Strenuously disagree. This is more than a billing error here, it is an implicit threat of expensive legal action wrapped in a takedown that at the least interferes with someone's free expression. They need to take it seriously or go away.
Civilization has long understood the dangers of crying wolf and even has a number of fables about it in order to teach young children not to do it.
They are welcome to use their algorithm as a screening test, but they shouldn't be claiming ownership of things without human verification. Since their algorithm must have some 'idea' what it thinks the work is, it should only take a few seconds per filing to have a human verify that what is playing is what the algorithm thinks it is.
Perhaps the ban on the easy method of making a claim should expire after a time, but the message is fairly clear: If they prove they are unable to responsibly use a largely automated system, they will be forced to do it manually in order to force them to consider each case more carefully. It may even be acceptable to grant them 3 strikes rather than 1, but only if they issue a personal (hand written) apology from their CEO to the person they wrongly claimed against.
That just means you must make more than one cut to isolate the segment you're working on, or you have to get your splice in while the trucks are on the way to the decoy cut.
Unfortunately, in this case the pain spreads around. The sluggard isn't necessary the one who suffers for it.
ISPs get stuck dealing with NAT because too many servers are only reachable via v4, servers get stuck scrounging v4 addresses (possibly at great expense) because too many ISPs don't support v6, etc.
You've obviously never worked on an embedded system. Sometimes in that space, you throw out absolutely anything and everything you don't absolutely positively have to include. That's why busybox exists and has a config menu that lets you choose exactly what commands to support. Likewise, dietlibc for when glibc is too big.
That was IANA running out of blocks to hand out to the RIRs such as ARIN.
Now, since it can't get any more, ARIN has also run out. The remainder are held by corporations and individuals and they have no obligation to hand them over.
Perhaps all of that was an attempt to motivate at least a lukewarm response to the obviously coming problem so people wouldn't end up running around with their hair on fire later.
No, it wasn't. It was predicted that IANA would soon run out of blocks to hand out to the regional registries unless allocation policies were tightened up. They were tightened, but in spite of that, it ran out in 2011. IANA was last predicted to ruin out on July 5th this year. They almost made it.
For that reason, only Africa has addresses to hand out now, but that will be exhausted in just a couple years.
I am aware that it can be taken out of the driver's seat (I do so every time), but I am also aware that doing so doesn't remove the dependencies on the libraries and that the systemd team is hard at work removing even that option.
No, it exploded because an edict to run the test came down from on-high and heads would roll if it was delayed. So, to get things done within the deadline, it was assigned to the poorly trained night operators rather than the better skilled day operators. Then they did every don't in the book to avoid having to report failure after making a mistake. It was that final mistake of withdrawing all of the control rods trying to burn off the xenon poisoning that made it blow.
I recognize that things have become skewed and enforcement is incredibly lax these days, but first and foremost, a corporate charter is contingent on the existence of the corporation being in the public interest. There is no such thing as a corporation's natural right to exist, it is a creation of the state (and by extension, the people). But for vast amounts of money and corruption, a corporation that continues to break the law would be denied existence (as it isn't in the public interest to create criminals).
They are certainly NOT required to lie and cheat at all. They choose to do so, but it is far from required. Flooding the market with liars and cheaters is not in the public interest at all. The market only functions well where there is fair dealing (or at least the courts and law enforcement impose fair dealing).
To answer your question: if I was losing money working for a company, yes I would break my contract and leave - and I would understand that I may be sued for breach of contract.
But I'll bet you wouldn't expect to continue driving the company car.
So what? Do you advocate lying, cheating, and stealing to make that money? I ask because Verizon signed an agreement to make FIOS available to everyone in the city and they are now trying to weasel out of it.
How do you suppose you'll do if you sign an employment agreement towards the goal of making more than you *need* and then only bother showing up for work once a week?
I doubt there will be outright rebellion at this point, but a lot of lesser rebellions will take place. Even some corporations are deliberately messing with the NSA these days. Respect for federal authorities and police at all levels is falling fast. No armed insurrection or anything, just a bunch of "We destroy all records every 24 hours", "Gee officer, I didn't see anything", "Smile for the camera officers", and "the next version will feature built in encryption".
It's because trademark law is a mess. The domain holder has the right to the domain, but the trademark holder has the right to use the name in any form in a particular line of business. To avoid a bunch of unnecessary legal crap it's better for both parties to sign a simple document and be done with it.
That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.
A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.
Slashdot Mirror
Strenuously disagree. This is more than a billing error here, it is an implicit threat of expensive legal action wrapped in a takedown that at the least interferes with someone's free expression. They need to take it seriously or go away.
Civilization has long understood the dangers of crying wolf and even has a number of fables about it in order to teach young children not to do it.
They are welcome to use their algorithm as a screening test, but they shouldn't be claiming ownership of things without human verification. Since their algorithm must have some 'idea' what it thinks the work is, it should only take a few seconds per filing to have a human verify that what is playing is what the algorithm thinks it is.
