I personally would like to see Google help users approach and push the limits of fair use of sound and video. I think that a lot of artists would be open to their work being displayed in a tasteful manner without the full work being put online. I also think that the usually low quality of YouTube is a good reason to allow this and that if copyright material is found, they should investigate either shortening it or degrading the quality so that viewers get a taste. What's more, putting a link to sales of the item would be basically free advertising.
Your idea/sentiment is a good one. The problem I see is that many users are already pushing the "fair use" doctrine, when their first post, that MAY fit under fair use - has that fair use claim invalidated by the second and third and tenth video segment that they upload (which in total complete the movie or tv show). It would also make it very difficult for Google to determine fair use without a lot more additional work - "yeah, THIS video clip may fit fair use, but now I have to make sure the person didnt release part 2-10 under this account or another... and make sure no one else continued where they left off"
There has to be an acceptable middle ground... the content owners (well, the big corporate ones) are unlikely to look for one, especially when they are (futilely) trying to establish their own business model in that respect (with no clue how to do so). Working out an ad revenue deal (with Google) would probably be easier than setting up their own infrastructure, as many have noted - but it also loses them a level of control - and a portion of the profits that would have exclusively been theres.
Well, I'll stop here... because though I see the problems, I dont have a solution (at least not one I think either side will listen to).
Not just that, but it is going beyond what the DMCA is requiring (by making the takedown request method easier than required).
There are additional implications (as recently reported on/.) which I think will be worsened by this... for instance, a Viacom or an RIAA "clicking" takedown requests on a lot more content (that isnt theirs) now that it is much easier to do so. This is already a growing problem - I predict it will just worsen now that it is even easier for them.
We'll see when all is said and done. There were quite a lot of plans... with and without rebate. Some with free months, some without. And systems that came with an auto-activate-just-provide-your-credit-card-number-free-(trial)-MSN-dont-forget-to-cancel.
Really, do you think all these people had MSN accounts that (will be shown to have been used and) they didnt provide any of the info necessary?
Employees at most retailers are warned that for them to fraudulently sign someone up for MSN, AOL, etc is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail AND up to $10,000 in fines (per incident). You see, it's credit card fraud (since that was the instrument used to "fraudulently" sign people up). Before computer stuff, I worked for CitiCorp (Hauppauge, NY - when they were based there) in their card services division. Contrary to popular belief... a person can be charged, and imposed some portion of those penalties for ANY proven credit card fraud. So, we're looking at an issue that is supposed to be how large? How many life sentences for those involved? And no one noticed till how much later?
And MS is at fault how? And Best Buy is at fault how? (the employee would get charged - unless its Best Buy's policy... I want to see the evidence that supports that)... and thus, as "widespread" as they are claiming this is, is this some sort of employee conspiracy?
C'mon... this suit is bogus. Best Buy and MS will win, or settle small to end this cheaply with no criminal/credit fraud charges against anyone who could have been remotely responsible for this occurring (assuming it really did).
The problem, which will come out soon, is that the laptop (and certain select other machines) were discounted if, and only if, you signed up for MSN for an X month term.
Same deal when you buy/bought certain Cisnet (and other) machines. In those cases, the machines were *usually* (but not always) labelled "AOL PCs" and the tiny print on the box, and/or on the ad circular stated you'd be signed up for AOL for a year, and that if you cancelled that contract, you'd be charged the discount given on the hardware.
As much as I hate MS, I doubt this is their fault - or even Best Buy's. The stuff is always clearly stated on the ads and signage (even if the person chooses not to read it, or the salesperson chooses not to read it to the customer for them).
I dont feel like digging, but here's a link to an older "rebate" for MSN signup with purchase of a system.
Consumers can normally sign up for the rebate program at participating retailers including Best Buy, Office Max, Office Depot, Staples, etc. For example, consumers who sign up for a 36-month contract with MSN Internet Access may receive a $400 rebate to apply toward the purchase of a personal computer system or other merchandise depending on the retailer and location.
