That's probably fine by the judge so long as the prosecution can prove that the file was actually uploaded X number of times (Where it was uploaded to and when that act of infringement occured). So far the RIAA hasn't been doing that, they've just been arguing that it "could have" been uploaded many times.
Or more likely a bunch of copyrighted files that all coincidentally happened to use a block that you have stored on your PC. There's only so much area with 128KB blocks before you start getting collisions. I think the owner of the PC would only have to show legal uses of those blocks to be off the hook completely. Now the person distributing the URLs which assemble those blocks, that's where the infringement is occuring.
Exactly, the person storing the blocks isn't the one infringing. It's the person distributing the URL which is much harder to trace. Think of the file being a message, each person might store a single letter but that is just a small part of the message and in this case wouldn't be subject to copyright. (Or it would be subject to everyone's copyright that used that letter. Now that would get interesting) See Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
The interesting thing will be when some user gets taken to court and this happends:
RIAA: Let's try downloading a Britney Spears MP3 and sue a bunch of people. Let's send out the subpoenas to the ISPs to find these guys. ISP: That IP belongs to Mr. Smith. We'll be happy to forward along a cease and desist letter for you. RIAA: Whatever, we're going to sue them anyway.
later in court... RIAA: Judge this scum infringed on our copyright, see we downloaded this file and part of it came from him so make him give us all of his money. Mr. Smith: Actually Judge, the piece that they downloaded from me also maps to countless other files.
Mr Smith hands a list of URLs containing a bunch of non-copyrighted files containing that piece somewhere in the URL.
Judge says...
Come back later for the exciting conclusion to this episode same bat time, same bat channel
The current system is set up in such a way to favor only two parties. That doesn't mean that a new party can't be formed. It just means that if a new party becomes popular, then it will be at the expense of one of the two existing parties. Like the Republican party and the Whig party.
"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful,"
I wonder if the FCC has the power to force Comcast to lease its lines to other ISPs. Then we'll let the market place decide.
It probably does have an arbitration clause but those have been thrown out in some class action suits. Also, I wonder if you could sue the city for granting a monopoly to them.
Currently there are some substantial tax incentives for companies to build oil refineries in the United States. The proposition that passed the house yesterday seeks to cut those tax breaks from the big oil companies and give them to renewable energy development. That's fine by me; either we are paying to import oil then refining it ourselves or we are paying to import gasoline. In both cases we are still very dependent upon foreign oil. If this passes in the Senate as well expect prices of gasoline to go up (which is probably why it won't pass) as the gas companies pass this extra cost onto their customers. If this could be passed I think it's a step in the right direction. It's too short sighted to not invest in renewable energy.
Too bad the government is pimping the analog TV spectrum to the highest bidder. It would make a great 'common good' to use that frequency to create a wireless mesh network for internet access. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network
Person #1: But where are we going to get 1 billion dollars a day? Increased taxes?
Person #2: Hell no, we'll just borrow it from China and let the next generation figure out how to pay for it.
The only reason why an M rating is soooo much better than an AO rating is so that the retail stores will carry it. Unless the ESRB rerates the game to AO and the stores return their inventory then this doesn't affect anybody. Personally, I'd rather the game be released in the original state. I don't know why game makers haven't copied the movie by releasing rated and un-rated versions of their products. I don't care if they make a stripped down version of the game so long as I can ignore it and buy the original.
Part of this settlement should be that VZW isn't allowed to use the term 'unlimited' unless they are not going to limit it. Merely adding a few paragraphs buried in a TOS or EULA that nobody is going to read and still using the term 'unlimited' in all of the advertising is still deceptive at best.
Maybe the ESRB should be ran like Jury Duty with a random sampling of the population where it is unlikely that the same person will review many games. At least then a liberal person might get to influence something once in a while.
So if a person uploads a file which in turn will be uploaded by A, B, C, D, E and so on into infinity then that person should be liable for the copy right infringement commited by the other users who redistribute that file. If so, what about those people, are they still liable? If so, then the copy right holders seem to be double dipping by charging the same infringement to multiple people. If not, then a user should only be liable for the infringement if they are original uploaders to the network and not simply re-distributing files that they have downloaded. I doubt very many of the people being charged by the MAFIAA are the ones who ripped the content in the first place.
I don't know if it would have been bad to offer incentives for good grades. I remember when I was a kid, the local arcade would give you free tokens for good grades. That seemed to work out great for everyone.
"They're doing this because BitTorrent is highly disruptive on the networks it runs on."
"Highly disruptive" as in "bandwidth hog". P2P traffic wouldn't be a problem if the ISPs didn't oversell their bandwidth.
If an ISP is going to advertise high speeds then they shouldn't complain when I pay for that service and then proceed to use it trying to continuously obtain those advertised speeds.
It shouldn't be a problem, if the prediction was wrong, the system discards any setup it may have done and you are back to the original x+y seconds. If the prediction was right, you save the x seconds and get an improvement.
I think it's a great thing, it should greatly improve responsiveness. If the pilot iniates some action that takes x seconds to set up and then y seconds to execute then you can use these techniques to cancel out the x seconds set up time. It will be great in the computer field where you can have multiple pipelines predicting what the user wants and then just discard the invalid predictions.
Slashdot Mirror
That's probably fine by the judge so long as the prosecution can prove that the file was actually uploaded X number of times (Where it was uploaded to and when that act of infringement occured). So far the RIAA hasn't been doing that, they've just been arguing that it "could have" been uploaded many times.
