Already, we're seeing how people are effectively using things like Google and the wider internet as a "backup brain." But when you're actually storing memories in your head -- and then backing them up online -- copyright law may have a problem with the backup.
For me it is quite the opposite. What I read on the internet is my original, if I happen to store it in my mind, then that is the backup. My brains default behavior is to just store a shortcut with a brief description - it's so nice to search through and quite space efficient.
Wow, this is so interesting and fresh. I hope they will have great success, and I'm looking forward to cinema not being 90% textbook disappointments.
Disappointments I can handle, but at least make something new instead of Hero-Movie number 129 and Sobby Yet Comforting Love Story number 267. Don't make me feel that I have seen the movie 100 times before under different names - and stil don't like it.
On the Internet, at the basic level, all you can do is copy information. You can copy your own information and send it to others, or you can receive copied information. It's all copies of copies of copies...
In fact, distributing copyrighted material (you have the right to) over the internet should automatically strip the owner of the copyright, since you can't distribute anything over the internet without letting other people copy it.
Willfully distributing your content on the internet and claiming to retain the copyright is a logical fallacy.
Yeah, because you can just look at Denmark where thepiratebay.org and various other sites have been DNS blocked for the last couple of years.
Despite all-you-can-eat music subscription services sucking up a lot of piracy, ppl just use more, and both music sales and piracy have never been bigger (except in CD/DVD form, which continues to decline)
It is kind of hard to feel sorry for Apple with all it's own ridiculous patent claims. By their own logic, they absolutely owe Personal Audio 8 million dollars.
Cute violation of privacy, but as soon as anyone figures it out everyone will know, and the "bad guys" will just disable it or know not to talk about illicit goods while driving.
Just from what I see in my daily surfing, there is a lot of potential for better targeted adds. There are plenty of things I'm interested in buying, but I rarely see ads for them - and if I do, the click-through never gives me the information that I want. Just "we are teh' best" said in a hundred different ways - never a true reason to buy.
I would even be glad to give up personal information on exactly what I want to see ads for - just so it would be less annoying.
"Not helping matters was a leaked 2008 memo from ABC executive vp Howard Davine, urging execs and showrunners to "carefully scrutinize" whether licensing foreign formats was "necessary or appropriate" before going forward with similar shows, especially when they might only be interested in the "general, underlying premise."
That seems perfectly resonable to me. Why would you license something you didn't need to? That would just be bad business.
What is this, the 17th century? We can fly to the moon and instantly communicate with anyone anywhere on our planet. But pictures of (not even completely) naked human beings? I can understand firing someone for not doing their job. But fired for just looking at pictures? If the guy is doing his job whos business is it what else he is doing?
It's sad to see people so uncomfortable with their own species that they can't even tolerate other people looking at pictures of them.
It would never come to this. If IP was real property the owner would loose it the first time he sold it, just like if you sell a house or a car - it's not possible (or legal at least) to sell the same thing twice. Basic tangible property logic.
Further more, it would be perfectly legal to copy the IP. If I see a house that looks nice, there is nothing to stop me from building my own house that looks exactly like it - no matter how creative the house looks and works. And I could tell my friends all about this new house and let them build their own copies of it.
In theory you could steal a song (or a recording of it at least). If you physically without permission take the medium (maybe a harddisk) of the only copy of the song (or all the media of all the copies of it), you would have stolen it.
So if you steal a song it really is theft. It's just very hard to do if it has been distributed or copied to somewhere else.
If you copy it, it is potentially infringement. Never theft.
Why are people so quick to judge a project in such a early state?
In reality, nobody knows how the project is going to turn out, or if it is going to be executed well. Nobody knows how many security holes it will have or how easy it will be to use, when the team finally reach v1.0 (or even beta). Just because they don't have a lot of experience, have too much money, too many expectations from others etc. etc., it doesn't mean that they can't make a piece of useful software in the end.
(untitled comment)
For me it is quite the opposite. What I read on the internet is my original, if I happen to store it in my mind, then that is the backup. My brains default behavior is to just store a shortcut with a brief description - it's so nice to search through and quite space efficient.
