Advertisers didn't like the idea of a do-not-call list to restrict telemarketers from calling/harassing consumers who didn't want to be bothered either, but people are still pretty happy with it. Now advertising companies are collecting (and even selling) a lot of personal data about consumers who don't even know such data exists, and advertisers are upset that the government might give them a way to opt out of their system. How is this any different? Also, I know this isn't how things are done in Washington, but in a democracy shouldn't the government be answering to its concerned citizens instead of just focusing on what makes things easy/profitable/convenient/one-sided for large corporations?
if you limit your intake. The only way to lose weight is to consciously make an effort to eat fewer calories than you burn.
Taking in fewer calories than you burn (aka "starving yourself") is what leads to eating disorders. It's generally the types of food people eat, more than the amount, that makes people obese.
It's ok to laugh as you tear apart people's bodies with a chainsaw, or repeatedly crouch over the bodies of your defeated opponents in a sort of mock-rape style (as seems the custom of children in FPS games today), or just sit there with a sniper rifle as long as you're doing it for the American side. Doing it from the opposing team of a war that is going on in real life, even if it's just a game, is showing just how unpatriotic and anti-American you are, and that CLEARLY makes you a terrorist IRL. After all, only terrorists would want to kill an opponent without playing as a U.S. soldier. --Fox News
A couple of key points that make this case significant, and I think, relevant to EFF's cause:
The videos were linked, not hosted. This would be a very significant precedent in copyright law about the idea that "linking constitutes aiding infringement", and a judge would most likely recognize the fact that these particular videos (a) were uploaded by Discovery, (b) explicitly authorized embeds, per the uploader's settings, and (c) the uploader, acting on behalf of the corporate copyright holder (I still think corporations should not hold copyright with this 70-years-after-death thing), agreed to YouTube's terms of use, quoted on deadliestcatchtv.com, " You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service".
I am not a lawyer, and am not particularly well-versed in trademark law, but I'm pretty sure the marketing department has legal rights to the trademark, since that's basically what trademarks are for. By supporting and collaborating with a website using that domain name, they probably extended that right to the website's owner through implied license, regardless of current company policy, or whether or not the employee is still working there. Consequences for that employee aside, I'm pretty sure there is limited, if any, liability for the site owner.
The lawyers are obviously failing to understand technology, which is pretty much what EFF exists for (take a case when no legal professionals can comprehend the technology being used), in addition to providing pro-bono legal support. They just saw "OMG, that's our video, showing up on his page! He must have uploaded it! Obviously since my address bar reads "deadliestcatchtv.com" there is no way the video could be hosted on... say... youtube.com"
The lawyers are aware of the marketing department having granted permission to use the videos, claiming they had a "change of heart" and now intended to "police any sites" using the material. This means they know he was granted explicit permission to use the videos (if he can even be considered using videos, per point 1), and they plan on immediately making a 180 turn, holding him accountable.
How much are you willing to bet there will be a settlement offer once the lawyers realize how stupid they are?
Well, if they taught something other than "how to use ____" (insert brand-name Microsoft product here) then maybe they'd generate some more interest. In my school-age years, all they taught was how to use Microsoft Office, and use of anything else was prohibited. They're not teaching fundamentals or good practices; they're raising loyal Microsoft customers by hooking them while young. Later in life they will be adding strength to the Microsoft monopoly by insisting they (and their friends/co-workers) only use Microsoft Office because it's "what I learned in school". I have long considered such classes as little more than free advertising on Microsoft's behalf, and still dislike those classes to this date. It also, sadly extends into other classes and you are taught to only know a specific instructor-approved program, to which you get a "trial" version that expires sometime from 30 days later to when you graduate. SPSS (statistics), Visio Microsoft SQL for database fundamentals (free from MSDN-AA), Photoshop/Flash (art class), and the list goes on and on.
Meh, I could do better than that using GIMP. Not a bad use of image editing software in general though, especially if you consider most uses of Photoshop these days.
I'd like to see them try suing over something like that. What exactly would their "losses" be? Was the code copy/pasted, or, what it sounds like to me, written from "Scratch" (no pun intended)?
Part of the reason might be because of the way credit card companies like to wear you down. At 53 Bank, I had about $600 worth of fraudulent international charges on adult websites. They tried several times to pin it on me, and ultimately the process took about 3 months to resolve (leaving me with no credit to buy textbooks with). It took 4 visits in person (each requiring me to sit in their "waiting room") before they actually did change the numbers (despite saying they did), and then they tried to pin the "international transaction fees" on me because they were from a "closed account" where I had no room to dispute them. After all that, the bank's manager had the nerve to blame "government regulation" because they had "90 days to give me a resolution", which their company policy was to not give me any information until that time. I responded by her logic that they would never respond to complaints without the regulation.
