I believe that the Film Academy will shift from giving the statue, with the understanding that they retain the "right of first refusal", and instead declare that they are bestowing upon the recipient "a non-transferable license to hold, display or otherwise use" the statue. There will probably be additional language that allows them to revoke said license for whatever reason they come up with.
That will do away with any of this nasty concept that the individual actually owns the item in question.
Surely you are kidding about "federal oversight". If there's one group that I don't want getting involved, it's the feds. Their version of oversight is likely to make what the police have done so far look like a Tupperware party.
Don't you know that this is just more liberal dribble-drabble; meant to inflame the sensibilities of the uprightly indignant. This smacks of whore-mongering and unrequited humor. I simply won't stand by while you attempt to stifle my mean spirited commentary, just because your "science" says it might make others less receptive to your writings.
Yes, peer pressure can be a great influence on a child; and that influence seems to grow as a child enters adolescence. That is why it is imperative upon parents to be more engaged in the early years of a child's upbringing.
A child that is raised to have a greater sense of self, and is encouraged to recognize his/her uniqueness, is not affected to the same by peer pressure. Making sure that Susie and Billy know that they are just part of the pack, and insisting that they adhere to all of the social norms, is a great way to raise a child that will succumb to peer pressure. On the other hand, raising a child with that sense of self awareness, and the license to express his/her uniqueness, are a good way to prepare a child to deal with the pressures that often are exerted by the crowd around them.
I'm also from Olathe, and I'm torn between laughing and crying. It's funny in the sense that I would not be surprised that one of my neighbors would do this; and yet I'm made sad when I think that one of my own sons might do it. Thankfully, in this case it was neither a nearby neighbor, nor one of my sons.
While I can't speak to the case of ATT contracts, I can tell you that the T-Mobile ETF is brought about by the fact that they will essentially finance your phone purchase.
You put $100 down on the purchase of that new phone and then the rest is paid off through an additional charge on your bill. When you've paid off the pseudo-financed amount the "ETF" goes away. Until then, you still owe the rest of the amount that they loaned you.
Perhaps more importantly, as both parties like to make a lot of noise about "internet freedom" and its application to broadening freedom and Democracy in nations that enjoy little of both, does this result from our sanctions jive with how our State Department seems to want to encourage governments around the world to allow open communication through the internet and social media?
Are you saying that the killing of stinking orcs is a social media experience?
I live in one of the suburbs of KC, approximately 25 miles from downtown KCMO. We will have to wait about a year (or so we have been told) before we will start to see it filter down to our not-so-small part of the Kansas City metro.
At the top of the page, it was requested that the posts be focused on the relevance of the copyright ruling. I didn't get more than a few posts in before I started seeing posts from both sides of the abortion debate. By the time I got through half of the posts, it seemed like the copyright issues had been completely forgotten.
I understand the passionate beliefs on both sides of the abortion debate, but I'm disappointed to see that so many in this community cannot keep to the subject at hand. /end-rant
I wonder if the judge made use of the convoluted argument because he didn't find the usage consistent with "fair usage" (i .e. it was too transformative) . Thus, his only alternative was to up the ante by calling it parody.
False scarcity is the underlying concept that this proposed solution doesn't seem to help us remove.
The proposed registry doesn't seem to do anything to reconcile the difference between the false scarcity that the recording industries want to sell us, and the absence of scarcity that actually exists.
They can't just let the legitimate users of the service have their data! How will they know if the user is retrieving legitimate data, or some movie that the evil user has put up there for safekeeping? There's too much data for them to be able to determine what is legitimate and what is not....
....uhhhh....wait a second! Isn't that what they're asking (demanding) that Megaupload do? You mean to tell me that the authorities are not able to do what they claim the service provider should be doing?! Even though they (the authorities) "know" what is infringing?
Huh, I guess they'll just have to erase it all. At least that way we're safe. Can't have any of those pirated movies escaping!
One problem with the cell-tower impersonation ploy could be the lack of response by devices, other than the target device. Given that we can't be told how the "Stingray" works (we wouldn't want the bad guys to know), how can I have any confidence that my call to 911 isn't going into some black hole that the Stingray is creating?
And wouldn't it be ironic if the police kept someone from getting help, because they were too intent on skirting around the process of getting a warrant?
I've spent the better part of the last 30 years writing code. Up until about 7 years ago, I would write code at my day job and then come home and write more code. I always negotiated my employment agreements to exclude the software I would write during my off hours, and I usually had to give up some money to get those exclusions. But I always figured it was worth the cost. I loved creating software so much that I was willing to do that.
Today, I don't bother trying to negotiate those kinds of terms. I don't write code for any entity other than the company where I work. The simple reason for my stance is that I can't afford to become moderately successful, should I write something that people actually want. With the current state of patent law, there's too great a chance that whatever I create will be viewed as infringing on a patent held by someone else. Even if I were willing to bear the costs of doing patent searches, there is no guarantee against someone with deeper pockets alleging that I have infringed on their patent(s).
In the end, it makes me sad that I can't create things without worrying who will accuse me of "stealing" their idea.
