IIRC, one of the companies that made one of those phone book on CD products several years back got sued for copyright infringement. The courts ruled that a list of phone numbers was not copyrightable as it is just raw factual data. The phone book itself (with it's layout and such) could be covered by copyright but the data within the phone book (i.e. the numbers) could not. I believe this would be no different.
Okay, so apparently I'm one of the 15 people on the planet not happy with this. In light of today's announcement, I have canceled my X1 preorder. The sharing and library thing were going to be huge. I was also really looking forward to not having to have a disc in the drive and being able to swap between games without having to get up. Now they've simply taken away far too much.
I refuse to buy games on demand and I very VERY rarely buy the XBLA games. We have two 360s in the house, one for me and one for the boys. If I buy a game on XBLA or GoD I can only ever play it on that one console. If I want to let my kids or nephews play it they will have to either take over my console and TV or I will have to transfer my profile and be actively signed in to that console. This is BAD DRM. On the other hand, the X1's DRM was much less intrusive. You can argue that any DRM is bad but I think the benefits of what they were offering outweighed the negatives.
Okay, fine. If the name isn't enough of a giveaway, how about the size? An ebook is going to be 1-2 MB at most. A tv episode is going to be MUCH larger. Oh, how about the file contents? Opening the torrent file or magnet link will give you the file names, none of which are video formats.
I disagree. Much as I don't like the MPAA, a win for Bouchat would be a blow to fair use via the precedent. If Bouchat loses then we have a precedent supporting fair use that can then be used in other court cases (assuming the court buys that argument, of course).
Precedent supporting fair use > a loss to the MPAA.
From the sound of it, people are having problems that they refuse to fix. Sounds to me like they aren't providing the service they are contracted to and therefore the contract should be able to be broken by the other parties.
This a hundred times. What if I said something that managed to seriously piss off someone powerful in China. Or, hell, even some country in Europe decides that I should be criminally charged for something I said. They demand the US extradites me to face trial there. They say they have lots of evidence but shouldn't have to show it. Is the US just going to roll over? No? Then why should they expect other countries to for them?
They should try to identify any high-ranking politicians, lobbyists, etc in the database and then release their data to make the point about what such a bad idea it is. If it's a general hack the politicians will be all, "yeah, that's not good." But by releasing their own data then suddenly it's "Oh crap! We need to reconsider this, it's clearly a bad idea."
It's actually a lot more than 5x speed. I think it's more like 32x speed. I believe each step doubles it.
Also if you've got the Motorola DVR with the gray or silver remote you can program a button (I use the A button) to do a 30 second skip. Makes breezing through commercials a cinch. Skip skip skip skip skip skip oops, too far, jump back 10 seconds and there we go.
If a company does this can the person whose card was charged not dispute the charge as unauthorized and do a charge back? If the company starts getting a lot of these their processing rates increase and they even lose the ability to take credit cards. Obviously that would be a deal-breaker for them.
Alternatively, how about crossing out the part of the part of the contract that talks about disparagement?
Here's some absolutely terrifying thought about fashion design copyright. Think what the movie and video industries have done when someone has their IP in a YouTube video; they freak out completely. How long do you suppose before the first DMCA takedown occurs because someone was wearing some designer outfit or other. Pretty soon you will only be able to upload a YouTube video where the people are either naked or wearing some generic outfit. Now, I don't know about you but while there are certainly some people I wouldn't mind seeing naked the vast majority of them I definitely do NOT want to see that way.
Also, shrinkwrap licenses:
By wearing this article of clothing you are agreeing to a limited, non-transferrable license to display (wear) the enclosed item. This clothing may only be worn by the individual to which it was first licensed and may not be transferred to anywhere else. This license is only valid for a period of two years from the date of purchase. At the expiration of the license you may purchase an extension for $29.99 per year to a maximum of four years from date of purchase. If you elect not to renew the license or have reached the maximum display period then the clothing must be destroyed by burning or returned to us for recycling.
Over $890,000 now. Watching it it seems to be climbing at the rate of about $1000/min. I haven't even kicked in my pledge yet. I wish I could prepay it so I don't have to worry about forgetting about the money coming out of my account in 30 days.