The prosecuter usually files as many relevant changes as they can. The idea is to force a deal if they can, to spare the expense of a trial. And to reduce the chance of the defendant walking away free.
The guys made deal for the lesser charge of conspiracy so they doesn't have to risk a longer sentence, which they almost certainly would have gotten, if it had gone to trial. They do it all the time on "Law & Order".
They know this will bomb. The point is not even try to compete with iPod. That is only the pretense. This is a first bluff at a new MS set top box. This is really a Tivo killer prototype. But if they say that Tivo will be forced to answer back. In the end they want to own the VOD space where there is WAY more money to be made than on music downloads.
Malicious hackers and vandals are lazy and wait for Microsoft to issue patches before they produce tools to work out how to exploit loopholes in Windows, say experts.
MS users are the lazy ones because (either from laziness or ignorance) they do not maintain current patch levels on thier OS. Of course there would not be as many security updates if MS wrote better code. I suppose that is asking too much.
Scimeca is one of a growing number of people fighting the record industry's copyright infringement campaign against file-swappers, although few have used such creative legal strategies.
I think a little too creative. I do applaud her efforts and root for her to win but... I must really question her legal strategy. If the RIAA has a case under the law they have a right to pursue it. They also are smart enough to realize the likely hood of receiving full payment for the damages they are alleging is next to nothing. So they offer a settlement. In there eyes it is a "win-win" situation. They only way her case can win is if she can prove that the RIAA doesn't have a legitimate claim or that they are guilty of some sort of fraud. Though I am not a lawyer, I think the chances of her proving that in court is about the same as the RIAA getting 150,000/per song out of her.
Could work as an after the fact tool. If the rules of the P2P network in question where such that copyrighted material, if identified, could be prevented from being listed, or Downloaded. I stress that the network would have to set up in that way and inforrced by the Network Protocal it self. And not by some spyware/virus that would search and destroy personal files.
FastTrack might be able to enforce such a policy because they have much more control over there network, and more importantly there clients but not Gnutella.
This could never work as a tool to keep content OFF P2P networks.
This is the most blatant uses of unnecessary brute force I have ever heard of... besides the war. Had the FBI just asked, they would have gotten cooperation from most of relevant news outlets. But by invoking the PATRIOT Act, all they did was cause a lot of people to call their lawyers, and make an enemy out of the people you need help from. And in the end when the Federal Judge see that that this was an abuse of the PATRIOT Act, they will have to ask for News outlets for volunteers and now they will MUCH less likely to comply.
I Still don't know how all this applies to IBM. He talked about what SGI did. He talked about the "flawed" process by which Linux & OSS in general is developed. None of this goes to prove that IBM did any thing wrong. And the Offending code That SGI put in is Open Sourced now, & no longer in the source anyway.
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
Isn't this against the GPL? If they distribute Linux they MUST provide the source. This seems like a serious conflict. I also find it odd that if they where interested in protecting their IP that they have not issued any cease and desist orders to any of the other major Linux distos like Redhat. One more question. What will happen to somebody if he is running SCO Linux? Are they going to sue someone for running software that SCO itself distributed?
They are both very simular operating systems. It seems to me that Linux would have to solve many of the same problems. Doesn't it stand to reason that Linux code will be simular to UnixWare, because they arrived at the same solutions ?
I think they are on the right track. The reason spam is so prevalent is because it is so inexpensive. Attacking it on an economic level is the way to go. Law won't work because they would only work inside a jurisdiction, and the inter net knows no boundaries. That is assuming you could enforce them in the first place and I doubt that very much. The only thing it is missing is a way for the recipient to allow messages from someone NOT on the white list. Because there it is certain to be a friend or family member you did not put on your white list they will be treated as a spammer and not get through with out paying.
Chemisor Also had a good idea as well. If the SMTP protocol was extended to verify the sending address and or reply address the mail servers could filter out the most of the spam that clogs out in-boxes.
I am not an expert on IP law or any kind of law for that matter but, doesn't SBC have to demonstrate that they had the "device" they patened for a whole year for them to get that year of grace. I have an old book demonstrating frames in such a way that violates SBC's patent using a netscape 2.0 that was published in april '95. Using that date as the date when netscape "invented" frames does that mean this does not qualify as prior art mearly because netscape decided not to file for a patent? And how can SBC claim ANY patent rights onces this book was published the method in question became common knowelege.?
