61–70 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That Venn diagram has little to no actual overlap at all. The objectivists just find it to be to their advantage, these days, to make it appear that they might. The controversy that you suggest is as manufactured as the controversy about anthropomorphic climate change.
Anthropogenic. And also, idiot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see how you think Google is responsible for the DMCA power. Google fought against acts like SOPA because it would have seriously hurt their business. The real people pushing DMCA power are Sony, RIAA, Warner Bros, and the entertainment industry who have the most to lose when it comes to this issue.
Then why do they remove the results from their so-called organic search based on DMCA requests? I can also understand if the results are removed just from the USA based (google.com) site, but they are also removed from google.co.uk, google.co.in, etc. Since US Govt. has no jurisdiction over these other countries, I think its improper to apply DMCA blacklisting over there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, both they and their competitors are equally advantaged once the invention has been made. What paents give them is not freedom from disadvantage; it is an artificial advantage to justify making the investment. Society/the government is ostensibly afraid nobody will invent if they are not artificially advantaged. Those with working intellect consider that trade secrets are enough of a protection against competition…
It's a good thing too, because as we all know, nobody ever invented anything before patents existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A clear example of the Streisand effect in action. More recently, this happened with the decryption key that starts with 09 F9...
I'm trying to conceive of a t-shirt that would, merely by reading it, cause the reader to violate a copyright law. That one's difficult. Maybe one with a custom EULA, "By talking to me you acknowledge that you are agreeing to these terms. Should you not agree, say nothing further."
This means in practice the excemption would only change things for people who are both highly skilled in the relevant technology and are interested in fixing their own cars - a very small subset of the initial group of people affected by the DMCA restrictions.
Does anyone know if that restriction is still present?
woo! right to repair is something I never want to go away. I'm thankful for these kinds of organizations fighting a battle that I can't. the least I can offer is a good shout of approval!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On paper this is true... In reality this is only a win if you have the deep pockets of google and are able to implement all the things that Safe Harbor Requires, respond to all of the Automated and primary bogus requests in a timely fashion, and are willing to have to your platform censored to the extreme. YouTube can withstand it because of its inertia, many new platforms have tried and failed. Safe Habor, as writte…
> Safe Habor, as written, ensures YouTube's dominance in online self uploaded video. If I remember correctly, YouTube originally gained popularity because practically anything could be uploaded on the service. A huge percentage of it was blatantly copyrighted material.
To this day, if you want to watch a weird, obscure series that nobody remembers, and thus was never put on the big streaming sites, Youtube is your best bet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On paper this is true... In reality this is only a win if you have the deep pockets of google and are able to implement all the things that Safe Harbor Requires, respond to all of the Automated and primary bogus requests in a timely fashion, and are willing to have to your platform censored to the extreme. YouTube can withstand it because of its inertia, many new platforms have tried and failed. Safe Habor, as writte…
> Safe Habor, as written, ensures YouTube's dominance in online self uploaded video. If I remember correctly, YouTube originally gained popularity because practically anything could be uploaded on the service. A huge percentage of it was blatantly copyrighted material.
It is revisionist history at best.
Yes there was copyrighted content on YouTube, as there is today, but no that is not why is gained popularity.
It gained popularity because it made video accessible to everyone. Before youtube attempting to host your own videos, be it a cat video, or a major movie was EXPENSIVE.
Back then, as today, most of the "violations" are actually fair use.. Copyright Maximalist however believe copyright gives them total control over their work, meaning if a person using a 1 second clip for commentary, or happens to have a song playing in the background while their baby does something cute on video and uploads it to Youtube that is a violation of copyright.