The practical fact of the law, up until this ruling, would be that if someone notified them of infringement, they would remove the offending content and not otherwise reproduce it on demand. That is wholly reasonable.
But instead you have someone who would rather sue a bigger fish instead. And any reasonable outfit would probably compensate the copyright holder. But no, the point of lawsuits like this is to extract a toll far, far beyond any possible value of the infringement (+ vig and punitive damages). i.e., i would never make so much money licensing or selling my own works, i can only hope someone infringes in a way that they involve someone with deeper pockets.
This reasoning should fly at all in a non-internet space. What if someone decides to take a work to a printer for production. How would the printer know the matter to be printed is unlicensed reproduction of another party's work unless it is so famous as to have generic household recognition? Shall they demand copyright papers showing the person has ownership or reproduction rights? Oh wait. In a system where everything automatically receives copyright, wanted or not, there are no papers.
Hm, you mean players get to try something briefly (without infringing) and return it if they don't like? Shocking, i tell you. Devastating. Surely the other 68-ish million is not enough to attract anyone to develop more games.
Re: What exactly is your point here? -- Yay, intelligence agency will try getting around end point encryption?
Yeah lol no one questions these things. If nothing is noteworthy, why pay attention to anything?
What is the benefit of the imaginary world you live in?
Sure, some people are entirely for maximum government spying. Some people couldn't care in the course of their everyday lives. But do go ahead and invent things to claim superiority over and insult people with here. As if we don't know spooks don't go beyond what is publicly known and legal on their already extremely long and loose leashes. And this time just because it is reported that one of the "security" talking heads changed his tune and undermined the idiotic "adult conversation" antics of his peers. (Whether he means it or not is largely irrelevant.)
So if you ever get anywhere near an actual point, go ahead and make it.
I think that moment was quite a long time ago. Netflix is the only one with personal skin in the in any remotely recent sense. Not sure that any part of FB culture ever cared. Certainly many arguments could be made about teh goog. But if any of them ever had true principles they wished to espouse, they are far past that point. The best one can hope is to shift them in a better direction by popular demand, whether they do it grudgingly or in an attempt to capitalize on it.
What i would do is search the relevant site or see if they are on the FFTF list. (Although said list seems a bit wonky in some browser environments, to say the least.) Slashdot seems to promote it and is on the list. Ars/Nast are not listed AFAICT. But i am uninterested and therefore unwilling to investigate further into some particular creature's participation or level thereof. You will see in a bit more than a day at this point. Maybe someone with more site affinity to ars knows.
Also, the Constitution is not proscriptive in these matters. It is detailing a minimum of what the government cannot interfere with. Rights were only enumerated because there was a history of them not being respected. Which is why later amendments had to take the effort to clearly point out that certain people are human beings, contrary to how some oh-so-amazing Enlightenment thinkers would interpret things for their own convenience.
One thing i haven't seen mentioned, but another important one, never mind what those providing DRM might do: It's and increased bugload and an increased attack surface.
For something that does not belong in HTML standards at all, it is an awkward bolted-on thing from the start. The increased code in implementing the "standard" adds further complexity, and therefore, bugs and vulnerabilities. And this at a time when browser extensions are becoming less useful for anything serious because the API model is "too vulnerable". So square those two things. Add to that the exposure EME adds, never minding the horrible awful problems and security holes any actual DRM plugin provides. (And which may be installed or downloaded and installed silently.)
If I want to run your service, and you demand DRM, then provide me an installer or whatever. There is no particular use in it being a web "standard" - which will fluctuate and require constant fixes and updates, rendering previous browser versions (and probably OSes) "obsolete" by DRM standards, once they all figure out how crap their standard and implementations are in the real world. Whether it is because it breaks other things, introduces grave vulnerabilities, or because people will keep breaking their DRM. The EME spec will never be enough. Watch it "evolve" faster than any other part of W3C standards ever.
Also, you seem to think everyone who ever has a problem with any of these things does so because they want to infringe content. That's your problem. There are people with copyright concerns i can take seriously, and those who i cannot, and it is fairly clear why they have a concern: Either they want to have some comfort they will make a living from their hard work, or they are abusers or corporations that make an exorbitant living off other people's hard work while usually paying the creator little or nothing. That is, some have concerns in good faith, while others do not. Can you for a moment just imagine that at least some people who have issues with copyright and protections schemes have these concerns in good faith? People would engage more constructively with you. Unless you don't operate in good faith at all.
Yeah, I still know no one who uses IceWeaselCat or SeaMonkey. Never mind for anti-EME reasons on the Debian Linux side of things. And good chance the OS is going to enforce something chosen against with a browser, if there were a such browser in the win10/osx world.
That's for sure. I just don't think dogs alert to anything in particular at all once they have left (proper) training. I am sure that they are completely capable of identifying many things. But they run with a less intelligent and more expectant crowd afterwards, again assuming that the training wasn't a load of horseshit in the first place.
On the post: AT&T Pretends To Love Net Neutrality, Joins Tomorrow's Protest With A Straight Face
Re: Hey, if Google and Facebook can go for the cheap, insincere PR shot...
On the post: Court Says DMCA Safe Harbors Disappear Once Infringing Images Are Printed On Physical Items
Re: Re: Re:
But instead you have someone who would rather sue a bigger fish instead. And any reasonable outfit would probably compensate the copyright holder. But no, the point of lawsuits like this is to extract a toll far, far beyond any possible value of the infringement (+ vig and punitive damages). i.e., i would never make so much money licensing or selling my own works, i can only hope someone infringes in a way that they involve someone with deeper pockets.
