You're adding judges from different levels? Really? The MPAA lobbied heavily to have congress change the law. Congress never did. So I guess that makes hundreds on the side of fair use and only 7 against. Also, given the fact that members of the MPAA, congress, and many judges have used the VCR to home tape, I'd add an even larger number of people to that fair use side. Or maybe they're all just pirates as you propose?
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
I consider Benito Mussolini to be the ultimate fascist, but only because he was one of the first, and one of the founders of the fascist movement. Hitler (or maybe someone else) may have been more fascist, but I haven't bothered myself to come up with a Who's Who of fascists.
Yeah, Hitler did get the German economy going, but so what? If I had a choice of living under Hitler or the Germany before Hitler, I'd choose the latter. Freedom means a lot more to me than the economy. Blue's praise of Hitler just shows to me he isn't a populist that cares for the people. That's all a charade he puts on. He claims he's for the little guy, against big corporations, etc, but he's for government granted monopolies and knocks Mike any time Mike talks about government corruption or the like.
Like "The Prince", or Hitler, Blue like his subtle form of evil. Pretend to be for the people, when you really just want to rule over them completely.
Note: I'm not accusing Blue of supporting Holocaust Hitler or warmongering Hitler. I'm pointing out that blue praises fascist Hitler.
Re: Two other disadvantages of separate leg bookings
Don't take offense, but I'm going to poke some fun at you now.
Hey Mike, Danny here makes some good points. You should add something to the story indicating those problems. Perhaps make up a fictitious converstaion you had with a man named Goldstein (that's a more mature sounding name than Danny), and have him bring up those points. Like this:
That said, Goldstein also argues that there are downsides to buying individual flights. He brings up, as we discussed above, the issue of connecting flights (and also having bags checked all the way through to destination) -- but as noted, that doesn't apply in this situation. He also points out that if you have to "change or cancel your whole trip, you have to pay separate change/cancel fees for each booking, instead of one for the whole thing."
But then (because you are Mike and have to be contrarian) rebut it with something like this:
That's absolutely true, but is that "insurance" worth paying twice as much? I could rebook my entire trip with different times and dates... and basically pay the same total amount. So... that argument doesn't make much sense.
Copyright law should honestly just be abolished. There is no purpose to it beyond creating a business model, and one that is particularly dangerous to creativity. When I want to express myself, even if it's a simple reply to someone, I do it by using the expressions I have learned from others, whether those others are my parents, siblings, friends, or people in my neighborhood, or movies, tv shows, songs, books, poems, etc. It's all the better when it's a shared experience.
I could dismiss someone who has clearly lost an argument with a "you lose", or I could do it by showing a video.
If I own a gym, I could get my customers pumped up by giving my own speech, or I could play a song.
Any of those options are valid, and ought to be valid choices, but copyright says that you should only be allowed to express yourself in ways that are really old (70 years + life of author), paying for it, or creating a new way of expression. There's a lot of validity to new creation, and that creation will happen, but no one creates new things in a vacuum. We are all products of our culture, our shared experiences, etc. Being allowed to express ourselves using the expressions of those around us is a necessity. It's how we are.
Copyright goes against all that. At one point I thought it could be reformed. I'm leaning towards that being an impossibility. I'm not sure copyright could ever be squared with how humans express themselves. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong, but the more I think about it, I don't think it's possible. Sure copyright gives us certain business models, but then you'd have to prove that those business models are worth it, and I don't think they are.
Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
They did change it. I can't say whether they changed it because of this lawsuit, but their current logo is nothing like the one created by Frederick Bouchat. Teams change their logos regularly. I'm sure had they been given the choice to pay even one million dollars or change their logo, they would have just changed their logo. It'd give them an opportunity to refresh the team, make it look new and exciting, etc.
Here's a brief history of NFL team logos. The Detroit Lions have change their logo twice in the last 10 years, Broncos have changed their logo twice in 20 years, and there's more. Some teams change more often than others, and some only make minor changes, but they all make changes (except the Jaguars, but they're young).
I agree on the question, but disagree with your reason. The question "Why should she NOT be in trouble over this?" is a valid question. She has clearly broken the law. If it's stupid to enforce the law over this, then the law is stupid and should be removed, not just unenforced. Selectively enforced laws are what despots, dictators, kings and tyrants do. Your essentially free at the whim of the government. That is wrong.
As for what she's doing being wrong, I'm not seeing it. If the guy gave her his credentials freely, then what's wrong with her using it? If he doesn't want her to access it, he could change the password and be done.
That's not a problem for HBO. They just pop up a helpful message stating that you need to create a new account because your IP address has been pirated. Something along the lines of, "Someone has pirated your IP address. You need to create a new account. See how it feels to have your property pirated from you?"
