The net result is that he was actively providing people with access to copyrighted media that he didn't have the rights to and was profiting from this act.
Saying he was just showing people where to go is highly misleading. He was taking people there and providing the tools.
Seriously? You think piracy implies murder and theft to a typical modern day person?
Pirates are seen as heroic, romantic figures. Jack Sparrow and the Dread Pirate Roberts. Even amongst the villains, we get the impressive Captain Hook and Blackbeard!
And any attempt to associate video piracy and piracy on the high seas is a joke. I've literally seen it presented as such.
Why do you think that hosting and only hosting is bad? Surely the harm, if there is any, is in providing media to people without permission of the copyright holder. Whether you host it yourself or rely on someone else's hosting surely makes no difference.
The pedantic technical aspects don't matter. The site took third party content and embedded it within the site. He had a website that existed for the sole purpose of serving up media to customers where he knew, or should have known, that doing so was in breach of copyright. It's ridiculous how the same people that criticise the law for being insane and pedantic come up with even more insane theories about how pedantic the law should be.
And aside from that, it's completely irrelevant! This isn't about what he did or didn't do. Ho could have had a site dedicated to churning out pirate copies of DVDs for all I care. The point is that he did so in Britain. US law has no jurisdiction over him.
But if you're sending unmanned probes and rovers, it leads me to ask why do we even do that? We can probably get a lot more bang for buck focussing on science on the planet.
You're changing a part. It's an important part but not the whole thing. And it's not like the software is some huge monolithic entity. It has various isolated sub-parts.
So you change a fe lines of code. It goes through several committees, test phases, and several hundred hours of simulated combat flight test. I reralise this can be expensive,. Millions even, but $300 million!? I'm very curious about how that breaks down.
I'm not sure whether the ownership model makes sense when there's absolutley no tangible product involved at all. The licensing model is one I have particular distaste for, and I dare say I'm not alone in that respect. I like to have control of my own media rather than rely on someone else who may cease to exist.
Okay - I get a general idea of what the NCAA is after googling. I gather it's a sort of college sports league which is associated with the sport.
What confuses me is why Twitter (and facebook and or any other social media service) should be seen as a problem. I'm pretty certain they're not gainigna competitive advantage within the sport. And I presume they're allowed to use these in some aspect, just not for specific purposes. So what are the "violations"? Does this stretch as far as IRC? Usenet? letters to newspapers?
Their business is based on providing search results. If they're cautious about doing what the company's core activity then they should remove links to all Belgian sites. Just shut google.be and stop doing business there. It's not going to be suddenly legal just because a site isn't a newspaper.
It means to not cache it, syndicate it or store an image of it.
The little snippet of text that gives you some idea what the article is about? That's hardly "an article" but is that what you're interpreting it to mean?
I doubt anyone would reasonably interpret it that way. I really don't think this is what was intended. Google does have 10 days to ask for clarification. If they wanted to they could defer ask.
IBM means international business machines which is what Apple makes. AMD means Advanced Micro Devices and the Intel Processor is an Advanced Micro Device.
PC is just shorthand for compatible with IBM's "PC" brand computers. Of course IBM don't make anything branded PC any more and aren't really in the personal computer market, so the term has evolved to mean x86 based computer running a microsoft operating system.
The PC acronym wasn't really used before IBM used it for their brand and the name stuck.
This may explain why they were so vague abut the reasons. They're not sure themselves as to whether they hold the copyright.
hey see their duty as protecting their client (the photographer). They are also ethically (and certain ethical requirements are backed up by some pretty severe penalties) obliged to stay within the law. They're not 100% certain that the photographer is the copyright holder so their obligation in this case remains unclear. By requesting that they take down the photos without citing any law, it simply becomes a genteman's request so they can use this to hedge their bets.
Wearables have never really caught on. Control panels flexible enough to be part of clothing have been around for a while, and I had access to a smart jacket 15 years ago.
Thing is, they don't seem to appeal to the mass market. I think part of it is the "what will it do for me" question that non-geeks ask. Without a killer app, people aren't going to go for wearables.
At best you can file a civil suit claiming ownership, which will be dubious at best.
Not really. If you have legal title to something you are entitled to have it back. And if someone gives away your property, you are still the legal owner
The person who thought they own it has grounds to sue the person who supplied it to them, but since he didn't pay for it that's not going to be a lot.
The iPod was perfectly adequate, but as Cmdr Taco said No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
So why did the iPod do so well against what appears to be a superior product? Because Apple decided not to sell an "mp3 player" to techy types for playing a then relatively obscure media format. Jobs sold it as a music player. You could copy your CDs onto this device and listen to your whole collection on the move.
And why hasn't a company considered hiring geeks to do this sort of stuff? If it's such a good idea then surely someone somewhere would have experimented and seen how hugely successful this has been.
I've been involved in companies run by geeks. They don't always understand business. They're very eager to play with new toys but are rubbish at business plans. You need people who understand business *and* innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't just links! It was embedded video!
The net result is that he was actively providing people with access to copyrighted media that he didn't have the rights to and was profiting from this act.
Saying he was just showing people where to go is highly misleading. He was taking people there and providing the tools.
Seriously? You think piracy implies murder and theft to a typical modern day person?
Pirates are seen as heroic, romantic figures. Jack Sparrow and the Dread Pirate Roberts. Even amongst the villains, we get the impressive Captain Hook and Blackbeard!
And any attempt to associate video piracy and piracy on the high seas is a joke. I've literally seen it presented as such.
Nah it's more he was telling people where there was a free bike parked outside.
...and selling them the bolt cutters.
