Really? Because I drop in for the free form flow of info that includes feelings, rants and opinions. Not too mention the old school approach to a comment section. There's absolutely nothing more inane than a bunch of carefully crafted and polished blog posts for not much value other than someone might take offense. That and I positively abhor the trends I'm witnessing with most "apps" (what-the-actual-fuck), mediation, advertisement, comment sections disappearing en-masse and.. fuck me, prosecutions founded on text and words and based on nothing more than pussy, fear-mongering, bitchy bullshit.
I expect dirt from techdirt, pure, unfiltered, dirty dirt. And I like bad words and, unlike the "pc" trends and views, it shows me grit and purity.. And fuck-all the puritanical, "I didn't hear what you said because I didn't like how you said it" crap because I can't fathom willful ignorance under any circumstances.
Everyone is expecting the Internet to make them some money. Look at telecom - the depth and breadth of that greed-based stranglehold makes me want to break shit. I pay .. hm.. too damn close to $500.00 a month for all my comms. And it's rapidly, extremely rapidly, turning into nothing but cable 2.0. I expect better from the Internet, I demand it. Speak your minds. Oh and thanks for sharing.
w.t.f are you on about? I've read your comment three times out of a sheer fascination with its ability to do nothing for me or the topic. iPic food? Local ethnic hangout preferences? The eating habits of toddlers. Small dark Jewish boys. I really have no idea. I think I enjoyed myself. Not certain. Please don't help me.
Why am I having such difficulty in understanding almost every comment so far on this posting?
Are lizard people even a thing? Are we actually insinuating here that we "trust" government to, I don't know, never behave in a solely self-preserving and protectionist manner? Are the currently agreed upon protocols somehow left vulnerable is some way I fail to understand? Do moderated TLDs pose some sort of threat to those that are not? .... Hold on.. I think the internet just went pitch dark.. The light has just gone off in my tube. My cat!! It's gone!
Where does the incentive to create come from when one can no longer lawfully create and someone else can sit on a single creation (and, apparently prevent others from sitting on one) for what amounts to several generations? .. Patently absurd notion of progress that stunningly neuters it in the same breath.
These types of "protections" are, in fact, preventative measures - designed to keep creators from creating. That much has become all too clear.
In no way is any original artistry threatened here for if your work is art, and valued as such, then said art will always be in demand as original works.
"Zero tolerance" has apparently now also become the mantra of "rights holders" along with every other war on 'x' - usually adversely effecting the most disenfranchised among us the most and benefiting only those already far too bloated with wealth and power the most.
A chair design protected for generations. Fucking ridiculous.
I'd wager that the publisher/rights holder is doing far and away better on her works than she could ever possibly achieve in a "we own the rights to your works (and control all the knowledges - mwah-hah-hahh)" model. Something tells me she should be doing far better than she actually is.
"The negative effects of such an intervention would lead directly to lower levels of investment in European content production, promotion and distribution,"
But.. the world is flat!
I imagine, given the near-zero cost of distribution, which happens to flow nicely into effective promotion, that investment into production would skyrocket.
Once something is broadcast I'm not sure how the argument of a "right" to make money by controlling distribution is an effective argument anymore (if it ever was). Hell, it's only relevant due to deep pockets and corrupt influence on law makers.
"Middle-men", in the areas of distribution in a digital market, are simply less relevant, if at all - laws and punishments and "the rights of distribution" be damned.
It's not a secret if you tell someone... It is no longer "solely yours" when you release it... "Copyright" needs to be fixed and it's not because the middle-men or mega media corps stand to loose money. That's simply not the point of a copyright much less an indication of how long they should last. You guys simply do not create - you strangle what's already been created. And that only for yourselves and those artists that you've convinced that only they can be your one and only benefactor.
I kind of like the control I have over the media I can access and the reality is that there's not much anyone can do about it, good, bad or otherwise.
The sooner you asshats can agree on and create a catalog of rights then the sooner you can provide income to "your" artists and creators. Get your twisted, self righteous heads out of your cocktail glasses and fix your shit.
I don't understand. Why would anyone patent peer review on a computer or otherwise? Isn't it kind of up to the, I don't know, peers doing the reviewing?
Oh.. nevermind. It must be to protect the furtherance of the progress of the sciences and the arts. I get it.
From this angle Elsevier looks like it's aim is to crush innovation vs innovate, and with a patent, no less. Ironic.
Elsevier is the epitome of preventing the flow of academic information.
"I was published in another academic journal! Woohoo!! No, no monies." ... Uhhh, that still means that much to you guys when, you know, a huge chunk of the population is a few key taps away? I guess it's pretty cool to be smart, huh? And have all your hard work and research paid for and seen by millions.. well, except for that last part.
Also, as someone mentioned here elsewhere, "identity theft" is fraud. So, no, identity theft is not "theft" of your identity because, shocker, you still have one. The perp is out committing fraud with your identifying datum and is probably stealing things from others with it.
Yes, however, concepts are just that, concepts. Theft, by definition, which seems to include the legal one, tells us that theft is depriving someone of "a thing".
I have 'X'. Someone stole my 'X'. My 'X' is now gone. The taking of 'X' is theft.
The copying of 'X' can not be theft under the current legal standard. The state of copyright today is, on the other hand, theft, as the public does not have "the thing" nor will they ever have "the thing" as long as maximalists X-Z continue to get their way.
I just looked up three. I get the impression that none of them will be what you'd like them to be.
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement)
I understand the argument but I think it's quite a stretch.
When asked to point to the person in the room that I saw commit the crime I speak with my finger.
I can sign.
A fingerprint in this application is speaking. You telling your phone to unlock is no different speaking your mind - with your voice, your finger, your face, your pin or any other mechanism requiring your person or parts thereof.
The act of unlocking the thing is speaking. In this case, or others like it, this is potentially self-incriminating speech by any reasonable standard, imo.