. . . then the IP in questions isn't IP. If there's only one way to express something, it does not qualify for copyright protection. Originality is one of the necessary qualities for copyright protection.
50% of all credit card fraud is for consumer electronics. Online fraud is the fastest growing form of credit card fraud. Shipping from the US to non-US addresses is more difficult to track, making it more difficult to collect enough information to prosecute. And eastern Europe is wher the largest chunk of online credit card fraud is coming from.
Unfortunately, that means you're hosed.
BTW, it's not the web sites that are your problem, it's the banks that issue the credit cards. They are increasingly willing to refuse transactions on the slightest hint of anything suspicious, using arcane and complicated rules. The merchants can't even find out why a particular transaction was refused, but they don't want to tell that to you, so you get whatever reasonable sounding excuse they can think of.
A smaller percentage of a large number is often more actual people than a large percentage of a small number of people.
In other words, would you rather your ad be seen by 5% of 1,000,000 people, or 75% of 500 people? To use the numbers from the article, The Practice had 8.9% of viewers, and they watched 30% of the ads. That's 2.67% of viewers. The Weakest Link viewers, being 0.9% of viewers, would have to record commercials and watch them three times each to match that.
Find a reference to yourself somewhere in Europe, and demand your right to reply. In your reply, criticize someone else, and encourage them to reply to your criticism, and hope they criticize you. Lather, rinse, repeat.
As far as I can tell, SCO now plans to sue every single end user of AIX. Which should help the adoption of Linux in a big, big way, since all those users now need to replace their AIX installations. This could be the best thing to every happen to Linux, since it makes IBM a Linux only shop.
C&W leaving the US market?
on
C&W Bails Out
·
· Score: 1
Clueless & Witless is giving up? Woo-hoo! Ding dong, the witch is dead!
Well, what's good for the goose...
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm thinking that the MPAA is infringing on my copyrights on their web site. The MPAA itself has gone to considerable expense and trouble to relieve me of any and all responsibility for actually investigating that they have, and their ISP is in deep, deep shit if they don't treat the MPAA just like any other accused war criminal/infringer, if I were to complain. It'd be real interesting to see if their host has honored any takedown orders from the MPAA, before filing such an order against the MPAA itself.
But that'd be fighting abuse with abuse, and I'd never recommend doing that.
This proposal does not extend the term of copyright. It does not reduce the term of copyright. It does not make extending the term of copyright easier. It does not make extending the term of copyright more difficult. It does not make shortening the term of copyright any easier. It does not make shortening the term of copyright any more difficult. In fact, it does not interact in any detectable way with the term of copyright.
So, if you're not actually the mentally retarded troll you're playing on/., feel free to explain why Disney could buy another extension of the term of copyright with this law in place, when they couldn't without it. If you're not actually the mentally retarded troll you're playing on/., that is.
Fucking idiots. If they didn't fuck so much, there wouldn't be so many of them. Yeah, you, trollboy.
EZ-D's goal is to expand the overall home entertainment market by appealing to consumers whose rental consumption has diminished due to the perceived inconvenience of the current rental process.
As DIVX demonstrated, the reason the rental market has "diminished" isn't because of the inconvenience. It's because of the price. All changes to business model are made to increase revenues. Consumers know that. Some increase revenues by decreasing costs. Some do so by screwing consumers out of more money. With the MPAA or RIAA, it's safe to assume that all changes are intended to do the latter, because they simply can't conceive of the former.
And rentals cost too much now, compared to simply buying the DVD.
But the won't learn. Not from this, and not from too-expensive "streaming video that can't be recorded" schemes. They're just too stupid.
Why is it that people with an over-inflated sense of their own importance always assume that the consumer will respond to the market (be annoyed by pop-ups), but the market will not respond to the consumer (stop using pop-ups because everybody tells them their web site sucks)?
No, stupid idea. And there's no need. The war on spam is being win, not lost. Spammers are increasingly desperate. They're now resorting to outright criminal cracking, writing worms to send spam through. They don't do that because open relay raping is working.
