And at last you reveal your true position, took you long enough. Admiration and support for a fraud and liar, says everything I need to know about you.
Just out of morbid curiosity to see if your position is at least consistent, I'll repeat a previous question of mine.
Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?
So, consistent slime, or hypocritical one, which will it be?
"If you have recorded your music or have music you own the legal rights too, then you are well on the way to being able to use our service."
And the fraud met neither condition. They didn't record the music, and they didn't own the legal rights to it, so we can add Horus' terms as ones they failed to meet as well.
Again, it baffles the mind why you continue to insist on defending a fraud, someone who claimed ownership of someone else's music and used it against both the original artist and one of his fans. It doesn't matter how much money was involved, it wouldn't matter if the issue was resolved an hour after it was discovered, you are still defending someone who abused the system, made fraudulent claims, and harmed both creator and fan as a result.
Incorrect, registering something with ContentID absolutely is making a claim of ownership for it. Doing so requires that you assert that you own what you are trying to claim, and not only that, but you have exclusive rights to it.
Who can use Content ID?
YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.
Qualifying for Content ID
Content ID acceptance is based on an evaluation of each applicant's actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.
Content ID will match a user's reference content against every upload to YouTube. Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. Common examples of items that may not be exclusive to individuals include:
-mashups, “best of”s, compilations, and remixes of other works -video gameplay, software visuals, trailers -unlicensed music and video -music or video that was licensed, but without exclusivity -recordings of performances (including concerts, events, speeches, shows)
If accepted to use the Content ID tools, applicants will be required to complete an agreement explicitly stating that only content with exclusive rights can be used as references. Additionally, accepted applicants will need to provide the geographic locations of exclusive ownership, if not worldwide.
The sleazebag in the story not only didn't own the copyright for the works that they claimed to own, even assuming for the sake of argument that Dan Bull's 'You can use my works freely' constituted an implied license for use and distribution(which seems to be the case as I understand it), it was never an exclusive one, which means the fraud failed both of the requirements listed to register something under ContentID.
That you continue to defend blatant fraud is odd to say the least. Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?
Sure you might say that the labels have not given a 'Use our works as you see fit' implied license, but Dan Bull never gave out a 'Claim ownership of my works' implied license either, so what's the difference? In either case someone is claiming ownership of something that isn't theirs and reaping the rewards from their fraudulent claims.
Thats what will happen in the 'world without copyright' that people want, this is what it means to have no protection. In a laissez faire capitalist world with no copyright law, musicians will have to stand back and watch as others sell their music.
That a handful of people want, mostly because the current copyright setup has shown itself to be so broken that they've become disgusted by the very idea of copyright, and no, even then it wouldn't be similar to what happened here.
With no copyright, anyone could sell any music, this is true, but it takes copyright, or a similar system to force the original creator to pay up for his/her own works. With no control, there's no way to restrict control by others(in the same way you can't claim ownership over a public domain work and bar others from using it), so this situation actually required copyright, it wasn't showing what would happen without it.
I'm not saying Dan is the victim I'm saying he's a crybaby, he's played the 'give it all away' card for so long and when it bites him on the bum cos some fool takes him at his word (and ballsack72 or whatever is a fool) he goes crying to Mike about it.
Like I noted before, this is a bogus argument. "You can use and/or share my stuff" does not, under any reasonable interpretation mean or imply "You can claim ownership over my stuff and shake down me and others who have used it."
He wasn't put in this position because 'some fool takes him at his word', given he never said that the ownership of his works was up for grabs, merely the use of them, he was put in this position because a fraud decided to try and claim ownership over his stuff and abuse said fraudulent ownership to claim money he didn't deserve, and punish another YT user for doing what Dan said he could.
I love how you're defending blatant fraud, as if the sleazebag that tried to claim ownership of the songs was the victim, and Dan Bull is somehow the 'villain' here.
Not caring if other people share his work is leagues away from getting upset when someone comes along claiming that they own it, and charging him for hosting it.
If someone makes it clear that people are welcome to take their creations and share them, change them, or modify them, that does not mean that someone is allowed to come along, claim that they own the work(s) in question, and then try and shake down the original creator and anyone else who happens to have used/hosted/shared the work(s).
"I don't care if you share or use my stuff" does not, in any reasonable or even sane interpretation, even begin to include or imply "I don't care if you claim to own my stuff and charge me for it."
This is a blatant case of copyfraud, and Dan Bull is most certainly not the one who committed it.
So long as other countries/government continue to act as though they have to obey when the USG tells them to do something, the USG will continue to operate under the idea that US laws do apply globally, no matter how ridiculous this may be.
Oh patent office, when will you ever NOT screw up?
12. A method for distributing products over the Internet, comprising:
displaying a login screen on a video monitor that allows a user to enter an unique identifier for accessing database information;
confirming the validity of the entered unique identifier; and
displaying a shopping list that lists items for purchase as selected by said user, the listed items being in digital format suitable for downloading to a user's computer connected to the Internet and being in other media format suitable for shipping to said user.
