I don't think that the broadcast copyright is directly applicable to the internet. You are not "broadcasting" when you set up a web site, you are communicating 1-on-1. I have a feeling that if I set up the equivalent of a router in the broadcast world (a repeater), it would get shut down immediately. When broadcasting, no copy even needs to be made. The only time a copy is made is when a consumer has some sort of recording device. The internet requires many identical copies be made. Copyright law needs to be updated to reflect new technologies, just as it was for broadcast and consumer audio recorders.
I think it applies quite well. There are already repeaters in the broadcast world. Translator stations for television. Satellite transfer of programs from the source studio to dozens or hundreds of affiliate radio stations.
You are getting mired in the technicalities. If you showed up in court to defend yourself against criminal copyright violations and your arguments are that routers "copy" the content when they move a packet from interface A to interface B, that browsers "copy" content when they stick it in their local caches, that site-wide proxies "copy" content when they cache a page -- the judge would correctly call you a fool and drop the hammer on you.
I think that the problem is that copyright law is largely based on physical media, and electronic distribution is a headache for the courts to sort out.
No, it's not. The first commercial radio station went on the air in 1920. There were plenty of suits re. copyright in association with radio broadcasts and rebroadcasts between then and 1984. And absolutely it entered the consumer arena with a vengance in 1984 with the Sony Betamax case. At a minimum you have 23 years of legal precedence to fall back on. And 87 years if you stick to the corporate/business side of things.
Some might compare the hundred plus years of legal practice in this area. But the number of cases in the last two years eclipse the number of cases in the first two years of copyright by several orders of magnitude.
I don't think there is any question that non-physical IP law is well established.
A side area of thought would be consumer credit reports. (Just to cut off the privacy people at the pass, note that not a single financial transaction that would go on your credit report is private.) The laws around these are to allow you to not have to bear the burden of your choices from ten years ago. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to decide what I publish and for how long I publish it. I shouldn't have to jump through a dozen independant third party designated hoops (however non-onerous) in order to control where, and for how long, my words are published.
I'm listing reasons why Dell has a lot on it's side, not a logical chain of conditionals.
The argument would be that Dell doesn't have an endemic problem with fiery batteries in the Inspiron 1200 line. As such they would be unlikely to have a responsibility, as the cause of the fire could be the condition of the equipment. However, if this gentleman had personal experience with his particular laptop involving undue heat, and that there is a recall going on, he should have gotten involved. The article doesn't indicate that he did.
It's very unlikely that he has a product liability case here. First, the whole Dell (Sony) battery catching on fire thing is old news. The defective batteries were all shipped from April - July of 2006. Second, Dell has issued a safety recall and anyone who has chosen not to participate is going to have a hard time winning a case. Third, the Inspiron 1200 wasn't one of the affected systems. Fourth, it's astonishing that hours after the fire the have such a detailed explanation of events. "Laptop failed." That kind of forensics process takes a lot longer than a handful of hours. While anyone's home burning down is unfortunate, putting the blame on Dell sounds very opportunistic. It'd be interesting to see where this guy stood on his mortgage payments....
Police officers, judges, soldiers also require training and financing. Why don't we leave their services to the free market?
We absolutely do leave their services to the free market. The fact that they are employed by the government doesn't change that. They are paid what it takes to get them to do the job. However, other than the president, the government doesn't pay anyone a salary that compares to that of even your average GP.
However, some people, such as yourself apparently, value money above human life. That speaks volumes about your character.
I value freedom above slavery. What I find interesting is that after claiming I have no good argument you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on my character.
Of course I'm sure that you live in a tent in the forest and every penny of your income above the amount required for basic subsistence you are giving it away to help the millions of people who lack the basics necessities of life. And I'm not talking advanced medical care, I'm talking food, shelther, and clean water.
No, I bet you don't. My guess is that you are completely willing to spend other people's money to subsidize your own personal lifestyle, carefully disguised in terms of public good; but when it comes to prying open your own tightly closed wallet you are nowhere to be found.
Does it chap your ass that conservatives give more charity, among all income ranges, than liberals?
Would you assert that auto repairs is a right? Or a right to electrician labor? Or a right to sofas? Health care is a service delivered by extensively educated people. Medicine is a product created by educated people with an expensive development process and a risky investment.
Or do you endorse dictating to doctors what they can charge for their services?
