Your "right" is the right of a fat and happy citizen of a Western country to pompously pronounce on the "rights" of citizens in countries with completely foreign cultures--in completely different social and political environments.
Your universal statements regarding the basic right to an anonymous cell phone carries no persuasive force WHATSOEVER unless you accompany those statements with reasoning that applies them to the Indian social and political context. Otherwise, you're just another well-meaning ignorant cultural imperialist.
The side that owns the most politicians usually wins, unless public opinion is mobilized. Nobody really gives a damn for people who want to unlawfully copy the work of others, so the outcome looks obvious.
9th Circuit essentially stated (maybe not held) that there is no plain view in computer searches. They embedded this ruling (which all the lower courts in the 9th Circuit will follow) in an opinion in a case that the feds have no very good chance of appealing successfully because of procedural error (law of the case doctrine).
The 9th Circuit has included some really wackazoid dicta in their opinion. They're telling the magistrates that they shouldn't be giving computer search warrants to the feds unless the feds WAIVE the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. This seems incredibly weird to me.
If the Supremos take this case it will be a strong indicator that they disapprove of the breadth of the 9th Circuit's ruling.
This case is screwed up on at least a couple levels.
And, FWIW, this has abso--lutely nothing to do with Obama. The 9th Circuit went way out on a limb in this case (I think). Be interesting to see if the Supremos chop that limb off.
"We wouldn't need capital punishment if we'd lock violent criminals up for the rest of their miserable lives. The vast majority of first-time murderers already had violent criminal records. Seems to me that if we kept them behind bars where they belong that we'd have a much lower murder rate."
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Arguments like this are made by politicians only for the purpose of attracting stupid people.
It is nonsense because it will never, ever happen. The same people who cry out for prisons and law and order also scream for no new taxes. People will NEVER pay for the long term lockup of violent offenders. Hell, the USA already has one of the highest imprisonment rates among Western countries. The law and order folks will balk when it comes time to settle up the bill for increased imprisonment. It's all pure jive talk.
"how many would do it IRL if they were guaranteed they could get away with it."
If two people each wanted to kill each other, and could do it without getting caught, how would that work? Wouldn't the first killer take out the other killer, thereby depriving the other killer of the murder that he could 'get away with?'
People were attacking your foolish argument and you take it as a personal attack. That is a foolish response. If I take the character of your argument and apply it to your personality, I would conclude that you are a fool. But that would be foolish of me!
So . . . please stop now. As Mr. Lincoln once said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."
The mayor of Pittsburgh wants to limit the consumption of education by taxing it! I suspect that the Pennsylvania legislature will not share his vision of the future.
"They have to know that they're never going to get the source code." While I don't know what they "have to know," I do know that source code does get disclosed in litigation--oftentimes under protective orders to avoid commercial disclosure. The breath test machine cases are an excellent example of this. Copyright cases are another kind of case where this kind of material gets disclosed.
Saying (in italics) that "the source code is not relevant" does not advance the argument. The test for evidence discovery is whether or not the material is evidence or TENDS TO LEAD to evidence. That interpretation cannot be made without a thorough understanding of the issues and sub issues that the case will (or may) spawn.
As always, take all slashdot legal opinions with an enormous grain of salt.
Does this suggest that Bill Gates and Paul Allen should also get the Nobel Peace Prize? Or, does it suggest that they should get the War Prize? What about the guy who invented Minix? Should he get the prize too?
I know I'm responding to a troll article, but I can't help it.
Pizza Hut sued Papa John's because Papa John's was claiming "better ingredients, better pizza." Pizza Hut lost. These lawsuits are a stupid waste of courts' time--and of taxpayer money.
But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE? Your DNA structure is information. Shouldn't it be free to anybody who wants to download it? Maybe it should be up on the Pirate Bay!
Or, is it that only Hollywood Movies, Britney Spears songs, and videogames are information that must be free?
The crushing was inevitable. Any theories on why the principals of Psystar tried this bs in the first place? Are they stupid, or are they going to come out of this financial winners (because the money is unreachable by now)?
Parent advice is BAD. If no duty is imposed upon an actor, most states do not impose liability for simply knowing of the commission of a crime and remaining silent.
Don't rely on this email for legal advice. Don't rely on parent's email for legal advice. Don't rely on ANYTHING in slashdot for legal advice.
Here's what the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said about Schenectady's brain-dead legal position:
"For these reasons, we reject SBCCI's deconstruction of Banks into merely utilitarian and factual issues. Instead, we read Banks, Wheaton, and related cases consistently to enunciate the principle that "the law," whether it has its source in judicial opinions or statutes, ordinances or regulations, is not subject to federal copyright law."
Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Intern., Inc. 293 F.3d 791 C.A.5 (Tex.),2002
TFA reports that the code is available in multiple public locations. The citizen can make copies of the ordinances from those sources.
That the city code is a twisted mess is no big surprise. A lot of municipalities have that problem.
The assertion of copyright is stupid, just stupid. The morons will soon realize that they have to retreat from that lunatic undemocratic position or they will be sued under New York's FOIA.
Slashdot Mirror
Your "right" is the right of a fat and happy citizen of a Western country to pompously pronounce on the "rights" of citizens in countries with completely foreign cultures--in completely different social and political environments.
Your universal statements regarding the basic right to an anonymous cell phone carries no persuasive force WHATSOEVER unless you accompany those statements with reasoning that applies them to the Indian social and political context. Otherwise, you're just another well-meaning ignorant cultural imperialist.
The side that owns the most politicians usually wins, unless public opinion is mobilized.
Nobody really gives a damn for people who want to unlawfully copy the work of others, so the outcome looks obvious.
The tax cheats are going to have a much harder time when the want to park their money offshore. This is really good news.
