Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 1:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you not understand about the standard "dedicated to infringing activity"?
Perhaps we have less than zero trust left after years of hearing that everything some legacy company doesn't like is "dedicated to infringing activity."
So face it. Your industry has completely blown its chance forever to be respected as a fair arbiter of deciding what is actually infringing. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Or, you know, adapt as we've been telling you to do for a decade or more.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 1:20pm
Business users
They're going to have a problem from their business users, especially foreign companies with reps there. If those companies are unable to secure their communications, they are going to be much less willing to do business there.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 12:10pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF
If I establish a group that believes that all black people should be killed because they carry a fatal disease,and I give speeches and attract people and start a movement, then that's ok?
You can believe whatever you want, and start a movement behind that, and that's perfectly ok. And a free society should allow that.
I'm talking about incitement to kill other people.Is that OK?
Deliberately inciting violence against another person or group of people is not ok. Not because of the viewpoint, but because you are directly threatening another person's life or freedom.
If someone were to start the above movement, then you would be able to start a movement against the first movement to show how misguided and wrong it is. You fight lies and propaganda with truth. The only way I know of to ensure that the counter movement is able to be created is to ensure that the first is also able to be created. And allow society to take part in open discussion and debate without fear that their government will arrest them or deny them their freedoms. Otherwise we end up with the tyranny of the majority - which is exactly what you're thinking about.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 8:03am
Re: Re: Re: WTF
For me, hate speech and racism are not part of free speech, and i don't understand why it is wrong to use censorship in such cases.
Very slipperly slope. As soon as you start legislating that thinking/saying/expressing certain viewpoints is illegal, you're on a path to the thought police and every Orwellian dystopia you can imagine.
There is no right "not to be offended" by what someone says. However offensive or crazy someone's views are, I will defend their right to say it - because my right to refute or ridicule their views rest on the same foundation.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:57am
Re: WTF
Stifling this kind of thing worked with the KKK and other racists, so why wouldn't it work in other cases as well?
What a distorted view of history you have.
The government let the KKK speak, march, and exercise their freedoms - and still does. What severely curbed the KKK's power and message was society showing how absurd their message really was - in public. Do a quick search on Superman vs. the KKK - the publishers of the comic and radio show made a mockery of the KKK by openly publishing all of thier "secret" codenames and organizations.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 2:02pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe I've been called "amoral" because I admitted to infringing copyright, not because I paid for some content, or that the 51% downloaded something for free when it was available for free - although I seem to have been put up as the poster child for the community.
Neither of which I could care less about - there's a sticks and stones thing.
Something that does bother me about his comment:
If he is considering copyright law, or following all laws, as moral, then he should have labelled me as "immoral" and not "amoral" - but I imagine the subtle difference between those terms would be lost on him.
Strictly speaking, I have a completely different set of morals than the AC - one of which is that it is immoral to restrict access to culture, information, and ideas when it would have no cost to provide it (or allow someone else to).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:27am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they're rejecting 2.5% that means Google is approving 97.5%.
For the sake of argument, we'll assume that the 97.5% are accurate, and the 2.5% are bogus.
Given the numbers, that means Google is still receiving 250,000 bogus takedown requests per month. And nothing is being done about those 250,000 cases of perjury.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:43am
Re:
I'd be willing to bet that they're not big into infringing. Any takers?
Hi Mr. Anonymous Coward. My name is Josh. I'm big into infringing. I self-identify as a pirate (see my TD profile pic). I was downloading things illegally using bittorrent just last night. I also actively encourage others to break copyright law, as I see it as unnecessary in today's world and harming the distribution of culture and ideas which could be achieved for almost no cost.
Oh, and I bought all 5 of the ebooks in the TD shop for $5 each.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Dec 2012 @ 3:54pm
Re: Re: Which customers would want this?
What is the benefit of letting Google read your email?
An email service that has no monetary cost to the end user, is highly reliable, and has effectively unlimited storage.
If Verizon wants to offer a no cost equivalent to cable TV, included DVR with effectively unlimited storage, access to library with nearly all video content I could ever want, then I would seriously consider their offer even if it included a box that spied on me.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Dec 2012 @ 11:39am
Re: Re: Re:
Very good example. Can't believe RvB didn't occur to me.
When Bungie released Halo, they released it as a game, and intended that people play it in certain ways.
But a group of people took the game, and used it as a tool to tell a story.
