I think what it means is that it makes you feel good.
It's simply playground logic that's being addresses here. So and so pissed you off, so you want to club him or rat to the teacher to get them to club him.
It doesn't matter if they sell other copies or not.
Ask yourself this, I have two paintings, one of a common but almost indistinguishable copy of a Van Gogh and the other is an original Van Gogh. Ok, which one can I sell for more? The answer of course is the original. But if I had the only copy, I could get a premium for that too. Now suppose there are 2 million copies floating around, I can only get a little for the copy seeing how it's so common. Now I haven't sold it yet, but imagine how much you would give me for it- would it be more then the other guy who sells the exact same copy? Not likely.
SO if you know going in that there will be other copies because of past experiences, why would you pay as much for it? Now from the righthaven perspective, if there is going to be copies floating around as soon as it's published, then has the amount that could be charged for the content changed from when it was the only copy? And of course the answer to that is yes- it has changed regardless of any contracts that have locked the price in because of you were to renegotiate the contracts, the fact that copies are present would make the value less.
Again, there is no claim, other than "Copyright infringement for profit"
Please explain this a little more. Not being a profit or not being commercial in nature is not a qualifier for infringement or fair use. And yes, being a copyright troll is the same as being a patent troll, but that doesn't negate any laws concerning copyright. All it does is change how someone might feel about the actions.
Yea, but the op said he was going to start buying. That's the key difference between having the acta and not.
On the other hand, if you could buy the media outright for the black market prices, I don't think many people would find it worth their while to pirate it.
but it sounds like the only recourse of the newspaper itself would be to "encourage" Righthaven to sue
In this specific after the fact situations- yes. But if Righthaven didn't sue or take steps to stop infringements, then the newspaper could use that as leverage to negotiate lower rates.
In other words, if you are the only person with the story, it might be worth 10 times as much in order to keep revenue and content on your site. But if 20 other people have the same stuff, then the value of the story isn't near as much.
Because copyright law gives exclusive control over the copyright protected works to the copyright owner and it's licensees. It doesn't matter if they are making nothing from the copyright, it doesn't matter if the infringes is making nothing from it. there are a few fair use defenses that look at when the infringement was to further economical gain or not (commercial in nature), but the lack of that is not the sole determination for fair use.
Also, probably one of the hardest things about fair use is that it's a defense to an actual charge. This means that acase has to be started and accepted before any fair use defense can be initiated. Most smart companies and people, look at this before they file and attempt to guage how plausible it might be for the courts to agree with the defendant on fair use. It seems that RightHaven isn't one of these people.
The good thing about it is that the judge seems to want to limit this o side step a lot of the expense and determine if an infringement could have occurred before actually continuing the case.
At that point, the economic value of the article to Righthaven is exhausted. There is no further "ad revenue" coming in to them.
That is of course if you ignore the ability of Righthaven to charge a premium for the content being licensed back because of the prevalence of unlicensed copies floating around in the same medium.
The argument can still be made. Although I agree, they are essentially being a copyright troll by design. However, this doesn't mean they don't have a claim, they just seem to be trolls in pursuing it.
The "once secrete" part of the story should have indicated that this has been around a long time before we started talking about it. They were most likely in it from the start.
I guess the key difference there is that you are going to start buying.
If it wasn't so easy to mass pirate, I would suggest that the black market street prices like in the old days might make a closer to actual value price point that the record and movie companies could shoot for and avoid piracy almost entirely.
There may be tribal villages in Africa still that has used the non-currency thing. The problem there is that their children don't live past 5, they have no technological advancements past a spear or bow and arrow, and their medicine is more of an art of bullshitting someone into believing they will get better (placebo effect) then any actual help.
What the op is asking for has been tried. This is the main reason why most third world countries still live in grass huts at the turn of the 19th century and weren't much further along the lines in the 20th..
Yea, because all other human history and inherent traits would suggest that giving up is better then fixing the problem before or when it happens.
Here is a hint, most all of the things in the world as you know it today, are a result of someone fixing the problems of the past. I suspect the future would be much different then you theorize as well.
Yes, if everything was just this black and white.. If everything was binary and there was a simple cause for every single reaction.
The loans didn't need to be covered by the CRA, the CRA pressured Fannie and Fredie to purchase subprimes as a means to fund the CRA loans it covered. Whatch this for a little more about it.
PS, This isn't really a one sides you can blame a single person or party issue. There is a lot of blame that built up to a failing point which can be passed around.
