i find it interesting that this arguement is basically sense of entitlement vs sense of entitlement
why should this author believe that a copyright holder should be entitled to dictate the use of content paid for. If the right to force people to watch a show on a specific day and at a specific time was ruled to not be a right granted by copyright (see timeshifting ruling) then why should they have a right to dictate at this specific location, or thru this specific medium. If (and only if) they choose to abdicate a medium why not grant users a fair use right to acquire such content (access shifting).
The principle is the same, while they lose some revenue, it really revenue from extending the copyright monopoly to a medium not from actually licencing the content.
Well it would be a bit difficult to associate the cost for the maximum joke offer.
The real offer of spend a day with tech dirt staff offer could be real economic loss.
As long as they assign one of those 4 people to the task of reversing the bogus take down.
add the cost of buying the traffic that was lost because the article was not find able during the key period when it was relevant. The long term link juice from all the blogs that would have found it and linked to it.
And the loss of authority status due to that lost link juice.
And you could get a "real" value of damages.
shame on you for ignoring the difference between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
Microsoft is focused on infringement of patents that it has not contributed to any industry standard. And Microsoft is making its patents�standard essential and otherwise�available to all Android manufacturers on fair and reasonable terms. In fact, more than 70 percent of Android devices are now licensed to use Microsoft�s patent portfolio.
The point is simple if you use the collective agreement of a standard to push your patent to defacto status then you should not charge the same rate for the patent, that gains defacto status because it is superior to the standard.
The object should be to make the penalty for abusing fair use as serious as abusing copyright. If a copyright holder were to violate fair use, with a bogus complaint then they should face similar criminal and civil liabilities for that action. By doing this copyright holders would have to think twice asking for a new penalty for infringement, since the same penalty will apply to them.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
i find it interesting that this arguement is basically sense of entitlement vs sense of entitlement
The principle is the same, while they lose some revenue, it really revenue from extending the copyright monopoly to a medium not from actually licencing the content.
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
one of the people who you get to have lunch with is a lawyer
his day rate would fall under the legal expense of getting this resolved.
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real offer of spend a day with tech dirt staff offer could be real economic loss.
As long as they assign one of those 4 people to the task of reversing the bogus take down.
add the cost of buying the traffic that was lost because the article was not find able during the key period when it was relevant. The long term link juice from all the blogs that would have found it and linked to it.
And the loss of authority status due to that lost link juice.
And you could get a "real" value of damages.
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=600
since all the time you waste restoring those links could have been sold at your available offering.
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=600
since all the time you waste restoring those links could have been sold at your available offering.
On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents
Re: Re:
Microsoft is focused on infringement of patents that it has not contributed to any industry standard.
key word is not
so microsoft "sky high" rates are for technology that is not part of industry standard
While moto/google disputed patents ARE part of a standard.
That the huge difference, innovating a solution around microsoft patents is ok
innovating a solution around google patents get you bitch slapped for not playing nice with the standard (which is the point of FRAND).
On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents
Microsoft is focused on infringement of patents that it has not contributed to any industry standard. And Microsoft is making its patents�standard essential and otherwise�available to all Android manufacturers on fair and reasonable terms. In fact, more than 70 percent of Android devices are now licensed to use Microsoft�s patent portfolio.
The point is simple if you use the collective agreement of a standard to push your patent to defacto status then you should not charge the same rate for the patent, that gains defacto status because it is superior to the standard.
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
Re: all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
because he didn't watch your presentation that fixed the flaws in your facebook post.
And your not going to show him the presentation so he can comment on that because he addressed the flaws in your facebook post.
On the post: Vic Toews Apparently Not A Fan Of Others Seeing His Personal Data
so he objects to a consequence of proposed bill
The embarrassment he is currently objecting to is the same problem millions of Canadians will face from this bill.
On the post: How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years
Next >>