But why should they be entitled to more money if "..over 150,000 people view it in..."? Other than the license says so? That's the piece of this that really baffles me. Oh, I understand why they would license that way. More money for them. But why should I think that's OK?
Thank you. The idea they are entitled for money for a creative product I make using their codec - effectively without other options in the market. Just try to buy a camera without it - is the opposite of freedom. Market freedom or personal freedom.
This market is NOT open, and there is a concerted effort to make it that way and keep it that way. Lots of patent-saber rattling and veiled threats. The folks who are behind this are the same people who will lie to you and tell you " you have options" and "the market is free". They have a powerful pulpit to spread their message.
Can we legislate? I dunno. I think that requires a certain amount of political will, and I don't know that we're there yet. I'd like to think it's in our interest to do so. Possibly be a benefit to the business as well. We're more competitive when we are forced to compete, rather than having a few players tightly control things. But, then you are one of the few controllers, your perspective changes.
"Making something better than necessary costs money and benefits no one."
I would disagree that it benefits no one. It doesn't benefit a manufacturer... but there are more people involved in this world that just manufacturers.
Ok. I'm still not completely clear on this (who is?) - but here's what seemed pertinent from the wikipedia entry.
"The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do." - ^ Jones, Hugh; and Benson, Christopher (2002). Publishing law. Routledge. pp. 12–13. ISBN 9780415261548.
I didn't see anything about enforcement being a privilege granted for the copyright holder. There is mention of legal remedies, but as far as I know the enforcement of law remains the responsibility of the government, not the copyright holder or their delegates. By what method would a rights holder (say Disney) enforce the law? various method of copy protection could technically fit under that umbrella, but I would consider copy protection, drm as clumsy efforts to prevent the copy right from being violated.
The defendant argued he had a right/expectation of privacy or anonymity - part of protecting free speech - and the allegations made against him weren't sufficient to overrule his rights in this case. The appellate court disagreed. I think I'm more disturbed that the language used in the decision could be interpreted that they have already decided that infringement HAS occurred. Without trial.
That's a bit of a reach - not that a reach would disuade a lawyer - or the folks here... The right has been granted. The merit of that action in regards to free speech is another topic. I could make the argument that the Government granting such rights is covered as part of the commerce clause.
But, back to this case - Isn't it the responsibility of the copyright holder (or their designated representative) to defend his copyright? I was under the impression if it isn't defended, the holder could lose the copyright. The government in this case isn't delegating a privilege to the RIAA. The companies are granted copyrights. Part of those rights granted included a responsibility on their part to defend those rights, or they risk losing them. Much like any other granted right.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it restricts the rights the Government has. Of course, there are people who feel differently. Perhaps it's time for a new constitution? That is something for the citizens to decide.
However, whichever point of view you take, the question of constitutional rights doesn't apply to this case, because Government isn't party. It's RIAA vs. some John Doe. Constitutional limits (or Constitutional Rights) are just a smokescreen. Now we are down a rabbit hole and off of the pertinent topic; namely that existing law applies. Existing law does allow for discovery, as the court ruled. And even though the law allows for this discovery, John Doe's constitutional protections haven't been violated.
That's why we have courts, to rule on such questions.
The Pope did NOT say that. That quote (Time for truth) was the Vatican spokesman.
FTA: ""The times in which we living knows a huge widening of the frontiers of communication," he said (according to our Italian fixer/producer) and the new media of this new age points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. But, he went on to say, it also opens a new hole, the "digital divide" between haves and have-nots. Even more ominous, he said, it exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves. And it increases the "dangers of... intellectual and moral relativism," which can lead to "multiple forms of degradation and humiliation" of the essence of a person, and to the "pollution of the spirit." All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide open communication parameters being demanded by the Internet age."
Well, the source is somewhat ironic, considering the discussion, but here's an answer to your question. Not necessarily the 'right' answer, just one I like;
"He has showed you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6:8
Bullshit. They DID sign up to let South Park offend everyone. They've made a killing giving South Park free reign. It's hypocritical as hell for them to suddenly do otherwise.
If it isn't OK, then it isn't OK - even if you will make a lot of money. That's my issue with this. If CC is going to make a decision that says "we don't want to offend" then apply that principle equally. But don't puss out because someone made a threat. Stand up for the principles you've stood by to this point; "We don't give a shit about sensibilities because it make us boatloads of money"
The case in the article was a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. It is a good example of terms that can be binding, but it doesn't mean a company has the ability to establish law.
Terms of service can be enforceable, I don't dispute that. However, not ALL terms of service are enforceable, as the Judges in that case made clear. What I object to is equating "violations of the terms of service" to "breaking a law". There is a difference between the two, despite what some folks might think (or wish).
The term used was "illegal method" (I'm assuming using the firefox extension runs afoul of You-tube's TOS). That is an incorrect statement. An illegal method was NOT used, the TOS were (maybe) violated.
The only reason for the yearly Ethics and Compliance refreshers is to remind the employees of what the Board members DON'T do. I'm always sure to remind them about that when they ask if I think the training is helpful. Lot's of resources being used to address an issue (or issues) with the leadership, rather than the rank and file.
Although, in fairness, the actions being investigated were taken in 2000. The relevant contract completed in 2007. The emphasis on yearly ethics training didn't come about until the pretexting controversy in '06.
It's a troll for the same reason that some want to make being "attracted to something" illegal. The most efficient way to not be faced with our own attraction for such things is to have them outlawed.
Why pathetic? Japan ended up being our only real presence in that part of the world afterwards. By that point, the leadership of this country was terribly concerned with the Soviet Union, and how to limit their rise in power and world influence. We couldn't continue to fight WW2 as some may have wanted to, but politically we were not willing to stand by and watch Russia expand and realize the their version of the 3rd Reich. With what we know now of the human suffering in the Soviet occupied lands post WW2, we may have chosen the way that actually provided LESS over-all human suffering.
Japan has turned into one of the world's leading nations, and their economy and standard of living isn't "pathetic". Looking at how Germany & Japan were assisted by the US after WW2, the case could be made that we made amends for Hiroshima/Nagasaki (and the Dresden firebombing).
It's easy to sit from our enlightened 21st century point of view and cast stones at decisions made 65 years ago. Truth is, we were waging war, with all of the brutality, energy and intelligence that British/Americas are capable of. Truth is war sucks for all. But, that is not an accepted truth. Acting as if it is (or should be) is hubris.
Using the term "racist" means you fall for the lie, too. There is only 1 human race.
People might hate because of skin color, religious belief, etc etc ad nauseam. But they cannot hate because of race differences. Such differences are a fiction.
Completely in context for my point. I was addressing the second portion of your post, not the first. I just did a poor job of communicating it.
I'm not opposed to waging war. In 1776, the decision was made soberly, after much reflection. The people making that decision also had their lives on the line, too. Even though killing was involved, it honored that "inalienable right to life".
Contrast THAT to the situation that the ACLU wants information on today. Foreign land. Remote operation of weapons. Much less personal. Our recent-past experiences give us reason to think that there may be abuses, especially where contractors are concerned.
I want us to still honor that inalienable right. That means waging war properly. We have teh ability and obligation to do what we can to make sure we're choosing legitimate targets using properly trained, supervised resources. That supervision can (should?) involve disclosure
Slashdot Mirror
But why should they be entitled to more money if "..over 150,000 people view it in ..."? Other than the license says so? That's the piece of this that really baffles me. Oh, I understand why they would license that way. More money for them. But why should I think that's OK?
Thank you. The idea they are entitled for money for a creative product I make using their codec - effectively without other options in the market. Just try to buy a camera without it - is the opposite of freedom. Market freedom or personal freedom.
This market is NOT open, and there is a concerted effort to make it that way and keep it that way. Lots of patent-saber rattling and veiled threats. The folks who are behind this are the same people who will lie to you and tell you " you have options" and "the market is free". They have a powerful pulpit to spread their message.
Can we legislate? I dunno. I think that requires a certain amount of political will, and I don't know that we're there yet. I'd like to think it's in our interest to do so. Possibly be a benefit to the business as well. We're more competitive when we are forced to compete, rather than having a few players tightly control things. But, then you are one of the few controllers, your perspective changes.
"Making something better than necessary costs money and benefits no one."
I would disagree that it benefits no one. It doesn't benefit a manufacturer... but there are more people involved in this world that just manufacturers.
Ok. I'm still not completely clear on this (who is?) - but here's what seemed pertinent from the wikipedia entry.
"The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do." - ^ Jones, Hugh; and Benson, Christopher (2002). Publishing law. Routledge. pp. 12–13. ISBN 9780415261548.
I didn't see anything about enforcement being a privilege granted for the copyright holder. There is mention of legal remedies, but as far as I know the enforcement of law remains the responsibility of the government, not the copyright holder or their delegates. By what method would a rights holder (say Disney) enforce the law? various method of copy protection could technically fit under that umbrella, but I would consider copy protection, drm as clumsy efforts to prevent the copy right from being violated.
The defendant argued he had a right/expectation of privacy or anonymity - part of protecting free speech - and the allegations made against him weren't sufficient to overrule his rights in this case. The appellate court disagreed. I think I'm more disturbed that the language used in the decision could be interpreted that they have already decided that infringement HAS occurred. Without trial.
Stop calling me Shirley
That's a bit of a reach - not that a reach would disuade a lawyer - or the folks here... The right has been granted. The merit of that action in regards to free speech is another topic. I could make the argument that the Government granting such rights is covered as part of the commerce clause.
But, back to this case - Isn't it the responsibility of the copyright holder (or their designated representative) to defend his copyright? I was under the impression if it isn't defended, the holder could lose the copyright. The government in this case isn't delegating a privilege to the RIAA. The companies are granted copyrights. Part of those rights granted included a responsibility on their part to defend those rights, or they risk losing them. Much like any other granted right.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1589664&cid=31552060
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1589664&cid=31552060
Episode #4,987,998 of "Internet Tough Guy".
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it restricts the rights the Government has. Of course, there are people who feel differently. Perhaps it's time for a new constitution? That is something for the citizens to decide.
