When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
I wonder about the ethical consideration of using it for things such as highspeed chases, etc. After all just because your running from the cops doesn't mean you are guilty of running from the cops. (supposedly) I see a slippery slope on the horizon....
A border of a picture frame has width, however when two countries border one another there is no 'magical' zone that exists in neither country. So if I am in Canada and I approach the U.S. then the laws of Canada apply until I step foot on U.S. soil; this means that if I am still in Canada the laws that allow U.S. agents to search me do not apply, or if I am in the U.S. then all the protections of the Constitution and laws apply. There is no gray area, regardless of what agents may believe. What Supreme Court cases have been tried that allows for the extreme powers granted to border agents?
The author of a "derivative work" should not matter either, if Dan Brown wrote a sequel to "Catcher in the Rye" I'm sure it would get purchased and read in greater quantity than an unknown author; however that still does not take away from any possible sequel written by J.D. Salinger. As an example imagine the two sequel books side-by-side on a book seller's shelf, a potential buyer could pick up each book and decide which version, the 'authorized' or 'unauthorized' sequel, to purchase; some would choose one, some the other, and some even both. This is called consumer choice and we do it every time we go grocery shopping and look at that "name brand" cereal and the store's own brand.
I remember a few years ago I was doing some research for a college paper, I did some searches on Google and seemed to find exactly what I was looking for I clicked on the search result which sent me to a respected newspaper's website and discovered that to actually read the article I would have to become an online member of their site and pay a little. So I had an easy choice, pay for the content or hit the back button and find a different site with the information I needed; I took the second option and after five to ten more minutes of honing my search criteria I found all the information I needed. Now some would say well that's just one example of the 85% (or whatever dream number someone imagines) that wouldn't pay anyway; however not only did I not see the article but my professor did not see the article. In addition I am now less likely to ever visit this newspaper's site again, read their print version, or let alone purchase anything from them in the future; I am more likely to actively point friend's to other sources.
Now what would have happened if this newspaper's paywall was never set up? I would have read the article and more than likely included it as a source for my paper. In the future I would visit the newspaper's site for more research, and more than likely news. I would recommend the site to others and the number of user's would grow; increasing the amount of add revenue they could ask for.
I think you meant to state that it looks like(without the space between A& #03...):
A& #038;E Goes To Court To Defend Fair Use Of 12 Second Clip Of Music
First off A&E's case is not necessarily weaker because they approached the copyright holder's (which in my opinion should expire upon the passing of the creator); this is easily argued by the defense as a friendly action to forestall any such spurious lawsuit (given that a license is generally cheaper than having to defend a use.)
Second they were attempting to accurately portray a UT football player in a news type of way which seems pretty strong to me.
Anyway, since I don't want to point out faulty logic, the best part of the entire article is that the copyright holders believe that this "unlicensed use could hurt their ability to sell it in the future" (quote of the article not the individuals); this seems like an absolutely crazy argument as a 12 second segment is more likely to generate more interest in the song rather than dis-interest. Or are they worried that this 12 seconds will be uploaded online and distributed without their license?
Now to revisit something I stated earlier. Why is it that someone creates a work and then dies does their copyright still exist? Since copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", where in there does it speak about the Authors and Inventors heir's? Further where does it speak that this right can be sold, given, or taken by another? Can I give someone else the right to speak in my name, my free speech if you will, for 50 years after I have died? It's the same throughout the entire constitution, people take a small section and attempt to say it really meant something completely different than what it says in plain text.
So I looked into Edward's livejournal, since I know how it works and you can edit a previous post and still retain the original date on the post, and found that although he does have galleries of himself all throughout last year (each containing one photo) every single gallery with a Time Joker Obama picture has an updated date of this month; the earliest being August 10. Why is this so telling, since it is an 'updated date'? Each gallery only has one image, so more than likely each time he uploads a new image he and/or livejournal are creating a new gallery for this image.
This is exactly why the founding fathers put 'due process' into the constitution, so that to be found 'guilty' by a court would involve having to be proven 'guilty'. This also is true in Civil suits as there is a burden of proof. However the DMCA circumvents any due process with scare tactics and overly broad language. This needs to change dramatically, I could do exactly the same thing without any proof and force the other party to prove their right rather than my proving my accusation (which I always thought is defamation, but I guess DMCA doesn't care.)
When I read the original text in the first post on this it seemed to me that the court was just alerting user's of PACER to be aware of their security, asking the user's to ensure that they not install any specialized RECAP plugin not created by Felten which could be coded to send out confidential/sealed documents either to RECAP or another location. However I can easily see how some would see the words in a different light.
On the post: OnStar Used To Stop Carjacked Car
When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
On the post: DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches
I'm confused here...
On the post: Why Do Content Creators Get Control Over Derivative Works?
Re: "derivative work"
On the post: Brill Gets More Delusional: Now Thinks 10 to 15% Of Online Newspaper Readers Will Pay
Case in point...
Now what would have happened if this newspaper's paywall was never set up? I would have read the article and more than likely included it as a source for my paper. In the future I would visit the newspaper's site for more research, and more than likely news. I would recommend the site to others and the number of user's would grow; increasing the amount of add revenue they could ask for.
Really are the above concepts that hard to grasp?
On the post: A&E Goes To Court To Defend Fair Use Of 12 Second Clip Of Music
Re: Minor RSS glitch
A& #038;E Goes To Court To Defend Fair Use Of 12 Second Clip Of Music
On the post: A&E Goes To Court To Defend Fair Use Of 12 Second Clip Of Music
The things wrong...
Second they were attempting to accurately portray a UT football player in a news type of way which seems pretty strong to me.
Anyway, since I don't want to point out faulty logic, the best part of the entire article is that the copyright holders believe that this "unlicensed use could hurt their ability to sell it in the future" (quote of the article not the individuals); this seems like an absolutely crazy argument as a 12 second segment is more likely to generate more interest in the song rather than dis-interest. Or are they worried that this 12 seconds will be uploaded online and distributed without their license?
Now to revisit something I stated earlier. Why is it that someone creates a work and then dies does their copyright still exist? Since copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", where in there does it speak about the Authors and Inventors heir's? Further where does it speak that this right can be sold, given, or taken by another? Can I give someone else the right to speak in my name, my free speech if you will, for 50 years after I have died? It's the same throughout the entire constitution, people take a small section and attempt to say it really meant something completely different than what it says in plain text.
On the post: Flickr Obama/Joker Takedown Story Gets... Odd
I dug a little bit...
This is exactly why the founding fathers put 'due process' into the constitution, so that to be found 'guilty' by a court would involve having to be proven 'guilty'. This also is true in Civil suits as there is a burden of proof. However the DMCA circumvents any due process with scare tactics and overly broad language. This needs to change dramatically, I could do exactly the same thing without any proof and force the other party to prove their right rather than my proving my accusation (which I always thought is defamation, but I guess DMCA doesn't care.)
On the post: US Courts Now Say RECAP Is Fine
That's what I thought...
Next >>