I can bet with absolute certainty that you're being defrauded not just through bad unfair contracts with the people you're working with, but also through them blatantly lying about WHY AND HOW things are.
The fact that you're begging for only centralized platforms is just another proof that you're not qualified to say what's best for us. The existence of multiple platforms is better for everybody who don't like the rules of the big central platforms, made by the big corporations. It's a good thing that a "long tail" is allowed to exist on the market, because it enables new competition and innovation. And obviously you're here asking for your legal competition to be suppressed!
In addition, you're FALSELY assuming a download is a lost sale.
And for punishing law abiding citizens, your system would do this by putting all of the burden on the site operators that the filters are perfect and that nobody can fool them. That practically means a total ban on encryption (because you're liable even if a user uploaded an encrypted copy of a protected work).
And given that the filters can only look for technical similarity, and does not understand when a similar work created in parallel is NOT infringing, it would also punish legal creators.
There's no possible way to prevent all piracy. You shouldn't even want to!
There's many reasons.
1: You can't even define what a protected work is. All we have is a loose definition of creative height, with courts going by "we know it when we see it". Different jurisdictions have different rules. USA just recently did something as stupid as saying software API:s are copyrighted (final decision pending).
2: Even if you had a clear definition, ownership is murky, and even the best case scenario of following the letter of the law would lead to absolute total gridlock where every estate of authors from the early 1900's would ban literally ALL modern works from sale due to inability to license literally everything derived from another work.
3: There's zero evidence that strict enforcement is beneficial whatsoever, and therefore it's nonsensical to wish for strict enforcement. It even goes further than the equivalent rights a seller has for their sales of physical goods, which is ridiculous.
4: All business models relying on strict enforcement are trash, suboptimal, and relies on punishing people for actions that cause no harm. No other trade gets to sit on their ass and do nothing after first having made their work, getting paid forever. Everybody else gets paid once for one unit of work.
5: Even assuming you resolve the legal issues, the only way to achieve perfect enforcement is if copyright owners HONESTLY and fully cooperates by contributing ALL of their works in full to creation of filters (similar to the youtube contentID system). This would need to be paired with a global perfect digital licensing system.
This will practically speaking ban all legal use too under fair use, because filters do not understand context.
Meanwhile in the real world companies like Sony steals real sizable amounts of money by striking material they do not own and claiming profits from the works of others, while simultaneously suppressing legal competitors.
Unless the judges are rational and looks up a legal way to deny appeal (likely possible on technical grounds, i.e. faults in the details of the lawsuit). Basically declaring the lawsuit entirely invalid.
Actually, he's planning to use SD cards, mainly (only using features from the compatible and patent free MMC format, so no SD feature extension patents are needed).
When you make a reference to one story, there's no rule that says you can't make references to others as well.
When they are pushing for DRM it's not *actually* about piracy in most cases, they simply just want control. Instead of you being able to transfer music from an LP to the computer, burn it to CD:s, copy it to your music player and phone, etc, they want you to buy an LP, a CD, a downloaded file on the computer, higher price for a copy on the music player, pay another time for a copy on the phone, etc...
All for the same song.
They want to cash in on you as much as possible with as little effort as possible.
So how many of those are specific to the internet? How many are general? Sure there's no way to build a patent free device that can access the internet according to standards?
Also, most of those patents are directly related to hardware, in which case the patent license almost always only stands for a fraction of the cost. Not so very similiar with protocols and software.
No, that would be like if that kid consistently demand money from anybody trying to climb anything and had the teachers punish those who won't pay up. People would stop climbing.
If you seriously think that boh HDDVD and Blueray existed at once because of patents, then I think you're a bit stupid. Alternatives would be explored anyway!
A patent on linked digital data would not have been like stopping a train in the station. It would have been like blowing up every train and every station in the world with nukes.
It still keeps them from being able to get funding easily during that time, males it more risky, you can stil get sued if somebody thinks your design is close enough, etc...
Isn't the need for a better enginge a motivation that's good enough already?
You DO know that the current system is the NON-NATURAL system, right? So if it proves to be wrong, isn't that then a double monumental failure since we stopped doing what's natural with the intention to do better but did worse?
I am certain patents are causing more harm then good.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
You have no evidence that anything you're saying is true.
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Prove it.
The existence of piracy is not evidence that you're losing money.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service- Problem
I can bet with absolute certainty that you're being defrauded not just through bad unfair contracts with the people you're working with, but also through them blatantly lying about WHY AND HOW things are.
The fact that you're begging for only centralized platforms is just another proof that you're not qualified to say what's best for us. The existence of multiple platforms is better for everybody who don't like the rules of the big central platforms, made by the big corporations. It's a good thing that a "long tail" is allowed to exist on the market, because it enables new competition and innovation. And obviously you're here asking for your legal competition to be suppressed!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190206/10103841542/italy-tells-rest-eu-to-drop-articles-11-13-c opyright-directive.shtml#c364
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190206/10103841542/italy-tells-rest-eu-to-drop-articles-11-13-co pyright-directive.shtml#c364
Tldr you're deranged
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition, you're FALSELY assuming a download is a lost sale.
