Betamax failed depite technical superiority because VHS offered better:
1) Total maximum capacity of the individual tapes (Which mattered when blank tapes were $25 each in 1980)
2) Availability of rental titles
3) Cost of record/playback machines
To watch a movie in peace you have to go to the 10:00 showing on a Monday night. And you better bring a bag of cash to buy the tickets.
The last movie I saw at the the theater, was the final Harry Potter. I took my kids and after tickets, a barrel of popcorn, a pretzel and a bucket of flat cola, I was out $50. Throughout the entire movie I kept getting an annoying bright blue light shining in my face every three minutes by some jerk who couldn't wait until the movie was over to answer his texts, or update his Facebook or whatever. A 50 inch plasma costs less than 11 trips to the theater and you can rent the blue ray for $1 from Redbox. I don't need to see the crap the day it hits the theater anymore.
Hey----Why not just LOGIN to the internet. So if you pirate something or say something stupid it is ON YOUR ACCOUNT. It DOES NOT punish the rest of us.
It's funny that you claim the photo was "copied" and then talk about how it was not copied by describing the differences between the two. It is crazy to extend copyright scope over the subject elements for a photo in such a famous location. This case all boils down to a common post processing technique and a pissed off former licensor.
And copyright scope is independent of the intentions and purposes of the "infringer." Don't let anger or disgust color your judgment of whether or not a particular work is considered infringing. That is the crux of the whole matter. The subject elements were not particularly original, nor was the processing technique. Being pissed off because somebody decided to make their own work instead of paying somebody else for theirs is not a valid method to judge infringement.
This the heart of why this decision is so wrong. The original "creator" did not create the subject matter elements of the photograph any more than anybody else who has ever photographed Big Ben or a city bus. To use your "cover song" analogy, this would be equivalent of recording a songbird and claiming nobody else could do the same. It is insane on its own merits.
As technology reduces the costs and accessibility of quality photography and processing, the value of any individual photo is bound to decrease. Any photo that has common subject matter can no longer develop the value of one that cannot be recreated except by direct copying. This suit is all about someone pissed off that their cash cow was bypassed by someone who decided to roll their own.
First, I think you mean clean room implementation, not clean box.
Second, the purpose is to avoid having the implementation engineers accidentally reusing some of the original sources. The separation is not legally required. It just boosts legal defenses if the original creator decides to sue.
Are you trying to argue that I may not take my own photograph and use it just because it looks "a lot like the original?" You must be nuts if you think any photographer has innate rights over a theme or a style just because they took a photo. As has been pointed out many times, the subject matter and the post processing were not original. The fact that the photo was taken to "circumvent" paying license fees is absolutely irrelevant. This decision is bad. There are no two ways about it.
Don't know how much training you've had in UK law, but for now I'm going to assume that he has a better grasp than you. No offence intended.
I would assert that "training" and education does not prevent someone from being a dumbass and making poor decisions, even in their field of expertise. I would suspect that this judge wanted to punish New English Teas for their (IMHO) reasonable effort to avoid incurring royalties and worked backward to justify the decision he had already established.
As was pointed out in TFA comments, the "copy" was the more interesting photo anyway. And the artistic elements were not particularly original.
Since when does your right to "fly on a plane without being subjected to a thorough search" outweigh my right to "fly on an airplane with a reasonable certainty that the homicidal maniacs on board are NOT armed"?
That would be the minute that the Federal Government authorizes non-warrant searches that include choosing between grabbing a fistful of my nards or irradiation. I would be tickled pink for you to purchase your tickets from Full Monty Airlines where you and your craven ilk can drop your boxers completely for that extra ounce of your security illusion. I will be happy to take my chances on an airline with pre 9/11 security searches. I feel safe enough with reinforced cockpit doors.
Let the customer decide how much "security" he is willing to pay for/put up with.
I'm Jewish. Everyone hates us. It's just part of life.:)
Not everyone.;-)
I have to admit that I find Jewish hatred confusing. Are we supposed to hate you because you are good businessmen? Help me out here, I just don't get it...
Those $150 books will be the death of textbook publishing companies. Most of my masters level classes are flexible about the edition of the textbook. One of my classes this quarter requires a book that costs $166 brand new through amazon. I bought the one-year-old prior edition in "like new" condition for $6.83 with free shipping through Amazon Prime. My other class required a free/libre text through Flat World Knowledge's open source books. My grand total for this quarter: $6.83.
