There have already been plenty of cases that addressed this very issue, with a lot of them coming out on the side of the search engine that's providing the ads.
I'm not entirely sure how you're going to prove trademark infringement. Courts have argued whether Google's use is even commercial, much less if the use has a significant likelihood of confusion (mainly because Google's act of only putting these ads in a sponsored link is usually sufficient for the ordinary user to know that the trademark owner isn't sponsoring these advertisements of competitors.
What about dilution? I see a hard time because the majority of the trademark use is behind the scenes unknown to the user. Unless by typing in one trademark and getting another via sponsored links that's considered dilution by blurring, which I suppose is a possibility.
Just some random thoughts aloud, but I don't think this suit is going pass through. If it does, we might get some interesting new direct case law on the subject though.
I was one of the few people that had the pleasure (or the displeasure) of being at the Library of Congress DMCA hearing room when the MPAA made this ridiculous argument. Suffice to say, I was completely shocked, flabbergasted, and just plain insulted that educators would truly be expected to do something like this in their bizarro world. Nevermind the fact that you would need an HDTV, HD Camcorder, Tripod, good lighting, and tons of time on your hands to manually create compilation clips with your camcorder (as if educators had any free time as it is).
I couldn't tell if the Copyright bigwigs that heard the argument were actually taking it seriously, but I sincerely hope that any appearance of sincerity was simply there for the sake of keeping respect for the hearings.
The one thing that I learned at the hearing was that you have to be fucking crazy in order to be a lawyer on their side. Even I (a soon to be unemployed law school graduate) didn't think that I could make this argument with a straight face even for tons of money.
I highly doubt Apple is making that kind of Copyright claim. Most likely, they're attempting to claim copyright in any software or hardware code that was mentioned in these discussions. Considering the whole issue is about figuring out a way to reengineer the iPod and such to work with non-iTunes programs, they've most likely been having a discussion on the signals that the iPod sends to iTunes and to figure out a method of interpreting them.
The only thing that was arguably be "retroactively disabled" were his subscriptions. He can still read his books that were on the Kindle, and he can still transfer new books onto his Kindle by plugging it in a computer and putting free books from third party sites on there.
As for losing access to archived books. I agree that sucks, but here's an idea: BACK IT UP on your computer. It's as easy as plugging it in and dragging and dropping them all on some folder in your HD.
I'm just more surprised that people here at Slashdot seem to condone this practice of buying big ticket items and then returning them constantly for "defects."
You do know that Amazon has slashed the inflated prices of eBooks, right? A great deal of the new books with a $9.99 price point are being sold at a loss by Amazon. The official price of the books set by the publishers is very similar to the paperback equivalents.
It's still high, yes. But it could be a lot worse.
As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA. Everything that is being asked for is CURRENTLY illegal under the DMCA, regardless of what you or many other wishful thinking nerds believe. I don't understand why asking for these exemptions are a slippery slope -- how can you give up rights that you currently don't have under the law?
Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.
For example, one of the exemptions listed was for Media Film Studies education. The exemption was granted in 2006 and was a boon to that academic industry. This year, they are arguing that their 2006 exemption was so successful and necessary that they are asking to expand the exemption to encompass even more uses. They used clear factual examples, compelling legal arguments, and logic to show the LOC that it is necessary to expand their rights, and I hope that they get it.
To some (or most) these may seem like small potatoes sure, but they're a legitimate foot in the door. The odds of an exemption being granted that simply asks for something as broad as "everything that is under fair-use" is extremely unlikely. But, if we continue to succeed at these exemptions and show Washington that this is where the people are heading, this is what society needs, and these are the reasons why we are having issues, maybe that becomes one more brick in the wall to convince them that the DMCA is not a good idea.
Okay, I don't really understand the big deal about the Press "favoring" Obama throughout the campaign. Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the reason why Obama got more favorable press coverage was because: 1. he didn't fuck up nearly as bad as McCain in all aspects of the campaign and 2. he actually tried to appeal to the people through actions and (admittedly) vague promises of reform and change, which thus led the media to dig deeper into Obama's issues and inform the public of (what would end up being good things) he actually wanted to do?
Hell, even McCain made it a point to focus everything on Obama, forcing the media to give the big O even more press coverage. Every time Obama talked about his plan, his policy, or whatnot, McCain just came back with talking about how Obama's plan was wrong, with little focus on his own plans. Hell, the only time McCain was ever in the news for something he did was some idiotic Palin shit or a gaffe. When both candidates are so focused on the actions of one of them (Palin's issues notwithstanding), of course the press is going to favor one over the other. In addition, when one candidate makes his platform consist of basically nothing but attacks on the other, I think that helps out the press coverage as well.