It might be expensive, but it will be spread out over time making it affordable. I mean that's how people buy homes right? They take the several hundred thousand dollar costs and increase several fold and spread it over 15-30 years.
Since a lot of them started becoming interface units with the on board computer and diagnostic systems including emissions controls and such.
Yes, instead of making them a read out terminal with simple input switches like a computer keyboard or mouse, they have started becoming "integrated controller units" that communicate and process date itself.
You realize that most of Europe is doing that same right?
Don't limit this just to the US. European reliance on China and India has increase severely in the last decade or so. Take Germany for instance, they about pretty much abandoned most of their manufacturing and concentrated on high dollar manufacturing of luxury items or similar stuff. They import most of their low quality crap and product almost nothing that can't be sold for a premium.
Some of the older phones would dial 9/11 if the number 9 was held down for a period of time. This feature worked whether you were in service coverage or not or even if you had your service disconnected.
I have some questions about how this would work in reality.
If you are lost, how would you know where to send the emergency response? Or in other words, how would they know how to find you. As far as I'm aware, 9/11 dispatchers currently either triangulate your presence on towers (something that couldn't be done with sms), or read the GPS coordinated in the phone if you are unable to tell them where you are. Perhaps this is more about getting geo-data associated with texts then any real safety issues.
As far as non-cell locations go. What's stopping you from texting someone else in order to have them call 9/11? That's basically how onstar works, they read the collisions data, attempt to contact the person and notify 9/11 in the appropriate area about the known conditions.
In most the non-cell locations that I go camping in, SMS only works part of the time. There is a huge delay in sending or receiving texts. I've seen them wait 16 or more hours before going out and being received. Funny story, mushroom hunting 2006, sent a message to someone looking in another area that we were going to group up and go to another location. As we were his ride, it was important that he came with us. Well, he didn't get the message but was coming out of the woods about the same time we got back to the car so no one bothered asking. Later that night while camping, everyone else went fishing before setting camp up and he stayed behind to get a fire built and ready for cooking because he didn't have a fishing license (hated to fish). He was all by his self, about 100 miles in the middle of nowhere with no cell reception, no one that he knew off within miles, no ride, and as dusk started coming on, he gets a message that we were leaving- come find us. Being his first trip out with us and to this area, he was petrified that we left him in the middle of nowhere for the bears to eat. We showed up about 45 minutes later to a frantic guy pissed off and yelling that it wasn't funny. We had to show him where the message was sent some 13 hours ago when we first got there before he would settle down. Now we use GPS enabled 2 way radios when splitting up on our excursions. Not only does it allow us to identify where we are, but we can send the GPS coordinates to others with us if we get into trouble (which happened once).
CNN is defiantly not neutral. Granted, they did attempt to cloud the appearance of bias by putting cook shows on like Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck's old show, but that doesn't make them neutral in unbiased reporting. During Clinton's presidency, they were the Fox News of the DNC.
So getting my news from a PBS interview with the man who started and owns CNN itself doesn't qualify?
Ted Turner started CNN as a station that agreed with his views. I don't really care where those views fall on some international scale as it was done in an attempt to influence Americans in the American political environment which they are seen as far left.
And did you see the part where he said his biggest fear when starting CNN was that a conservative station would come along like Fox News and they couldn't compete?
That right created by law is a primary driver for of value to the product. You are talking that from them. Also, you obviously think the product has some value if your willing to take it. This is especially obvious by how you appear to be wanting to take it and go though great lengths justifying how your theft is somehow not wrong even though the law says otherwise.
Might I suggest that you put your efforts into actually trying to change the laws instead of justifying why you shouldn't follow them. Perhaps then you could do more then look like an idiot. It doesn't matter what you think, all rights to property is created and upheld by law, even that boundary line to your property all the way over there where you never go. That's right, it's only the law that makes it possible for you to own more ground then you are stepping on at any single time. If I took some of that, you are in not different shape under your same excuses then if I took your latest fiction works and copied it.
I don't think that's the case at all. Kennedy gave us the largest surge of US troop involvement into Vietnam which sort of counters your argument that he was against it.
On the other hand, the communist party had a stake in North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam and there was a wild Red Scare going on. It's possible that it was a conspiracy around that more so then LBJ or any existing American as our involvement in Vietnam was right after our involvement in WWII was seen to save the day.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what it means is that it makes you feel good.
