the problem has always been congressmen being a bunch of idiots pandering to their lobbyists and paycheck. This is why although technological advancements are better than ever, our laws get ever more draconian/abused/etc. By itself, it sounds like this shouldn't do much.
codifying anything = a how-to and/or what to get around to achieve what you want because it is too narrow a scope.
The issue is that judges are very hesitant to change precedents and are even given instructions accordingly. specifically the laws that congress establishes with wanton disregard for rights or the constitution are left untouched/avoided. Everyone says judges can check congress, but they really don't do it very often and/or blatantly avoid it. it's a known tenet of law which circulates problems and gives congress all of the power.
bingo. People have a different perception of what is free, thanks to lots of marketing from companies like MS who get people to perceive that software has no value if it's free.
It's a psychological aspect that underlies everything which gives people a suspicion of free products but not of ones that charge for the same thing. Literally the more you charge the more perceived value by many customers (even if your product is inferior). I can easily cite microsoft on that one.
they have said they don't make money on itunes, but given the volume I'd find that to be an outright lie at minimum. Consider that a penny a sale for a million sales a day, isn't chump change anymore even if it's a fraction of that, which I highly doubt.
your games look stupid. You couldn't even pay me to play them as you have them for free. Quit trying to use techdirt and spamming the web as advertising.
Go make an interesting game, and do it for fun. When you have fun, so we will we, and money will flow accordingly.
When you make an advertisement for a game company, and it's a bunch of bullshit, we will ignore you, and wish that you find a better venture for you to add music and sound to, this coming from someone who does music and sound design themselves.
Re: In Blizzards case you overlooked one small detail
Uh?
I'm not sure where you come across with this idea, but glider doesn't access their servers. It was just a very smart bot program. Bots don't run on the server, they run on the consumer/host's pc. This was the crux of the situation and why throwing it at copyright was an asinine call by the judge.
uh, legally, morally, ethically, it's correct. There is no law on the books that prevents you from replicating anything, making a profit off it is another story.
Lets go one by one.
Legally: A judge would throw you out of court faster than I could blink when they ask you to prove damages and you have none, other than from loss of publicity from opening a lawsuit aka streisand effect. They are not infringing your copy-right in any sense.
Morally: you should be *PROUD*! Someone likes your stuff enough that they are inspired to duplicate it themselves (not eat into your profits). Hell, that's a success story to put up on every advertisement possible if I ever heard one.
Ethically: see Morals (they're close enough in concepts).
Most people do take pride in making perfect replicas of cars, in fact there's a whole business made out of it irrespective of Chevy's consent. If you mean trademark wise, as long as someone isn't claiming it's a Chevy when it's not, then your point is moot. After all, the VIN system is designed to deal with that.
Re: Re: The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack
specific usage has nothing to do with ownership, the two are not related.
You indeed do have the choice to do what you want with a gun you purchase, shooting people is simply not lawful.
However, guns are off topic. Lets stick to software, shall we?
You buy x software. Why can't you do *WHATEVER YOU WANT* with it on your own? That is the issue here. We have DMCA issues among other things that are causing issues with this.
about being supported by "illegal downloading"? I'd vote no. That's like saying the internet is used for illegal things. Don't blame the tool for it's use.
I agree patent law is seriously messed up, and that the East Texas courthouse needs to have all its judges thrown out and get a fresh set in.
Under the current system however, I4I is correct, so I can understand that. Aside from that though, this would have banned word from using XML markup right?
I'd like to see this play out simply because MS is the one who trumpets their faith in patents for their own benefit.
Capitalism: everyone only likes it when it's on their side.
wow. Talk about NEPOTISM. She goes from one career hooked up by her father (music industry) to another career hooked up by her father (acting career). Did she ever think that maybe she should try to get a career with her own merits? I am sure she can find plenty, but running on family connections? wow.
people who aren't big yet, sometimes are delusional in their grandeur. This is not a new concept even for those who are successful. Thus, they need someone to blame, and likewise need crazy things to thank when they're successful. It's always the easy way out on both ends.
When unsuccessful: it's the man, or the government, or mean people, or filesharing.
When successful, it's god, or your family, or your sister/brother/wife/mother/etc, or the industry itself.
Even though none of the above have *any* bearing on being successful or unsuccessful, people shift the blame.
