Based on TFA, it would appear this may be more than a copyright issue. A comment from the host, "this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm" suggests that it was not DMCA related.
In most cities, the OTA channels are about all they are not encrypting, plus the public access. About channels 20 and below in most line-ups.
This is a significant change for people accustomed to receiving up may more channels without an additional box. As you note, the entire cable line-up that was not a premium channel (or part of a premium package) was historically available without additional hardware. This is about to change.
Digital-ready TVs can bring in over-the-air digital signals without conversion. What Comcast is doing in his city (and nation-wide, eventually) is a different. A Comcast-supplied box will be required to decrypt their new digital signal, even on a digital-ready set.
Can you cite an example where they succeeded? I'm not trolling, I'd really like to see one. I've never yet seen a case where someone was successfully sued for seeds that "blew across from the next field". A poster above cited the link below, but the story clearly indicates that Monsanto dropped their action and the state even changed their laws to restrict Monsanto's ability to go onto farmer's land.
Then there is the well-known Schmeiser case. Schmeiser was clearly and knowingly applying Round-Up to selectively kill non-GM canola and preserve the Monsanto Canola that had blown in. He saved those seeds to use the following year. In the decision, the court noted the argument that seeds had "blown in" but that it was implausible given that the entire field consisted of Round-Up Ready Canola.
So, again, I am not saying I support Monsanto's legal tactics. Nor that I support the idea patenting genes. But that does not change the fact that family farmers being ruined because a few seeds blew in would appear to be a total myth. If someone has an example otherwise, I'll gladly retract my statement.
Until then, I do not believe that exaggerating things to make Monsanto appear worse is in any way helpful to the very real problems that do exist.
Webster includes "unlawful taking" in the definition of theft. I realize that whining about the difference between copyright violation and theft is always good for some +5 on Slashdot, but lets not kid ourselves. You are taking something which you have no right to, even if the owner also retains a copy.
2. Prices are going far beyond the worth of the materials they are asking me to pay for.
Then don't use those materials. It isn't as if digital music and video are essential to survival. Value is based on what people will pay. A lot of people do pay for their music and movies. Simply because you won't doesn't mean there is no value. There are people who will steal cars, but that doesn't means cars should be "nearly free".
3. The proceeds from sales of these items does NOT go to the people who produce it.
Yes they do. Maybe not as much as you think should go to the actual creators, but that is really an issue for those artists. In any case, there are some who release directly. Do you buy from them?
4. It is often easier to get and use products illegally for free
Bullshit, you're just whining now. iTunes is "hard to use" ? Having purchased Flash Professional and Premiere I know that the Adobe Store isn't difficult at all. About the only thing that's harder is you have an extra step-- entering your payment method.
5. The supposed value of these items is far beyond what I am capable of paying for them.
Once again, then don't use them. Use Blender or Sketch Up instead of Maya. What? They aren't the same? Maybe that's why there is a price for Maya.
6. The tactics used to police copyright are nothing less than bullying.
I agree, but lets not pretend you're some kind of Robin Hood by illegally downloading Twilight Saga and Justin Bieber in your dorm room. Want to do some good? Try writing a letter to the politicians who represent you. Show up at public hearings with a well-reasoned statement. Donate to the EFF.
Or spend the next few years contributing to a free software project and make it better than CS4. Don't tell us that you aren't interested in working for years to give away the results for free. After all, letting us have it for nothing doesn't deprive you of a copy.
The Reformation resulted in a new branch of Christianity, toppling the rule that the Vatican had.
While the Roman Catholic Church did have a degree of reformation, its particular flaws are beside the point. The issue is that that a huge segment of Christianity formally went in a different direction.
I'll never forget the look of confusion on my boss' face when he asked for my cell phone number and I told him I didn't own one. Of course, he thought I should buy one on my own so he could call me for work-related issues.
I don't see how that prevents them from know which web sites you have been visiting.
I'll bet that if the majority of browsers ever stopped storing history data then Cox and Comcast would readily agree to log it and sell it to the advertisers.
I seriously hope he's cleared, because he performed his job to the letter.
Expert for the part where he did not keep system-level admin passwords in the database held by security, as explicitly required. Which would have prevented the entire face-to-face confrontation.
That blame would lie with the two parties and the media covering/hosting the debate. If the big media outlets said they'd only televise a debate that includes the two most likely third-party candidates, then guess what would happen?
A major factor In Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota was that the Democratic candidate indicated that he would not participate in any debates that did not include Ventura. This was out of self-interest, of course. The Democrats thought Ventura's fiscal conservatism would steal votes from the Republicans. The strategy backfired, as the Democratic candidate wound up with the least votes overall.
But that is talking about Colbert running as a Democratic party candidate, not running altogether.
