"Used" MP3s don't refer at all to the data - they refer to *the right to use the data*, the license to the recording.
Rikuo says it all, but this one part irks me to no end. Copyright doesn't protect the right to use something, but the right to copy something.
In a traditional sense, with books, music, etc., copyright wasn't used to prevent someone from accessing a work, but to prevent them from copying that work. Sure, with music, copyright prevented someone from taking the music and reproducing it with an instrument, but it didn't prevent them from reading the music, or listening to the music.
It is only recently that copyright maximalists have increased the copyright law to include usage of a work, but that is their ultimate goal, isn't it, to become a tax agent, collecting money for existing without providing any sort of benefit to society.
the difference between this and the prenda circus is that prenda pissed off the court. the dmca takedown system is extrajudicial
I agree, though this would be a perfect case for the owner to strike back. They took down material that was commercially available, which they had no copyright for, and as a result, it hurt another company. If anything should be considered unlawful interference of a business model, this should. This would be a perfect case for testing the limits of DMCA.
Traditional - honorable - remediations such as pillow fights or drinking contests are unavailing once the nuclear legal option is deployed.
There is precedence the other way though. I believe a game of Quake III was used (though I believe it was unsuccessful,) in Mojang vs. Bethesda. But it ended up being settled anyway and Mojang essentially won because they were allowed to keep the "Scrolls" name.
Wouldn't a workaround be to force publishers to make available versions of their published works for the blind and deaf? Made available at the exact same time and at the exact same cost as the "normal" version.
Workarounds already exist, and have existed for some time, for most of the issues with piracy. The publishers have railed against them, mostly because it would require a new system which would cost more and result in less benefit to the masses they sell too. It is, as always, a case of them being too lazy to solve the problem themselves, but too much of a control freak to allow anyone else to solve the problem. They railed against Netflix, they railed against RedBox, and they have railed against the VCR, and quite frankly, they will rail against anything until they go poof out of existence and the world becomes a better place overnight.
Re: He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
While the odds of someone turning their cell phone into an actual gun and presenting a physical threat to a police officer are probably 99.9% against
If the phone was a threat, it should have been dealt with immediately. There were two officers present (maybe more) and neither made any mention of the threat until a good 30 seconds after the guy had been recording. Even so, if they believed it was a gun, why did they leave it, untouched, on the ground when they knocked it out of the guy's hand. Possessing a deadly weapon is a felony in California, and that is evidence of a crime. From the second video, they didn't even check the camera.
Samsung smartphones are very thin, and I don't think you could get a 22 barrel into them, and if you did, how could you trigger it with no buttons. The video of the cellphone gun was an old "brick" phone with buttons. Even if the phone had a gun in it, there isn't a barrel or bullet that would fit and fire when the phone is held vertically. Maybe it is one of those new fangled sci-fi laser pistols he's thinking about.
I suspect the folks in San Diego will be paying this gentleman a handsome amount of money in the near future.
These telcos and cable companies are just plain insulting. They don't want to offer 1gb speeds to their customers because the prices they would insist on charging for it aren't what their customers would be willing (or maybe even able) to pay.
I wonder if there is some collusion with the RIAA/MPAA on this. By keeping the speeds slow, it is a lot harder to download/stream stuff off of the internet.
Well there is bandwidth and then there is concurrent TCP connections. Never cheap out on your router. It can make or break your high speed connection in a lot of cases.
If you have a router that limits concurrent TCP connections, then you are doing it wrong. Natural limits due to processing speed is one thing, but a router that artificially caps network connections (a lot of commercial off-the-shelf routers do,) should be slicked and have an open source firmware installed instead.
I've never had a problem, even with a 500 mHz router that I have, handling normal connections with 3 HD streams from Netflix/Hulu, games, and even running game servers. The only problem I've ever had was a stupid and "we're so awesomely bad we actually show our Darwin awards with pride" cable Internet service provider who is more interested in upselling me to a business account at ~$250/mo as a "power home user" with no bandwidth increase and no change to the "no-servers" rules instead of providing me with the service (limited unlimited service) they sold me 15 years ago.
If the copyright holder has no interest in developing it and left the series unfinished then it should be made available for anyone to do it.
Orphaned works should not be allowed to remain orphaned.
