They're probably not going to be successful in suing youtube, but I can guarantee they wouldn't be successful in suing a site that's reporting legitimate news about their site. There's a big difference here.
Also stop saying "tinfoil hat". For a bunch of geeks who pride themselves on being "accurate", aluminum foil and tin foil are distinctly different things.
Yes, and we also know that aluminum doesn't stop the mindcontrol rays like tin does, asshat*.
* Sorry for the inaccuracy. I know that "rectum hat" would be more accurate, but it takes longer to type.
Re:They should put some Google ads on and make $$
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
You should be running American economic policy. If only all of our heavy manufacturing industry shifted to setting up Internet ad farms, we'd be in great shape for the future.
The fact that Lenin's revolution took place in a backward country that had no hope whatsoever of succeeding under actual Communism (let alone under the bastardized state Communism that developed there) doesn't have any bearing on the accuracy of his critique of capitalism.
Person A: 1 + 1 = 2.
Person B: no, 1 + 1 = 3. And you beat your wife.
You: Oh, 1+1 must equal 3.
Considering they don't even link to their privacy policy on their main search page, I think an argument that you're "asking them" according to this policy is even flimsier than claiming someone intendied to agree to some obscure statement in the middle of a 20-page EULA that no one actually reads.
You're a "Retinal neurophysiology scientist" and you think that intelligence comes from the face? Wow, America's education system really is doomed. Or maybe it's just the inbred retards in higher education in Utah.
Oh please. You can bet that if a single voter accidentally voted for a Democrat when they meant to vote for a Republican, FOX News would be on the scene with 24-hour coverage of how Nancy Pelosi is trying to steal the election to feed her evil lust for power.
I don't think the phishers care if they don't get to steal your identity, as long as the 99% of web users who don't know what SSL is can still be fooled. So yes, you're missing something.
Gracenote almost certainly doesn't serve album art that's licensed under CC_noncommercial or any album art that they're not licensed to use. They certainly claim that they have licenses from the publishers for all of the lyrics they serve, and unless someone can show that they've got CC lyrics they're not entitled to serve I see no reason not to assume they're working in good faith.
As for music identification, it's not entirely clear to me that actual music snippets are sent to Gracenote to be identified; it seems to me (and I haven't seen a complete description of the exact details to be sure) that a fingerprint is generated for the song and then compared to their database. If the fingerprint computation is done of the client machine, there's no doubt whatsoever that this isn't a copyright violation, since nothing's being copied.
I think I'm not missing the point at all, though, as the AC I was replying to seemed to be implying that it would be illegal for MySpace to take the music he uploaded to them and then to do these calculations on it because he hadn;t licensed the music to them, which is patently absurd.
I'm fairly certain that the whole point of the 1st Amendment wasn't to make it easy to legally bribe elected officials, but I could be wrong. I'll need to go back over what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers to make sure I didn't miss something.
Well, if his high-ranking government official collegues are able to get an uncensored Internet feed, that must mean they don't have any censorship, right?
Are you actually arguing that a service provider needs the permission of the person uploading a file to copy that file onto their disk? Don't you think that maybe the act of actually sending them the file implies that you're granting them a right (assuming you have the right to do so) to receive it? Are you really that dumb?
You're infringing my Fundamental Freedom to visit a Slashdot site without any comments by you on it.
It doesn't have to be enshrined in law or recognized by anyone except me to be a Fundamental Freedom. It doesn't even have to make any sense. I say what's Fundamental. Neener.
I agree. The programmers working on integrating music fingerprinting technology into their website really should be more involved in making sure your friend doesn't get harrassed online.
Just like all of the theoretical physicists out there should be working on a cure for cancer. Dumbass.
No, he's suffering from Slashdot Blindness, which also tells him that no one would ever buy a music player that doesn't support Ogg Vorbis, because every single person on the Internet uses it exclusively.
This is exactly why I demanded that the dealer remove all of the locks when I bought a new car.
Actually I insisted he completely remove the doors, but he came up with some bullcrap about how the car would no longer be street legal and that he couldn't let me drive it off the lot.
Many illegal aliens pay taxes. Hell, if you include sales tax, damn near all of them do. I don't believe the definition of "illegal alien" includes not paying taxes, so your claim of "by definition" is bizarre and idiotic.
Of course, the fact that you think that someone who's clearly advocating allowing more people into the country to work is in favor of illegal immigration pretty much proves you're an idiot in the first place.
Well, maybe if Hugo Chavez is unanimously elected President of the US in a week and a half despite the extreme handicaps of not being on the ballot and not actually having an election for President at all on the ballot this year, someone might actually get the idea that some sort of voter-verified paper trail for elections is a good idea.
We need some really obvious fraud by anti-American foreigners to wake people up. Sadly, all we're going to get is both sides of Americans accusing each other of fraud, which the majority of voters will just see as normal politics, not as a reason to try to change the system to actually be accountable.
I'm still waiting for the trolls to show up in this thread arguing that quantum mechanics states that it's physically impossible to accurately count votes, so we shouldn't bother to try to be accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably not going to be successful in suing youtube, but I can guarantee they wouldn't be successful in suing a site that's reporting legitimate news about their site. There's a big difference here.
Also stop saying "tinfoil hat". For a bunch of geeks who pride themselves on being "accurate", aluminum foil and tin foil are distinctly different things.
Yes, and we also know that aluminum doesn't stop the mindcontrol rays like tin does, asshat*.