9th Circuit essentially stated (maybe not held) that there is no plain view in computer searches. They embedded this ruling (which all the lower courts in the 9th Circuit will follow) in an opinion in a case that the feds have no very good chance of appealing successfully because of procedural error (law of the case doctrine).
The 9th Circuit has included some really wackazoid dicta in their opinion. They're telling the magistrates that they shouldn't be giving computer search warrants to the feds unless the feds WAIVE the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. This seems incredibly weird to me.
If the Supremos take this case it will be a strong indicator that they disapprove of the breadth of the 9th Circuit's ruling.
This case is screwed up on at least a couple levels.
And, FWIW, this has abso--lutely nothing to do with Obama. The 9th Circuit went way out on a limb in this case (I think). Be interesting to see if the Supremos chop that limb off.
"We wouldn't need capital punishment if we'd lock violent criminals up for the rest of their miserable lives. The vast majority of first-time murderers already had violent criminal records. Seems to me that if we kept them behind bars where they belong that we'd have a much lower murder rate."
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Arguments like this are made by politicians only for the purpose of attracting stupid people.
It is nonsense because it will never, ever happen. The same people who cry out for prisons and law and order also scream for no new taxes. People will NEVER pay for the long term lockup of violent offenders. Hell, the USA already has one of the highest imprisonment rates among Western countries. The law and order folks will balk when it comes time to settle up the bill for increased imprisonment. It's all pure jive talk.
Get real.
"how many would do it IRL if they were guaranteed they could get away with it."
If two people each wanted to kill each other, and could do it without getting caught, how would that work? Wouldn't the first killer take out the other killer, thereby depriving the other killer of the murder that he could 'get away with?'
People were attacking your foolish argument and you take it as a personal attack. That is a foolish response. If I take the character of your argument and apply it to your personality, I would conclude that you are a fool. But that would be foolish of me!
So . . . please stop now. As Mr. Lincoln once said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."
The mayor of Pittsburgh wants to limit the consumption of education by taxing it! I suspect that the Pennsylvania legislature will not share his vision of the future.
"They have to know that they're never going to get the source code."
While I don't know what they "have to know," I do know that source code does get disclosed in litigation--oftentimes under protective orders to avoid commercial disclosure. The breath test machine cases are an excellent example of this. Copyright cases are another kind of case where this kind of material gets disclosed.
Saying (in italics) that "the source code is not relevant" does not advance the argument. The test for evidence discovery is whether or not the material is evidence or TENDS TO LEAD to evidence. That interpretation cannot be made without a thorough understanding of the issues and sub issues that the case will (or may) spawn.
As always, take all slashdot legal opinions with an enormous grain of salt.
Does this suggest that Bill Gates and Paul Allen should also get the Nobel Peace Prize?
Or, does it suggest that they should get the War Prize?
What about the guy who invented Minix? Should he get the prize too?
I know I'm responding to a troll article, but I can't help it.
If I had mod points, I would mod you as insightful.
I think that it's "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."
Precision in James Bond quotes is trivially important.
Adobe CS products have no viable Linux alternative and the Mac cost is too high.
Pizza Hut sued Papa John's because Papa John's was claiming "better ingredients, better pizza." Pizza Hut lost. These lawsuits are a stupid waste of courts' time--and of taxpayer money.
Maybe I'll boycott AT&T for awhile . . ..
If you licensed your DNA so carefully, then how did it end up at the crime scene? and on the toilet? and on the barbershop floor?
I wonder if you could get the raw footage in a public disclosure request. A lot of fun mischief could be had with that data.
DNA information and it wants to be free--just like Hollywood movies, Britney Spears songs, and videogames! Let it be free!!
I can see the future now: The Pirate Bay of Cloning Data!!
As Alfred E. Newman once said: "What, me worry?"
But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE? Your DNA structure is information. Shouldn't it be free to anybody who wants to download it? Maybe it should be up on the Pirate Bay!
Or, is it that only Hollywood Movies, Britney Spears songs, and videogames are information that must be free?
The crushing was inevitable. Any theories on why the principals of Psystar tried this bs in the first place?
Are they stupid, or are they going to come out of this financial winners (because the money is unreachable by now)?
Any ideas from anybody?
When you are a little fish . . . run to your lawyer, then together make yourselves the very best friends that the FBI ever had.
Parent advice is BAD. If no duty is imposed upon an actor, most states do not impose liability for simply knowing of the commission of a crime and remaining silent.
Don't rely on this email for legal advice. Don't rely on parent's email for legal advice. Don't rely on ANYTHING in slashdot for legal advice.
Here's what the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said about Schenectady's brain-dead legal position:
"For these reasons, we reject SBCCI's deconstruction of Banks into merely utilitarian and factual issues. Instead, we read Banks, Wheaton, and related cases consistently to enunciate the principle that "the law," whether it has its source in judicial opinions or statutes, ordinances or regulations, is not subject to federal copyright law."
Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Intern., Inc.
293 F.3d 791
C.A.5 (Tex.),2002
TFA reports that the code is available in multiple public locations. The citizen can make copies of the ordinances from those sources.
That the city code is a twisted mess is no big surprise. A lot of municipalities have that problem.
The assertion of copyright is stupid, just stupid. The morons will soon realize that they have to retreat from that lunatic undemocratic position or they will be sued under New York's FOIA.
It doesn't "need" to be repeated that ISPs are not common carriers, but if it feels good to do so, please continue to repeat it.
Your efforts toward establishing logically coherent groupthink are appreciated.
If they prominently put a warning on the packaged product stating that the product is not suitable for analog output, that would be okay with me.
It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.
Make your own movies and music and don't buy their junk. That's the best way to stick it to the man. Cut yourself out of the homogenized herd.