It's simply playground logic that's being addresses here. So and so pissed you off, so you want to club him or rat to the teacher to get them to club him.
It doesn't matter if they sell other copies or not.
Ask yourself this, I have two paintings, one of a common but almost indistinguishable copy of a Van Gogh and the other is an original Van Gogh. Ok, which one can I sell for more? The answer of course is the original. But if I had the only copy, I could get a premium for that too. Now suppose there are 2 million copies floating around, I can only get a little for the copy seeing how it's so common. Now I haven't sold it yet, but imagine how much you would give me for it- would it be more then the other guy who sells the exact same copy? Not likely.
SO if you know going in that there will be other copies because of past experiences, why would you pay as much for it? Now from the righthaven perspective, if there is going to be copies floating around as soon as it's published, then has the amount that could be charged for the content changed from when it was the only copy? And of course the answer to that is yes- it has changed regardless of any contracts that have locked the price in because of you were to renegotiate the contracts, the fact that copies are present would make the value less.
Please explain this a little more. Not being a profit or not being commercial in nature is not a qualifier for infringement or fair use. And yes, being a copyright troll is the same as being a patent troll, but that doesn't negate any laws concerning copyright. All it does is change how someone might feel about the actions.
Yea, but the op said he was going to start buying. That's the key difference between having the acta and not.
On the other hand, if you could buy the media outright for the black market prices, I don't think many people would find it worth their while to pirate it.
In this specific after the fact situations- yes. But if Righthaven didn't sue or take steps to stop infringements, then the newspaper could use that as leverage to negotiate lower rates.
In other words, if you are the only person with the story, it might be worth 10 times as much in order to keep revenue and content on your site. But if 20 other people have the same stuff, then the value of the story isn't near as much.
Because copyright law gives exclusive control over the copyright protected works to the copyright owner and it's licensees. It doesn't matter if they are making nothing from the copyright, it doesn't matter if the infringes is making nothing from it. there are a few fair use defenses that look at when the infringement was to further economical gain or not (commercial in nature), but the lack of that is not the sole determination for fair use.
Also, probably one of the hardest things about fair use is that it's a defense to an actual charge. This means that acase has to be started and accepted before any fair use defense can be initiated. Most smart companies and people, look at this before they file and attempt to guage how plausible it might be for the courts to agree with the defendant on fair use. It seems that RightHaven isn't one of these people.
The good thing about it is that the judge seems to want to limit this o side step a lot of the expense and determine if an infringement could have occurred before actually continuing the case.
That is of course if you ignore the ability of Righthaven to charge a premium for the content being licensed back because of the prevalence of unlicensed copies floating around in the same medium.
The argument can still be made. Although I agree, they are essentially being a copyright troll by design. However, this doesn't mean they don't have a claim, they just seem to be trolls in pursuing it.
Was it the EU parliament or people in the EU.
Please read the above sentence I was replying to.
Then consider what I wrote again.
The "once secrete" part of the story should have indicated that this has been around a long time before we started talking about it. They were most likely in it from the start.
I guess the key difference there is that you are going to start buying.
If it wasn't so easy to mass pirate, I would suggest that the black market street prices like in the old days might make a closer to actual value price point that the record and movie companies could shoot for and avoid piracy almost entirely.
There may be tribal villages in Africa still that has used the non-currency thing. The problem there is that their children don't live past 5, they have no technological advancements past a spear or bow and arrow, and their medicine is more of an art of bullshitting someone into believing they will get better (placebo effect) then any actual help.
What the op is asking for has been tried. This is the main reason why most third world countries still live in grass huts at the turn of the 19th century and weren't much further along the lines in the 20th..
Yea, because all other human history and inherent traits would suggest that giving up is better then fixing the problem before or when it happens.
Here is a hint, most all of the things in the world as you know it today, are a result of someone fixing the problems of the past. I suspect the future would be much different then you theorize as well.
Yes, if everything was just this black and white.. If everything was binary and there was a simple cause for every single reaction.
The loans didn't need to be covered by the CRA, the CRA pressured Fannie and Fredie to purchase subprimes as a means to fund the CRA loans it covered. Whatch this for a little more about it.
PS, This isn't really a one sides you can blame a single person or party issue. There is a lot of blame that built up to a failing point which can be passed around.
It might be expensive, but it will be spread out over time making it affordable. I mean that's how people buy homes right? They take the several hundred thousand dollar costs and increase several fold and spread it over 15-30 years.
