Crap. I posted to this thread so I lost my ability to mod this as flamebait. Defining "decent" as "sometimes ok, sometimes ineffective, always delayed and rationed" is dishonest at best.
E.g. if some function can predict the result of said system with an average rate of success that is greater than 0% but less than 100%, then the system can be said to be not random and not predictable.
That has to be incorrect.
Look at coin flips. The function "X = heads" predicts the result of that system correctly on average 50% of the time. Using your definition, the flip of a coin is not random and not predictable, when the truth is it is random and not predictable.
Random statistics require an equal probability of each outcome. The digits of PI are, as a set, random, but quite predictable in sequence. The closing price of stock X will follow something close to a normal distribution, thus it cannot be random. Of all the prices that a stock COULD have, you are more likely to be correct if you pick one close to the previous price. I.e., the chance of being right is greater than 1 in [all possibilities].
People train for years for the Olympics. I doubt that safety checks are on the top of their list when they finally get there.
That's just another way of saying what I did. We assume these people are rational, reasoning adults who can evaluate the level of risk and reward for themselves. At least, I make that assumption. If "safety checks" are not on the top of their list, then they've made the decision that other things than safety are more important. I allow them that right to decide for themselves. Why don't you?
The fact remains, not a single participant decided the risk was too great. Blaming the IOC for "obvious" risks and thus causing the death is simply ridiculous.
Does that mean they deserve to die?
Of course not, and I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. And you know it. What I DID say was they deserve the right to make their own choices and take risks that they choose to take.
So we can't remove any risks (even obvious ones) because that leads to a slippery slope of killing the sport?
Yet another thing I didn't say. I said, rather explicitely, "If you want to remove ALL means of death..." (and I emphasized the word 'all' this time because you decided to ignore it the last).
You're also forgetting that most of these walls have rows of tires in front to soften the blow (at least in the fastest races like Formula One).
No, most of the race track walls do NOT have "rows of tires" in front of them. That would turn any scrape into a devastating accident. I wasn't talking about the races that take place on city streets, I said, pretty clearly, 'race track'. I suggest you step off the pedestal and watch a NASCAR race sometime and look for the tires.
I plan on copyrighting reporting on the sun, pointing a camera at it, and then charging anyone who ventures outdoors during daylight hours for the privledge of "reporting" on the sun.
This assumes that the sun would not exist were it not for you, so that you could actually copyright the sun and all audio-visual representations thereof.
I guess I'll know for sure tomorrow, because it's night time here now. If the sun doesn't come up tomorrow, I'll know I violated the DRM you put on it...
The fact that the sun came up three weeks ago isn't news anymore, just like the fact that someone rammed themselves into a pole on the luge course two weeks ago isn't. The "news" value of the video is gone; it is solely the gruesome nature that remains as a draw.
These complaints, on the other hand, are probative and possibly admissible to show that the IOC had notice, among other things.
The real question is, how many lugers said "I will not go down that course because it is unsafe?"
As far as I know, all the people who participate in luge are adults, able to reason for themselves, not mentally incompetent in the eyes of the court, and willing to participate in a sport where people have been killed because they made simple mistakes.
I also know that every one of the lugers had the opportunity to see the track in full and make practice slow-speed runs to determine for themselves the risks, and then decide if the risks were worth the returns. Not only the actual participants, but their coaches as well.
The fact that not a single one of them refused to participate would seem to be admissible to show that the risks were considered, by the presumed premiere experts in the field, to be acceptable and therefore reasonable.
Yes, of course, it's sad someone died. Blaming the people who let him make his own decision to participate is wrong.
It is wrong to have pillars that close to the track and Stephen Plate shows this to the rest of the world.
Period!
No discussion!
And yet, here we are discussing it. I think it is fine for pillars to be that close, on a track for a sport that is participated in voluntarily and with full knowledge that those pillars are there. All it would have taken is for the lugers to say "we aren't going down that course with those pillars there", if it were so clear that the pillars shouldn't have been there.
It is absolute stupid the way the track was designed and that is the flaw. The guy would not have died if its was not for the pillars.
The guy would not have died if he didn't get on a tiny little sled and push himself down the start of an icy half-tube where the only exit other than the far end was off the side and into hard metal objects.
Lugers can still die if they take a wall too high and capsize, smashing their heads into the solid ice track.
If you want to remove all means of death in the sport of luge, you might as well not luge at all. In fact, you won't be luging. You'll have to have a solid tube filled with soft water (instead of the open ice-caked half-tube). That's the "thrill ride" at a water park. How exciting. And someone could still drown if they aren't careful.
You could compare that to have trees around a racing circuit directly beside the track and no run off area...
How about solid concrete walls at most car race tracks?
Bugger off IOC and let the rest of the world see what is wrong so it can be prevented next time.