Or more likely a bunch of copyrighted files that all coincidentally happened to use a block that you have stored on your PC. There's only so much area with 128KB blocks before you start getting collisions. I think the owner of the PC would only have to show legal uses of those blocks to be off the hook completely. Now the person distributing the URLs which assemble those blocks, that's where the infringement is occuring.
Exactly, the person storing the blocks isn't the one infringing. It's the person distributing the URL which is much harder to trace. Think of the file being a message, each person might store a single letter but that is just a small part of the message and in this case wouldn't be subject to copyright. (Or it would be subject to everyone's copyright that used that letter. Now that would get interesting) See Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
The interesting thing will be when some user gets taken to court and this happends:
RIAA: Let's try downloading a Britney Spears MP3 and sue a bunch of people. Let's send out the subpoenas to the ISPs to find these guys.
ISP: That IP belongs to Mr. Smith. We'll be happy to forward along a cease and desist letter for you.
RIAA: Whatever, we're going to sue them anyway.
later in court...
RIAA: Judge this scum infringed on our copyright, see we downloaded this file and part of it came from him so make him give us all of his money.
Mr. Smith: Actually Judge, the piece that they downloaded from me also maps to countless other files.
Mr Smith hands a list of URLs containing a bunch of non-copyrighted files containing that piece somewhere in the URL.
Judge says...
Come back later for the exciting conclusion to this episode same bat time, same bat channel
FYI they also released the original Final Fantasy II along with Final Fantasy I as part of "Dawn of Souls" for Gameboy advance
The current system is set up in such a way to favor only two parties. That doesn't mean that a new party can't be formed. It just means that if a new party becomes popular, then it will be at the expense of one of the two existing parties. Like the Republican party and the Whig party.
"but does 1 person generate enough waste in their daily life to create enough fuel to drive their car?" There's a bathroom joke in there somewhere
"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful," I wonder if the FCC has the power to force Comcast to lease its lines to other ISPs. Then we'll let the market place decide.
That's when she'd leave and demand a refund :p
It probably does have an arbitration clause but those have been thrown out in some class action suits. Also, I wonder if you could sue the city for granting a monopoly to them.
Currently there are some substantial tax incentives for companies to build oil refineries in the United States. The proposition that passed the house yesterday seeks to cut those tax breaks from the big oil companies and give them to renewable energy development. That's fine by me; either we are paying to import oil then refining it ourselves or we are paying to import gasoline. In both cases we are still very dependent upon foreign oil. If this passes in the Senate as well expect prices of gasoline to go up (which is probably why it won't pass) as the gas companies pass this extra cost onto their customers. If this could be passed I think it's a step in the right direction. It's too short sighted to not invest in renewable energy.
With physical access, I suspect the parents would just wipe the box and install Windows ME. That'll teach em!
Too bad the government is pimping the analog TV spectrum to the highest bidder. It would make a great 'common good' to use that frequency to create a wireless mesh network for internet access. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network
Bubble sort sucks unless your data is already sorted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm
Ha, I out-nerded you :)
How about...Racial Profiling, that ought to keep those terrorists off the planes
Person #1: But where are we going to get 1 billion dollars a day? Increased taxes? Person #2: Hell no, we'll just borrow it from China and let the next generation figure out how to pay for it.
The only reason why an M rating is soooo much better than an AO rating is so that the retail stores will carry it. Unless the ESRB rerates the game to AO and the stores return their inventory then this doesn't affect anybody. Personally, I'd rather the game be released in the original state. I don't know why game makers haven't copied the movie by releasing rated and un-rated versions of their products. I don't care if they make a stripped down version of the game so long as I can ignore it and buy the original.
Part of this settlement should be that VZW isn't allowed to use the term 'unlimited' unless they are not going to limit it. Merely adding a few paragraphs buried in a TOS or EULA that nobody is going to read and still using the term 'unlimited' in all of the advertising is still deceptive at best.
Maybe the ESRB should be ran like Jury Duty with a random sampling of the population where it is unlikely that the same person will review many games. At least then a liberal person might get to influence something once in a while.
So if a person uploads a file which in turn will be uploaded by A, B, C, D, E and so on into infinity then that person should be liable for the copy right infringement commited by the other users who redistribute that file. If so, what about those people, are they still liable? If so, then the copy right holders seem to be double dipping by charging the same infringement to multiple people. If not, then a user should only be liable for the infringement if they are original uploaders to the network and not simply re-distributing files that they have downloaded. I doubt very many of the people being charged by the MAFIAA are the ones who ripped the content in the first place.
I don't know if it would have been bad to offer incentives for good grades. I remember when I was a kid, the local arcade would give you free tokens for good grades. That seemed to work out great for everyone.
"They're doing this because BitTorrent is highly disruptive on the networks it runs on."
"Highly disruptive" as in "bandwidth hog". P2P traffic wouldn't be a problem if the ISPs didn't oversell their bandwidth.
If an ISP is going to advertise high speeds then they shouldn't complain when I pay for that service and then proceed to use it trying to continuously obtain those advertised speeds.
It shouldn't be a problem, if the prediction was wrong, the system discards any setup it may have done and you are back to the original x+y seconds. If the prediction was right, you save the x seconds and get an improvement.
I think it's a great thing, it should greatly improve responsiveness. If the pilot iniates some action that takes x seconds to set up and then y seconds to execute then you can use these techniques to cancel out the x seconds set up time. It will be great in the computer field where you can have multiple pipelines predicting what the user wants and then just discard the invalid predictions.
This is what happens when people in power don't understand technology