Seems like a fantastic opportunity to get these 6K folks to buy his other works for a discount. I know that if i had downloaded a book for free and liked it i would want to know where i could get more of the same. if the author put something up from his website saying "ooh the free book was a was a mistake by Amazon, hope you enjoyed it. If you did then please support me by buying more of my books and I'll even offer you a discount". You could even turn it into an overall win as i bet a significant number of those free readers downloaded it because it was free and may otherwise have never heard of it.
Go on give it a go search for ANYTHING, ebay and craigslist are always in the results. I typed in the word "arse", I got 2 results, ebay and craigslist. It's almost like they have a vendetta or something...
PPL's members are mainly record labels, it licenses things related to the copyright in the sound recording which is usually owned by the record label. PRS/MCPS is the equivalent for the copyright in the musical work (i.e. the composition) and it's members are mainly musicians, song writers and publishers. How much of these fees actually ends up with artists depends on their particular recording contract and/or whether they own the copyright in the sound recording.
Re: If they aren't gatekeepers perhaps they aren't middlemen
No, i think Mike is right. A good example is used recently is the site anyvan.com i used to arrange moving to London.
They are a middleman type operation between couriers/moving companies and people with stuff to move. The process is kind if a reverse auction. You advertise your stuff and the from and to location. Then there is a bidding process where companies underbid each other to offer the lowest price. This benefits all parties. I got my stuff moved as cheaply as possible, the couriers/movers are able to work much more efficiently by putting together "runs" where they fill up their vans with loads from several people and get more money per run even if they get less per load. Anyvan are happy as they get a cut of what you pay. There is nothing stopping any of these parties "cutting out the middle man" and depriving anyvan of their cut. But why would you because they "enable" a much more efficient and profitable process that benefits all parties. It even benefits the environment because there are fewer half empty vans and trucks taking stuff from the same point a to the same point b.
The thing is if there is a causal relationship it is so easy to test. E.g. Use of social networks has increased massively over the last five years. If there is a causal relationship you would expect a corresponding increase in drinking, smoking and taking drugs in the same peer group. Has there been one? Who knows, it doesn't appear they even addressed the question.
Facebook's 13 and over policy is because of US law. There is nothing in UK law to say that a 12 year old can't set up a Facebook page, so as far as the UK is concerned the 13 and over policy just a Facebook policy that it has no legal obligation to enforce.
I think that the copyright claim here is totally bogus on the face of it unless somehow the "call" was a broadcast of an earlier recording. Copyright on a recording lies with whoever made the recording. Sure swatch owns the copyright on their recording, but Bloomberg did not make a copy of that, they simply recorded the same original source as did swatch. If there is somehow a copyright claim here why would it lie with Swatch? Couldn't Bloomberg make the same argument, they own the copyright in their sound recording so the Swatch recording is infringing? When 2 people make separate recordings of the same thing then there are 2 copyrights, one for each recording. It is like TV news companies suing each other because they all filmed the same event
Re: "the wire between my DVD player and my TV is 10 feet..."
Also by your logic I could not have business that rented DVDs and also rented DVD players as playing the DVD on this player owned by my company would make it a "public performance". The point people are getting at is that if the "performance" takes place anywhere it takes place where it is being shown, so if it is being shown in a bar then it is a public performance (and the bar owner needs a public performance licence) and if it is shown in somebody's house then it is not a public performance. The location of the "player" seems pretty irrelevant here.
It does not take any rights, the DMCA does not give you a right to file a secret take down notice, so the fact that you cannot file a take down with google without it being a matter of public record does not take away any of your rights. It's like saying the fact that you don't want anyone to know that you pleaded the 5th in a court case takes away your 5th amendment rights because it will be a matter of public record. Well tough shit you can't invent rights that you don't have.
They can file and they can also not agree that Google can publish the notice to CE, in fact google does not require them to enter any sort of agreement. However Google has no obligation to pay any attention to whether or not the the person submitting the takedown "agrees" to anything, they cannot impose a "do not forward this to ce" condition upon the take down notice. You see no one agrees to anything, this is not an EULA google does not make you tick a box saying that "I agree that ..." in order file a DMCA take down. It just does what it does, which it seems that it is entitled to do.
This must be trolling as whatever you may think of Mike's views he is very specific in all of his posts that he does not download unauthorized content and does not encourage or approve of other people doing do.
I am from the UK, can someone please explain to me why the same drugs are cheaper in Canada than the USA as this seems to be the underlying issue and on a practical level it seems crazy that sending drugs to Canada and back makes them cheaper.
As an aside here in the UK we are lucky enough to have our prescription costs fixed at £7.40 per item, or £29.10 per 3 months or £104 per year for unlimited items. I think we do pay slightly higher taxes though and there are a very small number of things you can't or are hard to get on NHS prescription like Viagra etc.
Also apparently gamestop sells every single game they buy at a profit, caries no risk whatsoever, has no running costs and never has to sell games at a loss because the publisher has produced a crappy game no one wants