Next on NBC, the 2046 winter olympics. At 8PM, the US and Canada face off for the snowball fights, followed by the mackeral slapping contest between Great Britain and France. At 11PM, Greece and Latvia compete in 'walk around the block', and then Bolivia and Japan face off in a rematch of the famous 2042 "fill the slurpee cup as full as you can without spilling" contest. Stay tuned...
Whoever modded my comment flaimbait doesn't understand the difference between "real life" and real flamebait.
Yes, when I watch cars going around in a circle for hours and hours, I'm waiting to see the crash. That's what most people are doing. There is no other reason. Like I said, if we were looking to reward the fastest guy, we'd run them one at a time and use a stopwatch. Much safer. (They DO that during the time trials. Notice how the time trials rarely make it to the telly? The only time I've ever seen time trials broadcast is years ago right before Indianapolis, and that was close to Indy and during the otherwise boring holiday weekend.)
If we were looking for the best driver, we'd run them one at a time so he wouldn't be forced into choosing the worst path just to keep hitting someone else. So just why DO we run them all at the same time, on the same course, for hours upon end, if we aren't looking for the times when they crash?
That's human nature. "Predictable" doesn't glue eyes to the telly. If every stone thrown during a curling match went exactly where it was intended, eyes would glaze over by the end of the first end and nobody would watch that, either.
Yes it's much easier to pay lawyers to try to shut everyone up than actually fix a dangerous track that has injured several other athletes.
Except they did change the track, whether it fixed all the possible problems or not, nobody knows. But even so, imagine a luge track with no danger at all. Yawn. What else is on the telly, Madge?
I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get.
You've got to be kidding. The only reason to watch the luge or bobsled is to see what happens when something going really, really fast slides off the edge of the ice.
I mean, they run one at a time, so there's no competition except the clock. They all follow pretty much the same path down the same course. The only real difference is how well they start and... IF they finish.
If NASCAR races was just to see how fast someone could drive and give the trophy to the fastest, they wouldn't be 500 miles long and the cars wouldn't all run at the same time. And nobody would watch. Same for knickers-clad fanbois sledding downhill.
They're still (predictably) overreaching here though.
They're doing one (or both) of two things. They're protecting their intellectual property by objecting to ALL infringing uses of that property so it doesn't look like selective enforcement, or they're protecting their hinies from lawsuits from the family of the luger by limiting the display of the death in public.
US foreign aid dollars are mostly a quid-pro-quo or negotiating tool.
Yeah, because we get SO much back from our investments in third world countries. Mostly it's "stop attacking your neighbors and we'll give you more food and money", neither of which gets where it's supposed to go because the rulers are pocketing it.
We certainly don't do it out of the goodness of our hearts.
Considering that we don't have to do it at all, don't look the gift horse in the mouth. And then let's talk about the billions in private charity in addition to the billions in taxpayer provided charity, all of which is "goodness of our hearts."
I'd say it's time for the US to stop relying on Shock and Awe Terrorism and be a good neighbour for a change, but that wouldn't be true.
That's right, it wouldn't be true. The US has been a good neighbor since it formed.
If you don't think so, the taxpayers here would surely appreciate you all returning the billions of dollars in foreign aid that we've been handing out for generations. It seems a mite hypocritical to complain about the lack of "neighborliness" of the US while holding your hands out for the money and other aid we dish out.
I should have just modded you flamebait or troll, but I couldn't let your nonsense stand uncontested.
And since Comcast is a monopoly (or duopoly in some cases),
Comcast is not legally a monopoly or a duopoly. There is no regulation prohibiting a second, third, or even fourth cable company from setting up shop. Most smart cable companies were very careful not to sign exclusive franchises anywhere.
In fact, Comcast faces stiff competition from satellite and telco providers.
The only competition Comcast doesn't face is from competing cable companies, and that is not because of regulation, it's a cost issue. Those same smart cable companies that signed non-exclusive franchises know there just isn't enough demand from potential customers to merit the cost of two supply chains. I.e., system buildout costs can't be recovered from sufficient customers. That's a defacto but not legal monopoly, but even then, wireless services are eating Comcast's lunch already.
Cable companies used to be subject to strong local regulation (I was a member of two such cable regulatory groups), but the FCC released them from that due to the increased competition from satellite and greater regionalization of companies (i.e., the first cable commission I was on regulated a local company, which eventually got bought out by a national one.)
All that said, I agree they ought to be regulated. Comcast in particular. Especially Comcast scum. But good luck with that. Even when they are shown federal law requiring them to do something, they ignore it, and the FCC has to date ignored it, as well.
While this is true, consider that if the company imposes bandwidth caps on "internet" while allowing "cable plus" content from that provider to be delivered, one could conceivably make a NN claim on the "same pipes" logic. This is a stretch, I'm not going to lie,
Sorry. Xfinity Cable is not the same as Xfinity Internet. You are using Xfinity Cable to watch On Demand programs, not Xfinity Internet. It doesn't matter that the same wire is being used to deliver both, and your Xfinity Telephone service too.
