Posts by John Lilburne 1026 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2009
... early means Google paid shills not in place to talk up the results,
"The problem is when this happens in the middle of the day, there is no time for a conference call to massage it, there is no time for analysts' questions and for an evaluation."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19995730
Personally I live in the country so that I can drive 65 miles day, burn up the oil, and pump out a load of CO2, and hopefully when your grandkids grow up they'll have to walk, and wear smog masks.
Meanwhile I get about 3-4 mb though some days we get contention with others in the village. I'm thinging of getting a megaphone so I can stand in the road and shout:
STOP DOWNLOADING PORN ... IT'S MY TURN!
The problem is that the fucking arseholes - GOOGLE for one strip the metadata from the image whenever it is downloaded via from the image search thing. Other sites similarly strip out the metadata too whenever images are uploaded or downloaded from their sites. So someone takes a photo from flickr (which also strips metadata from the non-original smaller versions they make) uploads it to their blog and voila no fucking metadata.
[he visited Disneyland, and went on a ride, the theme park offered him the photo of himself and his girlfriend to buy - with his credit card information already linked to it. He noted that he had never entered his name or information into anything at the theme park, or indicated that he wanted a photo, or alerted the humans at the ride to who he and his girlfriend were - so, he said, based on his professional experience, the system had to be using facial recognition technology.]
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/298-185/12956-focus-the-new-totalitarianism-of-surveillance-technology
... the immoral arsewipes over at Google are getting some 5 million VALID takedown requests a month now. They reckoned that processing 5,000,000 a year of youtube takedowns cost them $500 million. If the rate is now at $6 billion one can see why they would want to reduce that.
The next thing to do is to target all the companies whose adverts via Google appear on pirate sites. Hit teh bastards in teh pocket and hit them hard.
The article is about MELTWATER. The judgement is about permanent copies of copyright material being transmitted by email which also includes links to the full articles, but the snippets are extensive and are copyright infringing. All happening within a commercial setup. It has nothing to do with web browsing at all. That is the FUD being promulgated by MELTWATER.
Leave the FUD on Alpha Centuri or wherever the hell from. No one cares about browser caches during normal web surfing STOOPID. What they care about is the SAVE AS (the permanent Xeroxed copy), especially when such copy is used for commercial purposes. That was/is the point of the MELTWATER case. Permanent copies of copyright material not transient copies used to render web pages.
... meltwater isn't simply linking to pages, they are copying multiple chunks from articles along with the links, and emailing them to clients. The chunks copied may individually or collectively amount to a copyright violation., and require a permissions license to distribute the copyright material. Their clients are then storing a copy of the meltwater emails for an indeterminate length of time.
Think of it in terms of spotify which needs to obtain a license to give it permission to stream songs, its customers would also need a license if they were to rip the stream, and save the songs as mp3s on their computer.
From my recollection meltwater are/were providing email results to queries by searching their database of crawled articles. Each snippet was some 256 chars long, but many snippets of any one particular article could be included in the email, thus representing a large part of the original article. The point of the meltwater emails was to enable their clients to avoid doing any web browsing.
"Remember back when parent parented?"
Yeah and basically they sent the kids to places where they thought they would be safe, removed support from such places when they found that such trust was missplaced, and had laws enacted to ensure that if their kids were subjected to inappropriate behaviour then action could be taken against the perpetrator.
... 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.
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".
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
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
