I assume the ISPs only accept copyright claims that come from the RIAA/MPAA/etc. I don't think everyone gets to file copyright claims under this policy.
And what if I challenge the ISP to show me proof for the notice.
It doesn't matter. This isn't a law and courts are not involved. They don't need proof of anything. There's no due process, innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof, etc. Getting rid of those things is specifically why the 6 strikes policy was implemented in the first place. What this policy really boils down to is: "Our TOS says we can take action against anybody we want to".
From the article, it sounds like what they really meant was "sites that link to unauthorized distributed content". Downloading, as usual, has nothing to do with it. Then again, considering the article screwed up the whole "downloading vs uploading" thing in the first place, I question whether they accurately described any of it.
Publishers should be able to price their product at whatever levels they want.
Distributors should be able to price their product at whatever levels they want.
It's one thing for a publisher to set the price when they sell to a distributor. It's quite another thing for publishers to dictate the price when a distributor sells to a consumer.
I think the point was to comment on how wasteful the blue team is in an effort to make the red team look good. Of course, the fact that the red team is just as wasteful is conveniently left out.
Do you think automated parsing of an email to target ads is "reading your private emails"? If so, do you also think that a spam filter running on the mail server "reads your private emails"?
There's really not much they can do about it. The main reason the USPS is down $16 billion is because Congress is intentionally trying to bankrupt them.
The only purpose of the DMCA though is to bypass the courts and due process. Rather than pass another law to make the DMCA process require courts and due process, you'd be better off just getting rid of it.
1) You want your content publicly accessible in order to increase your exposure. 2) You want to control who has access to your content (only those that visit your site and I assume view your ads).
You want to show content + ads but your server is used just to pull an image, thus no traffic and high bandwidth.
I think what you meant was... you want to make your content publicly accessible in order to increase your exposure, but you also want ad revenue. What happens is that once you make your content publicly accessible you cannot force people to also view your ads, so your server is used just to pull an image, thus no ad revenue and higher bandwidth.
It's called having your cake and eating it too. You can't make your content publicly accessible and then complain when the public accesses it in a way you don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the governments started letting them.
I bet someone already has.
I assume the ISPs only accept copyright claims that come from the RIAA/MPAA/etc. I don't think everyone gets to file copyright claims under this policy.
And what if I challenge the ISP to show me proof for the notice.
It doesn't matter. This isn't a law and courts are not involved. They don't need proof of anything. There's no due process, innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof, etc. Getting rid of those things is specifically why the 6 strikes policy was implemented in the first place. What this policy really boils down to is: "Our TOS says we can take action against anybody we want to".
it strikes me as highly unlikely they would wrongly associate incorrect content with infringement in the first place
I have a bridge for sale, are you interested?
From the article, it sounds like what they really meant was "sites that link to unauthorized distributed content". Downloading, as usual, has nothing to do with it. Then again, considering the article screwed up the whole "downloading vs uploading" thing in the first place, I question whether they accurately described any of it.
Please list the "many items" covered by this patent...
http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
How about...
File patents for technology you didn't create, and sue before they're invalidated. That sounds relatively trollish to me.
So you think the write should get his due. But the editor, the proof reader, the formater, and the marketer shouldn't?
They take a LOT more than "their due" from the writer. It can be argued that Publishers rip off the artists a lot more than "pirates" do.
Exactly. Mythbusters is an entertainment show. Their findings are meaningless.
The fee to file a patent that is rejected is large.
Wait... they reject patents?
Or go with Plan B: Don't cheat.
Publishers should be able to price their product at whatever levels they want.
Distributors should be able to price their product at whatever levels they want.
It's one thing for a publisher to set the price when they sell to a distributor. It's quite another thing for publishers to dictate the price when a distributor sells to a consumer.
Not only are they expensive, they are also not sold. They are licensed. This removes the ability to use the provisions of the first sale doctrine.
That's what the Publishers claim... doesn't mean it's true. As far as I know it hasn't been tested in court yet.
So you meant "yes".
I think the point was to comment on how wasteful the blue team is in an effort to make the red team look good. Of course, the fact that the red team is just as wasteful is conveniently left out.
Do you think automated parsing of an email to target ads is "reading your private emails"? If so, do you also think that a spam filter running on the mail server "reads your private emails"?
What happens if someone acquires a copy of my blueprints and builds an exact copy of my office block?
Nothing.
My answer would be that I should be able to sue them for the 5% of gross I didn't get.
Why? This "someone" is not bound by your contract. That's between you and whoever you originally provided the blueprints to.
There's really not much they can do about it. The main reason the USPS is down $16 billion is because Congress is intentionally trying to bankrupt them.
I almost added that. :)
Instead of physical violence, we have financial violence.
The only purpose of the DMCA though is to bypass the courts and due process. Rather than pass another law to make the DMCA process require courts and due process, you'd be better off just getting rid of it.
1) You want your content publicly accessible in order to increase your exposure.
2) You want to control who has access to your content (only those that visit your site and I assume view your ads).
Please pick one, you can't have both.
You want to show content + ads but your server is used just to pull an image, thus no traffic and high bandwidth.
I think what you meant was... you want to make your content publicly accessible in order to increase your exposure, but you also want ad revenue. What happens is that once you make your content publicly accessible you cannot force people to also view your ads, so your server is used just to pull an image, thus no ad revenue and higher bandwidth.
It's called having your cake and eating it too. You can't make your content publicly accessible and then complain when the public accesses it in a way you don't like.
Exactly. They make something publicly accessible, and then complain when the public accesses it.
The guilds are now corporations and the thugs are lawyers. Other than that, I don't see that much has really changed.