A MacRumors article has a response from Steve about the lack of Firewire, with his only explanation being that, "All the new HD camcorders have been using USB for the last two years."
Sigh, I'm probably picking up a MBP, but I know plenty of folks that use firewire for things other than camcorders (particularly good external HDs)
Are you telling me that currently, the DHS doesn't have to do any of these simple things that should have been required of them in the first place? This is just a pathetic showing of how out of touch Americans are with their privacy rights and how stupid we are for keeping the regime responsible for this in as long as they have been.
Man, I got into the wrong field, I should have become a border agent so I could my hands on free laptops every day.
So a poorly implemented system justifies individuals giving a presentation to everyone else on how to fuck with the system?
I'm all for free speech, but it seems like there are quite a few other alternatives other than basically making public the flaws in a massive public transportation system. If they really care about security, they should take measures to improve the security with the appropriate authorities.
Now, of course, if they've already tried this and they ignored these students, then I would argue this is the next step to grab their attention, but still.
And I bet you're going to tell us next that DRM isn't for our own good and is just a way for conglomerates to steal more of our money with little effort done on their part. Hah!
This is not new. So please, what's your point? It's a cell phone. You're going to pay close to that for any cellular device. At least they lowered the cost for the device.
The iPod touch is free with an edu purchase. Go pick up one of those.
I didn't think the EFF's site needed any explanation but I'll provide it here for Taco since it was asked for in the summary.
I think this site should win because it's very likely to actually shut down if Patent Reform comes through. However, even if patent reform fails, I think it would be interesting to see what the lobbyists and congressional members do to come up with to try and take them down, because this site is one of the few out there that do a damn good job of calling out the patent trolls. In addition, it's one of the few that make the public aware of what all of us on Slashdot have known all along: that the patent system sucks, and these are the people that take advantage of it.
I whole heartedly agree with you. I find it somewhat disturbing that some in the Anti-DRM crowd are essentially turning this issue into an anti-Copyright issue, which would be a very bad thing for us if Copyright just disappeared, along with all of its rights and protections.
People seem to forget that without some form of Copyright law, a lot (not all) of these artists would just not contribute to culture and community, drastically affecting the way we as a whole evolve and create.
If you worked hard and created music that took a lot of time, money, and effort, wouldn't you want to be compensated in some form by people enjoying the fruits of your labor? I would imagine so. Before you even started working on your music, if you were told that when you were done, there would be no guarantee that you would ever be compensated because there are not laws in place to help you get compensated for this form of art, would you even do it in the first place? If this was your primary way of making a living, I doubt that you would consent, and wouldn't bother putting the effort in in the first place. This is what original Copyright law strives to ensure for these artists.
Unfortunately, I honestly do believe that the vast majority of people would blatantly steal if they had the chance. Does that mean that the music is frivolous because people would rather pay nothing for it? Of course not, people would steal food for free, even if they had the means to pay for it, and I highly doubt food would be considered a frivolous commodity. The psyche of humans, however, is not the point of this comment, so I'll leave that for another time.
You can say all you want about the current regime. I agree, it sucks. I hate the extension acts, I hate the DMCA, and several of the other newer provisions, but that doesn't mean I hate the concept of Copyright, or of Intellectual Property law in general. Folks that do claim to profess hatred for these areas, IMO, really don't understand what they would lose if they're gone.
. . . when you enroll in your institution. The question should be, rather, when universities will put these absurd provisions in your contract before even allowing you to sign up for classes.
Never underestimate the power of the 'coolness' factor. Also, you write off the nicer interface as if its somewhat insignificant. That's the CORE component of any consumer electronic market. The public is going to interact with the most part through the interface, if it sucks, they're not going to spend the time to learn it.
Like it or hate it, you got to admit that the iPhone has a pretty nice interface and it's not too hard to learn. When my mom and aunts, who are in their 40s and not very technologically adept, decided to pick up iPhones and can use them as well as me, you know they're doing something right.
Slashdot Mirror
Pathetic Sony CEO, I bet if a cure for cancer is ever found he'll be lamenting the downfall of companies that specialize in chemotherapy treatments.
There have already been plenty of cases that addressed this very issue, with a lot of them coming out on the side of the search engine that's providing the ads.
