Why don't we take 100% of the money from those that perform it, and give it to those that perform it?
No, go for center of mass. Unless you like glam.
I am so going to do a crappy, suck-ass game called "Edge". The object will to be to get the boss' lawyer to kill him.
It'll be magic, I promise.
Killing pop stars gets you free music. What's so hard to understand?
It's amazing that they let the Ivory Coast take the field.
"There are so few companies that realize this needs to be a key element of their strategy. Someone else is out there trying to kill them. So do it yourself and reap the rewards"
Steve Jobs said something similar when it was pointed out that the iPhone et al. were going to encroach into the iPod market. He said (paraphrasing) "If anyone is going to eat Apple's lunch, I want it to be Apple."
Too bad that the more common response is to litigate.
Especially since every other independent coffee shop (which was usually across the street) offered free wifi. You just know some suit was thinking about padding this quarter's revenues.
Good question. I suspect so, but at a higher level. That is, the patent "examiners" aren't the targets, but their managers et al. who set their quotas are.
Well, the end result in the BP case pretty much can't be worse than no regulation at all.
The larger problem, of course, remains. The real trick is that there are no consequences. Crash the planet's economy? Poison a large body of water? Bonuses for everyone!
Yeah, that's part of the reason I eschew phones in the car.
Your setup would alleviate that, I suspect, but it'd have to be a particular mount, and require that the other party would pay attention.
The premise of video calling has always been that you'd want to look at the person you're talking to, while the practical aspect is that you'd want to look at whatever the other person is looking at. We seem to be at the point where you can do both, and that will be the simple, overlooked thing that launches an industry.
He's reaching for any difference to explain the problem. Typical.
The simple fact is that copyright is binary to Viacom. "Someone owes us money or they don't. We'll assume they do until proven otherwise."
"felony charges for obscenity"
The fuck?
all it does is clearly make it that the teachers are on a work for hire basis as opposed to be some sort of independant creative people who just happen to work in a school
But it's all about the creators, right?
JoCo remembered something from a while back.
Fair observation, although you can still buy buggy whips if you happen to need one.
Re: Just a thought here...
You can't copyright a title, so I could name my next story "Alice in Woderland." If I'm trying to distribute it via ISOHunt, and it's blocked, what's my recourse?