I know this is slashdot, and today we are on the "non-GPL" side of the mirror so we must pretend to hate IP law and "information must be free" and all that, but really, I have no problem whatsoever with this.
google derives substantial advertising revenue by republishing essential portions of clips of news from other sites. google's use clearly fails EVERY PRONG of the USA fair use 4-pronged test (yes, i know this is france, but the basic principles still apply):
1. Purpose and character of the use. - Google's use is not by any stretch of the imagination purely educational. it is for profit for the purpose of driving advertising revenue to google. 2. nature of the copyright work - there is no doubt that the news items in question took substantial original research and belong to the french organizations in question. even if it is a fluff piece on lady ga ga, the fact that google can monetize it suggests it has value.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken - google is taking enough that clearly ad revenues are being drawn from the legitimate creator - in some cases, it is most or all of the ad revenues. true, google might drive visitors to the sites too, but for example, i am often driven to NYTimes articles through google but read the articles at NYTimes - not google.
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market. - if google is monetizing it, the legitimate creators and publishers aren't.
i can't for a moment see why google has a case. I've seen a lot of moaning about "how france wants to be off the web", but that's far from a compelling argument. i want a web where the rights of legitimate creators - be they programmers working under GPL or newspapers are respected and NOT be bullied about my megabillion$ youtubegoogle.
On one hand, everybody knows that the ruling was politically motivated bullshit. Squeeze the american company for a few billion pesos, even if in just a few short years technological and market developments have proven conclusively that the EU lawsuit was full of shit.
On the other hand, it is microsoft.
How will slashdot react? for once, acting with a bit of consistency and integrity? or more MS bashing? or both?
And, as usual, slashdotters flip flop between a legalistic approach and "I don't care what the law says, I care what's RIGHT" depending on their personal stances on any particular issue.
So, what you're saying is that nobody can built an appstore, right? I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit. There are dozens of startup app stores out there for, say, android or PC that claim to do exactly as you propose. steam is one that seems to be more or less successful. there are few if any technological or patent barriers preventing you from making your own appstore - i noticed a new PC one the other day. the problem isn't that you can't make one, the problem is that you have neither a unique idea to differentiate your appstore from the all the others nor the billions that certain big companies have to MARKET it. if you did have a brilliant new idea, a suitable patent would help you monetize it and PREVENT the big companies from rolling over you.
First, I am no fan of patent trolls. However, both the article's headline and the slashdot headline are misleading.
The article claims "the numbers don't lie." The "numbers" it speaks of are basically the results of a survey in which one researchers polled a few startups and asked them if patent trolls were an issue. Quite a few said yes.
But the number is entirely without context. To use a slashdot favorite, the existence of cars also puts buggy whip manufacturers out of business and "costs them jobs." Just because something has an adverse effect on somebody's business.. or in this case somebody's potential business doesn't make it bad for the economy. in fact, taken as a whole you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate study (not some boldrine and levine ass-pulled crapola) that suggests that patents taken as a whole are bad for an economy and for r&d - quite the opposite, taken as a whole, they're very very good. are there rough edges in patent regimes? of course. but i'd argue that patent trolls aren't really the problem. the real problem is the granting of patents unnecessarily for obvious bullshiat. if that goes away, then the sort of patent trolls that peopel complain about go away.
i have no problem with legitimate patent trolls, by which i mean some small company has made some innovation and then sues the hell out of some large company who simply ignores the small company's prior art. too many of you on slashdot are ironically too pro big business by proposing systems by which big companies could more easily do just that. legitimate holders of worthy ideas who lack the resources to turn those ideas into products have a financial incentive to license or transfer the ideas to those who can. and if they do get treated unfairly, like the guy who made the intermittent wiper blades was, then by all means, sue sue sue.
it could be that "patent trolls" really are a drain on the economy, but this article makes no such case. let's not forget that to somebody wanting the IP of somebody else, it's often convenient to "cry troll" and complain about all sorts of doom and gloom. i mean, darn that patent troll, oh, i dunno, porsche with their patent on some innovative brake mechanism who are keeping me from developing the next generation supercar and hiring tens of thousands of workers to develop it! if only they weren't such patent trolls hanging on to patents for the inventions that they developed!
more likely than not, this is only so much more verbage, planted here on slashdot where most anti-IP slanted stuff, no matter how specious, gets modded +5.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Welcome to the world of Linux distributions. Who can figure out the mystery of the sub 2 percent combined desktop market share?
