Reply With Quote
walk away rather than inform yourself? seems you prefer being spoon fed over reading through this thread for yourself. how unsurprising.
This is your baby. If it was that quick of a search, you could have cleared up just as quickly.
But you didn't. It seems you would prefer I walk away instead.
walk away rather than inform yourself? seems you prefer being spoon fed over reading through this thread for yourself. how unsurprising.
So to sum it up, it was a whiny article with no new insight on anything that hasn't already posted in this thread.
Thanks for nothing. Literally nothing.
The MPAA is saying that their business is being hurt to receive government assistance. That is not the case so the government should maybe move some of those resources to other stuff
revenue and and butts in seats increased for the movie biz last year, despite all their whining about how piracy is putting them out of business.
not only is that news, it's relevant to the discussion. seems you're the broken record, Blake.
MPAA links research that says it is.
Box office revenue has consistently risen over the years. Nothing new. I'll see if I can find a similar ” article” from 2010 for s and giggles.
Loss of revenue =/= being put out of business.......unless you want to provide a link where the MPAA claims the industry will ” go out of business”.
I'm betting you don't.
Box office revenue has consistently risen over the years. Nothing new. I'll see if I can find a similar ” article” from 2010 for s and giggles.
Loss of revenue =/= being put out of business.......unless you want to provide a link where the MPAA claims the industry will ” go out of business”.
I'm betting you don't.
hi there, motormouth.
the existential threat of piracy isn't something I made up. it goes way back. if you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention.
Hi, sensitivehole.
I'm surprised you slowed your engine down to only two successive posts.
Normally it's what, three? Four posts in a row?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ling-software/In a criminal case sure to make programmers nervous, a software maker who licenses a program used by online casinos and bookmakers overseas is being charged with promoting gambling in New York because authorities say his software was used by others for illegal betting in that state.
New York authorities say that about $2.3 million that Robert Stuart and his company, Extension Software, received in cash and money orders for licensing his software cons utes direct proceeds of illegal, U.S.-based bookmaking operations.
“These defendants abetted large-scale illegal gambling in the U.S. and abroad,” said District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. in a press release in October when Stuart was charged. “In doing so, they gave bettors an easy way to place illegal wagers, and created an appe e for further unlawful activity.”
But Stuart, who has been charged along with his wife and brother-in-law with one felony count for promoting gambling in New York through their software firm, says that his company sells the software only to en ies outside the U.S. and that he’s not aware of anyone using it in the U.S. or using it to take illegal bets in the U.S. He also says the software doesn’t place bets, it simply provides online gambling sites with the infrastructure to select and display which sporting events they want to offer for betting and also stores the bets.
“It’s overreaching where they’re going after a software developer who sells the software with a legal license, and yet we’re still being prosecuted on how it’s being used,” Stuart says. He notes that authorities have not told him yet who exactly he’s accused of aiding and abetting.
A hearing in the case is scheduled to be held in New York on Jan. 8.
The prosecution of a commercial programmer for crimes committed by people who used his software would set a dangerous precedent for other software makers who might be held liable for how their legally licensed software is used, says Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties for the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University.
“It’s scary for software distributors, if someone happens to use their software for illegal activity,” she says. “If you know what people could use it for, and didn’t prevent it, did you take enough steps? What level of knowledge you need to have and all of that is not as clear as it should be [under current laws].”
Stuart asserts that New York authorities only came after him because they wanted to use him as a conduit to uncover illegal gambling operations in that state. He says the New York district attorney’s office tried to strong-arm him into a plea agreement that would have had him hacking into the systems of his software clients in order to obtain the usernames and passwords of gamblers and their bookmakers to help authorities gather evidence of illegal gambling.
Although Stuart initially agreed to the terms of the plea, he later recanted because he said he was uncomfortable being used as a pawn to secretly collect information on his customers. He claims authorities are charging him now in retaliation for refusing to cooperate with them.
