While you're right about the general respect for IP among slashdot patrons, there is also a very vocal slashdot community that does not view intellectual property as property. That component is a natural friend of wikileaks.
Why is this software so valuable? It is so valuable because of the complexity of the financial markets!
Why are the financial markets so complex? Are they unnecessarily complex? Does the complexity fairly serve US citizens? Does the complexity fairly serve US businesses?
These are burning questions that must be addressed, but are being ignored.
How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case? EXXON got its punitive damages reduced. Why won't the same arguments work for Ms. Thomas? Any lawyers with opinions out there?
I swear, people (in government especially) think that because we have these computers we have to fill them up with data. People end up unnecessarily being slaves to the damn computer.
The owners and controllers of TPB got a massive financial judgment against them. After a plaintiff gets a judgment, the next thing that he or she wants to do is enforce that judgment. If the losers won't pay voluntarily, the winners get to use judicial process to take the losers' stuff. The "TPB entity" is such stuff.
The pirates sold their business because it was doomed anyway.
If they're hiding assets from their creditors, they are looking at another round of trouble with the trial judge.
Amazon needs to get taxed like everybody else. They've had enough of a free ride to get started (and pick up huge market share). They shouldn't have a competitive advantage over other sellers simply because they're taxed less.
Of course Wikipedia should have an interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. They need to worry about copyright and tort liability for example. That kills your argument.
What you probably meant to say is that Wikipedia should have no MORAL interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. Fortunately, many people (including Mr. Wales)do not agree with you.
When you balance the risk of a single human life in this particular case against one website's terms of use policy, the decision isn't very hard.
I bought a Walkman in Munich in 1981 when I was a tourist and the device was still relatively new. It was so cool! The first versions looked so well made!
Nowadays, the thing's junk compared to my Sansa player, but my memory takes me back to when it was the single coolest single thing I owned.!
So: If the Public uproars enough, the defendants will get a new trial? Is that what they mean by the "court of public opinion?" Far out! They never taught me about that in law school!
If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.
Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.
Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!
Re:As someone who has worked on it...
on
IT and Health Care
·
· Score: 1
If you can avoid HIPAA by avoiding IT,you should do it. HIPAA is a big pain.
A lot of issues and claims have already been resolved in prior cases. A thorough analysis of the risk of future SCO-Spawn-Litigation depends upon the preclusive effect of those cases. In other words, SCO's children don't get to relitigate things that SCO has already litigated (and lost) once.
The instant discussion isn't very informative because it appears to omit a thorough discussion of the effect of SCO's previous defeats on SCO's children's future prospects.
I mean symbolic in the "symbolic" sense. In other words, they want to show the world "If you fight us in court, you will get your ass kicked after spending a LOT of time and money."
"Precedent" is something different. It is founded on the doctrine of "stare decisis." "Stare decisis," generally, means (1) that cases that are alike should be decided alike and (2) that legal interpretations should be consistent over time; and (3) that certain legal interpretations rendered in certain cases are binding interpretations of the law.
Not all cases are given precedent, though. In the US, only appeals court cases are accorded precedential status. The Jammie Thomas (trial court) judge cannot create precedent--in other words, no future judge will be bound by anything that judge says or does in the Thomas trial. The Judge may write a PERSUASIVE opinion that other judges MAY follow, but cannot write one that other judges are obligated to follow.
If Jammie is found liable for copyright infringement (as appears likely), the only real issue will be damages. THAT is a big issue, because the damage awards can be so obscenely high and the US Supreme Court has already protected big oil spilling Exxon from obscenely high damages. Maybe they'll protect Jammie too . ... Usually the Supreme Court is good about stuff like that.
The defendant has got zip for assets. The RIAA won't collect anything. This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA. The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic value. They obviously perceive that their case is strong. After all, they won the case the first time.
The defendant's lawyer probably hasn't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case. He has the same basic cards that his predecessor had. He's just going to put on a big show--maybe hoping to capitalize on a screw-up by the RIAA. A major screw-up is unlikely, because the plaintiff's law firm MU$T win this high profile case. I'll be curious to see if he pisses the trial judge off by wasting a lot of time on frivolous bullshit.
The only issue is damages. I expect that the trial judge is probably going to instruct the jury differently when it comes to damages this time around.
Copyright. Yeah. That would work. You could keep other people from diluting your work by using the protection afforded by copyright laws. That would be great. Thank goodness that we have copyright! That way, people who want to protect the integrity of their work have the legal authority to do so!
Slashdot Mirror
While you're right about the general respect for IP among slashdot patrons, there is also a very vocal slashdot community that does not view intellectual property as property. That component is a natural friend of wikileaks.
Why is this software so valuable? It is so valuable because of the complexity of the financial markets!
Why are the financial markets so complex?
Are they unnecessarily complex?
Does the complexity fairly serve US citizens?
Does the complexity fairly serve US businesses?
These are burning questions that must be addressed, but are being ignored.
Of course they talk settlement after they won the case! Nothing strange about that when the defendant has no way of actually paying the judgment.
