On June 13, 2008 TechDirt reports 'Free Software' Scammers Fined $2.2 Million"
This is a great business opportunity if you would like to sell Faraday Cage.
Be a servant for those who suffer from RF allergies. The Faraday Cage an antihistamine that relieves your allergy symptoms. In fact if you call now, you will be sent two Faraday Cages for the price of one as a preferred customer.
While the money just roles in. In fact you don't even have to buy or store these high end products!!! I have been hearing this dubious add for some time. It is so obviously misleading that I am surprised these guys are still able to advertise. But then the Video Professor is still be in business too.
Technology has allowed the consumer greater freedom. It has also given the content producers draconian power in preventing the consumer from utilizing content (DRM and Region coding).
It is unfortunate that the content producers have successfully characterized the copyright debate in terms of consumer freedom equals theft while their restrictive actions are characterized as the protection of the poor starving artist.
The copyright debate needs to recognize that the consumer has rights. Tim has taken a positive step in how we should view copyright.
BTR1701 is absolutely correct. The likes of the RIAA or the MPAA is that they can initiate a "legal" action against you without due-process. Or to put it another way, if the content industry points its finger of blame at you, you are automatically deemed guilty!
It seems that the TV companies are putting ever more "advertising" content on the "edges" of the regular program. So advertising is now obscuring the program you are watching and is no longer simply confined to the "commercial break".
I continue to be amazed that people are upset and howl with much anguish by one form of supposed "privacy" intrusion while ignoring those intrusions that hurt you such as identify theft. Privacy concerns related to Google taking pictures for its mapping program or your cell phone being used as a tracking device, while valid don't really warrant the level of outrage that I see. Credit cards by the way are a wondrous tracking device!
Now when it comes to corporations collecting our personal information and then selling,trading,buying it that is a whole different story. When telemarketers call, they are intruding into your space and using your equipment (phone) that you paid for. Since this is an election year, I have been getting a whole bunch of "friendly" calls from Hillary, and John (recorded calls are insulting). When a credit card solicitation arrives in the mail and someone steals it, they can use it for identity theft. Yet there is little interest in stopping these abusive intrusions into your private space.
Sorry about my "empty" post. I also have lost interest in eBay. As Ross points out, Ebay is being used more as a "store front". Ebay and PayPal are linked and I refuse to use PayPal. Meg Whitman, the prior head of Ebay, has appeared on TV a couple of times, her comments on what Ebay is left me cold. Between Ebay's terms of service, the use of PayPal, and Ms. Whitman's projection of what Ebay is: I no longer consider Ebay as a place to do business.
Telemarketers, advertisers, and other marketing companies have no respect for privacy. With impunity, they buy, sell, and trade your data all the time and intrude on your time and physical space. They even create a significant liability for you by sending solicitations for credit cards and other service, which becomes identity theft if stolen.
The actions above are tolerated but take a picture (which doesn't intrude) and this becomes a big violation of privacy???????????
If you can view a "private" site from a public place - an "expectation of privacy" does not exist. Consequently you have NO right to privacy. If you want privacy, time to invest in camouflage netting.
In this situation, to bad Google is trying to be a good neighbor.
As a extremely brief summary Wikipedia wrote: "The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 – alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years."
The rules were changed to give the copyright holders extra rights and the public is finally reacting to that. However, the response of the copyright holders is the mantra of "You are stealing from us by trying to diminish our rights.". The problem is that the copyright holders stole (diminished) our rights to fair use first. If we go back to the original concept of copyright we are neither diminishing nor stealing from the supposed "rights" of the copyright holders.
Excellent post. One conceptual addition. One section of this Bill of Extortion reads: "At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys."
Copyright has not been diminishing, the legal trend has been to give copyright holders ever greater rights at the expense of the consumer. If the artists truly seek to clarify the entitlement that every music creator enjoys, let's go back to the original version of the copyright law.
