"There are no guarantees or indemnities against any non-MPEG-LA member from suing you and everyone else for using H.264."
There is one. If such a company does sue you, then the MPEG-LA is going to come to your aid. Not in your support, but to defend their turf - their patent pool is massively devalued if it is incomplete. That means they'll either throw money at the responsible company until they agree to sell the patent, or come to your aid with the best lawyers in the field and a practically endless amount of money for legal costs.
I noticed thatguywiththeglasses.com is running a campaign against it too, on the grounds that under SOPA a studio could have their site shut down for an insulting review. It wouldn't be the first time they have run into copyright issues - the review of The Room has already been pulled after the studio threatened to sue.
Love the business model though. They figured out that users won't react well to additional annoying advertising... but *substitute* annoying advertising? Won't even notice. Clever. I'd agree to that, if I actually trusted the program not to also add more advertising and a bit of spyware too. Which I don't. And if I wern't already running ad-blocking.
An interesting theory, and one I will judge for myself... once I actually see the clip. I'm sure someone must have grabbed a copy before it was taken down.
Given how autotune technology is advancing both in capabilities and ease of use, this would be quite possible. Not for everyday use - it's hardly practical to carry around an audio rig everywhere - but for public speeches, television appearances, things like that. Perhaps the US President of 2024 will make his inaugral speech though a voice processor that corrects any momentary stalls, stammers or mispronounciations to ensure he sounds absolutly perfect - and even alters his accent to that which his campaign manager determines will make him most popular.
If GWB had that technology, he would have avoided the national snickering about his inability to pronounce 'nuclear' correctly.
There were several singers, and it only needs for one of them to have signed such a contract. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, espicially in the early days of their careers. When a music label promises an artist the shot at fame and fortune, the artist usually agrees to whatever terms are set. Plenty more potential stars for the label to ask if the offer is declined.
While I could do it without a calculator, it's quicker to just open the calculator application on this computer. I imagine this applies to just about everyone here. Math is a very useful skill, but mental arithmatic is dead.
There is something of a divide. Political circumstance has forced the libertarians together with the domionists, but it's not an entirely satisfactory alliance. They differ on many points. That's why the political right can seem at times to be contradictory - it is, as the factions within it disagree. They stay unified even so, because they have a common enemy in the left. American politics is very polarised, and effectively excludes anyone who doesn't side with one of the two major camps.
Sort of. DOMA had substantial support from both parties by the numbers, so it wouldn't matter who controled what at the time: It'd have passed either way. It was authored by a Republican though.(Bob Barr, R-Georgia).
I'm amused by the justification. It's authority comes from the aforementioned 'full faith and credit' clause, which reads:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
DOMA's proponents argued that while the clause does require all states respect the public acts and records (ie, marriages) of other states, congress can determine the effect thereof... which includes the authority to tell the states to ignore the first part of the clause entirely. Clever lawyers.
Series: Pokemon. One of the mystery dungeon specials. Company: Shopro. I believe the studio that produced it.
At the end of the episode the two main protagonists fly to their destiny on a ship that leaves a rainbow wake. The clip I made was that brief scene, with an audio change: At the moment the ship takes off on it's rainbow-powered drive, the music switches to 'It's OK to be Gay.' It's funnier than it sounds, as the music is a perfect fit for the extreme campyness of the visuals.
Those cameras are in public spaces and private businesses, the latter operated by the property owner. These are not places where you have any reasonable expectation of privacy.
In US politics, 'moral' has come to mean 'social conservative.' They hijacked the word to justify their policies, most of which seem to revolve around fighting anything to to with sex.
They'll find a way. If you can't buy direct, buy via proxy - and failing that, it only takes one oppressive state with the resources to design and manufacture their own and a willingness to sell to the others. China comes to mind as the ideal supplier, as they already have extensive experience with censorship and surveillance technology, government-controled telecoms and networking companies with engineering knowledge and the manufacturing capability to produce it for export.
For that, you need help from the pirates. They've had a lot of experience at getting large amounts of data distributed on a budget of zero. That's why they invented P2P file sharing, and then improved it through several generations.
I've been in this situation before. I made a parody video. One that fit the terms of fair use perfectly. Non-commercial, not possible to mistake for anything official. It used 48 seconds of a 25-minute episode (a clip, set to very inapproprate music drawing attention to some campy visuals). Clearly parody. I put it on youtube, and some time later the copyright holder sent in the DMCA notice to have it pulled.
