They did not send a "take-down notice", at least in the way the term is usually used. It normally is used to mean a notice under the DMCA to a service provider that something must be taken down, or more loosely a notice warning that something is in violation of law.
What was actually sent was simply a request, with no claim of legal authority behind it, asking that the material be removed.
You've overlooked parking lots. When walking in a parking lot, you often can't see if someone is in a car. The engine sound provides an important clue that a car might start moving.
If they did make it available to everyone right away, people would still be bitching. The complaint would be that Apple is trying to hijack the open ePUB standard with their extensions for fixed layout.
The right way to do this is to implement their proposed system, test it on a few books, fix problems found, and end up with a format that works well for this. Only after it is stable and they have had a chance to see what other ePUB stakeholders think should they open it to everyone.
This is how most progress on standards comes about.
Mp3.com was doing fine until Itunes came along and sided with the RIAA ruining the thriving independent market. It seems they are at it again, siding with big businesses over artists, writers, and consumers.
Mp3.com got into trouble in 2000, when it branched out from offering downloads of independent music made available with the artist's permission to making available music from the major labels without permission (it was trying a new and untested legal theory that if the downloader owned the CD, it was OK for mp3.com to let them download copies it made). It failed at that theory.
This was before iTunes the software or iTunes the store even existed. Mp3.com settled with the record company that had sued it for around $50 million. Then the downturn happened in the tech industry, and they didn't survive that, and were sold. The buyers took them in a different direction. By this time iTunes the software existed. The iTunes store was still a couple years in the future.
Want to try a theory that is consistent with the way time works in this universe?
This decision will have very little affect on most of us, actually. Most of us have probably never participated in a sale that was allowed before this decision and would be disallowed under it, and probably never will. First sale remains exactly the same as it was before for goods that are sold in the US with the authorization of the copyright owner. So, when ASUS ships motherboards to US resellers who sell them in the US, they are subsequently covered by first sale in the US.
Only if you went to Taiwan, bought a motherboard from ASUS that they did not authorize for import into the US, came to the US, and then tried to resell it would you run afoul of this decision. (And then only in the 9th circuit).
Moonlight is all ready to go with Netlfix. The only thing missing is the DRM. Instead of whining at Netflix (or Microsoft), the Linux community needs to convince the content owners that they'll make money if they allow their content on Linux, and so release the restrictions on allowing implementation of the DRM.
Just as hacking should be left to the real hackers, not the script kiddies, press releases should be written by real PR people, not word processing kiddies.
3D-Secure is not widely used (which is probably why the authentication servers for it do not have a lot of spare power to handle an attack). Same goes for VISA's equivalent. Most security experts consider it a joke, and since it is opt-in most consumers have not bothered. It's been ages since I have seen a major ecommerce site that supported it.
Twitter is another one there was talk of them going for, which would have been futile. Recent data suggests that around 8% of internet users on any given day visit Twitter. Twitter is handling an average of 50000 requests/second (combined website users and API requests from programs).
You can't DDoS a site whose normal load from its customers is orders of magnitude more than what your 500-1000 participants can generate.
This is also why they failed to cause any serious damage to the credit card companies and to Paypal. All they got on those sites were machines that mostly just provide information. It would be the equivalent of anti-abortion protestors trying to take out an abortion clinic by going into the lobby and taking all the brochures.
I will admit that "Anonymous" has so far been smart enough to not attack government web sites.
PostFinance is part of the Swiss postal service, which I'd expect would be part of the government. Same goes for the prosecutor's office they attacked.
Why are they attacking PostFinance? PostFinance is not a bank. It is a financial services (money transfers and the like) arm of the Swiss post office. Accounts are only for Swiss residents. Assange is not a Swiss resident, so is not eligible for an account. Hence, his account was closed and the money in his account returned to him.
He could be 60 years younger and still have no chance of advancing his goals, since most people are not willing to go back to a pre-industrial revolution society, which is what would be necessary under his approach to environmental protection.
Cryptome.org, publicintelligence.net, dewereldmorgen.be (I'm told...I don't read that language so can't verify). There's also one being done by several people who left Wikileaks over conflicts with Assange, but I don't know if they are up yet.
To the conspiracy theorists (hello, Boycott Novell!), Microsoft was secretly behind the lawsuit from the start, and this is seen as some sort of proof they were right about that.
There are already Wikileaks competitors. The differ from Wikileaks in that they actually concentrate on publishing leaking information, rather than self-promotion. That's also why many apparently haven't heard of them. To make a political analogy, Wikileaks is the Sarah Palin of the leak sites--not well respected by those in the know in the leaks community, but has been marketed in such a way as to become the darling of many.
As adamdoyle noted below, Slashdot also broke paste for Chrome on Windows. I'd guess they broke it for all Webkit browsers. Works fine on Firefox on Mac and IE on Windows.
Actually, you CAN paste if the textarea is empty, so what I do is cut from the textarea (if there is something I want to keep, like a quoted parent), edit my post in TextMate, then paste it to Slashdot for posting.
