He disputed that it was a copyright violation (and he was probably right). The mother also disputes that it is a copyright infringement and that there are any actual damages. That doesn't at all mean she wouldn't be willing to insist that her son not do it again in order to avoid a protracted legal battle. It may even be that the son has decided Epic are a bunch of lamers anyway by now.
Kids manage to do a LOT of things without understanding the implications. That's why they have a special status in legal matters.
There would be a good case for nullifying the notice (not sent to parent/guardian), the counternotice (not filed by legally competent person) and the lawsuit (incorrectly filed, arising from nullified notice and counternotice).
This is the sort of confusion that happens when law degenerates to lobbing grenades over the wall rather than first engaging with the other party and then getting the courts involved only when that fails.
As for the rest, they may be within their legal rights to sue the parent (+/- the null documents) but that doesn't make it morally right or socially acceptable.
I well understand that. OP was trying to apologize for Epic, claiming they just "didn't know" they were acting like scumballs. I pointed out that they damned well know it now and it hasn't apparently changed their plans.
They are free to drop the suit. They haven't. End of story. They are knowingly suing a 14 year old (through a parent). The court filing is hust to ammend the suit with the mother's name and the kid's initials. They are affirmatively suing a 14 year old for cheating in a free to play game.
Parents should take note that letting their kids playing Epic games is a liability, at least until Epic becomes less sue happy.
They have known for at least a week now. They are free to offer a simple out of court settlement such as "Pinky swear not to do it again and we'll drop the whole thing." They haven't done so. So, they are, in fact, knowingly suing a 14 year old over cheating in a free to play game.
Further, they initially filed a DMCA complaing (an allegation of copyright infringement). They now claim that they are obligated to sue since he filed a counter-claim. But the suit isn't for infringement. Thus, they knowingly filed a DMCA complaint where no infringement existed.
Translation, you cannot be wrong because it would break your ego?
All you needed to do is just not reply. Your resorting to a one line ad-hominem tends to confirm this.
Do further entertain me though! Feel free to reply with a reference to an actual standard that shows that no.dev server exists on a non world routable network.
Or pound impotently on your desk shouting about someone being mean to you on the internet. Doesn't matter to me.
And the ICANN root servers are not part of a standard. There exist other DNS roots, and according to another/. story, there will soon be yet another.
The ICANN root is normally used for world reachable servers to avoid confusion, but that is convention. If you dig down far enough, the closest to a standard you will find is "Because Jon Postal said so".
But if that DNS is accessible to those of us in the west, it will be a great benefit. For example, the next time a western government decides to censor the web by de-registering (for example) thepiratebay.org, we can do the DNS lookup using the alternate DNS.
That depends on which shade of expect you are using. I expect them to obey the law and behave in a civil manner. I believe actually that they'll behave as well as the mustache twirling villain in an old cartoon if allowed to.
A bit of a rock and a hard place. Alternatively, they let him die on the strength of the definitely not legal document that was not properly notarized and they get sued by his next of kin making the easy legal argument that a tat is not a legal document.
Wrong. I have no Facebook account. I never clicked through their wall of text. But I may or may not have ever been tagged in a photo uploaded to Facebook. It's hard to say since I don't have a Facebook account.
Slashdot Mirror
He disputed that it was a copyright violation (and he was probably right). The mother also disputes that it is a copyright infringement and that there are any actual damages. That doesn't at all mean she wouldn't be willing to insist that her son not do it again in order to avoid a protracted legal battle. It may even be that the son has decided Epic are a bunch of lamers anyway by now.
Route? Driver gets an order, driver delivers order. Driver returns to store for next order.
If things get really busy, a driver might get two orders that are close together, not 10 miles apart.
Sure, so they should skip the fake song and dance and just provide a timer. Had they done that, they wouldn't have people complaining now.
Apple's sweetheart tax deal with Ireland was found to be illegal.
Kids manage to do a LOT of things without understanding the implications. That's why they have a special status in legal matters.
