I assume google is going to offer you higher speed access to your data than what you (or the typical person) could afford to buy at home (ie more than 1 megabit / second upstream).
Is there a point to having your data served to you faster than your own access can deliver it to you? If you roll your own, when on your own LAN with it you can access it at gigabit speeds.
I can get 500 GB of local storage for $100
What's that got to do with online storage, which presumably you put online for a reason?
I can also get 24/7 always-on Internet access for less than $66.67 a month.
2 * (250 GB at $500/yr.) == 500 GB at $1000/yr.
500 GB for $100 leaves $900/yr for access service. Say $100 for a UPS for the server and router. That leaves $800/yr / 12mo/yr == $66.67/mo. That's without amortizing the cost of the drive and UPS over multiple years, which over time would pay for the power. And besides, I'd probably be paying for that Internet access whether I used Google or myself as my on-line data server.
Copyright holders spit in the face of their customers. Don't lump all copyright holders together like that. Not every person who writes a song, book, etc is bad just because the laws governing their rights are not fair. Show me the copyright holders that release their works to Creative Commons or Public Domain within their lifetime or that of their contemporaries (preferably within the original duration of copyright) and I'll give them respect.
Well, we are talking about expanding what constitutes Fair Use here. He was saying the lack of proper attribution was "the shit going on" acting a barrier against a fair-use consideration(*).
(*) Fair use by definition does not require "permission" as he also suggested, eliminating his other gripe from consideration. He apparently feels otherwise, and that alone should disqualify him from being a juror in any case involving a fair use defense. Lawyers should take note to ask the question to prospective jurors during voir dire.
music clips sampled (best practices are around 30 seconds for fair use) I'd be surprised if it was as long as that. I'd expect it to be more like less than 10 seconds, going by the shortest of commercials as a meter.
Meanwhile, actual commercials should fall under fair use to reproduce in their entirety at all times, and any other materials intended for promotional use. Further distribution is free advertising which only benefits the owner; stepping in its way will create a backlash against the advertised product.
Unfortunately it isn't a bright-line immunity from prosecution but rather a defense to be tried pass/fail in court.
Your fair use "rights" extend only as far as you are able to afford to successfully defend, and your immunity from prosecution only as far as a litigant's unsureness of victory and willingness to prosecute. DMCA takedown notices give them instant gratification at practically no cost and puts the burden back on you to reassert your rights.
If someone's material is one the web in complete form
You're assuming that the footage is in complete form. Even incomplete footage, say a montage of clips from 24 set to an extended version its theme, can be recognizable and be self-attributable to its source on its face.
You deserve to be sued and lose!
You're also assuming I have posted such content. You're skating close to committing libel, sir.
You also haven't answered the question: What constitutes sufficient credit of the source?
we all agree that fair use is a good thing as long as you dont make money but sites like youtube etc are commercially exploiting clips by way of advertising Even a non-profit site hosting videos may have to resort to some advertising to cover operating costs. If having any income from it is considered commercially exploiting, that argument devolves into a demand that any site hosting fair use video must operate at a loss. The bandwidth costs for that makes such services financially unsustainable for anyone that isn't so obscenely wealthy as to be able to pay for it by the interest from his bank account alone.
If the amount of infringement outstrips the copyright holder's ability to police, perhaps the copyright law should be updated to permit it, not forbid it. The law should serve the interests of the populace and not be weighted by their net worth.
I go up to YouTube and I see posts of full clips of copyrighted material. I don't see anything about permission and a little credit, if any, for the source. You're not going to win a "fair use" argument against YouTube when that shit is going on. When the copyrighted material used is instantly recognizable on its face (or by ear), or even by the listed title of the video, what constitutes sufficient "credit... for the source"? Reproductions of the complete closing credits? What about incorrect attribution of the second unit of a production that had no part in the clip used?
It isn't like the Russians using footage from Titanic to claim the North Pole in a way that tries to conceal the source. It's more like taking clips of The Daily Show featuring Jon Stewart at his desk and a Comedy Central bug in the corner.
Said copyright holder can just go up there and do a search on any TV show or movie or music video and find thousands of copyrighted material that was uploaded illegally. If video can be found with a text search term, how can it not be sufficiently crediting the source? It's the stuff you can't find that way that would be not attributing the source.
What exactly was wrong with just displaying static? Why do we have to show blue screens if the TV decides the channel is unwatchable? Shouldn't I, the user, be the one who decides what is unwatchable?
It bypasses the DRM on scrambled analog cable channels, allowing people to listen to stand-up comedy on HBO without paying for it.
Of course, hardly anyone scrambles analog cable anymore. It's just the usual local police training videos during the daytime hours of the local Public Access Channel that get analog-scrambled anymore (actual open public-access programming is between 10 PM and 3 AM).
Interesting the timing of this article given Ofcom's recent approval of Ultra Wide Band for consumer devices in the UK.
The downlink speed using UHF is quite fast. They didn't mention that the upstream link uses USPS. Maybe they'd get better latency if they used the UKPS.
I have a feeling NASA plan on mining hydrogen based planets in the not so distant future. Just as long as they steer clear of the intelligent deuterium ore.
H2 + O2 = 2 H2O Not quite. You need two parts Hydrogen to one part Oxygen (2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O).
I wonder if they'll repeat this experiment in 6 months, preferably in a colder climate. An 8-week test in summer months in Florida won't give useful information about its winter performance in North Dakota.
