Cop: Ignorance of the law is no excuse! You're under arrest. And yes, you can see the law but we have to charge you a licensing fee. If you can't afford the fee, you can't see the law.
Man: You want to charge me money to see the law by which you're arresting me, for a crime I was unaware of?
"""
And, no, it wasn't caused by the Internet.
"""
Unless you want to make a case that internet-juice is leaking out of the wires and infecting the soldiers with evil thoughts?
In all seriousness though, I'm shocked that this information has not been examined, at least not through any media outlet I use. How many incidents are we talking about?
In reference to a document I had submitted for approval, I once had a boss ask me why I had text that was underlined and blue highlighted throughout my document. I laughed because I was sure he was joking.
"""
Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law. On this point they could not be more wrong. In fact, to even suggest this will be a necessary result of whatever comes out of the negotiations is misleading at best and plainly dishonest at worst.
"""
You're certainly not the brightest candle in the box, are you? Let me break this down for you kindergarten-style:
Country A: Copying stuff is bad, I propose a treaty wherein we agree to stone anyone we think is copying stuff.
Country B: Good idea, we agree to the terms of this treaty. We will enact laws to enforce this immediately.
Country A: "People of Country A, Country B is doing the right thing by stoning anyone we think is copying stuff, and we are not upholding our international responsibilities unless we pass laws to do the same!" (Passes law for stoning anyone they think is copying stuff).
Country A and Country B: Huzzah!
Oh, and before you give me any garbage about "this (is/is not) a (treaty/executive order/some other thing)", STFU.
"""
... and then said that it was "bad due diligence and poor journalism" before saying I needed to update the article with the bland PR statement that's already in the Wired article."""
Hey, but at least they didn't send a DMCA take-down notice!
"""
Why does a set-top box have to be aware that it's a set-top box? Suppose it thinks it's a computer running a browser that happens to be accessing the site at the behest of its user?
"""
Exactly my thoughts: Why does it identify itself as anything other than a vanilla computer running IE or Mozilla? If licensing cr@p really is the answer, I agree with the first replier... Head asplode.
"""(1) Dumb-Ass Walmart employees presuming to know *anything at all* about copyright law"""
You are completely missing the point. The employee is doing exactly what they are trained/told to do. Wal-Mart's stance is to err on the side of caution, and who can blame them? Why open yourself up to even the possibility of a lawsuit? Especially after the Kinko's ruling. You can bet your ass that if Wal-Mart tried to claim Safe-Harbor protections for their "Do-it-yourself" kiosks, they'd get sued for enabling people to infringe by every professional studio and their mothers.
On a side note, this is very similar to the practice of not selling liquor/tobacco to anyone who "looks younger than xx". When I worked as a cashier, if you didn't have ID, I don't care if you looked one hundred years old, and you cussed a blue streak at me, you were not buying liquor or tobacco from me. Of course, in this case, if you do sell to a minor, you can be held personally responsible and fined or jailed, but still, similar in the "err on the side of caution" front.
*Someone* certainly is a jackass. Intellectual Property (IP) is commonly regarded as "protected" by copyright/trademark/whatever, for which protection many "trade secrets" would not qualify. He is absolutely correct, there is a difference between IP and trade secrets.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but didn't some company (Microsoft maybe?) get court-ordered recently to reveal some very proprietary source code based on very flimsy evidence/discovery request? Google needs to be really careful, sounds like this is heading towards an eventual demand to 'see' Google's search algorithm.
Bah, hidden keys in manuals were nothing. I remember having to use a silly red-film "decoder" to find a keyword, and don't even get me started on the cardboard decoder-rings...
You missed the point. Please refer back to Rules #1 and #2 in the previous AC post. Those rules override all other considerations and should be considered inviolate.
"""
The really frightening thing, though, is that in this case a lot of people are going to see "young girls pantomiming sex acts" and they'll agree that the girls should be punished for such behavior.
"""
What is even more amusing is that performing the ACTUAL acts, and getting pregnant, results in absolutely no punishment or negative consequence from the schools at all. I'm not saying whether it should or should not, just pointing out the fact.
"""
I've tried to think of a benign reason why they do this, but it doesn't really matter, because the result in my case is that I no longer watch Futurama on Comedy Central.
"""
Unless you've found a different channel to watch Futurama on, I'd say this is kinda drastic. Tivo has options to allow for both pre- and post- recording of up to 5 minutes or so of the actual scheduled time. No biggie.