Is taking a game and using it as a tool to show other people how to play it, or showing others how good/bad you are at it, or some other completely different thing that the creators of the game never considered a potential violation of the law?
I guess this is my fundamental core problem with copyright (the economics is just a handy way to phrase it) - once you create something and put it out into the world, exercising your copyrights take away what someone else can do with that thing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Dec 2012 @ 10:30am
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing that was not programmed to happen can actually happen, so the player is not really creating anything.
The same argument applies equally to Photoshop. There are thousands of how-to-use-Photoshop videos on Youtube - all showing the "developer created content" - the layout, icons, graphics, etc. of the Photoshop interface.
While there may be some games that fit much more into the definition, there are lots of others that do not. Someone already brought up an open world game like Skyrim. What do player-created mods change in this situation? Does the mod-developer have the right to takedown a game video that has content from their mod? What about SimCity type games?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Dec 2012 @ 9:28am
Re:
they obviously created all of that content.
While I'm sure you're being sarcastic, I see potential of an interesting discussion here.
Let's forget about the obviously incorrect takedowns of people talking about the game, and fair use videos with short clips for a minute.
Say someone records large portions of a play-through of a video game. Would Sega have the right to take that down? I don't think so. They may have created the game, but they did not create the video, nor the exact sequence of that play-through. (Let's also assume that the person who made the video removed cut-scenes or other direct thematic elements not directly related to playing of the game.)
Look at it this way. Adobe creates the Photoshop program. But they do not own the copyright of something created using Photoshop.
Under current law, I don't dispute that Sega would have the right to takedown the game code if it was up on a filesharing site. But how is a video of a play-through of a game fundamentally different than the content created through the use of a program such as Photoshop?
On the post: London Police To Set Up Special Copyright Crime Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Here here! Artists are people too...
Copyright infringement is simply making an illegal copy without the copyright holder's consent.
If you're going to throw out phrases such as 'grade school rules', you shouldn't make such an elementary mistake.
On the post: London Police To Set Up Special Copyright Crime Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here here! Artists are people too...
Were the police or FBI involved in her case? No.
Her case was handled through the civil justice system, not the criminal justice system.
Infringement = civil offense
Theft = criminal offense
Infringement =/= Theft
On the post: MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy
Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?
You're looking for the 1st amendment - which is freedom of speech.
My opinion would be yes, but I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar.
On the post: MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps we have less than zero trust left after years of hearing that everything some legacy company doesn't like is "dedicated to infringing activity."
So face it. Your industry has completely blown its chance forever to be respected as a fair arbiter of deciding what is actually infringing. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Or, you know, adapt as we've been telling you to do for a decade or more.
On the post: Pundits And Politicans Very Quick To Blame Video Game & Movie Violence For Newtown
Re:
We already have those, every time some redneck gets elected and tries to fly the Confederate flag somewhere.
On the post: China Tries To Block Encrypted Traffic
Business users
On the post: Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF
You can believe whatever you want, and start a movement behind that, and that's perfectly ok. And a free society should allow that.
I'm talking about incitement to kill other people.Is that OK?
Deliberately inciting violence against another person or group of people is not ok. Not because of the viewpoint, but because you are directly threatening another person's life or freedom.
If someone were to start the above movement, then you would be able to start a movement against the first movement to show how misguided and wrong it is. You fight lies and propaganda with truth. The only way I know of to ensure that the counter movement is able to be created is to ensure that the first is also able to be created. And allow society to take part in open discussion and debate without fear that their government will arrest them or deny them their freedoms. Otherwise we end up with the tyranny of the majority - which is exactly what you're thinking about.
On the post: Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us
Re: Re: Re: WTF
Very slipperly slope. As soon as you start legislating that thinking/saying/expressing certain viewpoints is illegal, you're on a path to the thought police and every Orwellian dystopia you can imagine.
There is no right "not to be offended" by what someone says. However offensive or crazy someone's views are, I will defend their right to say it - because my right to refute or ridicule their views rest on the same foundation.
On the post: Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us
Re: Re: Re: WTF
On the post: Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us
Re: WTF
What a distorted view of history you have.
The government let the KKK speak, march, and exercise their freedoms - and still does. What severely curbed the KKK's power and message was society showing how absurd their message really was - in public. Do a quick search on Superman vs. the KKK - the publishers of the comic and radio show made a mockery of the KKK by openly publishing all of thier "secret" codenames and organizations.
On the post: Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither of which I could care less about - there's a sticks and stones thing.