By the way, our new 100MBPS Xfinity Internet speeds allow you to reach your undefined unlimited bandwidth limit 10 times sooner, so enjoy watching Xfinity Cable for the remainder of the month after you hit your limit with Netflix on-demand on day 3 of each month...
If you really want to reduce fraud, make the banks financially responsible for it.
And make the rape victims responsible. And the carjacking victims. Yeah man!
We should absolutely punish those who take unfair advantage of the system. But if we really want results, we should fix the system.
What would be the results of "fixing the system"? If you make the banks eat every penny of fraud, you'll wind up with a system that is much more inconvenient for the honest users. You might as well not have a credit card.
Here's an example. I was travelling. As in I was not at home. I made a charge in Holland. VISA called me at home, where I wasn't, and left a vague message saying "call us". I went on to England and made some more charges. I got home and "got the message". I called VISA. They asked me if I had made the charge in Holland. I said yes. "No problem". Two days later, another "call us message". I did. "Did you make this charge in Holland?" Yes. "Did you make this charge in England?" Yes. "No problem."
A few days later, yet another "call us" message. I did. Again, "did you make this charge in Holland?" Yes. Yes. I asked why I was repeatedly being called about this, and finally someone forwarded me to the fraud department. "Those people are morons" (paraphrasing). "Your card was compromised in Holland, we are cancelling it and sending you a new one."
Well, that's very nice, I said, but I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow at 6AM and I need that card to pay for things. Why didn't you do this the first time I called? "Those people are morons." (paraphrased)
So I get my new card and realize that my webhosting is paid on the old one. I've cut up the old one and destroyed it, and I'm not near my vast files filled with past statements, but I know I need to get the account data changed. "I need to change the account for my billing," I say. "What's the old account number?" "I dunno, I don't have that card anymore." "We can't change accounts without the old number." Sigh.
So, no, I don't think the system should be fixed because the system becomes unusable when the security becomes tight. I LIKE being able to order stuff over the phone and have it shipped to my work instead of billing address (because of the security issue of UPS just dropping stuff on my front step with no signature). I sometimes NEED to be able to buy stuff with my personal card and have it delivered to odd places around the world so I can get my work done when I'm there.
Security and convenience is a trade-off. You want to err on the side of security. Most people want to err on the side of convenience.
In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.
Yeah, but I find that the wooden frame can only support ten or fifteen thousand of the players, since even though the 2D players have no thickness they still have mass. And the cabling is a real mess once you get past fifteen or twenty.
It is nice that you can pick them up for nothing at the local store. Just keep the thin edge pointed towards the security camera and they never see you walking out with one. Or ten. Just be careful -- remember how bad a paper cut is, being cut by the edge of a 2D blue-ray is worse. Thankfully they contain a laser that can cauterize the wound while making it.
(I've got one of those centers, too. Not made for HD TVs. If I want to replace my reasonably sized regular TV with an HD, I have to get a really small HD. Or I guess I could just have it stick out the left edge, it won't cover anything there.)
No. You don't get to make rules by broadcasting them. Either the law says it's OK, or it's not.
The law says that copyright holders can impose limits. You don't have to agree with those limits, they apply anyway.
I'm not sure what it says, just arguing that it's silly to claim a right to restrict something that literally anyone could watch anyway.
The watching is not what is restricted.
Turning on a TV and watching it live is quite different from recording it for archival or later viewing or distribution.
Well, then, you've just shot "Sony" and the ability to time-shift recorded programs in the foot. The only reason you can timeshift programs is because the courts have already dealt with the issue and decided that "recording for later viewing" is not significantly different than watching it live. And if you claim "you could have viewed it yourself" as the way around the copyright limits, then that bypass mechanism applies to ALL broadcast material. "You could have heard that song at 3AM on WXYZ radio, so there is no difference if I play it for you at 3PM on WZYX."
So is it OK if 200 people go to a bar and each watch the superbowl on their own small portable television with the privacy screen and headphones?
Of course. The copyright limitations are being met.
How is that different than just having the bar owner turn on a big screen?
Because then the bar owner is distributing the material in a way that violates the copyright restrictions and is profiting from the program. Why is this hard to understand?
Other than how it makes the NFL drool.
No, other than how it violates the license the broadcast station paid for.
It's really not clear why someone should be punished for making a public broadcast publicly viewable.
Because you weren't granted the right to make the broadcast publicly viewable by the copyright holder. The copyright holder has expressly withheld that right from you. It doesn't matter if you signed a contract to that effect or not, the copyright holder can limit your use.
Wait! I hear you telling "Sony"! Yes, the courts ruled that recording a broadcast for the purposes of time-shifting is not a violation of copyright, because the copyright holder has granted you the right to view the program, and time-shifting is not, according to the courts, significantly different than simple viewing. You are viewing at a different time. However, recording for the purposes of archiving is not a right implicitly granted by broadcast, so doing that CAN be limited (and is sometimes; for example, the "Cable in the Classroom" material contains a clear statement that the program may be recorded and redistributed until a specific date.)
But the people in the bar are "viewing" the program, too! Well, unfortunately, they're ok, but the person redistributing the program to them is not, because the transmission contains an explicit copyright limitation against his action. If he wished to challenge the NFL on this, he could try using "Sony", but I suspect his action would be considered to be significantly different than "viewing" by the courts (if it hasn't already been judged so.)
One could even argue that superbowl parties increase the number of viewers (it's more fun in a crowd), and in fact each person who watches makes the advertising that much more valuable.
Yes, that is a wonderful argument. I agree. The advertisers love it, because they get more eyeballs without paying more. Unfortunately, the copyright belongs to the NFL and they don't have to allow it, even if they agree.
You really can't put you "content" out there publicly (over the air) and then bitch about who sees it where.
Well, unfortunately for your logic, yes you can. Using your logic, once a song is played on the radio, anyone could simply record and replay that song without needing to pay any further royalties. "All I did was distribute something that was given to me for free!!" And there would be no issue with material recorded off of the TV appearing on You-Tube or any other streaming media. After all, "all I did was distribute something the copyright holder obviously wanted distributed because I got it for free!!!". Any public performance would make the work essentially public-domain, since "you can't bitch about it" after you publicly perform it.
You don't need broadcasting rights to play something on TV, because you aren't broadcasting or re-broadcasting the material. A television receives the over-the-air broadcast, does not transmit a broadcast.
Semantics is such a fun game. Of course you don't need broadcasting rights because you aren't broadcasting, but you do need DISTRIBUTION rights. As a sports-bar owner with a 65" TV advertising "Super Bowl Party", you are, indeed, distributing the visual and audio description of the performance using that TV for profit. An act which the copyright holder has explicitly denied without payment of royalties.
The FCC licenses cable companies to re-broadcast material,
Live by the semantic game, die by the semantic game. No, the FCC does not license cable companies to broadcast anything, because cable companies do not broadcast.
Often referred to as "compulsory licensing", because the copyright owner doesn't have a choice in the matter, they cannot deny or refuse the right to make "secondary transmissions by cable systems" provided under Title 17 Chapter 1, Sec 111.
So, gosh, all those times when Times-Warner and a broadcast station/network cannot come to terms over payments for carrying that broadcast station, and Times-Warner replaces the station with a CG saying "CALL THE BASTARDS AT FOX" is illegal, then. The copyright owner cannot deny the right to make that "secondary transmission", you say.
I think the matter isn't covered by the CFR you quote, because, of course, the person with a 65" TV in his sports bar isn't a cable system licensed by the FCC at all!
Is a certain panel designated as the throwaway one? It seems hard to imagine that a standard 3 pane panel is designed for anything to be left out.
The throwaway wasn't one of the 3 out of the 3-panel dailies, it was the first panel of the Sunday strip. The usually larger panel that was usually mostly just art, because some papers ran that panel and some did not.
I have a 62" TV at home. And if you read the letter of the law, I have to get permission from the NFL to watch the game on my TV.
Good afternoon, Mr. Gates. Or is this Mr. Trump?
I hate to burst your bubble, but according to TFA the law applies to establishments over a certain number of square feet, something in the several thousands. Since your home is not covered by that law to start with, then the exemptions to the law are irrelevant.
No, you're using entertainment you *paid for* in a way that suits you.
No, you're using entertainment that someone else paid for (whichever network bought the rights this year, NBC?) to make a profit.
You didn't pay for the Super Bowl, you paid the cable company to bring you the NBC signal. NBC paid the NFL for the rights to broadcast the game. You get the game for free.
No different than buying a carpet to put on the floor to create a nicer place.
A lot different than buying a carpet. When you buy a carpet, you pay for the carpet.
If you disagree, try ordering the carpet and paying only the delivery fee. See if they leave the carpet with you.
When you watch the Super Bowl on cable, you are paying a delivery fee, but you get the content for free.
Here's a wonderful experiment. The next time there is a "Heidi" of the Super Bowl, try suing the NFL and use your cable subscription fees as proof that you bought the game and should get a refund. (In 1972, IIRC, a major sporting event had the last few minutes preempted by the movie "Heidi".) Yes, for PPV you could get a refund from the cable company, but the originator of the PPV event isn't liable for cable company screwups. That's only because you actually PAID for the PPV event, but not for the Super Bowl.
Just because the purchased item is labeled "entertainment content" does not mean it is magically different from any other item you can purchase*.
When you actually purchase the Super Bowl, you can make that claim.
And here's some bad new for the PPV fight version of this argument: PPV has as part of the contract of sale the limitations of viewership. If not specifically on each show, then look at your cable contract.
Try to tell someone the carpet they bought is "licensed, not bought" and see if you can finish talking before they start laughing and throw you off of their "purchased, not licensed" property.
Why would I tell someone who has actually purchased a physical item that they didn't purchase it? OTOH, can you show me the cancelled check where you bought the Super Bowl?
I too, have told my kid that the sun rises in the morning because hot things rise, and sets in the evening as it cools.
And what civil engineer hasn't told his kid that they determine weight limits for a bridge by driving continually heavier trucks across until it collapses and then rebuild it?
Or that there was color photography in the late 1800's/early 1900's, but all the stuff they took pictures of was black and white?
Slashdot Mirror
Crap. I posted to this thread so I lost my ability to mod this as flamebait. Defining "decent" as "sometimes ok, sometimes ineffective, always delayed and rationed" is dishonest at best.
That has to be incorrect.
Look at coin flips. The function "X = heads" predicts the result of that system correctly on average 50% of the time. Using your definition, the flip of a coin is not random and not predictable, when the truth is it is random and not predictable.
Random statistics require an equal probability of each outcome. The digits of PI are, as a set, random, but quite predictable in sequence. The closing price of stock X will follow something close to a normal distribution, thus it cannot be random. Of all the prices that a stock COULD have, you are more likely to be correct if you pick one close to the previous price. I.e., the chance of being right is greater than 1 in [all possibilities].
That's just another way of saying what I did. We assume these people are rational, reasoning adults who can evaluate the level of risk and reward for themselves. At least, I make that assumption. If "safety checks" are not on the top of their list, then they've made the decision that other things than safety are more important. I allow them that right to decide for themselves. Why don't you?
The fact remains, not a single participant decided the risk was too great. Blaming the IOC for "obvious" risks and thus causing the death is simply ridiculous.
Does that mean they deserve to die?
Of course not, and I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. And you know it. What I DID say was they deserve the right to make their own choices and take risks that they choose to take.
So we can't remove any risks (even obvious ones) because that leads to a slippery slope of killing the sport?
Yet another thing I didn't say. I said, rather explicitely, "If you want to remove ALL means of death ..." (and I emphasized the word 'all' this time because you decided to ignore it the last).
You're also forgetting that most of these walls have rows of tires in front to soften the blow (at least in the fastest races like Formula One).
No, most of the race track walls do NOT have "rows of tires" in front of them. That would turn any scrape into a devastating accident. I wasn't talking about the races that take place on city streets, I said, pretty clearly, 'race track'. I suggest you step off the pedestal and watch a NASCAR race sometime and look for the tires.
This assumes that the sun would not exist were it not for you, so that you could actually copyright the sun and all audio-visual representations thereof.
I guess I'll know for sure tomorrow, because it's night time here now. If the sun doesn't come up tomorrow, I'll know I violated the DRM you put on it...
The fact that the sun came up three weeks ago isn't news anymore, just like the fact that someone rammed themselves into a pole on the luge course two weeks ago isn't. The "news" value of the video is gone; it is solely the gruesome nature that remains as a draw.
The real question is, how many lugers said "I will not go down that course because it is unsafe?"
As far as I know, all the people who participate in luge are adults, able to reason for themselves, not mentally incompetent in the eyes of the court, and willing to participate in a sport where people have been killed because they made simple mistakes.
I also know that every one of the lugers had the opportunity to see the track in full and make practice slow-speed runs to determine for themselves the risks, and then decide if the risks were worth the returns. Not only the actual participants, but their coaches as well.
The fact that not a single one of them refused to participate would seem to be admissible to show that the risks were considered, by the presumed premiere experts in the field, to be acceptable and therefore reasonable.
Yes, of course, it's sad someone died. Blaming the people who let him make his own decision to participate is wrong.
And yet, here we are discussing it. I think it is fine for pillars to be that close, on a track for a sport that is participated in voluntarily and with full knowledge that those pillars are there. All it would have taken is for the lugers to say "we aren't going down that course with those pillars there", if it were so clear that the pillars shouldn't have been there.
It is absolute stupid the way the track was designed and that is the flaw. The guy would not have died if its was not for the pillars.
The guy would not have died if he didn't get on a tiny little sled and push himself down the start of an icy half-tube where the only exit other than the far end was off the side and into hard metal objects.
Lugers can still die if they take a wall too high and capsize, smashing their heads into the solid ice track.
If you want to remove all means of death in the sport of luge, you might as well not luge at all. In fact, you won't be luging. You'll have to have a solid tube filled with soft water (instead of the open ice-caked half-tube). That's the "thrill ride" at a water park. How exciting. And someone could still drown if they aren't careful.
