd Ignore Environmentalists, Print More
Re:
On the post: Paper Industry Wishes You'd Ignore Environmentalists, Print More
Not surprising.
On the post: Kaleidescape Introduces Expensive And Almost Pointless Blu-ray Jukebox... And Hollywood Still Thinks It's Illegal
Every single time a new technology is released to play copyrighted material, the copyright industry goes ballistic. They finally got the idea to make all technological innovation per se illegal.
On the post: Here's A Surprise: Red Hat Wins Patent Lawsuit In East Texas
Mike, the politically correct term is patent maximizer.
On the post: Music Industry Execs Debate Brokep From The Pirate Bay
And in reality, competing with yourself is not really competition.
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if you really want to get people who do not believe we're causing climate change riled up, sue them for disagreeing with you.
Suing them will do infinitely more harm against the fight to stop climate change than the statements made by his detractors ever did.
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
Let's assume that despite all the pollution we're dumping into our atmosphere, we are not causing the current climate change.
If despite all of that dumping we're not having any impact, what makes you think we could affect any climate change even if we wanted to?
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re:
You say tomato, I say tomahto...
Next >>