Censorship on a public Blog? - When someone posts a link to content that others find shocking to a public blog (in this case Flazoom.com) how should the blog-master handle it. This got me thinking about how we handle the content at MeFi - which is better? Removing the post a few layers, or bereating the poster with lots of mean comment posts?
posted by DragonBoy
on Sep 18, 2000 -
24 comments
You can't copyright the design of a web page in the sense that it's a "form." You can copyright your graphics and text; you can probably copyright your HTML. You can trademark the name of a font, but you can't copyright its design.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
posted by Snarl
on Sep 14, 2000 -
4 comments
Considering Copyright Mr. Powazek brings up a very good point about copyright and how it applies to web design vs. John Perry Barlow's idea's about how copyright applies to the future. From the tone of Derek's last few posts, I'd say someone's been ripping off his designs...again.
posted by Brilliantcrank
on Sep 12, 2000 -
34 comments
Put down that remote! The MPAA wants to equip the next generation of video recorders with copyright-protection technology, to allow broadcasters to prevent you from recording their shows.
posted by harmful
on Sep 5, 2000 -
12 comments
Is it still "file sharing" if you don't share? According to a Xerox Parc study, 70% of Gnutella users are downloading music, but they aren't sharing with others. Some Gnutella developers say this is a self-correcting problem and that new users will step up to fill the gap. Others think this is the start of a growing trend and the whole copyright infringement issue might go away if the greed of users in a peer-to-peer network prevents it from succeeding in the first place.
posted by honkzilla
on Aug 24, 2000 -
8 comments
If you haven't already read "The Heavenly Jukebox", you should really check it out. The Atlantic Monthly recently posted this great article subtitled "Rampant music piracy may hurt musicians less than they fear. The real threat -- to listeners and, conceivably, democracy itself -- is the music industry's reaction to it". While somewhat long, it's a very interesting read, going into the original copyright lawsuits in England over a hundred years ago to today's ordeal pitting the RIAA against the millions of people downloading Metallica mp3s off of Napster. Well worth reading.
posted by ookamaka
on Aug 18, 2000 -
1 comment
Contentville is selling copies of over 1.5 million college dissertations and theses published since 1871. Contentville claims that authors will be paid royalties if their works are sold, but somehow I don't think they contacted most of those authors for permission to put said works up for sale in the first place.
posted by phichens
on Aug 14, 2000 -
15 comments
If you choose to accept
this music file, Mr. Phelps, it will self-destruct after one listen. If you attempt to tamper with or share this file, it will also self-destruct. Thank you for your attention. End of Line.
posted by aflakete
on Aug 1, 2000 -
4 comments
Imminent Death of Internet Predicted! Napster killed the Internet star, says record exec Edgar Bronfman Jr. "Let me tell you what else is in trouble here: the Internet. In the end, the Internet itself will not be able to survive if it becomes a haven for illegal activity. Copyrights must be protected online."
posted by rcade
on Jul 19, 2000 -
14 comments
Do Leahy and Hatch actually read their email? Odds are you might get read by one of their assistants, but still I recommend you send a message in your own words as opposed to what mp3.com recommends. Whether you want changes to copyright legislation or not, let your voice be heard. It's just a click away. Also,
MP3 Goes To Washington contains some enlightening and thought-provoking material.
posted by ZachsMind
on Jul 14, 2000 -
3 comments
And now, here's something we hope you'll really like...
Californian David Simon decided that It Would Be Nice If you could use the Internet like your VCR. The MPAA and the Studios disagreed.
Is this guy crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
posted by baylink
on Jun 27, 2000 -
8 comments
SIMbabes ain't putting out... I play
The Sims. You probably suspected that didn't you? Well, there's a
Blogger Powered weblog by the guy behind the upcoming
Blueprint program, and guess what? Copyright infringement once again rears its ugly head in cyberspace. A website called
Simcorally has downloaded objects others created and claimed them as his own. So now the
SIMbabes are on strike. The upshot of this is I'm still stuck with that obnoxious green couch. I want
something better. And that piano looks awful nice.
