As a Canadian I sometimes need assistance in understanding American "rules" because every so often they don't make a lot of sense. So, from what I can gather, even if you are merely accused of copyright infringement from an automated bot that may or may not be accurate, you start rising up the escalation ladder in this "Six Strikes" process.
So, for example, if someone knew the IP address of NBC.COM (220.127.116.11) and then started to accuse NBC.COM of infringing on their copyright by going through their provider, they could take NBC off the Internet? And this seems logical to people? If someone knew the IP Addresses of the NBC executive team they could adulterate the process to get all of them "barred" from the Internet. And the copyright industries don't think that this is going to turn around and bite them in the butt?
I would like to thank the MPAA for helping prevent damage to the Canadian economy. As I am sure that they know, IMAX is actually a Canadian invention from a company that is not part of the "motion picture and television industry" so it is very heartening to know that they love the technology so much that they have adopted it as their own.
As for filming at 48 frames per second, the first movie to have been filmed that way (The Hobbit) was directed by a Kiwi. The first director to state that they were going to film this way was a Canadian (James Cameron).
As for 3D, who the heck cares?
Anyway, thank you MPAA for your honest and accurate commentary.
If we extend to copyright law, if you got 50,000 people to tweet a single word of a short novel to the same hashtag, although none of them are truly guilty of copyright infringement for a single word, collectively they are guilty? And, through the mere fact that Twitter allows this to happen, Twitter is guilty of inducing infringement?
In a recent news story on CNN, they commented on Uber and it's entrance into the DC marketplace. The comment that struck me as being astute was when the reporter asked the question "Should consumers be forced to pay a price so that the earnings of some workers won't be affected?" While the answer in the Uber case was "no", the question is applicable to technology in general.
The MPAA thinks the answer should be "yes". The RIAA likewise. Like the taxi industry in Washington DC, there is an expectation that the introduction of new technologies should be done in such a way as to cushion the impact of that technology upon their pay cheque. Therein lies the problem that the 21st century needs to deal with: how to get people to move to a new job. Perhaps the education system needs to change so that people can get trainer cheaper, faster and on demand. Perhaps the funding of education from a municipal/state/federal level needs to be altered to pay for results instead of attendance.
Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, said that:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
What he said with regard to the survival of the United States is just as relevant when we talk about the survival of the Internet as a medium for unfiltered communication. Yes, some of that communication is vile filth, but some of it is pure magic. You can't see one if you don't see the other.
Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Many Americans have embraced that slogan. Many American soldiers have died defending that right. Is the Internet the straw that breaks the camels back? Will soldiers go to war and die, protecting free speech, while the average American sits and home and is fed the information that some small group in a boardroom wants them to hear?
Seriously, so Apple might introduce a new pin connector with the next iPhone. So what? If you want the new iPhone you buy new accessories. If you don't want the new iPhone don't buy it and use all your existing accessories. Some of the docks you could buy for a version 1 iPad don't work with a version 3 iPad just two years later. I didn't see mass protests in the streets and an Apple Spring occur.
To say that there is nothing to gain, when all that is even guessed at is the fact that it goes from 30 pins to 19 pins, seems to be more of a shot in the dark more than anything else. What if the new pin connection is required to allow it to implement new features that luddites have never dreamed of. To be honest, Leigh, this doesn't sound like a typical TechDirt article, but more of a "I saw the Microsoft Surface and it uses standards so I hate Apple" article.
"Don't innovate because that might leave people behind" is a quaint and antiquated idea, but if we followed your lead there would be little to no innovation in the world because at some point we would have had to leave people behind.
Now, if you'll excuse me, the horses need watering before I hitch them up to the buggy and drive them to work.
Why not pay Google 37 billion to setup such a system and pocket the extra 213 billion.
In many respects that is what ContentID is supposed to do. Perhaps Google should be setting up a relationship with the MPAA and RIAA. For every item blocked by ContentID it is considered a "lost sale" that is being recovered. As a result Google obtains a "finders" fee of 10% of the recovered sale.
This finders fee would go towards the creation of new technology to "recover" lost sales for other industries like tourism (all those pictures about Hawaii are stopping people from going to Hawaii) and the restaurant industry (all those pictures about food are stopping people from going to restaurants). There is precedent for this, after all we've told the tobacco industry to post pictures of people who have had bad things happen to them due to smoking.
Congratulations, fairusefriendly, I think you've hit upon a revenue stream that sees no realistic limit.
