... Google can detect copyright infringement within minutes of upload, that they can apply copyright owner rules to allow, allow with ads, or remove. That they were able to do so back in 2006-2007 but refused to do so unless given rights to the material that was being illegally uploaded.
Do you not think that books also take time to create, and if some one has copied and distributed the work they have effectively destroyed the market? Films also take time to create, a large number of people may have been involved in creating the costumes, and the props, and the soundtrack. If someone has copied and distributed the work then they again have destroyed the market for the work.
Wine is renewable give it a year and you can have another bunch of grapes. So what if I've taken your current supply the vines are still there, and even if I'd grubbed them out you can still replant scions, all you have to do is wait a few years, you haven't actually lost any thing. Not evebn the bottles as I dumped them in the recycle bin.
... a week last Friday some 15 employees from our company went down to the PC world and picked up a playbook. This week 1 unopened playbook is being touted around the company for resale and 3 used but unwanted iPads.
Twitter posts are ephemeral gossip, probably more like slander in the pub than anything else. Wikipedia, which purports to be an encyclopedia, contains a whole load of libellous content, which is then discussed and mulled over by users argued and fought over and left in place for weeks, months, and years. WMF seems to be protected in US law but how liable are all the admins that participate in the talk pages and decide to leave the contested content it place?
@Grease Monkey China might not happen to have much in the way of its own IP at that moment, but it is going around the world and buying it up, and producing it at home too. Give it a year or two and China will be as willing as the rest of the world to enforce IP claims.
You are probably better of in a US gaol than some Chinese Laogai.
Its a matter of moments to anonymize tagged software. I recall doing that on several bits of software back in the 1980s just as an experiment.
But even if the software isn't anonymized and you can tell who bought the leaked copy, that doesn't help if the leaker is in Russia, China, or some other gawd forsaken hell hole. Or indeed if you've sold a copy to some school where a freetarding thief as got their hands on the install disc.
SOPA is against websites whose primary purpose is to enable the selling of pirated and counterfeit goods. As for the screed against creators rights go back and crawl back under your stone. wikipedia would be nothing if it wasn't for creators, neither would youtube, and neither would any of the search engins. All of it is pre-requisited on the work of creators, remove them and you have no more web.
"The fund, which had clearly been badly advised, tried to copyright the image of a historical person [the Princess], which was absolute insanity. It is now suffering as a result of its own foolhardy actions."
Last year a spokesman for Franklin Mint insisted the fund had fought a "suicidal" legal action and should be held responsible for its "bad behaviour".
@KjetilS Lets have the the reasoning behind "extremely difficult to steer clear of ..." statement. Not some Google shill site parroting bollocks but real actual wording of the act as of today. Google are pissed cos they have already been caught flogging counterfeit drugs, and this may make it harder for them to do the same again. So information from none theives, and none profiteers from counterfeiters would be cool.
"SOPA will compel American internet users to use workaround DNS services operated by criminals overseas, increasing the likelihood of phishing and fraud."
Only if said American Internet users are intent on dealing with phishing and fraudulent sites. Isn't SOPA meant to stop them from unwittingly doing business with such sites?
"because the "exact digital representation" is public domain under U.S. law"
You'll be able to show case law for that then! Corel didn't steal image files they scanned slides. They at least employed a degree of skill in colour matching the results. Doetzee just acted like a thief in the night.
The image is PD you can go down to your library, find them in a book and scan them, no problems. Thieving some else's work is not on, but I don't suppose you'd understand that.
... that if you stuck your head in the sand you'd be OK has been found erroneous. WMF's policy has been that no one at WMF was responsible for whatever some 15 yo did on the site. They don't mind cashing the donations and paying themselves but basically they aren't responsible for anything that happens, no way no how.
Godwin's policy of hiding behind the sofa, or looking shifty and saying not me Gov, was never going to fly long term.
... instead of thieving the file, do as Corel did and make a copy of the image. The thief Coetzee didn't copy the image he filtched the exact digital representation as made by the NPG.
Find any one to complain to. Some one uploads a photo to street view, get that taken down. Some one takes photos of your kids and posts them to Orkut, get that taken down. Google facilitates copyright violation, profits from copyright violation, gives lips service to concerns about copyright violation:
A copyright owner posting their own content is not a copyright infringement. Viacom is not complaining about their own postings appearing on the site, but 10,000s of unauthorised postings.
This is NOT a major anything, there are categories on that article that describe the person as unimportant, of low interest, and yet here is an article of about 5000 words on the subject, far more than WP has on many other more important subjects. What of these RS? They are no more than talking heads talking crap, there is no analysis of the issue by those RS they are simply saying "Oh santorum there is a funny thing that happened to him". Any half decent, responsible organisation would simply devote no more than 100 words or so to the issue, Partridge managed to do it 75 words. Articles like this demonstrate that WP is nothing more than a festering puss ridden sore on the internet.
