You have to love how the text is carefully crafted to be virtually incomprehensible to the average person. Actually, check that - totally incomprehensible to the average person and virtually incomprehensible to all but the hardest core network tech geeks. Of course, it's intentional because saying, simply, "we slow down users who utilize programs we don't like" is too easy to understand and rally against, which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Comcast wants. This Byzantine text just sounds like a lot of techno-mumbo-jumbo so it has to be ok, right? Thankfully, Slashdot is filled with hard core network tech geeks so I'll be reading comments with interest to get an informed synopsis rather than staring at Comcast's text and thinking "huh?"
What's worse is that, not only do they perceive Apple as a threat (because, you're right - simply the fact that they are focusing advertising efforts to counter the Apple ads shows they are concerned), but they can't even manage to do it in an original way. They are basically ripping off Apple's marketing campaign in an effort to weaken said campaign. But, hey, if you can't be original, it's always a good idea to copy those who are.
Seriously speaking, Microsoft's marketing firm needs to be fired. Actually, as a Mac guy, scratch that suggestion. Keep up the great work guys!
This is probably my favourite part of the situation - "Readers should note the cover sheet (.pdf) of the court filing lists Richard Gabriel as the RIAA's lead counsel. Gabriel was named a Colorado judge in May and no longer works on behalf of the RIAA." Yeah. Ok. Good work there guys.
I don't know what most major companies' policies are regarding backing up emails (just back up the text or back up emails plus attachments) but, as but one example, I'm sure this would be an easy spot for most companies to dramatically reduce the amount of storage space required. Most business communications I see from corporate personnel have various attachments on every email - things like logos, custom backgrounds, etc. Forget getting rid of all the unnecessary attachments - getting rid of the "look at my pretty email that looks like a page from a spiral-bound notebook with my company logo at the bottom" images, and the hundreds and thousands of duplicates of those images, would reduce storage requirements, bandwidth requirements, and probably make corporate communications look more, you know, professional. So many emails are filled with unnecessary garbage and, if that's being backed up, that garbage can get costly.
Then again, I'm biased - I believe email should just be pure text. Perhaps that's a sign that I'm now old...
...and (b) the RIAA's whole litigation campaign goes down the tubes.
I want to agree with that final bit - I REALLY DO - but I somehow doubt it will. The RIAA has shown that they are adamantly determined to see this particular gambit through to the bitter end and, short of the execs responsible for it going to jail (which I doubt will happen), they'll keep pushing forward, just slightly altering their tactics as each old tactic fails them. I would love to be proven wrong and, gawd knows you know more about the law and its processes than I do, but I just put more faith in the RIAA's pig-headed-ness than their common sense and willingness to play by the rules.
Given the amount of resources (time) that Google's lost in dealing with these (4000!) bogus DMCA notices, I think Google should file a lawsuit against the offending party. Obviously, I'd love to see the people who posted the videos start a class-action suit as well, but I think Google having to deal with the paperwork, remove the videos, deal with the counter-claim paperwork, and repost the videos represents a significant loss of time and thus money, all because someone is abusing the DMCA. Were I Google's lawyers, I'd use this situation as a perfect chance to deliver a message to all copyright holders - get it right or deal with OUR lawsuit.
The argument isn't that it offsets the loss from a few pirated games - it's that it prevents/hinders mass-scale piracy-for-sale of the game. So long as there are people out there willing to _SELL_ pirated copies of software, there will be DRM to try and hinder their efforts.
Was it enjoyable enough that you're looking forward to watching it again like one of the old Gap ads or the current and hilarious Mac ads? Was it something that you sent to your friends and family, once you found it on the web? Was it something that created a memorable _and positive_ memory that immediately makes you think of the brand being advertised? No? I guess it wasn't quite as successful as you think. Just because you're a geek (as am I) and wanted to seek it out, because of your geek-curiosity, does not make it a successful ad.
"'I find it hard to believe they could apply this technique from space..."
Well, you're welcome to find it hard to believe but, given what "they" are capable of seeing from space, seeing a shadow isn't terribly hard to imagine. And, if not now, guess what - technology has this tendency to improve as the years go by. If the technology isn't there today, it won't take long for it to get there. So, you might want to pull your head out of your butt and start believing. I'm just sayin'.
"...speculation is rampant in a book that gives cause to believe..."
Speculation? In a book? Get back to me when there's evidence in multiple books and scientific journals. Speculation in one book isn't cause to believe squat.
(Could biting insects have caused deaths? Of course but extinction? Highly doubtful and, as I said, until it's discussed more widely than speculation in one book, I'll file that theory away as nothing more than what it is - speculation in one book.)
