It appears that the 99 cents is the one-time fee charged to create an account that in turn allows you to comment on the Chronicle related web sites, and not 99 cents per comment. Not so bad, provided you don't want to post a rant that can be linked back to your name and address.
This isn't strictly a case of copyfraud because in this case they do have copyright. However, it seems that if this is tolerated, the next logical step is to not bother with uploading a file, and to simply send letters to people who have any files shared. If anyone makes a fuss, the case won't be prosecuted. If the letter is sufficiently intimidating, it will probably get enough people to pay up to make the scheme profitable.
Why stop there? Why not create a series of web pages that contain specific keywords for a number of major software products along with keywords like crack, serial, keygen, reg code, etc. If you do it right, and those pages eventually get established in the various search engine listings, you could then send threat letters demanding a quick settlement to the various IP addressees that hit those same pages when refereed from various search engines with searches such as "adobe photoshop keygen".
...Bonus points for threatening to sue on behalf of a "client" in Marshall Texas.
As LEGO found out the hard way, you can't trademark shapes. Here's one quick link, but I'm sure you can use Google to find better examples (please post)...
Yeah, some real facts, thank you MattP. That link would have been much more useful than the one originally provided.
So, looking at the link provided by MattP, the whole problem seem to be that the group wanted to screen Disney movies at a place called Ursa's Nitelife (http://ursas.wustl.edu/) without getting spending the money for an Umbrella License. In fact, it appears that Disney wasn't even involved at all in the matter - it was the Washington University administration that put a stop to it. Further, the group seems to have just given up rather than been "shut down". Granted, what good is a movie club if you can't screen movies on a big screen.
This story kinda looses it's point once you realize that there's no Big Media corporate element involved.
Now, with the info from the above links in mind, what is missing from the source article (and from Mike's as well) on Student Life are some important facts such as...
* Was admission being charged?
* Where were the movies to be shown (in a dorm or in the school auditorium)?
* What was the size of the intended audience?
* Had an Umbrella License been obtained (I'm also surprised the school didn't already have one)
* Was this "IP infringement" due to the showing of the movies or something else entirely, like duplicating printed material for distribution in the club.
Mike, care do do a bit of research on this article and post the results? I'd be very interested to know if Disney was being heavy-handed against a few kids watching Disney movies in the dorm common room (doubtful) or Disney stopping a movie marathon from being run in the school auditorium.
While it is sad to see yet another great film pulled from the market, I can't say as I am as broken up about this as when I heard Polaroid had stopped making instant film. Yeah, it was expensive stuff to use, but it was fun to bring a camera to a party or some other event and be able to give away the pictures right there.
Personally, I don't think the laptops should be banned, but I do understand the motivation behind this. Really, it all comes down to respect for the person teaching the class - even if they are boring as hell. I don't understand why the profs just don't ask the laptops be closed for the lecture portion of the class and bounce those that don't comply from the class.
...And to those of you that have responded along the lines that it is your "God Given Right" to entertain yourselves in the face of boring presenters/instructors, you might want to consider that this type of behavior can get you fired in corporate America. You may as well learn to deal with it now.
To me, the problem is not really with Cash4Gold (or similar services), but with the people using the service itself. If you have an item that you suspect that has more value than the scrap value of the metal itself you really need to try to find out the true value of that item rather than just taking someone's word for it. Operations like this make money because they make the process of giving you a small amount money of items that you send them VERY easy. On the back end, they probably take your item, fully appraise it and then sell it on for a more realistic price or just sell it for scrap value of the metal. Since you've been given a fraction of the scrap value either method of disposing of your former item is profitable.
Using a service like this makes about as much sense as selling something to a pawn shop - though at least at a pawn shop you can always walk away with the item if you don't like the price. Using an online service (not just Cash4Gold), you don't have that option.
Seriously, if you don't do your research when you buy something and then find out later you got screwed in the deal, why should selling something be different?
Ah yes, but if the gaming industry were to commission a report, I'm sure it could easily be shown that kids spending outside (and NOT playing video games) had higher incidences of bumps, bruises, broken limbs, and even...OMG...death!
Sadly, I suspect Rekrul is correct. Even more so when you consider the annual price hikes by cable companies supposedly in response to pricing increases by the various content industries. One euro is a very fair and attractive price IMHO, but one that will not most likely remain that way.
I'm actually on the fence about this one since I'm old enough to have worked with some of their stuff in trade school. Personally, I would prefer that these old manuals were made available online for free given that Heathkit (for all piratical purposes) is no longer around these days. Still, a company did go to the effort of spending some cash to buy the copyrights to these manuals for the express purpose of selling the reprints. This sucks IMHO, but it is legal given the current state of copyright laws here in the USA, but someone did feel there was a business opportunity here and did expend the effort to buy the manual copyrights. You can't fault a guy (or faceless company) for trying to make a buck, but you don't have to like it. If it were up to me, I'd post all the manuals in a centralized location for free and try to generate cash from advertising or something along those lines.
