Remedy for trademark infringement -- withhold coverage
Setting aside whether or not this is actually trademark infringement (and I think it is not) . . .
The remedy for trademark infringement is a legal process. Not withholding coverage. You can even sue over the trademark issue and still be obligated to provide coverage.
I think Blue Cross should be sued over that particular issue. In addition sue Blue Cross to get a declaration of non infringement. And for costs. And maybe punitive damages for threatening to withdraw coverage.
Actually an automated system might be better at determining whether an image is pornographic than a system could be at determining if an image is infringing, or is fair use.
The determination of pornographic is determined merely by the content.
The determination of fair use requires information not within the content (image, text, video, etc). How does the use affect the market value of the work? How similar is it? How much of the original work does it include or appear to include?
Computers can already determine whether an image is of a car, or a dog, or a person in a black shirt with a guitar.
Can you please define what is an infringing domain?
Do you mean a domain name owned by a copyright infringer? If so, what material has the infringer infringed, and which of their servers is it hosted on?
Oh, so this site does not host infringing content. Merely links to it? Isn't that like telling someone "the crack house is on 14th street". It doesn't mean I am facilitating or enabling or even condoning use of illegal drugs.
It is organizations like the AP that should INSIST on Creative Commons licensing.
The AP would not need to keep track of detailed rights, or the particular text of a permission grant from a particular photo owner. They would not need to ask for all rights.
The AP would simply record who the owner of the photo is, which CC license it is under, and that would serve as a short easy to understand indication of what rights they have. For exmaple, all the AP needs to do is give credit.
You can stream Netflix using the Google Chrome browser -- even on Linux.
Now that may not answer all of your (or my) DRM objections. But I find Netflix to be a decent value given that I can use it on just about anything anywhere. All my android devices. All my set top boxes. Chromecast stick. Any computer with a Chrome browser. Some other browsers on Windows. And on devices I do not even own: Roku, Firestick, etc.
Not only must punishment be reasonable, but it must be given to the people who deserve it.
This includes extra judicial punishments, like the police beating someone up on the way to booking. Or while in holding cell.
This includes using government power to harass someone and destroy their lives. See Aaron Swartz (The Internet's Own Boy).
This includes thin skinned public officials harassing people critical of them. Using police power to do so.
And many more incidents.
When police stand up to protect bad cops, this does not make the public trust the police more. This is a bit off topic, but if you want good social order and for people to respect they law, they also must respect the people administering the law. The people in the system must be seen to be The Good Guys.
Good social order? It doesn't help when everyone can plainly see how brazenly corrupt congress is.
Even though this appears to be a hoax, I wanted to point out . . .
It seems the song played from 0:36 to 1:22 of the video. That's 46 seconds. It did not even get to the highly recognizable "eye of the tiger" part of the lyrics.
It should be easy for a copyright holder to claim well past $1.2 million in actual damages. Millions of people heard this story on the news, including the audio fragment of the song. And each of these instances is a lost sail, or sale, or something. That's how copyright is and was intended to work.
As for it being a hoax, it is easy to overlook anyone, including TechDirt being hoaxed by this. After all, you CAN NOT PARODY or hoax copyright pigopolists without it being completely believable. Just remember the hoax a few years back about the MPAA wanting to charge home users a performance license fee if there was a large screen, more than two viewers, and comfortable seating. After all, such an arrangement approaches or might even exceed the comfort of a theater.
Re: Re: An ethical question about self driving cars
Not arguing. Not angry. Just pointing out: so you should not be able to control your car in some extreme situations (defending your life), but others should be able to control your car in any situation whenever they want to (police wanting that hot dude/babe).
Not only could all sorts of damage occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their cars, but . . .
all sorts of damage could occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their toasters.
Their clothes dryers.
And back in the day, you weren't supposed to open that 25 inch console television set either. You remember: "No User Serviceable Parts Inside." There was danger from the 25,000 volts used for the big CRT. There was danger of implosion.
Maybe Congress needs to pass a law that nobody should be allowed to modify anything. For their safety.
And all of this mischief starts with those pesky kids who have unbound curiosity to understand how things work. Let's put a stop to that also.
We'll all be a lot safer.
If they had a chemistry set (thank goodness there are no more of those) they might learn to become terrorists.
If they learn programming at a young age, they might become hackers who cost Hollywood TRILLIONS of dollars per day.