Send them a cease and desist letter, and then sue them, just like the big boys?
Presumably if your someone who actually cares enough to check and see if someone is copying your photo, your also someone who cared enough to have it documented when / where you took it, or at the very least that you actually took it. Or as applied to art... you have the original copy.
While I don't know the facts about any of these situations, I do know that this is the internet. As such I feel compelled to assume facts and make up what I don't know. What follows is the result:
How in the hole hell can you justify this statement: "To prevent narrow minded individuals from deciding what is "right" for the rest of society. "
Seems to me that what the court is doing is exactly that. YOU have decided that they are narrow minded and you are "open" minded, and since they disagree with you they are wrong and must be FORCED TO CHANGE. Do you not see the logical inconsistency?
I guess the one thing I have a major problem with is fining the K of C for holding to their religious convictions. It is essentially the same thing as fining someone for going to church on Sunday.
you unfortunately highlighted the wrong portion of that. "A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909" is the portion you SHOULD have highlighted. Note that the AP has no problem with the posting of summaries of its news reports (at least not anymore) what it has a problem with is copy and pasting the ACTUAL news article...
the case pretty explicitly says that it IS protected material...
As the other responder noted at the border they can do whatever they want.
The constitutional right against unwarranted searches applies only within the borders of the United States (not arguing whether it should or not, just stating the current law). Under that statement it is fine to search entering peoples documents / affects because they are not yet within the borders of the US (IE they may still be denied access).
What you are thinking of is the prohibition against unwarrented searches and seizures that is effective only within the USA's borders.
And yes, this DOES mean that the US can constitutionally raid someone's house in Canada with a warrant or probable cause. The thing that prevents them is the whole "not wanting to be in a war" thing.
There is not now, nor has there ever been a right to privacy at border crossings... unwarranted searches at border crossings is standard practice, and has been for a while, and has been upheld as being constitutional. Now the seizure resulting from the described image may or may not have been legal, we don't know enough facts to determine if the standard was met.
I for one agree with the governments analogy of computers to papers. If you want to encrypt your handwritten papers that would be fine, likewise if you encrypt your data it is fine, but the government still gets to look at it when you enter the country (Note that does not mean you are bound to give them the decryption key).
I used to work at the Curwood Corporate HQ... which is across the street from the Oshkosh airport. In July we had signs posted around the building that, instead of saying what to do if a plane crashed into the building, said what to do when a plane crashed into the building.
Basically what I'm saying is my former colleagues agree with your "please don't rush this" idea!
Minor Correction: The Sanction was entering a default judgment (as if the defendants had never shown up). The monetary judgment is just "this is what Plaintiffs asked for, defendant is not here, so plaintiffs get it."
Regarding First Sale and Merchantability: I disagree that one or the other must apply. For console games it is a known fact and a "reasonable person" (yes that is a legal term) would know that if you buy an Xbox game you need an Xbox to play it. You seem to be attempting to give the term "game" legal significance where I doubt (I'm not sure) there is any. The packaging of every console game I have ever seen makes it clear what you need to play it.
Now the ethical issue that is a WHOLE other story. I would agree that if the company's have intentionally made it unclear what the customers rights are that it is unethical (but not illegal). I disagree with the supposition that console manufacturers have done this (I agree that PC software -- including games -- manufacturers have).
ok. Now I'm really confused by what you're saying.
What exactly are you arguing? Are you suggesting that console manufactures are in some way inhibiting your rights under the first sale doctrine? And if so, could you elaborate?
console games don't have a restriction placed on them beyond technological restriction that a Wii game doesn't work in an Xbox... much the same way my 120V appliances don't work in Europe...
If you modded an Xbox to play a Wii game then you are right, under first sale there is nothing the company can do about it... but they are not required to let you use their network to play online games / get updates.
Hold on a second. breathe. Then remember that the context of this thread is Console games. The Initial Poster was complaining that what MicroSonTendo was doing was illegal and unethical and was only tangentially related to the actual story (relating to PC games).
as far as how you can agree to something without signing it thing: clicking the button / checking the box that says "I Agree" is a pretty dead giveaway that you agreed to it...