So, if this passes, just what kind of proof would be required to press civil charges? Sending pay-up-or-else letters with no proof is one thing, but I would imagine that some sort of burden of proof would be required for a civil case. Also, even if the burden of proof were to be set quite low, would the FBI really consider it worthwhile to go after the odd file sharer downloading - correction - "making available" a handful of albums?
I would hope they have better things to do with their time.
The eInk display panel looks at though it only has a few fixed display segments like you would find in special purpose LCD displays used in cheap electronic devices. I had hoped that they would be some sort of dot matrix displays (even one with large pixels), but I guess at the price they are going for, that was an unreasonable expectation.
I'll still probably pick up 1 or 2 to play with anyway.
Even if the terms of some service agreement are favorable towards the consumer, the phrase "...reserve the right to change these terms at any time..." inserted into just about every ELUA allows a company to alter your existing agreement at any time.
My question for this is: download from who? I don't recall seeing that this would allow you to share music, just download it, so where would you get it from? Would the record companies give up and allow people to download whatever content they want for any source, like P2P? I think not. That would be giving up way too much control. Besides, how could you tell what P2P user paid the tax and who did not? How do you think the music distributors and retailers would react to this?
What I think would happen if this were made a requirement is that the "tax" would allow you to use some poorly designed service offering a limited selection of DRMed music - much like the music service forced on some universities today. In this way if you stop paying the tax, you will be given the option of either "buying" the music you downloaded (rented) or having your music collection stop working. Some deal that is. Besides, even if you were allowed to do an "unlimited" amount of music downloads and they never did expire, I'm sure there would be some sort small print in the service TOS as to just how limited "unlimited" really is.
Sorry, but I just don't see this ever working in a way that wouldn't end up screwing the consumer.
I'm not a lawyer, but here's why I think the judge is correct on this, and here is why…
The ability to copyright a C&D stems from the ability to place a copyright on printed text, like books. You can't legally scan the latest book by your favorite author and post it online in either text or picture form. Essentially, some scumbag lawyer figured out that by going through the copyright system and treating C&Ds the same way as small books, you could prevent them from being posted online – at least in complete form. While I think that this type of legal tactic sucks, it is really is a stroke of genius when you think about it objectively, and I'm shocked that it took someone this long to figure this out.
However, two can play this game…
The interesting part is that in treating C&Ds as copyrighted works, there's also a well established process in how *you can* legally publish copyrighted materials. I'm sure the lawyers sending you the C&D will inform you that you can't publish any part of the C&D, but in fact you can – at least here in the USA thanks to something called Fair Use. This is the part of the copyright process that allows for you to incorporate parts of other people's works, like quotations, in things that you create, like blog posts without fear of the original author claiming infringement. So long as you are not republishing the entire copyrighted work, for example, the entire C&D (or a significant portion of it) on your web site, you should be able to post portions of it and still be within your legal rights.
I must admit that while I have a Sony Reader, I don't think they are for everyone. The device has a number of limitations and quirks that would annoy most people, so if you are not inclined to read a book on some sort of electronic device, the Sony Reader is *not* going to change your mind - at least with the current version. 2-3 versions later, who knows, but for now, I think the average person that uses one will be somewhat unimpressed.
As for me, I'm not sorry I bought (though I do wish got it for much less) it since it does the one thing that I need and goes literally weeks without a recharge. This combined with the fact that I can fit about 50 books in RTF form on the internal memory alone is about all I care about.
In the end, it does not matter if auctioning of the book on eBay was legal or not. All the Rowling lawyers were trying to accomplish by getting the auction pulled was to stall for time. Now that the book is finally out, they can sit back and say "my bad", admit that they *might* have been a bit hasty with the takedown notice, and allow the auction to continue. Since there was not enough time after the takedown notice for the guy to go through the appeal process with eBay (before the book was released to the public), the lawyers accomplished what they wanted by preventing a rogue copy of the book from being released early.
This concept is not new...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap
-
It appears that the 99 cents is the one-time fee charged to create an account that in turn allows you to comment on the Chronicle related web sites, and not 99 cents per comment. Not so bad, provided you don't want to post a rant that can be linked back to your name and address.
-
This isn't strictly a case of copyfraud because in this case they do have copyright. However, it seems that if this is tolerated, the next logical step is to not bother with uploading a file, and to simply send letters to people who have any files shared. If anyone makes a fuss, the case won't be prosecuted. If the letter is sufficiently intimidating, it will probably get enough people to pay up to make the scheme profitable.
