Honestly, I think this is genuinely clever. To my knowledge, this is a original idea and the inventor should be able to profit from it. Well played, Jeff. Looking forward to seeing it on Amazon.com.
They don't need a patent to profit from it. All the patent does is prevent anyone else from using this very simple idea until it is long since obsolete.
The problem with the counternotice is that it requires the uploader to identify himself to his accusers. If you were accused by a mutli-national corporation of infringing their copyrights, how eager would you be to identify yourself to them?
Nothing kills immersion more than having to look up which button does what. But if you've played one FPS, you can sit down with any other and have an immediate, intuitive understanding of how it works.
In real life, you don't have to think about how to walk, run, drive a car, swim... So if you want immersion, you have to make all that as intuitive as possible -- easily accomplished if every game of the same genre has the same control scheme.
It's even worse than that. The Windows EULA says that if you don't agree, to "contact the computer seller to enquire about their refund policy" (or something to that effect). I did exactly this, and Lenovo's refund policy is that you can return the entire computer but not the operating system itself, and they charge a 15% restocking fee. I tried to tell them about the Czech man who got a refund from them but I couldn't pronounce the guy's name.
On a related note, anyone want to buy an OEM copy of Windows Vista Basic? Never been used!
I'm curious whether the amount of detail in the record is gonna skyrocket because he dared to check the records or if it will stay roughly the same. If the DHS were afraid of bad publicity it might decrease, but we know they're way beyond that.
Since it's mostly massive corporations issuing the takedown notices against individuals, being able to pursue perjury charges in court is rarely feasible.
The DMCA allows anyone to issue a takedown notice of anything, without any proof that it's infringing, and requires the person who uploaded the content (or the accused, in cases of filesharing) to reveal his identity in order to contest the claim.
Scientology has used this to censor criticism from those who want to remain anonymous. The RIAA uses it to bully college students who are better off taking the blame for copyright infringement even if they are innocent rather than revealing their identities so they can be sued without a subpoena.
ISPs should not be liable for what their customers do with that connection at all. Why is the DMCA, which makes ISP liability contingent on responses such as "terminating repeat offenders" and taking down content without any proof of copyright infringement a good thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I think this is genuinely clever. To my knowledge, this is a original idea and the inventor should be able to profit from it. Well played, Jeff. Looking forward to seeing it on Amazon.com.
They don't need a patent to profit from it. All the patent does is prevent anyone else from using this very simple idea until it is long since obsolete.
The problem with the counternotice is that it requires the uploader to identify himself to his accusers. If you were accused by a mutli-national corporation of infringing their copyrights, how eager would you be to identify yourself to them?
Nothing kills immersion more than having to look up which button does what. But if you've played one FPS, you can sit down with any other and have an immediate, intuitive understanding of how it works. In real life, you don't have to think about how to walk, run, drive a car, swim... So if you want immersion, you have to make all that as intuitive as possible -- easily accomplished if every game of the same genre has the same control scheme.
It's even worse than that. The Windows EULA says that if you don't agree, to "contact the computer seller to enquire about their refund policy" (or something to that effect). I did exactly this, and Lenovo's refund policy is that you can return the entire computer but not the operating system itself, and they charge a 15% restocking fee. I tried to tell them about the Czech man who got a refund from them but I couldn't pronounce the guy's name. On a related note, anyone want to buy an OEM copy of Windows Vista Basic? Never been used!
I'm curious whether the amount of detail in the record is gonna skyrocket because he dared to check the records or if it will stay roughly the same. If the DHS were afraid of bad publicity it might decrease, but we know they're way beyond that.
Since it's mostly massive corporations issuing the takedown notices against individuals, being able to pursue perjury charges in court is rarely feasible.
The DMCA allows anyone to issue a takedown notice of anything, without any proof that it's infringing, and requires the person who uploaded the content (or the accused, in cases of filesharing) to reveal his identity in order to contest the claim. Scientology has used this to censor criticism from those who want to remain anonymous. The RIAA uses it to bully college students who are better off taking the blame for copyright infringement even if they are innocent rather than revealing their identities so they can be sued without a subpoena. ISPs should not be liable for what their customers do with that connection at all. Why is the DMCA, which makes ISP liability contingent on responses such as "terminating repeat offenders" and taking down content without any proof of copyright infringement a good thing?