I did not say a shady demeanor justified physical force. I said it made them suspicious (weary was the word I used). So, because the cops are tired of people with shady demeanors its ok to beat them?
What do SMS messages have to do with ring tones? Your phone has bluetooth right? SMS/MMS is the method by which ringtones and other data is delivered to t-mobile phones that do not have ip connectivity. No it does not have bluetooth. Nor does it play mp3s. Do you think it's possible that I might have researched how ringtones are delivered to my phone, actually know the way the system works, and just want a helpful answer to the question asked?
Anyone know how to get a silent ringtone on a t-mobile phone?
I've looked into the normal SMS format (basically prefix the content of the message with a "port number" that defines what kind of data follows) but apparently t-mobile screws with incoming messages and puts a header on them, causing the port number to be treated like normal text.
While I would reluctantly pay a few bucks for a truly silent ringtone, I don't want to use one of those 3rd party services that will sell you ringtones because I don't trust that they won't just resell my info and cell phone number to more junk-callers and who knows what other scummy types.
It's especially not acceptable if you're not even necessarily committing a crime (seizing all server logs of all people using a torrent when only some of them are sharing copyrighted information over it). "Many people in group X are criminals, thus we're pulling all information on group X" is absolutely not acceptable. Imagine if the argument was "Many people in this housing project are involved with drugs. So we're demanding complete phone taps for everyone that lives there and we'll decide who's a criminal once we have that." Sadly, this attitude seems to becoming more commonplace - read about the bizarre yet true case of the federal IMBRA law, recently upheld in court.
The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games. This has been tested in court. But not in the way you think.
We hold that Motorola and STATS have not unlawfully misappropriated NBA's property by transmitting "real-time" NBA game scores and statistics taken from television and radio broadcasts of games in progress. The National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc. The only difference here is that Moto was using 2nd-hand information and the blogger was using 1st-hand. You might try to argue that 1st-hand vs 2nd-hand makes a whole world of difference, but the end result is exactly the same in either case.
Cue all the responses claiming "well someone could have broken into their arch-nemesis's computer to frame them" in 3..2..1.. Who needs to break in?
If the only difference between your copy of an itunes song and your arch-nemesis's copy is name and email address, then just take your copy, change the name and email address to his and then put it up on every p2p site out there.
After all, if he is your arch-nemesis then you probably know him well enough to make a good guess as to what music they like. Even if you guess wrong, if the MAFIAA is doing enforcement, they are so sloppy they probably won't check with Apple to see if your arch-nemesis actually purchased the songs in the first place.
I thought this was common knowledge but besides that I don't see a problem. There is cost associated with getting a production from distribution center to store and of course store overhead -- why not pay more. Well, for one thing, BBY allows you order via the web and choose "in-store pickup" for the same price minus all shipping costs. So what's the difference between ordering it online and picking it up (where you must present your credit card for identification and payment) versus just picking it up and presenting your credit card for payment?
They built a complete internal web site that looked identical to their other one. Not only does it look identical, but their internal DNS has www.bestbuy.com mapped to this alternate server. From the outside, the alternate server is just a few numbers off from the 'normal' address, but it won't service any requests from outside the BBY intranet. I have not had the chance to go into a store and type in the numeric IP address of the real outside server to see if that works.
That's all relatively unimportant, though. Sounds like you aren't a lawyer. If you want to use sloppy language in legislation, don't be surprised when you get those unexpected side-effects. The lawyers have it easy enough arguing over fairly precise language, when you start claiming rights where there are none, you are just guaranteeing full employment for the profession.
First, people like to pay for something before they have any idea whether or not it's going to be any good. Unfortunately, the only (effective) way to do that is for works to be produced first, then paid for by the people who like them. And that's only marginally effective, As you note, the current system is only marginally effective. However, you neglected to mention that even beyond the opinions of critics and peers, the biggest determinant of a production's success is the reputation of those involved. Why do you think Hollywood pays big name actors ridiculous amounts of money? Because their reputation brings in the crowds. The idea of internet patronage works exactly the same way - the director, the writer, the performers, the production house all have reputations based on their prior work. The quality of those reputations will directly determine how large of a purchasing pool and thus how much money they can reasonably expect to get paid for their next work.