Before the early 21st Century, Earth experienced a scourge of humans. Common bacteria from ancient ice stopped the humans, but it didn't destroy them. Instead they lapsed into a state of deep hibernation. Now, the humans are resurrected, more destructive than ever before. Before the early 21st Century humans had taken over the world. Now, they're taking over our colonists' bodies!
Why is DOSBox needed? They have the source codes for all their games, so why can't they make the games compatible with modern systems? Maybe they don't want to endure the hassle and expense of resubmitting modern rebuilds of these old games to the ESRB.
It all comes down to resources -- re-qualifying a release of anything takes a lot of time, money, and support, while just shipping the exact same executables was fairly straightforward. While Doom and Quake might be able to justify the work, there is no way a lot of the titles could, so the decision was pretty obvious.
I strongly urge people with a little initiative to go look at the various high quality source ports, because they are better in essentially every aspect than the original sources, but we aren't going to make any of them official.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ha ha. We had a time getting it here. You wouldn't believe how we did it."
No relation to Galaxy Express 999?
Is there a point to having your data served to you faster than your own access can deliver it to you? If you roll your own, when on your own LAN with it you can access it at gigabit speeds.
2 * (250 GB at $500/yr.) == 500 GB at $1000/yr.
500 GB for $100 leaves $900/yr for access service. Say $100 for a UPS for the server and router. That leaves $800/yr / 12mo/yr == $66.67/mo. That's without amortizing the cost of the drive and UPS over multiple years, which over time would pay for the power. And besides, I'd probably be paying for that Internet access whether I used Google or myself as my on-line data server.
Well, we are talking about expanding what constitutes Fair Use here. He was saying the lack of proper attribution was "the shit going on" acting a barrier against a fair-use consideration(*).
A citation should only require enough information to uniquely identify the the source material to facilitate its retrieval for comparison. For most TV content, title (with disambiguation as necessary), season and episode number (1x04) or production code number (#7G04) for a TV series, and the work's copyright notation (© YYYY Copyright Holding Company) should be sufficient. IMDb number if you're feeling generous (tt0756399). It appears to be enough for them when they borrow footage from each other in tiny print at the bottom edge of the video before the overscan, and sometimes not even for the full duration of the clip used.
(*) Fair use by definition does not require "permission" as he also suggested, eliminating his other gripe from consideration. He apparently feels otherwise, and that alone should disqualify him from being a juror in any case involving a fair use defense. Lawyers should take note to ask the question to prospective jurors during voir dire.
Meanwhile, actual commercials should fall under fair use to reproduce in their entirety at all times, and any other materials intended for promotional use. Further distribution is free advertising which only benefits the owner; stepping in its way will create a backlash against the advertised product.
This is my opinion (TIMO). IANAL.
Unfortunately it isn't a bright-line immunity from prosecution but rather a defense to be tried pass/fail in court.
Your fair use "rights" extend only as far as you are able to afford to successfully defend, and your immunity from prosecution only as far as a litigant's unsureness of victory and willingness to prosecute. DMCA takedown notices give them instant gratification at practically no cost and puts the burden back on you to reassert your rights.
IANAL
You're assuming that the footage is in complete form. Even incomplete footage, say a montage of clips from 24 set to an extended version its theme, can be recognizable and be self-attributable to its source on its face.
You're also assuming I have posted such content. You're skating close to committing libel, sir.
You also haven't answered the question: What constitutes sufficient credit of the source?
but sites like youtube etc are commercially exploiting clips by way of advertising Even a non-profit site hosting videos may have to resort to some advertising to cover operating costs. If having any income from it is considered commercially exploiting, that argument devolves into a demand that any site hosting fair use video must operate at a loss. The bandwidth costs for that makes such services financially unsustainable for anyone that isn't so obscenely wealthy as to be able to pay for it by the interest from his bank account alone.
If the amount of infringement outstrips the copyright holder's ability to police, perhaps the copyright law should be updated to permit it, not forbid it. The law should serve the interests of the populace and not be weighted by their net worth.
It isn't like the Russians using footage from Titanic to claim the North Pole in a way that tries to conceal the source. It's more like taking clips of The Daily Show featuring Jon Stewart at his desk and a Comedy Central bug in the corner. Said copyright holder can just go up there and do a search on any TV show or movie or music video and find thousands of copyrighted material that was uploaded illegally. If video can be found with a text search term, how can it not be sufficiently crediting the source? It's the stuff you can't find that way that would be not attributing the source.
Of course, hardly anyone scrambles analog cable anymore. It's just the usual local police training videos during the daytime hours of the local Public Access Channel that get analog-scrambled anymore (actual open public-access programming is between 10 PM and 3 AM).
I wonder if they'll repeat this experiment in 6 months, preferably in a colder climate. An 8-week test in summer months in Florida won't give useful information about its winter performance in North Dakota.
"What's your preference? Apple, Pear, Wang?"
Kids imitating Superman and Spider-Man can do so safely in a game, sublimating the desire to do it by jumping off of rooftops.
Mod that man up Funny with a hint of Insightful.
Sonny and Cher
Before the early 21st Century, Earth experienced a scourge of humans. Common bacteria from ancient ice stopped the humans, but it didn't destroy them. Instead they lapsed into a state of deep hibernation. Now, the humans are resurrected, more destructive than ever before. Before the early 21st Century humans had taken over the world. Now, they're taking over our colonists' bodies!
Or you can take John Carmak's official response: