"To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" huh, maybe if the definition of "Science and the Useful Arts" means "Keep out all competitors because I don't want anyone taking my money"
This is exactly why I do NOT watch TV. At most I get 15 or 20 minutes worth of National News/Local news depending on when we sit down to eat, but otherwise I could live my life just fine without a television.
Most likely a Trademark dispute, but something tells me that since Pirate Pay is a Russian firm and getting backing from the deep pockets of Microsoft they can afford the legal battle.
Obviously the guy didn't have 100M to spend on making the movie (read: getting music licences) so there is no way the movie could make any kind of return. *nodnod*
Honestly I see this as a very safe move for the White House. They already know that changes are going to be made to it, so they can say "Yes, if the bill shows up on his desk we will recommend he veto it." Then after they make the changes the White House can say "We feel that the changes that have been made are acceptable and we will sign it if and when it makes it to his desk."
"Then, people will either wake up, grab their pitchforks, and string the Big Content fatcats up by their necks, or they'll remain cattle and always wonder why the class divide seems to get wider and wider."
Ohh.. lolbigcontentfatcats.com the next big thing on the web!
You are legally able to hang a sign that says you will refuse your service to a certain class of people. Socially you may be on the receiving end of a lot of anger from said class, but as long as you are a privately owned and operated business or individual there isn't much they can do legally.
If those all were not privately owned networks, I would agree. We very likely will see a challenge to it from the ACLU and others aligned with them, but I don't see the suits getting very far. MS, Apple, and Blizzard can all set the terms for you to use their property, if you don't like it go find a game somewhere else.
Once again, were I in charge of Google I would summarily have anything with the name or from Rosetta Stone removed from any search result Google provides.
Makes me wonder just how much leeway the Courts are going to give the prosecution and law enforcement agencies before they start dropping the Judicial Hammers.
"What is key here is that the system is two sides, and not one sided as you try to paint it. The courts, while understanding that it is to the benefit of the public, aren't so silly as to think that the benefit would come without there being a balance for the creators. That is to say that without the positive benefits to the authors and creators, there would be no benefit to the public because they might not create in the same manner."
So if this is true, then why doesn't copyright expire upon the creators death? After all a dead person doesn't need any kind of incentive to create anything besides fertilizer.
I could see the copyrights of a work made for hire under those very strict definitions of "Work for Hire" keeping their rights after the creator pass on, but please stop extending copyright length.
Also.. since companies are considered people now and monetary donations are considered speech, copyright on a work is life of the author (the company) + X years... does the copyright never expire?
I would more properly ask why should the record company have any rights to the music in a few more years, after all copyright is a limite... oh never mind, they changed the rules of the game partway through again.
With the reports coming out of France showing that HADOPI isn't doing what they were expecting (is anyone outside the Recording and Movie industry surprised?), one would think they would hesitate to do something that might draw the Public's ire...
Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Mike can we please get an "Ignore person" feature. bob reminds me of all the radio talk show hosts, spewing hate and ignorance.
(untitled comment)
"To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" huh, maybe if the definition of "Science and the Useful Arts" means "Keep out all competitors because I don't want anyone taking my money"
Re: Re:
This is exactly why I do NOT watch TV. At most I get 15 or 20 minutes worth of National News/Local news depending on when we sit down to eat, but otherwise I could live my life just fine without a television.
Re:
Most likely a Trademark dispute, but something tells me that since Pirate Pay is a Russian firm and getting backing from the deep pockets of Microsoft they can afford the legal battle.
Re:
Please note that you use the word "probably", which means that it isn't a 100% sure thing. No please go "probably" take a long walk off a short pier.
Re:
But it sure would encourage people to drop their buck and give the book a try and not feel like they have risked a lot of money.
(untitled comment)
Obviously the guy didn't have 100M to spend on making the movie (read: getting music licences) so there is no way the movie could make any kind of return. *nodnod*
Re: Hey wait!
Actually his staff said they would recommend to him that he veto it. Hopefully he will listen to them after the shit they just pulled.
(untitled comment)
Honestly I see this as a very safe move for the White House. They already know that changes are going to be made to it, so they can say "Yes, if the bill shows up on his desk we will recommend he veto it." Then after they make the changes the White House can say "We feel that the changes that have been made are acceptable and we will sign it if and when it makes it to his desk."
Re: Re:
"Then, people will either wake up, grab their pitchforks, and string the Big Content fatcats up by their necks, or they'll remain cattle and always wonder why the class divide seems to get wider and wider."
Ohh.. lolbigcontentfatcats.com the next big thing on the web!
(untitled comment)
Something tells me the RIAA is going to have kittens and be all over the USTR pushing to have diplomats encourage it to be changed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are legally able to hang a sign that says you will refuse your service to a certain class of people. Socially you may be on the receiving end of a lot of anger from said class, but as long as you are a privately owned and operated business or individual there isn't much they can do legally.
Re:
If those all were not privately owned networks, I would agree. We very likely will see a challenge to it from the ACLU and others aligned with them, but I don't see the suits getting very far. MS, Apple, and Blizzard can all set the terms for you to use their property, if you don't like it go find a game somewhere else.
Re: Big dull antiquated Hollywood,
Points to you for using the word "carbuncle" in an appropriate way!
(untitled comment)
Once again, were I in charge of Google I would summarily have anything with the name or from Rosetta Stone removed from any search result Google provides.
(untitled comment)
Makes me wonder just how much leeway the Courts are going to give the prosecution and law enforcement agencies before they start dropping the Judicial Hammers.
Re:
"What is key here is that the system is two sides, and not one sided as you try to paint it. The courts, while understanding that it is to the benefit of the public, aren't so silly as to think that the benefit would come without there being a balance for the creators. That is to say that without the positive benefits to the authors and creators, there would be no benefit to the public because they might not create in the same manner."
So if this is true, then why doesn't copyright expire upon the creators death? After all a dead person doesn't need any kind of incentive to create anything besides fertilizer.
Re:
I could see the copyrights of a work made for hire under those very strict definitions of "Work for Hire" keeping their rights after the creator pass on, but please stop extending copyright length.
Also.. since companies are considered people now and monetary donations are considered speech, copyright on a work is life of the author (the company) + X years... does the copyright never expire?
Re:
I would more properly ask why should the record company have any rights to the music in a few more years, after all copyright is a limite... oh never mind, they changed the rules of the game partway through again.
(untitled comment)
With the reports coming out of France showing that HADOPI isn't doing what they were expecting (is anyone outside the Recording and Movie industry surprised?), one would think they would hesitate to do something that might draw the Public's ire...
That was a joke, haha..