Precisely, Google doesn't have the ability to decide who is and isn't authorized to use a piece of media. As unfortunate as that might be, the owner is the only one that can do that and consequently they have to notify the party hosting the content.
What he means is that you can't file DMCA takedown notices and expect a foreign court to enforce them. I take it that in this case that it was a Spain specific take down notice.
It's sharing, there's no conversion of ownership involved. Unless you're proposing that we come up with a new term for it. It's not allowed under copyright law, but the term for that is sharing nonetheless.
What concerns me about that is that they're going at it the wrong way. Much of what governments legitimately require is already available to them. The main thing they need is some agreement about how to investigate and prosecute cross border crimes.
Spammers, Phishers and similar scum routinely go through multiple countries for a reason, and it's not just a matter of the net not being designed to go directly at all times either.
Wrong, extremism is hardly the same thing as being at the extreme of a distribution.
It implies a group which has chosen to remove itself from discourse because the views were not going far enough and could not be changed via socially acceptable means. A brilliantly clear example is the Tea Party movement. They've chosen not to make a good faith effort at public debate in favor of more extreme tactics to get their way. It's not the fact that they want a more extreme party platform which makes them extremists.
A political figure other than Hitler made to look like Hitler is generally a pretty good indication that you're dealing with extremists. Although it's hardly a necessary condition.
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Clearly you're not American and haven't been to America in a really long time. This is the way that corporations work. They could make a better product, but it's usually cheaper to abuse the court system or buy out the competition.
I'm not sure that it's so much a matter of sloth as it is a decided lack of guts. Right now the Democrats could very easily tell the Republicans to put up or shut up if they're going to filibuster, and actually make them follow through on it, I just don't think that they have the guts to do it.
The unfortunate problem is that the Republicans are doing what they've been doing now for a few decades which is screwing over the other party so that they look somewhat less incompetent while railing on the federal government's incompetence.
That reminds me of when they started rolling out those club cards around here. The assertion was that they'd save you money if you allowed them to track your purchases. As it turned out virtually overnight the price on pretty much everything jumped drastically in price, leaving the club price suspiciously similar to the previous normal price.
To be honest, the self check out systems have gotten a lot better in recent times. The main objection I have to them is that I don't think that they've really nailed the process of bulk foods. And really produce for that matter, the things where you have to type in some sort of code and weigh it.
It has gotten a lot better, and I suspect that they'll start using an electronic system which prints out a barcode with weight and product type on it in the relative near future.
As opposed to the companies that DRM the hell out of their products, refuse to give refunds if the aforementioned DRM prevents you from using it and fails to disclose the degree to which the DRM impacts the security of your computer?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this PR stunt really worse behavior than the competition or are you talking about not buying games from anybody?
Well, strictly speaking, they did close down the service, end the era and step into new challenges. The site was closed while they performed the upgrades, the beta era is now over and they're getting ready for the new challenges of running a supposedly non-beta service.
Yeah, it's not entirely honest, but this is not really that much different than when obi wan kenobi said that Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father.
To be honest, it's going to be interesting to see whether this was more harmful, helpful or makes little difference. I suspect that it's not going to do them a whole lot of harm, as they've got a really loyal customer base and most of the competition is worse behaved.
Personally, I'll be recommending them in the future, it's just really hard to pass up on cheap, DRM free games that are simply fun to play. There aren't a whole lot of options for that out there.
The big issue there was that some people had just purchased and as a result hadn't had the chance to download and secondly, they'd promised the customers that they'd always be able to download the games. I'm not sure anybody really believed always, but I do think that most of us assumed that when or if they shut down that there'd be arrangements in place or some sort of warning to download your stuff.
I mean even 3d Realms when they went out of business made arrangements to handle recent orders.
Perhaps it's because I used to be in security, but that was probably the most transparent act of deceit I can recall. The page they put up implied very, very strongly that they'd be back to something analogous if not the same in short order.
Honest? Depending upon the particular type of DRM, they might not let you even install the software if some random application is also installed on the system. Frequently they don't tell you what the restrictions are prior to purchase and they don't provide a refund if the DRM prevents you from using the software that you've paid for.
Admittedly, that's more towards the scummier end of things, but DRM often seems to lack honesty. I'm not sure the last time I saw a CD which stated that it had DRM, the only strategy I found was looking for the official CD logo on it, as Phillips refused to authorize its use on any noncompliant disc.
Why? I mean compared with the problems people have with their competitors, this is really not that big of a deal. I've had DRM problems which resulted in a similar level of trouble from competitors, at least in this case it's somewhat understandable.
Indeed, I don't think they'll lose very many customers over this. The people who buy from them tend to do so based upon price and the DRM free games. Compared to the dickishness of EA and Ubisoft for instance, this is really not that big of a deal.