Audtio ads that can't be turned off, eh?
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I'll just bet. There are at least a dozen web proxies that will cheerfully tell the audio ad to fuck off, and a hosts file will handle it, as well.
Not to mention, I don't actually have speakers on my computer anyway. For a reason.
A) Taxes are levied by government. Which government? The US? Are we going to bomb a long time ally like South Korea of Tawain because their spammers didn't pay their taxes to the US government?
B)Spammers break the law already. There is no technical way to enforce such a scheme that spammers cannot bypass, short of completely rewriting the SMTP RFCs to force everyone to only accept email from government (what government?) licensed servers. Yeah, everyone will be lining up to sign on for that.
C) How do you handle mailing lists? Is it now impossible to run a mailing list without charging everyone on it?
D) It's a stupid idea, and only a moron could possibly not realize it.
. . . from the article, it sounds like a standard MDI interface in Windows. You know, where you have menus at the top, and a scroll-able document below? Nothing new, nothing original.
A simple pop-up blocker that blocks ALL pop-ups won't help, cause you'll click on the link and nothing will happen.
And why is that "not helping"? I mean, really, if they web site is run by someone so goddamn stupid as to use something like this, not seeing any more of their crap is precisely what I want.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . then the IP in questions isn't IP. If there's only one way to express something, it does not qualify for copyright protection. Originality is one of the necessary qualities for copyright protection.
I believe that the original authors of a work may revoke a transfer of copyright,
Only after 35 years.
but I think that this does not apply to a work-or-hire.
The original author of a work for hire, legally speaking, is the company (AT&T, in this case, I believe), not the actual author.
50% of all credit card fraud is for consumer electronics. Online fraud is the fastest growing form of credit card fraud. Shipping from the US to non-US addresses is more difficult to track, making it more difficult to collect enough information to prosecute. And eastern Europe is wher the largest chunk of online credit card fraud is coming from.
Unfortunately, that means you're hosed.
BTW, it's not the web sites that are your problem, it's the banks that issue the credit cards. They are increasingly willing to refuse transactions on the slightest hint of anything suspicious, using arcane and complicated rules. The merchants can't even find out why a particular transaction was refused, but they don't want to tell that to you, so you get whatever reasonable sounding excuse they can think of.
A smaller percentage of a large number is often more actual people than a large percentage of a small number of people.
In other words, would you rather your ad be seen by 5% of 1,000,000 people, or 75% of 500 people?
To use the numbers from the article, The Practice had 8.9% of viewers, and they watched 30% of the ads. That's 2.67% of viewers. The Weakest Link viewers, being 0.9% of viewers, would have to record commercials and watch them three times each to match that.
. . . to show how incredibly stupid this is.
Find a reference to yourself somewhere in Europe, and demand your right to reply. In your reply, criticize someone else, and encourage them to reply to your criticism, and hope they criticize you. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They've turned the WWW into Usenet.
I don't think that would be practical for SCO.
Neither was suing IBM, even if they are right (which they rather obviously aren't). Hasn't slowed them down yet.
It's public suicide, and nothing less. Nobody could be this stupid. They'd forget how to breath if they were.
As far as I can tell, SCO now plans to sue every single end user of AIX. Which should help the adoption of Linux in a big, big way, since all those users now need to replace their AIX installations. This could be the best thing to every happen to Linux, since it makes IBM a Linux only shop.
Clueless & Witless is giving up? Woo-hoo! Ding dong, the witch is dead!
I'm thinking that the MPAA is infringing on my copyrights on their web site. The MPAA itself has gone to considerable expense and trouble to relieve me of any and all responsibility for actually investigating that they have, and their ISP is in deep, deep shit if they don't treat the MPAA just like any other accused war criminal/infringer, if I were to complain. It'd be real interesting to see if their host has honored any takedown orders from the MPAA, before filing such an order against the MPAA itself.
