The description on the linked website reminds me immediately of UAC in Windows Vista. It may sound good in theory to ask someone if you want to do something they may not want. But, in practice, that results in an excessive number of messages and clickthroughs any time a user wants to do something, well, useful.
In your hypothetical situation, tough luck. Nobody's required to buy anything from you. The fact that they used to, and you feel entitled, has no bearing.
It says:
"The side effect," warns the consumer group Public Knowledge in an educational video it has put out on this question, "is that SOC would break all eleven million HDTVs in the US that don't have digital input. In essence, all the MPAA wants is to control when and how you watch the stuff you've already paid for."
But how can you say you have to own the rights of everything in your image in order to publish it? That would make it impossible to publish any photo taken in the real world. I question the "well within their rights" part of your statement.
The problem here is that it's not the company that's spamming. Some of its users are using the service it provides in order to spam Craigslist. The proper course of action would be to pursue the spamming users, not the provider of a tool that exists to make perfectly legitimate postings easier and more effective.
But that wouldn't make sense, because giving away apps as a reason for people to buy the phone would be the same as giving away Windows-specific software like Windows Media Player to get people to buy Windows.
Regardless, I don't think the AP article is sufficient to determine what he means by this. He could just be agreeing with Mike's assessment of the "Give it away and pray" option.
Exactly. Please, Mike, don't let the fact that this will be "ineffective" or "pointless" get in the way of protecting the impressionable children and teenagers from poor self-esteem!
These guys are right, though. This is a self-esteem-promotion law, not a truth-in-product-advertising law.
I'm not sure that's accurate. The stories that Techdirt considers worth fostering conversations are the possible abuses. I don't think this site is intended to be representative of all "Intellectual Property" lawsuits.
If anyone's wondering, and can't click through gaming website links like I can't, EA claims that he keeps threatening to go after them for Mirror's Edge.
You beat me to it. If you look at the South Butt logo, I can see how it would be worth a trademark complaint. Even with Mike's consumer confusion yardstick.
Reading some of the comments on the Slashdot article, it makes a lot of sense. The major reason they sell so many calculators is because kids can use them in school, and they're one of very few calculators allowed. They limit functionality on certain calculators so that they can be used in standardized testing. If the kids could install something so it looks like they don't have programs to help them cheat, these would no longer be allowed on standardized tests, so they wouldn't be able to sell nearly as many calculators.
Voting with your wallets is what they're going for. A lot of people with high-speed internet access hardly use it, so they won't hit the cap and so won't notice the difference. If we the tech-savvy downloaders switch providers, that's fine with them. It will make everyone else on their network slightly happier, and lower their costs and increase those of their competition. It's horrible for us, but I bet this plan will work out for them. At least until movie download services replace movie rental stores, that is.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: if anything we should be greatful to facebook (as A Dan)
I would say that in order to attempt murder, you need to attempt to murder someone. That seems reasonable to me. Do you disagree?
Re: Re: intent (as A Dan)
A valid point. A Linux distribution is, in fact, the only thing I've used BitTorrent for.
Oddly familiar (as A Dan)
The description on the linked website reminds me immediately of UAC in Windows Vista. It may sound good in theory to ask someone if you want to do something they may not want. But, in practice, that results in an excessive number of messages and clickthroughs any time a user wants to do something, well, useful.
Re: (as A Dan)
In your hypothetical situation, tough luck. Nobody's required to buy anything from you. The fact that they used to, and you feel entitled, has no bearing.
Dept question (as A Dan)
Is the tagline supposed to be "except-for-when-it-comes-to-supreme-court-justices" or is there some joke that I didn't get?
Re: Question for a Canadian (as A Dan)
Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to create. Promoting the progress of science and the useful arts is a patent thing.
(as A Dan)
"However, any time you have a politician even threatening to sue thousands of YouTube commenters, you know something has gone wrong."
To the contrary, it means something has gone right.
You must be new here (as A Dan)
See this recent post, "Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/0147596522.shtml
Re: Dark Helmet mistake or inflammatory language? (as A Dan)
I think he's referring to this:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/movie-studios-again-demand-hdtv-disabling-pow ers-from-fcc.ars
It says:
"The side effect," warns the consumer group Public Knowledge in an educational video it has put out on this question, "is that SOC would break all eleven million HDTVs in the US that don't have digital input. In essence, all the MPAA wants is to control when and how you watch the stuff you've already paid for."
Re: Btw (as A Dan)
I think it's ok since you didn't mention which book you were endorsing. It was related to the Silent Bob guy, right?
Re: Uh, clarification? (as A Dan)
The linked article says "copyright holders".
Re: (as A Dan)
But how can you say you have to own the rights of everything in your image in order to publish it? That would make it impossible to publish any photo taken in the real world. I question the "well within their rights" part of your statement.
Re: someone enlighten me (as A Dan)
The problem here is that it's not the company that's spamming. Some of its users are using the service it provides in order to spam Craigslist. The proper course of action would be to pursue the spamming users, not the provider of a tool that exists to make perfectly legitimate postings easier and more effective.
Re: Is it really free? (as A Dan)
But that wouldn't make sense, because giving away apps as a reason for people to buy the phone would be the same as giving away Windows-specific software like Windows Media Player to get people to buy Windows.
Regardless, I don't think the AP article is sufficient to determine what he means by this. He could just be agreeing with Mike's assessment of the "Give it away and pray" option.
Re: (as A Dan)
Exactly. Please, Mike, don't let the fact that this will be "ineffective" or "pointless" get in the way of protecting the impressionable children and teenagers from poor self-esteem!
These guys are right, though. This is a self-esteem-promotion law, not a truth-in-product-advertising law.
Re: (as A Dan)
I'm not sure that's accurate. The stories that Techdirt considers worth fostering conversations are the possible abuses. I don't think this site is intended to be representative of all "Intellectual Property" lawsuits.
The relevant game (as A Dan)
If anyone's wondering, and can't click through gaming website links like I can't, EA claims that he keeps threatening to go after them for Mirror's Edge.
Re: Re: (as A Dan)
You beat me to it. If you look at the South Butt logo, I can see how it would be worth a trademark complaint. Even with Mike's consumer confusion yardstick.
I know why (as A Dan)
Reading some of the comments on the Slashdot article, it makes a lot of sense. The major reason they sell so many calculators is because kids can use them in school, and they're one of very few calculators allowed. They limit functionality on certain calculators so that they can be used in standardized testing. If the kids could install something so it looks like they don't have programs to help them cheat, these would no longer be allowed on standardized tests, so they wouldn't be able to sell nearly as many calculators.
Anthony read my mind (as Dan)
Voting with your wallets is what they're going for. A lot of people with high-speed internet access hardly use it, so they won't hit the cap and so won't notice the difference. If we the tech-savvy downloaders switch providers, that's fine with them. It will make everyone else on their network slightly happier, and lower their costs and increase those of their competition. It's horrible for us, but I bet this plan will work out for them. At least until movie download services replace movie rental stores, that is.