You are entirely correct. biryokumaru is being deliberately obtuse.
In the first reply he provided the document to be an elector for a candidate in California. Since the voters are not choosing the President directly, it follows that a candidate needs electors- a process as simple as filling out that form. If someone can't find 55 people in the most populous state to be electors then I doubt they are getting enough write-in votes to win.
Your public activities outside of work have always been fair game. If I wrote a letter to the local newspaper slamming my employer then I'd fully expect that to come back to me, why should a blog post about it be any different?
I fully agree. I have a friend who has been an active political blogger for a long time, and is currently running for office. He always posted under his real name with the principle that he would not write anything online that he would say in person or in publish on paper.
Far too many people believe online messages are private conversations. I'd argue they are even less private than a letter to the editor from decades past. Back then, it was difficult to search and locate such things. If I wanted to find every letter written by Joe Somebody it would have been a large undertaking. Now it's a couple of seconds with Google.
Because nobody is getting "taken to the cleaners" but the parents themselves. The school district gets its money from local taxpayers... the very parents filing this lawsuit. If the parents win, then that money comes from themselves. They money to pay the lawyers (both theirs and the school's) comes out of the parents own pocket. It's lose-lose.
What "terror" would a class action ruling instill in other administrators? They don't face personal financial ruin, the administrators won't pay a dime. It is the district that faces the ruin, which is ultimately these very same families whose children were involved.
Firing them for cause, and making it stick, would have direct personal consequences for the individuals involved.
Criminal charges (if appropriate, the whole "child porn" thing is all wild speculation right now) would have severe direct personal consequences.
Beautiful job by the lawyers in this case. They're the only winners. It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class. Seeking liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Assuming they "win", then these same families will be able to vote themselves a new tax levy to pay for the damages awarded, plus the attorney fees of both sides.
On the face of it, the school screwed up royally. No doubt about it. But did anyone even try to work this out via another method? Did the school board know about this? Since they are probably parents in the district, my guess is that they did not know.
I think the board should fire the administration for cause. If they have to pay some lawyers to make that stick, so be it. It would still be less expensive than this class action.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but they refunded his money!
Based on TFA, it would appear this may be more than a copyright issue. A comment from the host, "this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm" suggests that it was not DMCA related.
In most cities, the OTA channels are about all they are not encrypting, plus the public access. About channels 20 and below in most line-ups.
This is a significant change for people accustomed to receiving up may more channels without an additional box. As you note, the entire cable line-up that was not a premium channel (or part of a premium package) was historically available without additional hardware. This is about to change.
Nobody mentioned it because it is not true.
Digital-ready TVs can bring in over-the-air digital signals without conversion. What Comcast is doing in his city (and nation-wide, eventually) is a different. A Comcast-supplied box will be required to decrypt their new digital signal, even on a digital-ready set.
Can you cite an example where they succeeded? I'm not trolling, I'd really like to see one. I've never yet seen a case where someone was successfully sued for seeds that "blew across from the next field". A poster above cited the link below, but the story clearly indicates that Monsanto dropped their action and the state even changed their laws to restrict Monsanto's ability to go onto farmer's land.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml
Then there is the well-known Schmeiser case. Schmeiser was clearly and knowingly applying Round-Up to selectively kill non-GM canola and preserve the Monsanto Canola that had blown in. He saved those seeds to use the following year. In the decision, the court noted the argument that seeds had "blown in" but that it was implausible given that the entire field consisted of Round-Up Ready Canola.
So, again, I am not saying I support Monsanto's legal tactics. Nor that I support the idea patenting genes. But that does not change the fact that family farmers being ruined because a few seeds blew in would appear to be a total myth. If someone has an example otherwise, I'll gladly retract my statement.
Until then, I do not believe that exaggerating things to make Monsanto appear worse is in any way helpful to the very real problems that do exist.
1. Copying a file is not theft.
Webster includes "unlawful taking" in the definition of theft. I realize that whining about the difference between copyright violation and theft is always good for some +5 on Slashdot, but lets not kid ourselves. You are taking something which you have no right to, even if the owner also retains a copy.
2. Prices are going far beyond the worth of the materials they are asking me to pay for.
Then don't use those materials. It isn't as if digital music and video are essential to survival. Value is based on what people will pay. A lot of people do pay for their music and movies. Simply because you won't doesn't mean there is no value. There are people who will steal cars, but that doesn't means cars should be "nearly free".
3. The proceeds from sales of these items does NOT go to the people who produce it.
Yes they do. Maybe not as much as you think should go to the actual creators, but that is really an issue for those artists. In any case, there are some who release directly. Do you buy from them?