You could compare that to have trees around a racing circuit directly beside the track and no run off area ...
How about solid concrete walls at most car race tracks?
Bugger off IOC and let the rest of the world see what is wrong so it can be prevented next time.
Next on NBC, the 2046 winter olympics. At 8PM, the US and Canada face off for the snowball fights, followed by the mackeral slapping contest between Great Britain and France. At 11PM, Greece and Latvia compete in 'walk around the block', and then Bolivia and Japan face off in a rematch of the famous 2042 "fill the slurpee cup as full as you can without spilling" contest. Stay tuned...
Yes, when I watch cars going around in a circle for hours and hours, I'm waiting to see the crash. That's what most people are doing. There is no other reason. Like I said, if we were looking to reward the fastest guy, we'd run them one at a time and use a stopwatch. Much safer. (They DO that during the time trials. Notice how the time trials rarely make it to the telly? The only time I've ever seen time trials broadcast is years ago right before Indianapolis, and that was close to Indy and during the otherwise boring holiday weekend.)
If we were looking for the best driver, we'd run them one at a time so he wouldn't be forced into choosing the worst path just to keep hitting someone else. So just why DO we run them all at the same time, on the same course, for hours upon end, if we aren't looking for the times when they crash?
That's human nature. "Predictable" doesn't glue eyes to the telly. If every stone thrown during a curling match went exactly where it was intended, eyes would glaze over by the end of the first end and nobody would watch that, either.
Except they did change the track, whether it fixed all the possible problems or not, nobody knows. But even so, imagine a luge track with no danger at all. Yawn. What else is on the telly, Madge?
You've got to be kidding. The only reason to watch the luge or bobsled is to see what happens when something going really, really fast slides off the edge of the ice.
I mean, they run one at a time, so there's no competition except the clock. They all follow pretty much the same path down the same course. The only real difference is how well they start and ... IF they finish.
If NASCAR races was just to see how fast someone could drive and give the trophy to the fastest, they wouldn't be 500 miles long and the cars wouldn't all run at the same time. And nobody would watch. Same for knickers-clad fanbois sledding downhill.
They're still (predictably) overreaching here though.
They're doing one (or both) of two things. They're protecting their intellectual property by objecting to ALL infringing uses of that property so it doesn't look like selective enforcement, or they're protecting their hinies from lawsuits from the family of the luger by limiting the display of the death in public.
We've got rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and ...
Waterrrrrrrr. In Canada, Canada ...
I like toast.
Typical hoser. The greatest country in the world is spelled C-eh?-N-eh?-D-eh?, eh?
Yeah, because we get SO much back from our investments in third world countries. Mostly it's "stop attacking your neighbors and we'll give you more food and money", neither of which gets where it's supposed to go because the rulers are pocketing it.
We certainly don't do it out of the goodness of our hearts.
Considering that we don't have to do it at all, don't look the gift horse in the mouth. And then let's talk about the billions in private charity in addition to the billions in taxpayer provided charity, all of which is "goodness of our hearts."
That's right, it wouldn't be true. The US has been a good neighbor since it formed.
If you don't think so, the taxpayers here would surely appreciate you all returning the billions of dollars in foreign aid that we've been handing out for generations. It seems a mite hypocritical to complain about the lack of "neighborliness" of the US while holding your hands out for the money and other aid we dish out.
I should have just modded you flamebait or troll, but I couldn't let your nonsense stand uncontested.
Comcast is not legally a monopoly or a duopoly. There is no regulation prohibiting a second, third, or even fourth cable company from setting up shop. Most smart cable companies were very careful not to sign exclusive franchises anywhere.
In fact, Comcast faces stiff competition from satellite and telco providers.
The only competition Comcast doesn't face is from competing cable companies, and that is not because of regulation, it's a cost issue. Those same smart cable companies that signed non-exclusive franchises know there just isn't enough demand from potential customers to merit the cost of two supply chains. I.e., system buildout costs can't be recovered from sufficient customers. That's a defacto but not legal monopoly, but even then, wireless services are eating Comcast's lunch already.
Cable companies used to be subject to strong local regulation (I was a member of two such cable regulatory groups), but the FCC released them from that due to the increased competition from satellite and greater regionalization of companies (i.e., the first cable commission I was on regulated a local company, which eventually got bought out by a national one.)
All that said, I agree they ought to be regulated. Comcast in particular. Especially Comcast scum. But good luck with that. Even when they are shown federal law requiring them to do something, they ignore it, and the FCC has to date ignored it, as well.
Sorry. Xfinity Cable is not the same as Xfinity Internet. You are using Xfinity Cable to watch On Demand programs, not Xfinity Internet. It doesn't matter that the same wire is being used to deliver both, and your Xfinity Telephone service too.