I'm pretty sure Nintendo / Sony / Microsoft (with regards to games / consoles) has no problems with you doing whatever you want with them. you can resell them, mod them all to hell and whatnot.
If you're issue is with them stopping you from modding the console when you connect to their server, then your issue has nothing to do with first sale. It has to do with MicroSonTendo specifying "only units that meet these specs are allowed to connect." First sale has NOTHING to do with your ability to connect back to a proprietary network. As far as I know NONE of the console manufacturers REQUIRE you to connect to their internet connection.
MicroSonTendo has no legal (or ethical I would argue) duty to allow you're modified box to connect to their service, or to provide updates which work for it.
First Sale is not as expansive as you seem to be interpreting it...
The real problem is not me posting pictures of myself, so much as someone else posting pictures of ME and then tagging me. Granted I think if your doing something stupid and let someone take your picture its your own damn fault, but when you are doing something innocuous (such as drinking water from the ubiquitous red cup) and someone posts a picture of it with the tag line "OMG underage drinking is teh funne$t!!1!" and my name attached to it, THAT can have serious repercussions... which are 100% undeserved.
so it sounds to me like you and I are pretty much on the same page but arguing over semantics...
the only issue I have with what you jsut said is that in order for science to irrefutibly call something "wrong" as you suggest it also has to be testable...
essentially an untestable hypothesis (which we seem to agree fits ID) can never be said to be right or wrong... in fact thats the very reason why its unscientific (or at least one of them).
really I think the vast majority of arguments in this area (as well as others involving scientists, pseudo scientists, and lay-people) would be resolved a lto quicker if everyone agreed on the definitions... unfortunately that never happens:_)
how about if we adjust to instead of saying "heres why its wrong" we say "here's why it fails to meet scientific rigor" because while those two statements are VERY similar, they are not, in fact, identical.
with the second phraseology I have no problems with it.
if you look back to the original post in this thread (I know its a ways back:-)) I didn't posit that they be taught in science class, I posited that the science class mention the existence of them and point anyone who is interested to the appropriate forum, that being philosophy / religion...
were this mentioning accompanied by a statement that the other views do not meet scientific rigor be enough to make it allowable in a science class? what I am opposed to is not the refusal to teach it in science class, but the refusal to even mention it in science class...
From what I remember of high school the flat earth "theory", the orbiting around the earth "theory" all still get mentioned at some point in the curriculum... how should ID be any different?
Homer Simpson hardly qualifies as a rational person...
however I do see that you are hellbent on asserting that anyone who advocates teaching of even the existence of alternate ideas / views / theories (in the colloquial meaning of the word) / whatever is inherently incorrect, and should not be allowed a chance to state their ideas. which I might add appears to be the basic point of the movie according to people in other posts...
to paraphrase "it is better to mandate that people put their head in the sand then to allow them to come to the only rational conclusion."
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who were presented with all the evidence in a fully unbiased manner (I recognise this is not possible, I'm talking hypothetically) and were left to make up their own conclusion, would decide "hey that evolution stuff makes a lot more sense"
whereas if the same person was taught only the one view and then later found out that a second view exists would say "wait a minute... what else was I not told initially, something is wrong here... they must have not told me about it because it says something that hurts their view..."
true... I guess my view on this is that the practice of law (not something done by politicians, but something done by lawyers) is the attempt to apply rational logic to the illogical system... granted the whole "in the manner that fits the best interest of your client" bit renders the "scientific" aspect of it somewhat suspect.
I suppose thats why the degree is a Jurus Doctrate and not a PhD...
unless of course the designer was operating under a set of physical constraints such as those present in the real world.../ok I admit this time I was trolling... I apologize
Slashdot Mirror
out of curiosity:
Why do you want to search for Pr0n you already have?
Send them a cease and desist letter, and then sue them, just like the big boys?
Presumably if your someone who actually cares enough to check and see if someone is copying your photo, your also someone who cared enough to have it documented when / where you took it, or at the very least that you actually took it. Or as applied to art... you have the original copy.
seems like its not a difficult case to win...