This claim is describing online shopping, the ability to purchase something online and either download it directly or have it shipped to you. But of course since it involves a computer, the idiots in the patent office thought it was 'innovative' enough to warrant a patent. And of course given how insanely broken the system is(especially in patent troll heaven, East Texas), it really does't matter how stupid a patent is, it will still be used as a tool for extortion against companies who can't or won't fight back.
Ah what great innovation and progress the US patent system drives... /s
'TVEyes helps promote the free exchange of ideas, and its archiving feature aids that purpose.'
'Allowing them also to download unlimited clips to keep forever and distribute freely may be an attractive feature but it is not essential. Downloading also is not sufficiently related to the functions that make TVEyes valuable to the public, and poses undue danger to content-owners' copyrights.'
I can't help but think that the court undercuts their own argument here. If TVEyes archiving and saving something is serving the public by ensuring that footage isn't lost, then would it not be even better if as many people as possible also had copies, should something happen to TVEyes' archives?
If a file is only backed up in one place, and something happens to it, then that's it, the file is gone. If multiple people have copies though, there are much better odds that what was 'lost' can be recovered if needed.
d. Any attempt to warn the intended victim would unduly endanger U.S. government personnel, sources, methods, intelligence operations, or defense operations;
I imagine this part in particular is the primary reason behind this. Any time they stay quiet on a danger, and are asked why they didn't intervene, they can point to this as the reason. Can't save a life, or several if it puts their ability to spy on the line after all.
Wikipedia should refuse, and be blocked entirely in Russia as a result. It would suck for those in Russia to be sure, but the alternative, setting a precedent of 'we will fold under government pressure to enable our users to be spied upon' is not worth it.
Showing that they will stand up to petty (not so)-little thugs and would-be dictators is a valuable thing, and something that needs to be made clear from the outset, or said thugs will just continue to demand that they bow down to their demands.
Of course it goes without saying that police and government vehicles(and any vehicle owned by anyone significantly wealthy or influential) will not be similarly 'tagged', as that would be a violation of privacy, and pose dangers which don't exist for the average citizen.
No no, tracking citizens is fine, but tracking those that supposedly serve the citizens? That's completely out of the question.
This is exactly the kind of crap I run adblock for. Advertising companies may whine about how people are using adblock software, but they aren't the ones dealing with idiots who care more about their money than the user's computer security and ability to use a site without being bombarded by intrusive and annoying ads.
Make ads that are low-key, don't present a security threat, and by the FSM aren't pop-ups, and you might convince younger people that they don't need ad blocking software. Don't even bother spending time trying to convince older people though, they've seen what browsing is like without ad blocking software, and aren't likely to want to repeat the experience, ever.
Sunk Costs plus very finely tuned 'gameplay' designed to make players feel 'rewarded', and therefor invested, so that they're more likely to pay.
Sure, it's a few bucks for the next bit of 'help', but you've spend so much time in the game, and it's only a few bucks, you spend that much on a coffee and/or snack... Standard(if more than a little sleazy) sales trick, keep the individual costs low, and people will only pay attention to the smaller amounts, rather than realize just how huge the overall amount has risen to.
1. 'Pirate' sites make tons of money off of ads(1). 2. Google both offers these ads(2), and links to them, giving them a cut of the profits. 3. To protect the massive income stream of money from the pirate site ads, which vastly dwarfs the amount coming from other sources, Google looks the other way and in fact makes sure to prioritize such sites to increase traffic(3) to them, and as a result increase their cut. 4. Therefore, Google is funded by piracy.(4)
(1) Ignore for the moment how only seriously dodgy companies would ever offer their ads on 'pirate' sites, and tend to pay pittance even compared to the usual low rates.
(2) Ignore for the moment how they do not, due to not wanting to open themselves up to legal issues that they don't need, and in fact are apparently ridiculously trigger happy when it comes to pulling ads off of even potential 'pirate' sites thanks to the desire to avoid said legal issues.
(3) Ignore for the moment how #1&2 make the 'income' from such site insanely low, if not non-existent. Also ignore how said pittance wouldn't even begin to pay a fraction of the legal fees that are regularly incurred by Google thanks to the parasites demanding that Google 'do something' regarding piracy, fees that would only increase if Google was actually trying to increase piracy rates.
(4) At this point you should be practiced enough ignoring reality that you have a promising career in either politics or the 'entertainment' industry should you wish to take either up.
No, that's pretty much exactly the reasoning behind the statement from the union. The recordings are bad and should be illegal because they expose police 'misconduct', and as a result led to the investigation and possible punishment against the thuggish idiots in blue.
You can be sure if the recordings exonerated the cops the union would be demanding that they be admitted as evidence, rather than demanding that they be excluded as evidence.