In a separate case, somebody found out my account and routing number (I didn't even know that information, since I never ordered checks and only used an ATM card, but they still claimed I must have entered my information into a "fake website" since their databases are "hacker proof"), and it took (no joke) 4 personal visits before they actually changed the numbers, despite that every single time they said the numbers were indeed changed. They demanded, and said they would not discuss anything whatsoever until I agreed, that I sign a waiver that I admit the decision is ultimately up to the bank, who is under no obligation whatsoever to return the stolen funds, and fill out and sign it for each individual charge. I said no, and the manager said they could not and would not help me until I signed it. Being unable to afford legal aid, I ultimately signed them and got my money back that summer (it happened in February).
Needless to say I have switched banks, but if all banks treat their customers like idiots, pretend they know what they're doing to keep customers quiet, and force them to sign contracts to cover up for their games, then it is no wonder victims never dispute charges and no wonder scammers are so successful.
This plus identity theft is a very scary combination. It is probably pretty hard to explain you did not order such a vacation while bound and gagged, and then hard (emotionally) to dispute the charges on your statement of account.
(except in that, if the TSA employees are forced to do less porn surfing, they might get some work done, and their work would probably damage my rights somehow)
Or they'll just look more even thoroughly through people's belongings to get a better "glimpse" at travelers' underwear.
But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies.
Nope. Copyright was intended "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by granting a government-sponsored monopoly to content creators with built-in checks and balances such as limited time and fair use. It's just getting systematically reshaped to allow for unlimited time, market control, and unaccountable censorship. It just looks like it's intended to protect tyrannical trade associations and unaccountable corporations, and effectively accomplishes, because that's who is amending it for congress.
So the government that cannot keep a UFO theorist with a hackbot out of their network wants to fly its airplanes by remote control, using the same technology that continues to mistakenly shoot innocent civilians. I'd feel more comfortable with a pilot on the plane, where he can actually take action if something goes wrong.
I'm not arguing for GIMP's interface, but its capabilities. GIMP is capable of pretty much anything Photoshop can do. I don't have a clue how to use Photoshop, but I can do just about anything the Photoshop fans will brag about using GIMP. If people take the time to learn the interface, as I have, then it's pretty powerful. Most users simply run off and use the brand-name product instead, then they see GIMP looks different from the "professional" product, so GIMP must automatically be unprofessional because there is only one way to design a program. It's UI could use some improvement, but it's not as bad as people are claiming it to be, and as far as I can tell (not knowing Photoshop) about as powerful as Photoshop.
If an open source program looks exactly like what a fortune 500 company provides, like OpenOffice.org, then it's patent infringement. If it looks substantially different, as seen with GIMP/Photoshop then it's unprofessional. Common sense, people!
In all seriousness though, GIMP really is professional for people who take the time to learn a different program, it's more than good enough for most people's needs, and it's well worth the price. Instead, everyone just runs off to buy the $700 brand-name product they just have to have for work.
Slashdot Mirror
How much do you want to bet that the victims were using Facebook's default privacy settings...
Isn't that what AdBlock Plus is for?
Advertisers didn't like the idea of a do-not-call list to restrict telemarketers from calling/harassing consumers who didn't want to be bothered either, but people are still pretty happy with it. Now advertising companies are collecting (and even selling) a lot of personal data about consumers who don't even know such data exists, and advertisers are upset that the government might give them a way to opt out of their system. How is this any different? Also, I know this isn't how things are done in Washington, but in a democracy shouldn't the government be answering to its concerned citizens instead of just focusing on what makes things easy/profitable/convenient/one-sided for large corporations?
if you limit your intake. The only way to lose weight is to consciously make an effort to eat fewer calories than you burn.
Taking in fewer calories than you burn (aka "starving yourself") is what leads to eating disorders. It's generally the types of food people eat, more than the amount, that makes people obese.
What if all (1 or 2) of the providers in your area restricted those services or capped your monthly uploads/downloads?
It's ok to laugh as you tear apart people's bodies with a chainsaw, or repeatedly crouch over the bodies of your defeated opponents in a sort of mock-rape style (as seems the custom of children in FPS games today), or just sit there with a sniper rifle as long as you're doing it for the American side. Doing it from the opposing team of a war that is going on in real life, even if it's just a game, is showing just how unpatriotic and anti-American you are, and that CLEARLY makes you a terrorist IRL. After all, only terrorists would want to kill an opponent without playing as a U.S. soldier. --Fox News
How much are you willing to bet there will be a settlement offer once the lawyers realize how stupid they are?