While I don't know the facts about any of these situations, I do know that this is the internet. As such I feel compelled to assume facts and make up what I don't know. What follows is the result:
How in the hole hell can you justify this statement: "To prevent narrow minded individuals from deciding what is "right" for the rest of society. "
Seems to me that what the court is doing is exactly that. YOU have decided that they are narrow minded and you are "open" minded, and since they disagree with you they are wrong and must be FORCED TO CHANGE. Do you not see the logical inconsistency?
I guess the one thing I have a major problem with is fining the K of C for holding to their religious convictions. It is essentially the same thing as fining someone for going to church on Sunday.
you unfortunately highlighted the wrong portion of that. "A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909" is the portion you SHOULD have highlighted. Note that the AP has no problem with the posting of summaries of its news reports (at least not anymore) what it has a problem with is copy and pasting the ACTUAL news article...
the case pretty explicitly says that it IS protected material...
perhaps you did not read his post? he said contact AND get permission....
You sure can!
Of course that will promptly be followed by their refusing you access to the US. But hey, fairs fair!
As the other responder noted at the border they can do whatever they want.
The constitutional right against unwarranted searches applies only within the borders of the United States (not arguing whether it should or not, just stating the current law). Under that statement it is fine to search entering peoples documents / affects because they are not yet within the borders of the US (IE they may still be denied access).
What you are thinking of is the prohibition against unwarrented searches and seizures that is effective only within the USA's borders.
And yes, this DOES mean that the US can constitutionally raid someone's house in Canada with a warrant or probable cause. The thing that prevents them is the whole "not wanting to be in a war" thing.
There is not now, nor has there ever been a right to privacy at border crossings... unwarranted searches at border crossings is standard practice, and has been for a while, and has been upheld as being constitutional. Now the seizure resulting from the described image may or may not have been legal, we don't know enough facts to determine if the standard was met.
I for one agree with the governments analogy of computers to papers. If you want to encrypt your handwritten papers that would be fine, likewise if you encrypt your data it is fine, but the government still gets to look at it when you enter the country (Note that does not mean you are bound to give them the decryption key).
nonsense.
If cops were REALLY trying to get people to slow down, they would park in a highly visible portion of the median, instead of hiding in a speed trap.
Along those lines...
I used to work at the Curwood Corporate HQ... which is across the street from the Oshkosh airport. In July we had signs posted around the building that, instead of saying what to do if a plane crashed into the building, said what to do when a plane crashed into the building.
Basically what I'm saying is my former colleagues agree with your "please don't rush this" idea!
Minor Correction: The Sanction was entering a default judgment (as if the defendants had never shown up). The monetary judgment is just "this is what Plaintiffs asked for, defendant is not here, so plaintiffs get it."
The money itself is, however, NOT a sanction.
Regarding First Sale and Merchantability: I disagree that one or the other must apply. For console games it is a known fact and a "reasonable person" (yes that is a legal term) would know that if you buy an Xbox game you need an Xbox to play it. You seem to be attempting to give the term "game" legal significance where I doubt (I'm not sure) there is any. The packaging of every console game I have ever seen makes it clear what you need to play it.
Now the ethical issue that is a WHOLE other story. I would agree that if the company's have intentionally made it unclear what the customers rights are that it is unethical (but not illegal). I disagree with the supposition that console manufacturers have done this (I agree that PC software -- including games -- manufacturers have).
the set of {game} and {software product} are not mutually exclusive.
ok. Now I'm really confused by what you're saying.
What exactly are you arguing? Are you suggesting that console manufactures are in some way inhibiting your rights under the first sale doctrine? And if so, could you elaborate?
console games don't have a restriction placed on them beyond technological restriction that a Wii game doesn't work in an Xbox... much the same way my 120V appliances don't work in Europe...
If you modded an Xbox to play a Wii game then you are right, under first sale there is nothing the company can do about it... but they are not required to let you use their network to play online games / get updates.