4. It is often easier to get and use products illegally for free
Bullshit, you're just whining now. iTunes is "hard to use" ? Having purchased Flash Professional and Premiere I know that the Adobe Store isn't difficult at all. About the only thing that's harder is you have an extra step-- entering your payment method.
5. The supposed value of these items is far beyond what I am capable of paying for them.
Once again, then don't use them. Use Blender or Sketch Up instead of Maya. What? They aren't the same? Maybe that's why there is a price for Maya.
6. The tactics used to police copyright are nothing less than bullying.
I agree, but lets not pretend you're some kind of Robin Hood by illegally downloading Twilight Saga and Justin Bieber in your dorm room. Want to do some good? Try writing a letter to the politicians who represent you. Show up at public hearings with a well-reasoned statement. Donate to the EFF.
Or spend the next few years contributing to a free software project and make it better than CS4. Don't tell us that you aren't interested in working for years to give away the results for free. After all, letting us have it for nothing doesn't deprive you of a copy.
The Reformation resulted in a new branch of Christianity, toppling the rule that the Vatican had.
While the Roman Catholic Church did have a degree of reformation, its particular flaws are beside the point. The issue is that that a huge segment of Christianity formally went in a different direction.
Amen brother!
I'll never forget the look of confusion on my boss' face when he asked for my cell phone number and I told him I didn't own one. Of course, he thought I should buy one on my own so he could call me for work-related issues.
I don't see how that prevents them from know which web sites you have been visiting.
I'll bet that if the majority of browsers ever stopped storing history data then Cox and Comcast would readily agree to log it and sell it to the advertisers.
You are on a calorie-restricted diet your reward for being stingy is a Happy Meal?
I have no problems with calorie restriction and occasional indulgence, but you may want to discover high-calorie foods that actually taste good.
Isn't Banksy's position that he likes the perishable nature of his art?
Didn't Sony pretty much take the exact same stance with their Betamax format? How did that work out for them?
Page 32, section 4.1 ...
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
County policy document
Section 4.1, page 32.
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
The actual county policy document
In section 4.1 (page 32) we see...
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
There was a backup, in a database held by security. Policy was to put system passwords in it, which he did not do.
Expert for the part where he did not keep system-level admin passwords in the database held by security, as explicitly required. Which would have prevented the entire face-to-face confrontation.
That blame would lie with the two parties and the media covering/hosting the debate. If the big media outlets said they'd only televise a debate that includes the two most likely third-party candidates, then guess what would happen?
A major factor In Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota was that the Democratic candidate indicated that he would not participate in any debates that did not include Ventura. This was out of self-interest, of course. The Democrats thought Ventura's fiscal conservatism would steal votes from the Republicans. The strategy backfired, as the Democratic candidate wound up with the least votes overall.
You are entirely correct. biryokumaru is being deliberately obtuse.
In the first reply he provided the document to be an elector for a candidate in California. Since the voters are not choosing the President directly, it follows that a candidate needs electors- a process as simple as filling out that form. If someone can't find 55 people in the most populous state to be electors then I doubt they are getting enough write-in votes to win.
I fully agree. I have a friend who has been an active political blogger for a long time, and is currently running for office. He always posted under his real name with the principle that he would not write anything online that he would say in person or in publish on paper.
Far too many people believe online messages are private conversations. I'd argue they are even less private than a letter to the editor from decades past. Back then, it was difficult to search and locate such things. If I wanted to find every letter written by Joe Somebody it would have been a large undertaking. Now it's a couple of seconds with Google.
That wouldn't happen if you had paid your bills.
I wish I had mod points for your post.
Because nobody is getting "taken to the cleaners" but the parents themselves. The school district gets its money from local taxpayers... the very parents filing this lawsuit. If the parents win, then that money comes from themselves. They money to pay the lawyers (both theirs and the school's) comes out of the parents own pocket. It's lose-lose.
What "terror" would a class action ruling instill in other administrators? They don't face personal financial ruin, the administrators won't pay a dime. It is the district that faces the ruin, which is ultimately these very same families whose children were involved.
Firing them for cause, and making it stick, would have direct personal consequences for the individuals involved.
Criminal charges (if appropriate, the whole "child porn" thing is all wild speculation right now) would have severe direct personal consequences.
Beautiful job by the lawyers in this case. They're the only winners. It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class. Seeking liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Assuming they "win", then these same families will be able to vote themselves a new tax levy to pay for the damages awarded, plus the attorney fees of both sides.
On the face of it, the school screwed up royally. No doubt about it. But did anyone even try to work this out via another method? Did the school board know about this? Since they are probably parents in the district, my guess is that they did not know.
I think the board should fire the administration for cause. If they have to pay some lawyers to make that stick, so be it. It would still be less expensive than this class action.