And for punishing law abiding citizens, your system would do this by putting all of the burden on the site operators that the filters are perfect and that nobody can fool them. That practically means a total ban on encryption (because you're liable even if a user uploaded an encrypted copy of a protected work).
And given that the filters can only look for technical similarity, and does not understand when a similar work created in parallel is NOT infringing, it would also punish legal creators.
http://www.gorodissky.com/publications/newsletters/parallel-independent-creation-is-it-pos sible/
Re: Re: Re:
Imagine being this lost...
There's no possible way to prevent all piracy. You shouldn't even want to!
There's many reasons.
1: You can't even define what a protected work is. All we have is a loose definition of creative height, with courts going by "we know it when we see it". Different jurisdictions have different rules. USA just recently did something as stupid as saying software API:s are copyrighted (final decision pending).
2: Even if you had a clear definition, ownership is murky, and even the best case scenario of following the letter of the law would lead to absolute total gridlock where every estate of authors from the early 1900's would ban literally ALL modern works from sale due to inability to license literally everything derived from another work.
The reason for this is that everything is a remix. https://www.everythingisaremix.info/
3: There's zero evidence that strict enforcement is beneficial whatsoever, and therefore it's nonsensical to wish for strict enforcement. It even goes further than the equivalent rights a seller has for their sales of physical goods, which is ridiculous.
4: All business models relying on strict enforcement are trash, suboptimal, and relies on punishing people for actions that cause no harm. No other trade gets to sit on their ass and do nothing after first having made their work, getting paid forever. Everybody else gets paid once for one unit of work.
5: Even assuming you resolve the legal issues, the only way to achieve perfect enforcement is if copyright owners HONESTLY and fully cooperates by contributing ALL of their works in full to creation of filters (similar to the youtube contentID system). This would need to be paired with a global perfect digital licensing system.
This will practically speaking ban all legal use too under fair use, because filters do not understand context.
Meanwhile in the real world companies like Sony steals real sizable amounts of money by striking material they do not own and claiming profits from the works of others, while simultaneously suppressing legal competitors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/8nta5l/sony_and_universal_filed_a_copyright_cla im/
Tldr you are deranged
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Unless the judges are rational and looks up a legal way to deny appeal (likely possible on technical grounds, i.e. faults in the details of the lawsuit). Basically declaring the lawsuit entirely invalid.
Re: (as Natanael)
Easy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_tree
No swearwords stored in plaintext.
Re:
Actually, he's planning to use SD cards, mainly (only using features from the compatible and patent free MMC format, so no SD feature extension patents are needed).
Re:
Context + history?
When you make a reference to one story, there's no rule that says you can't make references to others as well.
When they are pushing for DRM it's not *actually* about piracy in most cases, they simply just want control. Instead of you being able to transfer music from an LP to the computer, burn it to CD:s, copy it to your music player and phone, etc, they want you to buy an LP, a CD, a downloaded file on the computer, higher price for a copy on the music player, pay another time for a copy on the phone, etc...
All for the same song.
They want to cash in on you as much as possible with as little effort as possible.
Me disapproves.
Re: Re:
"The Real Area 51"
Or "The Digital Bermuda Triangle"
Re: Seen this repeatedly...
One I've seen on the internet: prettyflyforawifi
Re: Re:
Still matters. You don't need to connect to the internet to scan WiFi names.
Re: Re: New ideas for SSID?
You should change that to UNREGISTERED_SEX_OFFENDER
Re: Hilarious
So how many of those are specific to the internet? How many are general? Sure there's no way to build a patent free device that can access the internet according to standards?
Also, most of those patents are directly related to hardware, in which case the patent license almost always only stands for a fraction of the cost. Not so very similiar with protocols and software.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You must be joking...
No, that would be like if that kid consistently demand money from anybody trying to climb anything and had the teachers punish those who won't pay up. People would stop climbing.
If you seriously think that boh HDDVD and Blueray existed at once because of patents, then I think you're a bit stupid. Alternatives would be explored anyway!
Re: Re: Re: Re: You must be joking...
A patent on linked digital data would not have been like stopping a train in the station. It would have been like blowing up every train and every station in the world with nukes.
Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying that patents are a waste of money because they have no real effect on anything?
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 11th, 2011 @ 12:11pm
HTTP is not HTML.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
It still keeps them from being able to get funding easily during that time, males it more risky, you can stil get sued if somebody thinks your design is close enough, etc...
Isn't the need for a better enginge a motivation that's good enough already?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
You DO know that the current system is the NON-NATURAL system, right? So if it proves to be wrong, isn't that then a double monumental failure since we stopped doing what's natural with the intention to do better but did worse?
I am certain patents are causing more harm then good.