The irony to me is that Google's applications are what caused the Play Store to be dominant, not the other way around. #2 does seem like an issue to me, #3 is also an issue with possible caveats around confusion e.g. Samsung might confuse sell a Galaxy S10X which doesn't include Google services..
I'd be curious to hear from someone developing products, but I have to imagine at this point Samsung already knows exactly what the S10 will launch as. 6-months doesn't seem like a whole lot of time to create an assembly line, produce tooling, training, secure supply chain, and start stockpiling phones for launch.
How do you know this inexpensive device isn't doing the same exact thing? Its manufacturer can hife behind a EULA too, can't it?
They may, but they also can't get the full picture unless the only thing you do is stream through the device. Further, barring Roku the other devices are also tied to content providers who already know what you're watching.
There are plenty of inexpensive devices one can use for streaming, there is no reason to allow your smart TV to connect to the internet.
The real issue is that manufacturers are hiding their bad behaviour in vague EULA language (or just not disclosing it, e.g. Vizio), if they had to be upfront and disclose "We are going to track what you watch and sell this information to third parties" there would big significant consumer pushback.
The government is only half the problem, we had an article this week about malls tracking license plates and selling that data, no reason to expect that very soon they won't be doing the same using facial recognition.
China made 90.6% of all PCs produced in 2011 [theatlantic.com]. (Most recent number I could find in a quick search.) If your software doesn't work on them, who has more incentive to "fix" it?
Largely for non-Chinese companies exported. While Chinese companies may be able to get away domestically with using stolen IP they won't be able to export infringing products to the west.
Yeah, "app stores" existed before the iPhone, but who the fuck used them? To deny that Apple completely changed the landscape with the iPhone and the App Store and how it operates is more revisionist than anything.
A huge portion of the cell phone users bought ring tones, there were very successful games like Bejeweled as well.
Last year Waymo averaged 5600-mi requiring an intervention. The average american drives 13k miles a year, would you feel safe knowing it your car may crash 2-3x a year? Are they even actively driving in known problem areas or are they keeping to easy areas?
Not only is this revisionist, in that Apple is far from the first device or operating system to have its own app store, its also a terrible thing for users and developers.
Seems very optimistic to even have real safe autonomous cars on the road let alone have these features down to standard cars. The first cars with collision avoidance braking were available 15-years ago and its pretty much only in the last year where they have been standard on typical cars from some manufacturers.
From the description of statutory damages it sounds to me the infringer of a non-registered work would still be liable for damages calculated on the dgree of harm to the plaintiff instead of those defined in the law.
People aren't entirely likely to notice ads without having some reason (e.g. just having talked about it)
Pretty much this, people are wired to look for coincidences. Another possibility is that people you know are talking about similar topics via Facebook and FB's advertising considers the social network.
Unless you're an extremely large company you probably don't have your own data center so you're beholden to your colo, and could have any number of issues there too.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony to me is that Google's applications are what caused the Play Store to be dominant, not the other way around. #2 does seem like an issue to me, #3 is also an issue with possible caveats around confusion e.g. Samsung might confuse sell a Galaxy S10X which doesn't include Google services..
Not really since image searches are an entirely different sort of use than news stories. I think this would likely be the relevant fair use clause:
(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Why do you need your smart tv connected to the internet to watch terrestrial tv?
Hi customer service, I lost my 2 factor device can you remove it from my account. k thx bye.
The submitter also the author, as a spammer he's just trying to get people to click through.
Metal isn't a good material for laptops, just look at all the macbooks with dented edges.
I'd be curious to hear from someone developing products, but I have to imagine at this point Samsung already knows exactly what the S10 will launch as. 6-months doesn't seem like a whole lot of time to create an assembly line, produce tooling, training, secure supply chain, and start stockpiling phones for launch.
How do you know this inexpensive device isn't doing the same exact thing? Its manufacturer can hife behind a EULA too, can't it?
They may, but they also can't get the full picture unless the only thing you do is stream through the device. Further, barring Roku the other devices are also tied to content providers who already know what you're watching.
I guess if you don't know how to work a Chromecast, Roku, Apple TV or FireStick that might be an option for you AC.
There are plenty of inexpensive devices one can use for streaming, there is no reason to allow your smart TV to connect to the internet.
The real issue is that manufacturers are hiding their bad behaviour in vague EULA language (or just not disclosing it, e.g. Vizio), if they had to be upfront and disclose "We are going to track what you watch and sell this information to third parties" there would big significant consumer pushback.
The government is only half the problem, we had an article this week about malls tracking license plates and selling that data, no reason to expect that very soon they won't be doing the same using facial recognition.
China made 90.6% of all PCs produced in 2011 [theatlantic.com]. (Most recent number I could find in a quick search.) If your software doesn't work on them, who has more incentive to "fix" it?
Largely for non-Chinese companies exported. While Chinese companies may be able to get away domestically with using stolen IP they won't be able to export infringing products to the west.
Yeah, "app stores" existed before the iPhone, but who the fuck used them? To deny that Apple completely changed the landscape with the iPhone and the App Store and how it operates is more revisionist than anything.
A huge portion of the cell phone users bought ring tones, there were very successful games like Bejeweled as well.
Last year Waymo averaged 5600-mi requiring an intervention. The average american drives 13k miles a year, would you feel safe knowing it your car may crash 2-3x a year? Are they even actively driving in known problem areas or are they keeping to easy areas?
That was my point also
Microsoft had an app store in 2004.
Not only is this revisionist, in that Apple is far from the first device or operating system to have its own app store, its also a terrible thing for users and developers.
Seems very optimistic to even have real safe autonomous cars on the road let alone have these features down to standard cars. The first cars with collision avoidance braking were available 15-years ago and its pretty much only in the last year where they have been standard on typical cars from some manufacturers.
Not sure what one can really do, if a developer willing gives away the keys to the extension.
Should require notice of copyright in the form of a watermark
Based on this logic every image not just photos would need a watermark, ditto for any video. Company logo? Watermark. Nat Geo? Watermarks.
From the description of statutory damages it sounds to me the infringer of a non-registered work would still be liable for damages calculated on the dgree of harm to the plaintiff instead of those defined in the law.
People aren't entirely likely to notice ads without having some reason (e.g. just having talked about it)
Pretty much this, people are wired to look for coincidences. Another possibility is that people you know are talking about similar topics via Facebook and FB's advertising considers the social network.
Unless you're an extremely large company you probably don't have your own data center so you're beholden to your colo, and could have any number of issues there too.
Given the number of open publc wifis people use....
Seems good. /rubberstamp