How does it infringe on distribution rights? Distribution rights don't give you the right to distribute the content over other people's networks, if the owners of such networks don't want you to.
Sure, I can agree that the banner words were incorrect, and they were wrong for using such language in an automated scanner.
I don't mind that the *IAA's protect their member's rights, but they claim damages on others, yet are held unaccountable for their errors, which I find morally reprehensible.
Sure, you won't find me defending the RIAA or MPAA actions. I was talking about Ustream here.
That's not how it works. Not for an individual, and not for a complex organization like a company or government. Regulations are not reducible to more/less powerful.
There are separation of powers, multiple levels of checks and balances, etc, that do counteract such forces.
For example, not that long ago a project by our government for installing a bunch of CCTVs was struck down by a different government commission that's responsible for protecting personal data.
My whole point is about the morality, not the legality. I think your analogy is completely flawed.
The only thing Ustream did was to decide they didn't want to do a favor that potentially exposed them to being sued. I think they have every moral right to do so, and Worldcon has no one to blame except themselves.
Would I prefer if Ustream continued to stream? Absolutely. But I don't think they were in any way morally required to do so, and in fact I find that line of reasoning extremely dangerous.
So, by your assertion that there are no laws at all except those made by humans, you assert the foundation of the USA is incoherent, wishful philosophy.
How are Ustream bullies? They're merely following a CYA approach in case the real bullies (the copyright holders) come knocking. And considering that the convention were usign a Free account, why shouldn't they?
Slashdot Mirror
If a person suffers from late stage Alzheimer's, is it OK to beat them up?
What's the difference between a law that protects animals from cruel and unusual treatments, and a right of not being subjected to such treatments?
Define pain.
So they should have rights because they're similar to us, yet you accuse others of anthropocentric arrogance?
That's an interesting view, but not share by society, otherwise small children wouldn't have any rights.
The problem is defining 'consciousness' and 'pain'. There's already a robot that can sense damage to its body. Is that pain? If not, why not?
How does it infringe on distribution rights? Distribution rights don't give you the right to distribute the content over other people's networks, if the owners of such networks don't want you to.
Sure, I can agree that the banner words were incorrect, and they were wrong for using such language in an automated scanner.
I don't mind that the *IAA's protect their member's rights, but they claim damages on others, yet are held unaccountable for their errors, which I find morally reprehensible.
Sure, you won't find me defending the RIAA or MPAA actions. I was talking about Ustream here.
Have you actually seen the USD/EUR rates? It's at the same levels as before the crisis/loans.
I'm not a compiler. I can perfectly understand what the AC meant, even if he was technically correct.
That's not how it works. Not for an individual, and not for a complex organization like a company or government. Regulations are not reducible to more/less powerful.
There are separation of powers, multiple levels of checks and balances, etc, that do counteract such forces.
For example, not that long ago a project by our government for installing a bunch of CCTVs was struck down by a different government commission that's responsible for protecting personal data.
And you're a nice example.
It's because the average IQ is about 100.
It's not "about" 100. It is 100, because that's how they are designed.
When modern IQ tests are devised, the mean (average) score within an age group is set to 100
My whole point is about the morality, not the legality. I think your analogy is completely flawed.
The only thing Ustream did was to decide they didn't want to do a favor that potentially exposed them to being sued. I think they have every moral right to do so, and Worldcon has no one to blame except themselves.
Would I prefer if Ustream continued to stream? Absolutely. But I don't think they were in any way morally required to do so, and in fact I find that line of reasoning extremely dangerous.
Except nobody is giving anyone "wedgies". They're simply stop doing a favor to the Worldcon, and they have every right to do so.
If Worldcon doesn't like to rely on favors, maybe they should've paid and become a customer.
Parent said "have it", not exist.
A right is a concept. An idea. In that sense they still exist. Whether that's helpful or not is a different issue.
So, by your assertion that there are no laws at all except those made by humans, you assert the foundation of the USA is incoherent, wishful philosophy.
The phrase is, "Nonsense upon stilts".
The "morons" are only using Vobile for free accounts. Guess what, if you rely on a stream, maybe you should actually pay for it?
"users of our paid, ad-free Pro Broadcasting service are automatically white listed to avoid situations like this"
What contract? UStream says they weren't even using a Pro account.
They're interested in being fair to their customers. They have no interest in exposing themselves in any way to Free users, like this stream was.
How are Ustream bullies? They're merely following a CYA approach in case the real bullies (the copyright holders) come knocking. And considering that the convention were usign a Free account, why shouldn't they?
Nobody as a right under the law to use Ustream's network. Barring contracts, they can cut them off for any reason they want.
Why 2013? From what I can tell, the term in the UK at the time was life + 50 (from the Copyright Act 1911), so that should be 2018, no?
True, but the patent abuse is more than enough to justify not buying anything from Apple. Or Microsoft, for that matter.
The plan is to pay the developers of applications. See http://daltoncaldwell.com/3rd-party-rev-share
(Btw, I don't care for it, I've just been bombarded with news about it on HN).
Sigh. They're not patenting the recognition, they're patenting a specific method of doing so. You need the read the claims.
They've already given it to Facebook, Inc, what makes you think they care about WA?