What Amazon is doing is telling people to go into the local store (which has to pay the overheads of running a shop), browse through it to find the book they want, then buy that book from Amazon so that Amazon essentially uses them as their shop fronts but then cheats them out of their profit.
Local bookstores should cover up all the barcodes.
It may have been about them, but then again it doesn't have to be. Assange said that it would be about "a major American bank". Visa, Mastercard and Paypal are all on the same boat with every major American banks. If one of them falls overboard - especially a big fat one - the whole boat could tip over, or at least knock one or two others off the boat as well.
I fully agree with what they're doing (or at least the principle of it - I haven't examined the details).
With more and more employers, marketers and other people scouring the web to extract personal information about you, this right is an important one. If I decide that I no longer want (say) a facebook page, or myspace, or whatever, I should have every right to delete my account. Same with my Google account, my flickr page and so on.
Maybe my social network site has had a number of security breaches in recent times, or maybe I just don't want my employer to see the photos of my wild party days. Several such sites make it extremely difficult to remove your own page, since they know that the presence of the page might encourage some to "reactivate" their page some time in the future.
The Astronomical Society wishes to inform the public that any photograph featuring any star, planet or cosmic object are hereby the property of the Astronomical Society.
In addition, the unauthorised use of light from any star is strictly forbidden.
Its contract is with them after all, not with the manufacturers of alternative napkins that fit their dispensers. Doesn't matter whether the consumer is confused or not, if the company got its free dispensers with certain conditions, they are bound to those conditions.
As a consumer, my only concern is if the dispenser displays the brand name. Although admittedly, the brand of napkins might be irrelevant to most people, the same rule should apply to all products. If the brand of napkins is not important, what about the brand of hand soap? What about the brand on a condom dispensing machine? If I saw a "Durex" dispenser, I'd be annoyed to find an unbranded "made in Zakizikistan" condom instead.
Personally, I have no problem with any nudity, but if I worked at Google, I wouldn't want the responsibility of deciding what is artistic and what is pornographic, especially in view of instances like Italy's sentencing of Google execs for the contents of a video placed on Google Video.
In order for Google to accept what is artistic, they have to become judges of what is artistic and what isn't. By comparison, it is easier to judge what is of scientific value or what has come out of a major studio.
Iceland is considering a lawsuit for copyright infringement on anyone making unauthorised ice cubes, and Greece is demanding royalties for the use of democracy.
The chair analogy is misleading because it's rather unusual to copyright a chair. Compare it with, say, a piece of music. Imagine that some singer took a song out of the latest album by Madonna, added some sound effects and his/her own voice, and issued it as a remix without getting the author's (or owner's) permission. Or, taking a play like Chicago, changing the costumes and a few dances and taking it on a tour of US cities. They'd be sued to smithereens.
It's not necessarily a matter of direct income. The author has every right to insist that all copies be sold unaltered. The copyright owner has the right to determine who may perform the work, how much to charge for it, etc. Owners of stage plays often deny companies the right to perform a production just to keep people going to the main venues on West End or Broadway. Music owners will generally deny remixes and derivations as long as the original is anywhere within sight of the charts. Some of them may have struck exclusivity deals with some distributor - deals which may be jeopardised if the owner doesn't act to protect their works.
If the biblicals want sanitised versions of popular movies, they should form a lobby group to convince the owners of such films to produce a version specially for them. If they form a sufficiently large group and stick to their guns they will get what they want.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by RCasha.
Why don't restaurants allow you to bring your own food and eat at their tables?
What Amazon is doing is telling people to go into the local store (which has to pay the overheads of running a shop), browse through it to find the book they want, then buy that book from Amazon so that Amazon essentially uses them as their shop fronts but then cheats them out of their profit.
Local bookstores should cover up all the barcodes.
About them? Not necessarily
It may have been about them, but then again it doesn't have to be. Assange said that it would be about "a major American bank". Visa, Mastercard and Paypal are all on the same boat with every major American banks. If one of them falls overboard - especially a big fat one - the whole boat could tip over, or at least knock one or two others off the boat as well.
Good for them!
I fully agree with what they're doing (or at least the principle of it - I haven't examined the details).
With more and more employers, marketers and other people scouring the web to extract personal information about you, this right is an important one. If I decide that I no longer want (say) a facebook page, or myspace, or whatever, I should have every right to delete my account. Same with my Google account, my flickr page and so on.
Maybe my social network site has had a number of security breaches in recent times, or maybe I just don't want my employer to see the photos of my wild party days. Several such sites make it extremely difficult to remove your own page, since they know that the presence of the page might encourage some to "reactivate" their page some time in the future.
Your rights are belong to us
The Astronomical Society wishes to inform the public that any photograph featuring any star, planet or cosmic object are hereby the property of the Astronomical Society.
In addition, the unauthorised use of light from any star is strictly forbidden.
It should sue the company using the dispensers...
Its contract is with them after all, not with the manufacturers of alternative napkins that fit their dispensers. Doesn't matter whether the consumer is confused or not, if the company got its free dispensers with certain conditions, they are bound to those conditions.
As a consumer, my only concern is if the dispenser displays the brand name. Although admittedly, the brand of napkins might be irrelevant to most people, the same rule should apply to all products. If the brand of napkins is not important, what about the brand of hand soap? What about the brand on a condom dispensing machine? If I saw a "Durex" dispenser, I'd be annoyed to find an unbranded "made in Zakizikistan" condom instead.
I wouldn't want to be judge of what is artistic
Personally, I have no problem with any nudity, but if I worked at Google, I wouldn't want the responsibility of deciding what is artistic and what is pornographic, especially in view of instances like Italy's sentencing of Google execs for the contents of a video placed on Google Video.
In order for Google to accept what is artistic, they have to become judges of what is artistic and what isn't. By comparison, it is easier to judge what is of scientific value or what has come out of a major studio.
Meanwhile...
Iceland is considering a lawsuit for copyright infringement on anyone making unauthorised ice cubes, and Greece is demanding royalties for the use of democracy.
Chair analogy misleading
The chair analogy is misleading because it's rather unusual to copyright a chair. Compare it with, say, a piece of music. Imagine that some singer took a song out of the latest album by Madonna, added some sound effects and his/her own voice, and issued it as a remix without getting the author's (or owner's) permission. Or, taking a play like Chicago, changing the costumes and a few dances and taking it on a tour of US cities. They'd be sued to smithereens.
It's not necessarily a matter of direct income. The author has every right to insist that all copies be sold unaltered. The copyright owner has the right to determine who may perform the work, how much to charge for it, etc. Owners of stage plays often deny companies the right to perform a production just to keep people going to the main venues on West End or Broadway. Music owners will generally deny remixes and derivations as long as the original is anywhere within sight of the charts. Some of them may have struck exclusivity deals with some distributor - deals which may be jeopardised if the owner doesn't act to protect their works.
If the biblicals want sanitised versions of popular movies, they should form a lobby group to convince the owners of such films to produce a version specially for them. If they form a sufficiently large group and stick to their guns they will get what they want.