There would be a good case for nullifying the notice (not sent to parent/guardian), the counternotice (not filed by legally competent person) and the lawsuit (incorrectly filed, arising from nullified notice and counternotice).
This is the sort of confusion that happens when law degenerates to lobbing grenades over the wall rather than first engaging with the other party and then getting the courts involved only when that fails.
As for the rest, they may be within their legal rights to sue the parent (+/- the null documents) but that doesn't make it morally right or socially acceptable.
I well understand that. OP was trying to apologize for Epic, claiming they just "didn't know" they were acting like scumballs. I pointed out that they damned well know it now and it hasn't apparently changed their plans.
They are free to drop the suit. They haven't. End of story. They are knowingly suing a 14 year old (through a parent). The court filing is hust to ammend the suit with the mother's name and the kid's initials. They are affirmatively suing a 14 year old for cheating in a free to play game.
Parents should take note that letting their kids playing Epic games is a liability, at least until Epic becomes less sue happy.
They have known for at least a week now. They are free to offer a simple out of court settlement such as "Pinky swear not to do it again and we'll drop the whole thing." They haven't done so. So, they are, in fact, knowingly suing a 14 year old over cheating in a free to play game.
Further, they initially filed a DMCA complaing (an allegation of copyright infringement). They now claim that they are obligated to sue since he filed a counter-claim. But the suit isn't for infringement. Thus, they knowingly filed a DMCA complaint where no infringement existed.
I suspect the volume of broadcasts would be prohibitive.
In practice, the best you could do is expire logs quickly and be sure to actually delete them.
It would also require you to post one rather than amateurish insults.
Hrmmmm, no links to any standards I see.
Translation, you cannot be wrong because it would break your ego?
All you needed to do is just not reply. Your resorting to a one line ad-hominem tends to confirm this.
Do further entertain me though! Feel free to reply with a reference to an actual standard that shows that no .dev server exists on a non world routable network.
Or pound impotently on your desk shouting about someone being mean to you on the internet. Doesn't matter to me.
And the ICANN root servers are not part of a standard. There exist other DNS roots, and according to another /. story, there will soon be yet another.
The ICANN root is normally used for world reachable servers to avoid confusion, but that is convention. If you dig down far enough, the closest to a standard you will find is "Because Jon Postal said so".
And in China they'll tell you to stop treating the Communist party as an enemy and they'll stop seeing you as one.
But if that DNS is accessible to those of us in the west, it will be a great benefit. For example, the next time a western government decides to censor the web by de-registering (for example) thepiratebay.org, we can do the DNS lookup using the alternate DNS.
Clearly you do not know what "by definition" means. By definition, red paint isn't blue. By CONVENTION fire trucks aren't blue.
Ever seen a dog take a knee? Is that somehow superior intelligence or is it superior obedience?
they sometimes get even by pissing somewhere other than the litter box, so even that one task isn't fully grasped.
They have to grasp that quite well and our revulsion for excrement in order for it to occur to them that it might constitute revenge.
Obedience and willingness are terrible yardsticks for intelligence.
I know at least a child can be tagged in a "scrapbook" without them having an account. Who knows about others.
That depends on which shade of expect you are using. I expect them to obey the law and behave in a civil manner. I believe actually that they'll behave as well as the mustache twirling villain in an old cartoon if allowed to.
A bit of a rock and a hard place. Alternatively, they let him die on the strength of the definitely not legal document that was not properly notarized and they get sued by his next of kin making the easy legal argument that a tat is not a legal document.
Wrong. I have no Facebook account. I never clicked through their wall of text. But I may or may not have ever been tagged in a photo uploaded to Facebook. It's hard to say since I don't have a Facebook account.
Not saying there is no workaround, just that the browser is creating extra hoops to jump through for the purposes of Nerfing the world.
Nerf hammers can be fun, but not if you want to patch the roof.
Filed a proper DNR order. It turns out he did that, and they found the order. Then he died and they honored that properly filed order.
I presume that would be up to the patient, but yes. In a medical context, it's easy to reverse living. Death not so much.