There is a bulk advantage to one offs. It allows you to guarantee a certain number of "sales". Additionally HMOs have specific menus of available health care. They might specify one particular type of sutures. Or a particular type of dental filling (metallic v. ceramic.) Or only certain types of treatments for particular ailments.
That's why the Government should be providing health insurance, and limiting the price of medication, like in every other first-world country.
No that's why the government should be pointing and laughing at people who have such poor personal habits as to put themselves into such a dangerous state of health.
Queue people who say "genetics". The counter is that the number of people whose genetics would leave them with dangerously high blood pressure or cholesterol while eating a healthy diet is tiny. And for that miniscule minority, I'm not sure I agree that the nation has a responsibility to sustain their (evantually) fatally flawed body.
Yeah, I'm a dick. I'm fairly certain it's genetic. Yet astonishingly enough nobody in the government or populace is suggesting that the man provide me with regular sex with hot, std free, eighteen year olds.
I just keep right on walking. The most they can do is ask you to stop.
If you are going in they can ask you to leave. If you are going out and they have reasonable reason to think you have been shoplifting they can detain you in most municipalities.
The thing to consider however is that they are not accomplishing the same task. At a high level, sure they are talking HTTP. But at a low level IIS in it's default state does a lot more that Apache does in it's basic state. Another thing to consider is the different architectures of the two web servers. They're completely different.
This is a stupid way to compare Window's security against Linux' security.
The Windows install currently bluescreens due to a problem with the virtual APIC, a fix is being worked on and will be added in future releases. A temporary workaround is to use an existing image or install through qemu - Windows 64-bit does not work either
Given that QEMU can't install windows 2000 and above, you're pretty much fucked with this at the moment.
$3 million a year in taxes is a lot of money. Why the hell does North Carolina need that much from 1 company????
Your complaint makes no sense. It's not like they were looking at Google like it was a golden brown and delicious, roast turkey. If Google is doing enough business out of that particular office, why shouldn't they pay the same taxes that other businesses are paying? The theory with these kinds of deals is that the salaries earned (and spending done) by local employees will offset the loss in local tax revenue. Which is the same as saying that Google is pushing their tax responsibility onto someone else. Presumedly a small business with fewer employees has a similar effect on the local economy from employee spending, but they don't employee enough to get these sweetheart deals. This is just flat out welfare for Google. Which is very odd given how much profit they generate.
That'd be $3 million a year that the taxes payers of North Carolina aren't getting. May be offset by new jobs, but it may not. Besides, if Google was not going to be evil, they wouldn't have to have sweetheart deals. Presumedly Google was going to have to employ those 200 people, the only question was who is going to pay Google to pick the location. Sounds evil to me.
And, fyi, Google most likely has zero recourse to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA due to failing to meet several requirements. For instance they must "not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing", and must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity".
If there is one thing that you should learn from this debate is it's that YouTube do not have any duty to police their content for infringing material. This was specifically put into the DMCA.
Blah blah blah. The ninth circuit court of appeals disagrees. Google disagrees. The content creators disagree. If there is one thing you should learn from this debate it's that you're the only person who thinks that responding to DMCA take down notices are a protection from millions or billions of dollars in damages that Google faces if they don't reach a licensing agreement.
As an OSP, they have safe harbour from prosecution provided they remove any copyright content when the copyright holder issues a take down notice.
But that is the point. They don't take it down. They take down specific files, they don't take down protected content.
YouTube don't have to avoid making a system that can be abused by users for posting copyrighted content.
There's a federal appeals court in California that disaggrees with you. Disagrees with you so much that they bankrupted Napster. And in case you don't remember Napster did try to build a system to take down content, but the it was simple enough for users to make minor variations on file names to get around it.
They are not responsible for policing the copyright of content beyond that.
Want to bet? And just to save you from losing this bet, consider this: Just prior to Google's acquisition of YouTube, YouTube was scrambling like crazy to pay out big money to content owners to get licenses for the content they were distributing. It's a flat out recognition that they have a responsibility and liability with respect to copyrighted content.
I don't get it. I've played the game. It's not that spectacular. Has about 30 minutes total play time. There's no reward. You just repeat the same thing over and over and it never gets harder or more interesting.
They don't qualify. "Why?" you ask. Because when Joe Content sends them a notice that they are distributing his content, they want a specific link, eg. hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....ThisIsFUNN YY!!!!!!!!!!!!!.video and Google removes that link. However someone, possibly the same person, reuploads it as hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....THISISFUNN Y!.video. And they make the argument that they should be protected even though the content keeps coming back. Sorry, no soup for Google.