Anything, anywhere in the chain that might possibly lead one to a possibly infringing work must be liable as well, and those responsible for those sites must then, obviously, act as Hollywood's personal police force.
I'll be happy when they start going after that pirate haven known as PACER.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
A spy is an information gatherer that does their gathering in secret. Google and the friend (disclaimer: not a real person) aren't spies. If I know, they gather information, then they aren't spies (unless I know without them knowing that I know, but that's not the case here). There's no question that Google gathers information about its users. I'm not trying to defend their data gathering. Calling them a spy is simply using an emotionally-laden term that doesn't apply simply for the emotions it evokes. It's incorrect.
I also wouldn't use the term intelligence gatherer. Information or user data? Sure. But intelligence is linked to political or military information. Google might collect information about it's users that is useful for those purposes, but that's not why Google is collecting it.
It's the way the debate is framed that I'm having a problem with. Here we have a case where Google is pushing back on giving up customer info to the government, and yet they are being called a spay and being accused of not caring for customer privacy because of that. Those accusations aren't backed up by the article at hand. If the AC that made the accusation has some data to back it up, he is welcome to include it here, but he didn't include any evidence. This article is a refutation of his accusations, therefore I'm calling him out on it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Changing it from government to a company secretly hired by the government doesn't change the above paragraph at all. Google is still not the spy. If I tell a friend something about me and I know that my friend tells info about me to anyone who will pay him, then he's not exactly a spy. Why is Google being a spy here?
It's all very clear and out in the open what data you are giving to Google and what service you get in exchange. If you don't like that, don't use Google. But that doesn't turn them into spies. If their data collection was surreptitious, then sure, but it's not. It's a pretty crappy spy who says "I collect your information to sell to anyone willing to buy it".
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm fairly sure "copyright maximalists" DO have all sources tapped.
So Pandora has used no human labor? What exactly do you think the developers and marketers and ad space sellers at Pandora do? And how is what they do any different than what the musicians do? If "brains ain't enough", then why are you so pro-copyright and pro-patent?
Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Google's not a spy. They're a company that offers services in exchange for your data. They aren't doing it surreptitiously. Everyone knows that Google gets your search history, youtube viewing history, has access to your emails, etc. There's no sneaking around going on. They provide a service, and your use of that service provides them information about you. Are airlines spying on me when they ask me for the name to put on my travel ticket? Are grocery stores spying on me when I willingly use the rewards card? Is my bank spying on me when they record all transactions that occur in my accounts?
Here Google is trying to keep the government from getting the data that people gave to Google. That's not spying. That's being concerned with user privacy. People gave that data to Google for Google, not for the government.
Mike, you (rightfully) mention the copyright clause and how it's supposed to benefit the public. But I think you forget to mention the mere fact of its existence makes it interesting. The founding fathers knew all about government granted monopolies (cf. Boston Tea Party and the East India Company). I don't think they liked the idea of government granted monopolies. The constitution, as far as I can tell, doesn't grant the federal government the ability to grant monopolies with the only exception being the copyright clause. It's very existence shows how reticent the founding fathers were to having government granted monopolies.
That only emphasizes that much more how important the "promote the Progress" and "limited Times" parts of the clause are. If the founders were fine with government granted monopolies, they would never have put in a clause explicitly allowing them. That explicitness indicates that the government did NOT have the implicit allowance to do so. Thus heavy restrictions on patents and copyrights should be the norm. We should be very reticent to grant those monopolies, and only in the case where progress is being promoted, and only for a very limited time.
I'm not disagreeing. Quite the opposite. I don't think you give that clause as much emphasis as it deserves.
There was a discussion about this on Hacker News the other day. A lot of people thought the EFF was being stupid because certainly the DoJ would never arrest a 12 year for reading the news. I think that misses the point. To take it to an extreme, the government could make it a felony to drink water in the morning. We'd all say, "Surely they'll never enforce that." But there are two questions:
1) Why should it be against the law if they aren't going to enforce that law?
2) How long before they enforce that law just to get someone for some other reason?
I get that Capone was a bad guy, and yay we got him on tax evasion, but I fear that too many people think that was a model to emulate. "If you can't get them on what you really want to get them on, get them on any ticky tack little thing," they'll say/think. Which means the more ticky tack little laws that "surely they'd never enforce" the better.
It needs to stop.
Then there's the idea of someone other than the government deciding what is a felony. It's not just large corporations. Anybody with a blog could post a ToS that does the same thing here. Case in point:
ToS for reading the above comment: You agree that you are not a cop or any employee of the government, and that if you are, you will only read this while standing naked in the middle of the road while holding a half plucked chicken. Failure to abide by these terms will result in felony prosecution under the proposed CFAA changes.