If Apple was so concerned about what plastic is doing to the environment, perhaps it should make a phone that isn’t made of glass doesn’t require a thick plastic case for the vast majority of users.
Apple has singlehandedly created and continues to fuel a massive market of third-party iPhone case makers, many of whom have much lower environmental standards and concerns that Apple alleges to possess. Apple’s self-righteous claims as a green company are overshadowed by the mess that it creates to support its ill-conceived product design.
The President of the United States feels Americans should be able 'to Google their tax dollars' and signed a law to create online database to track federal spending. According to the Associated Press, the 'law is aimed preventing wasteful spending by opening the federal budget to greater scrutiny.
And how much will the database cost? Can I Google that?
On a side note, is Google going after GW for using "Google" as a verb?
Go ahead and quote him:
Cnet article.
A $26M settlement = license and 10% stake in Immersion for MS. Sony declined to pay up and got pounded with a $90M judgment.
Actually, I think this will be THE case to decide whether P2P networks like Gnutella are "capable of a substantial non-infringing use" as the Sony rule requires. Grokster did not destroy the Sony rule because it did not apply the Sony rule to the defendant's in the Grokster case. It didn't have to. The court applied a new, but intuitive, inducement rule. I saw this case coming right after Grokster was decided.
Below is an excerpt from an unpublished paper I wrote last year on the Grokster decision:
While admonishing the Ninth Circuit, the Court noted the limitations of Sony's application in indirect infringement cases. The Sony rule is limited to liability arising from the actual product and "where evidence goes beyond a product's characteristics or the knowledge that it may be put to infringing uses, and shows statements or actions directed to promoting infringement, Sony's staple-article rule will not preclude liability." Rather, the Court adopted the inducement rule, which states "that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." Noting the differences between liability under Sony's staple article rule and the conduct surrounding it, the Court stated that "[t]he inducement rule [] premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise."
After adopting the inducement rule, the Court made short work of finding sufficient evidence in the record to deny Grokster and StreamCast's motions for summary judgment. The Court noted that the evidence of both companies' attempts to capitalize on the illegal Napster empire was overwhelming. Additionally, the fact that neither company attempted to implement filtering mechanisms implied intent to induce infrinement. Finally, the Court noted the evidence that the defendants' business model is founded on financial gain resulting from their users' direct infringement of copyrighted works.
Presumably, the inducement rule swallows up the knowledge prong of the contributory test and, perhaps, rightfully so. The inducement rule contemplates intent upon the part of the contributory infringer and intent has always been a higher measure of culpability than knowledge.
Concurring with the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, felt that distribution of their software might have landed Grokster and StreamCast outside of the Sony staple article of commerce rule. Because of the abundant noninfringing uses of the Betamax, Ginsburg noted "there was no need in Sony to 'give precise content to the question of how much [actual or potential] use is commercially significant.'" Ginsburg stated, "declarations [of substantial noninfringing uses] do not support summary judgment in the face of evidence, proffered by MGM, of overwhelming use of Grokster's and StreamCast's software for infringement." Furthermore, Ginsburg noted, "the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate, beyond genuine debate, a reasonable prospect that substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses were likely to develop over time. On this record, the District Court should not have ruled dispositively on the contributory infringement charge by granting summary judgment to Grokster and StreamCast."
Also concurring with the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor, responded to Ginsburg's assertion that the Grokster and StreamCast software does not pass the Sony muster. Breyer homed in on the specific language of the Sony rule, noting that Sony "ask[ed] whether the product is 'capable of' substantial noninfringing uses." Applying the Sony rule to the Grokster and StreamCast software, Breyer noted the following:
"Likely" is not the precise standard of proof that the RIAA would be required to show. Actually, a preponderance of evidence requires the plaintiff to prove that it was more probable that not that the defendant is liable. By pointing to a wide-open network IP address, the RIAA will face difficulty in proving by a preponderence that a particular user of that network was the infringer.