To be fair to them, the language of the shutdown announcement was peppered with hints that there's be a change, but ultimately that it was a transition of sorts.
Actually, cheese is OK in general for vegetarians. Chicken is never OK for a genuine vegetarian, and the term for somebody that only eats meat in the form of seafood would be a Pescetarian. But since many people are familiar with the term, a lot of them refer to themselves as vegetarian anyways.
Actually, that's not entirely true, in CA at least you can trespass on somebody's computer, but only under certain conditions. If you're curious, Intel v. Hamidi is the case you'd want to look up. Just being on the site isn't enough, but in a case like this where he interfered or if the plaintiff can demonstrate that interference is likely it could come into play. It is more or less accepted at both the state and federal level.
Not really, the fact that they're famous and have huge bank accounts ensures that they will be hit like the rest of us. They're more likely to have some protection than the rest of us, but the pay off is a lot bigger.
Or you've got small hands. A lot of the Apple products these days are really tough to use with somebody that has large hands. Some of those apple devices are small enough that if I use my pinky, I'm still covering up most of the device. I'm going to have to see that new Nano, I'm curious if it's even usable by an adult. From the advertisements it looks rather improbable.
Precisely. Netbooks serve a useful niche, unlike some other things which have managed to stick around for quite a while inexplicably. The iPods sticking around isn't a particular surprise, the tiny ones sticking around is rather inexplicable. But then again, hipsters tend to do that to a market. Call me old fashioned, but there is such a thing as too small.
I've got an Eee PC and I'll probably get another one at some point when this one dies off. It's the perfect size for on the go. But as you say, even if I wanted to buy a new one, right now the pickings are slim Presumably because they can do most of the things that most people want to do.
As big an issue is that it's getting tougher to find ones that run Linux. Windows is just not, IMHO, appropriate for a netbook.
That's how the innocent infringement defense works. Since you weren't aware you shouldn't be liable to the same extent. The other options are no leniency or letting a person completely off the hook. I'm not sure what the right amount would be, but it's much more reasonable than the $750 minimum.
$200 is definitely a deterrent, not sure that it's a reasonable amount, but it's much more in the realm of reasonable. Especially given that she'll likely have to pay court costs.
The defense wouldn't exist if it was that cut and dry. It's really more a matter of whether or not it applies in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely, Google doesn't have the ability to decide who is and isn't authorized to use a piece of media. As unfortunate as that might be, the owner is the only one that can do that and consequently they have to notify the party hosting the content.
What he means is that you can't file DMCA takedown notices and expect a foreign court to enforce them. I take it that in this case that it was a Spain specific take down notice.
It's sharing, there's no conversion of ownership involved. Unless you're proposing that we come up with a new term for it. It's not allowed under copyright law, but the term for that is sharing nonetheless.
What concerns me about that is that they're going at it the wrong way. Much of what governments legitimately require is already available to them. The main thing they need is some agreement about how to investigate and prosecute cross border crimes.
Spammers, Phishers and similar scum routinely go through multiple countries for a reason, and it's not just a matter of the net not being designed to go directly at all times either.
Wrong, extremism is hardly the same thing as being at the extreme of a distribution.
It implies a group which has chosen to remove itself from discourse because the views were not going far enough and could not be changed via socially acceptable means. A brilliantly clear example is the Tea Party movement. They've chosen not to make a good faith effort at public debate in favor of more extreme tactics to get their way. It's not the fact that they want a more extreme party platform which makes them extremists.
A political figure other than Hitler made to look like Hitler is generally a pretty good indication that you're dealing with extremists. Although it's hardly a necessary condition.
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Clearly you're not American and haven't been to America in a really long time. This is the way that corporations work. They could make a better product, but it's usually cheaper to abuse the court system or buy out the competition.
I'm not sure that it's so much a matter of sloth as it is a decided lack of guts. Right now the Democrats could very easily tell the Republicans to put up or shut up if they're going to filibuster, and actually make them follow through on it, I just don't think that they have the guts to do it.
The unfortunate problem is that the Republicans are doing what they've been doing now for a few decades which is screwing over the other party so that they look somewhat less incompetent while railing on the federal government's incompetence.
That reminds me of when they started rolling out those club cards around here. The assertion was that they'd save you money if you allowed them to track your purchases. As it turned out virtually overnight the price on pretty much everything jumped drastically in price, leaving the club price suspiciously similar to the previous normal price.
To be honest, the self check out systems have gotten a lot better in recent times. The main objection I have to them is that I don't think that they've really nailed the process of bulk foods. And really produce for that matter, the things where you have to type in some sort of code and weigh it.
It has gotten a lot better, and I suspect that they'll start using an electronic system which prints out a barcode with weight and product type on it in the relative near future.
As opposed to the companies that DRM the hell out of their products, refuse to give refunds if the aforementioned DRM prevents you from using it and fails to disclose the degree to which the DRM impacts the security of your computer?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this PR stunt really worse behavior than the competition or are you talking about not buying games from anybody?
Well, strictly speaking, they did close down the service, end the era and step into new challenges. The site was closed while they performed the upgrades, the beta era is now over and they're getting ready for the new challenges of running a supposedly non-beta service.
Yeah, it's not entirely honest, but this is not really that much different than when obi wan kenobi said that Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father.
My biggest question for him, is whether it made more sense to shrink the person or just ask Wizard's of the Coast to print a larger card.
To be honest, it's going to be interesting to see whether this was more harmful, helpful or makes little difference. I suspect that it's not going to do them a whole lot of harm, as they've got a really loyal customer base and most of the competition is worse behaved.
Personally, I'll be recommending them in the future, it's just really hard to pass up on cheap, DRM free games that are simply fun to play. There aren't a whole lot of options for that out there.
The big issue there was that some people had just purchased and as a result hadn't had the chance to download and secondly, they'd promised the customers that they'd always be able to download the games. I'm not sure anybody really believed always, but I do think that most of us assumed that when or if they shut down that there'd be arrangements in place or some sort of warning to download your stuff.
I mean even 3d Realms when they went out of business made arrangements to handle recent orders.
Perhaps it's because I used to be in security, but that was probably the most transparent act of deceit I can recall. The page they put up implied very, very strongly that they'd be back to something analogous if not the same in short order.
Honest? Depending upon the particular type of DRM, they might not let you even install the software if some random application is also installed on the system. Frequently they don't tell you what the restrictions are prior to purchase and they don't provide a refund if the DRM prevents you from using the software that you've paid for.
Admittedly, that's more towards the scummier end of things, but DRM often seems to lack honesty. I'm not sure the last time I saw a CD which stated that it had DRM, the only strategy I found was looking for the official CD logo on it, as Phillips refused to authorize its use on any noncompliant disc.
Why? I mean compared with the problems people have with their competitors, this is really not that big of a deal. I've had DRM problems which resulted in a similar level of trouble from competitors, at least in this case it's somewhat understandable.
Indeed, I don't think they'll lose very many customers over this. The people who buy from them tend to do so based upon price and the DRM free games. Compared to the dickishness of EA and Ubisoft for instance, this is really not that big of a deal.
To be fair to them, the language of the shutdown announcement was peppered with hints that there's be a change, but ultimately that it was a transition of sorts.
Actually, cheese is OK in general for vegetarians. Chicken is never OK for a genuine vegetarian, and the term for somebody that only eats meat in the form of seafood would be a Pescetarian. But since many people are familiar with the term, a lot of them refer to themselves as vegetarian anyways.
Actually, that's not entirely true, in CA at least you can trespass on somebody's computer, but only under certain conditions. If you're curious, Intel v. Hamidi is the case you'd want to look up. Just being on the site isn't enough, but in a case like this where he interfered or if the plaintiff can demonstrate that interference is likely it could come into play. It is more or less accepted at both the state and federal level.
Trespass
Not really, the fact that they're famous and have huge bank accounts ensures that they will be hit like the rest of us. They're more likely to have some protection than the rest of us, but the pay off is a lot bigger.
Or you've got small hands. A lot of the Apple products these days are really tough to use with somebody that has large hands. Some of those apple devices are small enough that if I use my pinky, I'm still covering up most of the device. I'm going to have to see that new Nano, I'm curious if it's even usable by an adult. From the advertisements it looks rather improbable.
Precisely. Netbooks serve a useful niche, unlike some other things which have managed to stick around for quite a while inexplicably. The iPods sticking around isn't a particular surprise, the tiny ones sticking around is rather inexplicable. But then again, hipsters tend to do that to a market. Call me old fashioned, but there is such a thing as too small.
I've got an Eee PC and I'll probably get another one at some point when this one dies off. It's the perfect size for on the go. But as you say, even if I wanted to buy a new one, right now the pickings are slim Presumably because they can do most of the things that most people want to do.
As big an issue is that it's getting tougher to find ones that run Linux. Windows is just not, IMHO, appropriate for a netbook.
That's how the innocent infringement defense works. Since you weren't aware you shouldn't be liable to the same extent. The other options are no leniency or letting a person completely off the hook. I'm not sure what the right amount would be, but it's much more reasonable than the $750 minimum.
$200 is definitely a deterrent, not sure that it's a reasonable amount, but it's much more in the realm of reasonable. Especially given that she'll likely have to pay court costs.
The defense wouldn't exist if it was that cut and dry. It's really more a matter of whether or not it applies in this case.