Falsely shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's an age old example of a limitation of free speech from a Supreme court absolutely desperate to find a limitation on free speech. The argument was hokum. If you yell fire, then you may be ignored, or there will be an orderly exit of patrons. If you cause harm, then those to whom harm was caused will, of course, be able to sue you for damages. I guess if you do so with the intent to cause harm, criminal charges should be brought but there never seems to be any indication that this is the idea, but that's about causing harm. Not about the speech.
Even if we assume that it is so dangerous that we must apply prior restraint, this argument was initially used as justification to stop legitimate free speech. It was used as an argument against distributing flyers opposing American involvement in the First World War.
But is it libel? It's not untrue or even misleading.
Now, if there was some privacy law they violated, I'd have no objection but this seems very much like trying to fit an inappropriate crime to the action.
"The approximately correct answer range for this question was defined as anything between 65% and 75%. Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%."
So did any of those 32% who got it wrong give the even more accurate answer of 71% or even 70.9%? Did anyone say "two thirds", because that's accurate enough to give a general indication. Are they just talking about oceans? Are they including ice as water because that gives (or takes) an extra 10% or so?
Shouldn't really matter. TomTom relies on FAT so Windows can talk to it but internally there's not a huge need for long filenames. To circumvent this they would need to change all the filenames and internal references to them but that would only take a couple of days.
And you're absolutely right. Special effects are expensive. Standing sets, regular cast and costumes from the costume department cost essentially nothing.
They surely can't claim copyright on the instructions on how to use the software. That was written by someone else. They don't have the copyright on the books that are uploaded onto the device or any rights at all to another vendors ebooks. As far as I understand, this software doesn't make any modifications to the Kindle itself (if I'm wrong I may address that point), or modify the Amazon ebooks.
Copyright can in no way restrict what you do with the device because you're not making any copies.
It would have made more sense to tell them where to stick their DMCA complaint.
Personally, I'd have no problem with the RIAA if the damages sought were in any way related to any plausible cost. $2.97 per song shared. Assume that each file represents a lost sale and get triple damages because it's wilful infringement.
While I have every sympathy for the poor man, it's not a good idea to let the victims of crime determine how to prevent it. Their judgement tends not to be the most balanced.
He doesn't know what the causal relationship is between knife crime and games, nor does he have any idea what the effect will be on demand for games should they be taxed (it's possible that the publishers would end up swallowing a large part of it because games are presumably at the price which maximises profit*number of sales).
If you're accused, what is your right of appeal? If you say that you weren't pirating, for example the accuser was mistaken about your or the files' identity, or you had permission of the copyright holder to share files, is a simple denial of accusation sufficient?
What does "out" actually mean? Can you sign up again with the same ISP? A different ISP? Will they block all internet access from wherever you live?
Ultimately it comes down to this: We like the ability to see high quality music videos but not enough to want to pay for it. This isn't tight fistedness, so much as having a very low perceived value. People will quite happily go without if there is any cost associated. However, while low, the collective value of all music videos in non-trivial. As such, we're obviously going to prefer a situation in which we can get the utility. As such we're going to side with youTube.
As it happens, youTube are in a position to offer reasonable reimbursement for this to the PRS. Both sides benefit from a deal where youTube pays less money than they make to the PRS, and the PRS grants youTube permission to show the videos.
I simply don't believe that licensing to youTube has any effect on their licensing to MTV. They already provide an unlimited license to the BBC and a large number of commercial retail and broadcast organisations. Those are much more likely to have an effect on any possible deal with a major music station than youTube. Nor would a music station spurn the artists represented by the PRS, since their entire business model involves broadcasting material from those artists.
FTA In a statement, Mr Porter said the move "punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent".
Uhm, guys... You are the ones responsible for the songwriters. youTube have no obligation to them. They have a certain obligation to their own customers, but only as long as serving their customers is profitable for them. They have no obligation to make a net loss.
youTube have shown that they don't need the PRS. The PRS doesn't absolutely need youTube either but it certainly doesn't displace music sales. The songwriters do a lot better if youTube gets these videos for free than if they don't get them at all. The PRS gambled on youTube needing them and they lost
Economics - there's a glut of MCP licences. Nobody is buying them. The resellers have the choice of selling them at a loss or keeping them. They'll make more money selling them at a loss than not at all, so they will.