This reasoning should fly at all in a non-internet space. What if someone decides to take a work to a printer for production. How would the printer know the matter to be printed is unlicensed reproduction of another party's work unless it is so famous as to have generic household recognition? Shall they demand copyright papers showing the person has ownership or reproduction rights? Oh wait. In a system where everything automatically receives copyright, wanted or not, there are no papers.
On the post: How One Game Developer Views Steam's Refund Policy As A Boon In The Face Of Over $4 Million In Refunds
On the post: Former Head Of GCHQ Says Don't Backdoor End-To-End Encryption, Attack The End Points
Re: What exactly is your point here? -- Yay, intelligence agency will try getting around end point encryption?
Yeah lol no one questions these things. If nothing is noteworthy, why pay attention to anything?
What is the benefit of the imaginary world you live in?
Sure, some people are entirely for maximum government spying. Some people couldn't care in the course of their everyday lives. But do go ahead and invent things to claim superiority over and insult people with here. As if we don't know spooks don't go beyond what is publicly known and legal on their already extremely long and loose leashes. And this time just because it is reported that one of the "security" talking heads changed his tune and undermined the idiotic "adult conversation" antics of his peers. (Whether he means it or not is largely irrelevant.)
So if you ever get anywhere near an actual point, go ahead and make it.
On the post: 'Hacking' Of US Nuclear Facilities Appears To Be Little More Than The Sort Of Spying The US Approves Of
On the post: Facebook, Google Wake Up From Their Coma On The Subject, Join Wednesday's Massive Net Neutrality Protest
Re:
On the post: Facebook, Google Wake Up From Their Coma On The Subject, Join Wednesday's Massive Net Neutrality Protest
Re: Inquiring minds want to know.
What i would do is search the relevant site or see if they are on the FFTF list. (Although said list seems a bit wonky in some browser environments, to say the least.) Slashdot seems to promote it and is on the list. Ars/Nast are not listed AFAICT. But i am uninterested and therefore unwilling to investigate further into some particular creature's participation or level thereof. You will see in a bit more than a day at this point. Maybe someone with more site affinity to ars knows.
On the post: Third Circuit Appeals Court Establishes First Amendment Right To Record Police
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Third Circuit Appeals Court Establishes First Amendment Right To Record Police
Re: Re: Re: missing something
Also, the Constitution is not proscriptive in these matters. It is detailing a minimum of what the government cannot interfere with. Rights were only enumerated because there was a history of them not being respected. Which is why later amendments had to take the effort to clearly point out that certain people are human beings, contrary to how some oh-so-amazing Enlightenment thinkers would interpret things for their own convenience.
On the post: What If You Published Half Your Book For Free Online?
Re: Re: Baen Free Library
On the post: Former Head Of GCHQ Says Don't Backdoor End-To-End Encryption, Attack The End Points
Re: Or, phrased another way...
Or, conversely, attack all the endpoints, all of the time, so we may maintain our indiscriminate hoovering practices and work around encryption.
On the post: What If You Published Half Your Book For Free Online?
Re: Or, the whole thing
On the post: House Appropriation Committee Demolishes Hollywood's Excuses For Moving Copyright Office Out Of Library Of Congress
Re:
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Re: Answer me this (everyone except Thad)
One thing i haven't seen mentioned, but another important one, never mind what those providing DRM might do: It's and increased bugload and an increased attack surface.
For something that does not belong in HTML standards at all, it is an awkward bolted-on thing from the start. The increased code in implementing the "standard" adds further complexity, and therefore, bugs and vulnerabilities. And this at a time when browser extensions are becoming less useful for anything serious because the API model is "too vulnerable". So square those two things. Add to that the exposure EME adds, never minding the horrible awful problems and security holes any actual DRM plugin provides. (And which may be installed or downloaded and installed silently.)
If I want to run your service, and you demand DRM, then provide me an installer or whatever. There is no particular use in it being a web "standard" - which will fluctuate and require constant fixes and updates, rendering previous browser versions (and probably OSes) "obsolete" by DRM standards, once they all figure out how crap their standard and implementations are in the real world. Whether it is because it breaks other things, introduces grave vulnerabilities, or because people will keep breaking their DRM. The EME spec will never be enough. Watch it "evolve" faster than any other part of W3C standards ever.
Also, you seem to think everyone who ever has a problem with any of these things does so because they want to infringe content. That's your problem. There are people with copyright concerns i can take seriously, and those who i cannot, and it is fairly clear why they have a concern: Either they want to have some comfort they will make a living from their hard work, or they are abusers or corporations that make an exorbitant living off other people's hard work while usually paying the creator little or nothing. That is, some have concerns in good faith, while others do not. Can you for a moment just imagine that at least some people who have issues with copyright and protections schemes have these concerns in good faith? People would engage more constructively with you. Unless you don't operate in good faith at all.
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Re: Re:
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Re: Re: Re: Re: Looking for a leader
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Re: time to go make another browser and give freely and opensourced to everyone
And as someone who uses the descendant of communicator, i thank you and everyone else who helped make that code open source.
On the post: The Great Firewall Of China Grows Stronger As China Forces App Stores To Remove VPNs
Re:
On the post: There Is An Easy Answer To Whether Machines Should Get Copyright Rights And It Comes Down To Copyright's Purpose
Re: What happens when...
Wait, those aren't AI?
On the post: Court Says Gov't Has To Do More Than Say It Doesn't Believe The Property Owners If It Wants To Keep The Cash It Seized
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights Violators
Next >>