Register
205 posts • joined Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:12 GMT
Page:
AT this point ...
... they should show them the rack and the instruments ...
Chrome is a piece of malicious ...
.... software anyway. Keeps wanting to get installed on your system no matter how many times you say NO.
Don't Google rent ...
... some extraordinary rendition jails from the CIA that they could perhaps whisk this petulant senator off to?
Can anyone give a clear text ...
... precise on what the fuck they were saying?
Unless they effectively ...
... block out the filth from wikipedia the filters are useless.
Re: Opt-in?
OTOH As Jimmy Wales is now an advisor to David Cameron he can explain how educational this is to kids researching "Human Male" on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=human%20male&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=0
.. you do know that ...
... Google can detect copyright infringement within minutes of upload, that they can apply copyright owner rules to allow, allow with ads, or remove. That they were able to do so back in 2006-2007 but refused to do so unless given rights to the material that was being illegally uploaded.
Obviously she had no expectation that Apple would be using Windows.
On Your Marks, Get Set, GO
Google shills are off. Explaining why there is no foul.
Re: Arsehole ... (rhymes with fell dowm hole)
Do you not think that books also take time to create, and if some one has copied and distributed the work they have effectively destroyed the market? Films also take time to create, a large number of people may have been involved in creating the costumes, and the props, and the soundtrack. If someone has copied and distributed the work then they again have destroyed the market for the work.
Arsehole ...
Wine is renewable give it a year and you can have another bunch of grapes. So what if I've taken your current supply the vines are still there, and even if I'd grubbed them out you can still replant scions, all you have to do is wait a few years, you haven't actually lost any thing. Not evebn the bottles as I dumped them in the recycle bin.
Dunno about better or worse but ...
... a week last Friday some 15 employees from our company went down to the PC world and picked up a playbook. This week 1 unopened playbook is being touted around the company for resale and 3 used but unwanted iPads.
What about wikipedia?
Twitter posts are ephemeral gossip, probably more like slander in the pub than anything else. Wikipedia, which purports to be an encyclopedia, contains a whole load of libellous content, which is then discussed and mulled over by users argued and fought over and left in place for weeks, months, and years. WMF seems to be protected in US law but how liable are all the admins that participate in the talk pages and decide to leave the contested content it place?
Re: "hiding behind the abuse of children to justify a bill that is massively unpopular"
Maybe they've eventually heard about wikipedia's Erik Möller:
http://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/
Google vs Megaupload
OTOH there is a commercial activity profiting from illegal content, OTOH there is yet to be a conviction wrt to Megaupload.
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+500+million
Don't be so sure
@Grease Monkey China might not happen to have much in the way of its own IP at that moment, but it is going around the world and buying it up, and producing it at home too. Give it a year or two and China will be as willing as the rest of the world to enforce IP claims.
You are probably better of in a US gaol than some Chinese Laogai.
How dumb
Its a matter of moments to anonymize tagged software. I recall doing that on several bits of software back in the 1980s just as an experiment.
But even if the software isn't anonymized and you can tell who bought the leaked copy, that doesn't help if the leaker is in Russia, China, or some other gawd forsaken hell hole. Or indeed if you've sold a copy to some school where a freetarding thief as got their hands on the install disc.
Idiot
SOPA is against websites whose primary purpose is to enable the selling of pirated and counterfeit goods. As for the screed against creators rights go back and crawl back under your stone. wikipedia would be nothing if it wasn't for creators, neither would youtube, and neither would any of the search engins. All of it is pre-requisited on the work of creators, remove them and you have no more web.
Follow the real money
Google fined $500 million for advertising on rogue websites. Google donates $500,000 to WP. WP goes black. Pay back!
Yeah we need ,,,
... loads more kids writing smart phone apps and javascript.Wikipedia is not copyright
Despite what the idiots say wikipedia articles are not under copyright.
1) You cannot copyright facts.
2) Wikipedia articles are not supposed to contain original research, but what others have said.
3) A rephrasing of someone else's words does not give you copyright.
Just how many entries ...
... declared that Cardinal X sux cocks? Or doesn't that sort of thing happen on the Italian wiki?
"The fund, which had clearly been badly advised, tried to copyright the image of a historical person [the Princess], which was absolute insanity. It is now suffering as a result of its own foolhardy actions."