Try this thought experiment. Someone gets your personal information, name, ssn, address, bank account numbers, pin numbers, and distributes is as a word document called BasilBrushInfo.doc on the internet. You see that and ask them to stop. So they go ahead and remove BasilBrushInfo.doc, but the original source supplies them with the exact same content in a text file called basilbrushdata.txt. So you ask them to stop making that available and they cooperate. Then someone uploads a screenshot of the same data displayed in Word as a GIF named bbrushnumbers.gif. And so on. Do you think that they're obeying the law? (For those who want to argue that it's different because it's violation of privacy laws, then substitute a short story you wrote, or a video of you stroking your hard cock that you sent to your girlfriend, or your secret business plan for making a million dollars, or a video of you rapping and pretending to be jay-z, or video of you naked with a candle up your ass and your frat letters painted on your chest.)
Google encourages people to upload video. They've have datacenters, bandwidth, support staff, etc. to make it possible. They put a line in their TOS that says "don't upload material that infringes copyright." However, they don't police the content and take down stuff that was clearly not uploaded by the rights owner. They place ads (ie. make money) on pages where they serve that content. When rights holders request that it be taken down they only take down specific files. They hold that different encodings of the same content are different and require different notices.
The double standard is pretty enlightening. On one hand people want to be able to make blanket requests "don't distribute my personal information" and have that request apply to any format. On the other hand they want to be able to distribute other people's information and expect unique requests for each and every individual instance of a violation of a piece of content.
Imagine this, what if everybody else acted that way? A factory owner pays for the building, the tools, equipment, the packaging materials, and sells the product but when the products are defective and kill the buyers, they claim that it is the independant, third-party worker who is responsible for flaws in the product. And, oh yeah, they don't have any real mechanism to identify with confidence which worker built which product. But we'll not sell the specific item that killed your spouse, but we may sell an exact duplicate of the same product built by the same worker.
That is Google's problem, not the content producers'. Google doesn't have a right to use whatever half assed business model someone comes up with. If there are technical challenges that make it hard, well that's why people with good ideas make the big bucks. If Google can't solve it then who ever does should get the money and fuck Google for not being able to figure it out. But to say "oh, they should be allowed to profit from massive copyright infringement because it's too hard/too expensive to moderate it" is bullshit.
Every business on the planet has to face these kinds of cost-benefit issues and regulations. Drug companies. Car companies. Light bulb manufacturers. Oil refineries. Ford isn't allowed to sell unsafe cars just because it's hard and expensive to make safe cars. SmithKlein can't sell untested drugs just because it's astronomically costly to get FDA approval. Exxon can't dump waste into the ocean since it is difficult to contain their byproducts. GE can't sell lights that catch fire even though it requires constant checking and rechecking to ensure quality and safety.
Google could do as you suggest and staff a team of reviewers. Or they could require payment of service + real identification and when some putz uploads the latest American Idol, Fox could go and brutalize the idiot in court, having gotten the offender's name and address from Google.
Personally I don't think the value of the non-infringing material is so great as to justify the harm done to content producers. Either Google solves this or they should break out the checkbook.
The other side is that they have to make a real effort. The way they are currently set up is just lip service to the requirements. Don't be surprised if Google gets clubbed heavily for this in the future. After being told to remove a clip, if Google let's me just reupload the same clip they aren't really living up to the requirements that give them a safe harbor from liability.
So, assuming a linear progression of version numbers, MythTV will be ready for prime time around 2023?
Sorry, it's been under development for four years. It's the "best in class" for linux pvrs. Either they butch up and fix their bugs or the world gets to point and laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it applies quite well. There are already repeaters in the broadcast world. Translator stations for television. Satellite transfer of programs from the source studio to dozens or hundreds of affiliate radio stations.
You are getting mired in the technicalities. If you showed up in court to defend yourself against criminal copyright violations and your arguments are that routers "copy" the content when they move a packet from interface A to interface B, that browsers "copy" content when they stick it in their local caches, that site-wide proxies "copy" content when they cache a page -- the judge would correctly call you a fool and drop the hammer on you.
No, it's not. The first commercial radio station went on the air in 1920. There were plenty of suits re. copyright in association with radio broadcasts and rebroadcasts between then and 1984. And absolutely it entered the consumer arena with a vengance in 1984 with the Sony Betamax case. At a minimum you have 23 years of legal precedence to fall back on. And 87 years if you stick to the corporate/business side of things.