As the plaintiff, the RIAA has both the burden of production and persuasion. Only after both of those are met is the defendant required to offer evidence to counter the RIAA's burden. I think the significance of this "silver bullet" is that courts will decreasingly recognize an IP address as meeting these burdens. An IP address, without more, is merely a piece to the evidentiary inquiry. Therefore, defendants in RIAA cases would be able to successfully move for summary judgments if the RIAA has nothing more to offer as identifying evidence.
I agree. Part of the attraction of gaming is the social aspect. It can be an escape - from the real world, but the fact that your playing against someone else makes it more real in your gaming world, thus more intense. I'll rarely shell out $50 for a game anymore if it isn't online compatible. Although I like a good RPG when I've got time to devote to it, there's nothing like sitting down for an hour for a few rounds of Halo 2 or PGR with other human opponents on Live. I picked the Xbox over the PS2 for 2 reasons; the Halo franchise and the Live integration. I disagree that MS has missed the mark. The online integration may not hit big in this generation of consoles, but it's coming. Think of Live integration in Xbox 1 as a kind of beta test. It worked. The updates on 360's Live bring more promise to the business model, including as the author pokes at, on-demand gaming. A recent interview with J. Allard pointed out things to come just like this. I think MS's business model is right on track and I hope Sony rolls out something similar to Live for the PS3 in order to create a more competitive market for us consumers to choose from.
You saying my beach radio comparison to InterNet sharing is not the same-- is just not true.
I never saw where there is a law (or prosection) of anyone at the beach, listening to, recording, or making notes on songs they hear from other peoples boom boxes.
The key distinction between the two is the actual "copying." That's what copyright law aims to prevent. The "law" does prohibit recording from a radio broadcast. The reason that doesn't make the headlines is that it's innefficient, unlike online filesharing.
And please don't say it's not the same as me allowing someone to download my songs-- because accually, it is MORE of a violation for radio stations to ALLOW people to COPY all the songs that they play out over the airwaves for EVERYONE to copy!!
I'm not sure what you are comparing here, but if it is p2p networks and radio stations let me say this: It is not radio stations that "allow" the violation to occur. Broadcasting is a permissible act for copyrighted content; however, broadcasters must pay for that use. If someone copies a song while it is being broadcasted, then it is that person who is infringing on the copyright, not the broadcaster (although this may even constitute a fair use under the Sony Betamax case). I think you want to say that is the same scenario as Grokster; however, in Grokster, there was a substantial amount of proof that pointed to Grokster as an inducer of the infringement, which is what subjected Grokster and Streamcast to potential liability for indirect copyright infringement.
Where the comparison may be valid is in the case of Limewire, for example. Limewire posts a substantial amount of warnings stating that users shouldn't use their software to infringe copyrights. It's even in their EULA that you agree to. I think this is where your VCR comparison fits well too. As I mentioned in my last post, this may very well be the next round in the courts if Congress doesn't respond first. Courts could (and probably should) find that a P2P developer who does not meet the standards for contributory or vicarious liability (ala Grokster) cannot have liability imputed to them because their product (the P2P program) is "capable" of commercially significant noninfringing uses (even though the current uses of that product are overwhelmingly infringing on copyrights).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an RIAA advocate; however, I think that copyright law needs to continue to protect an artist's creation. There is a balance that I think has yet to be achieved in the online world with copyright protections. I think that the new Napster and iTunes is a step in the right direction. However, I (probably like you) get really pissed off when I can't do something simple like make an MP3 album from songs I purchase on iTunes because of digital rights management measures. I (again, probably like you) think that the content holders need to embrace technology rather than sue everyone they can.
My point is that the law is what it is, not what you or me feel it should be. Agree or disagree with the RIAA, unauthorized duplication of copyrighted work is still a violation of copyright law. I don't think the Grokster case made any drastic departure from sound copyright law. The Grokster case was perfectly in line with fundamental precedent in copyright law. I think your enemy is more the content providers than the law itself. The precedent that Grokster was based on has been around for 40 or so years. I think that the RIAA has maybe screwed itself in their enforcement tactics, which has bred indignation in consumers who obtain their content in an infringing manner. The market will sort this out more so than the law, but it's still infringment. Copyright law still has to protect artists, otherwise, their is no utilitarian purpose in copyright itself. While that may be ideal to some, if more artists were starving there would be less art.