They didn't come in baked so they could play better - they came in baked because they're stoners. If they were at home watching tv, they'd be just as baked (and it's not so that they could watch tv better though I'm sure being stoned makes some of the crap on tv seem better...).
Our telcos are just feeling left out. The American telcos are hogging all the limelight with their various antics leaving the Canadian telcos feeling all inferior so they're just trying to play with the big boys. How typically Canadian...
I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese...
I know hating on the Chinese government is in vogue right now but the IOC's initial DMCA notice had nothing to do with "pander[ing] to the Chinese." The IOC is one of the most aggressive organization when it comes to protecting their rights and, given that this video depicted the five interlocking rings (which the IOC protects very aggressively), it should come as no surprise that they went after the video, despite fair use rights. I'm actually _VERY_ surprised they withdrew this claim, in fact. But, their complaint had zero to do with pandering to the Chinese or any other government.
My question is this - besides a measure of how much their shares are worth, what does that mean? Not trying to be a smartass. Quite the contrary, in fact - I'm a dumbass when it comes to economics and the like so I literally don't know what this sort of thing means, in practical terms.
It won't be back up. If it does depict the five interlocking rings as the summary states then the IOC will aggressively attack it as infringing. The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever. This will be no different. It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings. Had the video not had that imagery, I'm certain it'd be fine (from the IOC standpoint, at least).
The IOC has always been one of the most aggressive organizations in protecting their "five rings" copyright. ANYTHING depicting five interlocking rings will get them into action. Thus, this doesn't surprise me - had the video not had the five rings, I suspect the IOC wouldn't have been motivated to action...
Wait. Are we seriously going to complain about this? If this doesn't count as much ado about nothing, I don't know what does. This isn't manipulation of the media - this is simply enhancing the televised broadcast of a ceremony for the opening of the Olympic games. Good gawd, get some perspective.
I think you're using that word without knowing what it means. I suspect most companies would like to have a "fiasco" like the iPhone n their product catalogue.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to love how the text is carefully crafted to be virtually incomprehensible to the average person. Actually, check that - totally incomprehensible to the average person and virtually incomprehensible to all but the hardest core network tech geeks. Of course, it's intentional because saying, simply, "we slow down users who utilize programs we don't like" is too easy to understand and rally against, which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Comcast wants. This Byzantine text just sounds like a lot of techno-mumbo-jumbo so it has to be ok, right? Thankfully, Slashdot is filled with hard core network tech geeks so I'll be reading comments with interest to get an informed synopsis rather than staring at Comcast's text and thinking "huh?"
What's worse is that, not only do they perceive Apple as a threat (because, you're right - simply the fact that they are focusing advertising efforts to counter the Apple ads shows they are concerned), but they can't even manage to do it in an original way. They are basically ripping off Apple's marketing campaign in an effort to weaken said campaign. But, hey, if you can't be original, it's always a good idea to copy those who are.
Seriously speaking, Microsoft's marketing firm needs to be fired. Actually, as a Mac guy, scratch that suggestion. Keep up the great work guys!
This is probably my favourite part of the situation - "Readers should note the cover sheet (.pdf) of the court filing lists Richard Gabriel as the RIAA's lead counsel. Gabriel was named a Colorado judge in May and no longer works on behalf of the RIAA." Yeah. Ok. Good work there guys.
I don't know what most major companies' policies are regarding backing up emails (just back up the text or back up emails plus attachments) but, as but one example, I'm sure this would be an easy spot for most companies to dramatically reduce the amount of storage space required. Most business communications I see from corporate personnel have various attachments on every email - things like logos, custom backgrounds, etc. Forget getting rid of all the unnecessary attachments - getting rid of the "look at my pretty email that looks like a page from a spiral-bound notebook with my company logo at the bottom" images, and the hundreds and thousands of duplicates of those images, would reduce storage requirements, bandwidth requirements, and probably make corporate communications look more, you know, professional. So many emails are filled with unnecessary garbage and, if that's being backed up, that garbage can get costly.
Then again, I'm biased - I believe email should just be pure text. Perhaps that's a sign that I'm now old...
Is that a projector in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
What? Someone had to make the joke!
...and (b) the RIAA's whole litigation campaign goes down the tubes.
I want to agree with that final bit - I REALLY DO - but I somehow doubt it will. The RIAA has shown that they are adamantly determined to see this particular gambit through to the bitter end and, short of the execs responsible for it going to jail (which I doubt will happen), they'll keep pushing forward, just slightly altering their tactics as each old tactic fails them. I would love to be proven wrong and, gawd knows you know more about the law and its processes than I do, but I just put more faith in the RIAA's pig-headed-ness than their common sense and willingness to play by the rules.