Why stop there? Why not create a series of web pages that contain specific keywords for a number of major software products along with keywords like crack, serial, keygen, reg code, etc. If you do it right, and those pages eventually get established in the various search engine listings, you could then send threat letters demanding a quick settlement to the various IP addressees that hit those same pages when refereed from various search engines with searches such as "adobe photoshop keygen".
...Bonus points for threatening to sue on behalf of a "client" in Marshall Texas.
-
As LEGO found out the hard way, you can't trademark shapes. Here's one quick link, but I'm sure you can use Google to find better examples (please post)...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/judges-knock-down-legos-trademark-case-1015830.html
Still, making copies of someone's designs for profit is most uncool, even if it might be legal.
Re: Re: facts plz
Yeah, some real facts, thank you MattP. That link would have been much more useful than the one originally provided.
So, looking at the link provided by MattP, the whole problem seem to be that the group wanted to screen Disney movies at a place called Ursa's Nitelife (http://ursas.wustl.edu/) without getting spending the money for an Umbrella License. In fact, it appears that Disney wasn't even involved at all in the matter - it was the Washington University administration that put a stop to it. Further, the group seems to have just given up rather than been "shut down". Granted, what good is a movie club if you can't screen movies on a big screen.
This story kinda looses it's point once you realize that there's no Big Media corporate element involved.
facts plz
From what I can discern about this article, I think this is where the group most likely got into trouble...
http://www.mplc.org/faq.php
http://www.showamovie.ca/acquisition/umbrella_licensing.php
Now, with the info from the above links in mind, what is missing from the source article (and from Mike's as well) on Student Life are some important facts such as...
* Was admission being charged?
* Where were the movies to be shown (in a dorm or in the school auditorium)?
* What was the size of the intended audience?
* Had an Umbrella License been obtained (I'm also surprised the school didn't already have one)
* Was this "IP infringement" due to the showing of the movies or something else entirely, like duplicating printed material for distribution in the club.
Mike, care do do a bit of research on this article and post the results? I'd be very interested to know if Disney was being heavy-handed against a few kids watching Disney movies in the dorm common room (doubtful) or Disney stopping a movie marathon from being run in the school auditorium.
-
While it is sad to see yet another great film pulled from the market, I can't say as I am as broken up about this as when I heard Polaroid had stopped making instant film. Yeah, it was expensive stuff to use, but it was fun to bring a camera to a party or some other event and be able to give away the pictures right there.
-
Personally, I don't think the laptops should be banned, but I do understand the motivation behind this. Really, it all comes down to respect for the person teaching the class - even if they are boring as hell. I don't understand why the profs just don't ask the laptops be closed for the lecture portion of the class and bounce those that don't comply from the class.
...And to those of you that have responded along the lines that it is your "God Given Right" to entertain yourselves in the face of boring presenters/instructors, you might want to consider that this type of behavior can get you fired in corporate America. You may as well learn to deal with it now.
-
To me, the problem is not really with Cash4Gold (or similar services), but with the people using the service itself. If you have an item that you suspect that has more value than the scrap value of the metal itself you really need to try to find out the true value of that item rather than just taking someone's word for it. Operations like this make money because they make the process of giving you a small amount money of items that you send them VERY easy. On the back end, they probably take your item, fully appraise it and then sell it on for a more realistic price or just sell it for scrap value of the metal. Since you've been given a fraction of the scrap value either method of disposing of your former item is profitable.
Using a service like this makes about as much sense as selling something to a pawn shop - though at least at a pawn shop you can always walk away with the item if you don't like the price. Using an online service (not just Cash4Gold), you don't have that option.
Seriously, if you don't do your research when you buy something and then find out later you got screwed in the deal, why should selling something be different?
-
Deft use of an Xacto knife (or similar tool) on the circuit board would solve that problem. My next two questions would be:
1. would the act of disabling the speaker on a camera now be a criminal offense?
2. would possession of one of these "neutered" cameras be illegal?
ah, the moral dilemmas.
damed if you do...
Ah yes, but if the gaming industry were to commission a report, I'm sure it could easily be shown that kids spending outside (and NOT playing video games) had higher incidences of bumps, bruises, broken limbs, and even...OMG...death!
-
Sadly, I suspect Rekrul is correct. Even more so when you consider the annual price hikes by cable companies supposedly in response to pricing increases by the various content industries. One euro is a very fair and attractive price IMHO, but one that will not most likely remain that way.