In prior quarters I ordered "international" editions of required texts from India for 20% - 50% of the cost of US editions. Once or twice, I might have acquired scanned PDFs from questionable sources. If publishers had been reasonable, I would have purchased new through the university bookstore. If publishers want to play the textbook treadmill game with students, we can play the game back. And guess what? Professors and instructors are savvy to the racket and try to make reasonable accommodations to reduce student gouging. The model publishers use is not sustainable in the long term.
When your own customers hate your guts and only give you money because they have no other choice, the market is ripe for a legitimate competitor.
Is it economic theft when a worker receives his layoff notice?
Your supply/demand theory fails because the marginal cost falls to near zero after the first unit is produced. Copyright is rent seeking behavior entirely supported by enforcement of law. Unfortunately the law does not have universal or (possibly) even popular support. Instead of recognizing that the system cannot work in its current form, rent seekers press for greater and greater control and penalties. This creates greater and greater backlash. Their war is already lost, but copyright holders don't yet realize it. An entire generation, perhaps two, flout copyright. Hardliners grow ever more frustrated, angry, and vindictive trying to ruin the lives of those few they pursue over a few songs or a movie that retails for a few dollars. All the while, kids, teens, and young adults don't see a problem with sharing. Hell, I've seen seventy year olds jumping on the band wagon.
You sir, have hit the nail on the head. The copyright apologist sector has attempted and occasionally succeeded in brainwashing the public in thinking that "creative works" authors and their children and their grandchildren somehow deserve compensation in perpetuity for a one time effort. In fact, it is somehow so important that they are willing to wish bankruptcy on those who disagree with their position and do not wish to participate in its madness. It is not coincidental that there is such a backlash against it. GoDaddy suffered enough in their business that they had to retract their support for more insanity in the copyright laws.
There will always be the button down, law-and-order types that support any law regardless of popular support, but copyright is becoming like the speeding laws of the new millennium.
No, it ensures valuable copyrights will last longer.
That's the whole point. There are untold millions of works that are tied up in copyright that are inaccessible due to the fact that nobody know who owns the copyrights. The works are not economically exploitable under the current copyright system. If a work is valuable, let them profit from it for a reasonable amount of time. If it is not, let it fall into the public domain and maybe someone else can profit from it or just enjoy it without fear of lawsuits.
Besides, under the current system there is no realistic cutoff date for copyright. Disney may hold rights for 30 years under a progressive system like described, but they won't do it for 40. As it currently stands, they hold rights indefinitely for almost no cost at all.
Copyright is a matter for the copyright holder. It should be up to them what they do with their rights.
That kind of thinking is how we ended up with this mess. If the copyright holders have their preferences, we would have no public domain at all. Ever wonder why there is such widespread disregard and disgust for the current copyright system? Copyright holders have been getting their way.
I always thought that when the balance was not available meant that the ATM was out of paper. It's the only time I don't get a receipt. I have my profile set to automatically generate a receipt.
And when demand drops for those $600 phones as customers have to pay the upfront cost, maybe the prices will drop accordingly. I would personally love to see a system where cell companies could not sell/profit on the handsets themselves. Service and handset costs might hit a "normal" equilibrium where tightwads can buy a cheap phone and get inexpensive service, while gadget freaks can buy their latest iPhone and pay for monthly service, not a mortgage on the phone.
As much as I would have liked to hurt her for the pain she caused me and our children, it was not the smart thing to do. I am much better off financially with the path I chose. When you do an objective cost analysis, I came out way ahead. I am also not spending more money on lawyers trying to get the dissolution amended when she refused to pay support. Besides, she is the mother of my kids and they have been through enough. I would rather them not hate their dad for grinding her into the ground even though I would have liked to.
As for failure to pay, I was on the grand jury a couple years ago and we regularly heard cases for it. It only takes six months of no attempt to pay. They were serious about enforcement. We saw no women indicted, but situations like mine are pretty rare.
I'm sure something in your constitution protects the freedom to walk around, but you still put some criminals in jail.
No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Emphasis mine. The question is whether or not the defined freedom of speech, which is arguably one of the most important as it is enumerated only after freedom of religion in the bill of rights, is trumped by someone's right to not be "harassed" by someone saying something she doesn't like to her friends, family, and coworkers.
Jesus! In my state, when you file for divorce, it is required that both parties submit a statement of expenses, income, and net worth. Child support is calculated objectively based upon that. There is even a state minimum mandate.
When I filed on my ex (who ran off and left me with the kids) I negotiated down to the state minimum in exchange for keeping her hooks out of my retirement savings. She admitted to me when she got the numbers from the court that she would never pay a penny if I pressed the issue. For me it was a win, because I knew she would have disappeared afterwards. With the state minimum, she pays $50 per month per kid and she keeps her state nursing license and stays employed. The real benefit will come in a few years when I can start collecting my pension and I won't have to divide it with her. I will be young enough to move on to another job and I should be financially secure for the rest of my life.
