"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.
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.
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.
I agree that the proposal is silly and don't solve the real issues, but compared to recent infringement fines, it is not so much. Especially when you think about how small the chance of being caught is for private file sharers. And the chance would be even smaller if more people started to share, thinking "ah, its just $5k _if_ I get caught".
Just because you can pretty much transfer any data over borders via the internet, that doesn't mean that the US gov don't try to find things there that it don't like (With things like Echelon and so on). I don't buy that argument alone, evil data in the right place can be extremely destructive. Just because the gov is extremely crude and clueless in its attempts, it doesn't automatically mean that they should stop.
Also, the argument that people just put all their stuff in their Laptop, and not select things don't make that much sense to me either, you could make the same argument for many womens purses. That doesn't mean that they are exempted for search.
On the whole I'm against Laptop searches at borders, I just don't see how your arguments are defensible.
Here in Europe, the Greece government successfully trademarked the name "Feta" - as in Feta cheese, so that only Feta cheese made in greece is allowed to be branded as Feta.
Ironically, Denmark (where I live) was the biggest exporter of Feta cheese, but was now forced to call it "Salad Cheese".
Finally an article that points out how ridiculous this story is
Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous this story is.
There is nothing new in putting a piece of electronics in your body.
Not even if this contains code for a computer virus.
He did not, in any way, infect _himself_ with a computer virus. That would be impossible.
It would be like saying that a ship was infected with a human virus because it carried a sick person.
I live in Denmark, and I'm very disappointed with the ruling. The only positive thing to say about it is that the court is technically illiterate enough to accept a DNS redirect as a block. So if we use the direct IP, OpenDNS or any other DNS than our ISPs default, then we get around the ban.
But I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that.
I think many in this thread confuses a work, with a copy of said work.
Post #2 said "If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right".
The problem here is that the creator is not "distributing his work" - he is selling a copy.
Yes, as long a creator owns his work, it is his right to decide what people can do with it.
But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
Are copies of copies too easy to make? Then STOP basing your business model on producing and selling them!
Sorry Mike, I can't defend the anti-circumvention laws (and can't see how anyone could), but this is just my 2 cents :)
As the only publicly available version of the results are aggregated (guess we have to trust Amazon on that one), the right way to do this would be to ask people on their Kindle to either agree or disagree to the feature, and let people easily opt out or in later at their convenience.
This reminds me a bit of the Google Buzz case. Just remember to ask your costumers first before you publish any new data about them, and stop focusing on if it is legal or not. It's not that hard, and you will loose goodwill if you don't.
Why can't I download and watch any movie I want instantly? The technology is available, why pretend that it doesn't exist?
With a high speed Internet connection this has been possible for years.
high speed 'net + torrent client + torrent search engine = all the movies you could ever want, before you can buy them on DVD/BluRay.
Hell, you can even set up a RSS feed for a release reviewing site like www.rlslog.net and be notified every time a new movie is released, so you don't even have to stay up to date with the newest movies.
The only drawback is that there is no easy way to support the people who make the movies you like. The studios have made that practically impossible, DVD's/Theaters or not.
"I have a problem with this picture because it only HELPS the big shots make their case AGAINST piracy, by showing that those in favor have no clue how to operate a DVD player properly, or clearly don't care to know."
The picture is comedy, a bit overdrawn just to make the point. Can't you see that even though you can fast forward or skip some (or all) of the warnings/trailers, it is still more annoying than the "press play - watch movie" of an illicit copy? (which also happens to be free)
The point is that the paid version should be better, not slightly worse or even the same.