Slashdot Mirror

the fact the Chinese can sue in American courts with a decent chance to win still says a lot about the differences between the two juggernaut nations.

The differences only exist in your brain, washed over by American propaganda.

What if I link to the image instead of copying it to my site?

Then you're not making a copy. Which is why this is bollocks:

As it stands this gets close to making hyperlinks a copyright violation.

No. It states that creating a copy is creating a copy. It doesn't say a fucking thing about hyperlinks.

You'd need the US for that fucking insanity:
https://www.lexology.com/libra...

if I'm walking past a concert and overhear a song can the venue demand payment from me? This isn't a 1-1 comparison, but it's also not that far off.

Yes, yes it is far off a 1-1 comparison. It's so fucking far removed I'm genuinely amazed you even think it belongs on the same website, let alone under this article.

if I wanted to do something nasty and make sure you couldn't film it I could play some incidental music that's copyrighted

UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.

show a few copyrighted images

UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.

then sue you for including them in your documentary on the nasty thing I did

You'd lose, even without a public interest type defence. Avoid doing nasty things on camera.

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

The Kodi project has distributed its software to users in other countries. What is "doing business"?

Shame on you, you cut short his sentence --"and/or apply for registration of the mark in that country."

Canada has moved to a hybrid first-to-file trademark registration system. Prior users of the mark may still demonstrate that they have priority, but they have to litigate priority in court. Many countries, like China, are hybrid first-to-file countries, and many others are pue first-to-file countries.

Register your trademark or else:
"Whether your trademark is already the subject of a foreign registration, or whether an application for the mark has not yet been filed in any country, it would be prudent to be the first to file in Canada before the law permits others to file applications for your trademarks without having to claim use. While you could litigate later over who is entitled to priority for the mark, it would be far more cost effective to avoid this potential litigation by being the first to file."

The NLRA has some real protections. See here for an analysis. In one case, a guy publicly complained (on Facebook) about the quality of food at a company party, and that was ruled to be protected speech. In another case, a guy put "Bob is such a NASTY M***** F***** don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f****** family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!" on his Facebook page, and the NLRB agreed that it was protected speech. If I had been Google, I would have given him a big severance package along with a nondisclosure agreement to avoid lawsuits. However, it's also possible management at Google doesn't care if they lose a lawsuit, as long as they are perceived as fighting for the correct side.

Except in this case the fired engineer didn't post his manifesto in Facebook. He mailed his manifesto to his fellow employees using company resources. In the cases you mentioned would the outcomes have been different if the offending speech were circulated internally and not on a public domain?

The NLRA has some real protections. See here for an analysis.

In one case, a guy publicly complained (on Facebook) about the quality of food at a company party, and that was ruled to be protected speech.
In another case, a guy put "Bob is such a NASTY M***** F***** don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f****** family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!" on his Facebook page, and the NLRB agreed that it was protected speech.

If I had been Google, I would have given him a big severance package along with a nondisclosure agreement to avoid lawsuits. However, it's also possible management at Google doesn't care if they lose a lawsuit, as long as they are perceived as fighting for the correct side.

In this case, he was criticizing his employer's policies, something strictly protected under the NLRA. Check it out. Even at work, it is protected.

the list of reasons why an at-will employer cannot fire an employee who decides, unprompted, to openly criticize the employer's policies and

The NRLA specifically protects openly criticizing employer's policies.

If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right?

California is an at-will state, which means he can be fired for almost any reason. Speech being factual will not protect you here (unlike slander cases).

Unfortunately for Google, it seems that criticizing company policy is explicitly protected by the law, so you can't fire someone for criticizing company policy. Google claims they fired him for creating a hostile environment, not for his criticism of company policy.

A lawsuit might revolve around whether his criticism of women is separate from his criticism of company policy. I give that as my non-lawyer opinion, worth: 0 cents.

Re-check the law.

Then prove it, asshole.

Any whatever the law says, any employee can sue

Anybody can sue for anything, doesn't mean they'll win.

and juries are the final arbitrator of the facts

No, they're not. If there's no legal basis for a lawsuit (i.e. if you're not suing under a specific law,) the judge can dismiss it (summary dismissal) long before a jury would ever get the chance to see it.

If they decide that in fact the employer over-stretched, then the law gets changed

You're talking about establishing case law, and no, that's false. In fact, case law specifically favors allowing employers to request a doctor's note:

http://www.lexology.com/librar...

Furthermore, employers have a well established right to ask for doctor's notes:

https://webcache.googleusercon...

https://casetext.com/case/sham... http://www.lexology.com/librar...

I agree with the other posters that these videos are likely to cause confusion to the average viewer, and are probably in violation of trademark law. That said, the way to handle that is in the courts.

DCMA takedown requests only apply to copyright infringement, not trademark law. It is a violation of the law to use the DCMA this way, both according to the USPTOs guidelines(See B.4), and existing case law.

From the article, it is unknown whether their lawyers sent a DCMA request or a some other sort of cease and desist letter. But either way, Digitalocean had no legal obligation to take down the content, or any legal liability if they didn't take it down. The fact that they shutdown an entire service over a toothless complaint about one page on that service is unacceptable, and people should seriously reconsider doing business with them in the future.

What are you babbling about?

I agree with the other posters that these videos are likely to cause confusion to the average viewer, and are probably in violation of trademark law. That said, the way to handle that is in the courts.