Fresh
Wow, this is so interesting and fresh. I hope they will have great success, and I'm looking forward to cinema not being 90% textbook disappointments.
Disappointments I can handle, but at least make something new instead of Hero-Movie number 129 and Sobby Yet Comforting Love Story number 267. Don't make me feel that I have seen the movie 100 times before under different names - and stil don't like it.
Re: Wait
Indeed, my response as well.
Copying is all you can do on the Internet
On the Internet, at the basic level, all you can do is copy information. You can copy your own information and send it to others, or you can receive copied information. It's all copies of copies of copies...
In fact, distributing copyrighted material (you have the right to) over the internet should automatically strip the owner of the copyright, since you can't distribute anything over the internet without letting other people copy it.
Willfully distributing your content on the internet and claiming to retain the copyright is a logical fallacy.
TL;DR - Internet and Copyright is incompatible.
I really works! (Not)
Yeah, because you can just look at Denmark where thepiratebay.org and various other sites have been DNS blocked for the last couple of years.
Despite all-you-can-eat music subscription services sucking up a lot of piracy, ppl just use more, and both music sales and piracy have never been bigger (except in CD/DVD form, which continues to decline)
Post tags...
hehe
Companies:
sony ericsoon
good one :)
Monopoly rents
The Monopoly Rents business is dying, save the Monopoly Rents business!
Hands off
I like all my free Google products - get your dirty hands off my Google!
Poor Apple
It is kind of hard to feel sorry for Apple with all it's own ridiculous patent claims. By their own logic, they absolutely owe Personal Audio 8 million dollars.
Copyright infringement
I wonder, does this also apply to copyright infringement? So if you just quote a person violating a copyright, is it ok?
Ineffective
Cute violation of privacy, but as soon as anyone figures it out everyone will know, and the "bad guys" will just disable it or know not to talk about illicit goods while driving.
Ads that we like
Just from what I see in my daily surfing, there is a lot of potential for better targeted adds. There are plenty of things I'm interested in buying, but I rarely see ads for them - and if I do, the click-through never gives me the information that I want. Just "we are teh' best" said in a hundred different ways - never a true reason to buy.
I would even be glad to give up personal information on exactly what I want to see ads for - just so it would be less annoying.
Web Apps
Way to promote web apps - Googles ChromeOS team must be happy.
So?
That seems perfectly resonable to me. Why would you license something you didn't need to? That would just be bad business.
Overreaction
What is this, the 17th century? We can fly to the moon and instantly communicate with anyone anywhere on our planet. But pictures of (not even completely) naked human beings? I can understand firing someone for not doing their job. But fired for just looking at pictures? If the guy is doing his job whos business is it what else he is doing?
It's sad to see people so uncomfortable with their own species that they can't even tolerate other people looking at pictures of them.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 4th, 2011 @ 5:06pm
Obvious troll is obvious...
Re: Re: Don't forget the squatters...who are also steal land?
It would never come to this. If IP was real property the owner would loose it the first time he sold it, just like if you sell a house or a car - it's not possible (or legal at least) to sell the same thing twice. Basic tangible property logic.
Further more, it would be perfectly legal to copy the IP. If I see a house that looks nice, there is nothing to stop me from building my own house that looks exactly like it - no matter how creative the house looks and works. And I could tell my friends all about this new house and let them build their own copies of it.
Re: Re:
In theory you could steal a song (or a recording of it at least). If you physically without permission take the medium (maybe a harddisk) of the only copy of the song (or all the media of all the copies of it), you would have stolen it.
So if you steal a song it really is theft. It's just very hard to do if it has been distributed or copied to somewhere else.
If you copy it, it is potentially infringement. Never theft.
B4USurf.org is fun
I just love the mindless lies on B4USurf.org:
Say what now?
Why all the judging?
Why are people so quick to judge a project in such a early state?
In reality, nobody knows how the project is going to turn out, or if it is going to be executed well. Nobody knows how many security holes it will have or how easy it will be to use, when the team finally reach v1.0 (or even beta). Just because they don't have a lot of experience, have too much money, too many expectations from others etc. etc., it doesn't mean that they can't make a piece of useful software in the end.
Personally I'm looking forward to see the result.