Fortunately our founding fathers imparted the never ending ability to 'throw out' those at the top. So if the Religious Cranks do manage to get in charge, we can remove them.
Unlike the usual 'Religious Crank' system which is most definitely 'Top Down'.
Ask Louie C. K. how his DRM Free special did...hint he made millions off of it. He specifically said, it's DRM free, but please buy it from me...and you know what? People did. Because it was worth it.
Do note that if you're only subscribed to Netflix streaming they purposely don't show you results that exist for DVD subscribers and ditto for the reverse. If you have both then you'll get everything returned.
Personally I think this was because streaming only customers were being shown just how little is available on streaming compared to DVDs and they didn't want people to know that.
Fair enough, as long as their isn't a requirement for checking with the Crashplan servers as part of the connection to the friends machine, then yes it will work post Crashplan existence.
My point was third party software requiring an internet connection to be made is a link that you can't fix if the company goes out of business.
Not quite. The example was all the licensed music services that used DRM. When they went away, all that 'legally' purchased music went away too, since the authentication servers weren't there to say 'yes you have permission' Even though I had the songs locally they were encrypted for DRM protection and not playable.
I'm not saying Crashplan does that, but having a check in the software to verify whether you're allowed to look at the backup would stop you from using said backup if Crashplan shut down its servers.
No different than having a 'dongle' with early software. If the dongle broke, and the company was out of business. you weren't using your software even if you legally purchased it.
So your video of yourself jamming on your guitar is taken-off youtube for 10 days. Ooooo. You've really been harmed (not).
Actually I have. I OWN the copyright on that. I am getting revenue from Youtube based on views. If my copyright is so unimportant to you, why is following a corporations copyright more important?
How about I am not allowed to make a movie using Mickey Mouse? I *should* be able to do so, except Disney has a habit of buying legislation every time MM is about to go in to the public domain LIKE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT SHOULD.
Or are you against the Constitution too? Given your lip service to free speech it wouldn't surprise me much.
But there is another out too. Like the service provider knowing the claimed infringement is not infringement at all thereby not having the threat of liability.
Please show me in the statute where this 'I know better' clause is.
I think the posters point might depend on how the 'free' version works. Does it 'need' to contact the servers in order to function in which case if the company goes away you're SOL.
Obviously this would not be a great design and I wouldn't expect they'd implement something like that, but that's probably what he's getting at.
It is routine in legal matters for innocent people to have their freedoms *momentarily* abridged. In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.
No it's not, for CIVIL offenses. Murder generally requires a 'warrant' for your arrest. Hence it's already been through checks and balances. No such thing exists for DMCA.
That said, nice touch jumping straight to murder for what is a civil offense. How about Jay Walking? Should you have to pay the fine 'immediately' and then ask for your money back 'in a few days'?
Since 'nobody' is going to 'die' for a simple post of a video, it seems quite reasonable for the Plaintiff to make the request and have the poster be able to respond yes or no before taking it down.
As you said "It's just a few days" that the Plaintiff has their rights 'momentarily abridged'. No big deal right? Or is freedom of speech not important to you?
512 (C)
(1) A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or,... for infringement of copyright... if the service provider-
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material
The DMCA's "It has to be taken down right now!" policy
without any ability to stop the takedown prior to its execution is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Charged with a 'criminal act and prosecuted' is better because you can get the damn case thrown out 'with prejudice' and get your expenses paid when the person claiming copyright is 'wrong'.
And how much will it cost to remove the coal CO2 from the environment? Renewable is only more expensive because fossil fuels don't pay their full cost.
"However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact [of Jackson's ruling]. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability."
So they disagreed with his 'method' but not his findings.
To which Shrub decided to publicly not ask for much.
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a, presumably, private, 'Catholic' school. What exactly did you expect?
The Kentucky issue is about 'public' schools.
Ron Paul, is that you?
I heard the Middle-Eastern part was full of terrorists....
Fortunately our founding fathers imparted the never ending ability to 'throw out' those at the top. So if the Religious Cranks do manage to get in charge, we can remove them.
Unlike the usual 'Religious Crank' system which is most definitely 'Top Down'.
Wait, you're arguing against 'Central Planning' in favor of 'Organized Religion'?
You do realize that Religion is by definition 'Top Down' right?
