And you didn't note how you rated those two titles - which are about as different as movies get to be and the latter can't really be called Sci-Fi at all - so that's no help. So I'll try and go by audience reactions over here where I live.
The Lockout was skippable Prometheus was visually neat but story-wise quite underwhelming. Still, if you enjoyed the Alien(s) movies, might as well hit this one up. John Carter was skippable. Chronicle had promise but ended up disappointing (that's what you get when you cater to teens, I suppose) Men in Black 3 is worth it only if you enjoyed MiB 2. Total Recall was not too horrible - just don't compare it to the original (despite some fun cameos and hints at the older title) Battleship, visually nice but skip. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is not really sci-fi but I guess if you enjoyed Moon then this may be okay too.
Iron Sky wasn't released here, so can't comment on that one.
Dredd (does that count as sci-fi, really? I excluded Avengers) and Cloud Atlas aren't released here yet, so no comment on those either.
Looper I'll go ahead and call 'good'. Might still be playing where you live / will be playing soon.
Slightly on the fringe of Sci-Fi, try Cabin in the Woods. I'll go ahead and call that one 'good' as well, although the very, very ending is lackluster. Must have run out of budget making awesome happen during most of the rest of the movie.
I'll trust a scientific setup (lens NPP, as far as can be determined, in the exact same spot, fixed lighting setup, etc.) over the experts, how's that?:)
Has anybody done one yet? If not, why would I take the words of experts who are right to say that 'flare happens' but say nothing over the nature or severity of said flare over crappy anecdotal evidence?
Somewhere in these comments is somebody pointing out DPreview's assessment suggesting it be an authority on the matter, and DPreview suggest that yes, the flare problem seems to be worse on iPhone 5, but overall the camera is pretty awesome and you should just try to avoid lighting situations that are prone to bring our flare. And I agree, so far most photos I've seen come from an iPhone 5 do look great. But that doesn't mean people should just ignore the whole "the flare problem seems to be worse" part when that is the very thing being argued.
If the question is just "is the iPhone 5 camera bad?", the answer (from me), is "No". If the question is "is the iPhone 5 camera more prone to off-/edge lighting flare with pronounced chroma?", the answer appears to be "Yes". Not my answer, as I have no iPhone 5 and haven't seen that scientific setup yet:P
Yeah, it's not the outdoor one I was referring to, but rather the indoor ones where they tried to bring out the worst flare in each and see what happens if they moved the source outside of the frame.
It's far more often bright light sources near the edge, or just outside the edge, of view that causes these issues. And yes, it'll happen on any camera - even with $2000 lenses. It'll just happen a heck of a lot less often and be far less pronounced.
This has nothing to do with people expecting dSLR quality imagery using a cellphone. They're not even expecting point-and-shoot quality. They're expecting reasonable phone quality (for this day and age), and quite often not getting it.
As for taking pictures with your phone in general,I'm sure you can do the Jeopardy routine for "The camera you have with you."
Regardless of legal angles, though, Stratasys made it clear that this is not what they want their machines used for, and that is that. If he bought it, it might be different - but he was basically just renting it. I'm sure he can get a different 3D printer to work with.
Rotation is easily handled - moving the mouse left/right while holding the mousewheel down, for example. Unless there's also a need for panning while simultaneously zooming and rotating, of course.
On the other hand, how many apps do the two-finger rotation thing? And how many of those have you cursed for having it because every time you merely want to zoom, the app decides that you also want to rotate the view by 1 degree?
I see the lack of an accelerometer in most computers as a bigger issue. Even when it does have an accelerometer, that also happens to be accessible (perhaps as part of a laptop's mechanisms to help prevent damage to HDDs), a laptop isn't exactly something you start tilting around to e.g. play a racing game.
Still, there's plenty of apps that don't even need those things or you can make do with a kludge.
I suppose the elections are "stuff that matters" - but covering every candidate's (team's) many, many gaffes is practically a day task best left to other sites indeed.
Can they really claim that the sharer harmed the rights holder by distributing pieces which are unusable?
That's a bit of a philosophical question, really.
Let's say the piece sizes are 1MB each (not uncommon). Let's say this is on a movie that is 500MB. Let's further do a naive calculation and say the movie lasts 2 hours. 2 hours / 500 = 14.4s. Now let's assume assume that half the piece is useless because it's a bunch of P or B frames, but half-way in is an I-frame you can work from. I frames are bigger, let's say that takes up 25% of the piece. So 3.6 seconds of the movie would actually be playable from that chunk if you can find a video player willing to attempt decoding and playback. Can you genuinely say it's 'unusable'? Let's also flip that around - let's say you are the only source of that piece. Without you, anybody downloading the movie will miss a 14.4s chunk of the movie - perhaps it'll even fail to play back. Wouldn't that imply that your piece is actually rather important?
But what if you're only sharing only 64kB? The odds that that 64kB also matches another 64kB chunk of a random and rights-free file - or at least not the file you would be accused of - are astronomical, but not outside the realm of theory. There's technical hurdles there, though, as your torrent client identified the chunk as belonging to X, not Y. While you could try and use a 'the torrent client LIED!' defense, I'm not sure what NL judge would go along with that.
On the other hand, if you're asking if the rights holder is 'harmed', then there's plenty of people who will say that even if you shared the entire movie the rights holder isn't harmed because the people downloading likely wouldn't have purchased the movie anyway - better yet, some of them might be swayed to purchase it after seeing the downloaded copy and the rights holder actually stands to win from your sharing.
Good luck figuring all that out - like I said, it gets a bit philosophical (and/or academic).
But back to NL law - yes, they can claim that. Arnoud Engelfriet (who is probably as close as you're going to get to an authority on the matter) also points out that it doesn't matter that you share but one small part while others would have to share the rest; you're not allowed to upload even those parts.
I don't think 'citation' as used by Arnoud there is limited to literary works, by the way. Here's his writings on citation laws when dealing with images/video: http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/citeren/beeldcitaat/ ( Google translate makes a bit of a mess of it, but I'm sure you get the gist. )
[...] you can't go after uploaders who use protocols like BitTorrent, because any of them taken individually (usually) only upload pieces of files, not entire files.
Slight correction in the case of NL: This is still illegal. http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/inbreuk-bittorrent-torrents/ In essence, the fact that you're (presumably) only uploading small parts of the work, rather than the whole work, doesn't matter. The only situation in which you're allowed to distribute fragments of a work is when you're using it as a citation. Since the fragment isn't discussed or criticized, laws governing the use of citation don't apply.
He then goes on to explain that, potentially, you might get a lesser sentence if you only uploaded two fragments (as opposed to many more, presumably), and that anybody offering the.torrent file itself is not making a copy of the work. Nevertheless, if you offer enough of them you can still be hit with a 'structural facilitation' of copyright infringement, etc.
I don't recall there being cases about uploaders getting chased down in NL, despite the commonplace bittorrenting, though - they tend to go after the indexing/hosting sites and sometimes the ISPs.
Typically these laws are written in the form that you are 'allowed' to make a copy, thus giving you no specific right to the ability or capability of making said copy - which means that the rights holder can make it as difficult as they want for you to make that copy. If that means you have to hire a bunch of artists to copy a movie frame by frame by oil painting on canvas, and an orchestra and voice artists to record the movie's sound on an 8 track system, then that sucks for you - but at the same, the rights holder couldn't complain since you're allowed to make that copy.
Even if it says you have the right to make a copy I think the above largely applies. The laws tend not to say anything about how that copy is made and how good the result is.
The levy is compensation for making a 'for personal use' copy of other media. It's not, however, the reason that downloading is legal; it's not because you purchase 1 (one) CD-R for $1 that the law says it's now okay to download 20 movies per month. Another part of the law out of touch with reality is what makes it legal.
In addition, we have a levy on tapes, videotapes, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs (I don't recall if BD-Rs as well) but not on e.g. iPods, DVRs, loose HDDs and any and all other media that one could put 'pirated' content on as a compensation for making a private copy of the media.
So even the majority of those who do believe that downloading should be legal due to the levy are being disingenuous, considering they never even paid a levy on the target medium.
That said, two of the questions they seek to have answered is this: If copying for personal use is legal regardless of origin, must/can we have a levy on all of these media? If copying for personal use is made illegal in certain cases, must/can we remove all levies on any/some media?
I wholly agree that sending a 'wrongful' takedown notice should incur a fine for the filing party.
Note that I understand 'wrongful' to mean claiming rights on material to which they hold no rights. This is different from believing you have the rights, and in arbitration or in court being proven wrong (be that because you don't have the rights, or its use by the respondent is fair use, for example).
Mind you, as it stands, there certainly is a cost involved with filing a DMCA complaint that is not wrongful. A properly written DMCA complaint practically necessitates vetting by a lawyer / one's legal department. If they're on a fixed payroll then of course that doesn't matter much, otherwise you're out a few bucks just for filing the notice. The takedown procedure, on the other hand, is usually automatic, and the respondent doing nothing about it is entirely free. Filing a counternotice may or may not give rise to costs depending on how that is set up at the hosting site of choice and whether or not direct legal action (and I don't necessarily mean 'sue, sue, sue!' but even just a letter from their lawyer to the respondent's lawyer) follows.
Thank goodness at least one of those responding asked:D
Hell no. The entire post is a regurgitation of Apple statements and statements by owners of iPhones. I thought the 'introduce you to Panorama mode' would have been a good tip-off;)
Still.. "+0 Troll", is that an achievement yet? At least it sparked some discussion:)
Compromising design and SD cards are a relic from a time when you wouldn't just stream your media.
NFC
An unproven technology that has security (see recent Galaxy S3 hack through NFC at Pwn2Own) and privacy implications that appears to be focused on mobile payments where we believe Passbook to be a superior solution.
Faster CPU
In synthetic benchmark A - synthetic benchmark B shows the iPhone 5 on top.
Most powerful battery
Made possible only by making the S3 1.2mm thicker than the iPhone 5.
Nicer front camera
With a scratch-prone lens, as opposed to our high scratch-resistant sapphire lens.
USB 3.0 support
We believe our connector - which can be plugged in either way - to be superior for user convenience as well as technical reasons. By not giving in to the demands of the USB standards body we are free to innovate and take full advantage of our connector design, fostering a third party ecosystem which we have proven to be highly successful with our prior connector.
Now let us introduce you to Panorama mode - it will revolutionize photography.
Signed, Not Apple - but it might as well have been.
I don't know if they would be unnecessary. The situation would fall back to standard copyright fare. You'd then have to consider whether sites such as YouTube can be held accountable ("contributory" or "vicarious" liability) for the claimed material being available through their service.
I'd imagine those sites that cite compliance with the DMCA do feel it's a godsend given that there's very little burden on them. I'm sure it doesn't feel like a godsend for the next mother making a video of their child dancing to some music and getting hit with a DMCA complaint. The rights holders - I'm not sure, they seem to have a love/hate relationship with it.
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a U.S. lawyer, though - you'd have to check with one to figure out if the DMCA on the whole has been a positive or a negative influence on copyright / free dissemination of information.
'Deliver of offer refund' is one of KickStarter's tems of service for Creators. If you, as a Backer..
1. feel that the product has not been delivered and there's no hope of it being delivered. 2. want a refund (as opposed to just writing it off as a donation / loss) 3. are unable to get a refund from the Creator
Then: A. Talk to your credit card issuer. Explain the situation - have them void the charge. It's then Amazon's problem to square out with KickStarter. This may not be an option available to you. B. Talk to a lawyer. Basic contract law is likely to apply - but, again, talk to a lawyer. If you or your lawyer would need assistance, go google Hanfree and Neil Singh.
I do very much implore you to consider whether you want to go down that road. There's quite a few projects I backed who have not (yet) delivered, some going for a year now. But most of the Creators tend to be communicative and explain what the speed bumps are and what the timeline looks like. Others I pledged such a small amount that it's simply not worth it for me to bother with it. ( In the Hanfree case, the Backer is a lawyer and sued out of principle because it wasn't just his $$, but a combined total of $$,$$$ apparently being lost that rubbed him the wrong way. )
Except when it comes time to cite its safe harbor provisions, of course - then the DMCA is a godsend.
Seriously, though - the Wired article doesn't really go into details only having been told by KickStarter that they must comply with the law. If the law says a project must be removed (not just suspended, but purged (per KS nomenclature)), then what does one expect?
Yes, it would be nice to explain why a project was purged (or even just suspended).. or at least tell the project creators why (in case of DMCA complaint, I believe it is required) - as far as that goes, KickStarter certainly fails in the transparency department.
But the fact that projects 'disappear' isn't particularly newsworthy. YouTube videos 'disappear'. Even Slashdot articles 'disappear'. Misener himself has set up a service where you can still 'find' projects that were once launched and then canceled/suspended. I'd imagine the purged ones are a part of that as well if he bothers to cache locally and not just yank data from KickStarter's servers for every project request.
Well, personally I think 'shopped models shouldn't be allowed in a porn project's pitch... so perhaps the new rules wouldn't be all bad if applied to other categories:)
I understand what you're saying - but, again, their entire verbiage speaks against it.
Creative projects (I'll take this to be film, books, dance recitals, albums, photo projects, etc.) aren't affected by these new rules. So what you have to look at is what KickStarter wants to be for the 'Hardware / Product Design' categories.
Their old rule was clarified in the 'accountability' post: deliver, or offer refunds. That makes it very much a 'sale' type platform. Then the new rule changes - announced in a blog post saying that KickStarter is not a store - reinforce the idea that it actually is a store, by essentially making it so that you must have a finished product that merely needs mass production.
If they really want the whole 'risks and challenges' thing to fly, then Backers do, effectively, become donators and the 'deliver or offer refund' must not apply.
I'm not sure if people aren't 'getting' the threshold thing, by the way. Backers understand the threshold just fine - if the project doesn't meet the threshold, nothing happens (insofar as the KickStarter project goes). If it does meet the threshold, then things are supposed to take off. Perhaps you mean that Creators don't quite get it - in that their threshold should be set realistically based on expected costs for development and manufacture + extra to be on the cautious side.
But then that's a failing in KickStarter's information supply. The 'risks and challenges' section may make Creators more aware by forcing them to think about it a little bit, but that should be seen entirely separately from how Backers believe KickStarter works or should work.
Mind you, I've always been a stern defender of the "KickStarter is not a store", and I live by that when pledging for projects myself. If a Creator were to offer a refund, I'd judge their (apparent) effort and decide based on that whether I want a refund or not. But legally speaking, it is very much looking like a store.
As one of the comments in the blog post notes, this looks like a change mostly to get negative press off KickStarter's back.
And yes, projects like Orbit or in fact many iDevice projects that are failing, or have failed - including the Hanfree project (Creator filed for Chapter 7 - quite a development as this is after a Backer sued him) - are an influence there.
But so are the NPR coverage. The Polygon article (with such bombshells as (paraphrasing) "Even if it is a fraudulent project - who's going to sue over a trivial amount of money?" - even though KickStarter takes a percentage of that fraudulently acquired fund). Their own recent 'Accountability' blog post, and so forth and so on.
Here's the thing, though. On that blog post, and this new one, they've gotten almost nothing but flack. Prohibiting product renders - rather than requiring they be labeled as such - hinders many projects. Prohibiting multiples pledge levels - rather than requiring a set limit - hinders many projects. Prohibiting selling items based on what you plan for it to be able to do - rather than requiring them to only advertise with current features and allow further features to be added in e.g. updates - hinders may projects. Moreover, all of these changes actually make KickStarter more of a store. The verbiage is such that you pretty much have to show a finished product and the only reason to try and CrowdFund is for mass production. That's practically the definition of pre-sales.
The most striking change, though, is the part where Creators in those categories now have to explain what risks there are and what challenges they face. This is orthogonal to the 'accountability' blog post in which it was clarified that a Creator must either A. deliver or B. offer refunds. That means there are no risks other than that of the Creator's to bear. It's all good and well that KickStarter is trying to get Backers to think that they're really just donating - and Backers are welcome to think this and write off any money pledged that ends up going nowhere - but legally they have set Creators up to comply with, essentially, contract law.
I understand what KickStarter is trying to seem to do - protect Creators against themselves a little (make sure you have a viable product and production process thought out before you seek funding) and against Backers (by trying to ease them off demanding refunds), and Backers from dishonest Creators or indeed their own gullibility - but I feel like this is not the way to do it.
I wish KickStarter could decide - especially in legal terms - what it wants to be for these categories; a pre-sale platform, or a donation platform. It can't rely on the goodwill of Backers and Creators to be both.
Open source isn't about jacking other peoples ideas
"jack - Take (something) illicitly; steal"
Pretty sure there's no theft there. Stop giving the RIAA/MPAA ammunition;)
More importantly, though...
Open source [is] about making improvements, and that guy didn't make ANY.
I don't remember seeing any such language in open source licenses. Most of them do explicitly explain that it's okay to take the open source material and sell it. Some licenses require the source to be made available when distributing products based on it. Some require you mention the license in question. Can you cite one which actually states that you can't "race to the bottom of the profit ladder" using the sources?
I'm sure it's seen as a 'dick move', but then those who believe that should be prohibited should be working to change the license applied to the material.
That said, the project did fail so those most likely to back the project already made their choice clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like what you're hoping for is for movies like C to be made. Hopefully you pledged for it when it ran, then:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1282316546/c-299792-km-s
It's slowly, but surely, coming along.
It may be a total bust, mind you. But at least they've got your dislike for CGI budgeting covered.
'Good' depends mostly on your taste, doesn't it?
And you didn't note how you rated those two titles - which are about as different as movies get to be and the latter can't really be called Sci-Fi at all - so that's no help.
So I'll try and go by audience reactions over here where I live.
The Lockout was skippable
Prometheus was visually neat but story-wise quite underwhelming. Still, if you enjoyed the Alien(s) movies, might as well hit this one up.
John Carter was skippable.
Chronicle had promise but ended up disappointing (that's what you get when you cater to teens, I suppose)
Men in Black 3 is worth it only if you enjoyed MiB 2.
Total Recall was not too horrible - just don't compare it to the original (despite some fun cameos and hints at the older title)
Battleship, visually nice but skip.
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is not really sci-fi but I guess if you enjoyed Moon then this may be okay too.
Iron Sky wasn't released here, so can't comment on that one.
Dredd (does that count as sci-fi, really? I excluded Avengers) and Cloud Atlas aren't released here yet, so no comment on those either.
Looper I'll go ahead and call 'good'. Might still be playing where you live / will be playing soon.
Slightly on the fringe of Sci-Fi, try Cabin in the Woods. I'll go ahead and call that one 'good' as well, although the very, very ending is lackluster. Must have run out of budget making awesome happen during most of the rest of the movie.
Bit early for this, isn't it? A lot of titles are TBA until after Christmas.
As it is, there's a decent Sci-fi flick probably still playing near you (or will be playing at a later date); Looper.
I'll trust a scientific setup (lens NPP, as far as can be determined, in the exact same spot, fixed lighting setup, etc.) over the experts, how's that? :)
Has anybody done one yet?
If not, why would I take the words of experts who are right to say that 'flare happens' but say nothing over the nature or severity of said flare over crappy anecdotal evidence?
Somewhere in these comments is somebody pointing out DPreview's assessment suggesting it be an authority on the matter, and DPreview suggest that yes, the flare problem seems to be worse on iPhone 5, but overall the camera is pretty awesome and you should just try to avoid lighting situations that are prone to bring our flare.
And I agree, so far most photos I've seen come from an iPhone 5 do look great. But that doesn't mean people should just ignore the whole "the flare problem seems to be worse" part when that is the very thing being argued.
If the question is just "is the iPhone 5 camera bad?", the answer (from me), is "No". If the question is "is the iPhone 5 camera more prone to off-/edge lighting flare with pronounced chroma?", the answer appears to be "Yes". Not my answer, as I have no iPhone 5 and haven't seen that scientific setup yet :P
Yeah, it's not the outdoor one I was referring to, but rather the indoor ones where they tried to bring out the worst flare in each and see what happens if they moved the source outside of the frame.
As for the sapphire lens - you should have a chat with this guy ;)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3139979&cid=41440117
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/10/01/purple-flare-test-iphone-5-vs-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-vs-htc-one-s/
It's far more often bright light sources near the edge, or just outside the edge, of view that causes these issues. And yes, it'll happen on any camera - even with $2000 lenses. It'll just happen a heck of a lot less often and be far less pronounced.
They're not expecting that.
They're just - rightly so, in my opinion - expecting at least the quality of the iPhone 4s. See comparison:
http://9.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/iphone-haze-comparisonb.jpg
This has nothing to do with people expecting dSLR quality imagery using a cellphone. They're not even expecting point-and-shoot quality. They're expecting reasonable phone quality (for this day and age), and quite often not getting it.
As for taking pictures with your phone in general,I'm sure you can do the Jeopardy routine for "The camera you have with you."
Wired seemed to have a better write-up of potential legal angles:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/
Regardless of legal angles, though, Stratasys made it clear that this is not what they want their machines used for, and that is that. If he bought it, it might be different - but he was basically just renting it. I'm sure he can get a different 3D printer to work with.
Rotation is easily handled - moving the mouse left/right while holding the mousewheel down, for example. Unless there's also a need for panning while simultaneously zooming and rotating, of course.
On the other hand, how many apps do the two-finger rotation thing? And how many of those have you cursed for having it because every time you merely want to zoom, the app decides that you also want to rotate the view by 1 degree?
I see the lack of an accelerometer in most computers as a bigger issue. Even when it does have an accelerometer, that also happens to be accessible (perhaps as part of a laptop's mechanisms to help prevent damage to HDDs), a laptop isn't exactly something you start tilting around to e.g. play a racing game.
Still, there's plenty of apps that don't even need those things or you can make do with a kludge.
Because... oh sweet Jesus.
I suppose the elections are "stuff that matters" - but covering every candidate's (team's) many, many gaffes is practically a day task best left to other sites indeed.
That's a bit of a philosophical question, really.
Let's say the piece sizes are 1MB each (not uncommon). Let's say this is on a movie that is 500MB. Let's further do a naive calculation and say the movie lasts 2 hours. 2 hours / 500 = 14.4s. Now let's assume assume that half the piece is useless because it's a bunch of P or B frames, but half-way in is an I-frame you can work from. I frames are bigger, let's say that takes up 25% of the piece. So 3.6 seconds of the movie would actually be playable from that chunk if you can find a video player willing to attempt decoding and playback. Can you genuinely say it's 'unusable'?
Let's also flip that around - let's say you are the only source of that piece. Without you, anybody downloading the movie will miss a 14.4s chunk of the movie - perhaps it'll even fail to play back. Wouldn't that imply that your piece is actually rather important?
But what if you're only sharing only 64kB? The odds that that 64kB also matches another 64kB chunk of a random and rights-free file - or at least not the file you would be accused of - are astronomical, but not outside the realm of theory.
There's technical hurdles there, though, as your torrent client identified the chunk as belonging to X, not Y. While you could try and use a 'the torrent client LIED!' defense, I'm not sure what NL judge would go along with that.
On the other hand, if you're asking if the rights holder is 'harmed', then there's plenty of people who will say that even if you shared the entire movie the rights holder isn't harmed because the people downloading likely wouldn't have purchased the movie anyway - better yet, some of them might be swayed to purchase it after seeing the downloaded copy and the rights holder actually stands to win from your sharing.
Good luck figuring all that out - like I said, it gets a bit philosophical (and/or academic).
But back to NL law - yes, they can claim that. Arnoud Engelfriet (who is probably as close as you're going to get to an authority on the matter) also points out that it doesn't matter that you share but one small part while others would have to share the rest; you're not allowed to upload even those parts.
I don't think 'citation' as used by Arnoud there is limited to literary works, by the way. Here's his writings on citation laws when dealing with images/video:
http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/citeren/beeldcitaat/
( Google translate makes a bit of a mess of it, but I'm sure you get the gist. )
Slight correction in the case of NL: This is still illegal.
http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/inbreuk-bittorrent-torrents/
In essence, the fact that you're (presumably) only uploading small parts of the work, rather than the whole work, doesn't matter. The only situation in which you're allowed to distribute fragments of a work is when you're using it as a citation. Since the fragment isn't discussed or criticized, laws governing the use of citation don't apply.
He then goes on to explain that, potentially, you might get a lesser sentence if you only uploaded two fragments (as opposed to many more, presumably), and that anybody offering the .torrent file itself is not making a copy of the work. Nevertheless, if you offer enough of them you can still be hit with a 'structural facilitation' of copyright infringement, etc.
I don't recall there being cases about uploaders getting chased down in NL, despite the commonplace bittorrenting, though - they tend to go after the indexing/hosting sites and sometimes the ISPs.
Typically these laws are written in the form that you are 'allowed' to make a copy, thus giving you no specific right to the ability or capability of making said copy - which means that the rights holder can make it as difficult as they want for you to make that copy.
If that means you have to hire a bunch of artists to copy a movie frame by frame by oil painting on canvas, and an orchestra and voice artists to record the movie's sound on an 8 track system, then that sucks for you - but at the same, the rights holder couldn't complain since you're allowed to make that copy.
Even if it says you have the right to make a copy I think the above largely applies. The laws tend not to say anything about how that copy is made and how good the result is.
They levy in NL works a little differently.
The levy is compensation for making a 'for personal use' copy of other media. It's not, however, the reason that downloading is legal; it's not because you purchase 1 (one) CD-R for $1 that the law says it's now okay to download 20 movies per month. Another part of the law out of touch with reality is what makes it legal.
In addition, we have a levy on tapes, videotapes, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs (I don't recall if BD-Rs as well) but not on e.g. iPods, DVRs, loose HDDs and any and all other media that one could put 'pirated' content on as a compensation for making a private copy of the media.
So even the majority of those who do believe that downloading should be legal due to the levy are being disingenuous, considering they never even paid a levy on the target medium.
That said, two of the questions they seek to have answered is this: If copying for personal use is legal regardless of origin, must/can we have a levy on all of these media? If copying for personal use is made illegal in certain cases, must/can we remove all levies on any/some media?
I wholly agree that sending a 'wrongful' takedown notice should incur a fine for the filing party.
Note that I understand 'wrongful' to mean claiming rights on material to which they hold no rights.
This is different from believing you have the rights, and in arbitration or in court being proven wrong (be that because you don't have the rights, or its use by the respondent is fair use, for example).
Mind you, as it stands, there certainly is a cost involved with filing a DMCA complaint that is not wrongful. A properly written DMCA complaint practically necessitates vetting by a lawyer / one's legal department. If they're on a fixed payroll then of course that doesn't matter much, otherwise you're out a few bucks just for filing the notice.
The takedown procedure, on the other hand, is usually automatic, and the respondent doing nothing about it is entirely free. Filing a counternotice may or may not give rise to costs depending on how that is set up at the hosting site of choice and whether or not direct legal action (and I don't necessarily mean 'sue, sue, sue!' but even just a letter from their lawyer to the respondent's lawyer) follows.
Thank goodness at least one of those responding asked :D
Hell no. The entire post is a regurgitation of Apple statements and statements by owners of iPhones. I thought the 'introduce you to Panorama mode' would have been a good tip-off ;)
Still.. "+0 Troll", is that an achievement yet? At least it sparked some discussion :)
That the processor can barely drive
Needed on the memory-hungry Android platform
Compromising design and SD cards are a relic from a time when you wouldn't just stream your media.
An unproven technology that has security (see recent Galaxy S3 hack through NFC at Pwn2Own) and privacy implications that appears to be focused on mobile payments where we believe Passbook to be a superior solution.
In synthetic benchmark A - synthetic benchmark B shows the iPhone 5 on top.
Made possible only by making the S3 1.2mm thicker than the iPhone 5.
With a scratch-prone lens, as opposed to our high scratch-resistant sapphire lens.
We believe our connector - which can be plugged in either way - to be superior for user convenience as well as technical reasons. By not giving in to the demands of the USB standards body we are free to innovate and take full advantage of our connector design, fostering a third party ecosystem which we have proven to be highly successful with our prior connector.
Now let us introduce you to Panorama mode - it will revolutionize photography.
Signed,
Not Apple - but it might as well have been.
And I'm not even an iPhone user/fan.
I don't know if they would be unnecessary. The situation would fall back to standard copyright fare. You'd then have to consider whether sites such as YouTube can be held accountable ("contributory" or "vicarious" liability) for the claimed material being available through their service.
I'd imagine those sites that cite compliance with the DMCA do feel it's a godsend given that there's very little burden on them.
I'm sure it doesn't feel like a godsend for the next mother making a video of their child dancing to some music and getting hit with a DMCA complaint.
The rights holders - I'm not sure, they seem to have a love/hate relationship with it.
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a U.S. lawyer, though - you'd have to check with one to figure out if the DMCA on the whole has been a positive or a negative influence on copyright / free dissemination of information.
'Deliver of offer refund' is one of KickStarter's tems of service for Creators. If you, as a Backer..
1. feel that the product has not been delivered and there's no hope of it being delivered.
2. want a refund (as opposed to just writing it off as a donation / loss)
3. are unable to get a refund from the Creator
Then:
A. Talk to your credit card issuer. Explain the situation - have them void the charge. It's then Amazon's problem to square out with KickStarter. This may not be an option available to you.
B. Talk to a lawyer. Basic contract law is likely to apply - but, again, talk to a lawyer. If you or your lawyer would need assistance, go google Hanfree and Neil Singh.
I do very much implore you to consider whether you want to go down that road. There's quite a few projects I backed who have not (yet) delivered, some going for a year now. But most of the Creators tend to be communicative and explain what the speed bumps are and what the timeline looks like. Others I pledged such a small amount that it's simply not worth it for me to bother with it. ( In the Hanfree case, the Backer is a lawyer and sued out of principle because it wasn't just his $$, but a combined total of $$,$$$ apparently being lost that rubbed him the wrong way. )
Any opportunity to flog the DMCA is news.
Except when it comes time to cite its safe harbor provisions, of course - then the DMCA is a godsend.
Seriously, though - the Wired article doesn't really go into details only having been told by KickStarter that they must comply with the law. If the law says a project must be removed (not just suspended, but purged (per KS nomenclature)), then what does one expect?
Yes, it would be nice to explain why a project was purged (or even just suspended).. or at least tell the project creators why (in case of DMCA complaint, I believe it is required) - as far as that goes, KickStarter certainly fails in the transparency department.
But the fact that projects 'disappear' isn't particularly newsworthy. YouTube videos 'disappear'. Even Slashdot articles 'disappear'. Misener himself has set up a service where you can still 'find' projects that were once launched and then canceled/suspended. I'd imagine the purged ones are a part of that as well if he bothers to cache locally and not just yank data from KickStarter's servers for every project request.
