Google's changes to the algorithms are going to be more difficult than many expect. That are a lot of multi-author content sites out there and not all of them are spammy. Every multi-author blog can be considered a blog farm and in the same way, each can be called a content farm. The quality of each one depends on who's in charge of checking the content. And then again, low quality doesn't mean no value.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the leftists hanging out around here are, or in the world for that matter. Every retarded bill that's passed in the US filters out to the developing countries (like where I live) because of the strings attached to things like "financial aid".
As your constitutional rights get voted out of existence, don't say you weren't warned by sites like this. I do not care what you think about infringement cases against the moneychangers and the gatekeepers. The only infringement I care about are the infringements against the Bill of Rights. And who is protecting them? It certainly isn't the US government at this point.
I moved away from the US in 2006, cutting almost all ties. We have cable TV here, but I never watch it. My wife, a Filipino by birth, watches the Filipino dramas every day with it because there isn't any other reliable source. Of course, it's cheaper than cable TV in the US. Less than $20 a month (although I don't know the exact amount due to the conversion rate).
The only American TV I get is via the Asian versions of HBO, Cinemax, etc. and a local provider called "Solar" which seems to be 3 or 4 weeks in showing current specific popular TV series.
I find getting TV shows to be a lot easier via torrents - even if the same shows appear through other avenues because things like recurring brownouts prevent me from being able to see them using traditional methods.
If it wasn't for the wife, the cable never would have been installed.
I think you're reading something into the discussion that isn't there. There is no one here saying that copyright in itself is wrong and shouldn't exist.
The problem is that the original intent of copyright has been twisted into something it was never designed to do. Copyrights were established as short-term methods to get the authors paid for that work and then to encourage them to create more.
Copyright was never intended to be a royalty system and that's what the entertainment industries have managed to do with it. By doing so, they deprive the public the ability to build on that work.
I have a book in storage that was written in 1939. According to the copyright law as it now stands, I'm not allowed to make a copy of it and give it to someone else. I'm not allowed to use substantial portions of it to write a related novel. The author is dead, for Pete's sake. His family isn't making any money off the book because it's been out of print for decades. Still, if I did either of those things and his heirs found out about it, they could sue me for violating his copyright.
This is what's wrong with the copyright law and no argument about theft vs. copyright infringement is going to make a difference if the law is only going to get more draconian as time passes.
For those who argue about copyright infringement without reading what the copyright act actually says. It is defined as infringement in the act itself, so this is not some made up point or any attempt to be disingenuous.
So, regardless of what the dictionary says, the actual law says what it is. Not so in the case of theft. There is no "copyright theft" law.
I obtain a lot of content without infringing on copyrights, but I also obtain a lot of content while infringing on copyrights (supposedly). Because I live in the Philippines (although I'm a US citizen), many sites in the US that sell content are either blocking the country or the IP range or both. There is a great deal of content I can only get from file-sharing sites, even though I'm willing to pay for it.
Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.
I don't get that all. You mean *you* didn't control the slug? That's crazy. Maybe more news sites should switch to WordPress software, where this wouldn't be an issue. There are no duplicate slugs with WP software - ever.
And as per usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're assuming Dilbert is read by everyone who gets it with their newspaper. The web comic is targeted to people who read/view it. The newspaper comic is targeted at everyone and only a fraction will read/view it.
This is the reason I stopped linking to news articles from the AP, UPI, and just about any "real" news source. They play URL shenanigans that break all my links and I don't feel like spending even a fraction of my time finding out where they are when the redirects aren't in place.
You sir, are a moron. The "masnick writing style" is exactly how you're supposed to write articles on the Internet, linking to your other relevant content. This is how search engines work and this is how people find that other content.
When you figure out how to be something other than TAM, let us know.
Copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement have specific requirements that point to an individual (or group), not an owner. If this wasn't the case, then internet cafes and other publicly accessible computer owners (like libraries) could be liable.
If the owner of a vehicle, who isn't driving, gets a red light ticket, the ticket will get thrown out if the owner appears in traffic court since the ticket is for a driver, not an owner. If this wasn't the case, rental car companies could be liable.
Even with the more and more Internet-enabled devices, people still share those devices. How can the actual infringer be positively identified with only an IP address? Unless the IP address can be corroborated with a picture or a fingerprint (it can't), it could be any person using that device.
Unfortunately, with civil cases, there is no burden of proof requirement. The court (or jury) only has to believe you're guilty and you are.
I don't care what Mr. Reese tweets about, or complains about. I'm a so-called pirate and I'm downloading the movie right now to see what all fuss is about.
I'm not in the US and the movie has not played near where I live, nor is it available for rent (and it probably won't be). I can however, buy a bootleg copy from one of the local pirate distributors, but I figure I'll save a buck or two by getting it myself.
Am I a lost sale, Mr. Reese? I seriously doubt it since I can't watch it any other way (without paying the real pirates).