In a wide-reaching formal study, it was discovered that fully 100% (9,345,124 out of 9,345,124) babies cried when receiving vaccination shots. Not one spoke up to express positive support for them, despite being told of their long term efficacy at promoting individual and societal health. Therefore, infant vaccinations are bad policy and should be banned, according to the Jenny McCarthy and Slashdot Submitter school of public policy reasoning.
I'm not saying it's a good bill. I am saying that These emails mean dick and squat other than "special interests, even potentially legitimate ones, are good at making their voices heard."
I suspect that of the 3700 reported "laser attacks" this year, 99% will be in the USA and something approaching 100% of those will be traceable to sunlight shining off of ground objects...... and that the FAA will spend $6 million developing a "laser awareness video" that it will relegate to some dusty corner of its website.
3 or 4 post in as I write this and already the naifs discussing complete abolition of copyright have sprung up. What will be lost in all of this, as always in these discussions, is that google could have damn well gone to the publishers / copyrightholders in advance and negotiate a fee for publishing such 'abandoned' works. Im sure the publishers would have been amenable to even quite modest renumeration and a fair arrangement could have been reached. this is how copyright is SUPPOSED to work.
Instead, this ruling is, while one hand good since it means that the world hasn't gone completely stupid and decided, as it seems to have in the case of youtube, where if a big company casts a blind eye towards piracy (just youtube search "full move" if you doubt me) while making HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS if not billions on advertising from it then it's ok, in another sense it's bad.
it's bad because there appears to be little or no punitive aspect to this agreement. let's review:
1. had there been a strong punative element to the settlement, then perhaps others would be less brazen about such willful copyright violation as google had engaged in. and let's be clear - that's exactly what it was. it was:
- willful
- commercial and massively for profit
- not for any particular educational purpose other than incidental
- MASSIVE in scope
- by people who should have known better
2. if the ruling said that such works were indeed effectively in the public domain, well, while on one hand that would have been less than ideal, on the other at least this would have opened them up for all.
3. but no.. instead, what we get is some settlement where google muscles its way into paying pennies on the dollar, the information stays "locked", and there is no lesson for google except "we do what we want because we're big"
a lose-mostly lose situation for all. except google. they're laughing all the way to the bank.
don't forget folks -there is an option that is neither "insanely shortsighted abolition of all copyright" nor "information that cannot be used because it is locked down" and that is the licensing of said information by the rightsholder. you know, just like the GPL does it.
And because you didn't make cash and turn it into a going concern. It will dry up and go away just as soon as you lose interest. Let me ask you... Do you also reject street cleaning in your home town? Or are you out there every morning with a broom in the same spirit? Why should the Internet be any different? If somebody wants to try to make money, let them. And if somebody's annoying ads allow them to keep their blog going, then by all means that better than less information and less voice. High horse, get off of it.
So, you still honestly think that linux has a snowball's chance in hell on the desktop?
The mass shift from PC to Mac by many users show conclusively that the fabled "lock in" and "path dependence" with regards to consumer operating systems that you guys have always used as your excuse for why linux wasn't doing well was more myth than fact. The simple reality is that linux on the desktop, as it is now and certainly as it was in its heyday when it was on the cover of major magazines as the "next big thing" has been judged by the market and has been found wanting. If you're giving it away and still find adoption rates are near zero, at some point it's time to realize that your product just isn't as good as alternatives out there.
So will we see gratuitous microsoft bashing or instead will people here admit the obvious fact that the ruling was utter nonsense that basically amounted to legalized extortion for no legitimate public policy reason?
(checks comment titles: "They have to ban windows in EU")... sigh.
TheGratefulNet: nice to see you following in the logic of mugabe and his land redistribution. to say that your populist views would be economically ruinous as they are tragically naive is putting it too mildly. i mean, why stop at copyright items? why not give away all the coca cola in portugal too- after all, the marginal cost of production is nearly nil and only a few people are employed in the industry.
Impartial: "Appeals Court Rules that..." Slashdot: "Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners"
I have no dog in this fight, but the idea that some court "caved" to an agency rather than ruling on the merits of the case based on their particular principled and reasoned views (which you or I might not happen to personally like or agree with) sounds like conspiracybabble that should have no place on slashdot.
I spend a considerable amount of time and Russia and Ukraine on business. Let's put it this way: ALL THERE IS in Russia and Ukraine is piracy. Let me give you some examples.