Come on !! These guys are caring the weight of the 5th largest domain on the internet. You don't think they load tested this product before selecting it ? Not to mention it is already being used for the.info domain. I am sure the people at Postgre already know how good a product they have made. Now other people will know to... and they won't have to play 2nd fiddle MySQL either.
I am all for an individual to do what he/she wants with the media he/she purchases. I am also for the right of any parent to control what media is consumed in their home. Companies like Clean Flicks just give consumers these abilities, while still allowing them to enjoy "Good Recent Movies." There is obviously a market for the stuff.
I think the Director's Guild hasn't a leg to stand on. The alterations are done at the request of the consumer. Copyright law is meant to protect the producers of content from others using it and representing it has there own, And also to make sure that the producers reap the benefit of there labor. Nothing Clean Flicks does compromises that. As for the integrity of the work, I think as long as the editing is subtractive, and at consumer request, they should be allowed to do this. Meaning not adding or changing scenes. Just cutting scenes and overdubbing profanity. Companies like Clean Flicks are not changing what the artists say, only what words, and images they use to say it with. And that is no different that editing a movie for broadcast TV or music for Broadcast Radio.
If the majority of those people end up committing a crime, and they see a pattern, I see no problem with getting familiar with those faces in case anything ever does happen.
The operative word is IF. there is no reason to believe that someone who is minding his own business on a public street is going to commit a crime. What you have here is RACIAL PROFILING on the highest degree. I am very disturbed that so many people think this is OK. We are not talking about the right to copy a DVD or share music with friends. This is a violation of basic human right. About "Equal protection under the Law"
I do agree with deft that we should get familiar with those faces. Not so we can include them in some photo lineup but so that we can know who they are. And they can know us. And we can help and guide them.
Preventing crime does not come from identifying possible criminals but identifying the potential in all of our youth.
'Equipped with Longhorn, your PC will keep track of how you work, whom you talk to, what sites you look at, how you make documents and whom you share them with, which data on the network are yours--making all those things easier.'
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that many people pay a monthly fee to record shows on a very finite hard drive sitting under their TV, this is a step up.
Do the Math. Ubuntu One Chanrges $10 for 50GB. For the same 50 GB Google charges $12.50 a year.
The prosecuter usually files as many relevant changes as they can. The idea is to force a deal if they can, to spare the expense of a trial. And to reduce the chance of the defendant walking away free.
The guys made deal for the lesser charge of conspiracy so they doesn't have to risk a longer sentence, which they almost certainly would have gotten, if it had gone to trial. They do it all the time on "Law & Order".
They know this will bomb. The point is not even try to compete with iPod. That is only the pretense. This is a first bluff at a new MS set top box. This is really a Tivo killer prototype. But if they say that Tivo will be forced to answer back. In the end they want to own the VOD space where there is WAY more money to be made than on music downloads.
Malicious hackers and vandals are lazy and wait for Microsoft to issue patches before they produce tools to work out how to exploit loopholes in Windows, say experts.
MS users are the lazy ones because (either from laziness or ignorance) they do not maintain current patch levels on thier OS. Of course there would not be as many security updates if MS wrote better code. I suppose that is asking too much.
Scimeca is one of a growing number of people fighting the record industry's copyright infringement campaign against file-swappers, although few have used such creative legal strategies.
... I must really question her legal strategy. If the RIAA has a case under the law they have a right to pursue it. They also are smart enough to realize the likely hood of receiving full payment for the damages they are alleging is next to nothing. So they offer a settlement. In there eyes it is a "win-win" situation. They only way her case can win is if she can prove that the RIAA doesn't have a legitimate claim or that they are guilty of some sort of fraud. Though I am not a lawyer, I think the chances of her proving that in court is about the same as the RIAA getting 150,000/per song out of her.
I think a little too creative. I do applaud her efforts and root for her to win but
Could work as an after the fact tool. If the rules of the P2P network in question where such that copyrighted material, if identified, could be prevented from being listed, or Downloaded. I stress that the network would have to set up in that way and inforrced by the Network Protocal it self. And not by some spyware/virus that would search and destroy personal files.
FastTrack might be able to enforce such a policy because they have much more control over there network, and more importantly there clients but not Gnutella.
This could never work as a tool to keep content OFF P2P networks.
Won't be long before we are all where tin hats
This is the most blatant uses of unnecessary brute force I have ever heard of ... besides the war. Had the FBI just asked, they would have gotten cooperation from most of relevant news outlets. But by invoking the PATRIOT Act, all they did was cause a lot of people to call their lawyers, and make an enemy out of the people you need help from. And in the end when the Federal Judge see that that this was an abuse of the PATRIOT Act, they will have to ask for News outlets for volunteers and now they will MUCH less likely to comply.
All that is needed to complete the effect are pictures of the RIAA lawers "PIMP slapping" the girl.
I Still don't know how all this applies to IBM. He talked about what SGI did. He talked about the "flawed" process by which Linux & OSS in general is developed. None of this goes to prove that IBM did any thing wrong. And the Offending code That SGI put in is Open Sourced now, & no longer in the source anyway.
So, SCO where's the beef? (Clara Peller)
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
Isn't this against the GPL? If they distribute Linux they MUST provide the source. This seems like a serious conflict. I also find it odd that if they where interested in protecting their IP that they have not issued any cease and desist orders to any of the other major Linux distos like Redhat. One more question. What will happen to somebody if he is running SCO Linux? Are they going to sue someone for running software that SCO itself distributed?
They are both very simular operating systems. It seems to me that Linux would have to solve many of the same problems. Doesn't it stand to reason that Linux code will be simular to UnixWare, because they arrived at the same solutions ?
I think they are on the right track. The reason spam is so prevalent is because it is so inexpensive. Attacking it on an economic level is the way to go. Law won't work because they would only work inside a jurisdiction, and the inter net knows no boundaries. That is assuming you could enforce them in the first place and I doubt that very much. The only thing it is missing is a way for the recipient to allow messages from someone NOT on the white list. Because there it is certain to be a friend or family member you did not put on your white list they will be treated as a spammer and not get through with out paying.
Chemisor Also had a good idea as well. If the SMTP protocol was extended to verify the sending address and or reply address the mail servers could filter out the most of the spam that clogs out in-boxes.
Doedn't that include almost EVERY microsoft application ever written?
I am not an expert on IP law or any kind of law for that matter but, doesn't SBC have to demonstrate that they had the "device" they patened for a whole year for them to get that year of grace. I have an old book demonstrating frames in such a way that violates SBC's patent using a netscape 2.0 that was published in april '95. Using that date as the date when netscape "invented" frames does that mean this does not qualify as prior art mearly because netscape decided not to file for a patent? And how can SBC claim ANY patent rights onces this book was published the method in question became common knowelege.?
Come on !! These guys are caring the weight of the 5th largest domain on the internet. You don't think they load tested this product before selecting it ? Not to mention it is already being used for the .info domain. I am sure the people at Postgre already know how good a product they have made. Now other people will know to ... and they won't have to play 2nd fiddle MySQL either.
I am all for an individual to do what he/she wants with the media he/she purchases. I am also for the right of any parent to control what media is consumed in their home. Companies like Clean Flicks just give consumers these abilities, while still allowing them to enjoy "Good Recent Movies." There is obviously a market for the stuff.
I think the Director's Guild hasn't a leg to stand on. The alterations are done at the request of the consumer. Copyright law is meant to protect the producers of content from others using it and representing it has there own, And also to make sure that the producers reap the benefit of there labor. Nothing Clean Flicks does compromises that. As for the integrity of the work, I think as long as the editing is subtractive, and at consumer request, they should be allowed to do this. Meaning not adding or changing scenes. Just cutting scenes and overdubbing profanity. Companies like Clean Flicks are not changing what the artists say, only what words, and images they use to say it with. And that is no different that editing a movie for broadcast TV or music for Broadcast Radio.
The operative word is IF. there is no reason to believe that someone who is minding his own business on a public street is going to commit a crime. What you have here is RACIAL PROFILING on the highest degree. I am very disturbed that so many people think this is OK. We are not talking about the right to copy a DVD or share music with friends. This is a violation of basic human right. About "Equal protection under the Law"
I do agree with deft that we should get familiar with those faces. Not so we can include them in some photo lineup but so that we can know who they are. And they can know us. And we can help and guide them.
Preventing crime does not come from identifying possible criminals but identifying the potential in all of our youth.
Done its called Jabber
'Equipped with Longhorn, your PC will keep track of how you work, whom you talk to, what sites you look at, how you make documents and whom you share them with, which data on the network are yours--making all those things easier.'