The "attack" on competing technologies, I believe, is really a form of vertical integration. Companies want consumers to buy into their entire product line, hence interoperability is silently quashed.
At one level (engineering) interoperability is disabled through proprietary formats and proprietary connectors. At another level, through the legal process (the thrust of this post), to blatantly outlaw competing technologies.
By extension. If it is illegal to profile persons of interest (the new politically correct phrase for suspect) based on religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. then targeted advertising would also be illegal. Hadn't thought of that innovative twist before.
Ironically, I don't mind targeted advertising, what does bother me is the degree of intrusion and the arrogance of the advertisers.
Unfortunately, Autodesk will probably be able to have an "under-the-table" settlement which will allow the perpetuation through FUD that the law is on their side.
Again, a major concern that is not being highlighted is that these companies take unilateral action as if due process does not exist and can do so with impunity.
As a follow-up to "eleete", who defines what is a "correct" answer? My interpretation of what would be "legal" would be quite different from that of the RIAA/MPAA.
Also does the RIAA/MPAA get the "opportunity" to be involved the development of the test questions?
It is NOT responsibility of any school to "protect" the interests of the RIAA/MPAA.
One of my emerging thoughts with so-called intellectual property is that corporations can take "actions" against people on their own volition and without due process.
For example, Mike wrote "This made the guy pull the rest of the auctions and get a bit nervous about whether or not he broke the law. Oddly, after all of this started getting attention Warner Brothers let one of the auctions proceed, but didn't respond to a question from the guy about letting the others move forward. In fact, in an email, Warner Brothers didn't explain its position at all." (emphais added) This forum has also contained articles regarding content producers demands that ISPs "filter" internet traffic to protect their so-called intellectual property and HP was caught in a pretexting imbroglio.
These incidents clearly point to a trend where corporations believe that they can unilaterally "define" what is legal and that they posses police powers to take action against the malcontents. A scary thought.
The purpose of copyright is to provide the content creator with limited monopoly for existing content for the purpose of fostering new creative content.
If someone wants to produce a $200 million dollar movie, it is at their own risk! Copyright is not an entitlement to spend as much as you want so that you can erect a toll-both to extort revenue. Whenever you seek to produce and sell content, you need to examine its viability in the marketplace. The value of that content is determined by those willing to pay for it, NOT by the content creator establishing (by fiat) what it is supposedly worth. Think of all the "starving artists" feverishly creating content just to earn the next meal.
On the post: Santa Fe Ignores WiFi Allergists; Recognizes Setting Up WiFi Isn't A Violation Of The ADA
Serial Entranpeanuer Opportunity
This is a great business opportunity if you would like to sell Faraday Cage.
Be a servant for those who suffer from RF allergies. The Faraday Cage an antihistamine that relieves your allergy symptoms. In fact if you call now, you will be sent two Faraday Cages for the price of one as a preferred customer.
On the post: 'Free Software' Scammers Fined $2.2 Million
Computer Does All the Work For You
Future fodder for TechDirt.
On the post: What If Copyright Only Applied To Commercial Use?
The Two Edged Sword
It is unfortunate that the content producers have successfully characterized the copyright debate in terms of consumer freedom equals theft while their restrictive actions are characterized as the protection of the poor starving artist.
The copyright debate needs to recognize that the consumer has rights. Tim has taken a positive step in how we should view copyright.
On the post: Once Again, The DMCA Doesn't Let You Takedown Any Content You Don't Like
Re: DMCA
On the post: Another Way To Get Around TiVo Users Fast Forwarding: Really Interrupt Your Shows With Ads
Ads Encroaching onto Regular programing
On the post: Is It Fair Game To Track People's Movements Via Their Mobile Phones?