I'm not entirely sure how you're going to prove trademark infringement. Courts have argued whether Google's use is even commercial, much less if the use has a significant likelihood of confusion (mainly because Google's act of only putting these ads in a sponsored link is usually sufficient for the ordinary user to know that the trademark owner isn't sponsoring these advertisements of competitors.
What about dilution? I see a hard time because the majority of the trademark use is behind the scenes unknown to the user. Unless by typing in one trademark and getting another via sponsored links that's considered dilution by blurring, which I suppose is a possibility.
Just some random thoughts aloud, but I don't think this suit is going pass through. If it does, we might get some interesting new direct case law on the subject though.
I was one of the few people that had the pleasure (or the displeasure) of being at the Library of Congress DMCA hearing room when the MPAA made this ridiculous argument. Suffice to say, I was completely shocked, flabbergasted, and just plain insulted that educators would truly be expected to do something like this in their bizarro world. Nevermind the fact that you would need an HDTV, HD Camcorder, Tripod, good lighting, and tons of time on your hands to manually create compilation clips with your camcorder (as if educators had any free time as it is).
I couldn't tell if the Copyright bigwigs that heard the argument were actually taking it seriously, but I sincerely hope that any appearance of sincerity was simply there for the sake of keeping respect for the hearings.
The one thing that I learned at the hearing was that you have to be fucking crazy in order to be a lawyer on their side. Even I (a soon to be unemployed law school graduate) didn't think that I could make this argument with a straight face even for tons of money.
I highly doubt Apple is making that kind of Copyright claim. Most likely, they're attempting to claim copyright in any software or hardware code that was mentioned in these discussions. Considering the whole issue is about figuring out a way to reengineer the iPod and such to work with non-iTunes programs, they've most likely been having a discussion on the signals that the iPod sends to iTunes and to figure out a method of interpreting them.
That's what they mean by a copyright claim.
. . . for actually having an exit strategy!
You just want shit for free :D
You want to keep your books? Then don't scam the Amazon's return policy. There, done.
Oh please, stop the FUD already.
The only thing that was arguably be "retroactively disabled" were his subscriptions. He can still read his books that were on the Kindle, and he can still transfer new books onto his Kindle by plugging it in a computer and putting free books from third party sites on there.
As for losing access to archived books. I agree that sucks, but here's an idea: BACK IT UP on your computer. It's as easy as plugging it in and dragging and dropping them all on some folder in your HD.
I'm just more surprised that people here at Slashdot seem to condone this practice of buying big ticket items and then returning them constantly for "defects."
. . . Same as the old Boss.
You do know that Amazon has slashed the inflated prices of eBooks, right? A great deal of the new books with a $9.99 price point are being sold at a loss by Amazon. The official price of the books set by the publishers is very similar to the paperback equivalents.
It's still high, yes. But it could be a lot worse.
Dude, I don't you get it.
As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA. Everything that is being asked for is CURRENTLY illegal under the DMCA, regardless of what you or many other wishful thinking nerds believe. I don't understand why asking for these exemptions are a slippery slope -- how can you give up rights that you currently don't have under the law?
Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.
For example, one of the exemptions listed was for Media Film Studies education. The exemption was granted in 2006 and was a boon to that academic industry. This year, they are arguing that their 2006 exemption was so successful and necessary that they are asking to expand the exemption to encompass even more uses. They used clear factual examples, compelling legal arguments, and logic to show the LOC that it is necessary to expand their rights, and I hope that they get it.
To some (or most) these may seem like small potatoes sure, but they're a legitimate foot in the door. The odds of an exemption being granted that simply asks for something as broad as "everything that is under fair-use" is extremely unlikely. But, if we continue to succeed at these exemptions and show Washington that this is where the people are heading, this is what society needs, and these are the reasons why we are having issues, maybe that becomes one more brick in the wall to convince them that the DMCA is not a good idea.
Okay, I don't really understand the big deal about the Press "favoring" Obama throughout the campaign. Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the reason why Obama got more favorable press coverage was because: 1. he didn't fuck up nearly as bad as McCain in all aspects of the campaign and 2. he actually tried to appeal to the people through actions and (admittedly) vague promises of reform and change, which thus led the media to dig deeper into Obama's issues and inform the public of (what would end up being good things) he actually wanted to do?
Hell, even McCain made it a point to focus everything on Obama, forcing the media to give the big O even more press coverage. Every time Obama talked about his plan, his policy, or whatnot, McCain just came back with talking about how Obama's plan was wrong, with little focus on his own plans. Hell, the only time McCain was ever in the news for something he did was some idiotic Palin shit or a gaffe. When both candidates are so focused on the actions of one of them (Palin's issues notwithstanding), of course the press is going to favor one over the other. In addition, when one candidate makes his platform consist of basically nothing but attacks on the other, I think that helps out the press coverage as well.