* Sorry for the inaccuracy. I know that "rectum hat" would be more accurate, but it takes longer to type.
You should be running American economic policy. If only all of our heavy manufacturing industry shifted to setting up Internet ad farms, we'd be in great shape for the future.
Right, and because Albert Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics, we should probably think twice about whether E really equals MC^2.
The fact that Lenin's revolution took place in a backward country that had no hope whatsoever of succeeding under actual Communism (let alone under the bastardized state Communism that developed there) doesn't have any bearing on the accuracy of his critique of capitalism.
Person A: 1 + 1 = 2.
Person B: no, 1 + 1 = 3. And you beat your wife.
You: Oh, 1+1 must equal 3.
Considering they don't even link to their privacy policy on their main search page, I think an argument that you're "asking them" according to this policy is even flimsier than claiming someone intendied to agree to some obscure statement in the middle of a 20-page EULA that no one actually reads.
I am actually a Texan that moved to Utah.
Oh, that's even better. And you look like a freakin' genius yourself. crapping your pants much?
By the way, thanks for the 2800 page views.
You're a "Retinal neurophysiology scientist" and you think that intelligence comes from the face? Wow, America's education system really is doomed. Or maybe it's just the inbred retards in higher education in Utah.
Oh please. You can bet that if a single voter accidentally voted for a Democrat when they meant to vote for a Republican, FOX News would be on the scene with 24-hour coverage of how Nancy Pelosi is trying to steal the election to feed her evil lust for power.
Nice of you to correct someone when you have no idea what you're talking about.
The CIA is often referred to as "The Company". You're simply wrong. And dumb.
I don't think the phishers care if they don't get to steal your identity, as long as the 99% of web users who don't know what SSL is can still be fooled. So yes, you're missing something.
Now not clicking links in my emails is adding to water pollution? Eeek! Off to go click all of those links!
Gracenote almost certainly doesn't serve album art that's licensed under CC_noncommercial or any album art that they're not licensed to use. They certainly claim that they have licenses from the publishers for all of the lyrics they serve, and unless someone can show that they've got CC lyrics they're not entitled to serve I see no reason not to assume they're working in good faith.
As for music identification, it's not entirely clear to me that actual music snippets are sent to Gracenote to be identified; it seems to me (and I haven't seen a complete description of the exact details to be sure) that a fingerprint is generated for the song and then compared to their database. If the fingerprint computation is done of the client machine, there's no doubt whatsoever that this isn't a copyright violation, since nothing's being copied.
I think I'm not missing the point at all, though, as the AC I was replying to seemed to be implying that it would be illegal for MySpace to take the music he uploaded to them and then to do these calculations on it because he hadn;t licensed the music to them, which is patently absurd.
I'm sure everyone you'd represent is glad you're not running if your motivation is the paycheck.
I'm fairly certain that the whole point of the 1st Amendment wasn't to make it easy to legally bribe elected officials, but I could be wrong. I'll need to go back over what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers to make sure I didn't miss something.
Well, if his high-ranking government official collegues are able to get an uncensored Internet feed, that must mean they don't have any censorship, right?
Are you actually arguing that a service provider needs the permission of the person uploading a file to copy that file onto their disk? Don't you think that maybe the act of actually sending them the file implies that you're granting them a right (assuming you have the right to do so) to receive it? Are you really that dumb?
You're infringing my Fundamental Freedom to visit a Slashdot site without any comments by you on it.
It doesn't have to be enshrined in law or recognized by anyone except me to be a Fundamental Freedom. It doesn't even have to make any sense. I say what's Fundamental. Neener.
I agree. The programmers working on integrating music fingerprinting technology into their website really should be more involved in making sure your friend doesn't get harrassed online.
Just like all of the theoretical physicists out there should be working on a cure for cancer. Dumbass.
Umm, they can be licensing the right to use whatever music they're using from the owners of the music.
I'm not asserting that they do so, but the fact that they license song lyrics from the publishers makes me think it's pretty likely that they do.
2 words: Smart Playlists.
No, he's suffering from Slashdot Blindness, which also tells him that no one would ever buy a music player that doesn't support Ogg Vorbis, because every single person on the Internet uses it exclusively.
This is exactly why I demanded that the dealer remove all of the locks when I bought a new car.
Actually I insisted he completely remove the doors, but he came up with some bullcrap about how the car would no longer be street legal and that he couldn't let me drive it off the lot.
Many illegal aliens pay taxes. Hell, if you include sales tax, damn near all of them do. I don't believe the definition of "illegal alien" includes not paying taxes, so your claim of "by definition" is bizarre and idiotic.
Of course, the fact that you think that someone who's clearly advocating allowing more people into the country to work is in favor of illegal immigration pretty much proves you're an idiot in the first place.
Well, maybe if Hugo Chavez is unanimously elected President of the US in a week and a half despite the extreme handicaps of not being on the ballot and not actually having an election for President at all on the ballot this year, someone might actually get the idea that some sort of voter-verified paper trail for elections is a good idea.
We need some really obvious fraud by anti-American foreigners to wake people up. Sadly, all we're going to get is both sides of Americans accusing each other of fraud, which the majority of voters will just see as normal politics, not as a reason to try to change the system to actually be accountable.
I'm still waiting for the trolls to show up in this thread arguing that quantum mechanics states that it's physically impossible to accurately count votes, so we shouldn't bother to try to be accurate.