161–170 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His response to her explanation about how they don't have the technology was "Google does have the technology". These people are all idiots.
YouTube does have automated copyright detection though
1: The real question we should be asking is the source of the SOPA text. It was pretty clearly written by lobbyists, for their clients, and its just as clear that the committee has no idea about the contents. We should be attacking/ranting at the sponsoring companies while helping the congress people to understand through measured lobbying and public action.
2: Larry Lessig's latest book covers the process of making USA's laws extraordinarily well. Congress people are trying to do the right thing, but it's hard to believe laws are made in an unbiased manner when we look at the flow of cash supporting their elections.
3: New Zealand had a similar moment when copyright legislation was debated earlier this year, and the tech community suddenly saw how laws were made. It was a rush job, not pretty and the major parties suffered for it as they took stances which often lacked logic. We now have an election on, wand while it is not a big issue, I expect we will see a lot more support for the Green party, who were the only ones crying foul.
to the UK works via media player, but at work can not test sound. This is not looking good brothers on the otherside of the sea. What i read today is a 5to1 debate :/ and i got a horriable feeling the nervous looking girl might be the 1 against :/
It may be that everybody in that room knows the thing is not going to pass but is going through the motions of proposing to satisfy their corporate donors. It may also be that someone is proposing a batshit crazy idea like this in order to see it get shot down. Sometimes Congress seems to even pass laws with provisions that they know will be struck down in the Supreme Court.
It's just plain weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His response to her explanation about how they don't have the technology was "Google does have the technology". These people are all idiots.
YouTube does have automated copyright detection though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His response to her explanation about how they don't have the technology was "Google does have the technology". These people are all idiots.
YouTube does have automated copyright detection though
Please just stop. The people/bands I download are not ones I'd pay for right out of the gate. For example: Pink Floyd. I hear a lot about them, but don't know if I'd like them. So I downloaded some of their popular albums for free and gave them a listen. After recovering from the awesomeness, I've since bought two of those albums on iTunes, and yesterday 3 friends and I each dropped $78 on tickets for a concert with…
Yes, I know these services are not available in many jurisdictions and that's a shame and I believe it will change over time. Point is, the situation is getting better and the so called "need" to pirate music is increasingly gone.
Interesting point about reordering search results to favor known-legit content distribution channels...roughly: "Can we get Google to put Netflix above TPB in search results?" If this is still a terrible idea, it's not an obviously terrible one.
So I've been doing every google search these clueless legislators have brought up in defense of the act: "You can search for 'free harry potter movie' and watch it for free" "You can go type 'j edgar' into google and piracy links show up above legitimate links" "You can watch breaking dawn online right now, and it's not even out yet" etc... Try them yourself as they bring them up. They're full of bullshit.
I've been doing the same. It's really infuriating listening to these people lie through their teeth, and go mostly unchecked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it does pass, there is still a chance (however small and expensive) that it will be ruled against in the courts. The judiciary seems like the branch least impacted by the influence of big-media.
That requires someone to bring a relevant legal case to an appropriately positioned judicial body, which requires a great deal of money, and two sides willing to take it that far.