The justification for these measures always seems to be administrative convenience.
The worrying thing is, I'm think they're genuinely being honest.
Of course, evil people don't consider themselves to be evil. They all have some motivation that they believe justifies their actions. Japanese internment in WW2 was a pretty reputable act but those responsible thought they were doing it for the common good. Serial killers will usually come up with some rationalisation. The Labour Party want a police state and absolute power for the head of the party because it will reduce crime and make it a lot easier to govern. They're right, but it's an easy to govern prison, not a country.
Yup. It's a common deceit. Commercial piracy and P2P have very little to do with each other, but they fact that they have the same name and basic concept, they get lumped together and considered exactly the same thing.
Well, Googling for "this week's movie releases" gave me a site listing 14 releases this week. Another gave 140 DVD releases including a lot of TV shows on DVD.
And none of them included porn - an industry that truly goes for quantity over quality.
There's a concept of intent. If you do something to assist a crime, you're potentially an accessory. If you do something to prevent a crime you're helping the police.
We want them to. If we bitch and complain enough they might do what we ask.
If they want our custom, we have the right to make demands. Capitalism is about providing people with what they want and finding a way to make money from it. It's not about providing people with what you're willing to offer and demanding some money for it.
TV is certainly on the ropes but I reckon its way too soon to call it.
All TV shows are broadcast first. The bulk of the money is made through traditional broadcast advertising. Most people who aren't Slashdot users will watch shows when broadcast.
And internet TV shows need to make money. At the moment you can get a few on a reasonable budget because of the novelty. You can either sell the DVDs or have a single sponsor who knows that it's worth being linked directly to something with enough mindshare.
Slashdot Mirror
Falsely shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's an age old example of a limitation of free speech from a Supreme court absolutely desperate to find a limitation on free speech. The argument was hokum. If you yell fire, then you may be ignored, or there will be an orderly exit of patrons. If you cause harm, then those to whom harm was caused will, of course, be able to sue you for damages. I guess if you do so with the intent to cause harm, criminal charges should be brought but there never seems to be any indication that this is the idea, but that's about causing harm. Not about the speech.
Even if we assume that it is so dangerous that we must apply prior restraint, this argument was initially used as justification to stop legitimate free speech. It was used as an argument against distributing flyers opposing American involvement in the First World War.
But is it libel? It's not untrue or even misleading.
Now, if there was some privacy law they violated, I'd have no objection but this seems very much like trying to fit an inappropriate crime to the action.
"The approximately correct answer range for this question was defined as anything between 65% and 75%. Only 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%."
So did any of those 32% who got it wrong give the even more accurate answer of 71% or even 70.9%? Did anyone say "two thirds", because that's accurate enough to give a general indication. Are they just talking about oceans? Are they including ice as water because that gives (or takes) an extra 10% or so?
Isn't the patent on the long filenames?
Shouldn't really matter. TomTom relies on FAT so Windows can talk to it but internally there's not a huge need for long filenames. To circumvent this they would need to change all the filenames and internal references to them but that would only take a couple of days.
Voyager used Foundation Imaging.
And you're absolutely right. Special effects are expensive. Standing sets, regular cast and costumes from the costume department cost essentially nothing.
They surely can't claim copyright on the instructions on how to use the software. That was written by someone else. They don't have the copyright on the books that are uploaded onto the device or any rights at all to another vendors ebooks. As far as I understand, this software doesn't make any modifications to the Kindle itself (if I'm wrong I may address that point), or modify the Amazon ebooks.
Copyright can in no way restrict what you do with the device because you're not making any copies.
It would have made more sense to tell them where to stick their DMCA complaint.
Personally, I'd have no problem with the RIAA if the damages sought were in any way related to any plausible cost. $2.97 per song shared. Assume that each file represents a lost sale and get triple damages because it's wilful infringement.
While I have every sympathy for the poor man, it's not a good idea to let the victims of crime determine how to prevent it. Their judgement tends not to be the most balanced.
He doesn't know what the causal relationship is between knife crime and games, nor does he have any idea what the effect will be on demand for games should they be taxed (it's possible that the publishers would end up swallowing a large part of it because games are presumably at the price which maximises profit*number of sales).
But Bride of Chaotica was great! And Spirit Folk wasn't too bad either. The holodeck can give us dull episodes but it depends on the writer.