How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case? EXXON got its punitive damages reduced. Why won't the same arguments work for Ms. Thomas? Any lawyers with opinions out there?
Get a bike rack, a bicycle, a good headlamp and some very reflective clothes.
Map a bike route from your worksite to a terminus about 6 to 10 miles away (where you can park your car). Optimize the route for safety and speed.
Drive your car to the terminus every day and ride your bike into work in the morning and back to your car in the evening.
I swear, people (in government especially) think that because we have these computers we have to fill them up with data. People end up unnecessarily being slaves to the damn computer.
No problem. Separate the power generation component from the clock mechanism and put it outside with the cows!
The owners and controllers of TPB got a massive financial judgment against them. After a plaintiff gets a judgment, the next thing that he or she wants to do is enforce that judgment. If the losers won't pay voluntarily, the winners get to use judicial process to take the losers' stuff. The "TPB entity" is such stuff.
The pirates sold their business because it was doomed anyway.
If they're hiding assets from their creditors, they are looking at another round of trouble with the trial judge.
Amazon needs to get taxed like everybody else. They've had enough of a free ride to get started (and pick up huge market share). They shouldn't have a competitive advantage over other sellers simply because they're taxed less.
This is a very good example of fair use.
Of course Wikipedia should have an interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. They need to worry about copyright and tort liability for example. That kills your argument.
What you probably meant to say is that Wikipedia should have no MORAL interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. Fortunately, many people (including Mr. Wales)do not agree with you.
When you balance the risk of a single human life in this particular case against one website's terms of use policy, the decision isn't very hard.
Madoff's going to spend his time in medium security or worse because of the length of his sentence. Madoff is not going to like prison one bit.
I bought a Walkman in Munich in 1981 when I was a tourist and the device was still relatively new. It was so cool! The first versions looked so well made!
Nowadays, the thing's junk compared to my Sansa player, but my memory takes me back to when it was the single coolest single thing I owned.!
Parent should be modded stratospherically high. This post perfectly sums up much of the slashdot experience!
Who cares where they come down.
That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.
This must be a joke post. It can't be serious.
Presidents treat presidential power like a ratchet. They'll NEVER give it up willingly. Congress has to actually do something.
God, this makes me remember how much I hated (and still hate) Richard M. Nixon.
So: If the Public uproars enough, the defendants will get a new trial? Is that what they mean by the "court of public opinion?" Far out! They never taught me about that in law school!
If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.
Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.
Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!
If you can avoid HIPAA by avoiding IT,you should do it. HIPAA is a big pain.
A lot of issues and claims have already been resolved in prior cases. A thorough analysis of the risk of future SCO-Spawn-Litigation depends upon the preclusive effect of those cases. In other words, SCO's children don't get to relitigate things that SCO has already litigated (and lost) once.
The instant discussion isn't very informative because it appears to omit a thorough discussion of the effect of SCO's previous defeats on SCO's children's future prospects.
I mean symbolic in the "symbolic" sense. In other words, they want to show the world "If you fight us in court, you will get your ass kicked after spending a LOT of time and money."
"Precedent" is something different. It is founded on the doctrine of "stare decisis." "Stare decisis," generally, means (1) that cases that are alike should be decided alike and (2) that legal interpretations should be consistent over time; and (3) that certain legal interpretations rendered in certain cases are binding interpretations of the law.
Not all cases are given precedent, though. In the US, only appeals court cases are accorded precedential status. The Jammie Thomas (trial court) judge cannot create precedent--in other words, no future judge will be bound by anything that judge says or does in the Thomas trial. The Judge may write a PERSUASIVE opinion that other judges MAY follow, but cannot write one that other judges are obligated to follow.
If Jammie is found liable for copyright infringement (as appears likely), the only real issue will be damages. THAT is a big issue, because the damage awards can be so obscenely high and the US Supreme Court has already protected big oil spilling Exxon from obscenely high damages. Maybe they'll protect Jammie too . . .. Usually the Supreme Court is good about stuff like that.
A road engineer told me that paved roads are cheaper than gravel roads, once you factor in the maintenance costs.
Those counties may be penny wise and pound foolish.
The defendant has got zip for assets. The RIAA won't collect anything. This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA. The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic value. They obviously perceive that their case is strong. After all, they won the case the first time.
The defendant's lawyer probably hasn't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case. He has the same basic cards that his predecessor had. He's just going to put on a big show--maybe hoping to capitalize on a screw-up by the RIAA. A major screw-up is unlikely, because the plaintiff's law firm MU$T win this high profile case. I'll be curious to see if he pisses the trial judge off by wasting a lot of time on frivolous bullshit.
The only issue is damages. I expect that the trial judge is probably going to instruct the jury differently when it comes to damages this time around.
Copyright. Yeah. That would work. You could keep other people from diluting your work by using the protection afforded by copyright laws. That would be great. Thank goodness that we have copyright! That way, people who want to protect the integrity of their work have the legal authority to do so!