Perhaps the ban on the easy method of making a claim should expire after a time, but the message is fairly clear: If they prove they are unable to responsibly use a largely automated system, they will be forced to do it manually in order to force them to consider each case more carefully. It may even be acceptable to grant them 3 strikes rather than 1, but only if they issue a personal (hand written) apology from their CEO to the person they wrongly claimed against.
Now I'm quite sure you've never done any embedded work. Debian USED to be a good base for an embedded system.
That just means you must make more than one cut to isolate the segment you're working on, or you have to get your splice in while the trucks are on the way to the decoy cut.
Unfortunately, in this case the pain spreads around. The sluggard isn't necessary the one who suffers for it.
ISPs get stuck dealing with NAT because too many servers are only reachable via v4, servers get stuck scrounging v4 addresses (possibly at great expense) because too many ISPs don't support v6, etc.
Or are you simply alergic to the d,e,m,s,t and y?
You've obviously never worked on an embedded system. Sometimes in that space, you throw out absolutely anything and everything you don't absolutely positively have to include. That's why busybox exists and has a config menu that lets you choose exactly what commands to support. Likewise, dietlibc for when glibc is too big.
A simple firewall rule will provide all of the security NAT would provide and with a lower load on the firewall.
Just enable connection tracking, accept incoming related packets and drop the rest.
That was IANA running out of blocks to hand out to the RIRs such as ARIN.
Now, since it can't get any more, ARIN has also run out. The remainder are held by corporations and individuals and they have no obligation to hand them over.
Perhaps all of that was an attempt to motivate at least a lukewarm response to the obviously coming problem so people wouldn't end up running around with their hair on fire later.
No, it wasn't. It was predicted that IANA would soon run out of blocks to hand out to the regional registries unless allocation policies were tightened up. They were tightened, but in spite of that, it ran out in 2011. IANA was last predicted to ruin out on July 5th this year. They almost made it.
For that reason, only Africa has addresses to hand out now, but that will be exhausted in just a couple years.
I am aware that it can be taken out of the driver's seat (I do so every time), but I am also aware that doing so doesn't remove the dependencies on the libraries and that the systemd team is hard at work removing even that option.
You should try looking at the other pages, there's more than one there.
Meanwhile, if you think Jessie doesn't use systemd, you clearly haven't been paying attention to that either.
No, it exploded because an edict to run the test came down from on-high and heads would roll if it was delayed. So, to get things done within the deadline, it was assigned to the poorly trained night operators rather than the better skilled day operators. Then they did every don't in the book to avoid having to report failure after making a mistake. It was that final mistake of withdrawing all of the control rods trying to burn off the xenon poisoning that made it blow.
Yes, they just hate it when we keep them sorta-kinda semi honistish.
So you're saying all those messages I get from the mailing list are a hallucination?
Sorry no.
I recognize that things have become skewed and enforcement is incredibly lax these days, but first and foremost, a corporate charter is contingent on the existence of the corporation being in the public interest. There is no such thing as a corporation's natural right to exist, it is a creation of the state (and by extension, the people). But for vast amounts of money and corruption, a corporation that continues to break the law would be denied existence (as it isn't in the public interest to create criminals).
They are certainly NOT required to lie and cheat at all. They choose to do so, but it is far from required. Flooding the market with liars and cheaters is not in the public interest at all. The market only functions well where there is fair dealing (or at least the courts and law enforcement impose fair dealing).
To answer your question: if I was losing money working for a company, yes I would break my contract and leave - and I would understand that I may be sued for breach of contract.
But I'll bet you wouldn't expect to continue driving the company car.
Something had to keep the pork moving.
So what? Do you advocate lying, cheating, and stealing to make that money? I ask because Verizon signed an agreement to make FIOS available to everyone in the city and they are now trying to weasel out of it.
How do you suppose you'll do if you sign an employment agreement towards the goal of making more than you *need* and then only bother showing up for work once a week?
Why should that strategy pay better for Verizon?
I'm fairly sure gay marriage wasn't decided by the FISA court.
Is it a democratically elected government or is it "democratically elected" like they did in the USSR?
I doubt there will be outright rebellion at this point, but a lot of lesser rebellions will take place. Even some corporations are deliberately messing with the NSA these days. Respect for federal authorities and police at all levels is falling fast. No armed insurrection or anything, just a bunch of "We destroy all records every 24 hours", "Gee officer, I didn't see anything", "Smile for the camera officers", and "the next version will feature built in encryption".
Or the NSA compiled a very special Dossier.
Congress made it clear they did not authorize bulk surveillance by the NSA.
It's because trademark law is a mess. The domain holder has the right to the domain, but the trademark holder has the right to use the name in any form in a particular line of business. To avoid a bunch of unnecessary legal crap it's better for both parties to sign a simple document and be done with it.
As others have pointed out, there was a lot more to it than that.
But what Apple Corp s chose to protect remained un-infringed.
That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.
A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.