Please, no one goes to msnbc.com and the only people that visit msn.com are those who do not know how or care to change their IE home page. I do not see how this really even affected Opera to any great degree.
Couldn't the fact that the dinosaur was killed in a different spot on the ground affect history just as much? Who knows how many butterflies it crushed when it fell, and how many other butterflies it failed to crush a few yards away? I cannot believe he safari company did not think of this, as they went to extremes to preserve history in every other way. Things like this really bother me, as you can tell.
It is great that you are thinking of ideas, but you really should read the ton of material that has already been published on this, and you will see the pros and cons of what you are talking about.
Your first proposal is way too complex. If we are going to overhaul something, it should not require any additional tweaking, such as using whitelists. Your second proposal places a great deal of power and trust (and additional revenue) in the hands of the Certificate Authorities. People like running their own mail servers without having to pay for certificates, which can run $100 per year or more.
I agree that "keeping [the pirate] safe" is not what Microsoft is worried about.
That being said, the goals of keeping customers satisfied and ensuring future revenues are always related. Every business venture has a selfish side, and Microsoft is no exception. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" concept probably explains it best.
This is the first prosecution, and by the nature of it being first, there are no others, so it seems like an isolated effort. Are you saying there should never be a first? Under that logic, there is never any point in doing anything.
I am particularly pleased the government is charging the guy for unauthorized relay. As shocked as he may be at the visit from authorities, I am sure his victims were equally shocked when they discovered that hundreds of thousands of emails were being relayed through their servers.
It does not matter if the recording is for personal viewing or for distribution. You still do not have a license to record the movie. Your ticket gives your the right to watch the movie once in that theater at that time, and that is all.
I thought about this for a long time too. I am a little surprised the article does not get into that more. Here is what I can come up with:
First, I think you are right about the accents. Because the scammers are pretending to be Americans (possessing credit cards of Americans) they would have a harder time on the phone, with their accents. Also, the call is free, as best as I can tell. Finally, I think there is the additional degree of anonymity, because there is no call to trace. I can only conclude that these advantages outweigh the unusual nature of the relay call.
Do not be so harsh, I think he got the copyright issue essentially right.
I am also not saying that the networks are right, but you have to realize that watching a television show is not the same as buying a book or a poster. I believe your only license is to watch the show, not to make any permanent recording. The complaint alleges that the copying of a broadcast in such a way as to delete commercials violates fair use.
This is not a completely unreasonable claim, as theoretically, you would have to make a fair use argument as soon as you make that copy. Paramount says that replaying the show from the recording you made, to yourself and whoever happens to be in the room, without the commercials, falls outside of the fair use provisions.
By the way, the distribution claim is the second claim made in the complaint. The commercial skipping issue is the first claim.
Slashdot Mirror
They only need to sell about 1000.
Please, no one goes to msnbc.com and the only people that visit msn.com are those who do not know how or care to change their IE home page. I do not see how this really even affected Opera to any great degree.
Couldn't the fact that the dinosaur was killed in a different spot on the ground affect history just as much? Who knows how many butterflies it crushed when it fell, and how many other butterflies it failed to crush a few yards away? I cannot believe he safari company did not think of this, as they went to extremes to preserve history in every other way. Things like this really bother me, as you can tell.
Your first proposal is way too complex. If we are going to overhaul something, it should not require any additional tweaking, such as using whitelists. Your second proposal places a great deal of power and trust (and additional revenue) in the hands of the Certificate Authorities. People like running their own mail servers without having to pay for certificates, which can run $100 per year or more.
New.net does this, however I do not know if they are making a killing.
That being said, the goals of keeping customers satisfied and ensuring future revenues are always related. Every business venture has a selfish side, and Microsoft is no exception. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" concept probably explains it best.
However, I think his issue is that he wants to run XP on a different computer, which is not a$WÃed under the OEM license.
Let me get this straight - you had a friend, who had a sister, who had a cousin. . .
I am particularly pleased the government is charging the guy for unauthorized relay. As shocked as he may be at the visit from authorities, I am sure his victims were equally shocked when they discovered that hundreds of thousands of emails were being relayed through their servers.
It does not matter if the recording is for personal viewing or for distribution. You still do not have a license to record the movie. Your ticket gives your the right to watch the movie once in that theater at that time, and that is all.
First, I think you are right about the accents. Because the scammers are pretending to be Americans (possessing credit cards of Americans) they would have a harder time on the phone, with their accents. Also, the call is free, as best as I can tell. Finally, I think there is the additional degree of anonymity, because there is no call to trace. I can only conclude that these advantages outweigh the unusual nature of the relay call.
Watching - no. Taping - yes. Copyright laws apply whether or not you agree to them.
You did not purchase the recording of a TV show. Your only license it to watch it.
I am also not saying that the networks are right, but you have to realize that watching a television show is not the same as buying a book or a poster. I believe your only license is to watch the show, not to make any permanent recording. The complaint alleges that the copying of a broadcast in such a way as to delete commercials violates fair use.
This is not a completely unreasonable claim, as theoretically, you would have to make a fair use argument as soon as you make that copy. Paramount says that replaying the show from the recording you made, to yourself and whoever happens to be in the room, without the commercials, falls outside of the fair use provisions.
By the way, the distribution claim is the second claim made in the complaint. The commercial skipping issue is the first claim.