Last year a spokesman for Franklin Mint insisted the fund had fought a "suicidal" legal action and should be held responsible for its "bad behaviour".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1473245/Diana-fund-faces-15m-US-lawsuit.html
http://www.news1130.com/news/world/article/172808--us-law-firm-settles-franklin-mint-dispute-over-princess-diana-memorabilia-for-25-million
Do they have builtin vibrating settings?
JOO FULZ
@Ramshackle Those self same 'experts' in that stupid article are the self same 'experts' that devised DNS filtering for spammer sites.
http://www.hightechforum.org/dns-filtering-is-essential-to-the-internet/
Baa, Baa DNS filtering BAAAD, Baa, Baa, DNS filtering Good.
Hey Einstien ...
... how does DNS filtering of pirate site break DNSSEC, but DNS filter of spam sites does not?
Says who?
@KjetilS Lets have the the reasoning behind "extremely difficult to steer clear of ..." statement. Not some Google shill site parroting bollocks but real actual wording of the act as of today. Google are pissed cos they have already been caught flogging counterfeit drugs, and this may make it harder for them to do the same again. So information from none theives, and none profiteers from counterfeiters would be cool.
reality check
"SOPA will compel American internet users to use workaround DNS services operated by criminals overseas, increasing the likelihood of phishing and fraud."
Only if said American Internet users are intent on dealing with phishing and fraudulent sites. Isn't SOPA meant to stop them from unwittingly doing business with such sites?
Screw em ...
... I'm not moving my GD sites.
Subject experts got driven off ...
... not by non-WYSIWYG editors, but by 15-25 yo dickwads. Try taking a look at what the V&A have to put up with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VAwebteam
which despite having an OTRS banner across the top still get some twat whining on the talk page every couple of months or so.
Citation needed
"because the "exact digital representation" is public domain under U.S. law"
You'll be able to show case law for that then! Corel didn't steal image files they scanned slides. They at least employed a degree of skill in colour matching the results. Doetzee just acted like a thief in the night.
The image is PD you can go down to your library, find them in a book and scan them, no problems. Thieving some else's work is not on, but I don't suppose you'd understand that.
The problem is that Godwin's advice ...
... that if you stuck your head in the sand you'd be OK has been found erroneous. WMF's policy has been that no one at WMF was responsible for whatever some 15 yo did on the site. They don't mind cashing the donations and paying themselves but basically they aren't responsible for anything that happens, no way no how.
Godwin's policy of hiding behind the sofa, or looking shifty and saying not me Gov, was never going to fly long term.
Well then ...
... instead of thieving the file, do as Corel did and make a copy of the image. The thief Coetzee didn't copy the image he filtched the exact digital representation as made by the NPG.
Just lock em up ...
... until the final decision is made.
Jail them
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Liar
"Google didn't condone this kind of behaviour."
Find any one to complain to. Some one uploads a photo to street view, get that taken down. Some one takes photos of your kids and posts them to Orkut, get that taken down. Google facilitates copyright violation, profits from copyright violation, gives lips service to concerns about copyright violation:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=http://www.flickr.com/services/feeds/geo/%3Fformat%3Dkml%26id%3D55228353%2540N00%26lang%3Den-us%26page%3D1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=websearch
One would have thought a bit of the FIRE FROM HELL wouldn't be amiss in thawing the snow and ice.
I'd love to be able to opt-in for terrorism.
Whiny bitch fanbois
I thought the freetards said that distribution costs were free, so why should Apple be taking 30%?
Good grief
"with a strange fascination for eye surgery and ophthalmology."
Must be the Illuminati
Balls
A copyright owner posting their own content is not a copyright infringement. Viacom is not complaining about their own postings appearing on the site, but 10,000s of unauthorised postings.
Relationships?
Is there any relationship with this el reg article?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/national_id_fraud_prevention_week/
I have to delete that bloody malware virus at least once a month as some software tries to install it. Last week it was an update from divx.
With that degree ferocity one can only assume someone had stuck a picture of George Osbourne over the front of the ATM.
Hey ho!
"The head of the OFT told me that Google was a fantastic organisation, a fast developing company, and should be applauded,"
What an ignorant twat.
Could have been worse ...
... it might have worked, sort of.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Please pass the tissues to the left...
... I see that there are at least three love lorn dweebs here in need of relief.
Fuck RS idiot
This is NOT a major anything, there are categories on that article that describe the person as unimportant, of low interest, and yet here is an article of about 5000 words on the subject, far more than WP has on many other more important subjects. What of these RS? They are no more than talking heads talking crap, there is no analysis of the issue by those RS they are simply saying "Oh santorum there is a funny thing that happened to him". Any half decent, responsible organisation would simply devote no more than 100 words or so to the issue, Partridge managed to do it 75 words. Articles like this demonstrate that WP is nothing more than a festering puss ridden sore on the internet.
Page: