That's a good point. The last time I heard "element" associated with a group of people (other than those dumb Dow commercials), the word "undesirable" was in front of it. (Or "criminal". I forget which.)
So, in Microsoft's estimation, people who won't "upgrade" to Vista are....those...people.
While you're at it.. sue the drivers of the cars with the patent-infringing wiper motor. They're obviously benefiting from the innovation without having compensated the patent-holder.
And the drivers of all other cars which may share the road with the cars which contain the patent-infringing motor. They are benefiting from the innovation too, by virtue of being safer on the road because of the the other driver's infringing use of the patented wiper motor.
Hell, there's no limit to the breadth of (deep or shallow) pocket-selection available if you just truly innovate in patent liability eligibility!
BTW, don't actually try to do this without paying me my license fee, since I've already patented this business process innovation.
Well, actually, it's a radical new subset of your new set of "off-by-one" bugs. It's the "Off by one, convert to hexadecimal, and pad with an additional (and gratuitous)trailing zero" class of errors. I anticipate much study of this new taxonomy of as-yet-unexplored software bugs.
Oh my dear GOD! Don't say stuff like that! Do you really think the media pigopolists would have any qualms about making that part of the license terms finite as well?
*AA: "Yup, lifetime license." You: "Great, decades of enjoyment." *AA: "No, 2 years." You: "But I'll live longer than that!" *AA: "No, you won't. We'll see to that."
Funny thing is, most modern day historians accept that the US Government knew about Pearl Harbor, and chose to use it as a means to enter the war
I've heard this story, and while it has a nice credible ring, I'm still more inclined to attribute the tactical surprise in that battle to stupidity (disbelieving intelligence) rather than malice (waiting, Machiavelli-like, for a casus belli)
which explains why all of our aircraft carriers were moved out of the harbor the days before.
That's an interesting conclusion, but it's unconvincing for one critical reason. This assumption is predicated on the belief that the U.S. made a point of moving their most valuable Naval assets out of harm's way and let the hammer fall. But that's not what happened. The hammer fell on the Pacific Fleet's core: Battleship Row. At this point in history, the capital ship of any respectable fleet was the battleship, and the aircraft carrier was just a deep-strike and defense auxiliary. It was the necessity of conducting the Pacific War without battleships which proved the superiority of the aircraft carrier.
Yeah, that "amateur sleuth" thing... I kept picturing Darl being hauled off in handcuffs muttering "And I woulda gotten away with it too, if it hadn't for those meddling kids and their talking dog!"
Yup. The new Draenei shaman racial spell: Totem of Pain. Targets the caster's target and casts (repeatedly, 30-second cooldown, for the life of the totem) a 20-second fear affect, making the target run blindly and in uncontrollable panic while being whaled upon by the shaman and anyone else who cares to take a shot.
(For the unenlightened: it's a World of Warcraft joke. Or maybe strangely prophetic...)
I have no problem with this (as long as it's not done maliciously, such as redirecting to kiddy pr0n or malware drive-by downloads or something.) You operate a website, you decide you don't want FF users (cuz they can adblock), you escort them off the virtual premises. All very fair. It preserves my right as a web consumer to basic control of the content I want to see, it preserves the website operator's right to be stupid*. An eminently reasonable solution. Your hypothetical web publisher's position demonstrates to me that he has nothing useful to say to me anyway, so I won't miss it.
So, where's the downside?
*Stupid. Yeah, I said it. Stupidity is blocking FF because it can adblock, and neglecting to block every other browser in the universe in spite of the fact that they can all block ads. Solving the wrong problem ("firefox users are ripping me off!") is, per definitionem, stupid. In this case, the real problem is a non-viable business model.
Well, you may say that, but I can't tell if you're actually an expert or anything. On the other hand, I've never gotten a crocodile to confirm what you claim*, and you can darn well believe they're experts on being crocodiles. So the issue is still undetermined, AFAIC.
*I have gotten an alligator to tell me they're different from crocodiles, but alligators are notorious for their casual relationship with objective truth, if you get my drift, so I'm not gonna treat an alligator's testimony as trustworthy and relevant.
Meh, they'll argue it's not about fair use. I bet it'll be some lame-o claim of unlimited implicit license to use your likeness and anything you display because you bought a ticket. "Hey, if you don't like the terms, don't come to the stadium. kthxbuhbye!"