But that'd be fighting abuse with abuse, and I'd never recommend doing that.
". . . whatever duration Congress sets."
/., feel free to explain why Disney could buy another extension of the term of copyright with this law in place, when they couldn't without it. If you're not actually the mentally retarded troll you're playing on /., that is.
This proposal does not extend the term of copyright. It does not reduce the term of copyright. It does not make extending the term of copyright easier. It does not make extending the term of copyright more difficult. It does not make shortening the term of copyright any easier. It does not make shortening the term of copyright any more difficult. In fact, it does not interact in any detectable way with the term of copyright.
So, if you're not actually the mentally retarded troll you're playing on
Fucking idiots. If they didn't fuck so much, there wouldn't be so many of them. Yeah, you, trollboy.
It does not change the term of copyright, dumbshit. Follow the link and read before shooting your mouth off.
If you would bother to actually read the links, you'd find that it's a "small fee" every five years thereafter.
. . . and all I can say is, "Are those tits?"
This is better than Reality TV!
Well, duh. This is actually based on reality, unlike Reality TV.
"If you don't give us money, we'll sue someone else"?
Isn't that criminal extortion?
There's an Outlook worm looking for a place to happen. Yeah, this is a good idea.
EZ-D's goal is to expand the overall home entertainment market by appealing to consumers whose rental consumption has diminished due to the perceived inconvenience of the current rental process.
As DIVX demonstrated, the reason the rental market has "diminished" isn't because of the inconvenience. It's because of the price. All changes to business model are made to increase revenues. Consumers know that. Some increase revenues by decreasing costs. Some do so by screwing consumers out of more money. With the MPAA or RIAA, it's safe to assume that all changes are intended to do the latter, because they simply can't conceive of the former.
And rentals cost too much now, compared to simply buying the DVD.
But the won't learn. Not from this, and not from too-expensive "streaming video that can't be recorded" schemes. They're just too stupid.
Why is it that people with an over-inflated sense of their own importance always assume that the consumer will respond to the market (be annoyed by pop-ups), but the market will not respond to the consumer (stop using pop-ups because everybody tells them their web site sucks)?
Yeah. The sky is falling. Film at eleven.
I'd like to host a party to celebrate when SCO is dead. Perhaps a formal ceremony to piss on the corporate logo from the front of their building.
No, stupid idea. And there's no need. The war on spam is being win, not lost. Spammers are increasingly desperate. They're now resorting to outright criminal cracking, writing worms to send spam through. They don't do that because open relay raping is working.
Yeah, I'll just bet. There are at least a dozen web proxies that will cheerfully tell the audio ad to fuck off, and a hosts file will handle it, as well.
Not to mention, I don't actually have speakers on my computer anyway. For a reason.
A) Taxes are levied by government. Which government? The US? Are we going to bomb a long time ally like South Korea of Tawain because their spammers didn't pay their taxes to the US government?
B)Spammers break the law already. There is no technical way to enforce such a scheme that spammers cannot bypass, short of completely rewriting the SMTP RFCs to force everyone to only accept email from government (what government?) licensed servers. Yeah, everyone will be lining up to sign on for that.
C) How do you handle mailing lists? Is it now impossible to run a mailing list without charging everyone on it?
D) It's a stupid idea, and only a moron could possibly not realize it.
MSN UK is negotiating with toilet paper manufacturers for special rolls with Web addresses, or URLs, printed on them.
They're going to sell advertising on the toilet paper? I can just see the sales pitch.
"Well, sir, we'd like you to give us money, so that people can wipe their ass with your company logo."
Yeah, that'll work.
. . . from the article, it sounds like a standard MDI interface in Windows. You know, where you have menus at the top, and a scroll-able document below? Nothing new, nothing original.
A simple pop-up blocker that blocks ALL pop-ups won't help, cause you'll click on the link and nothing will happen.
And why is that "not helping"? I mean, really, if they web site is run by someone so goddamn stupid as to use something like this, not seeing any more of their crap is precisely what I want.