Yet, we have created more in the last 50 years than the 500 years before that. I call that a success, don't you?
I would call it a success if all those works were in the public domain, or at least the things created more than 20 years ago.
Tell me when that happens and I'll say that copyright is benefiting the public.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to build up goodwill at all, you shouldn't let any lawyers that are not intimately familiar with your business send out legal nastygrams to anyone.
This sounds more like a systemic problem with the way legal services and the "professionals" involved are acting all around the country/world. How many of the bogus legal threats are coming as a result of lawyers running out of control and threatening/suing anything they conceivably can instead of having someone looking over their shoulder asking if it really makes sense from a business/PR perspective?
What I find it amusing in the whole thing is that the Islam is living now what the Catholic Church lived in the Middle Ages. As bad as the video might be (haven't watched) it is no reason to get worked up and possibly vent in innocent bystanders as they always do.
Yes, because the Catholic church handled dissent so well during the Middle Ages. How many wars were waged? How many tortured? Was northern Ireland the last gasp of a 600+ year conflict, or am I forgetting somewhere else that is still a warzone between Catholics and Protestants?
Youtube can and should delete the video. If corporate actors don't act responsibly, how can we expect government to stay out of our free speech rights?
So your idea of corporate responsibility is for corporations to control our free speech rights?
The fact is youtube is private property and if they wanted to make a stand against hatred and bigotry, they could.
Yes, they can do so. If they are going to do it, why only with this video? Why not eliminate all videos that contain bigotry and hateful speech? Should they remove all content which contains derogatory comments towards any religion? What about to any racial or social group? What about any derogatory political speech? Where is the line? Who gets to decide?
Hiding bigotry and hatred does nothing to stop it. It should be viewed and criticized, mocked, and denounced. Only in doing so can it be lessened.
I'm voting for him for President this election, whether he's running or not.
Basically, the idea that you're negligent if you leave your WiFi open and someone else uses it to infringe seems dead in the water.
In the courts, sure.
But that's a moot point once the 3/5/6/whatever strikes "agreements" come into play. Why bother with the courts, due process, finding the real person at fault, when you can just ban them extra-judicially?
Or:
Why waste money on them now, when you can get them at firesale prices in a few years?
We might be able to prevent the spread of malaria on the internet! by suing anyone who dares to use the internet to obtain malaria.
Yeah, I had a longer answer, but couldn't get the phrasing to sound right. Then Mike beat me to it, anyway.
That said, reading the article it seems to me like the judge may have gone a bit overboard, and basically tossed all the evidence the police collected, not just the stuff related to the phone,
Not a lawyer, but my guess would be that because all of the evidence that developed as a result of the search of the phone must also be thrown out if the search of the phone is ruled illegal.
You can get a respectable gaming PC for $500 - prebuilt from a major OEM - which is likely less than what the next gen consoles will cost - and which will run the most recent titles at medium to high settings quite nicely.
If they can do so much better on the PC, why don't they release their titles there?
Hey, that's an insult to chimps.
And those of us that use pirate chimps as our avatar, too.
*reports DH*
I'm not sure doing random searches and page views would be wise if you're under surveillance - unless everyone is doing it:
http://xkcd.com/576/
Close enough to zero that the difference is meaningless.
If you don't like what is on offer, just do without it.
If you honestly think that completely doing without is an alternative to pirating, then I have a counter offer for the studios and publishers:
If you don't like anyone infringing on your copyright, then don't release your work at all. Just do without.
Wait... what? Ubisoft making sense on DRM?
I feel like I'm in crazy land.
These are awesome.
I have a younger sister about to undergo her 2nd eye surgery - she has a detached retina and has lost most of the sight in one eye as a complication from diabetes. In a few years maybe some of these techniques will be able to help her - assuming they don't get patented and do no one any good.
So, let the aggrieved company sue for damages then.
But the copyright owners don't have to sue for damages - they can just sue for a totally absurd statutory rate where potentially sharing a couple of 99 cent song with at most a dozen people ends in millions of dollars of penalties.
where the bank really does have their hands tied.
Well, they do have to report it, but their hands are not completely tied.
They can appeal to the regulators on a case by case basis for common sense to win out.
But that takes effort, and with the current state of the economy, it is easier to replace him than to bother with appealing. If however, it was a high-paid exec who had a similar 10-cent fraud conviction - you bet they would appeal.
(Full disclosure: I work for the bank mentioned in this story. I don't work with customer data, but I am in the information security and access control group and have had to pass similar checks.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But your argument is on the works created in the last 50 years.
How much of that is in the public domain?