It may protect Google [...] On the contrary, it could wind up biting them in the butt. Example: Google: "How are we supposed to know what's infringing before you tell us?" WB: "You clearly knew about those infringing images in that app before we ever got notice of them from our lawyers. Sort it out!
Yesterday, I think I had a psychic vision of what Ajit Pai was dreaming: Netflix High Priest: "We worship our Dark Father, Open Connect CDN." Netflix celebrants (droning): "Open Connect CDN is the path to true enlightenment. Only the faithful shall ever know the joy He can bring."
How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom Personally, I wouldn't have even dignified that headline with the 'legally'. I mean, just because you're following the letter of the law, it doesn't always make what you're doing right.
Correction: seeking as much personal info as possible when switching to mobile apps marked the end of Square-Enix. The Nintendo DS is a mobile device that I've never had a problem purchasing games for because the carts don't snag and send on such things as my device IMEI, phone number, or contacts list.
Very interesting to hear of Dibsney arguing the following: If anything, modern developments underscore the need to protect the public domain from the aggregate toll of copyright royalties that would accumulate forever. Change the word 'copyright' back to 'patent' and it becomes clear.
So someone inputs parameters for an image into a computer, and the generated image is duly filed for copyright registration. Any court case is gonna fall on it's face because there has to be a bit more human input than that, not just putting bots on the job.
Um, might have been better to leave that link in response to the article since I never said that anyone's racist, but focused on Mike's actions in incorrectly calling someone out as racist for a sentence that wasn't when taken in context.
Europe's use of the copyright levy system, effectively a tax on blank media that is supposed to compensate copyright holders for an alleged "loss" from copies made for personal use, has produced a whole string of messy situations -- for example, in the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK. I live in the UK, and I can tell you that we have no levy on anything used to copy on the basis that since the copying allowed (format shifting) is for the personal use of whoever owns a copy of content only, the rights holders have already had their fair share when it was originally sold. Research, please!