So you're saying that the sheep should never bleat?
Guess what "freedom of the press" is for? To increase the loudness of sheep bleating. So that, let's just say, maybe there's a hypothetical situation where a large hurricane hits land, and the leaders are perhaps a little too slow in their emergency management jobs. The sheep should bleat. And then when the next disaster comes, look at that, the leaders act more quickly.
The sheep aren't remotely smart enough as a mob to predict the path of the hurricane. They aren't smart enough to design the best evacuation plans. But they sure can see that the leaders screw up every once in a while. And that process is a good thing.
Prediction markets just bring parts of this "freedom of the press" process (which requires a larger population, and more openness, and more explicitely combatitive groups) into an internal company.
That's why you usually have a small group of leaders at the top of companies, so that coherent consistent decisions get made. However, sometimes the people under them all firmly agree that they're making a bad decision, or missing a business opportunity, etc. Usually all the employees just start gossipping and complaining at the water cooler. An internal prediction market will harness this internal dissent, and allow the rare ocassions where mob/democratic rule is better than oligarchy, to influence the leaders, if the leaders choose to allow it.
The availability for differing opinions does exist but people tend to stick to their belief system. People feel comfortable congregating (online or in person) with others that share similar beliefs.
Indexing it in a database isn't creating a new work that you can yourself copyright though... it's still the same original copyrighted work.
It's like ripping a CD into MP3... sure, now you can stick it on a password-protected server and listen to it from work, something you couldn't do with your CD, but the courts still said that doesn't fall under fair use, especially when it's done on a large scale for commercial purposes.
Right, but that's still arguing about the external part. I don't know about the external copying.
But I think that the internal copying may be very similar to my.mp3.com, and that's not transformative at all... it's copying entire books into their database. (I don't think that sticking it in a database is transformative... it's not, in the words of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a "creative metamorphosis", it's making it easier to index, but it's an artistic transformation)
Where do you get that my.mp3.com was about intent at all? Read the decision. Which part of the 4-part fair-use exemptions are different between my.mp3.com and google?
First factor -- "the purpose and character of the use". The use is commercial. Same with my.mp3.com, even if they don't charge a fee, it's still commercial.
Google doesn't add no new "new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" to the original music recordings it copies.
Second factor -- "the nature of the copyrighted work" -- the creative recordings here being copied are "close[] to the core of intended copyright protection". Okay, the copied-in-their-entirety is only happening internally to Google in this case, that's the biggest difference between my.mp3.com and google, but AFAIK, the internal copying alone is enough to be declared illegal.
Regarding the third factor -- "the amount and substantiality of the portion [of the copyrighted work] use [by the copier] in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" -- it is undisputed that defendant copies, and replays, the entirety of the copyrighted works here in issue, thus again negating any claim of fair use.
Regarding the fourth factor -- "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" -- defendant's activities on their face invade plaintiffs' statutory right to license their copyrighted sound recordings to others for reproduction. (in that companies probably didn't give Google a license for many internal copies of each book)
Okay, IANAL, and half of this doesn't make sense to me. But the four items don't look to be any different for google.
That's what Google is doing externally. Internally, is it possible that the courts will see the initial act of copying the books into their computers as the same as running thousands of books through Google's photocopiers (which would be obviously illegal, if done to books in their entirety).
It's language like this in the opinion that makes me think the problem was more with internal copying than with external copying:
To make good on this offer, defendant purchased tens of thousands of popular CDs in which plaintiffs held the copyrights, and, without authorization, copied their recordings onto its computer servers so as to be able to replay the [*3] recordings for its subscribers.
In the case of mp3.com, they were supplying a copy of music that wasn't taken from your purchased copy.
Right, but even the initial internal copy, I think, was ruled to not fall within the rights of fair use. (though the external copies were also a problem too)
Especially regarding the arguments, I think more focus was on the total number of CD's ripped, not on the total number of mp3's sent to individuals.
If I remember correctly, mp3.com was found to be guilty of making internal copies of all the CD's they touched. Isn't Google doing the same thing, eg. making a massive amount of copies of the books they touch? Insofar as it isn't legal for other corporations to put entire books through the photocopy machine, or use a single copy of software across all computers (without a corporate license)?
Circuit masks are very specifically called out as a special case in copyright law.