Something that does bother me about his comment:
If he is considering copyright law, or following all laws, as moral, then he should have labelled me as "immoral" and not "amoral" - but I imagine the subtle difference between those terms would be lost on him.
Strictly speaking, I have a completely different set of morals than the AC - one of which is that it is immoral to restrict access to culture, information, and ideas when it would have no cost to provide it (or allow someone else to).
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the sake of argument, we'll assume that the 97.5% are accurate, and the 2.5% are bogus.
Given the numbers, that means Google is still receiving 250,000 bogus takedown requests per month. And nothing is being done about those 250,000 cases of perjury.
In what world is that even close to sane?
On the post: Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
Re:
Hi Mr. Anonymous Coward. My name is Josh. I'm big into infringing. I self-identify as a pirate (see my TD profile pic). I was downloading things illegally using bittorrent just last night. I also actively encourage others to break copyright law, as I see it as unnecessary in today's world and harming the distribution of culture and ideas which could be achieved for almost no cost.
Oh, and I bought all 5 of the ebooks in the TD shop for $5 each.
On the post: How To Help Malaria Sufferers Without Using Patents: Crowdsourcing Diagnosis
Re: Numbers Discrepancy
500,000 = half a million
600,000 > 500,000
I'd like to thank my second grade teacher, Mrs. Schaefer for the valuable skills that allowed me to perform this difficult mathematical comparison.
On the post: How Out Of Touch Is The Copyright Office? It Thinks The Authors Guild Is The 'Leading' Advocate For Writers' Interests
Re:
While it may be PR garbage, it is PR garbage put out by an agency of the US government.
Some of us are NOT ok with the government lying to us, misleading us, or shilling for private groups - even if it just fluff.
On the post: The DVR That Watches You Back: Verizon Applies For 'Ambient Action' Detecting Device Patent
Re: Re: Which customers would want this?
An email service that has no monetary cost to the end user, is highly reliable, and has effectively unlimited storage.
If Verizon wants to offer a no cost equivalent to cable TV, included DVR with effectively unlimited storage, access to library with nearly all video content I could ever want, then I would seriously consider their offer even if it included a box that spied on me.
On the post: Sega Goes Nuclear On YouTube Videos Of Old Shining Force Game
Re: Re: Re:
When Bungie released Halo, they released it as a game, and intended that people play it in certain ways.
But a group of people took the game, and used it as a tool to tell a story.
Is taking a game and using it as a tool to show other people how to play it, or showing others how good/bad you are at it, or some other completely different thing that the creators of the game never considered a potential violation of the law?
I guess this is my fundamental core problem with copyright (the economics is just a handy way to phrase it) - once you create something and put it out into the world, exercising your copyrights take away what someone else can do with that thing.
On the post: Sega Goes Nuclear On YouTube Videos Of Old Shining Force Game
Re: Re: Re:
The same argument applies equally to Photoshop. There are thousands of how-to-use-Photoshop videos on Youtube - all showing the "developer created content" - the layout, icons, graphics, etc. of the Photoshop interface.
While there may be some games that fit much more into the definition, there are lots of others that do not. Someone already brought up an open world game like Skyrim. What do player-created mods change in this situation? Does the mod-developer have the right to takedown a game video that has content from their mod? What about SimCity type games?
On the post: Sega Goes Nuclear On YouTube Videos Of Old Shining Force Game
Re: Re: Piracy of Sega is rampant...
But how can we know for sure what's legit? TAKEDOWN EVERYTHING! That way we can be sure no one is pirating their stuff!
On the post: Sega Goes Nuclear On YouTube Videos Of Old Shining Force Game
Re:
While I'm sure you're being sarcastic, I see potential of an interesting discussion here.
Let's forget about the obviously incorrect takedowns of people talking about the game, and fair use videos with short clips for a minute.
Say someone records large portions of a play-through of a video game. Would Sega have the right to take that down? I don't think so. They may have created the game, but they did not create the video, nor the exact sequence of that play-through. (Let's also assume that the person who made the video removed cut-scenes or other direct thematic elements not directly related to playing of the game.)
Look at it this way. Adobe creates the Photoshop program. But they do not own the copyright of something created using Photoshop.
Under current law, I don't dispute that Sega would have the right to takedown the game code if it was up on a filesharing site. But how is a video of a play-through of a game fundamentally different than the content created through the use of a program such as Photoshop?
Next >>