- you can go down to the corner shop and buy DVDs and CDs of your favorite movies, music, and/or games. They are all pirated, and professionally so. - companies that sell legitimate entertainment products last about a week in most places before they close for lack of sales. - even large electronics outlets sell pirated goods - use of torrent is extremely widespread - you'd be hard pressed to find anybody under 20 who has ever legitimately paid for music or games, ever. and i really mean that. - a major university in ukraine that i know of has on its campus intranet a 400+TB system exclusively for piracy. I mean, university set up, where people upload movies, music, games, software, etc. this is actually a university function that they figure saves them on outgoing bandwidth. - the first thing people do when they buy a new computer is to take it to a local 'repair shop' where for $5-$10 you get a full suite of every application you might want, nicely installed. This practice is extremely widespread.
if you think "fine, because these are disadvantaged countries..'" well, you're only fooling yourself. while the per capita gdp of those countries is somehwat low, it is also highly unequal. the ones with the PCs, ipads, and university educations doing the pirating are highly likely to be quite well off indeed.
the authoritarian laws are there. there is simply no will to enforce them.
And yet, here we have an incredibly inflammatory film that the US has taken zero steps to censor, thus completely neutering your juvenile, un-sourced, conspiratorial and utterly irresponsible innuendo.
I'm sorry, but this is terrible advice. I routinely hire programmers and designers both in person and using internet remote worker service and let me tell you that nothing puts me off quicker than some crap (and if you put 10-15 together in a week, they're going to be crap) websites that somebody points to and says "look I did those websites." This provides no context and pre-supposes that I, the potential employer, am an idiot.
Anybody who really knows anything in this industry can do some combination of two things: 1. show a portfolio of projects done over time 2. be able to discuss, in depth, details about each of the projects
#2 without #1 is fine, as it takes about 2 minutes of questions for me to see if the person is full of it or not. #1 without #2 is "ok" if the projects are sufficiently complex that I can uniquely identify the person's style and contribution, but this is rare.
a plate full of "demo" websites means that the person does not have #1 and likely would pass a test at #2 - so, they get the boot.
in fact, far far far far far far far far far far far far better than your poor idea is if the person has a personal or hobby website that they have maintained over time, so that I can see their evolution and the problems they have had to solve.
Since you seem to have missed the point entirely, I repeat these words again: intent, amount, and use.
The law is not a software algorithm. It is evaluated by rational individuals using principles and guidelines., not hard and fast rules. Your "to it's logical conclusion" claim is slippery slope tail end nonsense that does not apply.
You don't seem to understand how IPR works. As it works in most countries, "infringment" is a judgement call based on intent, amount, use, and so forth. For example, I can link to CNN.com from my homepage. No problem there. However, let's say CNN one day accidentally uses a picture that they dont have the rights to there. Am *I* guilty? no judge in the world would say yes. On the other hand, let's say I make a direct link on my homepage to "get your free copy of (latest hot movie here)" which direct links to a page or actual file on somebody else's site. What this ruling says is that the judge CAN consider this and CAN treat this differently, as damn well he should be able to.
I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.
Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good. They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit), and ethics. You may disagree - you may have your own arguments against IPR - fine, fair enough - but for you to immediately proclaim " I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary." is irresponsible and juvenile.
Here's not "Good o' Putin." He's a kleptocratic, fascist dictator who has directly caused the death of at least thousands of innocents and whose greed and duplicitous use of right-win poplusm has caused untold millions, both in Russia and in other states, from Uzbekistan to Ukraine, from Syria to Georgia, from Estonia to Africa to suffer. Let's stop the "wink wink" bond jokes and kitsch cutesy comments and unhesitatingly and forcefully condemn this evil man AND THOSE IN THE CORRUPT RUSSIAN MIDDLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM in the strongest way possible.
Actually, it has more to do with not advantaging smartphone-owning rich people over common people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that we've gotten this far in the slashdot comments and as far as I can tell nobody has picked up on this, THE critical public policy fact surrounding this issue, says a lot about slashdot. the NYTimes comment section on this issue, OTOH, picked up on this right away.
While on slashdot we get "I use it all the time in DC. I probably use it more because of the fact the DC government doesn't like it."