Hold on a second. breathe. Then remember that the context of this thread is Console games. The Initial Poster was complaining that what MicroSonTendo was doing was illegal and unethical and was only tangentially related to the actual story (relating to PC games).
as far as how you can agree to something without signing it thing: clicking the button / checking the box that says "I Agree" is a pretty dead giveaway that you agreed to it...
I'm pretty sure Nintendo / Sony / Microsoft (with regards to games / consoles) has no problems with you doing whatever you want with them. you can resell them, mod them all to hell and whatnot.
If you're issue is with them stopping you from modding the console when you connect to their server, then your issue has nothing to do with first sale. It has to do with MicroSonTendo specifying "only units that meet these specs are allowed to connect." First sale has NOTHING to do with your ability to connect back to a proprietary network. As far as I know NONE of the console manufacturers REQUIRE you to connect to their internet connection.
MicroSonTendo has no legal (or ethical I would argue) duty to allow you're modified box to connect to their service, or to provide updates which work for it.
First Sale is not as expansive as you seem to be interpreting it...
I would like to hear your rationale behind stating that the proprietary way in which consoles do their games is "illegal" or even "unethical."
It seems to me that you're upset that a company a) made a product and then b) desired to actually (gasp) profit of off that product.
The real problem is not me posting pictures of myself, so much as someone else posting pictures of ME and then tagging me. Granted I think if your doing something stupid and let someone take your picture its your own damn fault, but when you are doing something innocuous (such as drinking water from the ubiquitous red cup) and someone posts a picture of it with the tag line "OMG underage drinking is teh funne$t!!1!" and my name attached to it, THAT can have serious repercussions... which are 100% undeserved.
and that is why I hate social networking sites.
so it sounds to me like you and I are pretty much on the same page but arguing over semantics...
:_)
the only issue I have with what you jsut said is that in order for science to irrefutibly call something "wrong" as you suggest it also has to be testable...
essentially an untestable hypothesis (which we seem to agree fits ID) can never be said to be right or wrong... in fact thats the very reason why its unscientific (or at least one of them).
really I think the vast majority of arguments in this area (as well as others involving scientists, pseudo scientists, and lay-people) would be resolved a lto quicker if everyone agreed on the definitions... unfortunately that never happens
how about if we adjust to instead of saying "heres why its wrong" we say "here's why it fails to meet scientific rigor" because while those two statements are VERY similar, they are not, in fact, identical.
with the second phraseology I have no problems with it.
if you look back to the original post in this thread (I know its a ways back :-)) I didn't posit that they be taught in science class, I posited that the science class mention the existence of them and point anyone who is interested to the appropriate forum, that being philosophy / religion...
were this mentioning accompanied by a statement that the other views do not meet scientific rigor be enough to make it allowable in a science class? what I am opposed to is not the refusal to teach it in science class, but the refusal to even mention it in science class...
From what I remember of high school the flat earth "theory", the orbiting around the earth "theory" all still get mentioned at some point in the curriculum... how should ID be any different?
Homer Simpson hardly qualifies as a rational person...
however I do see that you are hellbent on asserting that anyone who advocates teaching of even the existence of alternate ideas / views / theories (in the colloquial meaning of the word) / whatever is inherently incorrect, and should not be allowed a chance to state their ideas. which I might add appears to be the basic point of the movie according to people in other posts...
to paraphrase "it is better to mandate that people put their head in the sand then to allow them to come to the only rational conclusion."
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who were presented with all the evidence in a fully unbiased manner (I recognise this is not possible, I'm talking hypothetically) and were left to make up their own conclusion, would decide "hey that evolution stuff makes a lot more sense"
whereas if the same person was taught only the one view and then later found out that a second view exists would say "wait a minute... what else was I not told initially, something is wrong here... they must have not told me about it because it says something that hurts their view..."
true... I guess my view on this is that the practice of law (not something done by politicians, but something done by lawyers) is the attempt to apply rational logic to the illogical system... granted the whole "in the manner that fits the best interest of your client" bit renders the "scientific" aspect of it somewhat suspect.
I suppose thats why the degree is a Jurus Doctrate and not a PhD...
unless of course the designer was operating under a set of physical constraints such as those present in the real world... /ok I admit this time I was trolling... I apologize