Re: two-edged sword
Now when it comes to corporations collecting our personal information and then selling,trading,buying it that is a whole different story. When telemarketers call, they are intruding into your space and using your equipment (phone) that you paid for. Since this is an election year, I have been getting a whole bunch of "friendly" calls from Hillary, and John (recorded calls are insulting). When a credit card solicitation arrives in the mail and someone steals it, they can use it for identity theft. Yet there is little interest in stopping these abusive intrusions into your private space.
On the post: Online Auctions No Longer Fun?
Trend of Buyer Beware????
On the post: Online Auctions No Longer Fun?
Trend of Buyer Beware????
On the post: Entire Minnesota Town Removed From Google Street View
Re: Re: Re: Privacy - good for me, bad for you
The actions above are tolerated but take a picture (which doesn't intrude) and this becomes a big violation of privacy???????????
On the post: Entire Minnesota Town Removed From Google Street View
Re: Public View, No Right to Privacy
The community may be "private" but the roads may not be. The fact that Google was able to use the roads would imply that public access was available.
On the post: Entire Minnesota Town Removed From Google Street View
Public View, No Right to Privacy
In this situation, to bad Google is trying to be a good neighbor.
Barbara Streisand's House
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: Re: Bill of Extortion
The rules were changed to give the copyright holders extra rights and the public is finally reacting to that. However, the response of the copyright holders is the mantra of "You are stealing from us by trying to diminish our rights.". The problem is that the copyright holders stole (diminished) our rights to fair use first. If we go back to the original concept of copyright we are neither diminishing nor stealing from the supposed "rights" of the copyright holders.
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Bill of Extortion
Copyright has not been diminishing, the legal trend has been to give copyright holders ever greater rights at the expense of the consumer. If the artists truly seek to clarify the entitlement that every music creator enjoys, let's go back to the original version of the copyright law.
On the post: Copyright Battles Are About Controlling New Technologies
Vertical Integration
At one level (engineering) interoperability is disabled through proprietary formats and proprietary connectors. At another level, through the legal process (the thrust of this post), to blatantly outlaw competing technologies.
On the post: Behavioral Targeting May Be Illegal
Innovative Application
Ironically, I don't mind targeted advertising, what does bother me is the degree of intrusion and the arrogance of the advertisers.
On the post: Court Says Reselling Software Is Okay
Autodesk will Weasel Out
Again, a major concern that is not being highlighted is that these companies take unilateral action as if due process does not exist and can do so with impunity.
On the post: YouTomb Joins Chilling Effects In Tracking Takedowns
Re: two words
On the post: University Makes Students Take Copyright Quiz To Get Timed Access To P2P
Who determines the correct answer?
Also does the RIAA/MPAA get the "opportunity" to be involved the development of the test questions?
It is NOT responsibility of any school to "protect" the interests of the RIAA/MPAA.
On the post: Warner Brothers Shuts Down Auction For Children's Cancer Charity
Corporations Asssuming Police Powers
For example, Mike wrote "This made the guy pull the rest of the auctions and get a bit nervous about whether or not he broke the law. Oddly, after all of this started getting attention Warner Brothers let one of the auctions proceed, but didn't respond to a question from the guy about letting the others move forward. In fact, in an email, Warner Brothers didn't explain its position at all." (emphais added) This forum has also contained articles regarding content producers demands that ISPs "filter" internet traffic to protect their so-called intellectual property and HP was caught in a pretexting imbroglio.
These incidents clearly point to a trend where corporations believe that they can unilaterally "define" what is legal and that they posses police powers to take action against the malcontents. A scary thought.
On the post: Copyright As An Engine Of Free Expression?
The $200 Million Dollar Movie
If someone wants to produce a $200 million dollar movie, it is at their own risk! Copyright is not an entitlement to spend as much as you want so that you can erect a toll-both to extort revenue. Whenever you seek to produce and sell content, you need to examine its viability in the marketplace. The value of that content is determined by those willing to pay for it, NOT by the content creator establishing (by fiat) what it is supposedly worth. Think of all the "starving artists" feverishly creating content just to earn the next meal.
Next >>