Many places did the rebate instant at time of purchase, while activating the account. Some (CompUSA for instance) issued a rebate form.
Similar programs to that rebate program have been in affect for quite some time. MS - and every major retailer I have worked for or visited - has been very careful to ensure they use the provided signs and wording in their ads and promo stuff. Yeah, it's small print... but just like the small print in the warranty that says "spill damage is not covered" it does not matter whether you read it or not, and it isnt the responsibility of the salesperson to read the whole thing to you. The vendor's responsibility ends with having the correct signage up, and the correct wording (in this case, provided by MS and their legal team, perhaps in conjunction with Best Buy's) on the big price card and in the flyer.
The key thing here - as with many other places - is the wording...
"OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances"
I am waiting for the first test of the "all inclusive" "other circumstances" clauses that users/owners of software, services, hardware, vehicles and who knows what else are forced to agree to. These clauses amount to no less than "whenever we feel like, for whatever reason we feel like"
Yes, people can buy their _________ (car, software, phone/phone service) elsewhere... but that list of elsewheres (that dont have such broad all-encompassing clauses) is decreasing rapidly.
Ballmer and Idiots are more likely trying to point the finger at Google to distract users away from the fact that MS is working on implementing a method of reading EVERYTHING you create on a Windows system. (See related stories on/. and elsewhere concerning MS's new patents for advertising, their Live services and more).
Since Ballmer is highly likely to know about the current test code and patents in that area, nothing else seems to fit the situation. "Ooooh, look, Google threw a chair!!!!!"
Actually, his method is very easy... to summarize, drop peppers in a sealable jar with 90+ proof vodka. Let sit for 4-6 months, strain the liquid into another jar/bottle (or remove the peppers). Drink the liquid as recommended - you've got weeks or months worth.
Just look it up on Google... "capsaicin fat burning" - on the list of results, you will see all sorts of sites (medical and otherwise) that will tell you some of the many uses for capsaicin, garlic, ginger root, cinnamon and more.
It helps metabolize fat, helps with prostrate issues and a bunch of other things as well...
It can be taken in pill form (for those who dont like eating red hot chili peppers) which is good considering some of its benefits require moderate to large doses.
When combined with other spices such as garlic and cinnamon, the results in numerous areas are quite good, and quite nice... (adding to the list above better sugar absorption, insulin creation, appetite suppression, thermogenic fat burning without lean muscle mass loss, pain relief, sinusitus relief and a LOT more)
Interestingly none of this is news... it's ALL ancient news - that the pharmaceutical companie$ dont want people to know... a nice spicy/sweet bowl of chili (made with just a tiny pinch of cinnamon, a bunch of chili powder, and some garlic) each day (or substitute with a different food that those ingredients can be put in from a steak sauce to you name it) and you've eliminated billions of dollars in income for related chemically created products from the pharm companies - and you have also eliminated the side effects.
Actually, all that mumbo jumbo which I've also found posted numerous places (as you probably did) was wrong - though I have seen it posted numerous places. A standard POTS phone system uses TWO wires. The phone company ran FOUR wires because TWO were backups (rarely used in that fashion anymore for POTS) - OR were/(rarely)are for providing additional power from a transformer to certain devices (alarm systems and such) - and way back when, used in the rotary dial days for similar functionality. That was for the standard RJ-11 setup.
A telephone only NEEDS 2 wires - and only USES two wires. Often two line setups were ran through (in the house/office) all 4 wires and then split into two jacks (erroneously or otherwise). Often (erroneously or otherwise) when installation done in this fashion (often by Verizon), certain other things that conformed to the old rarely used spec would no longer work - such as modems and faxes - as well as certain phones - while on the other hand, many two line phones were set up to work using a standard 4 wire cord that plugged into a standard outlet and supported 2 lines via the standard pair for line 1, and the backup pair for line 2). This is also (among cost savings reasons) why some phone handset, modem and fax machine companies shipped a wire with a single pair (2 in the center) - to ensure that whether there were two lines or one, backup or none, the phone/modem/fax would work.
In the case of Carnegie Mellon in particular, I remember the policy being that CMU will pass the information requested by the RIAA right through to them, and has explicitly told its student body that it will not shield them from investigation and prosecution. I wonder if these institutions were cherry-picked for having such policies. Can anyone comment on (a) whether CMU's policy is unchanged, and (b) whether the other schools operate to a similar strategy?
I think it is time colleges (like CMU)understand that "not shield(ing) them (the students) from investigation and prosecution" is far different to caving in to requests that the colleges have no legal requirement to fulfill. The colleges should be forcing the RIAA to follow the law - to the letter - and then after that (or during that process) fulfill their (the colleges) obligations under the law.
Just my one cent on the matter - that I wish the colleges (and every other OSP/ISP) would consider. I'll leave the other cent on another post later...;-)
Wonderfully, it seems the RIAA is picking a bunch of colleges with both the money and the staff to assist in defending their students. With other colleges already taking similar stances, I expect that many of the current round will do so as well. Thus, I expect the RIAA to soon learn that this method is fraught with enough reasons to ensure they fail.
My only worry is their attempts at creating circumstances and/or laws that "coerce" the colleges to give up their (possibly) innocent (or not) students without due process.
...which is all the same data the cell carriers routing the rest of your phone traffic have? They've got access to the info either way. Google will, only through using their service.
Google sells ads using the data through their ad service. The phone companies sell your information to their "partners" so they can make money that way since they dont have an ad model like Google's (which I think addresses your last point).
Actually, I think you are wrong on this one... it doesnt matter whether you agree to the GPL or not, you need permission to use copyrighted works. The GPL offers such permission in agreeing to it - in whole. By ignoring parts of the GPL, you thus are stating you don't agree to that contract and would need other means to obtain permission to use the copyrighted work - or it's copyright infringement.
Now, IANAL, but I would think that "claiming" to agree to the GPL and then violating it would be pursued as two counts... (1) breach of contract, and (2) copyright infringement, leaving a win-win scenario for the copyright owners - as the violator would either have to amend his claim to "I didnt agree" = infringement, or in keeping his claim = contract violation - and still probably infringement.
I doubt even the contract violation aspect would need to be addressed - and there are plenty of precedents set in other areas (software, music, etc - in which case you are not sued for breach of contract for "only making 1 backup copy, blah, blah, blah" but instead for copyright violation. Also the same thing in books. Many books are released with notices allowing certain sized excerpts (or none at all) to be used for certain purposes, or require permission for certain types of use, or allow certain groups (schools) to use them without permission - and if a category of person or entity that doesnt fit within those guidelines uses a (too big) excerpt, they are sued for infringement - not breach of contract.
As with the above examples, the GPL determines what constitutes copyright infringement.
Which isn't too much different from any other Cell Provider... especially since many still sell that information - while Google has a history of creating a level of user anonymity that companies like AT&T don't.
So while Google may have access to more information (assuming you use their phones to access Google's online services), they seem less likely to use that information (from current and previous track records) than other cell carriers already ARE doing.
Hmmm... when I had that problem, NYNEX told me data was quite nicely supported - on a data phone line... it just cost boatloads extra for that quiet (and otherwise the same as a regular) line (of questionable noise improvement).
Actually, there are numerous cases in the past (around 2000-2002) of "content owners" trying to sue OSPs and ISPs. When good lawyers have been involved on the part of the OSPs/ISPs, as long as take-down notices have been properly handled, the cases have been thrown out of court. Some smaller ISPs and OSPs - in some of the earliest(IIRC) have settled. That trend died after the "content owners" started losing the cases against bigger OSPs/ISPs. I seem to remember NetCom as being one of them. The initial problem - back then - was that some of the suits pre-dated the DMCA (the DMCA not always being a bad thing). In some of those earlier cases, judges (with no technical knowledge of how the Internet works) had even ruled against ISPs/OSPs - ones that would have been protected by the DMCA.