Of course, if we figured out a better way to handle getting artists their fair pay for their work instead of copyright (which only rewards large companies that can buy up and lock up copyrights,) we'd be a lot better off.
if fox cared about the fans we'd be watching season 110 or so right now
As much as I would personally love to be watching season 10 (the show started in 2003,) a friend of mine (also a fan) pointed out something I didn't think about. The show was the best thing on television then, and likely would have still been good now had it been allowed to run its course, but in many ways it means so much more to us because it failed due to stupid forces beyond the fans control. The show never got a chance to jump the shark, or produce a bad episode, or get to the point where it became sour. It never had its 5th and 6th season of Lost moment.
I hated him for saying it, but I think he has a point. Had the show run for 10 years, would it still have been the show it was when it only ran for part of a season. I think it would have, but they also pointed out that Buffy had the whole killing a god thing, and wrote themselves into a corner, which never happened with Firefly.
We can agree to disagree on the other stuff. Sure, greed is bad enough that it fits into the "7 deadly sins" and capitalism tries to make that into a positive. But I don't know of any other practical system that has been as successful. Sure, on paper, some of the other systems may work better, but human nature prevents them from working so well.
True, but you seem to be thinking that "benefit" is synonymous with "making money". It is not.
Nope, I meant benefit, not making money. There are other benefits to doing my job. It could be making money, it could be ego, it could be networking, it could be any positive value. Not everything is done, even in capitalism, for the sake of money. No matter what we are working for, we want to expend the least amount of energy doing it.
Yup. We have only ourselves to blame (of course, I blame the soccer moms...but that may be just passing the buck.)
I remember making mistakes as a kid. I was lucky enough to learn from them. I don't make those mistakes now as an adult because I learned from them as a kid. While I never did something this bad (I had good parents, and I doubt, very seriously, that either would have just dropped me off at the courthouse and left, never to be seen from again,) there are plenty of things I did that could have landed me in trouble at the time.
I have to remind myself this from time to time, when some kid makes a mistake. It is so easy to get upset, but the truth is, unless they are doing something that could get themselves or others seriously hurt, it isn't really worth making anything a federal case out of.
Seems like the guy that said we should ban children just might be right.
I'd be more apt to ban politicians. The world would be a much better place for the children. Especially when you think about the statistics involved. Your kid is more likely to die in a automobile collision than they are to be pushed to commit suicide by a bully. Especially if you are a good parent and are involved in your kids lives, instead of using the TV/Internet as a babysitter.
I'd be ashamed to say I just wanted a lot of money for little work out of pure greed that blatantly too.
There is nothing wrong with this attitude. Greed is what makes capitalism work. The fact that anyone can make a lot of money keeps us waking up in the morning, eager to go out and to a good job to earn it. If you manage to find a way to make a lot of money with little work, you have done a great job. We all aspire to be able to get the most benefit for the least amount of work...that is human nature.
The problem is when you institutionalize the process by creating laws that favor one group at the detriment of all others. That is how crony-capitalism works. Now you can do the absolute minimum and most terrible job, and I have no recourse. Normally I could just take my money and go elsewhere, but in this system, it is the first person to get there who wins.
What will be interesting is if they lose the battle at this. What happens if some no-name broadcaster comes along and starts pumping out all sorts of public domain works, and then starts beating up the majors with this law. Should be interesting. Gotta go, going to do some research on getting a broadcasters license.
I tend to agree with the "war on kids" documentary. At some point the folks in power decided that we shouldn't have kids in society. Kids had to become small adults. I don't know who started this, but I sure as hell wish it would stop.
There is all sorts of stuff that happened when I was a kid that would never be allowed in our current society. Run around in the dark with a water pistol, playing water tag, hell no...you'll get killed by the police. Draw pictures of stuff you like (movies, television shows, etc.) hell no, you'll get arrested for drawing pictures of guns and space ship battles.
We seem to be spending a lot of time breaking our kids for the sake of "for the children." I just don't understand what it is meant to accomplish.
Knowing the recent history in California and her history, she has been doing something right for a very long time. She'll shred the Constitution and destroy personal responsibilities, but her constituents in the People's Republic of San Fransisco love her (as do the folks in Los Angeles,) and she keeps getting elected in landslide victories. The farmers in California hate her, but there aren't enough of them to outweigh San Fransisco and Los Angeles.
Just like everything else, the fangs will be removed from whatever law she proposes (unless it has to do with Hollywood and copyright,) and the nation will move on.