You are far from safe. There are a lot of things that may be in the sociopath's interest that are not in yours. For example, you getting the blame for the destruction he caused. You giving up a family holiday so he doesn't have to. You working 80 hour weeks so he looks good to his manager (until you burn out, then you're useless to him so he'll purge you to make room for fresh meat).
You could just code it up in Javascript. It might even take less time than analyzing the options and learning what's changed in them since you started the analysis.
You say a "modicum" of work. Would that be enough to support themselves? Could they keep it up long term? I ask because with the current screwed up structure of disability, any work they do endangers their continued payments. If they do a week's work, the bureaucrats might decide they're good to go when in reality they have to rest up for the rest of the month to recover. Other people have good days where they can do things and bad days where getting out of bed hurts too much.
Under UBI, they could possibly work on their good days to improve their lives and not have to worry about not being able to work on the bad days. Given long enough without the sword of Damocles over their heads, they might start having more good days.
If you did it once, and when informed of the problem they promptly removed it, perhaps not. I don't think it's a clear-cut issue, but there are obvious costs to having every piece of hosted third party content potentially incur liability, and it may be that the net benefits to society of making it easier to run a hosting service do outweigh the costs.
And thus, safe harbor.
If there was a pattern of you doing it, and they were aware of that pattern, and they didn't then do something reasonable about it, I think that's a different question and potentially the cost/benefit ratio of allowing that practice is also different.
Youtube will terminate your account if you keep doing it. Seems reasonable.
If they actively built a business out of that kind of infringement, such infringement continues to be widespread and conducted by large numbers of their users, it is reasonable to assume they are well aware of this, and they continue to make lots of money from it? That's a different question again.
Youtube never suggested it, carries a great deal more content than that. (keep in mind, a significant amount of the music posted is actually done by promoters authorized by the copyright owner to do so).
It seems to me that if your own label is taking down your attempts to monetize on youtube, they'd be sure to shoot his down using the DMCA process or youtube's streamlined notification method explicitly created for labels. That's part of their job, after all.
I am not in the music business but I have seen some of the goings on and I agree it is truly byzantine and generally only works well for the big names (and not even then often enough). Safe harbor strikes me as a spit in the ocean compared to all of that plus the very special accounting. But the most likely result of removing safe harbor would be an end to any sort of user posted content on the web. Would you be willing to bet your legal future that none of your users (even if just people commenting on your blog) would ever post a copyrighted work of any kind? Possibly even just to cause trouble? I'll bet most sane people wouldn't. Would you be willing to bet on the world's copyright lawyer's forgiving nature? Anyone reading/. knows better than that.
Would it be fair for/. to be on the hook if I cut paste a copyrighted work here?
Definitely contact your label about the guy from Cypress. They can probably get him pulled down or re-direct the ad revenue to themselves.
As for the label taking all the money and me getting none, that is alreayd happening now. I fail to see how that would get any worse.
It won't. It can't. But it won't get any better either. Safe harbor didn't make that happen.
Things are considerably more complicated in that in my case. Oversimplifications like this are kind of insulting, and not especially helpful IMHO.
I'm not intending to insult you, but the facts as you presented them show that some how, some way, the label got legal first dibs. That is not youtube's fault and it's not because of safe harbor.
The guy from Cypress shouldn't be making money off of the work, but apparently he isn't why you're not making any money from it.
There's a big question mark there. If safe harbor were removed, perhaps Youtube would just kill all videos with music (and you still get nothing). Or they might find a way to monetize the tracks and send the money to the label (and you get nothing). I'm not seeing the scenario where you get anything there, safe harbor or not.
The central problem is that you agreed that the label gets the money until their accountant decides they've made enough.
That's part of the flip side. People have realized that the "trustworthy" major news sources quit doing their job years ago. They used to take pride in angry politicians calling security on their reporters. Now they're very careful not to offend anyone.
Without a baseline, it is hard to filter the crap from the truth. Related to that, when the truth is batshit insane, lies are easy to believe.
Look at the 60 minutes segments very carefully. Note that in some cases they present video with the reporter voice over repeating what was said rather than simply playing an audio recording. That's because they didn't record audio for legal reasons.
You're speaking of a PE. Indeed, software engineers are not PEs (unless they pursued a dual career, of course) nor are they required to be. Many engineers are not PEs. You may not claim to be a PE without going through the whole process.