Now, there has been an argument that an ISP/OSP who does start filtering that "unfilterable" content is opening themselves up to tons of lawsuits for anything they miss - part of the argument is that they are no longer providing the role of (just) a transport mechanism, since they are picking what content does - or does not - go through their pipes.
This situation may grow into something that tests that legal theory. I've personally talked to lawyers who think such actions would damage an ISPs/OSPs Safe Harbor claim. But then again, it's not their opinion (since it hasn't been tried yet) that matters... it's the outcome of any lawsuits that stem from AT&T failing to filter content that they should have.
While they may get blanket immunity from the **AA over such errors, other content owners have been looking for a wedge in (again numerous lawsuits) to hold OSPs/ISPs liable. After all, it is far more profitable - I mean easier to recoup losses - to win a lawsuit against an AT&T than against John Doe.
This also brings in the grey area of certain judges deciding that if AT&T can manage to filter certain types of content or traffic, then everyone should - opening more doors to suing OSPs/ISPs. At least in that particular case, the OSPs/ISPs have one particular clause in the DMCA still in their favor - which is (poorly paraphrased) an exclusion from being required to do so if that method makes the service unusable or creates ridiculous undue hardship on the ISP/OSP (for instance, a 20 person ISP needing to hire a team of thousands, or install tens of thousands of servers to be able to filter traffic in real time). That part of the DMCA though is kind of vague on specifics... leaving it open to interpretation... thus, what AT&T can do, and afford to do... most ISPs/OSPs cannot - but would a judge of questionable technology and Internet knowledge understand that?
And I am sure someone could - but who really would care that much to do so? The smiley, such that it is, ":-)" predates the late 70's anyway - but on different hardware.
Maybe he's bragging about the fact that he wrote an "instruction manual" for it?
Is the guy is full of shit in making such a claim. ASCII Art, including the use of emoticons, have been around a lot longer than his first use of it. To claim he was the first and/or created the idea is insane.
I'm sorry, but I grew up in the 300 baud modem, emoticon existing and using days that predate his claim by over half a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
Your idea/sentiment is a good one. The problem I see is that many users are already pushing the "fair use" doctrine, when their first post, that MAY fit under fair use - has that fair use claim invalidated by the second and third and tenth video segment that they upload (which in total complete the movie or tv show). It would also make it very difficult for Google to determine fair use without a lot more additional work - "yeah, THIS video clip may fit fair use, but now I have to make sure the person didnt release part 2-10 under this account or another... and make sure no one else continued where they left off"
There has to be an acceptable middle ground... the content owners (well, the big corporate ones) are unlikely to look for one, especially when they are (futilely) trying to establish their own business model in that respect (with no clue how to do so). Working out an ad revenue deal (with Google) would probably be easier than setting up their own infrastructure, as many have noted - but it also loses them a level of control - and a portion of the profits that would have exclusively been theres.
Well, I'll stop here... because though I see the problems, I dont have a solution (at least not one I think either side will listen to).
Not just that, but it is going beyond what the DMCA is requiring (by making the takedown request method easier than required).
There are additional implications (as recently reported on /.) which I think will be worsened by this... for instance, a Viacom or an RIAA "clicking" takedown requests on a lot more content (that isnt theirs) now that it is much easier to do so. This is already a growing problem - I predict it will just worsen now that it is even easier for them.
We'll see when all is said and done. There were quite a lot of plans... with and without rebate. Some with free months, some without. And systems that came with an auto-activate-just-provide-your-credit-card-number-free-(trial)-MSN-dont-forget-to-cancel.
Really, do you think all these people had MSN accounts that (will be shown to have been used and) they didnt provide any of the info necessary?
