I wish we could all agree to quit using the word "lobby" as a verb, when it isn't. Besides, there is a perfectly good word that *can* be used as a noun and verb and is much more accurate: "bribe".
Gotta agree with you on this one. Seems a pretty obvious case of fraud. I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with "whatever the market will bear", but when you essentially lie about the inherent value of an item ("1 million hits a day!" or "owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on sundays!"), I'm pretty sure that is fraud. Yes, I know that the 1 million hits is not technically a lie, but those were ill-gotten hits.
You may have inadvertently hit on a really good point. If Facebook and Picassa can do facial recognition (and it's a fairly good implementation), how long before there -is- a software scanner that can detect nudity? I bet it's being worked on...
"""
They aren't making you buy McAfee, they're making you allow them to use McAfee -- a company it is presumed they trust -- to scan your computer *for free*. Of course, my source may be wrong, but if true ... what's the big deal? Who cares?
"""
Actually, if that is true, that is even worse. You're cool with letting some nebulous server scan your computer remotely? I've got some swampland in Florida that you may want to buy...
Precisely. Software patents are WAY over-generalized, and do in essence create
"""
... black boxes that people are not allowed to examine.
--TAM
"""
Meaning, you can have two completely different back-end implementations that both solve similar (or even exactly the same) problems... why should the first company to create their implementation get to tax every other company to come up with a solution?
And TAM, don't say this doesn't happen, because it does, every day. Software patents are by their very nature flawed.
"""
Of course it's a valid definition; claiming that it's not does not make it so. It may not be a legal definition in all circumstances (though it is in some). At the most basic level, theft is taking something that is not yours without permission.
"""
And this is where everything breaks down and you will never see the sense of Mike's point. You cannot accept that even though someone has "taken" something that did not belong to them, there is no "loss", even though that is completely and totally the case. There is no loss, only gain. Not the kind of gain you would necessarily like (monetary gain for the producer, in this case), but a gain nonetheless, in that there are now two whatevers when before there was just one.
"""
You "dick-joke-geniuses" understand that a "cease and desist order" is not asking for any money? right?
"""
Of course you are correct. Assuming this lady had a single leg to stand on, she doesn't want Google using that name. It's the principle. She would never take any money from Google to go back into her mouse hole, nope, never. That wouldn't be very principled.
Oh wait, yes she would; this move is, to any rational human, nothing but a money grab. Wake up.
Dammit, Anti-Mike, again you confuse me by presenting a logical argument when all I expect from you is FUD. I can't see a single thing in that post that I disagree with, except for you insinuation that fair use (yes it's a real thing, putting quotes around it doesn't change that) is a loophole that exists only to be exploited.
So it's clear that logical arguments are not completely lost on you; why then can you not see the point that above commenter made? If your business model can be destroyed by a few people with computers, you don't deserve to be in business. Adapt or die.
"""
However she is certainly someone who is very possessive about her creation, which as the author is understandable.
"""
No, it is not very understandable considering that she built "her" creation around the creations of many many others. Please to look up "The Books of Magic", wherein a young british boy is indoctrinated into a world of magic and spells, oh and he has a white owl as a familiar. These books (and other similar works) were published well before the first Harry Potter book ever saw the light of day.
As much as I enjoyed her books, J.K. is nothing but a derivative hack, and for her to try to keep HP from the digital realm to prevent copying is blatant hypocrisy.
Zomg, I can't believe it. I almost agree with TAM.
Many sci-fi writers foresee a similar fate, and I wouldn't be so bothered *IF* resale rights were preserved. Can you imagine a musician doing a limited run of 10,000 mp3s? Essentially digital goods would no longer be infinite. However this scenario would require a complete alteration of both the fabric of the internet and computing as a whole, since as we know this would require enforcement at the hardware level.
On the post: Appeals Court Notes The Feds Can't Hide Behind 'Lobbyist Privacy' In Not Releasing Documents On Immunity Lobbying
Wrong word.
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Re:
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Must Be Online To Play
Re: This worked so well for DIVX....
On the post: Indiana Senators Rush To Put In Place Sexting Law When They Clearly Don't Understand Sexting
Re:
On the post: MPAA Boss Doesn't Even Make It To The End Of His Contract
Could it be... Satan?