"""
The demand for music has never been higher before in history. All the huge memory ipods, mp3 players, and the like helps to create huge demand. If the free music isn't available under terms that people find acceptable (risk wise) then the demand will lead to more overall music sales. That may be Itunes sales, that may be other sales channels, but in the end,the demand is there.
"""
Good point about the demand. However, do you really believe that a 14 year old kid that just got an 8GB iPod for his birthday is going to spend thousands of dollars to fill that iPod? Yes I wrote thousands of dollars, even at $.99 a pop. I submit to you that not only will he not, he can't even if he wanted to, because he doesn't have that kind of money. But I tell you what he *will* do: he will fill up that iPod. Kicking him (or more accurately his parents) off the internet will accomplish exactly nothing. Oh, and he'll still find a way to fill up that iPod.
"""
Perhaps they simply did not want the clip to be used for that purpose.
"""
Well, too damn bad. You don't get to send DMCA take-down notices just because you don't like something, or you don't like its context, or you don't like the way it was used, etc. But too many companies DO send DMCA take-downs for just these reasons, and for most providers it is less hassle to just take "x" down, regardless of the true basis of the claims.
NPR engages in fair use activities EVERY DAY, thus it is disappointing to see that either they don't understand the premise of the very rights they exploit, or they do understand and are just engaging in political hoodwinkery.
I saw this Barbie commercial over the weekend and even commented to my wife how ironic it was that they were using the "Barbie Girl" song that they had tried so hard to get pulled from the radio. Also, afterward I couldn't stop humming Ace of Bass' song, The Sign... I guess they were from the same time period?
RSS
Twitter
Copyrighting laws is full of win! (as Almost Anonymous)
Open scene:
Cop: Hey you, you're breaking copyright law!
Man: Oh, jeez, I didn't know; can I see the law?
Cop: Ignorance of the law is no excuse! You're under arrest. And yes, you can see the law but we have to charge you a licensing fee. If you can't afford the fee, you can't see the law.
Man: You want to charge me money to see the law by which you're arresting me, for a crime I was unaware of?
Cop: Yes.
Man: Crap.
Re: Wtf? (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
And, no, it wasn't caused by the Internet.
"""
Unless you want to make a case that internet-juice is leaking out of the wires and infecting the soldiers with evil thoughts?
In all seriousness though, I'm shocked that this information has not been examined, at least not through any media outlet I use. How many incidents are we talking about?
Re: Re: I wouldn't say he's exactly blaming the internet (as Almost Anonymous)
Not to derail, but:
In reference to a document I had submitted for approval, I once had a boss ask me why I had text that was underlined and blue highlighted throughout my document. I laughed because I was sure he was joking.
He was not joking.
Re: Re: Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law. On this point they could not be more wrong. In fact, to even suggest this will be a necessary result of whatever comes out of the negotiations is misleading at best and plainly dishonest at worst.
"""
You're certainly not the brightest candle in the box, are you? Let me break this down for you kindergarten-style:
Country A: Copying stuff is bad, I propose a treaty wherein we agree to stone anyone we think is copying stuff.
Country B: Good idea, we agree to the terms of this treaty. We will enact laws to enforce this immediately.
Country A: "People of Country A, Country B is doing the right thing by stoning anyone we think is copying stuff, and we are not upholding our international responsibilities unless we pass laws to do the same!" (Passes law for stoning anyone they think is copying stuff).
Country A and Country B: Huzzah!
Oh, and before you give me any garbage about "this (is/is not) a (treaty/executive order/some other thing)", STFU.
Re: Re: Hey mike... (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
... and then said that it was "bad due diligence and poor journalism" before saying I needed to update the article with the bland PR statement that's already in the Wired article."""
Hey, but at least they didn't send a DMCA take-down notice!
Re: More tech than is necessary? (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
Why does a set-top box have to be aware that it's a set-top box? Suppose it thinks it's a computer running a browser that happens to be accessing the site at the behest of its user?
"""
Exactly my thoughts: Why does it identify itself as anything other than a vanilla computer running IE or Mozilla? If licensing cr@p really is the answer, I agree with the first replier... Head asplode.
Re: Stupid... (as Almost Anonymous)
"""(1) Dumb-Ass Walmart employees presuming to know *anything at all* about copyright law"""
You are completely missing the point. The employee is doing exactly what they are trained/told to do. Wal-Mart's stance is to err on the side of caution, and who can blame them? Why open yourself up to even the possibility of a lawsuit? Especially after the Kinko's ruling. You can bet your ass that if Wal-Mart tried to claim Safe-Harbor protections for their "Do-it-yourself" kiosks, they'd get sued for enabling people to infringe by every professional studio and their mothers.
