You could probably make a strong case that downloading the show is covered by fair use under time shifting, etc. What you'd have a harder time proving, and in fact probably could never prove, is that this entitled you to upload the television show to other people who haven't paid HBO for the right to watch their programming... which anyone who uses bittorrent in this manner is doing.
I'm actually not against doing this, I just don't see it as a significant change from the current system. The banks are already losing billions of dollars to fraud, adding a few more dollars on isn't going to make them change their practices in a dramatic fashion. At least, I don't think it will.
Maybe I'm wrong, but credit cards only hold the owners responsible for at most $50 worth of fraudulent charges. My bank has the same arrangement.
Sure this doesn't cover all the time and effort I might have to go through to restore my name when people start taking out loans with my SS number, but it already is the bank (or the bank's insurer) that's going to pay for the actual lost money. It's not like I'm expected to repay that, the bank covers it. The same is true for fraudulent credit card transactions, the credit cards cover it. I don't.
Clearly they already have an interest in preventing fraud, a huge one. Clearly they don't feel that it's worthwhile to undertake serious security measures and lose customers in order to prevent the current level of fraud.
We could always change the math by encouraging fraud and making the whole business less profitable for the banks, but that's probably not what Bruce had in mind.
I had one of these puppies and although it looked cool, and was very space efficient, it did a lousy and slow job of actually scanning documents. Stay away.
"Look, Matrix Online is good, but it's like being in the early 90's and trying to put a fighting game up against Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter; it's just not going to happen. There are a lot of other online games that are just sucking wind right now because so many people are playing WOW."
You know what, it was possible to put a fighter game against Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, it was Ultima Fighter. But aside from that, Mortal Kombat was put up against Street Fighter and did just fine. It's not like you can't have more than one title out there... if one game is taking in all the bucks, it's because it's a better game. In the same way that we all laud Google for putting out a better product and swallowing up the market share, we should be lauding any game that does so well that it's competitors feel small and unloved.
That being said, a multi-player game is a different situation from an arcade game. With a multi-player game, it's not going to be fun if there's no-one else playing. I don't really see how the MMPORG's even get started, who wants to be the first one playing? Who even wants to be in the first thousand? I don't know.
So maybe online games are in a different position than real world games. I don't know.
It sounds like they did that... in 2001. If Google wasn't able to remove the requested content in 4 years, then a lawsuit seems understandable. Again, I don't particularly like it either, but it's to say that they've been impatient.
Are they asking for money, or just asking Google to take down the links once they've been notified of the offending content? I wouldn't call it "cashing in" if they're just asking for the links to be taken down. I have other problems with it, but it's not "cashing in."
Because the images in question aren't on Perfect 10's website, but are on other websites that have stolen their content and are redisplaying it without permission. The robots.txt file doesn't allow you to force google to not index other people's websites... only the almight lawsuit can do that.
I'd say the "machete" part of the story argues against New York City. Although the burglary and the shootout seem plausible, it seems unlikely that the police in America would allow a machete-yielding mob to hack a suspect into pieces.
I admit it, I'm confused/amused by the fact that your username is a url, and yet isn't the same as the webpage you choose to list below your name. Good for you.
Essentially... but legal. When btefnet was shut down, I couldn't schedule downloads anymore. I'd like to have a reliable service that isn't going to be sued out of business, and isn't going to get ME sued. A pipe dream, I know.
Here's what I want. If anyone out there works for a cable company, please feel free to pass this along. Currently when I subscribe to cable, not only do I get access to all the shows they air, but I also get limited access, through Comcast's Digital Cable, to something vaguely PVRish... I can watch a select number of shows at any time for free. I can pause them and rewind them as I see fit. If this service is already available, I don't see any reason why I can't have the following feature:
I would like to be able to go online, log into my cable company's webpage, and download any show that's aired since I began my subscription. These are all shows I theoretically have access to already (I could have taped them), so why not allow me to watch them when I want. Give me a username and a password; go ahead and keep track of when I joined and only give me access to content I'm entitled to. Bittorrent distribution is fine, I don't mind contributing a little bit of bandwidth to this scheme.