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is slashdot, and today we are on the "non-GPL" side of the mirror so we must pretend to hate IP law and "information must be free" and all that, but really, I have no problem whatsoever with this.
google derives substantial advertising revenue by republishing essential portions of clips of news from other sites. google's use clearly fails EVERY PRONG of the USA fair use 4-pronged test (yes, i know this is france, but the basic principles still apply):
1. Purpose and character of the use. - Google's use is not by any stretch of the imagination purely educational. it is for profit for the purpose of driving advertising revenue to google.
2. nature of the copyright work - there is no doubt that the news items in question took substantial original research and belong to the french organizations in question. even if it is a fluff piece on lady ga ga, the fact that google can monetize it suggests it has value.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken - google is taking enough that clearly ad revenues are being drawn from the legitimate creator - in some cases, it is most or all of the ad revenues. true, google might drive visitors to the sites too, but for example, i am often driven to NYTimes articles through google but read the articles at NYTimes - not google.
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market. - if google is monetizing it, the legitimate creators and publishers aren't.
i can't for a moment see why google has a case. I've seen a lot of moaning about "how france wants to be off the web", but that's far from a compelling argument. i want a web where the rights of legitimate creators - be they programmers working under GPL or newspapers are respected and NOT be bullied about my megabillion$ youtubegoogle.
On one hand, everybody knows that the ruling was politically motivated bullshit. Squeeze the american company for a few billion pesos, even if in just a few short years technological and market developments have proven conclusively that the EU lawsuit was full of shit.
On the other hand, it is microsoft.
How will slashdot react? for once, acting with a bit of consistency and integrity? or more MS bashing? or both?
And, as usual, slashdotters flip flop between a legalistic approach and "I don't care what the law says, I care what's RIGHT" depending on their personal stances on any particular issue.
Yours sincerely,
Somebody
So, what you're saying is that nobody can built an appstore, right? I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit. There are dozens of startup app stores out there for, say, android or PC that claim to do exactly as you propose. steam is one that seems to be more or less successful. there are few if any technological or patent barriers preventing you from making your own appstore - i noticed a new PC one the other day. the problem isn't that you can't make one, the problem is that you have neither a unique idea to differentiate your appstore from the all the others nor the billions that certain big companies have to MARKET it. if you did have a brilliant new idea, a suitable patent would help you monetize it and PREVENT the big companies from rolling over you.
First, I am no fan of patent trolls. However, both the article's headline and the slashdot headline are misleading.
The article claims "the numbers don't lie." The "numbers" it speaks of are basically the results of a survey in which one researchers polled a few startups and asked them if patent trolls were an issue. Quite a few said yes.
But the number is entirely without context. To use a slashdot favorite, the existence of cars also puts buggy whip manufacturers out of business and "costs them jobs." Just because something has an adverse effect on somebody's business.. or in this case somebody's potential business doesn't make it bad for the economy. in fact, taken as a whole you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate study (not some boldrine and levine ass-pulled crapola) that suggests that patents taken as a whole are bad for an economy and for r&d - quite the opposite, taken as a whole, they're very very good. are there rough edges in patent regimes? of course. but i'd argue that patent trolls aren't really the problem. the real problem is the granting of patents unnecessarily for obvious bullshiat. if that goes away, then the sort of patent trolls that peopel complain about go away.
i have no problem with legitimate patent trolls, by which i mean some small company has made some innovation and then sues the hell out of some large company who simply ignores the small company's prior art. too many of you on slashdot are ironically too pro big business by proposing systems by which big companies could more easily do just that. legitimate holders of worthy ideas who lack the resources to turn those ideas into products have a financial incentive to license or transfer the ideas to those who can. and if they do get treated unfairly, like the guy who made the intermittent wiper blades was, then by all means, sue sue sue.
it could be that "patent trolls" really are a drain on the economy, but this article makes no such case. let's not forget that to somebody wanting the IP of somebody else, it's often convenient to "cry troll" and complain about all sorts of doom and gloom. i mean, darn that patent troll, oh, i dunno, porsche with their patent on some innovative brake mechanism who are keeping me from developing the next generation supercar and hiring tens of thousands of workers to develop it! if only they weren't such patent trolls hanging on to patents for the inventions that they developed!
more likely than not, this is only so much more verbage, planted here on slashdot where most anti-IP slanted stuff, no matter how specious, gets modded +5.
quack,quack quack quack
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Welcome to the world of Linux distributions. Who can figure out the mystery of the sub 2 percent combined desktop market share?