Ask Louie C. K. how his DRM Free special did...hint he made millions off of it. He specifically said, it's DRM free, but please buy it from me...and you know what? People did. Because it was worth it.
now now, Crap would like to protest. Sure it isn't fun at parties, but it's not like it's Flash now...
Do note that if you're only subscribed to Netflix streaming they purposely don't show you results that exist for DVD subscribers and ditto for the reverse. If you have both then you'll get everything returned.
Personally I think this was because streaming only customers were being shown just how little is available on streaming compared to DVDs and they didn't want people to know that.
Well more correctly, you're already painting his walls for free and he's happy with that.
;-)
You're just changing the paint to feces....for 'free'
If the earth's surface becomes equivalent to a *running* microwave...I'd say source code is the least of your worries
With their PC's are setup Miles underground
Mom and Dad must have a helluva basement...
Depends where it crashes.
Fair enough, as long as their isn't a requirement for checking with the Crashplan servers as part of the connection to the friends machine, then yes it will work post Crashplan existence.
My point was third party software requiring an internet connection to be made is a link that you can't fix if the company goes out of business.
Not quite. The example was all the licensed music services that used DRM. When they went away, all that 'legally' purchased music went away too, since the authentication servers weren't there to say 'yes you have permission' Even though I had the songs locally they were encrypted for DRM protection and not playable.
I'm not saying Crashplan does that, but having a check in the software to verify whether you're allowed to look at the backup would stop you from using said backup if Crashplan shut down its servers.
No different than having a 'dongle' with early software. If the dongle broke, and the company was out of business. you weren't using your software even if you legally purchased it.
So your video of yourself jamming on your guitar is taken-off youtube for 10 days. Ooooo. You've really been harmed (not).
Actually I have. I OWN the copyright on that. I am getting revenue from Youtube based on views. If my copyright is so unimportant to you, why is following a corporations copyright more important?
How about I am not allowed to make a movie using Mickey Mouse? I *should* be able to do so, except Disney has a habit of buying legislation every time MM is about to go in to the public domain LIKE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT SHOULD.
Or are you against the Constitution too? Given your lip service to free speech it wouldn't surprise me much.
But there is another out too. Like the service provider knowing the claimed infringement is not infringement at all thereby not having the threat of liability.
Please show me in the statute where this 'I know better' clause is.
I think the posters point might depend on how the 'free' version works. Does it 'need' to contact the servers in order to function in which case if the company goes away you're SOL.
Obviously this would not be a great design and I wouldn't expect they'd implement something like that, but that's probably what he's getting at.
If you're point is that, technically, they could leave it up and open themselves up to massive liability, yes 'technically' they 'could' do that.
In no definition of 'reality' would that *ever* happen.
It is routine in legal matters for innocent people to have their freedoms *momentarily* abridged. In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.
No it's not, for CIVIL offenses. Murder generally requires a 'warrant' for your arrest. Hence it's already been through checks and balances. No such thing exists for DMCA.
That said, nice touch jumping straight to murder for what is a civil offense. How about Jay Walking? Should you have to pay the fine 'immediately' and then ask for your money back 'in a few days'?
Since 'nobody' is going to 'die' for a simple post of a video, it seems quite reasonable for the Plaintiff to make the request and have the poster be able to respond yes or no before taking it down.
As you said "It's just a few days" that the Plaintiff has their rights 'momentarily abridged'. No big deal right? Or is freedom of speech not important to you?
While they 'could' leave it up, they open themselves up to massive liability if they don't. Hence, they take it down immediately.
DMCA Text
512 (C) ... for infringement of copyright ... if the service provider-
(1) A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or,
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material
The DMCA's "It has to be taken down right now!" policy
without any ability to stop the takedown prior to its execution is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Charged with a 'criminal act and prosecuted' is better because you can get the damn case thrown out 'with prejudice' and get your expenses paid when the person claiming copyright is 'wrong'.
And how much will it cost to remove the coal CO2 from the environment? Renewable is only more expensive because fossil fuels don't pay their full cost.
"However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact [of Jackson's ruling]. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability."
So they disagreed with his 'method' but not his findings.
To which Shrub decided to publicly not ask for much.
MS trial
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.
Who was president in Sept 2001 again?
I guess I just found another reason to buy a Win7 PC instead of the Win8 version with blockeboot.
On this at least, we fully agree :)
Any idea how Win7 will be treated by UEFI should we want to install it onto 'newer' hardware in the future?