If it isn't nailed down and won't cost anything to replace, you better believe they'll sell it. They may be careful about who they sell to and require a serious NDA, but they will sell it.
Not at all necessary or useful. There are a number of ways to streamline regulations without compromising quality (hint, it involves removing corruption, ossified bureaucracy, and sweetheart IP restrictions). The U.K. spends 1/4 what the U.S. does per capita and gets better outcomes than we do. It has been done, therefore it can be done.
One means would be single payer. There's a lot of bargaining power to be had when you represent 300 million people.
There are a great many measures we could take on the supply side to make healthcare costs reasonable enough that people could afford it without insurance (that used to be common). The U.S. can't be bothered to take any of those steps.
The rest is just analogies/parodies of the more common denier arguments. There's no honest way to sugar coat it, the deniers are the 21st century version of flat earthers.
That's when we switch to either denying entry to the market if they don't pay taxes or just set up import tarriffs. One way or another, they will pay because the market is just too big to write off.
Which will never work, UBI will never work. Why because people will never be satisfied with what they have. They will always want more. The planets resources remain limited. If its no longer a question of how hard they have to work for X; the answer to "why should I not have finer clothes, travel further faster, be warmer or be cooler, eat something nicer, etc will be that I should!"
That sounds a lot like why our current system isn't working!
I;m not so sure it accelerated anything. The rollouts of automation so far are happening without regard to the minimum wage in the area. I would say other factors shifted the economic equation such that it makes sense even at the old wage.
That does suggest that increasing the minimum wage is a stopgap measure, but we need that right now while we implement a longer term solution.
Sorry, no. Texas tried tort reform and the problem got worse than ever as a result. The other key word in your post is wealthy. U.S. healthcare works for the wealthy and leaves the majority of the country with none but for a few charity teaching hospitals.
Americans are going to Mexico for their dentistry and Singapore for major surgery.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I always heard "Plays for Sure" in Val: "Plays? Fer Sure!".
You are far from safe. There are a lot of things that may be in the sociopath's interest that are not in yours. For example, you getting the blame for the destruction he caused. You giving up a family holiday so he doesn't have to. You working 80 hour weeks so he looks good to his manager (until you burn out, then you're useless to him so he'll purge you to make room for fresh meat).
Yes really. Most likely because shutting down nuclear is also correlated with firing up fossil fuel plants.
Banks USED to get their money for lending through savings accounts. Now they just wish it into existence and lend it out.
You could just code it up in Javascript. It might even take less time than analyzing the options and learning what's changed in them since you started the analysis.
First, what's your specialty doctor?
You say a "modicum" of work. Would that be enough to support themselves? Could they keep it up long term? I ask because with the current screwed up structure of disability, any work they do endangers their continued payments. If they do a week's work, the bureaucrats might decide they're good to go when in reality they have to rest up for the rest of the month to recover. Other people have good days where they can do things and bad days where getting out of bed hurts too much.
Under UBI, they could possibly work on their good days to improve their lives and not have to worry about not being able to work on the bad days. Given long enough without the sword of Damocles over their heads, they might start having more good days.
If you did it once, and when informed of the problem they promptly removed it, perhaps not. I don't think it's a clear-cut issue, but there are obvious costs to having every piece of hosted third party content potentially incur liability, and it may be that the net benefits to society of making it easier to run a hosting service do outweigh the costs.
And thus, safe harbor.
If there was a pattern of you doing it, and they were aware of that pattern, and they didn't then do something reasonable about it, I think that's a different question and potentially the cost/benefit ratio of allowing that practice is also different.
Youtube will terminate your account if you keep doing it. Seems reasonable.
If they actively built a business out of that kind of infringement, such infringement continues to be widespread and conducted by large numbers of their users, it is reasonable to assume they are well aware of this, and they continue to make lots of money from it? That's a different question again.
Youtube never suggested it, carries a great deal more content than that. (keep in mind, a significant amount of the music posted is actually done by promoters authorized by the copyright owner to do so).
It seems to me that if your own label is taking down your attempts to monetize on youtube, they'd be sure to shoot his down using the DMCA process or youtube's streamlined notification method explicitly created for labels. That's part of their job, after all.