However, whichever point of view you take, the question of constitutional rights doesn't apply to this case, because Government isn't party. It's RIAA vs. some John Doe. Constitutional limits (or Constitutional Rights) are just a smokescreen. Now we are down a rabbit hole and off of the pertinent topic; namely that existing law applies. Existing law does allow for discovery, as the court ruled. And even though the law allows for this discovery, John Doe's constitutional protections haven't been violated.
That's why we have courts, to rule on such questions.
The Pope did NOT say that. That quote (Time for truth) was the Vatican spokesman.
FTA: ... intellectual and moral relativism," which can lead to "multiple forms of degradation and humiliation" of the essence of a person, and to the "pollution of the spirit." All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide open communication parameters being demanded by the Internet age."
""The times in which we living knows a huge widening of the frontiers of communication," he said (according to our Italian fixer/producer) and the new media of this new age points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. But, he went on to say, it also opens a new hole, the "digital divide" between haves and have-nots. Even more ominous, he said, it exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves. And it increases the "dangers of
Yeah - except that quote wasn't the Pope speaking, that was the Vatican Spokesman.
Well, the source is somewhat ironic, considering the discussion, but here's an answer to your question. Not necessarily the 'right' answer, just one I like;
"He has showed you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6:8
Bullshit. They DID sign up to let South Park offend everyone. They've made a killing giving South Park free reign. It's hypocritical as hell for them to suddenly do otherwise.
If it isn't OK, then it isn't OK - even if you will make a lot of money. That's my issue with this. If CC is going to make a decision that says "we don't want to offend" then apply that principle equally. But don't puss out because someone made a threat. Stand up for the principles you've stood by to this point; "We don't give a shit about sensibilities because it make us boatloads of money"
Not so innocent. CC owes quite a bit to Matt and Trey.
The case in the article was a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. It is a good example of terms that can be binding, but it doesn't mean a company has the ability to establish law.
Terms of service can be enforceable, I don't dispute that. However, not ALL terms of service are enforceable, as the Judges in that case made clear. What I object to is equating "violations of the terms of service" to "breaking a law". There is a difference between the two, despite what some folks might think (or wish).
The term used was "illegal method" (I'm assuming using the firefox extension runs afoul of You-tube's TOS). That is an incorrect statement. An illegal method was NOT used, the TOS were (maybe) violated.
As far as I know, they aren't. Just because someone says (or writes) something doesn't make it legally binding...
What is this "license" you speak of?
The only reason for the yearly Ethics and Compliance refreshers is to remind the employees of what the Board members DON'T do. I'm always sure to remind them about that when they ask if I think the training is helpful. Lot's of resources being used to address an issue (or issues) with the leadership, rather than the rank and file.
Although, in fairness, the actions being investigated were taken in 2000. The relevant contract completed in 2007. The emphasis on yearly ethics training didn't come about until the pretexting controversy in '06.
It's a troll for the same reason that some want to make being "attracted to something" illegal. The most efficient way to not be faced with our own attraction for such things is to have them outlawed.
...but, but, but... /. ?
If we don't get all emotional, and perform our mudslinging rituals, then what need is there for sites like
Don't be so sure. We're pretty violent.
Why pathetic? Japan ended up being our only real presence in that part of the world afterwards. By that point, the leadership of this country was terribly concerned with the Soviet Union, and how to limit their rise in power and world influence. We couldn't continue to fight WW2 as some may have wanted to, but politically we were not willing to stand by and watch Russia expand and realize the their version of the 3rd Reich. With what we know now of the human suffering in the Soviet occupied lands post WW2, we may have chosen the way that actually provided LESS over-all human suffering.
Japan has turned into one of the world's leading nations, and their economy and standard of living isn't "pathetic". Looking at how Germany & Japan were assisted by the US after WW2, the case could be made that we made amends for Hiroshima/Nagasaki (and the Dresden firebombing).
It's easy to sit from our enlightened 21st century point of view and cast stones at decisions made 65 years ago. Truth is, we were waging war, with all of the brutality, energy and intelligence that British/Americas are capable of. Truth is war sucks for all. But, that is not an accepted truth. Acting as if it is (or should be) is hubris.
Using the term "racist" means you fall for the lie, too. There is only 1 human race.
People might hate because of skin color, religious belief, etc etc ad nauseam. But they cannot hate because of race differences. Such differences are a fiction.
Completely in context for my point. I was addressing the second portion of your post, not the first. I just did a poor job of communicating it.
I'm not opposed to waging war. In 1776, the decision was made soberly, after much reflection. The people making that decision also had their lives on the line, too. Even though killing was involved, it honored that "inalienable right to life".
Contrast THAT to the situation that the ACLU wants information on today. Foreign land. Remote operation of weapons. Much less personal. Our recent-past experiences give us reason to think that there may be abuses, especially where contractors are concerned.
I want us to still honor that inalienable right. That means waging war properly. We have teh ability and obligation to do what we can to make sure we're choosing legitimate targets using properly trained, supervised resources. That supervision can (should?) involve disclosure