On a side note, this is very similar to the practice of not selling liquor/tobacco to anyone who "looks younger than xx". When I worked as a cashier, if you didn't have ID, I don't care if you looked one hundred years old, and you cussed a blue streak at me, you were not buying liquor or tobacco from me. Of course, in this case, if you do sell to a minor, you can be held personally responsible and fined or jailed, but still, similar in the "err on the side of caution" front.
Re: Re: Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
*Someone* certainly is a jackass. Intellectual Property (IP) is commonly regarded as "protected" by copyright/trademark/whatever, for which protection many "trade secrets" would not qualify. He is absolutely correct, there is a difference between IP and trade secrets.
P.S. Ideas can't be owned, jackass.
Subpoena (as Almost Anonymous)
I'm too lazy to look it up, but didn't some company (Microsoft maybe?) get court-ordered recently to reveal some very proprietary source code based on very flimsy evidence/discovery request? Google needs to be really careful, sounds like this is heading towards an eventual demand to 'see' Google's search algorithm.
Re: Re: Software history is often forgotten (as Almost Anonymous)
Bah, hidden keys in manuals were nothing. I remember having to use a silly red-film "decoder" to find a keyword, and don't even get me started on the cardboard decoder-rings...
Re: Re: Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
You missed the point. Please refer back to Rules #1 and #2 in the previous AC post. Those rules override all other considerations and should be considered inviolate.
Re: Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
The really frightening thing, though, is that in this case a lot of people are going to see "young girls pantomiming sex acts" and they'll agree that the girls should be punished for such behavior.
"""
What is even more amusing is that performing the ACTUAL acts, and getting pregnant, results in absolutely no punishment or negative consequence from the schools at all. I'm not saying whether it should or should not, just pointing out the fact.
Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
I've tried to think of a benign reason why they do this, but it doesn't really matter, because the result in my case is that I no longer watch Futurama on Comedy Central.
"""
Unless you've found a different channel to watch Futurama on, I'd say this is kinda drastic. Tivo has options to allow for both pre- and post- recording of up to 5 minutes or so of the actual scheduled time. No biggie.
Re: Re: Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
The demand for music has never been higher before in history. All the huge memory ipods, mp3 players, and the like helps to create huge demand. If the free music isn't available under terms that people find acceptable (risk wise) then the demand will lead to more overall music sales. That may be Itunes sales, that may be other sales channels, but in the end,the demand is there.
"""
Good point about the demand. However, do you really believe that a 14 year old kid that just got an 8GB iPod for his birthday is going to spend thousands of dollars to fill that iPod? Yes I wrote thousands of dollars, even at $.99 a pop. I submit to you that not only will he not, he can't even if he wanted to, because he doesn't have that kind of money. But I tell you what he *will* do: he will fill up that iPod. Kicking him (or more accurately his parents) off the internet will accomplish exactly nothing. Oh, and he'll still find a way to fill up that iPod.
Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
This is the easiest thing in the world to answer, but I find that the techdirt dittoheads don't want to hear it.
Piracy is driven by a mob mentality. We do things as a mob that we wouldn't do on our own. --- Fire sharing has mob mentality all over it.
"""
Actually, I think that file-sharing has "convenience" written all over it.
Also, you're a stoopid-head.
Re: Publicly Owned (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
NPR is paid for with our tax dollars.
"""
[CITATION NEEDED]
Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
"""
Perhaps they simply did not want the clip to be used for that purpose.
"""
Well, too damn bad. You don't get to send DMCA take-down notices just because you don't like something, or you don't like its context, or you don't like the way it was used, etc. But too many companies DO send DMCA take-downs for just these reasons, and for most providers it is less hassle to just take "x" down, regardless of the true basis of the claims.
Re: (as Almost Anonymous)
NPR engages in fair use activities EVERY DAY, thus it is disappointing to see that either they don't understand the premise of the very rights they exploit, or they do understand and are just engaging in political hoodwinkery.
Re: I thought... (as Almost Anonymous)
Came to the Comments to point this out as well, sounds like the definition of a pyramid scheme, also sounds a lot like racketeering...
Coincidence (as Almost Anonymous)
I saw this Barbie commercial over the weekend and even commented to my wife how ironic it was that they were using the "Barbie Girl" song that they had tried so hard to get pulled from the radio. Also, afterward I couldn't stop humming Ace of Bass' song, The Sign... I guess they were from the same time period?