Also, sometimes but not always, I've found that drag-and-drop still works. At least it did a few days ago. I couldn't get it to work tonight.
Still, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous for such a major breakage to go live here.
Your Google search gives a bunch of results about products that implement glasses-free 3D with various problems that the Apple method is designed to overcome. There's also no support in your references for your claim that Apple has not built anything using the idea. They have not shipped anything using the idea. It is quite likely they have built prototype products using it.
You know, the submitter thoughtfully included a link to the patent, so you would not have had to (wrongly) to guess what Apple is patenting.
(Although, actually, here is a better copy of the patent, as a single PDF file including diagrams. That patent office site sometimes makes it hard to get images on some browsers/OSes).
This sounds like bad reporting. Nothing actually quoted from the lawyer there (or in the article it cites) says he is being sued. It says they are requesting sanctions. That sounds to me like they are alleging violation of some court procedural rule, or perhaps some rule of professional conduct of the relevant bar.
That's the problem - one of the defenses did work. The "lack of personal standing." You can't sue for lost revenue if you're not the copyright holder.
No, the defense that worked is lack of personal jurisdiction, not lack of standing. Courts in a state only have power over people who reside in the state, or have a certain level of contact with the state, or who consent to jurisdiction. Basically what the successful defendants are doing is telling the court, "Hey, you are a court of state X. I live in state Y and have no contacts with state X, so you aren't the right court for this", the the court is agreeing.
Note that this doesn't end things. The plaintiff simply has to refile in the defendant's home state (or find some other state that the defendant has sufficient contacts with).
You have to be careful when raising the lack of personal jurisdiction defense, because generally responding to a lawsuit in a given court is taken as conceding personal jurisdiction of that court. However, you can make what is called a "limited appearance", where you respond solely to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Further, you can't sue for lost revenue if you can't prove that, you know, you actually lost revenue.
How about communications concerning dissidents? The US has often covertly supported dissidents in oppressive countries that it has diplomatic relations with. If it came to light that the US was aiding, say, pro-democracy dissidents in China, that could get those dissidents arrested for treason or spying.
I wish I had the balls to become a martyr for my beliefs like TPB guys
Their core beliefs are that it is OK to make millions by monetizing helping people rip off other people. At least Assange is purporting to try to actually do something good, as opposed to simply making money by harming others.
Slashdot Mirror
They did not send a "take-down notice", at least in the way the term is usually used. It normally is used to mean a notice under the DMCA to a service provider that something must be taken down, or more loosely a notice warning that something is in violation of law.
What was actually sent was simply a request, with no claim of legal authority behind it, asking that the material be removed.
You've overlooked parking lots. When walking in a parking lot, you often can't see if someone is in a car. The engine sound provides an important clue that a car might start moving.
If they did make it available to everyone right away, people would still be bitching. The complaint would be that Apple is trying to hijack the open ePUB standard with their extensions for fixed layout.
The right way to do this is to implement their proposed system, test it on a few books, fix problems found, and end up with a format that works well for this. Only after it is stable and they have had a chance to see what other ePUB stakeholders think should they open it to everyone.
This is how most progress on standards comes about.
Mp3.com was doing fine until Itunes came along and sided with the RIAA ruining the thriving independent market. It seems they are at it again, siding with big businesses over artists, writers, and consumers.
Mp3.com got into trouble in 2000, when it branched out from offering downloads of independent music made available with the artist's permission to making available music from the major labels without permission (it was trying a new and untested legal theory that if the downloader owned the CD, it was OK for mp3.com to let them download copies it made). It failed at that theory.
This was before iTunes the software or iTunes the store even existed. Mp3.com settled with the record company that had sued it for around $50 million. Then the downturn happened in the tech industry, and they didn't survive that, and were sold. The buyers took them in a different direction. By this time iTunes the software existed. The iTunes store was still a couple years in the future.
Want to try a theory that is consistent with the way time works in this universe?
This decision will have very little affect on most of us, actually. Most of us have probably never participated in a sale that was allowed before this decision and would be disallowed under it, and probably never will. First sale remains exactly the same as it was before for goods that are sold in the US with the authorization of the copyright owner. So, when ASUS ships motherboards to US resellers who sell them in the US, they are subsequently covered by first sale in the US.
Only if you went to Taiwan, bought a motherboard from ASUS that they did not authorize for import into the US, came to the US, and then tried to resell it would you run afoul of this decision. (And then only in the 9th circuit).
Moonlight is all ready to go with Netlfix. The only thing missing is the DRM. Instead of whining at Netflix (or Microsoft), the Linux community needs to convince the content owners that they'll make money if they allow their content on Linux, and so release the restrictions on allowing implementation of the DRM.
Just as hacking should be left to the real hackers, not the script kiddies, press releases should be written by real PR people, not word processing kiddies.
The correct term is "script kiddies".
