Apple has a patent on searching local files for information? wtf?
They also have a patent for the rectangle.
Re:Here we see the difference between Free and Sla
on
OS X Mountain Lion Review
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If "and yet I don't have to upgrade my OS at all" means no longer being updated with security patches, then that probably qualifies as "the user does something careless".
If your plan is to write highly specialized software for a very small pool of customers, who are willing to torrent that software instead of paying the price that specialty software costs... then you never had a viable business to begin with.
"Open" in this context does not refer to "open source". It's talking about the platform being open vs a walled garden. IE, whether applications need to be signed/approved in order to run on the OS. Windows is an open platform in that regard, even though it is "closed source". Android just happens to be an open platform AND open source, but the open source part has nothing to do with it.
Except that much of the airline industry is still using X.25 for their communications network. Not sure they're a good example of innovation when it comes to technology.
That's obviously the way it should be. Unfortunately, the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the legal system. Concepts like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" are too inconvenient.
If you're downloading something and you think it might be distributed against the wishes of the copyright owner, double-check or delete it. If you don't have any belief that it's not legit then continue. Congratulations, you have passed the mens rea test and are not a criminal.
In copyright law, direct infringement has occurred regardless of intent. The only place that "innocent infringement" comes into play is penalties, not guilt.
Or are you saying that downloading is related to secondary infringement?
Correct, downloading copyrighted material is not illegal. Downloading it against the rights provided by the rights holder is.
Most of the time, there's no way to tell the difference. For the vast majority of copyrighted content that you come across in everyday usage of the internet, you probably have no idea who the rights holder is.
Things formatted for web viewing you can usually safely assume that the rights holder is giving you the right to download for the purpose of viewing at the time of download. There's a long-standing implicit assumption that the right to view is being granted when the rights holder is putting it up on the web.
How do you even know that the rights holder is the one putting it up on the web?
There have been cases of well known sites (Amazon) offering eBooks for sale that they did not have the rights to. Does that mean every customer that downloaded that eBook from Amazon is guilty of copyright infringement? They just downloaded it without the rights provided by the rights holder, didn't they? The rights holder did not authorize the distribution of that content, but most people would assume that anything on Amazon is authorized.
it's hard to say that when you google "stream (new movie title)" or "torrent (new movie title)" you're doing that with the full belief that it's legal.
Of course not, but again you're focusing on the obvious cases. Saying that downloading copyrighted material against the rights provided by the rights holder goes WAY beyond torrenting music/movies.
Type a random word into Google and click on any link that pops up (nothing to do with torrents or RIAA/MPAA content). You probably just download copyrighted content. Was it's distribution authorized? Who even owns the copyright on the random content that you just downloaded?
Uhm. 99.999999999% or more of it matches with common sense.
This has far ranging effects way beyond the obvious cases of downloading things from TPB, etc.
Don't assume you have more rights than the ability to view
Viewing = downloading. Just clicking on a web page and viewing it downloads copyrighted material to your computer.
Does it look like the official site or official distributor for band X?
This is about a lot more than music/movies/etc. Every website you go to on the internet most likely contains copyrighted information. From any graphics/etc down to the text. Every time you click on a link in your browser you are probably downloading copyrighted material.
In my opinion, this association of "all" BT traffic with illegal downloading is preventing BT from being more widely utilized for legitimate uses.
Legitimate uses... like providing competition to the distribution monopoly that the IP industry has based their business model on. The fact that misinformation is being spread equating BT traffic with illegal content is no accident.
How is a downloader supposed to the know the copyright status and whether or not the source is an authorized distributor before clicking on every link on the internet? If the law makes them responsible for the act, but there is no practical way an honest user can tell whether or not something is legal to download, then the law is just making everyone into criminals. Every person using the internet would likely be guilty, and not even know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has a patent on searching local files for information? wtf?
They also have a patent for the rectangle.
If "and yet I don't have to upgrade my OS at all" means no longer being updated with security patches, then that probably qualifies as "the user does something careless".
If your plan is to write highly specialized software for a very small pool of customers, who are willing to torrent that software instead of paying the price that specialty software costs... then you never had a viable business to begin with.
"Open" in this context does not refer to "open source". It's talking about the platform being open vs a walled garden. IE, whether applications need to be signed/approved in order to run on the OS. Windows is an open platform in that regard, even though it is "closed source". Android just happens to be an open platform AND open source, but the open source part has nothing to do with it.
