
All sports clips look the same though. Would struggle to tell horse racing from formula 1.
The High Court of England and Wales has ruled against an app developer who encouraged users to post eight-second sports clips under the guise that it was a social network. Mr Justice Arnold rejected the defence offered by Fanatix developer Will Muirhead that he could avoid infringement using either a fair use defence or a user …
“fanatix seeks to disrupt the US$40 billion global sports media rights market”
I suspect that comments like this might have sunk him. Something presented as a fan site might have got through. Going head to head with your supporters isn't a good idea & ECB might have realised that but that sort of talk would be too much of a challenge.
This post has been deleted by its author
"mere marketing nonsense that sounds big but is not really expected to be believed. "
And this is why when being "disruptive", one needs to remember that everything you've said on the record can and will be used against you, especially the "marketing nonsense", when you fall foul of the law. If you make bullshit claims to hype up the investors, they can come back to bite you.
Marketing and advertising people take note!
Eh.. plenty of streaming sites around to get cricket - quality is not great but you need something to stop you watching too many hours.
Cricket board should FO and sell to terrestrial broadcasters .. ah wait.. there's too little demand now. You need Sky to see it and as a direct result fewer youngsters are interested.
They weren't paying their playing staff vast amounts of money maybe? You know, the ones that actually play the sport.
Or transfer fees are bigger now than they were so the clubs need to recoup.
Or, instead of being entertainment, which is what they basically are, they've now been taken over by the money men to whom sports is nothing but a cash cow and their own personal bank.
"Cricket board should FO and sell to terrestrial broadcasters"
Couldn't agree more. I'd looked forward to spending a good deal of my retirement watching the Beeb test match covering apart from fulminating when they seem to think that tennis fans can watch two channels at once. But not at the expense of paying Uncle Rupert.
"Since nobody else has said it; what Fanatix was doing is just not cricket!"
Traditional English cricket-watching for most people consists of stopping briefly in the park to watch a bowler run up, see what happens and pass on. Eight seconds seems about right to replicate this experience.
But to get the real flavour the clips need to consist of some would-be hard man bowler taking a huge run-up, slowing at the last moment and delivering a full-toss which the batsman muffs and scrapes a single.
I understand that the Premier League went after some publicans for showing games sourced over the satellite under the EU Freedom of Trade because they showed their on-screen logo without permission.
icon because it's the nearest thing to my temper going off all Thermite.
The US Copyright Office and its director Shira Perlmutter have been sued for rejecting one man's request to register an AI model as the author of an image generated by the software.
You guessed correct: Stephen Thaler is back. He said the digital artwork, depicting railway tracks and a tunnel in a wall surrounded by multi-colored, pixelated foliage, was produced by machine-learning software he developed. The author of the image, titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, should be registered to his system, Creativity Machine, and he should be recognized as the owner of the copyrighted work, he argued.
(Owner and author are two separate things, at least in US law: someone who creates material is the author, and they can let someone else own it.)
A US federal district court decision in California favoring database biz Neoj4 is incorrect and imperils free open-source software, according to the Software Freedom Conservancy.
Neo4j Enterprise Edition (EE) was at first offered under both a paid-for commercial license and for free under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 (AGPLv3). In May 2018, version 3.4 of the software was put under AGLv3 plus additional terms from the Commons Clause license, which is not an open-source license and explicitly says as much in its documentation.
The viability of Neo4j's AGPLv3+Commons Clause license is what's at issue, because taken as a whole, the AGPLv3 includes language that says any added terms are removable. That view has been rejected in court – which accepts Neoj4's right to craft custom terms and to resolve contradictions in those terms – and the Software Freedom Conservancy believes the court erred.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has banned the purchase of foreign software – be it standalone applications or code shipping in equipment – for significant critical infrastructure projects, with limited exceptions.
From here on, organizations must seek approval before they can buy in overseas software for this level of infrastructure. Putin also prohibited public agencies and other customers from using foreign software as of January 1, 2025, in a bid to promote Russia's technological independence.
The new rules appear in order No. 166 [PDF], which was signed by Putin on Wednesday, March 30, 2022, and takes effect on Thursday, March 31, 2022. The order is titled "On measures to ensure the technological independence and security of the critical information infrastructure of the Russian Federation."
Russia is considering handing out licenses to use foreign software, database, and chip design patents, and legalizing software copyright violations, in response to sanctions imposed over its invasion of Ukraine.
According to Russian business publication Kommersant, a government document drafted on March 2 outlines possible actions to support the Russian economy, which faces extensive trade restrictions from the US, the UK, and Europe, and business withdrawals.
With companies like Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, and SAP halting sales (though not ending service to existing customers), Russia has instituted tax breaks for technology firms and conscription deferments for IT workers to retain its core resources and talent during the conflict.
AI algorithms cannot copyright the digital artwork they generate, the US Copyright Office has insisted.
Officials this month turned down a request brought by Stephen Thaler, founder of Imagination Engines, to register a copyright claim for a digital image he said was produced by machine-learning software. Thaler said the piece, titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, was crafted by Creativity Machine, an automated system he invented and owned, and argued the software should be recognized as the author of the image.
The US Copyright Office's review board said although it accepted the code-generated picture was made without "any creative contribution from a human actor," the board could not fulfill the request. Today's copyright laws only protect "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind," the board said in a letter [PDF] directed to Thaler's lawyer Ryan Abbott.
Updated Twelve farm labor, advocacy, and repair groups filed a complaint last week with the US Federal Trade Commission claiming that agricultural equipment maker Deere & Company has unlawfully refused to provide the software and technical data necessary to repair its machinery.
The groups include National Farmers Union, Iowa Farmers Union, Missouri Farmers Union, Montana Farmers Union, Nebraska Farmers Union, Ohio Farmers Union, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Farm Action, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, and iFixit.
They contend that Deere & Company owns over 50 per cent of the agricultural machinery market in the US and has deliberately restricted access to its diagnostic software and other information necessary to repair its products in violation of the Sherman Act and statutes covering unfair and deceptive trade practice. And they're asking the FTC to intervene by putting an end to these practices.
Malaysia's House of Representatives has passed an amendment to a 1987 Copyright Act that makes enabling illegal streaming punishable by fine, prison or both.
Those who facilitate copyright infringement face fines of RM200,000 ($2,377) or more, up to 20 years prison, or a combination of both, whether their illicit action be through manufacturing, importing, providing, advertising, or distributing streaming technologies.
By specifying streaming, the amendment updates the previous outdated privacy law that focused on those downloading the content into permanent storage and those who subsequently bootlegged the videos, something that all of a sudden seems very 2008.
Updated Four major Manga publishers are set to sue internet-grooming firm Cloudflare, on grounds its content delivery network facilitates piracy of their wares.
The four companies – Kodansha, Shueisha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa – together dominate the market for Japanese comics and own many iconic properties.
The publishers also believe they're victims of widespread piracy.
Google last month announced plans to prevent customer files stored in Google Drive from being shared when the web giant's automated scanning system finds files that violate its abuse prevention rules.
"When [a file is] restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won't be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible, even to people who have the link," Google explained at the time.
That system is now up and running, just not very well: Google Drive's scanning system has been finding copyright violations where they do not exist and flagging innocuous files.
A US court has found Oracle support specialist Rimini Street in contempt of court and ordered it to pay $630,000 in sanctions – peanuts for the $40bn-revenue Big Red software company.
In a dispute dragging on for more than a decade, the District Court of Nevada also imposed reasonable attorneys' fees and costs against Rimini, to be decided at a later date.
District Judge Larry Hicks found Rimini in contempt of court on only five of the 10 issues presented at the hearing. "The Court's finding of willfulness on the majority of these issues clearly supports the award," the ruling said.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022