Employees at most retailers are warned that for them to fraudulently sign someone up for MSN, AOL, etc is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail AND up to $10,000 in fines (per incident). You see, it's credit card fraud (since that was the instrument used to "fraudulently" sign people up). Before computer stuff, I worked for CitiCorp (Hauppauge, NY - when they were based there) in their card services division. Contrary to popular belief... a person can be charged, and imposed some portion of those penalties for ANY proven credit card fraud. So, we're looking at an issue that is supposed to be how large? How many life sentences for those involved? And no one noticed till how much later? And MS is at fault how? And Best Buy is at fault how? (the employee would get charged - unless its Best Buy's policy... I want to see the evidence that supports that)... and thus, as "widespread" as they are claiming this is, is this some sort of employee conspiracy?
C'mon... this suit is bogus. Best Buy and MS will win, or settle small to end this cheaply with no criminal/credit fraud charges against anyone who could have been remotely responsible for this occurring (assuming it really did).
The problem, which will come out soon, is that the laptop (and certain select other machines) were discounted if, and only if, you signed up for MSN for an X month term.
Same deal when you buy/bought certain Cisnet (and other) machines. In those cases, the machines were *usually* (but not always) labelled "AOL PCs" and the tiny print on the box, and/or on the ad circular stated you'd be signed up for AOL for a year, and that if you cancelled that contract, you'd be charged the discount given on the hardware.
As much as I hate MS, I doubt this is their fault - or even Best Buy's. The stuff is always clearly stated on the ads and signage (even if the person chooses not to read it, or the salesperson chooses not to read it to the customer for them).
I dont feel like digging, but here's a link to an older "rebate" for MSN signup with purchase of a system.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/01-07msnrebateqa.mspx
Note this part...
Consumers can normally sign up for the rebate program at participating retailers including Best Buy, Office Max, Office Depot, Staples, etc. For example, consumers who sign up for a 36-month contract with MSN Internet Access may receive a $400 rebate to apply toward the purchase of a personal computer system or other merchandise depending on the retailer and location.Many places did the rebate instant at time of purchase, while activating the account. Some (CompUSA for instance) issued a rebate form.
Similar programs to that rebate program have been in affect for quite some time. MS - and every major retailer I have worked for or visited - has been very careful to ensure they use the provided signs and wording in their ads and promo stuff. Yeah, it's small print... but just like the small print in the warranty that says "spill damage is not covered" it does not matter whether you read it or not, and it isnt the responsibility of the salesperson to read the whole thing to you. The vendor's responsibility ends with having the correct signage up, and the correct wording (in this case, provided by MS and their legal team, perhaps in conjunction with Best Buy's) on the big price card and in the flyer.
Score a win for Best Buy and MS.
The key thing here - as with many other places - is the wording...
"OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances"I am waiting for the first test of the "all inclusive" "other circumstances" clauses that users/owners of software, services, hardware, vehicles and who knows what else are forced to agree to. These clauses amount to no less than "whenever we feel like, for whatever reason we feel like"
Yes, people can buy their _________ (car, software, phone/phone service) elsewhere... but that list of elsewheres (that dont have such broad all-encompassing clauses) is decreasing rapidly.
More than just a crock...
Ballmer and Idiots are more likely trying to point the finger at Google to distract users away from the fact that MS is working on implementing a method of reading EVERYTHING you create on a Windows system. (See related stories on /. and elsewhere concerning MS's new patents for advertising, their Live services and more).
Since Ballmer is highly likely to know about the current test code and patents in that area, nothing else seems to fit the situation. "Ooooh, look, Google threw a chair!!!!!"
SOMEONE needs to remind the government (including the FCC) that THEY work for US - and that WE want this investigated.
Actually, his method is very easy... to summarize, drop peppers in a sealable jar with 90+ proof vodka. Let sit for 4-6 months, strain the liquid into another jar/bottle (or remove the peppers). Drink the liquid as recommended - you've got weeks or months worth.
Just look it up on Google... "capsaicin fat burning" - on the list of results, you will see all sorts of sites (medical and otherwise) that will tell you some of the many uses for capsaicin, garlic, ginger root, cinnamon and more.
Or maybe the garlic...
It helps metabolize fat, helps with prostrate issues and a bunch of other things as well...