Some might compare the hundred plus years of legal practice in this area. But the number of cases in the last two years eclipse the number of cases in the first two years of copyright by several orders of magnitude.
I don't think there is any question that non-physical IP law is well established.
A side area of thought would be consumer credit reports. (Just to cut off the privacy people at the pass, note that not a single financial transaction that would go on your credit report is private.) The laws around these are to allow you to not have to bear the burden of your choices from ten years ago. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to decide what I publish and for how long I publish it. I shouldn't have to jump through a dozen independant third party designated hoops (however non-onerous) in order to control where, and for how long, my words are published.
I didn't get the impression that his family has owned the house for 120 years. Only that it was an old house.
I'm listing reasons why Dell has a lot on it's side, not a logical chain of conditionals.
The argument would be that Dell doesn't have an endemic problem with fiery batteries in the Inspiron 1200 line. As such they would be unlikely to have a responsibility, as the cause of the fire could be the condition of the equipment. However, if this gentleman had personal experience with his particular laptop involving undue heat, and that there is a recall going on, he should have gotten involved. The article doesn't indicate that he did.
It's very unlikely that he has a product liability case here. First, the whole Dell (Sony) battery catching on fire thing is old news. The defective batteries were all shipped from April - July of 2006. Second, Dell has issued a safety recall and anyone who has chosen not to participate is going to have a hard time winning a case. Third, the Inspiron 1200 wasn't one of the affected systems. Fourth, it's astonishing that hours after the fire the have such a detailed explanation of events. "Laptop failed." That kind of forensics process takes a lot longer than a handful of hours. While anyone's home burning down is unfortunate, putting the blame on Dell sounds very opportunistic. It'd be interesting to see where this guy stood on his mortgage payments....
We absolutely do leave their services to the free market. The fact that they are employed by the government doesn't change that. They are paid what it takes to get them to do the job. However, other than the president, the government doesn't pay anyone a salary that compares to that of even your average GP.
I value freedom above slavery. What I find interesting is that after claiming I have no good argument you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on my character.
Of course I'm sure that you live in a tent in the forest and every penny of your income above the amount required for basic subsistence you are giving it away to help the millions of people who lack the basics necessities of life. And I'm not talking advanced medical care, I'm talking food, shelther, and clean water.
No, I bet you don't. My guess is that you are completely willing to spend other people's money to subsidize your own personal lifestyle, carefully disguised in terms of public good; but when it comes to prying open your own tightly closed wallet you are nowhere to be found.
Does it chap your ass that conservatives give more charity, among all income ranges, than liberals?
Would you assert that auto repairs is a right? Or a right to electrician labor? Or a right to sofas? Health care is a service delivered by extensively educated people. Medicine is a product created by educated people with an expensive development process and a risky investment.
Or do you endorse dictating to doctors what they can charge for their services?
There is a bulk advantage to one offs. It allows you to guarantee a certain number of "sales". Additionally HMOs have specific menus of available health care. They might specify one particular type of sutures. Or a particular type of dental filling (metallic v. ceramic.) Or only certain types of treatments for particular ailments.
No that's why the government should be pointing and laughing at people who have such poor personal habits as to put themselves into such a dangerous state of health.
Queue people who say "genetics". The counter is that the number of people whose genetics would leave them with dangerously high blood pressure or cholesterol while eating a healthy diet is tiny. And for that miniscule minority, I'm not sure I agree that the nation has a responsibility to sustain their (evantually) fatally flawed body.
Yeah, I'm a dick. I'm fairly certain it's genetic. Yet astonishingly enough nobody in the government or populace is suggesting that the man provide me with regular sex with hot, std free, eighteen year olds.
No. Your medical records aren't your property regardless of the fact that they are about you.
Go take a picture of the Chrome Bean in Chicago.
The thing to consider however is that they are not accomplishing the same task. At a high level, sure they are talking HTTP. But at a low level IIS in it's default state does a lot more that Apache does in it's basic state. Another thing to consider is the different architectures of the two web servers. They're completely different.
This is a stupid way to compare Window's security against Linux' security.
That'd be $3 million a year that the taxes payers of North Carolina aren't getting. May be offset by new jobs, but it may not. Besides, if Google was not going to be evil, they wouldn't have to have sweetheart deals. Presumedly Google was going to have to employ those 200 people, the only question was who is going to pay Google to pick the location. Sounds evil to me.