-
I'm actually on the fence about this one since I'm old enough to have worked with some of their stuff in trade school. Personally, I would prefer that these old manuals were made available online for free given that Heathkit (for all piratical purposes) is no longer around these days. Still, a company did go to the effort of spending some cash to buy the copyrights to these manuals for the express purpose of selling the reprints. This sucks IMHO, but it is legal given the current state of copyright laws here in the USA, but someone did feel there was a business opportunity here and did expend the effort to buy the manual copyrights. You can't fault a guy (or faceless company) for trying to make a buck, but you don't have to like it. If it were up to me, I'd post all the manuals in a centralized location for free and try to generate cash from advertising or something along those lines.
If this passes
So, if this passes, just what kind of proof would be required to press civil charges? Sending pay-up-or-else letters with no proof is one thing, but I would imagine that some sort of burden of proof would be required for a civil case. Also, even if the burden of proof were to be set quite low, would the FBI really consider it worthwhile to go after the odd file sharer downloading - correction - "making available" a handful of albums?
I would hope they have better things to do with their time.
Does not seem to be a matrix display :(
The eInk display panel looks at though it only has a few fixed display segments like you would find in special purpose LCD displays used in cheap electronic devices. I had hoped that they would be some sort of dot matrix displays (even one with large pixels), but I guess at the price they are going for, that was an unreasonable expectation.
I'll still probably pick up 1 or 2 to play with anyway.
Re: canada-unlimited plans
Even if the terms of some service agreement are favorable towards the consumer, the phrase "...reserve the right to change these terms at any time..." inserted into just about every ELUA allows a company to alter your existing agreement at any time.
So, where would you get the music from?
My question for this is: download from who? I don't recall seeing that this would allow you to share music, just download it, so where would you get it from? Would the record companies give up and allow people to download whatever content they want for any source, like P2P? I think not. That would be giving up way too much control. Besides, how could you tell what P2P user paid the tax and who did not? How do you think the music distributors and retailers would react to this?
What I think would happen if this were made a requirement is that the "tax" would allow you to use some poorly designed service offering a limited selection of DRMed music - much like the music service forced on some universities today. In this way if you stop paying the tax, you will be given the option of either "buying" the music you downloaded (rented) or having your music collection stop working. Some deal that is. Besides, even if you were allowed to do an "unlimited" amount of music downloads and they never did expire, I'm sure there would be some sort small print in the service TOS as to just how limited "unlimited" really is.
Sorry, but I just don't see this ever working in a way that wouldn't end up screwing the consumer.
I think the judge is correct, but you do have opti
I'm not a lawyer, but here's why I think the judge is correct on this, and here is why…
The ability to copyright a C&D stems from the ability to place a copyright on printed text, like books. You can't legally scan the latest book by your favorite author and post it online in either text or picture form. Essentially, some scumbag lawyer figured out that by going through the copyright system and treating C&Ds the same way as small books, you could prevent them from being posted online – at least in complete form. While I think that this type of legal tactic sucks, it is really is a stroke of genius when you think about it objectively, and I'm shocked that it took someone this long to figure this out.
However, two can play this game…
The interesting part is that in treating C&Ds as copyrighted works, there's also a well established process in how *you can* legally publish copyrighted materials. I'm sure the lawyers sending you the C&D will inform you that you can't publish any part of the C&D, but in fact you can – at least here in the USA thanks to something called Fair Use. This is the part of the copyright process that allows for you to incorporate parts of other people's works, like quotations, in things that you create, like blog posts without fear of the original author claiming infringement. So long as you are not republishing the entire copyrighted work, for example, the entire C&D (or a significant portion of it) on your web site, you should be able to post portions of it and still be within your legal rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Sony eBook Reader
I must admit that while I have a Sony Reader, I don't think they are for everyone. The device has a number of limitations and quirks that would annoy most people, so if you are not inclined to read a book on some sort of electronic device, the Sony Reader is *not* going to change your mind - at least with the current version. 2-3 versions later, who knows, but for now, I think the average person that uses one will be somewhat unimpressed.
As for me, I'm not sorry I bought (though I do wish got it for much less) it since it does the one thing that I need and goes literally weeks without a recharge. This combined with the fact that I can fit about 50 books in RTF form on the internal memory alone is about all I care about.
This was just a stalling tactic
In the end, it does not matter if auctioning of the book on eBay was legal or not. All the Rowling lawyers were trying to accomplish by getting the auction pulled was to stall for time. Now that the book is finally out, they can sit back and say "my bad", admit that they *might* have been a bit hasty with the takedown notice, and allow the auction to continue. Since there was not enough time after the takedown notice for the guy to go through the appeal process with eBay (before the book was released to the public), the lawyers accomplished what they wanted by preventing a rogue copy of the book from being released early.