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
Re: This should work for bakeries too
On the post: Sometimes Protecting Free Speech Means Protecting Speech You Don't Like
Re: Re: doing the right thing is sometimes unsavoury
On the post: Can't Innovate? Litigate! Kodak Goes After Apple, RIM For Patent Infringement In Both Courts And ITC
Re: really mean
Another example of a ridiculous patent, and a ridiculous company trying to enforce it.
On the post: Facebook Requires McAfee Scan If There's A Security Breach? Is This Security Or A Marketing Program?
Re: Who cares if they're providing the software?
They aren't making you buy McAfee, they're making you allow them to use McAfee -- a company it is presumed they trust -- to scan your computer *for free*. Of course, my source may be wrong, but if true ... what's the big deal? Who cares?
"""
Actually, if that is true, that is even worse. You're cool with letting some nebulous server scan your computer remotely? I've got some swampland in Florida that you may want to buy...
On the post: How Many Questionable Assumptions Can You Layer On Top Of Each Other To Estimate Bogus 'Losses' From Unauthorized iPhone App Downloads?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Class action
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Re: Real Really?
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass
And as has been noted, installing a bunch of crappy malware probably didn't help much either.
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
Re: Re:
"""
... black boxes that people are not allowed to examine.
--TAM
"""
Meaning, you can have two completely different back-end implementations that both solve similar (or even exactly the same) problems... why should the first company to create their implementation get to tax every other company to come up with a solution?
And TAM, don't say this doesn't happen, because it does, every day. Software patents are by their very nature flawed.
On the post: Man Sues Neighbor For Not Turning Off WiFi And Cell Phone
Re: I think this group of technologically literate
...and for those suggesting he is motivated by money -- I think you should STFU...
"""
W00t, I don't have to STFU -- I think he's motivated by crazy!
Also, you are either selling snake oil or you are a gullible idiot. Take your pick.
On the post: Game Marketer Insists That Every Downloaded Copy Of Modern Warfare 2 Is Stolen By Immoral Thieves
Re: Re: Re: Wrong Analogy.
Of course it's a valid definition; claiming that it's not does not make it so. It may not be a legal definition in all circumstances (though it is in some). At the most basic level, theft is taking something that is not yours without permission.
"""
And this is where everything breaks down and you will never see the sense of Mike's point. You cannot accept that even though someone has "taken" something that did not belong to them, there is no "loss", even though that is completely and totally the case. There is no loss, only gain. Not the kind of gain you would necessarily like (monetary gain for the producer, in this case), but a gain nonetheless, in that there are now two whatevers when before there was just one.
On the post: Game Marketer Insists That Every Downloaded Copy Of Modern Warfare 2 Is Stolen By Immoral Thieves
Re: Copyright Infringement Is Wrong
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Obvious
You "dick-joke-geniuses" understand that a "cease and desist order" is not asking for any money? right?
"""
Of course you are correct. Assuming this lady had a single leg to stand on, she doesn't want Google using that name. It's the principle. She would never take any money from Google to go back into her mouse hole, nope, never. That wouldn't be very principled.
Oh wait, yes she would; this move is, to any rational human, nothing but a money grab. Wake up.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Book Piracy
So it's clear that logical arguments are not completely lost on you; why then can you not see the point that above commenter made? If your business model can be destroyed by a few people with computers, you don't deserve to be in business. Adapt or die.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: wtf
However she is certainly someone who is very possessive about her creation, which as the author is understandable.
"""
No, it is not very understandable considering that she built "her" creation around the creations of many many others. Please to look up "The Books of Magic", wherein a young british boy is indoctrinated into a world of magic and spells, oh and he has a white owl as a familiar. These books (and other similar works) were published well before the first Harry Potter book ever saw the light of day.
As much as I enjoyed her books, J.K. is nothing but a derivative hack, and for her to try to keep HP from the digital realm to prevent copying is blatant hypocrisy.
On the post: Is Hiding A New DRM Standard Behind The Guise Of 'It Works On Any Device' Really That Compelling?
Re:
Many sci-fi writers foresee a similar fate, and I wouldn't be so bothered *IF* resale rights were preserved. Can you imagine a musician doing a limited run of 10,000 mp3s? Essentially digital goods would no longer be infinite. However this scenario would require a complete alteration of both the fabric of the internet and computing as a whole, since as we know this would require enforcement at the hardware level.
Next >>