And, fyi, Google most likely has zero recourse to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA due to failing to meet several requirements. For instance they must "not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing", and must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity".
I don't get it. I've played the game. It's not that spectacular. Has about 30 minutes total play time. There's no reward. You just repeat the same thing over and over and it never gets harder or more interesting.
They don't qualify. "Why?" you ask. Because when Joe Content sends them a notice that they are distributing his content, they want a specific link, eg. hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....ThisIsFUNN YY!!!!!!!!!!!!!.video and Google removes that link. However someone, possibly the same person, reuploads it as hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....THISISFUNN Y!.video. And they make the argument that they should be protected even though the content keeps coming back. Sorry, no soup for Google.
Try this thought experiment. Someone gets your personal information, name, ssn, address, bank account numbers, pin numbers, and distributes is as a word document called BasilBrushInfo.doc on the internet. You see that and ask them to stop. So they go ahead and remove BasilBrushInfo.doc, but the original source supplies them with the exact same content in a text file called basilbrushdata.txt. So you ask them to stop making that available and they cooperate. Then someone uploads a screenshot of the same data displayed in Word as a GIF named bbrushnumbers.gif. And so on. Do you think that they're obeying the law? (For those who want to argue that it's different because it's violation of privacy laws, then substitute a short story you wrote, or a video of you stroking your hard cock that you sent to your girlfriend, or your secret business plan for making a million dollars, or a video of you rapping and pretending to be jay-z, or video of you naked with a candle up your ass and your frat letters painted on your chest.)
Google encourages people to upload video. They've have datacenters, bandwidth, support staff, etc. to make it possible. They put a line in their TOS that says "don't upload material that infringes copyright." However, they don't police the content and take down stuff that was clearly not uploaded by the rights owner. They place ads (ie. make money) on pages where they serve that content. When rights holders request that it be taken down they only take down specific files. They hold that different encodings of the same content are different and require different notices.
The double standard is pretty enlightening. On one hand people want to be able to make blanket requests "don't distribute my personal information" and have that request apply to any format. On the other hand they want to be able to distribute other people's information and expect unique requests for each and every individual instance of a violation of a piece of content.
Imagine this, what if everybody else acted that way? A factory owner pays for the building, the tools, equipment, the packaging materials, and sells the product but when the products are defective and kill the buyers, they claim that it is the independant, third-party worker who is responsible for flaws in the product. And, oh yeah, they don't have any real mechanism to identify with confidence which worker built which product. But we'll not sell the specific item that killed your spouse, but we may sell an exact duplicate of the same product built by the same worker.
That is Google's problem, not the content producers'. Google doesn't have a right to use whatever half assed business model someone comes up with. If there are technical challenges that make it hard, well that's why people with good ideas make the big bucks. If Google can't solve it then who ever does should get the money and fuck Google for not being able to figure it out. But to say "oh, they should be allowed to profit from massive copyright infringement because it's too hard/too expensive to moderate it" is bullshit.
Every business on the planet has to face these kinds of cost-benefit issues and regulations. Drug companies. Car companies. Light bulb manufacturers. Oil refineries. Ford isn't allowed to sell unsafe cars just because it's hard and expensive to make safe cars. SmithKlein can't sell untested drugs just because it's astronomically costly to get FDA approval. Exxon can't dump waste into the ocean since it is difficult to contain their byproducts. GE can't sell lights that catch fire even though it requires constant checking and rechecking to ensure quality and safety.
Google could do as you suggest and staff a team of reviewers. Or they could require payment of service + real identification and when some putz uploads the latest American Idol, Fox could go and brutalize the idiot in court, having gotten the offender's name and address from Google.
Personally I don't think the value of the non-infringing material is so great as to justify the harm done to content producers. Either Google solves this or they should break out the checkbook.
I think you are lying. I have Vista and know that you don't need a reboot to install new video drivers.
The other side is that they have to make a real effort. The way they are currently set up is just lip service to the requirements. Don't be surprised if Google gets clubbed heavily for this in the future. After being told to remove a clip, if Google let's me just reupload the same clip they aren't really living up to the requirements that give them a safe harbor from liability.
So, assuming a linear progression of version numbers, MythTV will be ready for prime time around 2023?
Sorry, it's been under development for four years. It's the "best in class" for linux pvrs. Either they butch up and fix their bugs or the world gets to point and laugh.