3D-Secure is not widely used (which is probably why the authentication servers for it do not have a lot of spare power to handle an attack). Same goes for VISA's equivalent. Most security experts consider it a joke, and since it is opt-in most consumers have not bothered. It's been ages since I have seen a major ecommerce site that supported it.
Twitter is another one there was talk of them going for, which would have been futile. Recent data suggests that around 8% of internet users on any given day visit Twitter. Twitter is handling an average of 50000 requests/second (combined website users and API requests from programs).
You can't DDoS a site whose normal load from its customers is orders of magnitude more than what your 500-1000 participants can generate.
This is also why they failed to cause any serious damage to the credit card companies and to Paypal. All they got on those sites were machines that mostly just provide information. It would be the equivalent of anti-abortion protestors trying to take out an abortion clinic by going into the lobby and taking all the brochures.
I will admit that "Anonymous" has so far been smart enough to not attack government web sites.
PostFinance is part of the Swiss postal service, which I'd expect would be part of the government. Same goes for the prosecutor's office they attacked.
Why are they attacking PostFinance? PostFinance is not a bank. It is a financial services (money transfers and the like) arm of the Swiss post office. Accounts are only for Swiss residents. Assange is not a Swiss resident, so is not eligible for an account. Hence, his account was closed and the money in his account returned to him.
He could be 60 years younger and still have no chance of advancing his goals, since most people are not willing to go back to a pre-industrial revolution society, which is what would be necessary under his approach to environmental protection.
Ron Paul is committed to personal freedom from Federal government interference. State and local government, on the other hand...
Cryptome.org, publicintelligence.net, dewereldmorgen.be (I'm told...I don't read that language so can't verify). There's also one being done by several people who left Wikileaks over conflicts with Assange, but I don't know if they are up yet.
To the conspiracy theorists (hello, Boycott Novell!), Microsoft was secretly behind the lawsuit from the start, and this is seen as some sort of proof they were right about that.
There are already Wikileaks competitors. The differ from Wikileaks in that they actually concentrate on publishing leaking information, rather than self-promotion. That's also why many apparently haven't heard of them. To make a political analogy, Wikileaks is the Sarah Palin of the leak sites--not well respected by those in the know in the leaks community, but has been marketed in such a way as to become the darling of many.
As adamdoyle noted below, Slashdot also broke paste for Chrome on Windows. I'd guess they broke it for all Webkit browsers. Works fine on Firefox on Mac and IE on Windows.
Actually, you CAN paste if the textarea is empty, so what I do is cut from the textarea (if there is something I want to keep, like a quoted parent), edit my post in TextMate, then paste it to Slashdot for posting.
Also, sometimes but not always, I've found that drag-and-drop still works. At least it did a few days ago. I couldn't get it to work tonight.
Still, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous for such a major breakage to go live here.
Your Google search gives a bunch of results about products that implement glasses-free 3D with various problems that the Apple method is designed to overcome. There's also no support in your references for your claim that Apple has not built anything using the idea. They have not shipped anything using the idea. It is quite likely they have built prototype products using it.
You know, the submitter thoughtfully included a link to the patent, so you would not have had to (wrongly) to guess what Apple is patenting.
(Although, actually, here is a better copy of the patent, as a single PDF file including diagrams. That patent office site sometimes makes it hard to get images on some browsers/OSes).
Does this count?
That was published nearly four years after Apple's patent application, so probably does not count.
This sounds like bad reporting. Nothing actually quoted from the lawyer there (or in the article it cites) says he is being sued. It says they are requesting sanctions. That sounds to me like they are alleging violation of some court procedural rule, or perhaps some rule of professional conduct of the relevant bar.
That's the problem - one of the defenses did work. The "lack of personal standing." You can't sue for lost revenue if you're not the copyright holder.
No, the defense that worked is lack of personal jurisdiction, not lack of standing. Courts in a state only have power over people who reside in the state, or have a certain level of contact with the state, or who consent to jurisdiction. Basically what the successful defendants are doing is telling the court, "Hey, you are a court of state X. I live in state Y and have no contacts with state X, so you aren't the right court for this", the the court is agreeing.
Note that this doesn't end things. The plaintiff simply has to refile in the defendant's home state (or find some other state that the defendant has sufficient contacts with).
You have to be careful when raising the lack of personal jurisdiction defense, because generally responding to a lawsuit in a given court is taken as conceding personal jurisdiction of that court. However, you can make what is called a "limited appearance", where you respond solely to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Further, you can't sue for lost revenue if you can't prove that, you know, you actually lost revenue.
You can sue for statutory damages.
That's insane... What is there to hide people?
How about communications concerning dissidents? The US has often covertly supported dissidents in oppressive countries that it has diplomatic relations with. If it came to light that the US was aiding, say, pro-democracy dissidents in China, that could get those dissidents arrested for treason or spying.
I wish I had the balls to become a martyr for my beliefs like TPB guys
Their core beliefs are that it is OK to make millions by monetizing helping people rip off other people. At least Assange is purporting to try to actually do something good, as opposed to simply making money by harming others.