Or, in the (implied) words of Patrick Ross, "Fair use is for suckers!"
If you're gonna use a car analogy, at least use one that fits. (Although I acknowledge that this isn't traditionally required on/.)
GM (after it buys out Goodyear) should make tires that can be used on 3-wheel cars, as well as 4-wheel ones. That way they can be competitive in the market for trike tires, especially since many trikes use perfectly conventional car wheels.
Oh, so you're actually well read up on the current network neutrality controversy. I find it particularly interesting you cite one of the major proponents of NN (Google), as well as one of the major "villains" in the eyes of the opponents of NN (because Google is such a significant source of traffic on the network).
I'm not sure where folks have gotten the amazingly simplistic impression that a lawsuit is some kind of declaration of corporate war, complete with severance of diplomatic relations or something. If contractual arrangements exist between two companies, they aren't automatically annulled or frozen by the filing of a suit unrelated to the obligations of that contract. And, by "related", I don't mean "about copyright". That's way too generic. It's about specific obligations.
In this case, the hypothetical contract would be about one class of media (Stuff from YouTube uploaders licensed by YT and sublicensed to Viacom in consideration of $$$), whereas the lawsuit is about another class of media (Stuff copyrighted by Viacom and uploaded by unauthorized YouTube users).
Now, critically, I don't know if anyone's seen documentation that proves that a contract covering the first case (YouTube licensed media in exchange for Profit!), but the alternative is that Viacom copied YouTube (user) content without license, which means that YT should countersue in the original case you mentioned for those violations. Makes a damn fine counterbalance, after all; a great way to equalize the bargaining positions. And that apparently hasn't happened. So, as far as I can deduce from pure behavioral observation, there must be a licensing agreement. It's pretty good circumstantial evidence.
I've seen this comment earlier in the discussion, but no one seems to be picking up on this. Lots of noise and fury (signifying nothing) about fair use and corporate greed and the like. But this is a HUGE point.
Read the TOS again, folks. Consider the phases of the scenario placed before us in light of this TOS.
Blogger makes video. He has copyright by default.
Blogger posts video on YT. By the TOS, that means that TY has the right to "distribute [and] prepare derivative works of" the blogger's video.
YT distributes the video to Viacom, which can safely be construed as "Youtube's... affiliate". The transfer is kosher by the TOS the blogger agreed to by uploading the video in the first place.
Viacom "prepare[s] derivative works of" the blogger's video: the video plus the talking head crap for the TV show. Because the TOS gives YT a "sublicenseable" license to blogger's video, the right to create a derivative work is extended to Viacom, so this is permissible too. The derivatave work, legally a new work created under legal license, is copyrighted automatically by its creator: Viacom
Viacom distributes its new work thru channels (TV, for instance) which extend no license to this work beyond looking at it with the viewer's eyeballs. Certainly, no derivation license is extended; the copyright is held as tightly as can be. (I feel safe in this speculation; that would certainly seem borne out in Viacom's reaction to the final steps in this bogus saga.)
Blogger likes what Viacom's done and makes a derivative copy (snippet of the whole TV show) to be posted online. On YT, no less. However, this copy is in violation of Viacom's copyright (unless someone can think of a darn good rationale why it's not--I can think of one, maybe; see below)
Viacom gets huffy and has YT pull the blogger's second post as a copyvio.
("???" and "Profit!" are yet to be determined.)
I Am Not A Lawyer (not even on TV), but I think this analysis probably accurately reflects the conventional wisdom on what happened. Are there any assumptions in the events above that can be challenged? I think so.
Step 2 is like a services version of an End User License. I'm not sure if it would survive a court challenge. Certainly, the breadth of YT's rights to the uploaded media seem to stretch the limits of "conscionable".
Step 4 seems to me to be a very good thing to examine. Sublicensed derivation without explicit permission smells morally dubious. I bet a jury could be persuaded it is.
Step 5, alas, is TV "business as usual". But certain traditional rights of media consumers are being ignored here. Fair use is certainly the big one. This turns up in Step 6, where I think an extract from a larger work might fall in line with this (for commentary, no profit motive, etc.). But fair use seems to be a crapshoot in court.
And that's why "???" and "Profit!" are still in the balance.
The TOS is the stinker in this. FWIW, you need to read things like this before you agree to a service, paying close attention to what kinds of irrational or undesirable things you are agreeing to. Things like, "All your media are belong to us".