Marzorati's comments are completely ignoring something very simple. Raising the rates by 5% on a $65+ per month bill is not likely to raise a lot of eyebrows. People will usually accept a small enough raise in the prices for goods that they find useful. It is easy to allow your credit card to be charged an extra $2 to $3.
With the paywall, people that have never had to hand over their credit card number will now be required to do so. What is the incentive to start paying for information that they might just as easily acquire elsewhere? I believe that getting your current customers to go from x dollars per month to x+5% dollars per month is probably easier than getting your casual reader to go from paying nothing per month to two dollars month (unless that two dollars gives them something they didn't get before).
So, are the Republicans "the bad guys" for bringing the subcommittee back? It wasn't a Republican lead HR that gave the job to Berman, was it? And if I am reading the post correctly, it wasn't a Republican lead HR that got rid of the subcommittee.
Now I'm not a huge supporter of Congress, no matter who is running it; but it seems like there's a bit of conspiracy theory being pushed here. Not all Republicans are "screw the little guy" and give it all to big business, just like not all Democrats are "I never met a tax I did't love" socialists. There is a chance, slight though it may be, that the subcommittee will end up being led by someone that does favor real IP reform.
To jump to the conclusion that the subcommittee is only coming back because one outspoken IP reform advocate has gone away is a sizable leap. Do we need to start wearing our tin-foil hats?
I don't have a problem with there being oversight for the things you listed. In fact, I wish there was better oversight for many of the issues within the government. I do have an issue with Julian Assange setting himself up as the watchdog over governments and what secrets they have.
His actions are taken without any accountability or responsibility. Who is he helping to protect? Who is he acting to benefit? So far, the only person that I see him actually trying to help is himself.
I don't know the criminal statutes that may apply here. It isn't my business to know those statutes. However, I would bet that the attorneys for PayPal, Amazon and anyone else that has had "pressure from the government" applied to them can tell you what statutes might apply here.
I'm glad that you find my reference to Bond films "worthless tripe." Your sincere contempt for my analogy gives me reason to smile, as I rarely get to see such an elitist attitude anymore.
The reference to the James Bond super villain was only in reference to the way he put out the news of his insurance file. To me, it came across in the same way the threats that Blofeld's did in the Bond flicks. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to associate his remarks with Mike Meyers' Dr. Evil character.
As for whether WikiLeaks did anything illegal, if they end up being charged with something then that would be for an actual judge/jury to determine. As yet, they haven't been formally charged with anything. That does not mean that they will not be charged at some time in the future.
If you are doing something that aids or abets a party in an what you believe may be an ongoing crime, it is usually a good idea to separate yourself from the party as soon as possible. It is better to do so before charges are filed, otherwise you might find yourself amongst those that are being charged.
Your description of the German not-for-profit foundation borders on a good description for a money-laundering organization. Again, the tie may not be direct, but why open yourself up for the possible risk?
The part about the time line being suspicious is almost too funny for words. Of course the government is applying pressure. That is what governments do before they actually do something totally draconian. It is a bit like telling your children that they shouldn't do something, as the result of doing it might be unpleasant. You do that as a warning, in the hopes that you won't be called upon to actually do something unpleasant (such as file criminal charges).
No, the genie won't go back inside the bottle. That's why I'm for doing something fairly drastic, in order to get the insurance file opened up. After all, if you don't just go ahead and blow the lid off of it, Blofeld (err...Assange) is just going to carry on using it as his blackmail threat. I don't care what they do, including the non-discretionary elimination him and all of his minions. We won't be any better or worse off.
It is interesting to read the various remarks to this story. It seems that the majority here is quite willing to jump on the "bash the US/bash the government bandwagon", but I see very little in terms of reasonable statements. It is true that WikiLeaks has done some good, with respects to opening up the flow of information about government secrets. But it is also true that governments sometimes have good reasons for not parading all of the information before the general public. Julian Assange seems to have decided that he is the ultimate arbiter of the those decisions.
Now, as to whether PayPal, Amazon, or any other corporation, should respond to the pressure of governments or boycotts; the answer is not as easy as it might sound. For profit corporations (such as PayPal and Amazon) are created with specific purpose, and it isn't to be watchdogs over the rights of a group that decides it wants to take on the governments of the world. When Amazon and PayPal point to their terms of service, and then point out that some of what WikiLeaks is doing is prohibited by the laws where those companies are operating, what do you expect them to do? Do you expect them to tell their shareholders, "Tough luck gang. We're going to expose you to the risk of massive potential losses so that we can support this group that is acting criminally"? If they do that then they become liable for lawsuits coming from the other direction.
Finally, let's start applying a label to Julian Assange that fits, the new 007 super-villan. Whether he is guilty of rape or sexual misconduct in Sweden, or elsewhere, you have to admit his latest statements make him sound like Ernst Blofeld of SPECTRE. His threats regarding the "insurance file" and how he will release the password for it, should anything happen to him or WikiLeaks, are only just shy of outright attempted extortion. I can easily picture him sitting in a London flat, cat on his lap, giving out that wonderfully evil laugh as he typed up that missive.