By 'bucking the system to the max' is how laws get changed-- quicker than voting or any other milk-toast way that the government would have us beleive that laws are changed!
In fact MOST of the time it is the ONLY way rules or laws get changed (ie. when they are laughted at, disrespected and ignored).
You really think this is the ONLY way laws get changed MOST of the time? Lobbying efforts of special interest groups are what change laws. Look at the AHRA, the NET Act, the DMCA. These laws didn't change the copyright laws because someone was laughing at it. These laws came to pass because groups like the RIAA and MPAA lobbied hard for their passage. Do you really think Congress will back down on this?
What you are saying is the same thing if I said that you would be in violation of the law because you brought your radio to the beach or party, so that everyone could hear/enjoy the tunes.
Copyright law provides a mechanism for people using radios in public that is nowhere near the same as duplicating copyrighted works. Under section 110(5) fo the Copyright Act, Congress specifically provides an exception for playing a radio that is a "homestyle receiving apparatus." Congress said that this kind of public use is NOT an infringement of copyright, which is clearly distinguishable from my point that "unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works" is an infringement.
This day and age people use the Internet to do that!
Again, it's not the same thing. You are talking about a one time broadcast signal that is not a duplication of the work. Duplication is where the infringement comes into play.
And yes frankly I WOULD like to see the current greedy mix of 'artists' be put out of business-- if they are on the side of the Riaa.
That would make room for the millions of other (probably better) artists to come along and be heard and enjoyed--- instead of having to make a living by putting kids in jail!!
I may be inclined to agree with you. However, I think legitimate market forces (e.g., demand for an artist's work) should be the driving force behind this, rather than refusing to protect an artist's copyright in a particular work. These rights have always been protected and just because it's easier to duplicate/infringe due to the Internet doesn't mean an artist's rights should be lessened. Apparently, what you want is either for p2p filesharing (or other forms of duplication) to be declared a fair use or to do away with copyright protection altogether. Your suggestion of achieving this by 'bucking the system' is entirely without merit. P2P filesharing of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder is and always has been a direct infringement. Suggesting that copyright protection will be done away with entirely is, even more so, a meritless notion.
The best hope from the infringers' perspective is that the Supreme Court or Congress will address the P2P technology from the perspective of the Betamax Case, which the Court in the recent Grokster decision specifically refused to address, and find that P2P software and networks are presumptively capable of substantial noninfringing uses, like the Betamax recorder. If this happens, we'll continue to see P2P rising - although it will come with ample warnings and perhaps measures to prevent copyright infringement of its users. The alternative decision from either Congress or the courts, which is actively being lobbied by groups like the RIAA and MPAA, is that P2P networks will be found incapable of substantial noninfringing uses, which spells death for the P2P developers and users and a major victory for the RIAA. If you really want to change a law, start a lobbying effort.
This would be a consumer relations nightmare for Sony. Just look at the stink Sony has raised over it's recent DRM in music CDs. I, for one, haven't bought a Sony CD since they started that DRM crap. I can assure you that I won't buy a PS3 if they implement a DRM as described in the above article. Think about it, we wouldn't be able to try out a game by renting it first. If we go out and buy one and then don't like it, there's no secondary market for it. Get real Sony, if you do this, the market will respond and Sony will not prevail.
""People who are downloading the information are doing so because they don't think it is wrong because of fair use (ie. just like listening to music from someone elses stereo/radio).""
Dude, the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works is not a fair use under section 107 of the copyright act, which defines fair uses, that's infringement. Listening to music from a radio falls within specific broadcast exceptions. You're talking about totally different things here with no frame of reference for either. Copyright is a total creature of statute and without the protections provided by it, you lose the artist's incentive to create works. You apparently would prefer this.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple was so concerned about what plastic is doing to the environment, perhaps it should make a phone that isn’t made of glass doesn’t require a thick plastic case for the vast majority of users. Apple has singlehandedly created and continues to fuel a massive market of third-party iPhone case makers, many of whom have much lower environmental standards and concerns that Apple alleges to possess. Apple’s self-righteous claims as a green company are overshadowed by the mess that it creates to support its ill-conceived product design.