Again, IANAL. If I'm getting something here provably (legally) wrong, lemme know. If you're just gonna gripe about moral wrongs and natural rights, fine, but remember that such arguments have almost no weight in deciding the legal outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. The last time I heard "element" associated with a group of people (other than those dumb Dow commercials), the word "undesirable" was in front of it. (Or "criminal". I forget which.)
So, in Microsoft's estimation, people who won't "upgrade" to Vista are....those...people.
He paid.
Now the devil wants to see the receipt.
Look how well that worked out in the end...
While you're at it.. sue the drivers of the cars with the patent-infringing wiper motor. They're obviously benefiting from the innovation without having compensated the patent-holder.
And the drivers of all other cars which may share the road with the cars which contain the patent-infringing motor. They are benefiting from the innovation too, by virtue of being safer on the road because of the the other driver's infringing use of the patented wiper motor.
Hell, there's no limit to the breadth of (deep or shallow) pocket-selection available if you just truly innovate in patent liability eligibility!
BTW, don't actually try to do this without paying me my license fee, since I've already patented this business process innovation.
Well, actually, it's a radical new subset of your new set of "off-by-one" bugs. It's the "Off by one, convert to hexadecimal, and pad with an additional (and gratuitous)trailing zero" class of errors. I anticipate much study of this new taxonomy of as-yet-unexplored software bugs.
You remind me of the cardinal tenet of XML:
Igpay Atinla uoldshay ebay oughenay otay oolfay isthay.
Congratulations, you just won 73 screenfuls of auction website advertising!
For that much money it better be for MY lifetime.
Oh my dear GOD! Don't say stuff like that! Do you really think the media pigopolists would have any qualms about making that part of the license terms finite as well?
*AA: "Yup, lifetime license."
You: "Great, decades of enjoyment."
*AA: "No, 2 years."
You: "But I'll live longer than that!"
*AA: "No, you won't. We'll see to that."
And, to complete the trifecta of /. themes...
3) DIY electronics will get you shot. Good consumers will buy and use packaged electronics or suffer the consequences.
Damn. I can't decide if that point is too cynical or not nearly cynical enough.
Oh, yeah, obSlashdot...
4) ???
5) Profit!
Funny thing is, most modern day historians accept that the US Government knew about Pearl Harbor, and chose to use it as a means to enter the war
I've heard this story, and while it has a nice credible ring, I'm still more inclined to attribute the tactical surprise in that battle to stupidity (disbelieving intelligence) rather than malice (waiting, Machiavelli-like, for a casus belli)
which explains why all of our aircraft carriers were moved out of the harbor the days before.
That's an interesting conclusion, but it's unconvincing for one critical reason. This assumption is predicated on the belief that the U.S. made a point of moving their most valuable Naval assets out of harm's way and let the hammer fall. But that's not what happened. The hammer fell on the Pacific Fleet's core: Battleship Row. At this point in history, the capital ship of any respectable fleet was the battleship, and the aircraft carrier was just a deep-strike and defense auxiliary. It was the necessity of conducting the Pacific War without battleships which proved the superiority of the aircraft carrier.
Didn't you used to make sense back on k5? What happened?
I think you just answered your own question.
You're right. Parent poster's language and tone are entirely inappropriate.
Not nearly enough swearing.
Yeah, that "amateur sleuth" thing... I kept picturing Darl being hauled off in handcuffs muttering "And I woulda gotten away with it too, if it hadn't for those meddling kids and their talking dog!"
Yup. The new Draenei shaman racial spell: Totem of Pain. Targets the caster's target and casts (repeatedly, 30-second cooldown, for the life of the totem) a 20-second fear affect, making the target run blindly and in uncontrollable panic while being whaled upon by the shaman and anyone else who cares to take a shot.
(For the unenlightened: it's a World of Warcraft joke. Or maybe strangely prophetic...)
I have no problem with this (as long as it's not done maliciously, such as redirecting to kiddy pr0n or malware drive-by downloads or something.) You operate a website, you decide you don't want FF users (cuz they can adblock), you escort them off the virtual premises. All very fair. It preserves my right as a web consumer to basic control of the content I want to see, it preserves the website operator's right to be stupid*. An eminently reasonable solution. Your hypothetical web publisher's position demonstrates to me that he has nothing useful to say to me anyway, so I won't miss it.
So, where's the downside?