Slashdot Mirror
Betamax failed depite technical superiority because VHS offered better:
1) Total maximum capacity of the individual tapes (Which mattered when blank tapes were $25 each in 1980)
2) Availability of rental titles
3) Cost of record/playback machines
To watch a movie in peace you have to go to the 10:00 showing on a Monday night. And you better bring a bag of cash to buy the tickets.
The last movie I saw at the the theater, was the final Harry Potter. I took my kids and after tickets, a barrel of popcorn, a pretzel and a bucket of flat cola, I was out $50. Throughout the entire movie I kept getting an annoying bright blue light shining in my face every three minutes by some jerk who couldn't wait until the movie was over to answer his texts, or update his Facebook or whatever. A 50 inch plasma costs less than 11 trips to the theater and you can rent the blue ray for $1 from Redbox. I don't need to see the crap the day it hits the theater anymore.
Well said, Anonymous Coward
It's funny that you claim the photo was "copied" and then talk about how it was not copied by describing the differences between the two. It is crazy to extend copyright scope over the subject elements for a photo in such a famous location. This case all boils down to a common post processing technique and a pissed off former licensor.
Don't confuse copyrights with trademarks.
And copyright scope is independent of the intentions and purposes of the "infringer." Don't let anger or disgust color your judgment of whether or not a particular work is considered infringing. That is the crux of the whole matter. The subject elements were not particularly original, nor was the processing technique. Being pissed off because somebody decided to make their own work instead of paying somebody else for theirs is not a valid method to judge infringement.
This the heart of why this decision is so wrong. The original "creator" did not create the subject matter elements of the photograph any more than anybody else who has ever photographed Big Ben or a city bus. To use your "cover song" analogy, this would be equivalent of recording a songbird and claiming nobody else could do the same. It is insane on its own merits.
As technology reduces the costs and accessibility of quality photography and processing, the value of any individual photo is bound to decrease. Any photo that has common subject matter can no longer develop the value of one that cannot be recreated except by direct copying. This suit is all about someone pissed off that their cash cow was bypassed by someone who decided to roll their own.
First, I think you mean clean room implementation, not clean box.
Second, the purpose is to avoid having the implementation engineers accidentally reusing some of the original sources. The separation is not legally required. It just boosts legal defenses if the original creator decides to sue.
Do you have a point?
Are you trying to argue that I may not take my own photograph and use it just because it looks "a lot like the original?" You must be nuts if you think any photographer has innate rights over a theme or a style just because they took a photo. As has been pointed out many times, the subject matter and the post processing were not original. The fact that the photo was taken to "circumvent" paying license fees is absolutely irrelevant. This decision is bad. There are no two ways about it.
I would assert that "training" and education does not prevent someone from being a dumbass and making poor decisions, even in their field of expertise. I would suspect that this judge wanted to punish New English Teas for their (IMHO) reasonable effort to avoid incurring royalties and worked backward to justify the decision he had already established.
As was pointed out in TFA comments, the "copy" was the more interesting photo anyway. And the artistic elements were not particularly original.
That would be the minute that the Federal Government authorizes non-warrant searches that include choosing between grabbing a fistful of my nards or irradiation. I would be tickled pink for you to purchase your tickets from Full Monty Airlines where you and your craven ilk can drop your boxers completely for that extra ounce of your security illusion. I will be happy to take my chances on an airline with pre 9/11 security searches. I feel safe enough with reinforced cockpit doors.
Let the customer decide how much "security" he is willing to pay for/put up with.
Not everyone. ;-)
I have to admit that I find Jewish hatred confusing. Are we supposed to hate you because you are good businessmen? Help me out here, I just don't get it...
Those $150 books will be the death of textbook publishing companies. Most of my masters level classes are flexible about the edition of the textbook. One of my classes this quarter requires a book that costs $166 brand new through amazon. I bought the one-year-old prior edition in "like new" condition for $6.83 with free shipping through Amazon Prime. My other class required a free/libre text through Flat World Knowledge's open source books. My grand total for this quarter: $6.83.
In prior quarters I ordered "international" editions of required texts from India for 20% - 50% of the cost of US editions. Once or twice, I might have acquired scanned PDFs from questionable sources. If publishers had been reasonable, I would have purchased new through the university bookstore. If publishers want to play the textbook treadmill game with students, we can play the game back. And guess what? Professors and instructors are savvy to the racket and try to make reasonable accommodations to reduce student gouging. The model publishers use is not sustainable in the long term.