Simlane has more on the topic.
posted by ZachsMind
on Jun 25, 2000 -
8 comments
Love unloads This is one of the more comprehensive and insightful takes on the RIAA vs. Napster vs. Record Companies that I've heard. It's long and rambling, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
posted by y6y6y6
on Jun 14, 2000 -
35 comments
Napster's screwed: Internal NapsterCo email and documents show that they intended to be a copyright-infringing pirate haven from the very beginning. Should have used PGP, kids!
posted by aaron
on Jun 13, 2000 -
5 comments
Patently Absurd. James Gleick, chaos researcher and all-around smart guy, has written a very nice piece for the New York Times Magazine about the current spate of stupidity at the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Most important, in my view, is that unlike
the John Perry Barlow piece we discussed earlier, the Gleick piece got national press... which is far more important than we geeks think...
posted by baylink
on Jun 5, 2000 -
5 comments
RIAA backs new copyright law: "Instead of the rights to recordings reverting to the artists after 35 years, as current law states, recordings would be reclassified as "works for hire," with the record labels keeping the rights to them forever. " Let the flame-fest begin...
posted by novarese
on May 10, 2000 -
9 comments
Napster did it- blocked more than 317,000 names used by its subscribers, which have been identified by the hard rock band, Metallica, as allegedly infringing on the copyrights of the group's music.
posted by TuxHeDoh
on May 10, 2000 -
11 comments
Found this over at
Free Advice in regards to the Elian Gonzalez Spoof Movie:
WHAT IS "FAIR USE" WITH RESPECT TO A COPYRIGHT?
Copyrighted work may be used for certain limited purposes by people other than the owner under the doctrine of "fair use." "Fair use" includes reproduction for specific purposes such as:
criticism and comment, including
parody
news reporting
teaching
scholarship
research
I beleive that the movie is protected. How else could have the South Park used the photo in last night's episode? I doubt the AP is going to go head to head with Comedy Central over the issue.
It is just easy for big companies to threaten the little people and know that they will win. What a shame.
posted by da5id
on Apr 27, 2000 -
8 comments
Folks, this one's not a joke. The major software publishers are trying to make an end-run around the copyright laws. If this passes
anywhere we're all potentially going to be bound by it. All they have to do is stick a clause in the license that says "This shall be governed by the laws of the state of Virginia."
They're also trying to make an end-run around the First Amendment. If this passes it will be illegal for you to write a review about any software package, or to reveal any information about bugs you find.
Finally, they're trying to make an end-run around property law. If it passes, you won't
own the software you purchase, you'll be
leasing it, and you won't be protected by state laws on commercial purchase.
posted by Steven Den Beste
on Mar 5, 2000 -
5 comments
So
a few days ago, I went off on some resume sites going out and pilfering my resume off my personal site. Well, I
opted out of
passportaccess.com, and
here is their response. My favorite part: "Once you post your resume or any sort of material on the internet it becomes public information and therefore, can be spread from site to site very quickly." Uh, excuse me? Since when did "public information" equal "copyright-free and we can do anything we want with it?"
posted by mathowie
on Feb 10, 2000 -
5 comments
Personal rant time: I wrote
my own resume a while ago, and have been building onto it for a couple years now. To me, it is copyrighted material, just as anything else I write. So why is it showing up in all sorts of resume databases? I'm getting calls from recruiters saying they got it from
Aquent,
Passport Access, and various other resume sites. These sites seem to be sucking down resumes, putting them on their site, and making money off them. I can't see my own resume, since I haven't paid to look at it. I find PassportAccess to be especially annoying: they offer
an opt-out page. What the hell? Why should I even have to do this? It's my resume, not theirs!
posted by mathowie
on Feb 7, 2000 -
13 comments
iCraveTV is streaming free, live network television feeds using RealNetworks software, and the big guys are steamed. The broadcasters are citing copyright infringement, but the guy running iCraveTV, William Craig, says he's perfectly legal. I think it's pretty ballsy, but legal? Apparently, since he's 'casting from Toronto, Canadian cable laws allow the retransmission of broadcast signals sans the licensing fees, as long as the signal doesn't get altered.
posted by grant
on Dec 6, 1999 -
3 comments
Uncle Bill's other hobby is collecting the digital rights to millions of images that basically make up a large chunk of the visual history of humanity. Gates, via
Corbis,
Adobe and others are charging themselves with bringing digital imaging to the people. The best snippet: 'In addition to the delectable link sausages served at breakfast, Mr. Gate's keynote speech spiced up an otherwise bland show.'
posted by grant
on Nov 18, 1999 -
2 comments
So the DVD copy protection was cracked, and it's interesting to hear the comments from the industry. The DVD Forum's release makes the hackers sound awful. The DVD folks feel like they've been ripped off. Can't these motion picture and DVD industry folks see this as a good thing? A couple hackers decrypted what was supposed to be a secure format and they're horrified? They should be horrified at the idiots that created the weak 'protection' in the first place. These hackers just did the industry a great service. They found a gaping security hole before good recordable DVDs ever came out! I'm surprised hackers are vilified instead of being offered lucrative positions as security experts.
posted by mathowie
on Nov 3, 1999 -
0 comments