I assumed they were suggesting that it being a poor game was the main reason that nobody was buying it.
Except that much of the airline industry is still using X.25 for their communications network. Not sure they're a good example of innovation when it comes to technology.
That's obviously the way it should be. Unfortunately, the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the legal system. Concepts like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" are too inconvenient.
No, the ISPs are just going to send out "strikes" to whoever the RIAA/MPAA tells them to.
we would probably all blow through our six chances on the very first web page we visit, since just about everything that is downloaded has copyrights.
True, and in most cases it is also virtually impossible for the average user to tell whether it's authorized or not.
Lobbiests don't care whether the people in power are wearing blue, red, or orange ties.
Yep, it doesn't matter what color the tie is painted, they're all green underneath.
Look up mens rea. Now read it again.
Mens rea does not apply to copyright law.
If you're downloading something and you think it might be distributed against the wishes of the copyright owner, double-check or delete it. If you don't have any belief that it's not legit then continue. Congratulations, you have passed the mens rea test and are not a criminal.
In copyright law, direct infringement has occurred regardless of intent. The only place that "innocent infringement" comes into play is penalties, not guilt.
Or are you saying that downloading is related to secondary infringement?
Correct, downloading copyrighted material is not illegal. Downloading it against the rights provided by the rights holder is.
Most of the time, there's no way to tell the difference. For the vast majority of copyrighted content that you come across in everyday usage of the internet, you probably have no idea who the rights holder is.
Things formatted for web viewing you can usually safely assume that the rights holder is giving you the right to download for the purpose of viewing at the time of download. There's a long-standing implicit assumption that the right to view is being granted when the rights holder is putting it up on the web.
How do you even know that the rights holder is the one putting it up on the web?
There have been cases of well known sites (Amazon) offering eBooks for sale that they did not have the rights to. Does that mean every customer that downloaded that eBook from Amazon is guilty of copyright infringement? They just downloaded it without the rights provided by the rights holder, didn't they? The rights holder did not authorize the distribution of that content, but most people would assume that anything on Amazon is authorized.
it's hard to say that when you google "stream (new movie title)" or "torrent (new movie title)" you're doing that with the full belief that it's legal.
Of course not, but again you're focusing on the obvious cases. Saying that downloading copyrighted material against the rights provided by the rights holder goes WAY beyond torrenting music/movies.
Type a random word into Google and click on any link that pops up (nothing to do with torrents or RIAA/MPAA content). You probably just download copyrighted content. Was it's distribution authorized? Who even owns the copyright on the random content that you just downloaded?
Uhm. 99.999999999% or more of it matches with common sense.
This has far ranging effects way beyond the obvious cases of downloading things from TPB, etc.
Don't assume you have more rights than the ability to view
Viewing = downloading. Just clicking on a web page and viewing it downloads copyrighted material to your computer.
Does it look like the official site or official distributor for band X?
This is about a lot more than music/movies/etc. Every website you go to on the internet most likely contains copyrighted information. From any graphics/etc down to the text. Every time you click on a link in your browser you are probably downloading copyrighted material.
Indie movies are often accessible via BitTorrent and so on.
Guess how happy that makes the MPAA?
In my opinion, this association of "all" BT traffic with illegal downloading is preventing BT from being more widely utilized for legitimate uses.
Legitimate uses... like providing competition to the distribution monopoly that the IP industry has based their business model on. The fact that misinformation is being spread equating BT traffic with illegal content is no accident.
And while you're "killing" the distribution companies, the artists die with them because they depend on the same money you're not paying them.
The distribution companies don't pay the artists either.
How is a downloader supposed to the know the copyright status and whether or not the source is an authorized distributor before clicking on every link on the internet? If the law makes them responsible for the act, but there is no practical way an honest user can tell whether or not something is legal to download, then the law is just making everyone into criminals. Every person using the internet would likely be guilty, and not even know it.
In that case...
No matter who gets elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 100 to 0 by the bought and paid for senators.
I think most people are starting to think we have found some new way to store data in actual clouds.
Not until "Cloud 2.0"!
If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious
If you think Samsung copied the iPad, then just about every current tablet on the market must have copied it too.
John Doe has a defense lawyer?
Isn't a judge supposed to decide if it's bogus before the injunction is granted?
Can't have the littl'uns questionin' authority or back-talkin' their Momma and Daddy.
Or, worse yet from their perspective, we can't have a future generation of voters who are able to think for themselves.
Politicians are not members of humanity.