Well, if they taught something other than "how to use ____" (insert brand-name Microsoft product here) then maybe they'd generate some more interest. In my school-age years, all they taught was how to use Microsoft Office, and use of anything else was prohibited. They're not teaching fundamentals or good practices; they're raising loyal Microsoft customers by hooking them while young. Later in life they will be adding strength to the Microsoft monopoly by insisting they (and their friends/co-workers) only use Microsoft Office because it's "what I learned in school". I have long considered such classes as little more than free advertising on Microsoft's behalf, and still dislike those classes to this date. It also, sadly extends into other classes and you are taught to only know a specific instructor-approved program, to which you get a "trial" version that expires sometime from 30 days later to when you graduate. SPSS (statistics), Visio Microsoft SQL for database fundamentals (free from MSDN-AA), Photoshop/Flash (art class), and the list goes on and on.
Meh, I could do better than that using GIMP. Not a bad use of image editing software in general though, especially if you consider most uses of Photoshop these days.
I'd like to see them try suing over something like that. What exactly would their "losses" be? Was the code copy/pasted, or, what it sounds like to me, written from "Scratch" (no pun intended)?
Part of the reason might be because of the way credit card companies like to wear you down. At 53 Bank, I had about $600 worth of fraudulent international charges on adult websites. They tried several times to pin it on me, and ultimately the process took about 3 months to resolve (leaving me with no credit to buy textbooks with). It took 4 visits in person (each requiring me to sit in their "waiting room") before they actually did change the numbers (despite saying they did), and then they tried to pin the "international transaction fees" on me because they were from a "closed account" where I had no room to dispute them. After all that, the bank's manager had the nerve to blame "government regulation" because they had "90 days to give me a resolution", which their company policy was to not give me any information until that time. I responded by her logic that they would never respond to complaints without the regulation.
In a separate case, somebody found out my account and routing number (I didn't even know that information, since I never ordered checks and only used an ATM card, but they still claimed I must have entered my information into a "fake website" since their databases are "hacker proof"), and it took (no joke) 4 personal visits before they actually changed the numbers, despite that every single time they said the numbers were indeed changed. They demanded, and said they would not discuss anything whatsoever until I agreed, that I sign a waiver that I admit the decision is ultimately up to the bank, who is under no obligation whatsoever to return the stolen funds, and fill out and sign it for each individual charge. I said no, and the manager said they could not and would not help me until I signed it. Being unable to afford legal aid, I ultimately signed them and got my money back that summer (it happened in February).
Needless to say I have switched banks, but if all banks treat their customers like idiots, pretend they know what they're doing to keep customers quiet, and force them to sign contracts to cover up for their games, then it is no wonder victims never dispute charges and no wonder scammers are so successful.
Too bad we can't find payphones anymore...
This plus identity theft is a very scary combination. It is probably pretty hard to explain you did not order such a vacation while bound and gagged, and then hard (emotionally) to dispute the charges on your statement of account.
(except in that, if the TSA employees are forced to do less porn surfing, they might get some work done, and their work would probably damage my rights somehow)
Or they'll just look more even thoroughly through people's belongings to get a better "glimpse" at travelers' underwear.
But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies.
Nope. Copyright was intended "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by granting a government-sponsored monopoly to content creators with built-in checks and balances such as limited time and fair use. It's just getting systematically reshaped to allow for unlimited time, market control, and unaccountable censorship. It just looks like it's intended to protect tyrannical trade associations and unaccountable corporations, and effectively accomplishes, because that's who is amending it for congress.
So the government that cannot keep a UFO theorist with a hackbot out of their network wants to fly its airplanes by remote control, using the same technology that continues to mistakenly shoot innocent civilians. I'd feel more comfortable with a pilot on the plane, where he can actually take action if something goes wrong.
Actually, BP would just buy-to-own the gulf, and they wouldn't pay much of anything.
I'm sure glad I don't run Windows anymore.
I'm not arguing for GIMP's interface, but its capabilities. GIMP is capable of pretty much anything Photoshop can do. I don't have a clue how to use Photoshop, but I can do just about anything the Photoshop fans will brag about using GIMP. If people take the time to learn the interface, as I have, then it's pretty powerful. Most users simply run off and use the brand-name product instead, then they see GIMP looks different from the "professional" product, so GIMP must automatically be unprofessional because there is only one way to design a program. It's UI could use some improvement, but it's not as bad as people are claiming it to be, and as far as I can tell (not knowing Photoshop) about as powerful as Photoshop.
If an open source program looks exactly like what a fortune 500 company provides, like OpenOffice.org, then it's patent infringement. If it looks substantially different, as seen with GIMP/Photoshop then it's unprofessional. Common sense, people!
In all seriousness though, GIMP really is professional for people who take the time to learn a different program, it's more than good enough for most people's needs, and it's well worth the price. Instead, everyone just runs off to buy the $700 brand-name product they just have to have for work.