Well, personally I think 'shopped models shouldn't be allowed in a porn project's pitch... so perhaps the new rules wouldn't be all bad if applied to other categories :)
I understand what you're saying - but, again, their entire verbiage speaks against it.
Creative projects (I'll take this to be film, books, dance recitals, albums, photo projects, etc.) aren't affected by these new rules.
So what you have to look at is what KickStarter wants to be for the 'Hardware / Product Design' categories.
Their old rule was clarified in the 'accountability' post: deliver, or offer refunds. That makes it very much a 'sale' type platform.
Then the new rule changes - announced in a blog post saying that KickStarter is not a store - reinforce the idea that it actually is a store, by essentially making it so that you must have a finished product that merely needs mass production.
If they really want the whole 'risks and challenges' thing to fly, then Backers do, effectively, become donators and the 'deliver or offer refund' must not apply.
I'm not sure if people aren't 'getting' the threshold thing, by the way. Backers understand the threshold just fine - if the project doesn't meet the threshold, nothing happens (insofar as the KickStarter project goes). If it does meet the threshold, then things are supposed to take off.
Perhaps you mean that Creators don't quite get it - in that their threshold should be set realistically based on expected costs for development and manufacture + extra to be on the cautious side.
But then that's a failing in KickStarter's information supply. The 'risks and challenges' section may make Creators more aware by forcing them to think about it a little bit, but that should be seen entirely separately from how Backers believe KickStarter works or should work.
Mind you, I've always been a stern defender of the "KickStarter is not a store", and I live by that when pledging for projects myself. If a Creator were to offer a refund, I'd judge their (apparent) effort and decide based on that whether I want a refund or not. But legally speaking, it is very much looking like a store.
Please note that these new rules are only applicable to the Hardware and Product Design categories (the two are practically interchangeable).
So this doesn't apply to (short) films, music albums, dance recitals, software, books, photograph projects, etc.
As one of the comments in the blog post notes, this looks like a change mostly to get negative press off KickStarter's back.
And yes, projects like Orbit or in fact many iDevice projects that are failing, or have failed - including the Hanfree project (Creator filed for Chapter 7 - quite a development as this is after a Backer sued him) - are an influence there.
But so are the NPR coverage. The Polygon article (with such bombshells as (paraphrasing) "Even if it is a fraudulent project - who's going to sue over a trivial amount of money?" - even though KickStarter takes a percentage of that fraudulently acquired fund). Their own recent 'Accountability' blog post, and so forth and so on.
Here's the thing, though. On that blog post, and this new one, they've gotten almost nothing but flack.
Prohibiting product renders - rather than requiring they be labeled as such - hinders many projects.
Prohibiting multiples pledge levels - rather than requiring a set limit - hinders many projects.
Prohibiting selling items based on what you plan for it to be able to do - rather than requiring them to only advertise with current features and allow further features to be added in e.g. updates - hinders may projects.
Moreover, all of these changes actually make KickStarter more of a store. The verbiage is such that you pretty much have to show a finished product and the only reason to try and CrowdFund is for mass production. That's practically the definition of pre-sales.
The most striking change, though, is the part where Creators in those categories now have to explain what risks there are and what challenges they face.
This is orthogonal to the 'accountability' blog post in which it was clarified that a Creator must either A. deliver or B. offer refunds.
That means there are no risks other than that of the Creator's to bear.
It's all good and well that KickStarter is trying to get Backers to think that they're really just donating - and Backers are welcome to think this and write off any money pledged that ends up going nowhere - but legally they have set Creators up to comply with, essentially, contract law.
I understand what KickStarter is trying to seem to do - protect Creators against themselves a little (make sure you have a viable product and production process thought out before you seek funding) and against Backers (by trying to ease them off demanding refunds), and Backers from dishonest Creators or indeed their own gullibility - but I feel like this is not the way to do it.
I wish KickStarter could decide - especially in legal terms - what it wants to be for these categories; a pre-sale platform, or a donation platform. It can't rely on the goodwill of Backers and Creators to be both.
"jack - Take (something) illicitly; steal"
Pretty sure there's no theft there. Stop giving the RIAA/MPAA ammunition ;)
More importantly, though...
I don't remember seeing any such language in open source licenses. Most of them do explicitly explain that it's okay to take the open source material and sell it. Some licenses require the source to be made available when distributing products based on it. Some require you mention the license in question.
Can you cite one which actually states that you can't "race to the bottom of the profit ladder" using the sources?
I'm sure it's seen as a 'dick move', but then those who believe that should be prohibited should be working to change the license applied to the material.
That said, the project did fail so those most likely to back the project already made their choice clear.