In addition, I want to be able to schedule downloads of new shows in a PVR like system. So, anytime I decide I like a show, I can download the whole back catalogue since I started my cable subscription, and download every new episode that airs automatically.
Also, I should be able to access this content anywhere, at any time. This would actually be a big selling point if I were presenting this idea to a cable company because it means you could sell something of a discounted product to people outside of your traditional market. Why do I need to deal with Comcast when I can subscribe over the internet to Time Warner, even though they're not in my area? Suddenly, all the cable companies will be competing against each other to provide the best selection of programming at the best price with the most ease of service... something that isn't really happening today.
I'm sure there's legal issues with this from the point of the content producers. All I know is that I'd be happy to download shows via bittorrent with commercials directly from my cable company if they allowed me to do so. I'd be happy to switch away from my local cable company if someone else on the internet could provide me with a better deal. The cable companies already have the rights to distribute the content to end users... this scheme would require a renogotiation, but it's within their power (unlike some crazy startup).
"...found that people who download music from peer to peer networks paid for four and a half times more music than regular music fans."
Sure, people who like music are more likely to both buy music and to download music. The real question is if downloading music changes the amount of music that you would buy in one direction or the other. If they weren't downloading music from peer to peer networks, would they have purchased more or less music. This is a much harder theory to test, and probably can't be done by simple observation of current buying/downloading trends.
Does anyone know of a study that tries to address this question?
It's nice to see the American government coming up with a solution like this instead of concentrating on and suggesting alternate energies.
Uh, why can't it do both? What's the down side to attempting to decrease energy usage through a means that won't really affect many of us in a meaningful way?
Slashdot Mirror
You could probably make a strong case that downloading the show is covered by fair use under time shifting, etc. What you'd have a harder time proving, and in fact probably could never prove, is that this entitled you to upload the television show to other people who haven't paid HBO for the right to watch their programming... which anyone who uses bittorrent in this manner is doing.
It's an unfortunate side effect to bittorrent.
I'm actually not against doing this, I just don't see it as a significant change from the current system. The banks are already losing billions of dollars to fraud, adding a few more dollars on isn't going to make them change their practices in a dramatic fashion. At least, I don't think it will.
Maybe I'm wrong, but credit cards only hold the owners responsible for at most $50 worth of fraudulent charges. My bank has the same arrangement.
Sure this doesn't cover all the time and effort I might have to go through to restore my name when people start taking out loans with my SS number, but it already is the bank (or the bank's insurer) that's going to pay for the actual lost money. It's not like I'm expected to repay that, the bank covers it. The same is true for fraudulent credit card transactions, the credit cards cover it. I don't.
Clearly they already have an interest in preventing fraud, a huge one. Clearly they don't feel that it's worthwhile to undertake serious security measures and lose customers in order to prevent the current level of fraud.
We could always change the math by encouraging fraud and making the whole business less profitable for the banks, but that's probably not what Bruce had in mind.
It's about time. Now all they've got to do is make a version of the mail program for my palm pilot/windows mobile device and I can stop using Outlook.
Since the linked story doesn't have pictures of the MP3 player in question, here's the official page from Dell. Enjoy.
I had one of these puppies and although it looked cool, and was very space efficient, it did a lousy and slow job of actually scanning documents. Stay away.
"Look, Matrix Online is good, but it's like being in the early 90's and trying to put a fighting game up against Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter; it's just not going to happen. There are a lot of other online games that are just sucking wind right now because so many people are playing WOW."
You know what, it was possible to put a fighter game against Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, it was Ultima Fighter. But aside from that, Mortal Kombat was put up against Street Fighter and did just fine. It's not like you can't have more than one title out there... if one game is taking in all the bucks, it's because it's a better game. In the same way that we all laud Google for putting out a better product and swallowing up the market share, we should be lauding any game that does so well that it's competitors feel small and unloved.
That being said, a multi-player game is a different situation from an arcade game. With a multi-player game, it's not going to be fun if there's no-one else playing. I don't really see how the MMPORG's even get started, who wants to be the first one playing? Who even wants to be in the first thousand? I don't know.
So maybe online games are in a different position than real world games. I don't know.
There's no point to this post.
It sounds like they did that... in 2001. If Google wasn't able to remove the requested content in 4 years, then a lawsuit seems understandable. Again, I don't particularly like it either, but it's to say that they've been impatient.
Are they asking for money, or just asking Google to take down the links once they've been notified of the offending content? I wouldn't call it "cashing in" if they're just asking for the links to be taken down. I have other problems with it, but it's not "cashing in."
Because the images in question aren't on Perfect 10's website, but are on other websites that have stolen their content and are redisplaying it without permission. The robots.txt file doesn't allow you to force google to not index other people's websites... only the almight lawsuit can do that.
That was just a ROCKING first post! Well done!
I'd say the "machete" part of the story argues against New York City. Although the burglary and the shootout seem plausible, it seems unlikely that the police in America would allow a machete-yielding mob to hack a suspect into pieces.
That was great!
Breakout... Super Breakout... Photoshop.
Worked for me.
Also, fark is cool.
I knew him in college, can I call him Chris?
I admit it, I'm confused/amused by the fact that your username is a url, and yet isn't the same as the webpage you choose to list below your name. Good for you.
It only said "on" the Earth... I suppose they could have done it underground. Or in a balloon of some sort.
Essentially... but legal. When btefnet was shut down, I couldn't schedule downloads anymore. I'd like to have a reliable service that isn't going to be sued out of business, and isn't going to get ME sued. A pipe dream, I know.
Here's what I want. If anyone out there works for a cable company, please feel free to pass this along. Currently when I subscribe to cable, not only do I get access to all the shows they air, but I also get limited access, through Comcast's Digital Cable, to something vaguely PVRish... I can watch a select number of shows at any time for free. I can pause them and rewind them as I see fit. If this service is already available, I don't see any reason why I can't have the following feature:
I would like to be able to go online, log into my cable company's webpage, and download any show that's aired since I began my subscription. These are all shows I theoretically have access to already (I could have taped them), so why not allow me to watch them when I want. Give me a username and a password; go ahead and keep track of when I joined and only give me access to content I'm entitled to. Bittorrent distribution is fine, I don't mind contributing a little bit of bandwidth to this scheme.
In addition, I want to be able to schedule downloads of new shows in a PVR like system. So, anytime I decide I like a show, I can download the whole back catalogue since I started my cable subscription, and download every new episode that airs automatically.
Also, I should be able to access this content anywhere, at any time. This would actually be a big selling point if I were presenting this idea to a cable company because it means you could sell something of a discounted product to people outside of your traditional market. Why do I need to deal with Comcast when I can subscribe over the internet to Time Warner, even though they're not in my area? Suddenly, all the cable companies will be competing against each other to provide the best selection of programming at the best price with the most ease of service... something that isn't really happening today.
I'm sure there's legal issues with this from the point of the content producers. All I know is that I'd be happy to download shows via bittorrent with commercials directly from my cable company if they allowed me to do so. I'd be happy to switch away from my local cable company if someone else on the internet could provide me with a better deal. The cable companies already have the rights to distribute the content to end users... this scheme would require a renogotiation, but it's within their power (unlike some crazy startup).
Anyone else interested in this sort of service?
"...found that people who download music from peer to peer networks paid for four and a half times more music than regular music fans."
Sure, people who like music are more likely to both buy music and to download music. The real question is if downloading music changes the amount of music that you would buy in one direction or the other. If they weren't downloading music from peer to peer networks, would they have purchased more or less music. This is a much harder theory to test, and probably can't be done by simple observation of current buying/downloading trends.
Does anyone know of a study that tries to address this question?
Yeah, but what IS ironic is you missing the fact that he was making a joke about people not understanding the proper use of the word ironic.
Why is it ironic?
It's nice to see the American government coming up with a solution like this instead of concentrating on and suggesting alternate energies.
Uh, why can't it do both? What's the down side to attempting to decrease energy usage through a means that won't really affect many of us in a meaningful way?
I know, I know, they're all quack theories... but what about this one. I mean, just look at this site and all it's pictoral evidence.
Duct Tape, the savoir of mankind, can do anything it puts its mind to. First and foremost, it can cure plantar warts! Hooray.
*clap* *clap*
There we go. Sorry about that.