In a wide-reaching formal study, it was discovered that fully 100% (9,345,124 out of 9,345,124) babies cried when receiving vaccination shots. Not one spoke up to express positive support for them, despite being told of their long term efficacy at promoting individual and societal health. Therefore, infant vaccinations are bad policy and should be banned, according to the Jenny McCarthy and Slashdot Submitter school of public policy reasoning.
I'm not saying it's a good bill. I am saying that These emails mean dick and squat other than "special interests, even potentially legitimate ones, are good at making their voices heard."
I suspect that of the 3700 reported "laser attacks" this year, 99% will be in the USA and something approaching 100% of those will be traceable to sunlight shining off of ground objects... ... and that the FAA will spend $6 million developing a "laser awareness video" that it will relegate to some dusty corner of its website.
Folks,
3 or 4 post in as I write this and already the naifs discussing complete abolition of copyright have sprung up. What will be lost in all of this, as always in these discussions, is that google could have damn well gone to the publishers / copyrightholders in advance and negotiate a fee for publishing such 'abandoned' works. Im sure the publishers would have been amenable to even quite modest renumeration and a fair arrangement could have been reached. this is how copyright is SUPPOSED to work.
Instead, this ruling is, while one hand good since it means that the world hasn't gone completely stupid and decided, as it seems to have in the case of youtube, where if a big company casts a blind eye towards piracy (just youtube search "full move" if you doubt me) while making HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS if not billions on advertising from it then it's ok, in another sense it's bad.
it's bad because there appears to be little or no punitive aspect to this agreement. let's review:
1. had there been a strong punative element to the settlement, then perhaps others would be less brazen about such willful copyright violation as google had engaged in. and let's be clear - that's exactly what it was. it was:
- willful
- commercial and massively for profit
- not for any particular educational purpose other than incidental
- MASSIVE in scope
- by people who should have known better
2. if the ruling said that such works were indeed effectively in the public domain, well, while on one hand that would have been less than ideal, on the other at least this would have opened them up for all.
3. but no.. instead, what we get is some settlement where google muscles its way into paying pennies on the dollar, the information stays "locked", and there is no lesson for google except "we do what we want because we're big"
a lose-mostly lose situation for all. except google. they're laughing all the way to the bank.
don't forget folks -there is an option that is neither "insanely shortsighted abolition of all copyright" nor "information that cannot be used because it is locked down" and that is the licensing of said information by the rightsholder. you know, just like the GPL does it.
Like in Somalia!
And because you didn't make cash and turn it into a going concern. It will dry up and go away just as soon as you lose interest. Let me ask you... Do you also reject street cleaning in your home town? Or are you out there every morning with a broom in the same spirit? Why should the Internet be any different? If somebody wants to try to make money, let them. And if somebody's annoying ads allow them to keep their blog going, then by all means that better than less information and less voice. High horse, get off of it.
So, you still honestly think that linux has a snowball's chance in hell on the desktop?
The mass shift from PC to Mac by many users show conclusively that the fabled "lock in" and "path dependence" with regards to consumer operating systems that you guys have always used as your excuse for why linux wasn't doing well was more myth than fact. The simple reality is that linux on the desktop, as it is now and certainly as it was in its heyday when it was on the cover of major magazines as the "next big thing" has been judged by the market and has been found wanting. If you're giving it away and still find adoption rates are near zero, at some point it's time to realize that your product just isn't as good as alternatives out there.
So will we see gratuitous microsoft bashing or instead will people here admit the obvious fact that the ruling was utter nonsense that basically amounted to legalized extortion for no legitimate public policy reason?
(checks comment titles: "They have to ban windows in EU") ... sigh.
TheGratefulNet: nice to see you following in the logic of mugabe and his land redistribution. to say that your populist views would be economically ruinous as they are tragically naive is putting it too mildly. i mean, why stop at copyright items? why not give away all the coca cola in portugal too- after all, the marginal cost of production is nearly nil and only a few people are employed in the industry.
Impartial: "Appeals Court Rules that..."
Slashdot: "Appeals Court Caves To TSA Over Nude Body Scanners"
I have no dog in this fight, but the idea that some court "caved" to an agency rather than ruling on the merits of the case based on their particular principled and reasoned views (which you or I might not happen to personally like or agree with) sounds like conspiracybabble that should have no place on slashdot.