Sound familiar?
And how much will the database cost? Can I Google that?
On a side note, is Google going after GW for using "Google" as a verb?
Go ahead and quote him: Cnet article. A $26M settlement = license and 10% stake in Immersion for MS. Sony declined to pay up and got pounded with a $90M judgment.
Below is an excerpt from an unpublished paper I wrote last year on the Grokster decision:
"Likely" is not the precise standard of proof that the RIAA would be required to show. Actually, a preponderance of evidence requires the plaintiff to prove that it was more probable that not that the defendant is liable. By pointing to a wide-open network IP address, the RIAA will face difficulty in proving by a preponderence that a particular user of that network was the infringer. As the plaintiff, the RIAA has both the burden of production and persuasion. Only after both of those are met is the defendant required to offer evidence to counter the RIAA's burden. I think the significance of this "silver bullet" is that courts will decreasingly recognize an IP address as meeting these burdens. An IP address, without more, is merely a piece to the evidentiary inquiry. Therefore, defendants in RIAA cases would be able to successfully move for summary judgments if the RIAA has nothing more to offer as identifying evidence.
I agree. Part of the attraction of gaming is the social aspect. It can be an escape - from the real world, but the fact that your playing against someone else makes it more real in your gaming world, thus more intense. I'll rarely shell out $50 for a game anymore if it isn't online compatible. Although I like a good RPG when I've got time to devote to it, there's nothing like sitting down for an hour for a few rounds of Halo 2 or PGR with other human opponents on Live. I picked the Xbox over the PS2 for 2 reasons; the Halo franchise and the Live integration. I disagree that MS has missed the mark. The online integration may not hit big in this generation of consoles, but it's coming. Think of Live integration in Xbox 1 as a kind of beta test. It worked. The updates on 360's Live bring more promise to the business model, including as the author pokes at, on-demand gaming. A recent interview with J. Allard pointed out things to come just like this. I think MS's business model is right on track and I hope Sony rolls out something similar to Live for the PS3 in order to create a more competitive market for us consumers to choose from.
The key distinction between the two is the actual "copying." That's what copyright law aims to prevent. The "law" does prohibit recording from a radio broadcast. The reason that doesn't make the headlines is that it's innefficient, unlike online filesharing.
And please don't say it's not the same as me allowing someone to download my songs-- because accually, it is MORE of a violation for radio stations to ALLOW people to COPY all the songs that they play out over the airwaves for EVERYONE to copy!!
I'm not sure what you are comparing here, but if it is p2p networks and radio stations let me say this: It is not radio stations that "allow" the violation to occur. Broadcasting is a permissible act for copyrighted content; however, broadcasters must pay for that use. If someone copies a song while it is being broadcasted, then it is that person who is infringing on the copyright, not the broadcaster (although this may even constitute a fair use under the Sony Betamax case). I think you want to say that is the same scenario as Grokster; however, in Grokster, there was a substantial amount of proof that pointed to Grokster as an inducer of the infringement, which is what subjected Grokster and Streamcast to potential liability for indirect copyright infringement.
Where the comparison may be valid is in the case of Limewire, for example. Limewire posts a substantial amount of warnings stating that users shouldn't use their software to infringe copyrights. It's even in their EULA that you agree to. I think this is where your VCR comparison fits well too. As I mentioned in my last post, this may very well be the next round in the courts if Congress doesn't respond first. Courts could (and probably should) find that a P2P developer who does not meet the standards for contributory or vicarious liability (ala Grokster) cannot have liability imputed to them because their product (the P2P program) is "capable" of commercially significant noninfringing uses (even though the current uses of that product are overwhelmingly infringing on copyrights).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an RIAA advocate; however, I think that copyright law needs to continue to protect an artist's creation. There is a balance that I think has yet to be achieved in the online world with copyright protections. I think that the new Napster and iTunes is a step in the right direction. However, I (probably like you) get really pissed off when I can't do something simple like make an MP3 album from songs I purchase on iTunes because of digital rights management measures. I (again, probably like you) think that the content holders need to embrace technology rather than sue everyone they can.