Why do you think that hosting and only hosting is bad? Surely the harm, if there is any, is in providing media to people without permission of the copyright holder. Whether you host it yourself or rely on someone else's hosting surely makes no difference.
Yes, technically, it isn't hosting content.
The pedantic technical aspects don't matter. The site took third party content and embedded it within the site. He had a website that existed for the sole purpose of serving up media to customers where he knew, or should have known, that doing so was in breach of copyright. It's ridiculous how the same people that criticise the law for being insane and pedantic come up with even more insane theories about how pedantic the law should be.
And aside from that, it's completely irrelevant! This isn't about what he did or didn't do. Ho could have had a site dedicated to churning out pirate copies of DVDs for all I care. The point is that he did so in Britain. US law has no jurisdiction over him.
But if you're sending unmanned probes and rovers, it leads me to ask why do we even do that? We can probably get a lot more bang for buck focussing on science on the planet.
You're changing a part. It's an important part but not the whole thing. And it's not like the software is some huge monolithic entity. It has various isolated sub-parts.
So you change a fe lines of code. It goes through several committees, test phases, and several hundred hours of simulated combat flight test. I reralise this can be expensive,. Millions even, but $300 million!? I'm very curious about how that breaks down.
Jruies also have the de facto right to covicty or acquit based on a coin toss, a Ouija board, or because they like/don't like the look of the guy.
Nullification is s imilarly a de facto right. Just becauser it exists doesn't autopmatically make it a good idea.
I'm not sure whether the ownership model makes sense when there's absolutley no tangible product involved at all. The licensing model is one I have particular distaste for, and I dare say I'm not alone in that respect. I like to have control of my own media rather than rely on someone else who may cease to exist.
Okay - I get a general idea of what the NCAA is after googling. I gather it's a sort of college sports league which is associated with the sport.
What confuses me is why Twitter (and facebook and or any other social media service) should be seen as a problem. I'm pretty certain they're not gainigna competitive advantage within the sport. And I presume they're allowed to use these in some aspect, just not for specific purposes. So what are the "violations"? Does this stretch as far as IRC? Usenet? letters to newspapers?
Their business is based on providing search results. If they're cautious about doing what the company's core activity then they should remove links to all Belgian sites. Just shut google.be and stop doing business there. It's not going to be suddenly legal just because a site isn't a newspaper.
It means to not cache it, syndicate it or store an image of it.
The little snippet of text that gives you some idea what the article is about? That's hardly "an article" but is that what you're interpreting it to mean?
I doubt anyone would reasonably interpret it that way. I really don't think this is what was intended. Google does have 10 days to ask for clarification. If they wanted to they could defer ask.
Nope. But they are allowed to.
This is a negotiating position, rather than a mandate.
It says to remove "articles, photographs and graphic representations" from all their sites.
This did not say "links"
Is it an IBM and does it use an AMD processor?
IBM means international business machines which is what Apple makes. AMD means Advanced Micro Devices and the Intel Processor is an Advanced Micro Device.
PC is just shorthand for compatible with IBM's "PC" brand computers. Of course IBM don't make anything branded PC any more and aren't really in the personal computer market, so the term has evolved to mean x86 based computer running a microsoft operating system.
The PC acronym wasn't really used before IBM used it for their brand and the name stuck.
Actually, the BBC performed a similar experiment in The Experiment with slightly different results.
This may explain why they were so vague abut the reasons. They're not sure themselves as to whether they hold the copyright.
hey see their duty as protecting their client (the photographer). They are also ethically (and certain ethical requirements are backed up by some pretty severe penalties) obliged to stay within the law. They're not 100% certain that the photographer is the copyright holder so their obligation in this case remains unclear. By requesting that they take down the photos without citing any law, it simply becomes a genteman's request so they can use this to hedge their bets.
Wearables have never really caught on. Control panels flexible enough to be part of clothing have been around for a while, and I had access to a smart jacket 15 years ago.
Thing is, they don't seem to appeal to the mass market. I think part of it is the "what will it do for me" question that non-geeks ask. Without a killer app, people aren't going to go for wearables.
At best you can file a civil suit claiming ownership, which will be dubious at best.
Not really. If you have legal title to something you are entitled to have it back. And if someone gives away your property, you are still the legal owner
The person who thought they own it has grounds to sue the person who supplied it to them, but since he didn't pay for it that's not going to be a lot.
I agree. And if it's the museum's property then this is a genuine mistake. He quite reasonably believed the museum no longer wanted the rock.
Still, it does seem that it's not his property. He's taking advantage of a mistake by the museum which is quite blatantly unfair.
Wasn't it this sort of behaviourthat got Zuckerberg in trouble with Harvard? Or is that just something that happened in the movie?
Perhaps Harvard needs to look into drilling privacy ethics into its students a little better.
The iPod was perfectly adequate, but as Cmdr Taco said No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
So why did the iPod do so well against what appears to be a superior product? Because Apple decided not to sell an "mp3 player" to techy types for playing a then relatively obscure media format. Jobs sold it as a music player. You could copy your CDs onto this device and listen to your whole collection on the move.
I don't own an iPod. To put a movie on a Sansa Fuze, I gather I use the conversion tool and it will copy it to the device.
Not actually tried it; Why would I want to!? Seems a lot to pay for such a niche feature.
So, who's hiring the MBAs in the first place?
And why hasn't a company considered hiring geeks to do this sort of stuff? If it's such a good idea then surely someone somewhere would have experimented and seen how hugely successful this has been.
I've been involved in companies run by geeks. They don't always understand business. They're very eager to play with new toys but are rubbish at business plans. You need people who understand business *and* innovation.