Perhaps this is why "fail early and often" is a successful strategy.

I wonder if it's also that there are more people who want to talk on the phone or play games than there are who want to read a book.

Maybe we need to actually start teaching Common Sense in schools, because it seems less common these days.

This woman figured a real terrorist would explain what he was doing to a total stranger on plane? Right.

Well, having a tub that means the baby can't slip down under the water is comforting, particularly when they are too young to be able to lift their head.

Laugh now, Cory, but you'll soon see. :)

I guess that guy from Warners was right. They don't understand technology and they don't have the skills to hire people who do.

Surely they are infringing on Google's copyright? I'd imagine they'd be pretty pissed about the Yahoo logo showing at the top of their page as well.

"I'm all for no DRM but as a media creator I'm a little fuzzy on exactly how you stop people from freely distributing your work product without it. "

You're statement implies that with DRM, you can stop people from freely distributing your work.

You can't. DRM does not stop people from distributing your work and the salesmen who say it does are selling snake oil.

So your question should be: "As a media creator, I'm a little fuzzy on how you get people to pay for my work, even though they can get it for free?"

Is there a way to put a link to my own terms and condition in the http header?

I'd like to have my web browser send a header with a link to something that says "By fulfilling my HTTP request, you agree to the following..."

followed by lots of one-sided, friendly to me terms. :)

Of course, there are also the laws that don't apply to wealthy multinationals..

Imagine I had sold people CDs with a hidden software package that intentionally interfered with the normal operation of their computer. I'm sure the FBI would come knocking at my door for breaking the computer crime laws. But did anyone at Sony BMG, who did exactly that, get arrested? Nope.

I thought the company only had to notify you of a change to the terms, not specifically get you to agree.

I.e., if they sent you a letter with the new terms and you continued using the service, then you are considered to have consented to them.

So, I don't think publishing an article in the newspaper would work, but sending a registered letter to their HQ might.

Of course, by "work" i mean you'd have a slim chance of winning an expensive lawsuit if your lucky enough to get a judge who doesn't simply side with the corporate interests...

Oh please don't go down the route of voting for comments. I'd much rather read comments that are moderated by a reasonable individual rather than voted on by the masses.

You know, sort of how I'd rather live in a democracy with elected representatives rather than a popular vote on every bill.

Anyway, I think it's time for a "consumer's terms of service". This would be full of outlandish terms that are favorable to consumers. Then people could mail them with the typical "if you do not object within 14 days this agreement becomes binding" kind of language.

Imagine the fun that could be had...

How abou tif the controls actually were a little miniature curtain and you simply grasped them and moved them to the position you wanted and the real curtains would follow suit.

Sort of like the electric seat adjustments on cars that look like a car seat.

But seriously, yes, Donald Norman's "Design of Everyday Things" would have a lot to say about this one.

Clay,

Not automatically. The person who owns the copyright in a work is the person who created it. So, if you commission a software developer to create a program, the developer owns the copyright to that work by default. A wedding photographer owns the copyright to the pictures taken at your wedding. And so on...

I used to work at a software company with a guy who was responsible for the licensing subsystem of our product. The licensing model required a key to unlock the software and additional keys to add concurrent connections, add-on features, etc..

My friend and most of the engineering team understood that the licenensing was a weak defence at best.

However, every once in a while, some bright shinny product manager, fresh from MBA school would storm into his office and get all worked up about someone publishing a crack on the internet.

Now, you have to understand that this was software for large corporations. Sure, someone might use a copy without paying us, but nobody who was going to crack it would have paid for it anyway.

My friend would patiently explain essentially what Cory has explained. I.e., we've given them the software and the code to validate the key is part of the software and they run that software on a machine that is completely under their control so their isn't any way to completely protect the software.

He would explain this, and the product manager would go away looking dejected. But then, he would return looking like he'd had a Eureka moment and shout "Dongles!".

Now, dongles, like dedicated DVD players, only make the task harder. But as we've seen with the Xbox, even hardware-based DRM can still be broken.

Plus, my friend would always ask, how would we handle the multiple product keys we supply (for additional connections, add-on products, etc)? We would have to specify that they leave five feet of space behind their servers to handle the chain of dongles sticking out the back.

Anyway, I could always tell when this had happened to my friend because he would come into my office and tell me "I've been dongled again."

It does point out the power imbalance of the DMCA, though. Viacom might have had a fair use defence for using his clip without permission, but then so might he.

The difference is that Viacom can simply fire off an e-mail to YouTube and the clip is removed without question. On the other hand, the original copyright holder can't simply send an e-mail to, say, the FCC and have Viacom's broadcast stopped without question.