It seems like the distinction is similar to music recordings. That copying the majority of an audio recording, with a few tweaks of your own, is considered infringement. While the "underlying ideas" are not necessarily protected, eg. so you could play the exact same notes with very similar timings again on your own instrument, and that would not be considered to be a copyright violation. (eg. they could have reverse engineered the logic of the circuit and re-generated their own, different, layout)
You're completely different from other people, so I wanted to try to figure you out. I feel some benevolence towards you (I'm pretty far outside the social mainstream myself), yet the unrelenting irrational and unstable aspects of your comments make it difficult to feel anything but annoyance.
And if CO2 is that serious, what do we do about all the volcanos?
Get out your parka, because we might skip another summer. (okay that's only short-term effects)
Seriously though, re-read the grandparent post. Natural CO2 = warm. Natural CO2 + Manmade CO2 = really warm. Just because CO2 naturally occurs, that doesn't excuse us from trying to decrease the amount of man-made CO2.
Beginning at 4:00 AM PDT on 9/17 we will be issuing rolling restarts to all realms to apply a hotfix. We expect this to resolve several issues:
-Fixed an exploit with drakonids where players could get a head start.
-Nefarian's drakonids have reduced damaging abilities
-The wild polymorph cast by Nefarius in Blackwing Lair, can no longer be canceled early by clicking it off.
-Arathi Basin holiday honor should now be awarding the bonus properly.
-Hakkar's spell Corrupted Blood can no longer exist outside of Zul'Gurub
The new 2005 telecom law is 72.4% magical. It's still in committee, but the whole concept that "Broadband Video" (loosely defined) should be regulated in a manner remotely similar to current cable operators [1] is a slightly absurd on its face.
I think that most people in government don't fully realize how dramatically different digital networked things are from what they're used to legislating about.
Do you think a publicly-trade company is doing something that will lose money over the long term?
Just because they aren't charging money directly doesn't mean they don't still need to earn money per eyeball. Whatever method they have to make money, it's still going to be dependent on the population density and economic prosperity of the area.
(they're not going to stick hotspots under the ocean, or in space, for instance)
So, 100 years ago, people could have set off an atomic bomb, flown to space, and printed up some million+ transistor circuits, if they only knew the right people to talk to? The only difference between Einstein and Pythagoras is that Einstein talked to more people?
No, it's because our knowledge builds on top of the last generation's knowledge, and along with writing those ideas down, humanity's knowledge base becomes exponentially larger.
What's funny is that these vulnerabilities are very clearly publicly known. They're not getting press now. BUT... once shit hits the fan (and if they continue being as callous as they are now, shit WILL hit the fan), the news story will be quite a bit bigger..
Press: Diebold, how did this happen? You KNEW that there were vulnerabilities!
Diebold: Uhh... umm... We didn't know. Yeah, that's it.
Press: Actually, you did know. We have here a document dated X that says that chimps could hack the machine, for several years now! We documents that several state governments informed you about the problems a long, long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what "freedom of the press" is for? To increase the loudness of sheep bleating. So that, let's just say, maybe there's a hypothetical situation where a large hurricane hits land, and the leaders are perhaps a little too slow in their emergency management jobs. The sheep should bleat. And then when the next disaster comes, look at that, the leaders act more quickly.
The sheep aren't remotely smart enough as a mob to predict the path of the hurricane. They aren't smart enough to design the best evacuation plans. But they sure can see that the leaders screw up every once in a while. And that process is a good thing.
Prediction markets just bring parts of this "freedom of the press" process (which requires a larger population, and more openness, and more explicitely combatitive groups) into an internal company.
The Encyclopedists are already hard at work, and are moving out of the path of catastrophe as needed.
That's why you usually have a small group of leaders at the top of companies, so that coherent consistent decisions get made. However, sometimes the people under them all firmly agree that they're making a bad decision, or missing a business opportunity, etc. Usually all the employees just start gossipping and complaining at the water cooler. An internal prediction market will harness this internal dissent, and allow the rare ocassions where mob/democratic rule is better than oligarchy, to influence the leaders, if the leaders choose to allow it.
It's like ripping a CD into MP3... sure, now you can stick it on a password-protected server and listen to it from work, something you couldn't do with your CD, but the courts still said that doesn't fall under fair use, especially when it's done on a large scale for commercial purposes.