Buffy vs Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate
It has been three and a half years since I first uploaded my remix video “Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed” to YouTube. The work is an example of fair use transformative storytelling which serves as a visual critique of gender roles and representations in modern pop culture vampire media.
Since I published the remix in 2009 it has been viewed over 3 million times on YouTube and fans have translated the sub les into 30 different languages. It has been featured and written about by the LA Times, Boston Globe, Salon, Slate, Wired, Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly and discussed on NPR radio. It was nominated for a 2010 Webby Award in the best remix/mashup category. The video is used in law school programs, media studies courses and gender studies curricula across the country. The remix also ignited countless online debates over the troubling ways stalking-type behavior is often framed as deeply romantic in movie and television narratives.
This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work.
Despite the clear and rather unambiguous fair use argument that exists for the video, Lionsgate Entertainment has now abused YouTube’s system and filed a DMCA takedown and had my remix deleted for “copyright infringement”. Below is a brief chronicle of my struggle to get Buffy vs Edward back on YouTube where it belongs.
...
http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013...d-by-lionsgate
you can't fight corporations (ask the 99%, ask OWS)
you can't fight city hall (ask Assange, ask OWS)
you can fight city hall.
nimby.
http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.htmlAaron Swartz commits suicide
By Anne Cai
NEWS EDITOR; UPDATED AT 2:15 A.M. 1/12/13
Computer activist Aaron H. Swartz committed suicide in New York City yesterday, Jan. 11, according to his uncle, Michael Wolf, in a comment to The Tech. Swartz was 26.
“The tragic and heartbreaking information you received is, regrettably, true,” confirmed Swartz’ attorney, ****** R. Peters of Kecker and Van Nest, in an email to The Tech.
Swartz was indicted in July 2011 by a federal grand jury for allegedly mass downloading do ents from the JSTOR online journal archive with the intent to distribute them. He subsequently moved to Brooklyn, New York, where he then worked for Avaaz Foundation, a nonprofit “global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.” Swartz appeared in court on Sept. 24, 2012 and pleaded not guilty.
The accomplished Swartz co-authored the now widely-used RSS 1.0 specification at age 14, was one of the three co-owners of the popular social news site Reddit, and completed a fellowship at Harvard’s Ethics Center Lab on Ins utional Corruption. In 2010, he founded DemandProgress.org, a “campaign against the Internet censorship bills SOPA/PIPA.”
argh, there soon be pirate country...
http://torrentfreak.com/antigua-gove...states-130124/
http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...be.single.htmlor the past few months, some of the world’s leading cryptographers have been keeping a closely guarded secret about a pioneering new invention. Today, they’ve decided it’s time to tell all.
Back in October, the startup tech firm Silent Circle ruffled governments’ feathers with a “surveillance-proof” smartphone app to allow people to make secure phone calls and send texts easily. Now, the company is pushing things even further—with a groundbreaking encrypted data transfer app that will enable people to send files securelyfrom a smartphone or tablet at the touch of a button. (For now, it’s just being released for iPhones and iPads, though Android versions should come soon.) That means photographs, videos, spreadsheets, you name it—sent scrambled from one person to another in a matter of seconds.
“This has never been done before,” boasts Mike Janke, Silent Circle’s CEO. “It’s going to revolutionize the ease of privacy and security.”
Missed this when it happened (Aug 2012). Just wow.
Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case
Today the government filed a "voluntary dismissal" notice of the case against Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com. You can see the short dismissal notice below. What's unfortunate, of course, is that the government might now get away with this blatant censorship and disregard for basic due process, without a court ruling showing that it was an illegal move by the feds. In other words: without punishment, the feds may feel free to do this again. This is now the second (and third) example of the government seizing a domain and censoring it for over a year on a very questionable legal theory -- and when the pressure finally gets to be enough, the government turns tail and runs, giving back the domain with no explanation or apology for blatant censorship. That's unacceptable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions