Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all? I'd far rather have the right to post my video on the internet and have it ignored than to not be able to post it at all.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot guarantee that. And the second you give the US the power to take down any sites, you've given them the power to take down all sites.
There is absolutely no justification, nor any reason whatsoever, that the US should be involved in blocking access to any site whatsoever. Allowing them to do so only increases the possibility of abuse by government for the purposes of censorship.
If anything the fact that sites are not located in the US should be what makes it impossible for them to do anything - apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall". If they want to stop people using US owned domains then fine, but they'd better not try to start taking down.ru sites etc.
It was my impression that was largely what this was trying to do. If PiratePlace.ru or whatever was found to be an unlawful site, they would block it in the US, meaning you couldn't access it from the US. They would also block US banks and stuff from processing payments to it. I would think you'd still be able to access the site in China, or Europe.
Well, they're not subject to US law, but if the content on the site is unlawful in the US, the US would have the right to block it. At least that's the argument.
The site doesn't have to conform to US law, unless they actually want to do business in the US.
No, but the Constitution does distinguish between "Citizens" and "Persons". Meaning that it recognizes that, on US Soil at least, everyone, regardless of nationality, is entitled to certain rights.
A far, far, far better method of action would be to print this out, and actually snail mail it to your representatives. Emails can be ignored, but snail mail tends to command far greater weight.
And you don't think that at some point those nations will realize that it's cheaper to actually reduce the emissions than to keep paying these 3rd world countries? Especially when some of these 3rd world countries start using this cash to pull themselves up in the world?
So you just type on the keyboard and the system instantly knows which app you want to send the strokes to if it's not the focused app? Yeah, that sounds like a really great system.
Again, you're doing it wrong. This is not the way to be solving this problem. The fault lies with your radio program, not with the OS.
Well, I don't know why YOU would, but in my case, my software defined radio uses keystrokes to adjust various settings, including tuning, bandwidth, and so forth. I use a midi control surface to send those keystrokes when its knobs are turned, thus controlling the radio. However, because the keystrokes cannot be directed specifically to the software defined radio app unless it is active, I cannot adjust the radio app at all, unless I make it active with the mouse. This is one example where one application (the midi input processor) could, under [linix|windows|amigados|etc] for example, easily control another (the radio app.) Likewise, a script running from cron or Apple's launchd could send a sequence of commands based on time, such as: "it's ten o'clock, tune to such and such a station, record for half an hour, save as station-10pm-date.soundformat." This could be done without disturbing what you're doing at the moment. BUT, because you MUST make the application active before it can even SEE a keystroke message under OS X... none of this can be done in this easy, convenient fashion. I should also add that OS X lacks a simple IPC mechanism that could be used as an alternate command mechanism, other than for menu commands.
And how does the system know which app is supposed to receive those keystrokes? And if multiple apps can respond to the same keystrokes, which one is supposed to respond? Or are they all supposed to respond?
Likewise, a script running from cron or Apple's launchd could send a sequence of commands based on time, such as: "it's ten o'clock, tune to such and such a station, record for half an hour, save as station-10pm-date.soundformat.
There are far, far, far, far, far better interfaces for such a function. Using keystrokes is the lazy and incompetent way to do it. AppleScript would be a much better solution.
I think his expectations are perfectly valid. It's Google who's made the mistake of thinking that something like this can be automated without some kind of oversight.
[Doctorow] wants YouTube to use their server farm and bandwidth to serve these PD movies to everyone all over the world, without charging anyone a dime. YouTube has criteria for deciding what types of films they're willing to do this with.
You could not have packed more ignorance into a statement if you tried.
YouTube originally OFFERED those resources for exactly that purpose. Saying that they can renege on that promise without good reason, and everything will just be hunky dory is absolutely spineless. People like you who think that anything a company does is perfectly fine just because "It's their stuff" are the absolute worst kind of people, and are fast contributing to the decline of society.
That's demonstrating the problem perfectly. Can Image Entertainment actually prove that they have copyright on anything in that video?
You assume that the claims of ownership are unjustified, as Doctorow claims.
And you're assuming that all claims of ownership are justified. Again, there's absolutely nothing stopping someone from making a claim on your video and forcing it down.
but YouTube is under no obligation to make it available at all.
This is an absolutely worthless cop-out statement that does absolutely nothing but show you're willing to bend over for anyone that comes along. Are you seriously trying to say that we should not be upset when a service suddenly starts acting hostile to it's users?
About a year later, I got an email from YouTube saying that the jazz tune I'd used in the video (Boot It, by Bennie Moten) actually wasn't PD. I was originally annoyed and sure they were wrong. But I looked into it, and it looked like sure enough, it was still in copyright. Archive.org had apparently not realized that a certain percentage of Bennie Moten's work was still in copyright. The rights holder is selling the recording online. And you know what? YouTube didn't try to crush me. They didn't sue me. They didn't send me a DMCA notice. They didn't take down the video or make me take it down. They simply started pulling revenue from it and giving some of that revenue to the copyright owner. Really not a problem.
Yes, it is a problem. First, are you sure they are pulling revenue and giving it to the proper rights holder? Second, in many cases the group receiving revenues doesn't actually have any kind of claim on the copyright of the video.
Except, for that to work, FedFlix actually has to get someone at YouTube to listen to them regarding the copyright issue. And it's quite possible that a DMCA takedown isn't actually being issued, YouTube is just refusing to post it (or forcing ads on it) because of their ContentID system.
Fuck that shit. This is just a lame-ass excuse to try and butter over the actions of these fuckfaced companies. No, I will hate them. They had full knowledge of what they were doing, and made a conscious decision to continue on doing it. Their actions are their responsibility. Fuck them.
The problem with a lot of that bullshit is that there's simply not a large enough profit motive to keep the land open for public use (national parks, etc), at least at an admission fee where most people could actually afford to use it. Furthermore, while I have the belief that there would be some groups of people who would want to buy some woodland and keep it open for public use, and try to curate and care for the animals there, I believe that those who would rather use the land for logging and/or strip mining or something like that have deeper pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
What other value can it possibly have?
Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all? I'd far rather have the right to post my video on the internet and have it ignored than to not be able to post it at all.
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
Is not a sovereign country permitted to decide who they want to allow to come inside?
And you don't think Europe has similar provisions? If you don't, why not ask Fred Phelps what a wonderful time he had in the UK.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot guarantee that. And the second you give the US the power to take down any sites, you've given them the power to take down all sites.
There is absolutely no justification, nor any reason whatsoever, that the US should be involved in blocking access to any site whatsoever. Allowing them to do so only increases the possibility of abuse by government for the purposes of censorship.
While I would find that amusing, I would much rather Facebook not be wielding that kind of power.
It should be noted that there's also a decently sized bipartisan opposition.
1. Then under this act they can presumably only block the non-US IPs.
And if there are any US IPs, then they could go after the person who owns that domain for violating US law inside the US.
If anything the fact that sites are not located in the US should be what makes it impossible for them to do anything - apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall". If they want to stop people using US owned domains then fine, but they'd better not try to start taking down .ru sites etc.
It was my impression that was largely what this was trying to do. If PiratePlace.ru or whatever was found to be an unlawful site, they would block it in the US, meaning you couldn't access it from the US. They would also block US banks and stuff from processing payments to it. I would think you'd still be able to access the site in China, or Europe.
Well, they're not subject to US law, but if the content on the site is unlawful in the US, the US would have the right to block it. At least that's the argument.
The site doesn't have to conform to US law, unless they actually want to do business in the US.
No, but the Constitution does distinguish between "Citizens" and "Persons". Meaning that it recognizes that, on US Soil at least, everyone, regardless of nationality, is entitled to certain rights.
A far, far, far better method of action would be to print this out, and actually snail mail it to your representatives. Emails can be ignored, but snail mail tends to command far greater weight.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that, in the event something like that happens, they won't be posting AC.
And you don't think that at some point those nations will realize that it's cheaper to actually reduce the emissions than to keep paying these 3rd world countries? Especially when some of these 3rd world countries start using this cash to pull themselves up in the world?
So you just type on the keyboard and the system instantly knows which app you want to send the strokes to if it's not the focused app? Yeah, that sounds like a really great system.
Again, you're doing it wrong. This is not the way to be solving this problem. The fault lies with your radio program, not with the OS.
Well, I don't know why YOU would, but in my case, my software defined radio uses keystrokes to adjust various settings, including tuning, bandwidth, and so forth. I use a midi control surface to send those keystrokes when its knobs are turned, thus controlling the radio. However, because the keystrokes cannot be directed specifically to the software defined radio app unless it is active, I cannot adjust the radio app at all, unless I make it active with the mouse. This is one example where one application (the midi input processor) could, under [linix|windows|amigados|etc] for example, easily control another (the radio app.) Likewise, a script running from cron or Apple's launchd could send a sequence of commands based on time, such as: "it's ten o'clock, tune to such and such a station, record for half an hour, save as station-10pm-date.soundformat." This could be done without disturbing what you're doing at the moment. BUT, because you MUST make the application active before it can even SEE a keystroke message under OS X... none of this can be done in this easy, convenient fashion. I should also add that OS X lacks a simple IPC mechanism that could be used as an alternate command mechanism, other than for menu commands.
And how does the system know which app is supposed to receive those keystrokes? And if multiple apps can respond to the same keystrokes, which one is supposed to respond? Or are they all supposed to respond?
Likewise, a script running from cron or Apple's launchd could send a sequence of commands based on time, such as: "it's ten o'clock, tune to such and such a station, record for half an hour, save as station-10pm-date.soundformat.
There are far, far, far, far, far better interfaces for such a function. Using keystrokes is the lazy and incompetent way to do it. AppleScript would be a much better solution.
No, you didn't. You completely dismissed his concern, and did it in a very smug and condescending fashion. Assuming that AC is you.
I think his expectations are perfectly valid. It's Google who's made the mistake of thinking that something like this can be automated without some kind of oversight.
[Doctorow] wants YouTube to use their server farm and bandwidth to serve these PD movies to everyone all over the world, without charging anyone a dime. YouTube has criteria for deciding what types of films they're willing to do this with.
You could not have packed more ignorance into a statement if you tried.
YouTube originally OFFERED those resources for exactly that purpose. Saying that they can renege on that promise without good reason, and everything will just be hunky dory is absolutely spineless. People like you who think that anything a company does is perfectly fine just because "It's their stuff" are the absolute worst kind of people, and are fast contributing to the decline of society.
That's demonstrating the problem perfectly. Can Image Entertainment actually prove that they have copyright on anything in that video?
You assume that the claims of ownership are unjustified, as Doctorow claims.
And you're assuming that all claims of ownership are justified. Again, there's absolutely nothing stopping someone from making a claim on your video and forcing it down.
but YouTube is under no obligation to make it available at all.
This is an absolutely worthless cop-out statement that does absolutely nothing but show you're willing to bend over for anyone that comes along. Are you seriously trying to say that we should not be upset when a service suddenly starts acting hostile to it's users?
About a year later, I got an email from YouTube saying that the jazz tune I'd used in the video (Boot It, by Bennie Moten) actually wasn't PD. I was originally annoyed and sure they were wrong. But I looked into it, and it looked like sure enough, it was still in copyright. Archive.org had apparently not realized that a certain percentage of Bennie Moten's work was still in copyright. The rights holder is selling the recording online. And you know what? YouTube didn't try to crush me. They didn't sue me. They didn't send me a DMCA notice. They didn't take down the video or make me take it down. They simply started pulling revenue from it and giving some of that revenue to the copyright owner. Really not a problem.
Yes, it is a problem. First, are you sure they are pulling revenue and giving it to the proper rights holder? Second, in many cases the group receiving revenues doesn't actually have any kind of claim on the copyright of the video.
Except, for that to work, FedFlix actually has to get someone at YouTube to listen to them regarding the copyright issue. And it's quite possible that a DMCA takedown isn't actually being issued, YouTube is just refusing to post it (or forcing ads on it) because of their ContentID system.
Under your misconception of how the system works, the government could use your song as a bed-track on a presentation on any subject.
How is this any different than current Eminent Domain powers?
Hate the game, not the players.
Fuck that shit. This is just a lame-ass excuse to try and butter over the actions of these fuckfaced companies. No, I will hate them. They had full knowledge of what they were doing, and made a conscious decision to continue on doing it. Their actions are their responsibility. Fuck them.
You see, these days, publishers take public-domain scores, make updates and annotations, and the published work is now protected by copyright.
Actually, only the updates and annotations are subject to copyright. The rest of the music, being public domain, is not.
If you're not even going to view the video in question, then you have done so knowing that you have done so in bad faith.
The problem with a lot of that bullshit is that there's simply not a large enough profit motive to keep the land open for public use (national parks, etc), at least at an admission fee where most people could actually afford to use it. Furthermore, while I have the belief that there would be some groups of people who would want to buy some woodland and keep it open for public use, and try to curate and care for the animals there, I believe that those who would rather use the land for logging and/or strip mining or something like that have deeper pockets.