A MacRumors article has a response from Steve about the lack of Firewire, with his only explanation being that, "All the new HD camcorders have been using USB for the last two years."
Sigh, I'm probably picking up a MBP, but I know plenty of folks that use firewire for things other than camcorders (particularly good external HDs)
Are you telling me that currently, the DHS doesn't have to do any of these simple things that should have been required of them in the first place? This is just a pathetic showing of how out of touch Americans are with their privacy rights and how stupid we are for keeping the regime responsible for this in as long as they have been.
Man, I got into the wrong field, I should have become a border agent so I could my hands on free laptops every day.
Quick! Someone hide kdawson!
So a poorly implemented system justifies individuals giving a presentation to everyone else on how to fuck with the system?
I'm all for free speech, but it seems like there are quite a few other alternatives other than basically making public the flaws in a massive public transportation system. If they really care about security, they should take measures to improve the security with the appropriate authorities.
Now, of course, if they've already tried this and they ignored these students, then I would argue this is the next step to grab their attention, but still.
And I bet you're going to tell us next that DRM isn't for our own good and is just a way for conglomerates to steal more of our money with little effort done on their part. Hah!
This is not new. So please, what's your point? It's a cell phone. You're going to pay close to that for any cellular device. At least they lowered the cost for the device.
The iPod touch is free with an edu purchase. Go pick up one of those.
I didn't think the EFF's site needed any explanation but I'll provide it here for Taco since it was asked for in the summary.
I think this site should win because it's very likely to actually shut down if Patent Reform comes through. However, even if patent reform fails, I think it would be interesting to see what the lobbyists and congressional members do to come up with to try and take them down, because this site is one of the few out there that do a damn good job of calling out the patent trolls. In addition, it's one of the few that make the public aware of what all of us on Slashdot have known all along: that the patent system sucks, and these are the people that take advantage of it.
Of course in the body I meant busting, and not busing, but oh well. At least I got the title right!
The EFF's Patent Busing Project.
Or has it been shut down already?
Don't tell that to Richard Stallman. I wonder how many 'fundamentalists' he alienated by saying that.
I whole heartedly agree with you. I find it somewhat disturbing that some in the Anti-DRM crowd are essentially turning this issue into an anti-Copyright issue, which would be a very bad thing for us if Copyright just disappeared, along with all of its rights and protections.
People seem to forget that without some form of Copyright law, a lot (not all) of these artists would just not contribute to culture and community, drastically affecting the way we as a whole evolve and create.
If you worked hard and created music that took a lot of time, money, and effort, wouldn't you want to be compensated in some form by people enjoying the fruits of your labor? I would imagine so. Before you even started working on your music, if you were told that when you were done, there would be no guarantee that you would ever be compensated because there are not laws in place to help you get compensated for this form of art, would you even do it in the first place? If this was your primary way of making a living, I doubt that you would consent, and wouldn't bother putting the effort in in the first place. This is what original Copyright law strives to ensure for these artists.
Unfortunately, I honestly do believe that the vast majority of people would blatantly steal if they had the chance. Does that mean that the music is frivolous because people would rather pay nothing for it? Of course not, people would steal food for free, even if they had the means to pay for it, and I highly doubt food would be considered a frivolous commodity. The psyche of humans, however, is not the point of this comment, so I'll leave that for another time.
You can say all you want about the current regime. I agree, it sucks. I hate the extension acts, I hate the DMCA, and several of the other newer provisions, but that doesn't mean I hate the concept of Copyright, or of Intellectual Property law in general. Folks that do claim to profess hatred for these areas, IMO, really don't understand what they would lose if they're gone.
. . . when you enroll in your institution. The question should be, rather, when universities will put these absurd provisions in your contract before even allowing you to sign up for classes.
Never underestimate the power of the 'coolness' factor. Also, you write off the nicer interface as if its somewhat insignificant. That's the CORE component of any consumer electronic market. The public is going to interact with the most part through the interface, if it sucks, they're not going to spend the time to learn it.
Like it or hate it, you got to admit that the iPhone has a pretty nice interface and it's not too hard to learn. When my mom and aunts, who are in their 40s and not very technologically adept, decided to pick up iPhones and can use them as well as me, you know they're doing something right.