Given the amount of resources (time) that Google's lost in dealing with these (4000!) bogus DMCA notices, I think Google should file a lawsuit against the offending party. Obviously, I'd love to see the people who posted the videos start a class-action suit as well, but I think Google having to deal with the paperwork, remove the videos, deal with the counter-claim paperwork, and repost the videos represents a significant loss of time and thus money, all because someone is abusing the DMCA. Were I Google's lawyers, I'd use this situation as a perfect chance to deliver a message to all copyright holders - get it right or deal with OUR lawsuit.
The argument isn't that it offsets the loss from a few pirated games - it's that it prevents/hinders mass-scale piracy-for-sale of the game. So long as there are people out there willing to _SELL_ pirated copies of software, there will be DRM to try and hinder their efforts.
It's really simple - critique =/= infringement.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's a big no-no to use the DMCA knowingly falsely, right? Not that I think anything will come of it...
Was it enjoyable enough that you're looking forward to watching it again like one of the old Gap ads or the current and hilarious Mac ads? Was it something that you sent to your friends and family, once you found it on the web? Was it something that created a memorable _and positive_ memory that immediately makes you think of the brand being advertised? No? I guess it wasn't quite as successful as you think. Just because you're a geek (as am I) and wanted to seek it out, because of your geek-curiosity, does not make it a successful ad.
"'I find it hard to believe they could apply this technique from space..."
Well, you're welcome to find it hard to believe but, given what "they" are capable of seeing from space, seeing a shadow isn't terribly hard to imagine. And, if not now, guess what - technology has this tendency to improve as the years go by. If the technology isn't there today, it won't take long for it to get there. So, you might want to pull your head out of your butt and start believing. I'm just sayin'.
"...speculation is rampant in a book that gives cause to believe..."
Speculation? In a book? Get back to me when there's evidence in multiple books and scientific journals. Speculation in one book isn't cause to believe squat.
(Could biting insects have caused deaths? Of course but extinction? Highly doubtful and, as I said, until it's discussed more widely than speculation in one book, I'll file that theory away as nothing more than what it is - speculation in one book.)
Claiming copyright on LAWS? Good gawd. We do live in an era of insanity...
They didn't come in baked so they could play better - they came in baked because they're stoners. If they were at home watching tv, they'd be just as baked (and it's not so that they could watch tv better though I'm sure being stoned makes some of the crap on tv seem better...).
Our telcos are just feeling left out. The American telcos are hogging all the limelight with their various antics leaving the Canadian telcos feeling all inferior so they're just trying to play with the big boys. How typically Canadian...
An online hub for gamers to meet already exists. It's called "World of Warcraft."
This is news on Slashdot? Seriously? Really? Wow... Must be a slow day...
"...then you call your lawyer."
Because everyone has a lawyer on retainer for just such a situation...
I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese...
I know hating on the Chinese government is in vogue right now but the IOC's initial DMCA notice had nothing to do with "pander[ing] to the Chinese." The IOC is one of the most aggressive organization when it comes to protecting their rights and, given that this video depicted the five interlocking rings (which the IOC protects very aggressively), it should come as no surprise that they went after the video, despite fair use rights. I'm actually _VERY_ surprised they withdrew this claim, in fact. But, their complaint had zero to do with pandering to the Chinese or any other government.
My question is this - besides a measure of how much their shares are worth, what does that mean? Not trying to be a smartass. Quite the contrary, in fact - I'm a dumbass when it comes to economics and the like so I literally don't know what this sort of thing means, in practical terms.
I _believe_ (though could be wrong) that they actually have both for the five interlocking rings. I might be mis-remembering, however.
It won't be back up. If it does depict the five interlocking rings as the summary states then the IOC will aggressively attack it as infringing. The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever. This will be no different. It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings. Had the video not had that imagery, I'm certain it'd be fine (from the IOC standpoint, at least).
The IOC has always been one of the most aggressive organizations in protecting their "five rings" copyright. ANYTHING depicting five interlocking rings will get them into action. Thus, this doesn't surprise me - had the video not had the five rings, I suspect the IOC wouldn't have been motivated to action...
Wait. Are we seriously going to complain about this? If this doesn't count as much ado about nothing, I don't know what does. This isn't manipulation of the media - this is simply enhancing the televised broadcast of a ceremony for the opening of the Olympic games. Good gawd, get some perspective.
the iphone is a fiasco...
I think you're using that word without knowing what it means. I suspect most companies would like to have a "fiasco" like the iPhone n their product catalogue.