Last I remember these bills were touted as protecting the artists and the jobs of those in the industry. So when the people who's jobs your claiming to save are against your bill because even they recognize how bad it is doesn't that mean you failed?
Yup, you would submit it to the *IAA's Infringing Sites group for analysis. This process will take anywhere from two to ten years for them to check over your site for any infringing content or content they deem harmful. Then you must submit a 1000-page form, in triplicates, that confirms your site has nothing infringing or harmful on it. After these documents are reviewed, handed back for correction, and corrections submitted your site will be added to the white list.
Well it appears he tried something like that. Near the bottom of the article it mentions:
"At first the public servant claimed the access to the pornography was accidental and then, Justice Perram said, later created an "elaborate but ultimately unbelievable explanation for his actions based around notions of research and inquiry"."
I thought trademarks actually had to be used in commerce for you to keep them or you lost it after a certain number of years of them not being in use. I could very well be wrong though so any correction is welcome. I know that when you file initially, you can file an "in good faith" saying that you will use it but then you have to at some point actually use it.
And when you think that going with the big labels is the only way to go then you DON'T have an informed choice and you can't make a proper decision. When you are presented with bunk information then you can only make bunk choices.
Is it also okay for the major labels to claim they couldn't find the artist to avoid paying? Or moving money around to avoid paying? Perhaps pushing rules and laws into place that would do NOTHING to give more money to the artist and just funnel it into the companies pockets? Taking money away from the little guys to give to the one big guy is fine too? How about forcing the artists to record at chosen studio X using equipment Y to be taken out of their money advancement without any choice being given to the artist as to where and what they want to use.
So soon a computer inside a computer playing minecraft built upon minecraft, wherein another working computer is built designed to run minecraft? *universe implosion*
It is the governments job to stop and or block anything that any citizen does not agree with nor find moral/ethical. The government must protect all of its citizens from something that a group finds to be "wrong". This must be done for the greater good and for the children to protect our country.
Yup, give reasonable access to content and at a reasonable price and don't treat your customers like dirt. Show them that they are awesome, give them something to come back for. Stop worrying about "piracy" and focus on making good music/movies/etc.
As awesome as that sounds, it would probably have the exact opposite effect and cause a lot more damage to Google, including making it look like they have something to hide. I say they throw that weight at the heads of the politicians in Germany.
So umm where do you get this whole thing about how creating competition will somehow harm the market? It will create MORE jobs, and the only jobs it will harm are of those who fail to adapt and improve, they will fall to the wayside. This is how competition has worked in the market since the dawn of time. If you can't compete you don't get to stay in business.
BUT remember its only for one year. I think these people are talking about an eternity or until the client passes which could be a while depending on the persons age. So maybe a group discount of 20 years for 1 billion dollars?
Unless they drop the lawsuits right before it goes to court and say it was a "mistake" and they "apologize". Then they go after the next wave of "infringers" and do the same thing over and over. Most will fight the lawsuits, but some will pay up. So they will have to drop the lawsuits again as a "mistake". It can't go on forever before most people realize whats going on, but they gotta make money somehow. Adapting to a changing market isn't an option since that's progress and innovation, something we can't have in a world run by lawyers.
Re: Re: What I'd do
Fail?
Re: Re:
Re:
"At first the public servant claimed the access to the pornography was accidental and then, Justice Perram said, later created an "elaborate but ultimately unbelievable explanation for his actions based around notions of research and inquiry"."
(untitled comment)
Re: Congrats, but...
Re:
Use in commerce?
Re: Re: Re:
Is it also okay for the major labels to claim they couldn't find the artist to avoid paying? Or moving money around to avoid paying? Perhaps pushing rules and laws into place that would do NOTHING to give more money to the artist and just funnel it into the companies pockets? Taking money away from the little guys to give to the one big guy is fine too? How about forcing the artists to record at chosen studio X using equipment Y to be taken out of their money advancement without any choice being given to the artist as to where and what they want to use.
Re:
Re: Re:
$350,000$100,000 Per Day [Updated]Re: Re: yo dawg, i heard you like computers...
Re: Obviously...
The letter is amuzing
"Your anticipated cooperation is anticipated"
Yes
/sarcasm
Re: Demand is perpetuated by supply
Re:
Re: Yeah to he11 with business
Re: Response...
Re:
More comments from Brian >>
Brian’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt