I think the question is, or should be, why isn't there a supported API?
Given the plethora of weather apps, widgets, etc. that are highly popular on Android (and iOS, for that matter, but widgets.. Android), it seems to be like offering a weather API with cached results (similar to the location API) so that each and every app isn't requesting its own data from its own datasources, sucking up resources and running up data bills for some users would be a good thing.
Hell - let some enterprising App developer get on that. I'd guess the Intents bits could be of some use there. Plenty of developers cooperate on other fronts - why not weather?
I'm guessing they're looking for more than a few million dollars* - crowdfunding is probably not their best avenue, even if putting it on kickstarter or - and more likely because of the type of project it would be - indiegogo could bring it a lot more exposure (similar to the Tesla museum project).
I would be very surprised if there weren't an adapter released by Apple (similar to how they're on board with micro USB for devices...through an adapter) if the two are incompatible form-factor-wise.
But given the rumors that the iPhone 5 may be physically larger, there's certainly a lot of docks, sleeves, etc. manufactured to form-fit the existing iPhone, that it physically won't fit in. On the up side - all the dock makers can make iPhone 5 ones and get a new infusion of customers' cash. Pretty sweet deal, really.
To him, a rectangle with rounded corners must simply have been an option. To others, sharper corners were an option. yet others had maybe pondered square devices, or round, or triangular. Point is - none of them are "obvious" per se - they're simply one of many choices out there that, if you were to ask a person, would come up with. There's certainly advantages to a rectangle - we're used to rectangles. Be it horizontally when dealing with TVs, computer screens, etc. or vertically when dealing with newspapers, magazines, books, etc. There's also advantages to making the corners round. Making them razor sharp simply makes them uncomfortable to hold. In that way you could say it's certainly a more obvious choice than a triangular, sharp-cornered, screen.
The thing Apple did do - through its marketing prowess, among other - is make it popular. But its popularity is not what makes it obvious.
Similarly slide-to-unlock. No, 'slide' mechanisms weren't very popular until the Apple's use of it. That in itself isn't what makes it obvious, though. The average lock on a public restroom stall may be what makes it obvious - because if you ask 100 people to come up with ways to perform an action (not necessarily unlock) given a 2D surface on which a continuous/non-continuous position may be tracked, 'slide' is more than likely to come up as one of the first suggestions. So why didn't others use it before? Because there weren't 100 'others'. There was Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, essentially. Most everything else were what you would now call 'feature phones' and unlocking those is pretty universal.. '*, OK' or '#, OK'. Maybe that was patented, too, and everybody licensed that from whoever held that patent. I should hope not, though. They copied that model - Windows Mobile required pushing an on-screen 'unlock' button or *, followed by an on-screen button or the 'enter' key, for example. If Microsoft were told by, say, Ericsson that they patented 'a two-tap method for unlocking' and to quit using it and also get all devices banned from sale (instead of just licensing it out for something a little less ridiculous than e.g. $10/device), odds are that Microsoft would have implemented a slide action - and thought of 50 more ways, patented them all, etc.
There is a difference between these two, though. The former is form following function. Nobody wants to be jabbed in the hands by the throwing star tablet and look at the accompanying screen because it's just impractical - so the rectangle with more or less rounded corners is something that you eventually tend to evolve toward. Granting a patent on that, or even its use as a component in a patent (design or otherwise) is shenanigans.
The latter, however, is completely arbitrary. To use the bathroom stall analogy - there's knobs you have to turn, buttons you have to push, bars that you have to flip over. If the cleaning crew wants to access the maintenance room, they may have to enter a pin, or hold up a card (NFC), etc. There's so many ways in which to implement a device lock/unlock method that at least when faced with patent litigation, it's not worth the bother to fight over keeping a 'slide' mechanism on your device unless you're fighting it out of principle (i.e. believe the patent should not have been granted OR that it should be FRAND). That's not to say that the horizontal slide is innovative, ground-breaking, etc. Just a lot more 'meh'.
When Apple really, really doesn't like you - they have no qualms just shutting you out. See also the replacement of Google Maps, the removal of YouTube app pre-install, the long delay in approving Google Voice (Siri 'competitor').
Samsung's electronics division doesn't make anything that is unique enough that Apple couldn't just jump ship on.
More surprisingly the jury found Samsung guilty of infringing Apple's U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677 and D593,087, which Apple's attorney's argued in testimony give it exclusive rights to produce rectangular smartphones with rounded edges.
You're right in that it's not the only thing it was about. It was also about...
the '301 ("bounce patent"; all devices), U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 ("pinch to zoom"; almost all devices), U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (all devices), and '163 ("double tap to zoom"; some devices, but not others)
I don't know what lesson you suggest we should have learned, but I'm pretty sure the one people are going to be learning in the months to come is that your patent system is fubar.
What makes HADOPI draconian is that you don't have to get caught, you just have to get accused 3 times
Right, that's one of the bits that I find questionable at best. I do believe that any kind of 'N strikes' setup there has to be due process for any of the strikes that actually count. If they want to send the person on the connection's account a little notice that some copyright infringement was detected, along with details, that doesn't count as a 'strike', I think that should be fine; after all, maybe the subscriber just has an open connection, or one of their kids did it.. better to know (and then decide how to deal with that, if at all) than not.
As to copyright extensions, literally hundreds of thousands of work were stolen that were humanity's common property
Except that in the case of copyright extensions, I believe these were enacted before the first works would become Public Domain? I could be wrong in that - I'm sure hitting wikipedia would tell me either way. I do know of the case of foreign works, which were considered PD, re-entering copyright in the U.S. as part of an international treaty, first signaled in 2010 and I think settled at the Supreme Court level in 2012. But then, those works were largely in copyright in e.g. the author's country - so international matters complicate things quite a bit.
I also think it's pretty damn close to a crime against humanity to let vast amounts of our culture simply vanish by neglect - they're copyrighted, so you can't copy them, and the company that owns them couldn't give less of a damn because they haven't been making the company money for 50 years.
I largely agree, but again things may be more complex in some instances. Think of simple games from the DOS or Win3.x era. You couldn't really sell them today unless it was as part of some large bundle (some major titles exempt). So some gaming sites would post these (some with consent from the original publisher / creator / etc., some not so much) based on the idea that doing so wouldn't cut into anybody's profits, while making these great games available for the newer generations. But then cell phones that could run mobile editions of java appeared, and some smart individuals realized that if they could buy up the IP, they could re-release these games for mobile (this continues with smartphones). So now making the games available could be argued to cut into some company's profits. Personally I don't think that's a very strong argument and favor making works available over letting them gather dust 'just in case' somebody finds a way to monetize it years down the road, but it has been grounds for some of these sites to remove titles.
I thought the whole point of safe harbor in the DMCA was that the hosting sites were not supposed to be held liable.
That safe harbor clause comes with a whole bunch of stipulations, though - like having an appointed DMCA contact person, a DMCA complaint processing.. process, adequate and timely response, etc. I don't know if they ran afoul of, or whether the RIAA/MPAA believe they ran afoul of, any of these stipulations and whether that would be their basis for any case.
Further, I think - but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking - that just following the DMCA won't grant a site that is specifically geared toward 'piracy' any immunity. RS is not a site geared toward 'piracy', but perhaps the RIAA/MPAA want to make the case that of public links, some percentage is 'piracy', which makes RS defacto so. ( They've used that logic before in rhetoric. )
I have great concern over a carrier thinking they can tell a customer what apps they may or may not use.
I actually RTFA and apparently this is a pre-loaded app. I.e. an App that AT&T themselves put on there. This isn't a user downloading the 'facetime' app and subsequently finding out it can't be run - the app's already on the AT&T phone, out of the AT&T box.
I guess it becomes worrying when the OS doesn't allow you to remove the pre-installed version and replace it with a user-downloaded version (without jumping through a bunch of hoops) or if the user-downloaded version still gets recognized by AT&T's code as being facetime and get blocked all the same. But any information on that appears to be missing from the article(s).
No. I believe that if the powers that be hadn't committed the largest theft in the history of mankind - stealing the vast majority of our cultural works and hiding them away behind their paywalls (those they don't just let rot and vanish from the face of the earth so they won't compete with their new works),
Wait - how can it be theft if it was never your possession in the first place? I get what you're saying, and I'm sure the copyright extensions would make for a good argument of "if not for the copyright extensions, they would have been in the public domain, and indeed be our 'possession'!" - but since they were enacted, those 'what ifs' are moot. In addition, just because it's behind a paywall doesn't mean it's not accessible. The lack of releasing old material on new media is a better argument, but not for competing purposes. While many enjoy their older TV series on Netflix, they're still also watching Game of Thrones / The Walking Dead / Keeping up with the Kardashians (x.x)
piracy would never have risen to the levels it's at now - and would be much harder to justify.
While it would be harder to justify (not sure how much harder), under a shorter copyright term there would also simply be less 'piracy' by virtue of the fact that most works would be in the public domain. It would do nothing for recent works, which remain the largest portion of 'pirated' material.
Now? It's too late. We've already got several generations hooked on easy, free, downloads.
And I believe people would have gotten hooked on that either way because there's practically always a superior element in 'piracy' that appeals to a large group. That doesn't take away that how things have been handled (and continue to be handled, in many respects) are a large factor in the rise of - and continued success of - 'piracy'. I fully recognize that the iTunes model has driven many people to buy songs piecewise, for example. That Amazon Prime's $1 or $3 movies are finding a large audience. That app stores with anything between $1 and $30 apps are very successful. All of these despite 'piracy' alternatives. Had they been available early on, then 'piracy' may not have become such a mainstay. On the other hand, people do still pirate (Amazon Prime doesn't carry every single movie, iTunes doesn't carry every band, app stores don't carry all the apps - and even if they do, $0 can still look rather appealing), and one of the major reasons people use the legal alternatives is not because they particularly want to pay but because it's convenient; they can sit on their couch and control their smart TV, find a movie they want to watch, accept that it costs $n, and it begins playing within seconds. 'piracy' doesn't (yet) have an answer to that for most consumers, in large part because it practically requires streaming services rather than a "download first, then play" model. If the 'piracy' sites/services were every bit as convenient, you tell me if consumers would navigate to Amazon Prime, or to Pirate Prime on their TV when the only difference is that one of them is free.
And strangely, when they succeed in lowering the rates of piracy by draconian measures (See France, Hadopi), it turns out that consumers end up buying *much less* of their products than before...
Actually, I don't find that strange at all. I know I come off as pro-industry at times, but it couldn't really be much further from the truth:) Efforts to fight piracy are costing the industry far more than they stand to gain from putting it to their advantage; there's no reason they couldn't release movies themselves, in higher quality than pirates typically can on short notice, and include trailers of other movies in the MKV. Or leave out the surround sound track - point out that the paid version ($1-5, say) has that and more (such as the bonus material often omitted from 'p
People don't want to know exactly what they're eating. Or do you see people lining up for shows about chicken processing plants (no matter how much they've improved since the 80's)? See also: lean, finely textured beef
in a neutral, fact-based manner
While sensationalizing media are around? Good luck with that. See also: pink slime
Hell, we're still dealing with the fallout from the whole "MMR vaccine causes autism!" thing, and you think giving the media all the ammo they could ever have on genetic engineering/modification is a wise idea? Yeah, some of these researchers (driven by profits) are doing batshitcrazy things, but the backlash would taint all GE/GM research. See also: stem cell research.
Except the UK had ruled that linking sites were legal.
iirc there were two cases in which the sites in question were deemed legal. It remains a case-by-case thing. However, I do agree that the charge in this case is suspicious at best (conspiracy to defraud).
Also, I seem to recall the site in question linking to legitimate sources as well, such as Hulu and iTunes.