I spend a considerable amount of time and Russia and Ukraine on business. Let's put it this way: ALL THERE IS in Russia and Ukraine is piracy. Let me give you some examples.
- you can go down to the corner shop and buy DVDs and CDs of your favorite movies, music, and/or games. They are all pirated, and professionally so.
- companies that sell legitimate entertainment products last about a week in most places before they close for lack of sales.
- even large electronics outlets sell pirated goods
- use of torrent is extremely widespread
- you'd be hard pressed to find anybody under 20 who has ever legitimately paid for music or games, ever. and i really mean that.
- a major university in ukraine that i know of has on its campus intranet a 400+TB system exclusively for piracy. I mean, university set up, where people upload movies, music, games, software, etc. this is actually a university function that they figure saves them on outgoing bandwidth.
- the first thing people do when they buy a new computer is to take it to a local 'repair shop' where for $5-$10 you get a full suite of every application you might want, nicely installed. This practice is extremely widespread.
if you think "fine, because these are disadvantaged countries..'" well, you're only fooling yourself. while the per capita gdp of those countries is somehwat low, it is also highly unequal. the ones with the PCs, ipads, and university educations doing the pirating are highly likely to be quite well off indeed.
the authoritarian laws are there. there is simply no will to enforce them.
And yet, here we have an incredibly inflammatory film that the US has taken zero steps to censor, thus completely neutering your juvenile, un-sourced, conspiratorial and utterly irresponsible innuendo.
I'm sorry, but this is terrible advice. I routinely hire programmers and designers both in person and using internet remote worker service and let me tell you that nothing puts me off quicker than some crap (and if you put 10-15 together in a week, they're going to be crap) websites that somebody points to and says "look I did those websites." This provides no context and pre-supposes that I, the potential employer, am an idiot.
Anybody who really knows anything in this industry can do some combination of two things:
1. show a portfolio of projects done over time
2. be able to discuss, in depth, details about each of the projects
#2 without #1 is fine, as it takes about 2 minutes of questions for me to see if the person is full of it or not. #1 without #2 is "ok" if the projects are sufficiently complex that I can uniquely identify the person's style and contribution, but this is rare.
a plate full of "demo" websites means that the person does not have #1 and likely would pass a test at #2 - so, they get the boot.
in fact, far far far far far far far far far far far far better than your poor idea is if the person has a personal or hobby website that they have maintained over time, so that I can see their evolution and the problems they have had to solve.
Heh. You are so wrong it hurts. But thanks for the speculate character assassination.
Since you seem to have missed the point entirely, I repeat these words again: intent, amount, and use.
The law is not a software algorithm. It is evaluated by rational individuals using principles and guidelines., not hard and fast rules. Your "to it's logical conclusion" claim is slippery slope tail end nonsense that does not apply.
You don't seem to understand how IPR works. As it works in most countries, "infringment" is a judgement call based on intent, amount, use, and so forth. For example, I can link to CNN.com from my homepage. No problem there. However, let's say CNN one day accidentally uses a picture that they dont have the rights to there. Am *I* guilty? no judge in the world would say yes. On the other hand, let's say I make a direct link on my homepage to "get your free copy of (latest hot movie here)" which direct links to a page or actual file on somebody else's site. What this ruling says is that the judge CAN consider this and CAN treat this differently, as damn well he should be able to.
I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.
Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good. They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit), and ethics. You may disagree - you may have your own arguments against IPR - fine, fair enough - but for you to immediately proclaim " I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary." is irresponsible and juvenile.
Here's not "Good o' Putin." He's a kleptocratic, fascist dictator who has directly caused the death of at least thousands of innocents and whose greed and duplicitous use of right-win poplusm has caused untold millions, both in Russia and in other states, from Uzbekistan to Ukraine, from Syria to Georgia, from Estonia to Africa to suffer. Let's stop the "wink wink" bond jokes and kitsch cutesy comments and unhesitatingly and forcefully condemn this evil man AND THOSE IN THE CORRUPT RUSSIAN MIDDLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM in the strongest way possible.
Actually, it has more to do with not advantaging smartphone-owning rich people over common people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that we've gotten this far in the slashdot comments and as far as I can tell nobody has picked up on this, THE critical public policy fact surrounding this issue, says a lot about slashdot. the NYTimes comment section on this issue, OTOH, picked up on this right away.
While on slashdot we get "I use it all the time in DC. I probably use it more because of the fact the DC government doesn't like it."