I am not in the music business but I have seen some of the goings on and I agree it is truly byzantine and generally only works well for the big names (and not even then often enough). Safe harbor strikes me as a spit in the ocean compared to all of that plus the very special accounting. But the most likely result of removing safe harbor would be an end to any sort of user posted content on the web. Would you be willing to bet your legal future that none of your users (even if just people commenting on your blog) would ever post a copyrighted work of any kind? Possibly even just to cause trouble? I'll bet most sane people wouldn't. Would you be willing to bet on the world's copyright lawyer's forgiving nature? Anyone reading /. knows better than that.
Would it be fair for /. to be on the hook if I cut paste a copyrighted work here?
Definitely contact your label about the guy from Cypress. They can probably get him pulled down or re-direct the ad revenue to themselves.
As for the label taking all the money and me getting none, that is alreayd happening now. I fail to see how that would get any worse.
It won't. It can't. But it won't get any better either. Safe harbor didn't make that happen.
Things are considerably more complicated in that in my case. Oversimplifications like this are kind of insulting, and not especially helpful IMHO.
I'm not intending to insult you, but the facts as you presented them show that some how, some way, the label got legal first dibs. That is not youtube's fault and it's not because of safe harbor.
The guy from Cypress shouldn't be making money off of the work, but apparently he isn't why you're not making any money from it.
There's a big question mark there. If safe harbor were removed, perhaps Youtube would just kill all videos with music (and you still get nothing). Or they might find a way to monetize the tracks and send the money to the label (and you get nothing). I'm not seeing the scenario where you get anything there, safe harbor or not.
The central problem is that you agreed that the label gets the money until their accountant decides they've made enough.
Fake news is half of the equation. The flipside is failure to report real news. That's where the major news outlets fail.
That's part of the flip side. People have realized that the "trustworthy" major news sources quit doing their job years ago. They used to take pride in angry politicians calling security on their reporters. Now they're very careful not to offend anyone.
Without a baseline, it is hard to filter the crap from the truth. Related to that, when the truth is batshit insane, lies are easy to believe.
Look at the 60 minutes segments very carefully. Note that in some cases they present video with the reporter voice over repeating what was said rather than simply playing an audio recording. That's because they didn't record audio for legal reasons.
You're speaking of a PE. Indeed, software engineers are not PEs (unless they pursued a dual career, of course) nor are they required to be. Many engineers are not PEs. You may not claim to be a PE without going through the whole process.
Yes, the privacy of police officers while on the job being paid by the public is less than the privacy of two people not employed by the public.
Your privacy is also greater, as is an off-duty police officer's.
If it isn't nailed down and won't cost anything to replace, you better believe they'll sell it. They may be careful about who they sell to and require a serious NDA, but they will sell it.
Not at all necessary or useful. There are a number of ways to streamline regulations without compromising quality (hint, it involves removing corruption, ossified bureaucracy, and sweetheart IP restrictions). The U.K. spends 1/4 what the U.S. does per capita and gets better outcomes than we do. It has been done, therefore it can be done.
One means would be single payer. There's a lot of bargaining power to be had when you represent 300 million people.
There are a great many measures we could take on the supply side to make healthcare costs reasonable enough that people could afford it without insurance (that used to be common). The U.S. can't be bothered to take any of those steps.
Is that anything like when some strait people believed all gay men were out to "convert" them?
Given the comment about "stabbing instructions"...
Actually, yes, it is true.
The rest is just analogies/parodies of the more common denier arguments. There's no honest way to sugar coat it, the deniers are the 21st century version of flat earthers.
That's when we switch to either denying entry to the market if they don't pay taxes or just set up import tarriffs. One way or another, they will pay because the market is just too big to write off.
Which will never work, UBI will never work. Why because people will never be satisfied with what they have. They will always want more. The planets resources remain limited. If its no longer a question of how hard they have to work for X; the answer to "why should I not have finer clothes, travel further faster, be warmer or be cooler, eat something nicer, etc will be that I should!"
That sounds a lot like why our current system isn't working!
I;m not so sure it accelerated anything. The rollouts of automation so far are happening without regard to the minimum wage in the area. I would say other factors shifted the economic equation such that it makes sense even at the old wage.
That does suggest that increasing the minimum wage is a stopgap measure, but we need that right now while we implement a longer term solution.
Sorry, no. Texas tried tort reform and the problem got worse than ever as a result. The other key word in your post is wealthy. U.S. healthcare works for the wealthy and leaves the majority of the country with none but for a few charity teaching hospitals.
Americans are going to Mexico for their dentistry and Singapore for major surgery.