Probably - but let's face it, even TPB has magnet links to Linux distros, The GIMP, etc. That doesn't suddenly make TPB the 'go to' place for all things F/L/OSS - and judges would be similarly unimpressed by the argument that the site 'also links to' when that is an insignificant component of the site's functioning and intent.
No, copyright law is one of various intellectual property laws. Patent law is another one, for example.
Distribution rights are already in existence - film companies license out films for distribution to local marks, for example. But this doesn't mean that the company that took that license has free reign over the content. The copyright holder retains its right to exercise control over it almost completely. That's why copyright holders can (try to) go after downloaders, uploaders, hosts, link sites, etc. etc.
What removing copyright law would do is take away that overly broad reach and leave just the distribution component. Whichever party is actually distributing the content - not just receiving it and not just passing it on - is the liable party. If you're a downloader, you are not liable for infringing on distribution rights. A link site, similarly, would be exempt - unless the link site is essentially the 'go to' place for the content. E.g. a site that links to a large range of smaller sites that host just a few files, all as part of link site's essential setup (and often involved or actively encouraging this mode of operation among its users). An ISP couldn't be targeted either - unless it's hosting the files (think 'news' servers). Host sites - such as RapidShare - would be valid targets because after you click on a link from a link site that goes to RapidShare, you are getting that file from RapidShare. In this it doesn't matter that RapidShare staff didn't place the file there.. they are the ones distributing it. Similarly, whoever uploaded it would still be a valid target, because they distributed the content (to RapidShare). If a friend comes over, borrows a DVD of yours, and makes a copy - neither of you are a valid target (no distribution). If a friend comes over, sees a DVD, and asks you to make a copy to give to him - you are a valid target the moment you hand over that copy. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Note that there would be a lot of other things in place - both good for 'pirates' and bad, just as well as there would be good bits for distribution rights holders and bad bits. Some bits from the DMCA (as much as people dislike it over its abuse, it's also what keeps sites such as YouTube safe), bits that deal with the public's view on content - reduction of terms, for example.
It would be a major overhaul of the copyright system geared for the future - one in which the casual viewer who downloaded a movie is not a criminal, one in which rights holders can better enforce their rights against those that actually harm them most (insofar as there being any harm.. baby steps, though.. baby steps) while at the same time forcing them to adapt to the market (if it's legal to download, they have to compete on a level playing field by making content available legally - by simply making it a better experience, and charging people for the privilege).
It's unlikely to take hold - copyright holders are too keen on their copyright, while 'pirates' are too keen on 'free stuff!' - but I do honestly believe it is one of the only viable interim steps. That's why I've been writing to interested parties (political, but also content creators) and - where I've managed to get replies - exchanging thoughts. What else am I gonna do? Accept the status quo? Because that won't hold. The balance will tip one way or the other, and neither are desirable, while one of them is downright frightening.
Shouldn't they actually go for the content creator and not the uploader or the hosting company? Ahh pointing out that content creators licenses are what causes the uploading, hosting and linking to be illegal makes them look stupid, so they would rather have unlimited copyright for "a limited time" that's actually THREE GENERATIONS OF HUMANS in length.
While I agree that rights' holders current licensing schemes, artificial distribution limits, etc. etc. very much are a huge factor in piracy, the duration of copyright is not a factor in this except for the few activists that decidedly say "I believe 5 years is long enough for copyright, and because of the author.life+70-year copyright term, I will now download this movie released 10 years ago - that I wouldn't have downloaded if the term was 5 years - just to spite them! ha!". Let's be honest - if copyright duration were reduced to those 5 years, or even 3, do you honestly believe that a significant portion of current 'pirates' would stop 'pirating' material that is not yet 3 years old? As much as people complain about the author's life + 70 years, the fact of the matter is that mostly they will be downloading content that's not even a year old. Be that a movie released on DVD 2 weeks ago or a TV series episode that aired just the night before (in the U.S. and you have to wait 6 months before it airs where you life - I do hate that with a passion, just not the passion of a 'pirate', instead I go straight to the rights holders - kudos to HBO for airing Game of Thrones rather timely in NL - 1 day after U.S. airing (whether or not my - or the hundreds of other) letter(s) was a factor in that, doesn't matter)).
Link sites often link to other sites and not to copyrighted material. How many levels of indirection makes it no longer a crime?
That's a good question, and I certainly don't have a answer to that with a foundation in any jurisdiction's laws. I'm pretty sure the judges here (NL) wouldn't even know and would have to determine that on a case-by-case scenario until law were written on it ('precedent' doesn't mean much in our courts - which can be both a bane and a boon).
However, in reality, link sites linking to link sites is not really a diverging network. 100 link sites all link to 25 link sites which link to 5 link sites which link to maybe 1-3 hosts that actually carry the files or do link in a divergent manner (content stored on a multitude of small sites, temp accounts, hacked accounts, etc.) So within that network, the nodes at the 100 level, the 25 level, and the 5 level? Inconsequential when instead you can take down the 1-3 'hosts'. Of course if you can't, then going after the 5 makes a lot more sense than going after the 100.
Would that make the nodes at the 100 level exempt from legal action? Probably not - but why bother if you just took away their 'sources'?
Well, partially anyway. It wouldn't exactly 'solve' the problem, would it?
People commit murders despite cops chasing after them, jailing some of them, and even killing a few of them every once in a while. "Eliminate laws regarding homicide. Problem solved." - but you'd still have murderers. You might even have more murderers if you find that you can legally get away with it (of course you might get the family/friends of the victim going out to kill you, and they wouldn't be encumbered by laws saying they can't do that either).
Pretending the problem isn't there doesn't make it go away.
The elephant in the room might be "what problem?" - seeing as I can't think of anybody who views copyright infringement as an actual problem except for the special interest groups that are paid to combat it. ( No, not even Joe the Gaffer - they're affected by economic driving forces far greater than what piracy has ever effected. )
But I do agree that copyright should be abolished and instead distribution rights be enforced. This would still target RapidShare, though - so the problem would not be solved for RapidShare.
I had to chuckle when you said 'a few' - I'm pretty sure there's more than 'a few' people who partake in copyright infringement:)
Your right to privacy is also just that - a right, and not necessarily an inalienable one. If you rob a liquor store, do you believe that the camera footage should not be put up in TV broadcasts in an effort to help the police find you? After all, it violates your privacy. Many would say that, if it's clear that you performed a robbery, you gave up your right to privacy in that matter.
So if you willingly and knowingly partake in copyright infringement, do you not believe that you give up your right to privacy in that matter as well?
You may suggest that by going for data retention (in my suggestion, RapidShare keeping your records on file) your privacy is violated even when you're not partaking in copyright infringement. But then again, the liquor store's camera setup is also running and storing the feed whether or not you're robbing them.
You know this - or can reasonably know this - before you enter the liquor store. You could know this - or reasonably know this - before you upload at RapidShare (they already have a ToS that says you're not allowed to upload copyrighted materials to which you have no rights to upload it).
Would you label that draconian?
Now, I know I'm drawing parallels between partaking in copyright infringement and a robbery here, but I'm certainly not equating them. I'm also not saying that copyright (or rather, distribution rights) should hold a high priority with government. If anything, it would reduce the burden on government because under my proposal they wouldn't have to care about it at all unless it were to go to the courts (which, depending on jurisdiction, may not technically be an arm of the 'government').
So if going after the people who actually committed infringement is too hard, that means they should go after easy targets whether or not they are liable?
(emphasis mine) Absolutely not - but only regarding the part I emphasized.
I'm certainly not suggesting that if they can't go after the actual murderer, that they should just arrest some random passerby who they reasonably know was there due to cell logs and asking the question "where were you on the night of...".
The question is, of course, whether or not rapidshare can be held liable. That's something for courts to decide - which unfortunately means you have to go after a party of whom you are unsure whether they are liable (you believe them to be, they tend to believe otherwise) first. Assume the court in the given jurisdiction decides they can't be held liable. Well then the rights holders are f*cked and would have to target something/body else. But if the court says they can be held liable, then why shouldn't the next rights holder go after rapidshare in the same jurisdiction just as well, rather than trying to find the uploaders?
Yes, they are an easy target - more importantly, they're a target with large impact. At least for a week or so.
I'm not advocating they go after anybody, myself - but if they feel so inclined then hosting sites, followed by link sites, are certainly a more sensible target than individual uploaders under current laws and regulations.
Well, your example is still terrible, of course, because these sites don't present you with the pile at all - just the strings. Google provides you neither, but you can throw a string into the pile and Google will try to make it hook to whatever item in the pile most closely matches what you want it to hook to. That can be the Rolex, or it can be a picture of a cat - whatever you requested. There's rarely a string with a picture of a cat at the end of the strings offered by the 'piracy' link sites.
But if you want to give a counter example for the argument given, consider personal information on the person and their family. Sites aggregating that information for easy consumption tend to creep people out (like that app that tied foursquare(?) and facebook profiles together - so people could find pretty girls nearby, essentially). Sites aggregating 'pirated' content, on the other hand, are to be celebrated:)
Aggregation matters in these cases, and the laws usually provide for dealing with it. Many jurisdictions do have legislation against sites aggregating personal information, for example - to the point of defending convicted criminals. Similarly, many have legislation against link sites, usually under a 'facilitation' header.
Grey's Anatomy has been mothballed? When did that happen?
Admittedly, I read your post's body first and thought you were going to make a good point; e.g. that if the broadcaster (in the case of Grey's, ABC) wanted to make money off of it rather than leave it to the `pirates'` devises they could have made it available for cheap on their site. But instead you went for something that is demonstrably untrue. D'oh.
Yes, one can argue that. If argued in front of a judge, they'd even agree with the argument. If argued in front of any reasonable person, they'd also agree.
Open up TPB in one window, open up Google in another. Present to some person unfamiliar with either. Give them 5 minutes to explore each site. Now ask them to give a summary description of each site. I'd be highly surprised if your test subject would suggest there's no difference between the two sites.
Of course when you add search query details for 'pirate' sites or for 'pirated' contents to the URL, there's far less of a difference. But that's the major, major difference between the two, isn't it? TPB presents the information for you, along with very useful categories, links to the latest content, etc. Google presents you with a search box and a bunch of links to their other services (none of which are comparable to TPB either). (Common) Sense is very much a player here.
It doesn't detract from your earlier statement - or the odd legal approach taken (conspiracy to defraud) - but the whole "TPB is exactly like Google" argument falls apart right at the moment the sentence is finished with ", but for 'pirated' content.". Nobody in their right mind would argue it in a court of law anymore - I don't know why some people continue to suggest this comparison:)
And if you cannot pinpoint the uploader, bad luck, there is nothing one can do about it. Let piracy happen.
But then you'd end up in one of the quandaries of my proposal for copyright reform. My proposal is to do away with copyright and instead strictly enforce distribution rights. This would require RapidShare to collect legal information about the uploading party specifically, and exclusively! (though I wouldn't put it past politicians to pervert it), for the purpose of distribution rights enforcement.
So would you agree that RapidShare should collect this information and - if a distribution rights violation has been determined - be presented to the rights holder? Or would you suggest that RapidShare collect no information whatsoever in order to protect the uploader's right to privacy? Or something in between?
Because if you're saying "Rights holders: go after the uploaders! Sites: protect the uploaders by making it impossible for the rights holders to after them!", then the whole "go after the uploaders" effectively becomes "go after no-one" by default.
The UK just did it..... sent a man to jail for 4 years because he provided links to piratebay, demonoid, and other sites that had TV shows/movies.
That sounds innocuous enough - but keep in mind that he actually made GBP35,000/month in 2009 with these activities. Given that they were merely link sites, his hosting costs weren't going to put much of a dent into those figures.
Now I'm not saying that his profiting is what made it illegal (it was illegal either way), or that 4 years in jail is an appropriate sentence - but let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that these site operators are only wishing to give to the world, to provide cultural enrichment to the needy, etc. They most certainly do profit by providing an avenue through which 'piracy' is committed.
That said, under my copyright reform suggestion, linking sites would in fact not be a valid target for legal action. But not because of some misguided 'free speech' concern. ( In case you were referring to the Pussy Riot thing - wow. Did you really just equate the two? If so, you may wish to read up on that case a bit more. It's many times more scary than any piracy-linksite getting targeted is. )
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question is, or should be, why isn't there a supported API?
Given the plethora of weather apps, widgets, etc. that are highly popular on Android (and iOS, for that matter, but widgets.. Android), it seems to be like offering a weather API with cached results (similar to the location API) so that each and every app isn't requesting its own data from its own datasources, sucking up resources and running up data bills for some users would be a good thing.
Hell - let some enterprising App developer get on that. I'd guess the Intents bits could be of some use there. Plenty of developers cooperate on other fronts - why not weather?
I'm guessing they're looking for more than a few million dollars* - crowdfunding is probably not their best avenue, even if putting it on kickstarter or - and more likely because of the type of project it would be - indiegogo could bring it a lot more exposure (similar to the Tesla museum project).
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider#Financial_information
"fiscal year 2007, requested: 143.3 million U.S. dollars"
I would be very surprised if there weren't an adapter released by Apple (similar to how they're on board with micro USB for devices ...through an adapter) if the two are incompatible form-factor-wise.
But given the rumors that the iPhone 5 may be physically larger, there's certainly a lot of docks, sleeves, etc. manufactured to form-fit the existing iPhone, that it physically won't fit in.
On the up side - all the dock makers can make iPhone 5 ones and get a new infusion of customers' cash. Pretty sweet deal, really.
I think you're mixing up two words there; "obvious" and "popular".
You remember the 1994 device by Fidler, right?
http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-11-03-06-am.png%3Fw%3D604
To him, a rectangle with rounded corners must simply have been an option. To others, sharper corners were an option. yet others had maybe pondered square devices, or round, or triangular.
Point is - none of them are "obvious" per se - they're simply one of many choices out there that, if you were to ask a person, would come up with.
There's certainly advantages to a rectangle - we're used to rectangles. Be it horizontally when dealing with TVs, computer screens, etc. or vertically when dealing with newspapers, magazines, books, etc.
There's also advantages to making the corners round. Making them razor sharp simply makes them uncomfortable to hold.
In that way you could say it's certainly a more obvious choice than a triangular, sharp-cornered, screen.
The thing Apple did do - through its marketing prowess, among other - is make it popular. But its popularity is not what makes it obvious.
Similarly slide-to-unlock. No, 'slide' mechanisms weren't very popular until the Apple's use of it. That in itself isn't what makes it obvious, though. The average lock on a public restroom stall may be what makes it obvious - because if you ask 100 people to come up with ways to perform an action (not necessarily unlock) given a 2D surface on which a continuous/non-continuous position may be tracked, 'slide' is more than likely to come up as one of the first suggestions.
So why didn't others use it before? Because there weren't 100 'others'. There was Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, essentially. Most everything else were what you would now call 'feature phones' and unlocking those is pretty universal.. '*, OK' or '#, OK'. Maybe that was patented, too, and everybody licensed that from whoever held that patent. I should hope not, though. They copied that model - Windows Mobile required pushing an on-screen 'unlock' button or *, followed by an on-screen button or the 'enter' key, for example. If Microsoft were told by, say, Ericsson that they patented 'a two-tap method for unlocking' and to quit using it and also get all devices banned from sale (instead of just licensing it out for something a little less ridiculous than e.g. $10/device), odds are that Microsoft would have implemented a slide action - and thought of 50 more ways, patented them all, etc.
There is a difference between these two, though.
The former is form following function. Nobody wants to be jabbed in the hands by the throwing star tablet and look at the accompanying screen because it's just impractical - so the rectangle with more or less rounded corners is something that you eventually tend to evolve toward. Granting a patent on that, or even its use as a component in a patent (design or otherwise) is shenanigans.
The latter, however, is completely arbitrary. To use the bathroom stall analogy - there's knobs you have to turn, buttons you have to push, bars that you have to flip over. If the cleaning crew wants to access the maintenance room, they may have to enter a pin, or hold up a card (NFC), etc.
There's so many ways in which to implement a device lock/unlock method that at least when faced with patent litigation, it's not worth the bother to fight over keeping a 'slide' mechanism on your device unless you're fighting it out of principle (i.e. believe the patent should not have been granted OR that it should be FRAND).
That's not to say that the horizontal slide is innovative, ground-breaking, etc. Just a lot more 'meh'.
...du fromage!
Hence in quotes - but whatever you want to call it or liken it to... ...its update is still pending acceptance into the app store.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/mobile-apps/20881/google-ios-voice-search-saga
For now - it's rumored that the new iPhone (which I do hope they'll just call iPhone 5 instead of 'New iPhone') will be using an LG display (with the capacitive touch sensor bits integrated into the display tech).
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/22/lg-display-starts-volume-production-of-in-cell-touch-screens/
When Apple really, really doesn't like you - they have no qualms just shutting you out. See also the replacement of Google Maps, the removal of YouTube app pre-install, the long delay in approving Google Voice (Siri 'competitor').
Samsung's electronics division doesn't make anything that is unique enough that Apple couldn't just jump ship on.
But 'a rectangle with rounded corners' IS what... this was about.
http://www.dailytech.com/Jury+Finds+Samsung+Guilty+of+Vast+Willful+Infringement+of+Apples+Smartphones/article25515c.htm
You're right in that it's not the only thing it was about. It was also about...
