As a software developer working for a software company in the UK, I thank the heavens every day that we don't have software patents here. The idea that sitting down and thinking up a solution to a problem on my own my be infringing someone's "intellectual property" is crazy to me and everyone else I know in the industry. Only lawyers like software patents.
As far as I can tell PayPal are trying to claim ownership of the knowledge in a former employees brain and are suing google for employing him. If the guy took documentation or code with him then fair enough, if he had a contract that that said he couldn't go work for google or whoever then fair enough. But suing google for employing someone who has useful and relevant knowledge is crazy. All google is doing is competing for employees the same as all firms do constantly. I am a software developer and before working in my current role i had no experience of Dynamics CRM development. Now i have lots and demand for my services does my current company get to sue if i get a better job elsewhere.
Presumably this relates to EMI music publishing rather than EMI the record label as ASCAP licenses copyrights for the composition rather than the sound recording.
Anyhoo this is not really a win for people wanting to license music (unless it results in much licensing cheaper costs from EMI) because it has just added an extra party to negotiate a deal with. Existing licensees who have a license with ascap, now nead to renegotiate with EMI in order to carry on using EMI owned compositions. New licensees now have an extra party to negotiate with.
For all their many many bad points collections societies like ASCAP do at least make licensing more simple by reducing the number of parties you have to negotiate with. Under current copyright laws, without them trying to do anything at all with other peoples copyrighted musical compositions would be almost impossible.
Bear in mind these are tiny tiny papers serving tiny comunities of readers. They contain minor local interest news stories and not any kind of news interesting to anyone under the age of 60 or that has a job or any kind of real life.
That said i think the Times paywall is going to be a disaster.
Ben Goldacre, author of the Gurdian's weekly Bad Science coulmn has been trying to get to the actual evidence all week. You can follow his progress on Twitter http://twitter.com/bengoldacre, but be warned it might give you gonorrhea ;-)
I think it is important to get away from the idea that all government intervention/regulation of a market inhibits/distorts a free market. In a market where you have former monopoly incumbents the market is already distorted and government regulation can be used to effectively restore a more free market. It can be a difficult ballance treading the fine line between under and over regulation but if you look at the competition in the broadband and telecoms markets in the UK you can see what can be achieved. Where I live in the UK I can chose between 30+ braodband and fixed line telephone providers and probably many many more than that for just fixed line telephone. The market is extremely competitive with providers ranging from huge incumbents like BT and Vrigin media to small regional and niche providers all competing on different levels from price, to service, to speed and anything else they can think of to offer over and above the competition.
As much as it is helpful that the lords are exmining this bill closely, they are ultimately toothless. Through the Paliament Act the house of commons can overrule the Lords and push through any legislation with a majority vote.
"it's a bit upsetting that Typepad automatically sided with those making the copyright claim".
This boils down to a simple business decision. The party claiming copyright infringement can has a valid claim to sue the service provider if they do not take down alleged copyrighted content. The user who the claim is against cannot sue the service provider for taking down content due to a spurious takedown request. The only sensible option is to take down the content, and avoid getting into the legal complexities of copyright law in order to work out if the takedown request is valid.
If you are paid a salary by an employer, then your tax is automatically calculated and deducted out of each months pay. If you have no other income, you don't have to file a return. 90% of people go there entire lives without having to file a tax return.
If the phone is provded by the companty then of course they have to support it. If the phone is purchased by the user then that is different. I think it is reasonable to allow user's to hook up the iPhone (or other smartphone) to the company's email, contacts etc and to provide basic instruction and information about how to do it for common phones. However you cannot expect an IT department to have the skills and knowledge to provide user support to a potentially unlimited number of different kinds of devices. This is why companies standardise technology, so that you are supporting a finite and controlled set of technologies that you can make sure you have the skills and resources to support.
Someone is asked to pay an upfront fee so that they can receive a much larger amount of money that is in fact totally illusory. Not sure if this comment should be on this post or the previous one about advance fee fraud. Seems a pretty similar scam either way.
I am an avid online news reader, i must spend an hour or 2 each days reading news online. I have never knowingly encountered a spam site. If i am particularly interested in a story i usually search for multiple articles to try and get an even view of the story.
The best ways to attract my eyeballs to your new site.
Have an RSS feed.
Quote and link to other sites with more detailed info
Allow others to do the same to your articles.
Have a free and open comments system where the journalists engage in the discussion.
Not doing the above things is the biggest threat to news, not some mythical spam sites that hardly anyone ever reads.
The news here is simply that it is also putting them on youtube. As such this is just a logical next step, even if google was paying nothing for all this content, channel 4 is just getting a shit load of free video hosting for content it has online for free already. It's a no brainer really.
Back in the good old days when emusic was cool, they offered an all you can eat monthly subscription with unrestricted MP3s. It worked just fine, OK some users would "strip mine" the service by using bots to download all the songs, but those users would never be good customers whatever you did. At that time emusic distributed the royalties by putting 50% of the subscription fees into a pool that was then distributed to the labels weighted by number of downloads. What spoiled everything and turned emusic into the much more limited service it is today is the labels insistence on per download royalties. This is one of the major limiting factors for modern inovative services, they can't offer unlimited download because the labels stick to their outdated "per unit" royalty models rather than recognising that music downloads are a service that should be licensed on a percentage basis like radio.