Further, what you're describing is essentially the government; Baloney. The government takes taxes by force and spends it on whatever it wants to with only a marginal amount of control by the tax payers. Internet patronage takes no money by force, no one is required to pay for the production of works artists they don't like. If you dislike Andres Serrano's previous work there is would be nothing at all requiring you to pay for his future works.
If anything, internet patronage is more of a free market system than the current copyright-based one because the government does not get involved in enforcing a monopoly.
Moreover, there could be no wildly successful products, because the product is already paid for at a set rate before it's made. No, what you mean is that there will be no SURPRISE money-makers. If something is popular it will be spread far and wide and the creator will have a much larger buyer pool for his next work. That translates into making lots of money based on the successes of previous work.
Prosper.com is a perfect example of this: Actually it's not. Prosper.com asks people to risk hundreds, usually thousands of dollars. Internet patronage requires no more risk than the price of a movie ticket and potentially much less. People routinely blow $10 on questionable movies and music, based on no more than flashy marketing and the reputations of the creators. Hell, with a good escrow system, they could even earn interest on their money instead of completely throwing it away on a bad movie.
'Entitled' is strong language. And meant to be. The public domain has been pushed back so far that most people forget it and that it represents a return the natural state.
And yes, I did think there was a good chance that you were mistaken on that point. I mean, have you seen teh internets? Sorry if I bit your head off, I'm just far, far more used to people forgetting the public domain, I can't recall ever seeing anyone overstating its importance. So I don't expect to mistaken for such a person either.
Hiding behind the US Consitituion does you no favours in this debate. Will Americans PLEASE get it into their heads that NATIONAL LAWS ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL. Oh grow up. Freedom of expression is at least officially recognized by just about every government in the world. China was even one of the 8 countries on the drafting committee for the universal declaration of human rights which (obviously) includes the freedom of expression and does not include copyright.
Your original comment makes no distinction whatsoever between creation and publication. No duh. I expected that anyone honestly interested in the debate rather than just scoring grammar-flame quality points would understand that. It's not like anyone else was talking about unpublished works, nor does the legal concept of the public domain apply to unpublished works.
I mean, did you seriously think I was mistaken on that point? Is it necessary that each post provide full literal detail of all baseline concepts? Is it so unreasonable to assume at least a moderate level of basic knowledge? Especially when half the prior posts were one-liners that were just themselves abstractions of well worn points in the debate?
Copyright and other intellectual property mechanisms exist to promote the sharing of novel and other valuable works. Passage into public domain is in exchange for protection, not some natural state of things. No now you are being insane. Public domain is PRECISELY the natural state of things. Freedom of expression is a natural right, copyright is defined as a temporary exception to that right. It certainly is not a natural right on its own.
Meanwhile, wrt your point about not publishing the work prevents it from entering the public domain. Well, no effing duh. Yer a bril genius with that. If you don't show the creation to anyone else, it really doesn't matter now does it? It's like the tree falling in the forest, no one cares.
OK, so how were those movies in the public domain? You know that phrase - PUBLIC DOMAIN - has a SPECIFIC legal meaning. And your attempt to make up your own definition doesn't cut it. What movies? The post I was responding to said "hard work" to which I qualified as being the "results of that hard work" -- eventually all such results enter the public domain. Thus we are all entitled to them.
Hey I'm so glad you have agreed to commission my upcoming movie. What's your paypal ID? Just like any other artist working on commission, you have to sell your customer on the idea.
Let's hear your sales pitch - what's the plotline, who do you expect to star and direct, who is the writer, do you have examples of previous productions? If your pitch is good enough I'll paypal $10 to your escrow account.
Wonderful! So what's the URL for EVERY SINGLE THING you've EVER written? All of it - it's public domain, right? Hey, if you can find the URLs in google, go for it. Being in the public domain also means the author has no other obligations with respect to the work either.