I don't know what lesson you suggest we should have learned, but I'm pretty sure the one people are going to be learning in the months to come is that your patent system is fubar.
Right, that's one of the bits that I find questionable at best. I do believe that any kind of 'N strikes' setup there has to be due process for any of the strikes that actually count. If they want to send the person on the connection's account a little notice that some copyright infringement was detected, along with details, that doesn't count as a 'strike', I think that should be fine; after all, maybe the subscriber just has an open connection, or one of their kids did it.. better to know (and then decide how to deal with that, if at all) than not.
Except that in the case of copyright extensions, I believe these were enacted before the first works would become Public Domain? I could be wrong in that - I'm sure hitting wikipedia would tell me either way.
I do know of the case of foreign works, which were considered PD, re-entering copyright in the U.S. as part of an international treaty, first signaled in 2010 and I think settled at the Supreme Court level in 2012. But then, those works were largely in copyright in e.g. the author's country - so international matters complicate things quite a bit.
I largely agree, but again things may be more complex in some instances.
Think of simple games from the DOS or Win3.x era. You couldn't really sell them today unless it was as part of some large bundle (some major titles exempt). So some gaming sites would post these (some with consent from the original publisher / creator / etc., some not so much) based on the idea that doing so wouldn't cut into anybody's profits, while making these great games available for the newer generations.
But then cell phones that could run mobile editions of java appeared, and some smart individuals realized that if they could buy up the IP, they could re-release these games for mobile (this continues with smartphones). So now making the games available could be argued to cut into some company's profits.
Personally I don't think that's a very strong argument and favor making works available over letting them gather dust 'just in case' somebody finds a way to monetize it years down the road, but it has been grounds for some of these sites to remove titles.
That safe harbor clause comes with a whole bunch of stipulations, though - like having an appointed DMCA contact person, a DMCA complaint processing.. process, adequate and timely response, etc.
I don't know if they ran afoul of, or whether the RIAA/MPAA believe they ran afoul of, any of these stipulations and whether that would be their basis for any case.
Further, I think - but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking - that just following the DMCA won't grant a site that is specifically geared toward 'piracy' any immunity. RS is not a site geared toward 'piracy', but perhaps the RIAA/MPAA want to make the case that of public links, some percentage is 'piracy', which makes RS defacto so. ( They've used that logic before in rhetoric. )
I actually RTFA and apparently this is a pre-loaded app. I.e. an App that AT&T themselves put on there. This isn't a user downloading the 'facetime' app and subsequently finding out it can't be run - the app's already on the AT&T phone, out of the AT&T box.
I guess it becomes worrying when the OS doesn't allow you to remove the pre-installed version and replace it with a user-downloaded version (without jumping through a bunch of hoops) or if the user-downloaded version still gets recognized by AT&T's code as being facetime and get blocked all the same. But any information on that appears to be missing from the article(s).
Wait - how can it be theft if it was never your possession in the first place? I get what you're saying, and I'm sure the copyright extensions would make for a good argument of "if not for the copyright extensions, they would have been in the public domain, and indeed be our 'possession'!" - but since they were enacted, those 'what ifs' are moot.
In addition, just because it's behind a paywall doesn't mean it's not accessible.
The lack of releasing old material on new media is a better argument, but not for competing purposes. While many enjoy their older TV series on Netflix, they're still also watching Game of Thrones / The Walking Dead / Keeping up with the Kardashians (x.x)
While it would be harder to justify (not sure how much harder), under a shorter copyright term there would also simply be less 'piracy' by virtue of the fact that most works would be in the public domain. It would do nothing for recent works, which remain the largest portion of 'pirated' material.
And I believe people would have gotten hooked on that either way because there's practically always a superior element in 'piracy' that appeals to a large group.
That doesn't take away that how things have been handled (and continue to be handled, in many respects) are a large factor in the rise of - and continued success of - 'piracy'. I fully recognize that the iTunes model has driven many people to buy songs piecewise, for example. That Amazon Prime's $1 or $3 movies are finding a large audience. That app stores with anything between $1 and $30 apps are very successful. All of these despite 'piracy' alternatives. Had they been available early on, then 'piracy' may not have become such a mainstay.
On the other hand, people do still pirate (Amazon Prime doesn't carry every single movie, iTunes doesn't carry every band, app stores don't carry all the apps - and even if they do, $0 can still look rather appealing), and one of the major reasons people use the legal alternatives is not because they particularly want to pay but because it's convenient; they can sit on their couch and control their smart TV, find a movie they want to watch, accept that it costs $n, and it begins playing within seconds. 'piracy' doesn't (yet) have an answer to that for most consumers, in large part because it practically requires streaming services rather than a "download first, then play" model.
If the 'piracy' sites/services were every bit as convenient, you tell me if consumers would navigate to Amazon Prime, or to Pirate Prime on their TV when the only difference is that one of them is free.
Actually, I don't find that strange at all. I know I come off as pro-industry at times, but it couldn't really be much further from the truth :) Efforts to fight piracy are costing the industry far more than they stand to gain from putting it to their advantage; there's no reason they couldn't release movies themselves, in higher quality than pirates typically can on short notice, and include trailers of other movies in the MKV. Or leave out the surround sound track - point out that the paid version ($1-5, say) has that and more (such as the bonus material often omitted from 'p
People don't want to know exactly what they're eating. Or do you see people lining up for shows about chicken processing plants (no matter how much they've improved since the 80's)? See also: lean, finely textured beef
While sensationalizing media are around? Good luck with that. See also: pink slime
Hell, we're still dealing with the fallout from the whole "MMR vaccine causes autism!" thing, and you think giving the media all the ammo they could ever have on genetic engineering/modification is a wise idea? Yeah, some of these researchers (driven by profits) are doing batshitcrazy things, but the backlash would taint all GE/GM research. See also: stem cell research.
iirc there were two cases in which the sites in question were deemed legal. It remains a case-by-case thing. However, I do agree that the charge in this case is suspicious at best (conspiracy to defraud).