I would like to apologize on the behalf of the rest of Canada. Most Canadians can actually make better analogies. The only thing I can think of is that he was either trained by the patent judges in East Texas or the Dutch anti-piracy judge on how to make nonsensical analogies. To his benefit, however, his political ties are deep in the technology sector being a "Member in Good Standing of the Outdoors Caucus" and "Vice-Chair of the Auto Caucus". Both of which use technology. Sort of. (Is there a Windows 8 Metro interface for shotguns? And how about that SYNC software in Ford cars?)
Please keep us up to date on what happens. Like one of your other posts mentions, I am grabbing a bucket of popcorn and watching what happens. What I think would be particularly interesting to know is how long it takes to get the page back into circulation. What impact does it have if people can get pages down faster than they can be restored? What happens if I type in "TeamSkeet porn torrent download"? Is this page now going to be the subject of a DMCA takedown notice? If it is then we've now discovered a way to take down any page on any site that allows comments. Denial of service via DMCA attack (DoS via DMCA (TM) )
This is how most pictures of Paris should look. Please note the subtle modifications to the picture to ensure that it follows all of the latest guidelines and policies put in place by the French courts.
I agree with the overall concept (ebooks are good, but there are some books that need to be in print), but the turnover is not going to be as large. Instead of 10 paperbacks at $7.50 each they will sell 10 ebooks at $4.99 and 1 leather edition at $39.99. For some books, they may never sell a physical copy (there are some really bad books out there), but for others there may be an even higher ratio.
All of these physical book requests will either need to be printed in advance or printed on demand. If I was in the publishing business I would look into how I can print beautiful books (leather bound, silk wrapped, full colour covers, vellum pages, etc.) quickly and cheaply.
I was at a restaurant with my family on Super Bowl (tm) Sunday and I wanted to find out the score in the game. There was no television nearby so I pulled out my iPad and tried to find a legal stream of the game. It took my about 5 minutes to realize that standing up, going around the corner to the bar and looking at the score was going to be much easier.
Once again, people seem to forget that this Internet thingy goes across national boundaries and that limiting the access to a set of IP addresses that seem to be located in a particular country is a pile of < insert derogatory phrase here >.
Unfortunately, with many of the current politicians being grandfathers by the time the Internet really started taking off, they are rather set in their ways. Even many of the "younger" politicians are hobbled by what they learned from their peers. As a result, a multi-pronged approach, the Internet for those that understand what it is, and a traditionalist lobbyist group (that understands the issues) is probably going to be the most effective approach. During this transition phase between the Physical Economy and the Digital Economy (no we haven't really reached the Digital Economy, yet) we need to accommodate both sides of the fence.
The RIAA/MPAA and others are only concentrating on the old gang and that is where the new Internet Liberation Front (ILF) comes in. By understanding that there is a need to listen to both sides and come up with a compromise that is reasonable to both parties, the ILF can gather bipartisan support from both new and old politicians.
The tablet revolution occurred and Apple led the charge. The changes mentioned by Glyn Moody represent an evolution of the tablet. Many people tried in the past to create a tablet market and all of them failed. Apple didn't. Indeed, without Apple as the revolutionary in this market I don't believe that you would have the Aakash tablet in it's present form.
Mike has talked repeatedly about how people build on other people's success in order to build something new. I will be the first to tell you that in it's individual pieces the iPad is not revolutionary. What it did do, however, was bring those pieces together in a revolutionary format. Since the iPad came out people have been trying to replicate that success. They should be trying to come up with their own formula based on what Apple has done, but, sadly, many companies would like to replicate instead of innovate.
While the Aakash tablet appears to be a "good deal" for those that cannot afford an iPad, it is hardly revolutionary. Lower quality screen, lower speed processor, less RAM, etc., all seem to indicate that it is an iPad imitator, not a revolutionary. I am not saying that being an iPad imitator is bad, as they obviously have a specific target demographic in mind and they are very successful within that demographic. What I am saying is that they are not the table revolution. That has already come. They may be the start of the revolution in Education, but not the Tablet.
As a parent I am glad to know that if any of my daughters get famous, have their face photographed thousands of times, I can just bring out the lawyers and sue everyone. This makes a great retirement fund for myself and my wife. Just think, it is no longer Lindsay Lohan who gets the money, but her parents! Michael Lohan can now stay at home and drink/party to his hearts content because the seed from his loins brought forth "The Lindsay".
I think this is a wonderful excuse to have as many kids as possible with as many women as possible so as to ensure a valuable income in your twilight years.
And, let's face it, if the Doctor does work on the face, he is creating a derivative work. (Hopefully not a parody.) I can still probably sue him if my income drops as a result of his work.