On the post: Fixing Trademark Law
problem has never been codifying it
codifying anything = a how-to and/or what to get around to achieve what you want because it is too narrow a scope.
The issue is that judges are very hesitant to change precedents and are even given instructions accordingly. specifically the laws that congress establishes with wanton disregard for rights or the constitution are left untouched/avoided. Everyone says judges can check congress, but they really don't do it very often and/or blatantly avoid it. it's a known tenet of law which circulates problems and gives congress all of the power.
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, kinda it does ...
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
Re: Re: Well, kinda it does ...
try to give something away free. Then sell it online for $10. You'll notice which one gets a lot more interest, and it's the $10 one.
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
Re: Well, kinda it does ...
It's a psychological aspect that underlies everything which gives people a suspicion of free products but not of ones that charge for the same thing. Literally the more you charge the more perceived value by many customers (even if your product is inferior). I can easily cite microsoft on that one.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Let me get this straight
On the post: There Are Numbers Less Than 1%
Re: Along those lines...
Go make an interesting game, and do it for fun. When you have fun, so we will we, and money will flow accordingly.
When you make an advertisement for a game company, and it's a bunch of bullshit, we will ignore you, and wish that you find a better venture for you to add music and sound to, this coming from someone who does music and sound design themselves.
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
Re: Re: Blizzard should change strategy
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
Re: In Blizzards case you overlooked one small detail
I'm not sure where you come across with this idea, but glider doesn't access their servers. It was just a very smart bot program. Bots don't run on the server, they run on the consumer/host's pc. This was the crux of the situation and why throwing it at copyright was an asinine call by the judge.
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
Re: Dazed and confused
Lets go one by one.
Legally: A judge would throw you out of court faster than I could blink when they ask you to prove damages and you have none, other than from loss of publicity from opening a lawsuit aka streisand effect. They are not infringing your copy-right in any sense.
Morally: you should be *PROUD*! Someone likes your stuff enough that they are inspired to duplicate it themselves (not eat into your profits). Hell, that's a success story to put up on every advertisement possible if I ever heard one.
Ethically: see Morals (they're close enough in concepts).
Most people do take pride in making perfect replicas of cars, in fact there's a whole business made out of it irrespective of Chevy's consent. If you mean trademark wise, as long as someone isn't claiming it's a Chevy when it's not, then your point is moot. After all, the VIN system is designed to deal with that.
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
Re: Re: The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack
You indeed do have the choice to do what you want with a gun you purchase, shooting people is simply not lawful.
However, guns are off topic. Lets stick to software, shall we?
You buy x software. Why can't you do *WHATEVER YOU WANT* with it on your own? That is the issue here. We have DMCA issues among other things that are causing issues with this.
On the post: Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes
Re: How stupid do they think politicians are?
On the post: Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes
lobby vs lobby
With that said, does the music industry really realize how bad of a tactical move going against the ISP's is?
On the post: Texas Instruments Goes Legal On Calculator Hackers: How Dare You Make Our Product Better!
not removed
On the post: Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
wow, smart anon
I'm voting PP in 10 and so is everyone I know.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
patents are the issue
Under the current system however, I4I is correct, so I can understand that. Aside from that though, this would have banned word from using XML markup right?
I'd like to see this play out simply because MS is the one who trumpets their faith in patents for their own benefit.
Capitalism: everyone only likes it when it's on their side.
On the post: California City Looks To Evade Laws On Redlight Cameras
illinois
On the post: A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]
Re: Google is your friend...
On the post: A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]
Re: Re: Re: its escapism
When unsuccessful: it's the man, or the government, or mean people, or filesharing.
When successful, it's god, or your family, or your sister/brother/wife/mother/etc, or the industry itself.
Even though none of the above have *any* bearing on being successful or unsuccessful, people shift the blame.
On the post: A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]
no
It's like "I'm on top, there's no room for you" mentality.
On the post: Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes
here's the answer
That's why the whole thing has been part of it. I doubt she even does anything outside of perform.
http://www.upstartblogger.com/meet-the-music-industrys-new-misinformation-puppet-and-lea rn-how-to-benefit-from-her-tricks
The woman probably is no better than Amy Winehouse. Maybe she'll follow suit and start doing drugs more than they already do.
Next >>