My point is that the law is what it is, not what you or me feel it should be. Agree or disagree with the RIAA, unauthorized duplication of copyrighted work is still a violation of copyright law. I don't think the Grokster case made any drastic departure from sound copyright law. The Grokster case was perfectly in line with fundamental precedent in copyright law. I think your enemy is more the content providers than the law itself. The precedent that Grokster was based on has been around for 40 or so years. I think that the RIAA has maybe screwed itself in their enforcement tactics, which has bred indignation in consumers who obtain their content in an infringing manner. The market will sort this out more so than the law, but it's still infringment. Copyright law still has to protect artists, otherwise, their is no utilitarian purpose in copyright itself. While that may be ideal to some, if more artists were starving there would be less art.
You really think this is the ONLY way laws get changed MOST of the time? Lobbying efforts of special interest groups are what change laws. Look at the AHRA, the NET Act, the DMCA. These laws didn't change the copyright laws because someone was laughing at it. These laws came to pass because groups like the RIAA and MPAA lobbied hard for their passage. Do you really think Congress will back down on this?
What you are saying is the same thing if I said that you would be in violation of the law because you brought your radio to the beach or party, so that everyone could hear/enjoy the tunes.
Copyright law provides a mechanism for people using radios in public that is nowhere near the same as duplicating copyrighted works. Under section 110(5) fo the Copyright Act, Congress specifically provides an exception for playing a radio that is a "homestyle receiving apparatus." Congress said that this kind of public use is NOT an infringement of copyright, which is clearly distinguishable from my point that "unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works" is an infringement.
This day and age people use the Internet to do that!
Again, it's not the same thing. You are talking about a one time broadcast signal that is not a duplication of the work. Duplication is where the infringement comes into play.
And yes frankly I WOULD like to see the current greedy mix of 'artists' be put out of business-- if they are on the side of the Riaa.
That would make room for the millions of other (probably better) artists to come along and be heard and enjoyed--- instead of having to make a living by putting kids in jail!!
I may be inclined to agree with you. However, I think legitimate market forces (e.g., demand for an artist's work) should be the driving force behind this, rather than refusing to protect an artist's copyright in a particular work. These rights have always been protected and just because it's easier to duplicate/infringe due to the Internet doesn't mean an artist's rights should be lessened. Apparently, what you want is either for p2p filesharing (or other forms of duplication) to be declared a fair use or to do away with copyright protection altogether. Your suggestion of achieving this by 'bucking the system' is entirely without merit. P2P filesharing of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder is and always has been a direct infringement. Suggesting that copyright protection will be done away with entirely is, even more so, a meritless notion.
The best hope from the infringers' perspective is that the Supreme Court or Congress will address the P2P technology from the perspective of the Betamax Case, which the Court in the recent Grokster decision specifically refused to address, and find that P2P software and networks are presumptively capable of substantial noninfringing uses, like the Betamax recorder. If this happens, we'll continue to see P2P rising - although it will come with ample warnings and perhaps measures to prevent copyright infringement of its users. The alternative decision from either Congress or the courts, which is actively being lobbied by groups like the RIAA and MPAA, is that P2P networks will be found incapable of substantial noninfringing uses, which spells death for the P2P developers and users and a major victory for the RIAA. If you really want to change a law, start a lobbying effort.
This would be a consumer relations nightmare for Sony. Just look at the stink Sony has raised over it's recent DRM in music CDs. I, for one, haven't bought a Sony CD since they started that DRM crap. I can assure you that I won't buy a PS3 if they implement a DRM as described in the above article. Think about it, we wouldn't be able to try out a game by renting it first. If we go out and buy one and then don't like it, there's no secondary market for it. Get real Sony, if you do this, the market will respond and Sony will not prevail.
""People who are downloading the information are doing so because they don't think it is wrong because of fair use (ie. just like listening to music from someone elses stereo/radio).""
Dude, the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works is not a fair use under section 107 of the copyright act, which defines fair uses, that's infringement. Listening to music from a radio falls within specific broadcast exceptions. You're talking about totally different things here with no frame of reference for either. Copyright is a total creature of statute and without the protections provided by it, you lose the artist's incentive to create works. You apparently would prefer this.