It can be taken in pill form (for those who dont like eating red hot chili peppers) which is good considering some of its benefits require moderate to large doses.
When combined with other spices such as garlic and cinnamon, the results in numerous areas are quite good, and quite nice... (adding to the list above better sugar absorption, insulin creation, appetite suppression, thermogenic fat burning without lean muscle mass loss, pain relief, sinusitus relief and a LOT more)
Interestingly none of this is news... it's ALL ancient news - that the pharmaceutical companie$ dont want people to know... a nice spicy/sweet bowl of chili (made with just a tiny pinch of cinnamon, a bunch of chili powder, and some garlic) each day (or substitute with a different food that those ingredients can be put in from a steak sauce to you name it) and you've eliminated billions of dollars in income for related chemically created products from the pharm companies - and you have also eliminated the side effects.
My 17" uses a wee bit less power than that... so why would it be a good thing that an 11" uses more power than my 17"?
Open in what sense? Source code? No - neither.
Platform agnostic? Google
Actually, all that mumbo jumbo which I've also found posted numerous places (as you probably did) was wrong - though I have seen it posted numerous places. A standard POTS phone system uses TWO wires. The phone company ran FOUR wires because TWO were backups (rarely used in that fashion anymore for POTS) - OR were/(rarely)are for providing additional power from a transformer to certain devices (alarm systems and such) - and way back when, used in the rotary dial days for similar functionality. That was for the standard RJ-11 setup.
A telephone only NEEDS 2 wires - and only USES two wires. Often two line setups were ran through (in the house/office) all 4 wires and then split into two jacks (erroneously or otherwise). Often (erroneously or otherwise) when installation done in this fashion (often by Verizon), certain other things that conformed to the old rarely used spec would no longer work - such as modems and faxes - as well as certain phones - while on the other hand, many two line phones were set up to work using a standard 4 wire cord that plugged into a standard outlet and supported 2 lines via the standard pair for line 1, and the backup pair for line 2). This is also (among cost savings reasons) why some phone handset, modem and fax machine companies shipped a wire with a single pair (2 in the center) - to ensure that whether there were two lines or one, backup or none, the phone/modem/fax would work.
Check out these links for references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POTS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJ11%2C_RJ14%2C_RJ25
I think the Singularity OS is probably as real as whatever Vista was supposed to be - or even XP for that matter.
I think it is time colleges (like CMU)understand that "not shield(ing) them (the students) from investigation and prosecution" is far different to caving in to requests that the colleges have no legal requirement to fulfill. The colleges should be forcing the RIAA to follow the law - to the letter - and then after that (or during that process) fulfill their (the colleges) obligations under the law.
Just my one cent on the matter - that I wish the colleges (and every other OSP/ISP) would consider. I'll leave the other cent on another post later... ;-)
Wonderfully, it seems the RIAA is picking a bunch of colleges with both the money and the staff to assist in defending their students. With other colleges already taking similar stances, I expect that many of the current round will do so as well. Thus, I expect the RIAA to soon learn that this method is fraught with enough reasons to ensure they fail.
My only worry is their attempts at creating circumstances and/or laws that "coerce" the colleges to give up their (possibly) innocent (or not) students without due process.
...which is all the same data the cell carriers routing the rest of your phone traffic have? They've got access to the info either way. Google will, only through using their service.
Google sells ads using the data through their ad service. The phone companies sell your information to their "partners" so they can make money that way since they dont have an ad model like Google's (which I think addresses your last point).
...but I'm still laughing. :-)
Actually, I think you are wrong on this one... it doesnt matter whether you agree to the GPL or not, you need permission to use copyrighted works. The GPL offers such permission in agreeing to it - in whole. By ignoring parts of the GPL, you thus are stating you don't agree to that contract and would need other means to obtain permission to use the copyrighted work - or it's copyright infringement.
Now, IANAL, but I would think that "claiming" to agree to the GPL and then violating it would be pursued as two counts... (1) breach of contract, and (2) copyright infringement, leaving a win-win scenario for the copyright owners - as the violator would either have to amend his claim to "I didnt agree" = infringement, or in keeping his claim = contract violation - and still probably infringement.
I doubt even the contract violation aspect would need to be addressed - and there are plenty of precedents set in other areas (software, music, etc - in which case you are not sued for breach of contract for "only making 1 backup copy, blah, blah, blah" but instead for copyright violation. Also the same thing in books. Many books are released with notices allowing certain sized excerpts (or none at all) to be used for certain purposes, or require permission for certain types of use, or allow certain groups (schools) to use them without permission - and if a category of person or entity that doesnt fit within those guidelines uses a (too big) excerpt, they are sued for infringement - not breach of contract.
As with the above examples, the GPL determines what constitutes copyright infringement.
Which isn't too much different from any other Cell Provider... especially since many still sell that information - while Google has a history of creating a level of user anonymity that companies like AT&T don't.
So while Google may have access to more information (assuming you use their phones to access Google's online services), they seem less likely to use that information (from current and previous track records) than other cell carriers already ARE doing.
Hmmm... when I had that problem, NYNEX told me data was quite nicely supported - on a data phone line... it just cost boatloads extra for that quiet (and otherwise the same as a regular) line (of questionable noise improvement).
Actually, there are numerous cases in the past (around 2000-2002) of "content owners" trying to sue OSPs and ISPs. When good lawyers have been involved on the part of the OSPs/ISPs, as long as take-down notices have been properly handled, the cases have been thrown out of court. Some smaller ISPs and OSPs - in some of the earliest(IIRC) have settled. That trend died after the "content owners" started losing the cases against bigger OSPs/ISPs. I seem to remember NetCom as being one of them. The initial problem - back then - was that some of the suits pre-dated the DMCA (the DMCA not always being a bad thing). In some of those earlier cases, judges (with no technical knowledge of how the Internet works) had even ruled against ISPs/OSPs - ones that would have been protected by the DMCA.
Now, there has been an argument that an ISP/OSP who does start filtering that "unfilterable" content is opening themselves up to tons of lawsuits for anything they miss - part of the argument is that they are no longer providing the role of (just) a transport mechanism, since they are picking what content does - or does not - go through their pipes.
This situation may grow into something that tests that legal theory. I've personally talked to lawyers who think such actions would damage an ISPs/OSPs Safe Harbor claim. But then again, it's not their opinion (since it hasn't been tried yet) that matters... it's the outcome of any lawsuits that stem from AT&T failing to filter content that they should have.
While they may get blanket immunity from the **AA over such errors, other content owners have been looking for a wedge in (again numerous lawsuits) to hold OSPs/ISPs liable. After all, it is far more profitable - I mean easier to recoup losses - to win a lawsuit against an AT&T than against John Doe.
This also brings in the grey area of certain judges deciding that if AT&T can manage to filter certain types of content or traffic, then everyone should - opening more doors to suing OSPs/ISPs. At least in that particular case, the OSPs/ISPs have one particular clause in the DMCA still in their favor - which is (poorly paraphrased) an exclusion from being required to do so if that method makes the service unusable or creates ridiculous undue hardship on the ISP/OSP (for instance, a 20 person ISP needing to hire a team of thousands, or install tens of thousands of servers to be able to filter traffic in real time). That part of the DMCA though is kind of vague on specifics... leaving it open to interpretation... thus, what AT&T can do, and afford to do... most ISPs/OSPs cannot - but would a judge of questionable technology and Internet knowledge understand that?
And I am sure someone could - but who really would care that much to do so? The smiley, such that it is, ":-)" predates the late 70's anyway - but on different hardware.
Maybe he's bragging about the fact that he wrote an "instruction manual" for it?
Is the guy is full of shit in making such a claim. ASCII Art, including the use of emoticons, have been around a lot longer than his first use of it. To claim he was the first and/or created the idea is insane.
I'm sorry, but I grew up in the 300 baud modem, emoticon existing and using days that predate his claim by over half a decade.