Personally I would like to see every single website have to put up a banner that explains exactly what ages may view their pages and also why they have had to put the banner up. Once every single American has to click through a banner, proving via some as yet unknown way that they are old enough to view the page, you can imagine the backlash against such stupid legislation will begin.
They have a PRS license for Podcasting, but PPL covers different people than PRS... so to answer the question that was already answered in the article, that you failed to read properly, is that NO, THERE IS NO BLANKET LICENSE.
So... if it came to pass that hyperlinks were not infinging as all they do is highlight the location of something but require a third party to do something to access the content surely then the same would be applied to a .torrent or .nzb file? Could it be argued that embedding a youtube video link into a website that requires a third party to click "play" then falls into the same non-infringing catagory?
I'm just confused as to why he'd link to Techdirt from Techdirt... but then I'm not ootb and have no idea what firmware he is up to or whether they have flashed his logic circuits to enable them for 2013.
I'm confused, you're the one that raised the whole pro/anti thing by asking whether MrWilson would "feel" the same way if it was an NRA Rep opposed to a Journalist who was using it as a prop.
1. NRA rep says "We have decided that the Government should legislate as we really don't need to have 30 bullets in one clip when we are hunting deer".
2. NRA rep says "what? Bullets don't kill people, look I have 30 bullets in this clip and no one is dead, it is people that kill people".
The execs work for an American company, they just followed the law as it is in America.
The US Government believes only it's laws apply to the Internet, see Rojadirecta and SurfTheChannel lawsuits. Why would a US company who sees what it's Government does not then assume that as it has no liability in the US it doesn't have liability in another country? There is no such thing as Youtube.IT, only Youtube.COM.
Italian law doesn't cover .COMs in the eyes of the US Government.
I just wish Google pulled their business, whether it's in Italy over Youtube or in Germany and elsewhere where legacy industries want a slice of Googles profits because Google does a great job of pointing people in the right direction.
I wonder what Italians and Germans would make of a single page that pointed out the stupidity of their nations legal system or industries when they went to any Google page.
Of course he is going to say that.... he's looking at moving on probably in the next 5 years so he's scoring points towards his interview with the RIAA/MPAA etc.
Techdirt... NOOOOOO!
Now I want to go buy Resurrection just because of what Mr Jones says about downloaders... and I hate zombie movies! Grrr!
Re: Schools Better Inform Teachers of This
Personally I would like to see every single website have to put up a banner that explains exactly what ages may view their pages and also why they have had to put the banner up. Once every single American has to click through a banner, proving via some as yet unknown way that they are old enough to view the page, you can imagine the backlash against such stupid legislation will begin.
Re:
Money has already been invented, copyright fanboys only care about money, no further innovation is required as they are getting paid anyway.
Re: You promote tiny outlets, disregarding collateral damage
They have a PRS license for Podcasting, but PPL covers different people than PRS... so to answer the question that was already answered in the article, that you failed to read properly, is that NO, THERE IS NO BLANKET LICENSE.
Thankfully George Galloway is one of the most disliked MPs in the UK and very few people actually agree with a word he says.
This >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU is what we appear to call and MP in this country!
So... if it came to pass that hyperlinks were not infinging as all they do is highlight the location of something but require a third party to do something to access the content surely then the same would be applied to a .torrent or .nzb file? Could it be argued that embedding a youtube video link into a website that requires a third party to click "play" then falls into the same non-infringing catagory?
So lets get this right... It's OK to make laws on video games but not on guns?
Man that's one fucked up political system you lot have over there!
Re:
In a similar way to Dajaz1 and Rojadirecta and the others, it isn't about the law.
Re: Re: Broken System
You could always download a pirate version as an errr... umm.. ahhh... backup of the original?
Recent "Screener" releases (from affiliate sources, for example MPAA, Oscar Jury):
The Hobbit
Zero Dark Thirty
Skyfall
Lincoln
I wonder when the MPAA et al are going to start looking at their own?
Re: I don't think any "culture" is actually lost, you just have to pay for it.
I'm just confused as to why he'd link to Techdirt from Techdirt... but then I'm not ootb and have no idea what firmware he is up to or whether they have flashed his logic circuits to enable them for 2013.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This one is easy
I'm confused, you're the one that raised the whole pro/anti thing by asking whether MrWilson would "feel" the same way if it was an NRA Rep opposed to a Journalist who was using it as a prop.
Re: Re: This one is easy
It would depend on the context...
1. NRA rep says "We have decided that the Government should legislate as we really don't need to have 30 bullets in one clip when we are hunting deer".
2. NRA rep says "what? Bullets don't kill people, look I have 30 bullets in this clip and no one is dead, it is people that kill people".
Dear America,
Please, Please, Please, Please, Please DO NOT deport Piers Morgan back to the UK.
Regards,
The Population of the United Kingdom.
Re: @ "wac-wac-wac'ing-that-mole" & "whac-a-mole"
Hey look everyone, the local nutcase has nothing better to do...
Re: What's the purpose of Pirate Party's proxies? -- Infringement.
ootb once again proves that he is actually a ghost from the 1800's...
"knowingly linking to infringing content"... Can you please post a link to a film available to download directly from the Pirate Bay's servers.
Oh you can't because there exists no actual infringing content on the Pirate Bay, merely little lines of numbers and letters.
Re: Re: hahaha
From a comment on that post...
Paperwhite Kindle owners beware. NONE of these are for the PW. All old links and useless for us.
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
The execs work for an American company, they just followed the law as it is in America.
The US Government believes only it's laws apply to the Internet, see Rojadirecta and SurfTheChannel lawsuits. Why would a US company who sees what it's Government does not then assume that as it has no liability in the US it doesn't have liability in another country? There is no such thing as Youtube.IT, only Youtube.COM.
Italian law doesn't cover .COMs in the eyes of the US Government.
I just wish Google pulled their business, whether it's in Italy over Youtube or in Germany and elsewhere where legacy industries want a slice of Googles profits because Google does a great job of pointing people in the right direction.
I wonder what Italians and Germans would make of a single page that pointed out the stupidity of their nations legal system or industries when they went to any Google page.
Of course he is going to say that.... he's looking at moving on probably in the next 5 years so he's scoring points towards his interview with the RIAA/MPAA etc.