Now, I *could* file a counterclaim. But if I do that, then I invite them to sue me. That would be a Japanese company suing a British citizen under American law - the legal fees would take all my savings before they could even decide where to hear the case. If it did go to court, the amount of time I'd have to take off to attend would likely cost me my job as well. I'd be ruined, and that's if I *win*. The law favors the rich, and I am not rich.
Particually annoying, someone else has uploaded the entire episode in question to Youtube, and others have used far more material than I did to make AMVs, none of which have been taken down. I believe I actually offended someone at Shopro by insulting the studio's work, so I wouldn't put it past them to sue out of pure spite given half a chance. It's also the second strike on youtube - one more and they close down my account and pull all my videos, most of which are just demonstrations of video filters I programmed. And I can't easily open another account, as it's tied into the google ID now.
The constitution could be seen as saying that - which is why the republicans passed DOMA, a law which explicitly says that if one state has gay marriage then the others are free to ignore it and the federal government is specifically prohibited from recognising not just gay marriage but anything substantially similar to marriage. In theory a constutitional clause overrules a law, but in practice it's very difficult and costs millions in legel fees to even bring a challenge.
That would be back when the rifle was not yet widely available. It's clearly ridiculous to let people keep their own nuclear weapons and long-range bombers ready to fly now - weapons have advanced, and one person can weild far greater destructive power than was the case at the time. A line must be drawn, but it isn't clear where.
The hamburger is old. Really old. You could buy those back in the Roman Empire, though they did like theirs seasoned with a little fish oil. It doesn't take a cooking breakthrough to come up with the idea of putting a disc of meat in between two discs of bread.
1) Give it to either my boss, who has a Mac at his desk, or a coworker with a Ubuntu desktop. Failing that, boot a spare laptop off my my ubuntu boot-stick and use that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they picked a confusingly similar name deliberatly.
"There are no guarantees or indemnities against any non-MPEG-LA member from suing you and everyone else for using H.264."
There is one. If such a company does sue you, then the MPEG-LA is going to come to your aid. Not in your support, but to defend their turf - their patent pool is massively devalued if it is incomplete. That means they'll either throw money at the responsible company until they agree to sell the patent, or come to your aid with the best lawyers in the field and a practically endless amount of money for legal costs.
I noticed thatguywiththeglasses.com is running a campaign against it too, on the grounds that under SOPA a studio could have their site shut down for an insulting review. It wouldn't be the first time they have run into copyright issues - the review of The Room has already been pulled after the studio threatened to sue.
And yet the bus doesn't depart until everyone is on board...
Love the business model though. They figured out that users won't react well to additional annoying advertising... but *substitute* annoying advertising? Won't even notice. Clever. I'd agree to that, if I actually trusted the program not to also add more advertising and a bit of spyware too. Which I don't. And if I wern't already running ad-blocking.
An interesting theory, and one I will judge for myself... once I actually see the clip. I'm sure someone must have grabbed a copy before it was taken down.
"In the new study, scientists at Long Island University"
I doubt they got a government grant for that one. Looks like your tax dollars are headed elsewhere.
Given how autotune technology is advancing both in capabilities and ease of use, this would be quite possible. Not for everyday use - it's hardly practical to carry around an audio rig everywhere - but for public speeches, television appearances, things like that. Perhaps the US President of 2024 will make his inaugral speech though a voice processor that corrects any momentary stalls, stammers or mispronounciations to ensure he sounds absolutly perfect - and even alters his accent to that which his campaign manager determines will make him most popular.
If GWB had that technology, he would have avoided the national snickering about his inability to pronounce 'nuclear' correctly.
There were several singers, and it only needs for one of them to have signed such a contract. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, espicially in the early days of their careers. When a music label promises an artist the shot at fame and fortune, the artist usually agrees to whatever terms are set. Plenty more potential stars for the label to ask if the offer is declined.
The same thing I'd do if I missed a sub-calculation in mental arithmatic: Screw it up and get the wrong answer.
While I could do it without a calculator, it's quicker to just open the calculator application on this computer. I imagine this applies to just about everyone here. Math is a very useful skill, but mental arithmatic is dead.
That's one hell of a shift.
There is something of a divide. Political circumstance has forced the libertarians together with the domionists, but it's not an entirely satisfactory alliance. They differ on many points. That's why the political right can seem at times to be contradictory - it is, as the factions within it disagree. They stay unified even so, because they have a common enemy in the left. American politics is very polarised, and effectively excludes anyone who doesn't side with one of the two major camps.
Sort of. DOMA had substantial support from both parties by the numbers, so it wouldn't matter who controled what at the time: It'd have passed either way. It was authored by a Republican though.(Bob Barr, R-Georgia).
I'm amused by the justification. It's authority comes from the aforementioned 'full faith and credit' clause, which reads:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
DOMA's proponents argued that while the clause does require all states respect the public acts and records (ie, marriages) of other states, congress can determine the effect thereof... which includes the authority to tell the states to ignore the first part of the clause entirely. Clever lawyers.
Series: Pokemon. One of the mystery dungeon specials.
Company: Shopro. I believe the studio that produced it.
At the end of the episode the two main protagonists fly to their destiny on a ship that leaves a rainbow wake. The clip I made was that brief scene, with an audio change: At the moment the ship takes off on it's rainbow-powered drive, the music switches to 'It's OK to be Gay.' It's funnier than it sounds, as the music is a perfect fit for the extreme campyness of the visuals.
Those cameras are in public spaces and private businesses, the latter operated by the property owner. These are not places where you have any reasonable expectation of privacy.
In US politics, 'moral' has come to mean 'social conservative.' They hijacked the word to justify their policies, most of which seem to revolve around fighting anything to to with sex.
They only propose to shrink the parts they disapprove of. That's how politics works.
They'll find a way. If you can't buy direct, buy via proxy - and failing that, it only takes one oppressive state with the resources to design and manufacture their own and a willingness to sell to the others. China comes to mind as the ideal supplier, as they already have extensive experience with censorship and surveillance technology, government-controled telecoms and networking companies with engineering knowledge and the manufacturing capability to produce it for export.
For that, you need help from the pirates. They've had a lot of experience at getting large amounts of data distributed on a budget of zero. That's why they invented P2P file sharing, and then improved it through several generations.
I've been in this situation before. I made a parody video. One that fit the terms of fair use perfectly. Non-commercial, not possible to mistake for anything official. It used 48 seconds of a 25-minute episode (a clip, set to very inapproprate music drawing attention to some campy visuals). Clearly parody. I put it on youtube, and some time later the copyright holder sent in the DMCA notice to have it pulled.
Now, I *could* file a counterclaim. But if I do that, then I invite them to sue me. That would be a Japanese company suing a British citizen under American law - the legal fees would take all my savings before they could even decide where to hear the case. If it did go to court, the amount of time I'd have to take off to attend would likely cost me my job as well. I'd be ruined, and that's if I *win*. The law favors the rich, and I am not rich.
Particually annoying, someone else has uploaded the entire episode in question to Youtube, and others have used far more material than I did to make AMVs, none of which have been taken down. I believe I actually offended someone at Shopro by insulting the studio's work, so I wouldn't put it past them to sue out of pure spite given half a chance. It's also the second strike on youtube - one more and they close down my account and pull all my videos, most of which are just demonstrations of video filters I programmed. And I can't easily open another account, as it's tied into the google ID now.
The constitution could be seen as saying that - which is why the republicans passed DOMA, a law which explicitly says that if one state has gay marriage then the others are free to ignore it and the federal government is specifically prohibited from recognising not just gay marriage but anything substantially similar to marriage. In theory a constutitional clause overrules a law, but in practice it's very difficult and costs millions in legel fees to even bring a challenge.
That would be back when the rifle was not yet widely available. It's clearly ridiculous to let people keep their own nuclear weapons and long-range bombers ready to fly now - weapons have advanced, and one person can weild far greater destructive power than was the case at the time. A line must be drawn, but it isn't clear where.
The hamburger is old. Really old. You could buy those back in the Roman Empire, though they did like theirs seasoned with a little fish oil. It doesn't take a cooking breakthrough to come up with the idea of putting a disc of meat in between two discs of bread.
At my workplace,
1) Give it to either my boss, who has a Mac at his desk, or a coworker with a Ubuntu desktop. Failing that, boot a spare laptop off my my ubuntu boot-stick and use that.