But I think that the internal copying may be very similar to my.mp3.com, and that's not transformative at all... it's copying entire books into their database. (I don't think that sticking it in a database is transformative... it's not, in the words of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a "creative metamorphosis", it's making it easier to index, but it's an artistic transformation)
First factor -- "the purpose and character of the use". The use is commercial. Same with my.mp3.com, even if they don't charge a fee, it's still commercial.
Google doesn't add no new "new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" to the original music recordings it copies.
Second factor -- "the nature of the copyrighted work" -- the creative recordings here being copied are "close[] to the core of intended copyright protection". Okay, the copied-in-their-entirety is only happening internally to Google in this case, that's the biggest difference between my.mp3.com and google, but AFAIK, the internal copying alone is enough to be declared illegal.
Regarding the third factor -- "the amount and substantiality of the portion [of the copyrighted work] use [by the copier] in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" -- it is undisputed that defendant copies, and replays, the entirety of the copyrighted works here in issue, thus again negating any claim of fair use.
Regarding the fourth factor -- "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" -- defendant's activities on their face invade plaintiffs' statutory right to license their copyrighted sound recordings to others for reproduction. (in that companies probably didn't give Google a license for many internal copies of each book)
Okay, IANAL, and half of this doesn't make sense to me. But the four items don't look to be any different for google.
For the record, name me a government that isn't "pretty silly", especially in matters of self-promotion.
It should be especially hilighted that Kazaa has already moved to Vanuatu, so the island clearly has decent internet connectivity in place already.
That's what Google is doing externally. Internally, is it possible that the courts will see the initial act of copying the books into their computers as the same as running thousands of books through Google's photocopiers (which would be obviously illegal, if done to books in their entirety).
It's language like this in the opinion that makes me think the problem was more with internal copying than with external copying:
In the case of mp3.com, they were supplying a copy of music that wasn't taken from your purchased copy.
Right, but even the initial internal copy, I think, was ruled to not fall within the rights of fair use. (though the external copies were also a problem too)
Especially regarding the arguments, I think more focus was on the total number of CD's ripped, not on the total number of mp3's sent to individuals.
If I remember correctly, mp3.com was found to be guilty of making internal copies of all the CD's they touched. Isn't Google doing the same thing, eg. making a massive amount of copies of the books they touch? Insofar as it isn't legal for other corporations to put entire books through the photocopy machine, or use a single copy of software across all computers (without a corporate license)?
It seems like the distinction is similar to music recordings. That copying the majority of an audio recording, with a few tweaks of your own, is considered infringement. While the "underlying ideas" are not necessarily protected, eg. so you could play the exact same notes with very similar timings again on your own instrument, and that would not be considered to be a copyright violation. (eg. they could have reverse engineered the logic of the circuit and re-generated their own, different, layout)
You're completely different from other people, so I wanted to try to figure you out. I feel some benevolence towards you (I'm pretty far outside the social mainstream myself), yet the unrelenting irrational and unstable aspects of your comments make it difficult to feel anything but annoyance.
Get out your parka, because we might skip another summer. (okay that's only short-term effects)
Seriously though, re-read the grandparent post. Natural CO2 = warm. Natural CO2 + Manmade CO2 = really warm. Just because CO2 naturally occurs, that doesn't excuse us from trying to decrease the amount of man-made CO2.
Cerbral implants! I for one welcome our new iHead overlords.
Strange. Well, according to the original thread (that now seems to be deleted), you could /pvp to remove the infection. Haven't tried it myself tho.
It really wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA wanted to interject itself in other people's sex lives, by federal decree. /ewwww
I think that most people in government don't fully realize how dramatically different digital networked things are from what they're used to legislating about.
The RIAA is also pushing for a mandatory surcharge whenever vocal cords are created, since they can be used to violate RIAA's existing copyrights.
Just because they aren't charging money directly doesn't mean they don't still need to earn money per eyeball. Whatever method they have to make money, it's still going to be dependent on the population density and economic prosperity of the area.
(they're not going to stick hotspots under the ocean, or in space, for instance)
Or generally, make your lens have the same frequency response as a human eye?
No, it's because our knowledge builds on top of the last generation's knowledge, and along with writing those ideas down, humanity's knowledge base becomes exponentially larger.