You're trying to weasel out of your own point. If I -can- do it then by gum I will. Your fault if you have glass windows instead of steel shutters. The US Constitution guarantees the natural right of freedom of expression. Theft of real property is not a natural right.
what do you do when people simply dont intend to pay for something that took alot of cash to make to begin with Work only on commission. That way you get paid before it is possible to "pirate" the creation. The internet is great at distributing information in the form of media, it ought to be great at distributing information in the form of debts too, making the pooling of commissions by groups of millions of patrons feasible to pay for even the most crazy expensive productions.
But, most importantly, Section 17 doesn't grant individual purchasers ANY RIGHTS. This is worth pointing out to those who believe that copyright is some sort of natural right. Title 17 is almost completely about taking away rights from the public at large and giving them to specific individuals.
When expressed that way, it makes it clearer that "fair use" is not a right, it is an exception to when the government can take away your natural right to freedom of expression and give it a copyright owner.
Slashdot Mirror
While I would reluctantly pay a few bucks for a truly silent ringtone...
Anyone know how to get a silent ringtone on a t-mobile phone?
I've looked into the normal SMS format (basically prefix the content of the message with a "port number" that defines what kind of data follows) but apparently t-mobile screws with incoming messages and puts a header on them, causing the port number to be treated like normal text.
While I would reluctantly pay a few bucks for a truly silent ringtone, I don't want to use one of those 3rd party services that will sell you ringtones because I don't trust that they won't just resell my info and cell phone number to more junk-callers and who knows what other scummy types.
The National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc. The only difference here is that Moto was using 2nd-hand information and the blogger was using 1st-hand. You might try to argue that 1st-hand vs 2nd-hand makes a whole world of difference, but the end result is exactly the same in either case.
Just delete the timestamps, it only makes him look more guilty like he tried to clear out the identifying info and only got part of it.
If the only difference between your copy of an itunes song and your arch-nemesis's copy is name and email address, then just take your copy, change the name and email address to his and then put it up on every p2p site out there.
After all, if he is your arch-nemesis then you probably know him well enough to make a good guess as to what music they like. Even if you guess wrong, if the MAFIAA is doing enforcement, they are so sloppy they probably won't check with Apple to see if your arch-nemesis actually purchased the songs in the first place.
If anything, internet patronage is more of a free market system than the current copyright-based one because the government does not get involved in enforcing a monopoly. Moreover, there could be no wildly successful products, because the product is already paid for at a set rate before it's made. No, what you mean is that there will be no SURPRISE money-makers. If something is popular it will be spread far and wide and the creator will have a much larger buyer pool for his next work. That translates into making lots of money based on the successes of previous work. Prosper.com is a perfect example of this: Actually it's not. Prosper.com asks people to risk hundreds, usually thousands of dollars. Internet patronage requires no more risk than the price of a movie ticket and potentially much less. People routinely blow $10 on questionable movies and music, based on no more than flashy marketing and the reputations of the creators. Hell, with a good escrow system, they could even earn interest on their money instead of completely throwing it away on a bad movie.
You: I think "IANAL" is probably one of the most respectable things someone can say.
What about people who say, "IORAL?"
Personally, I'm really found of those who claim, "IVAGINAL."
Will Americans PLEASE get it into their heads that NATIONAL LAWS ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL. Oh grow up. Freedom of expression is at least officially recognized by just about every government in the world. China was even one of the 8 countries on the drafting committee for the universal declaration of human rights which (obviously) includes the freedom of expression and does not include copyright.
I mean, did you seriously think I was mistaken on that point? Is it necessary that each post provide full literal detail of all baseline concepts? Is it so unreasonable to assume at least a moderate level of basic knowledge? Especially when half the prior posts were one-liners that were just themselves abstractions of well worn points in the debate?
Meanwhile, wrt your point about not publishing the work prevents it from entering the public domain. Well, no effing duh. Yer a bril genius with that. If you don't show the creation to anyone else, it really doesn't matter now does it? It's like the tree falling in the forest, no one cares.
Let's hear your sales pitch - what's the plotline, who do you expect to star and direct, who is the writer, do you have examples of previous productions? If your pitch is good enough I'll paypal $10 to your escrow account.
Being in the public domain also means the author has no other obligations with respect to the work either.
It's called the public domain.
When expressed that way, it makes it clearer that "fair use" is not a right, it is an exception to when the government can take away your natural right to freedom of expression and give it a copyright owner.