Since a lot of them started becoming interface units with the on board computer and diagnostic systems including emissions controls and such.
Yes, instead of making them a read out terminal with simple input switches like a computer keyboard or mouse, they have started becoming "integrated controller units" that communicate and process date itself.
You realize that most of Europe is doing that same right?
Don't limit this just to the US. European reliance on China and India has increase severely in the last decade or so. Take Germany for instance, they about pretty much abandoned most of their manufacturing and concentrated on high dollar manufacturing of luxury items or similar stuff. They import most of their low quality crap and product almost nothing that can't be sold for a premium.
I'm not sure that a big F U would make much of a difference in other tech transfers.
Some of the older phones would dial 9/11 if the number 9 was held down for a period of time. This feature worked whether you were in service coverage or not or even if you had your service disconnected.
I have some questions about how this would work in reality.
If you are lost, how would you know where to send the emergency response? Or in other words, how would they know how to find you. As far as I'm aware, 9/11 dispatchers currently either triangulate your presence on towers (something that couldn't be done with sms), or read the GPS coordinated in the phone if you are unable to tell them where you are. Perhaps this is more about getting geo-data associated with texts then any real safety issues.
As far as non-cell locations go. What's stopping you from texting someone else in order to have them call 9/11? That's basically how onstar works, they read the collisions data, attempt to contact the person and notify 9/11 in the appropriate area about the known conditions.
In most the non-cell locations that I go camping in, SMS only works part of the time. There is a huge delay in sending or receiving texts. I've seen them wait 16 or more hours before going out and being received. Funny story, mushroom hunting 2006, sent a message to someone looking in another area that we were going to group up and go to another location. As we were his ride, it was important that he came with us. Well, he didn't get the message but was coming out of the woods about the same time we got back to the car so no one bothered asking. Later that night while camping, everyone else went fishing before setting camp up and he stayed behind to get a fire built and ready for cooking because he didn't have a fishing license (hated to fish). He was all by his self, about 100 miles in the middle of nowhere with no cell reception, no one that he knew off within miles, no ride, and as dusk started coming on, he gets a message that we were leaving- come find us. Being his first trip out with us and to this area, he was petrified that we left him in the middle of nowhere for the bears to eat. We showed up about 45 minutes later to a frantic guy pissed off and yelling that it wasn't funny. We had to show him where the message was sent some 13 hours ago when we first got there before he would settle down. Now we use GPS enabled 2 way radios when splitting up on our excursions. Not only does it allow us to identify where we are, but we can send the GPS coordinates to others with us if we get into trouble (which happened once).
CNN is defiantly not neutral. Granted, they did attempt to cloud the appearance of bias by putting cook shows on like Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck's old show, but that doesn't make them neutral in unbiased reporting. During Clinton's presidency, they were the Fox News of the DNC.
So getting my news from a PBS interview with the man who started and owns CNN itself doesn't qualify?
Ted Turner started CNN as a station that agreed with his views. I don't really care where those views fall on some international scale as it was done in an attempt to influence Americans in the American political environment which they are seen as far left.
And did you see the part where he said his biggest fear when starting CNN was that a conservative station would come along like Fox News and they couldn't compete?
That right created by law is a primary driver for of value to the product. You are talking that from them. Also, you obviously think the product has some value if your willing to take it. This is especially obvious by how you appear to be wanting to take it and go though great lengths justifying how your theft is somehow not wrong even though the law says otherwise.
Might I suggest that you put your efforts into actually trying to change the laws instead of justifying why you shouldn't follow them. Perhaps then you could do more then look like an idiot. It doesn't matter what you think, all rights to property is created and upheld by law, even that boundary line to your property all the way over there where you never go. That's right, it's only the law that makes it possible for you to own more ground then you are stepping on at any single time. If I took some of that, you are in not different shape under your same excuses then if I took your latest fiction works and copied it.
SO you don't think the government created right to exclusive control over the copying and distribution of copyrighted works is being deprived?
Because that's what they are trying to protect.
I don't think that's the case at all. Kennedy gave us the largest surge of US troop involvement into Vietnam which sort of counters your argument that he was against it.
On the other hand, the communist party had a stake in North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam and there was a wild Red Scare going on. It's possible that it was a conspiracy around that more so then LBJ or any existing American as our involvement in Vietnam was right after our involvement in WWII was seen to save the day.