" Removing infringing works online isnít limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish."
Gangnam Style wouldn't have even made a mention in the US if people had not made a bajillion plays on it and PSY let them get away with it. Sounds like his creativity and hard work paid off in the name recognition he has now. Isn't that why people make art, to get their name out there and known to the world at large?
So.. does this mean that since these files are property, and are being seized for the duration of the investigation and trial, that the original owners of the copyright can't make use of the original product? Again, I will bring up the fact that if they are going to insist on treating these things as a physical property I look forward to the day the government seizes said goods under eminent domain and releases it to the public.
How can Fox claim that DISH is infringing copyright by recording the content, or are they being nitpickey and saying that copies of the content that are recorded specifically for later viewing with Autohop are infringing?
I use a Razer Naga and have been quite happy with my purchase. I did not run into any issues registering an account with them to set things up and the only information I can recall I gave them was a username and password. I haven't any idea what kind of information they are storing in the cloud that couldn't get stored on a small internal flash chip, even a long macro string on each key can't be that big given that it is all parsed text.
While I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill in this case I do hope that Razer resolves the issue by recoding their software to not require registration on the cloud to use some of the advanced features.
Usually contracts are entered and both sides agree to the terms. If one side suddenly up and changes the terms (Parlophone getting sold to another company) shouldn't that make the contract null and void or at the least force a review of terms with the new contract holder? In this instance I am going to have to side with the artists.
Hrm... so.. if it is property, the right to use such being granted by the Constitution, then that means the government can seize it via Eminent Domain.
"or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development."
Seize it, release it to the Library of Congress (third part) for dispersal to the Public Domain.