Fuller's episodes tended to be a lot more character based. The technobabble episodes tended to be written by Brannon Braga.
And I think this is a good thing, but I can't help hearing the voice of the pushing Daisies narrator doing the classic Trek introduction.
"Our five year 3 days and 32 minute minute mission..."
If you're accused, what is your right of appeal? If you say that you weren't pirating, for example the accuser was mistaken about your or the files' identity, or you had permission of the copyright holder to share files, is a simple denial of accusation sufficient?
What does "out" actually mean? Can you sign up again with the same ISP? A different ISP? Will they block all internet access from wherever you live?
How much discretion is there for the ISP here?
I expect the ISP will demand at least a little evidence.
And I'm also sure that lying in a deliberate attempt to terminate someone's internet connection would fall foul of some law.
Ultimately it comes down to this: We like the ability to see high quality music videos but not enough to want to pay for it. This isn't tight fistedness, so much as having a very low perceived value. People will quite happily go without if there is any cost associated. However, while low, the collective value of all music videos in non-trivial. As such, we're obviously going to prefer a situation in which we can get the utility. As such we're going to side with youTube.
As it happens, youTube are in a position to offer reasonable reimbursement for this to the PRS. Both sides benefit from a deal where youTube pays less money than they make to the PRS, and the PRS grants youTube permission to show the videos.
I simply don't believe that licensing to youTube has any effect on their licensing to MTV. They already provide an unlimited license to the BBC and a large number of commercial retail and broadcast organisations. Those are much more likely to have an effect on any possible deal with a major music station than youTube. Nor would a music station spurn the artists represented by the PRS, since their entire business model involves broadcasting material from those artists.
FTA In a statement, Mr Porter said the move "punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent".
Uhm, guys... You are the ones responsible for the songwriters. youTube have no obligation to them. They have a certain obligation to their own customers, but only as long as serving their customers is profitable for them. They have no obligation to make a net loss.
youTube have shown that they don't need the PRS. The PRS doesn't absolutely need youTube either but it certainly doesn't displace music sales. The songwriters do a lot better if youTube gets these videos for free than if they don't get them at all. The PRS gambled on youTube needing them and they lost
Economics - there's a glut of MCP licences. Nobody is buying them. The resellers have the choice of selling them at a loss or keeping them. They'll make more money selling them at a loss than not at all, so they will.
The justification for these measures always seems to be administrative convenience.
The worrying thing is, I'm think they're genuinely being honest.
Of course, evil people don't consider themselves to be evil. They all have some motivation that they believe justifies their actions. Japanese internment in WW2 was a pretty reputable act but those responsible thought they were doing it for the common good. Serial killers will usually come up with some rationalisation. The Labour Party want a police state and absolute power for the head of the party because it will reduce crime and make it a lot easier to govern. They're right, but it's an easy to govern prison, not a country.
Yup. It's a common deceit. Commercial piracy and P2P have very little to do with each other, but they fact that they have the same name and basic concept, they get lumped together and considered exactly the same thing.
There's also the concept of reasonable doubt.
Completely implausible but technically possible is not considered "reasonable".
Well, Googling for "this week's movie releases" gave me a site listing 14 releases this week. Another gave 140 DVD releases including a lot of TV shows on DVD.
And none of them included porn - an industry that truly goes for quantity over quality.
[citation needed]
I'm going to internet meme hell for this comment aren't I?
No.
There's a concept of intent. If you do something to assist a crime, you're potentially an accessory. If you do something to prevent a crime you're helping the police.
I really don't see any inconsistency here.
A little explanation would be nice, or at least a link to the website...
Yes, I know google exists, but the point of the article summary is to inform.
We want them to. If we bitch and complain enough they might do what we ask.
If they want our custom, we have the right to make demands. Capitalism is about providing people with what they want and finding a way to make money from it. It's not about providing people with what you're willing to offer and demanding some money for it.
TV is certainly on the ropes but I reckon its way too soon to call it.
All TV shows are broadcast first. The bulk of the money is made through traditional broadcast advertising. Most people who aren't Slashdot users will watch shows when broadcast.
And internet TV shows need to make money. At the moment you can get a few on a reasonable budget because of the novelty. You can either sell the DVDs or have a single sponsor who knows that it's worth being linked directly to something with enough mindshare.