By the way, our new 100MBPS Xfinity Internet speeds allow you to reach your undefined unlimited bandwidth limit 10 times sooner, so enjoy watching Xfinity Cable for the remainder of the month after you hit your limit with Netflix on-demand on day 3 of each month ...
And make the rape victims responsible. And the carjacking victims. Yeah man!
We should absolutely punish those who take unfair advantage of the system. But if we really want results, we should fix the system.
What would be the results of "fixing the system"? If you make the banks eat every penny of fraud, you'll wind up with a system that is much more inconvenient for the honest users. You might as well not have a credit card.
Here's an example. I was travelling. As in I was not at home. I made a charge in Holland. VISA called me at home, where I wasn't, and left a vague message saying "call us". I went on to England and made some more charges. I got home and "got the message". I called VISA. They asked me if I had made the charge in Holland. I said yes. "No problem". Two days later, another "call us message". I did. "Did you make this charge in Holland?" Yes. "Did you make this charge in England?" Yes. "No problem."
A few days later, yet another "call us" message. I did. Again, "did you make this charge in Holland?" Yes. Yes. I asked why I was repeatedly being called about this, and finally someone forwarded me to the fraud department. "Those people are morons" (paraphrasing). "Your card was compromised in Holland, we are cancelling it and sending you a new one."
Well, that's very nice, I said, but I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow at 6AM and I need that card to pay for things. Why didn't you do this the first time I called? "Those people are morons." (paraphrased)
So I get my new card and realize that my webhosting is paid on the old one. I've cut up the old one and destroyed it, and I'm not near my vast files filled with past statements, but I know I need to get the account data changed. "I need to change the account for my billing," I say. "What's the old account number?" "I dunno, I don't have that card anymore." "We can't change accounts without the old number." Sigh.
So, no, I don't think the system should be fixed because the system becomes unusable when the security becomes tight. I LIKE being able to order stuff over the phone and have it shipped to my work instead of billing address (because of the security issue of UPS just dropping stuff on my front step with no signature). I sometimes NEED to be able to buy stuff with my personal card and have it delivered to odd places around the world so I can get my work done when I'm there.
Security and convenience is a trade-off. You want to err on the side of security. Most people want to err on the side of convenience.
I just hope when Morgan Webb takes her top off she doesn't have a bunch of nasty warts.
Yeah, warts is ok by me, it's just those nasty warts that are ... well, nasty.
Yeah, but I find that the wooden frame can only support ten or fifteen thousand of the players, since even though the 2D players have no thickness they still have mass. And the cabling is a real mess once you get past fifteen or twenty.
It is nice that you can pick them up for nothing at the local store. Just keep the thin edge pointed towards the security camera and they never see you walking out with one. Or ten. Just be careful -- remember how bad a paper cut is, being cut by the edge of a 2D blue-ray is worse. Thankfully they contain a laser that can cauterize the wound while making it.
(I've got one of those centers, too. Not made for HD TVs. If I want to replace my reasonably sized regular TV with an HD, I have to get a really small HD. Or I guess I could just have it stick out the left edge, it won't cover anything there.)
The law says that copyright holders can impose limits. You don't have to agree with those limits, they apply anyway.
I'm not sure what it says, just arguing that it's silly to claim a right to restrict something that literally anyone could watch anyway.
The watching is not what is restricted.
Turning on a TV and watching it live is quite different from recording it for archival or later viewing or distribution.
Well, then, you've just shot "Sony" and the ability to time-shift recorded programs in the foot. The only reason you can timeshift programs is because the courts have already dealt with the issue and decided that "recording for later viewing" is not significantly different than watching it live. And if you claim "you could have viewed it yourself" as the way around the copyright limits, then that bypass mechanism applies to ALL broadcast material. "You could have heard that song at 3AM on WXYZ radio, so there is no difference if I play it for you at 3PM on WZYX."
So is it OK if 200 people go to a bar and each watch the superbowl on their own small portable television with the privacy screen and headphones?
Of course. The copyright limitations are being met.
How is that different than just having the bar owner turn on a big screen?
Because then the bar owner is distributing the material in a way that violates the copyright restrictions and is profiting from the program. Why is this hard to understand?
Other than how it makes the NFL drool.
No, other than how it violates the license the broadcast station paid for.
Because you weren't granted the right to make the broadcast publicly viewable by the copyright holder. The copyright holder has expressly withheld that right from you. It doesn't matter if you signed a contract to that effect or not, the copyright holder can limit your use.
Wait! I hear you telling "Sony"! Yes, the courts ruled that recording a broadcast for the purposes of time-shifting is not a violation of copyright, because the copyright holder has granted you the right to view the program, and time-shifting is not, according to the courts, significantly different than simple viewing. You are viewing at a different time. However, recording for the purposes of archiving is not a right implicitly granted by broadcast, so doing that CAN be limited (and is sometimes; for example, the "Cable in the Classroom" material contains a clear statement that the program may be recorded and redistributed until a specific date.)
But the people in the bar are "viewing" the program, too! Well, unfortunately, they're ok, but the person redistributing the program to them is not, because the transmission contains an explicit copyright limitation against his action. If he wished to challenge the NFL on this, he could try using "Sony", but I suspect his action would be considered to be significantly different than "viewing" by the courts (if it hasn't already been judged so.)
One could even argue that superbowl parties increase the number of viewers (it's more fun in a crowd), and in fact each person who watches makes the advertising that much more valuable.
Yes, that is a wonderful argument. I agree. The advertisers love it, because they get more eyeballs without paying more. Unfortunately, the copyright belongs to the NFL and they don't have to allow it, even if they agree.
You really can't put you "content" out there publicly (over the air) and then bitch about who sees it where.
Well, unfortunately for your logic, yes you can. Using your logic, once a song is played on the radio, anyone could simply record and replay that song without needing to pay any further royalties. "All I did was distribute something that was given to me for free!!" And there would be no issue with material recorded off of the TV appearing on You-Tube or any other streaming media. After all, "all I did was distribute something the copyright holder obviously wanted distributed because I got it for free!!!". Any public performance would make the work essentially public-domain, since "you can't bitch about it" after you publicly perform it.
Semantics is such a fun game. Of course you don't need broadcasting rights because you aren't broadcasting, but you do need DISTRIBUTION rights. As a sports-bar owner with a 65" TV advertising "Super Bowl Party", you are, indeed, distributing the visual and audio description of the performance using that TV for profit. An act which the copyright holder has explicitly denied without payment of royalties.
The FCC licenses cable companies to re-broadcast material,
Live by the semantic game, die by the semantic game. No, the FCC does not license cable companies to broadcast anything, because cable companies do not broadcast.
Often referred to as "compulsory licensing", because the copyright owner doesn't have a choice in the matter, they cannot deny or refuse the right to make "secondary transmissions by cable systems" provided under Title 17 Chapter 1, Sec 111.
So, gosh, all those times when Times-Warner and a broadcast station/network cannot come to terms over payments for carrying that broadcast station, and Times-Warner replaces the station with a CG saying "CALL THE BASTARDS AT FOX" is illegal, then. The copyright owner cannot deny the right to make that "secondary transmission", you say.
I think the matter isn't covered by the CFR you quote, because, of course, the person with a 65" TV in his sports bar isn't a cable system licensed by the FCC at all!
The throwaway wasn't one of the 3 out of the 3-panel dailies, it was the first panel of the Sunday strip. The usually larger panel that was usually mostly just art, because some papers ran that panel and some did not.
Good afternoon, Mr. Gates. Or is this Mr. Trump?
I hate to burst your bubble, but according to TFA the law applies to establishments over a certain number of square feet, something in the several thousands. Since your home is not covered by that law to start with, then the exemptions to the law are irrelevant.
No, you're using entertainment that someone else paid for (whichever network bought the rights this year, NBC?) to make a profit.
You didn't pay for the Super Bowl, you paid the cable company to bring you the NBC signal. NBC paid the NFL for the rights to broadcast the game. You get the game for free.
No different than buying a carpet to put on the floor to create a nicer place.
A lot different than buying a carpet. When you buy a carpet, you pay for the carpet.
If you disagree, try ordering the carpet and paying only the delivery fee. See if they leave the carpet with you.
When you watch the Super Bowl on cable, you are paying a delivery fee, but you get the content for free.
Here's a wonderful experiment. The next time there is a "Heidi" of the Super Bowl, try suing the NFL and use your cable subscription fees as proof that you bought the game and should get a refund. (In 1972, IIRC, a major sporting event had the last few minutes preempted by the movie "Heidi".) Yes, for PPV you could get a refund from the cable company, but the originator of the PPV event isn't liable for cable company screwups. That's only because you actually PAID for the PPV event, but not for the Super Bowl.
Just because the purchased item is labeled "entertainment content" does not mean it is magically different from any other item you can purchase*.
When you actually purchase the Super Bowl, you can make that claim.
And here's some bad new for the PPV fight version of this argument: PPV has as part of the contract of sale the limitations of viewership. If not specifically on each show, then look at your cable contract.
Try to tell someone the carpet they bought is "licensed, not bought" and see if you can finish talking before they start laughing and throw you off of their "purchased, not licensed" property.
Why would I tell someone who has actually purchased a physical item that they didn't purchase it? OTOH, can you show me the cancelled check where you bought the Super Bowl?
And what civil engineer hasn't told his kid that they determine weight limits for a bridge by driving continually heavier trucks across until it collapses and then rebuild it?
Or that there was color photography in the late 1800's/early 1900's, but all the stuff they took pictures of was black and white?