DCMA takedown requests only apply to copyright infringement, not trademark law. It is a violation of the law to use the DCMA this way, both according to the USPTOs guidelines(See B.4), and existing case law.

From the article, it is unknown whether their lawyers sent a DCMA request or a some other sort of cease and desist letter. But either way, Digitalocean had no legal obligation to take down the content, or any legal liability if they didn't take it down. The fact that they shutdown an entire service over a toothless complaint about one page on that service is unacceptable, and people should seriously reconsider doing business with them in the future.

I see nothing "socialistic" about a government imposing rules and regulations on businesses. Free markets have been regulated by government since the dawn of civilization. You can actually find examples of building codes going back to the Code of Hammurabi in 1792 BC, as well as the Old Testament.

Yes, but where did that lawsuit (from 2002/2003) go?

Aside from the "We want $500,000,000!", and later a judge imposing an injunction "Pull the products or slap a sticker on there giving credit", I couldn't really find details on the case.

There's an interview with the singer from 2012, which includes:

DX: $500,000,000 seems so excessive. Thatâ(TM)s a crazy amount of money.

Truth Hurts: It was a crazy amount that they never got. They didnâ(TM)t get not a penny.

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/...

There's also this article, which seems to claim that copyright was filed - but said copyright filing itself had issues:

I found one legal document pertaining to the case, from August 07. It names Lahiri and Saregama as plaintiffs (not Mangeshkar) and discusses the interesting fact, which the defense â" for Universal / Interscope / Aftermath / Dre â" attempted to use to its advantage, that the two parties (Lahiri and Saregama) each separately filed in early 03 for the US copyright to âoeThoda Resham.â I have read in a few places that both claims were settled out of court.

http://wayneandwax.com/?p=100

And then there's this article which seems to go into a bit more detail from a legal standpoint:
http://www.lexology.com/librar...

tl;dr: I highly doubt the Indian authors (whoever gets to claim 'authorship' there) got out ahead, and - more importantly - it bears little semblance to cases where no copyright was filed in the U.S.

How is the patent enforceable in international waters? Federal courts have ruled they aren't in other lawsuits.
http://www.lexology.com/librar...
I'm genuinely curious.

I've had it with small companies. During the '00s I twice started with small companies only to hear "pay will be late" at the end of an early pay period, then "pay is just around the corner" by the end of the next pay period. In one case, the CEO simply never paid; I left before the third no-pay period was over, demanding that I be paid for my hours, to which he basically replied "so sue us!" I didâ"but only managed to recoup some of what I was owed.

This is nothing new, nor is it specific to small companies; I think you meant "startups." Textile companies used to do the same BS, not paying workers, during the industrial revolution. It's why, for example, in MA it is a CRIMINAL matter upon the officers of the company if employees are not paid within a certain amount of time for work done. Furthermore, the law is written such that BOTH the state and you individually can pursue action against them concurrently/independently.

It's also why, if terminated or laid off, you must walk out the door with any and all money owed to you. It's not a defense that the guy who signs the checks is only in on Tuesdays, or they need to figure out how much to take out of your paycheck for purchases from the company canteen, etc. Why? Because they're choosing to end your employment, and they can choose to do so at any time. So they should terminate employment on Tuesday, after they've done the necessary calculations.

If you are reading this, live in MA (and probably a bunch of other states), and have a pay period that is not at least semi-monthly (biweekly if you're paid hourly) unless you're salaried and agreed to be paid monthly...or you have not been paid within one pay period for your work...stop reading, step outside, and call your State AG immediately, or at least read something like http://www.lexology.com/librar...

If you dry up the source of information that has allowed Google to dominate Internet search then it would hurt them financially. The biggest fear for them would be tougher privacy laws. Right now the Class Action E-Mail/Wiretapping case doesn't look too good for them so there may be some changes in the future for gmail users. The NSA fiasco with Snowden means that more people are asking pointed questions and Google and all the others who make money off of your personal data have to do a little walk on the tightrope. On one side they've pushed legislators away from enacting tougher privacy laws but now they're information has been hacked by the NSA yet they condemn that. The only reason Google exists is that it can mine information efficiently. Throw a few lawsuits and some new legislation into that mix and it suddenly gets very cloudy for them. Take a look at Google Glass for example, right now the thought of millions of people with always on cameras can become quite disturbing especially since you don't know where those images are going or what they may be used for. Sure there's the augmented reality take on it, but how will society take to it in the long run?

How does that fit into the free market capitalism that made America great? If someone else can do the same job cheaper, hire them instead.

You mean to say, "If someone can be hired for slave wages and locked into a single-employer contract with no chance to move jobs rather than hiring people on an equal footing."

This is about as far from "free market capitalism" as it comes. The H-1B system deliberately alters the agreement and creates a semi-slave labor deliberately paying under-market wages.

And then there's all the fraud in the system. Including falsely inflated skills listings designed to keep anyone from successfully applying for the jobs later salted to H-1Bs with far less than the originally advertised qualifications. And of course the demand for H-1Bs rather than actual EB-5s where they would have legal right to leave for better employment if it was offered by another company.

Don't you dare use the term "free market capitalism", you fucking slavemonger. It's nothing of the sort.

Also: Similar Proposal in New York.

Guess what? There is nothing more to the story. It's exactly what it sounds like: a money grab.