Probably - but let's face it, even TPB has magnet links to Linux distros, The GIMP, etc. That doesn't suddenly make TPB the 'go to' place for all things F/L/OSS - and judges would be similarly unimpressed by the argument that the site 'also links to' when that is an insignificant component of the site's functioning and intent.
No, copyright law is one of various intellectual property laws. Patent law is another one, for example.
Distribution rights are already in existence - film companies license out films for distribution to local marks, for example. But this doesn't mean that the company that took that license has free reign over the content. The copyright holder retains its right to exercise control over it almost completely. That's why copyright holders can (try to) go after downloaders, uploaders, hosts, link sites, etc. etc.
What removing copyright law would do is take away that overly broad reach and leave just the distribution component. Whichever party is actually distributing the content - not just receiving it and not just passing it on - is the liable party.
If you're a downloader, you are not liable for infringing on distribution rights.
A link site, similarly, would be exempt - unless the link site is essentially the 'go to' place for the content. E.g. a site that links to a large range of smaller sites that host just a few files, all as part of link site's essential setup (and often involved or actively encouraging this mode of operation among its users).
An ISP couldn't be targeted either - unless it's hosting the files (think 'news' servers).
Host sites - such as RapidShare - would be valid targets because after you click on a link from a link site that goes to RapidShare, you are getting that file from RapidShare. In this it doesn't matter that RapidShare staff didn't place the file there.. they are the ones distributing it.
Similarly, whoever uploaded it would still be a valid target, because they distributed the content (to RapidShare).
If a friend comes over, borrows a DVD of yours, and makes a copy - neither of you are a valid target (no distribution).
If a friend comes over, sees a DVD, and asks you to make a copy to give to him - you are a valid target the moment you hand over that copy.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Note that there would be a lot of other things in place - both good for 'pirates' and bad, just as well as there would be good bits for distribution rights holders and bad bits. Some bits from the DMCA (as much as people dislike it over its abuse, it's also what keeps sites such as YouTube safe), bits that deal with the public's view on content - reduction of terms, for example.
It would be a major overhaul of the copyright system geared for the future - one in which the casual viewer who downloaded a movie is not a criminal, one in which rights holders can better enforce their rights against those that actually harm them most (insofar as there being any harm.. baby steps, though.. baby steps) while at the same time forcing them to adapt to the market (if it's legal to download, they have to compete on a level playing field by making content available legally - by simply making it a better experience, and charging people for the privilege).
It's unlikely to take hold - copyright holders are too keen on their copyright, while 'pirates' are too keen on 'free stuff!' - but I do honestly believe it is one of the only viable interim steps. That's why I've been writing to interested parties (political, but also content creators) and - where I've managed to get replies - exchanging thoughts. What else am I gonna do? Accept the status quo? Because that won't hold. The balance will tip one way or the other, and neither are desirable, while one of them is downright frightening.
While I agree that rights' holders current licensing schemes, artificial distribution limits, etc. etc. very much are a huge factor in piracy, the duration of copyright is not a factor in this except for the few activists that decidedly say "I believe 5 years is long enough for copyright, and because of the author.life+70-year copyright term, I will now download this movie released 10 years ago - that I wouldn't have downloaded if the term was 5 years - just to spite them! ha!".
Let's be honest - if copyright duration were reduced to those 5 years, or even 3, do you honestly believe that a significant portion of current 'pirates' would stop 'pirating' material that is not yet 3 years old?
As much as people complain about the author's life + 70 years, the fact of the matter is that mostly they will be downloading content that's not even a year old. Be that a movie released on DVD 2 weeks ago or a TV series episode that aired just the night before (in the U.S. and you have to wait 6 months before it airs where you life - I do hate that with a passion, just not the passion of a 'pirate', instead I go straight to the rights holders - kudos to HBO for airing Game of Thrones rather timely in NL - 1 day after U.S. airing (whether or not my - or the hundreds of other) letter(s) was a factor in that, doesn't matter)).
That's a good question, and I certainly don't have a answer to that with a foundation in any jurisdiction's laws. I'm pretty sure the judges here (NL) wouldn't even know and would have to determine that on a case-by-case scenario until law were written on it ('precedent' doesn't mean much in our courts - which can be both a bane and a boon).
However, in reality, link sites linking to link sites is not really a diverging network. 100 link sites all link to 25 link sites which link to 5 link sites which link to maybe 1-3 hosts that actually carry the files or do link in a divergent manner (content stored on a multitude of small sites, temp accounts, hacked accounts, etc.)
So within that network, the nodes at the 100 level, the 25 level, and the 5 level? Inconsequential when instead you can take down the 1-3 'hosts'. Of course if you can't, then going after the 5 makes a lot more sense than going after the 100.
Would that make the nodes at the 100 level exempt from legal action? Probably not - but why bother if you just took away their 'sources'?
hear, hear
Well, partially anyway. It wouldn't exactly 'solve' the problem, would it?
People commit murders despite cops chasing after them, jailing some of them, and even killing a few of them every once in a while. "Eliminate laws regarding homicide. Problem solved." - but you'd still have murderers. You might even have more murderers if you find that you can legally get away with it (of course you might get the family/friends of the victim going out to kill you, and they wouldn't be encumbered by laws saying they can't do that either).
Pretending the problem isn't there doesn't make it go away.
The elephant in the room might be "what problem?" - seeing as I can't think of anybody who views copyright infringement as an actual problem except for the special interest groups that are paid to combat it.
( No, not even Joe the Gaffer - they're affected by economic driving forces far greater than what piracy has ever effected. )
But I do agree that copyright should be abolished and instead distribution rights be enforced. This would still target RapidShare, though - so the problem would not be solved for RapidShare.
I had to chuckle when you said 'a few' - I'm pretty sure there's more than 'a few' people who partake in copyright infringement :)
Your right to privacy is also just that - a right, and not necessarily an inalienable one. If you rob a liquor store, do you believe that the camera footage should not be put up in TV broadcasts in an effort to help the police find you? After all, it violates your privacy.
Many would say that, if it's clear that you performed a robbery, you gave up your right to privacy in that matter.
So if you willingly and knowingly partake in copyright infringement, do you not believe that you give up your right to privacy in that matter as well?
You may suggest that by going for data retention (in my suggestion, RapidShare keeping your records on file) your privacy is violated even when you're not partaking in copyright infringement.
But then again, the liquor store's camera setup is also running and storing the feed whether or not you're robbing them.
You know this - or can reasonably know this - before you enter the liquor store. You could know this - or reasonably know this - before you upload at RapidShare (they already have a ToS that says you're not allowed to upload copyrighted materials to which you have no rights to upload it).
Would you label that draconian?
Now, I know I'm drawing parallels between partaking in copyright infringement and a robbery here, but I'm certainly not equating them. I'm also not saying that copyright (or rather, distribution rights) should hold a high priority with government. If anything, it would reduce the burden on government because under my proposal they wouldn't have to care about it at all unless it were to go to the courts (which, depending on jurisdiction, may not technically be an arm of the 'government').
(emphasis mine)
Absolutely not - but only regarding the part I emphasized.
I'm certainly not suggesting that if they can't go after the actual murderer, that they should just arrest some random passerby who they reasonably know was there due to cell logs and asking the question "where were you on the night of...".
The question is, of course, whether or not rapidshare can be held liable. That's something for courts to decide - which unfortunately means you have to go after a party of whom you are unsure whether they are liable (you believe them to be, they tend to believe otherwise) first.
Assume the court in the given jurisdiction decides they can't be held liable. Well then the rights holders are f*cked and would have to target something/body else.
But if the court says they can be held liable, then why shouldn't the next rights holder go after rapidshare in the same jurisdiction just as well, rather than trying to find the uploaders?
Yes, they are an easy target - more importantly, they're a target with large impact. At least for a week or so.
I'm not advocating they go after anybody, myself - but if they feel so inclined then hosting sites, followed by link sites, are certainly a more sensible target than individual uploaders under current laws and regulations.
Well, your example is still terrible, of course, because these sites don't present you with the pile at all - just the strings.
Google provides you neither, but you can throw a string into the pile and Google will try to make it hook to whatever item in the pile most closely matches what you want it to hook to. That can be the Rolex, or it can be a picture of a cat - whatever you requested.
There's rarely a string with a picture of a cat at the end of the strings offered by the 'piracy' link sites.
But if you want to give a counter example for the argument given, consider personal information on the person and their family. Sites aggregating that information for easy consumption tend to creep people out (like that app that tied foursquare(?) and facebook profiles together - so people could find pretty girls nearby, essentially). :)
Sites aggregating 'pirated' content, on the other hand, are to be celebrated
Aggregation matters in these cases, and the laws usually provide for dealing with it.
Many jurisdictions do have legislation against sites aggregating personal information, for example - to the point of defending convicted criminals. Similarly, many have legislation against link sites, usually under a 'facilitation' header.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19253359
Grey's Anatomy has been mothballed? When did that happen?
Admittedly, I read your post's body first and thought you were going to make a good point; e.g. that if the broadcaster (in the case of Grey's, ABC) wanted to make money off of it rather than leave it to the `pirates'` devises they could have made it available for cheap on their site.
But instead you went for something that is demonstrably untrue. D'oh.
Yes, one can argue that. If argued in front of a judge, they'd even agree with the argument. If argued in front of any reasonable person, they'd also agree.
Open up TPB in one window, open up Google in another. Present to some person unfamiliar with either. Give them 5 minutes to explore each site. Now ask them to give a summary description of each site. I'd be highly surprised if your test subject would suggest there's no difference between the two sites.
Of course when you add search query details for 'pirate' sites or for 'pirated' contents to the URL, there's far less of a difference. But that's the major, major difference between the two, isn't it? TPB presents the information for you, along with very useful categories, links to the latest content, etc. Google presents you with a search box and a bunch of links to their other services (none of which are comparable to TPB either). (Common) Sense is very much a player here.
It doesn't detract from your earlier statement - or the odd legal approach taken (conspiracy to defraud) - but the whole "TPB is exactly like Google" argument falls apart right at the moment the sentence is finished with ", but for 'pirated' content.". Nobody in their right mind would argue it in a court of law anymore - I don't know why some people continue to suggest this comparison :)
But then you'd end up in one of the quandaries of my proposal for copyright reform. My proposal is to do away with copyright and instead strictly enforce distribution rights. This would require RapidShare to collect legal information about the uploading party specifically, and exclusively! (though I wouldn't put it past politicians to pervert it), for the purpose of distribution rights enforcement.
So would you agree that RapidShare should collect this information and - if a distribution rights violation has been determined - be presented to the rights holder?
Or would you suggest that RapidShare collect no information whatsoever in order to protect the uploader's right to privacy?
Or something in between?
Because if you're saying "Rights holders: go after the uploaders! Sites: protect the uploaders by making it impossible for the rights holders to after them!", then the whole "go after the uploaders" effectively becomes "go after no-one" by default.
That sounds innocuous enough - but keep in mind that he actually made GBP35,000/month in 2009 with these activities.
Given that they were merely link sites, his hosting costs weren't going to put much of a dent into those figures.
Now I'm not saying that his profiting is what made it illegal (it was illegal either way), or that 4 years in jail is an appropriate sentence - but let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that these site operators are only wishing to give to the world, to provide cultural enrichment to the needy, etc. They most certainly do profit by providing an avenue through which 'piracy' is committed.
That said, under my copyright reform suggestion, linking sites would in fact not be a valid target for legal action. But not because of some misguided 'free speech' concern. ( In case you were referring to the Pussy Riot thing - wow. Did you really just equate the two? If so, you may wish to read up on that case a bit more. It's many times more scary than any piracy-linksite getting targeted is. )