*Stupid. Yeah, I said it. Stupidity is blocking FF because it can adblock, and neglecting to block every other browser in the universe in spite of the fact that they can all block ads. Solving the wrong problem ("firefox users are ripping me off!") is, per definitionem, stupid. In this case, the real problem is a non-viable business model.
No; I for one thought CueCat belonged in that slot.
Crocs and alligators are not the same.
Well, you may say that, but I can't tell if you're actually an expert or anything. On the other hand, I've never gotten a crocodile to confirm what you claim*, and you can darn well believe they're experts on being crocodiles. So the issue is still undetermined, AFAIC.
*I have gotten an alligator to tell me they're different from crocodiles, but alligators are notorious for their casual relationship with objective truth, if you get my drift, so I'm not gonna treat an alligator's testimony as trustworthy and relevant.
Or, in the (implied) words of Patrick Ross, "Fair use is for suckers!"
8 megs for an operating system is pretty small
Well, classic AmigaDOS did well with only 512K
Although it did lack meta-x-psychoanalyze-pinhead.
Yeah, right. The last thing we need is a bunch of geeks in wearable computing gear shouting "Yah, Baby, shake your @s!"
If you're gonna use a car analogy, at least use one that fits. (Although I acknowledge that this isn't traditionally required on /.)
GM (after it buys out Goodyear) should make tires that can be used on 3-wheel cars, as well as 4-wheel ones. That way they can be competitive in the market for trike tires, especially since many trikes use perfectly conventional car wheels.
"PINE"!
It'll stand for "PINE is not Eudora!"
Whaddya mean, "Prior art"?
Good work.
And, while answering your own post is teh lame, I hasten to point out that I'm not the only one who thinks YouTube's TOS is the source of the problem.
I'm not sure where folks have gotten the amazingly simplistic impression that a lawsuit is some kind of declaration of corporate war, complete with severance of diplomatic relations or something. If contractual arrangements exist between two companies, they aren't automatically annulled or frozen by the filing of a suit unrelated to the obligations of that contract. And, by "related", I don't mean "about copyright". That's way too generic. It's about specific obligations.
In this case, the hypothetical contract would be about one class of media (Stuff from YouTube uploaders licensed by YT and sublicensed to Viacom in consideration of $$$), whereas the lawsuit is about another class of media (Stuff copyrighted by Viacom and uploaded by unauthorized YouTube users).
Now, critically, I don't know if anyone's seen documentation that proves that a contract covering the first case (YouTube licensed media in exchange for Profit!), but the alternative is that Viacom copied YouTube (user) content without license, which means that YT should countersue in the original case you mentioned for those violations. Makes a damn fine counterbalance, after all; a great way to equalize the bargaining positions. And that apparently hasn't happened. So, as far as I can deduce from pure behavioral observation, there must be a licensing agreement. It's pretty good circumstantial evidence.
I've seen this comment earlier in the discussion, but no one seems to be picking up on this. Lots of noise and fury (signifying nothing) about fair use and corporate greed and the like. But this is a HUGE point.
Read the TOS again, folks. Consider the phases of the scenario placed before us in light of this TOS.
("???" and "Profit!" are yet to be determined.)
I Am Not A Lawyer (not even on TV), but I think this analysis probably accurately reflects the conventional wisdom on what happened. Are there any assumptions in the events above that can be challenged? I think so.
Step 2 is like a services version of an End User License. I'm not sure if it would survive a court challenge. Certainly, the breadth of YT's rights to the uploaded media seem to stretch the limits of "conscionable".
Step 4 seems to me to be a very good thing to examine. Sublicensed derivation without explicit permission smells morally dubious. I bet a jury could be persuaded it is.
Step 5, alas, is TV "business as usual". But certain traditional rights of media consumers are being ignored here. Fair use is certainly the big one. This turns up in Step 6, where I think an extract from a larger work might fall in line with this (for commentary, no profit motive, etc.). But fair use seems to be a crapshoot in court.
And that's why "???" and "Profit!" are still in the balance.
The TOS is the stinker in this. FWIW, you need to read things like this before you agree to a service, paying close attention to what kinds of irrational or undesirable things you are agreeing to. Things like, "All your media are belong to us".
Again, IANAL. If I'm getting something here provably (legally) wrong, lemme know. If you're just gonna gripe about moral wrongs and natural rights, fine, but remember that such arguments have almost no weight in deciding the legal outcome.