When your own customers hate your guts and only give you money because they have no other choice, the market is ripe for a legitimate competitor.
The Broken Windows Fallacy was corrected with service pack 2
Is it economic theft when a worker receives his layoff notice?
Your supply/demand theory fails because the marginal cost falls to near zero after the first unit is produced. Copyright is rent seeking behavior entirely supported by enforcement of law. Unfortunately the law does not have universal or (possibly) even popular support. Instead of recognizing that the system cannot work in its current form, rent seekers press for greater and greater control and penalties. This creates greater and greater backlash. Their war is already lost, but copyright holders don't yet realize it. An entire generation, perhaps two, flout copyright. Hardliners grow ever more frustrated, angry, and vindictive trying to ruin the lives of those few they pursue over a few songs or a movie that retails for a few dollars. All the while, kids, teens, and young adults don't see a problem with sharing. Hell, I've seen seventy year olds jumping on the band wagon.
The genie is not going back into the bottle.
You sir, have hit the nail on the head. The copyright apologist sector has attempted and occasionally succeeded in brainwashing the public in thinking that "creative works" authors and their children and their grandchildren somehow deserve compensation in perpetuity for a one time effort. In fact, it is somehow so important that they are willing to wish bankruptcy on those who disagree with their position and do not wish to participate in its madness. It is not coincidental that there is such a backlash against it. GoDaddy suffered enough in their business that they had to retract their support for more insanity in the copyright laws.
There will always be the button down, law-and-order types that support any law regardless of popular support, but copyright is becoming like the speeding laws of the new millennium.
That's the whole point. There are untold millions of works that are tied up in copyright that are inaccessible due to the fact that nobody know who owns the copyrights. The works are not economically exploitable under the current copyright system. If a work is valuable, let them profit from it for a reasonable amount of time. If it is not, let it fall into the public domain and maybe someone else can profit from it or just enjoy it without fear of lawsuits.
Besides, under the current system there is no realistic cutoff date for copyright. Disney may hold rights for 30 years under a progressive system like described, but they won't do it for 40. As it currently stands, they hold rights indefinitely for almost no cost at all.
That kind of thinking is how we ended up with this mess. If the copyright holders have their preferences, we would have no public domain at all. Ever wonder why there is such widespread disregard and disgust for the current copyright system? Copyright holders have been getting their way.
I always thought that when the balance was not available meant that the ATM was out of paper. It's the only time I don't get a receipt. I have my profile set to automatically generate a receipt.
Production costs also include a fixed and variable component. Optimization of profit has to consider both components across the production run.
And when demand drops for those $600 phones as customers have to pay the upfront cost, maybe the prices will drop accordingly. I would personally love to see a system where cell companies could not sell/profit on the handsets themselves. Service and handset costs might hit a "normal" equilibrium where tightwads can buy a cheap phone and get inexpensive service, while gadget freaks can buy their latest iPhone and pay for monthly service, not a mortgage on the phone.
You have made the classic blunder confusing value with price.
As much as I would have liked to hurt her for the pain she caused me and our children, it was not the smart thing to do. I am much better off financially with the path I chose. When you do an objective cost analysis, I came out way ahead. I am also not spending more money on lawyers trying to get the dissolution amended when she refused to pay support. Besides, she is the mother of my kids and they have been through enough. I would rather them not hate their dad for grinding her into the ground even though I would have liked to.
As for failure to pay, I was on the grand jury a couple years ago and we regularly heard cases for it. It only takes six months of no attempt to pay. They were serious about enforcement. We saw no women indicted, but situations like mine are pretty rare.
No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Emphasis mine. The question is whether or not the defined freedom of speech, which is arguably one of the most important as it is enumerated only after freedom of religion in the bill of rights, is trumped by someone's right to not be "harassed" by someone saying something she doesn't like to her friends, family, and coworkers.
Jesus! In my state, when you file for divorce, it is required that both parties submit a statement of expenses, income, and net worth. Child support is calculated objectively based upon that. There is even a state minimum mandate.
When I filed on my ex (who ran off and left me with the kids) I negotiated down to the state minimum in exchange for keeping her hooks out of my retirement savings. She admitted to me when she got the numbers from the court that she would never pay a penny if I pressed the issue. For me it was a win, because I knew she would have disappeared afterwards. With the state minimum, she pays $50 per month per kid and she keeps her state nursing license and stays employed. The real benefit will come in a few years when I can start collecting my pension and I won't have to divide it with her. I will be young enough to move on to another job and I should be financially secure for the rest of my life.
Still hard to get around that quote that the fuser is designed to "dry" that toner/ink. GP is correct. The "journalist" is an idiot.