It is nice to know that the trojanized version retains the copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty as required by the PuTTY FOSS license. Good to see people properly using Open Source!
Won't work. Your statement "I have pirated MP3s on this volume and have committed copyright infringement." would be inadmissible, but the fact that you had a hard drive full of "pirated" MP3s would still be used as evidence.
Well, as an "actual" lawyer rather than one of the armchair variety I'd have to disagree with you.
Absent some specific corruption/political problem, no DA in their right mind is going to try and go before a judge without evidence of a crime. Judges do not like this. They stop the trial after the prosecution rests and hand down directed verdicts in the defendants favor. DAs do not like it when this happens to them, it looks bad when promotion time comes along.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, bit it's the exception rather than the rule.
IAAL and no you can't. Try to be funny and what they'll do is grant you immunity for anything revealed in the password itself. Then they'll force you to reveal the password or sit in jail for contempt. Once you reveal the password they can decrypt the drive and use that data in court (even if it's the same as the password).
The real key here is that the 5th amendment protects you from testifying against yourself. Your "papers" are not considered testimony and not protected.
Looking at the postings and the takedown notice, it seems that the person being threateded with legal action might have a strong position.
Yes, they are clearly creating derivative works and would normally be violating Universal's copyright. However, it seems that Universal specifically was encouraging fans to create derivative works to promote the release of the movie. I would personally subpoena every document involving the viral campaign and look for language that I could use to prove a grant of license to the fans.
Disclaimer: I am not your attorney, I am most likely not even licensed to practice in your state. This is simply an academic discussion.
As TFA says, it's simple. A normal security hole costs the user money, not Microsoft. This "security hole" (indirectly) costs MS money so it gets fixed ASAP. MS is, if nothing, good at protecting its bottom line.
With Blockbuster's particular business model, I've already demonstrated it's actually MORE profitable for them to have me rent a movie rip it in 20 minutes and return it.
I think you are missing a rather important point here: Blockbuster is NOT the copyright owner. The movie studios own the copyrights to the movies and the courts could care less about Blockbuster's business model. The issue won't even arise in Universal Pictures, Inc. v. Mr. Guy
It is being nitpicky. Just because something is implemented as an affirmative defense does not mean that it is not a right. Few would argue that you have a "right" to defend yourself for example and self-defense is an affirmative defense.
Actually no. The end result is we all take the blue pill. The red pill allows Neo to see the truth behind the illusion, the blue pill sends him back into the MMOG that is the Matrix.
Actually, you're incorrect. This isn't unordered merchandise, it's what is known as non-conforming merchandise. He did order something, but received the wrong item. If he decides to keep it he will need to pay for it.
Realize that this law was to prevent people from scamming consumers by sending them items unordered and then billing them for it, hoping they'd pay, not to allow you to get free stuff because of a shipping mistake. (Scammers used to send out family bibles to people who had just died and then send a bill. The next of kin wouldn't realize it was a scam and pay the bill).
If there are uncontactable they proably *don't* have an "army of corporate lawyers", but rather it's "Bob" working out of his mother's basement who have no attorney at all.
The good side of this is that you'll win your case and get your domain name back. The downside is that they are most likely judgement proof and you won't actually recover any damages.
Nice try, but that's essentially the same as what Napster was doing. Providing a central "database" where the material was linked.
The only defense here for such a website is that DMCA-style laws and even old copyright laws provide a safe haven clause. This means that the copyright holder must inform them that the content is copyrighted and unauthorized for sharing.
Umm.. IANAL, but I am a law student. While this certainly isn't legal advice:
1) If you read the Napster decision the problem wasn't only that they hosted the central index, but that they actually profited from people using the software (via advertising). hosting a torrent doesn't mean you profit.
2) Traditional copyright law has no "safe harbor" exception other than fair use. If you are distributing copyrighted material they can certainly sue you even if they have not asked you to remove the material. (Of course if they do ask and you refuse I can assure you that the judge will take that into account).
Great thought experiment, but it won't work. I guarentee that your XORed file will be what is called a "derivative work" and is just as much a copyright infringement to distribute as the original song. Sorry, thats just the may current copyright is set up.
I think people are overlooking what is really going on here.
There are two parts we need to look at:
1) Is the distribution system legal? People keep on commenting on whether this is acceptable under copyright laws. This is a moot point. The real question is whether it is allowed under the MIT contract. Since that isn't posted I don't see how anyone can make an argument either way. If it's not allowed under the contract it is clearly infringement.
2) Even if it's acceptable, who cares? All this allows you to do is the equivilent to a radio station that you can make requests. The licence doesn't seem to give the students the right to RECORD these broadcasts on their PCs. That would still be infringement.
Of course as any good Slashdot reader, I only skimmed the article so I could be totally off base here. Oh, IANAL and this isn't legal advice.
You're over simplifying a bit. Simple things like cameras that watch for lines on the road fail pretty easily if the road is covered by, for example, snow or rain. Before this is feasible it needs to be absolutely bulletproof. People's live are literally riding on it.
Re:Headline dissappointed me....
on
Lawyers In Space...
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
On the contrary, this makes perfect sense. How in the world do you expect someone without legal training to understand, let alone *write* new laws? Thats like being disappointed that people with degrees in computer science go on to get jobs writing software.
When companies shifted to cubes one of the reasons given was to allow easier interaction between employees. It works. However what was lost is a way for a person to get needed privacy to work on projects requiring concentration without the guy from two cubes down coming by to BS about the election.
I'd highly suggest some way to isolate your work areas, even if it's something minimal like pop up "go away I'm working" flags.
The base reason is that US wants the ability to turn off civilain GPS when they want to. If Europe puts up a system that US doesn't have control over than turning off GPS becomes useless and they lose )what they believe to be) a tactical advantage.
The reason the Supreme Court only hears cases it wishes is twofold.
1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"
and more importantly:
2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.
A number of people here commented that this will be useless as no one will report their purchases on their tax returns.
They don't expect you to. What they are doing this for is so that when you willfully fail to declare your out of state purchases they can go after you for tax evasion.
Slashdot Mirror
It is nice to know that the trojanized version retains the copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty as required by the PuTTY FOSS license. Good to see people properly using Open Source!
Won't work. Your statement "I have pirated MP3s on this volume and have committed copyright infringement." would be inadmissible, but the fact that you had a hard drive full of "pirated" MP3s would still be used as evidence.
Well, as an "actual" lawyer rather than one of the armchair variety I'd have to disagree with you.
Absent some specific corruption/political problem, no DA in their right mind is going to try and go before a judge without evidence of a crime. Judges do not like this. They stop the trial after the prosecution rests and hand down directed verdicts in the defendants favor. DAs do not like it when this happens to them, it looks bad when promotion time comes along.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, bit it's the exception rather than the rule.
IAAL and no you can't. Try to be funny and what they'll do is grant you immunity for anything revealed in the password itself. Then they'll force you to reveal the password or sit in jail for contempt. Once you reveal the password they can decrypt the drive and use that data in court (even if it's the same as the password).
The real key here is that the 5th amendment protects you from testifying against yourself. Your "papers" are not considered testimony and not protected.
Not legal advice, not your lawyer.
Looking at the postings and the takedown notice, it seems that the person being threateded with legal action might have a strong position.
Yes, they are clearly creating derivative works and would normally be violating Universal's copyright. However, it seems that Universal specifically was encouraging fans to create derivative works to promote the release of the movie. I would personally subpoena every document involving the viral campaign and look for language that I could use to prove a grant of license to the fans.
Disclaimer: I am not your attorney, I am most likely not even licensed to practice in your state. This is simply an academic discussion.
As TFA says, it's simple. A normal security hole costs the user money, not Microsoft. This "security hole" (indirectly) costs MS money so it gets fixed ASAP. MS is, if nothing, good at protecting its bottom line.
I think you are missing a rather important point here: Blockbuster is NOT the copyright owner. The movie studios own the copyrights to the movies and the courts could care less about Blockbuster's business model. The issue won't even arise in Universal Pictures, Inc. v. Mr. Guy
Umm.... Is this a trick question?
It is being nitpicky. Just because something is implemented as an affirmative defense does not mean that it is not a right. Few would argue that you have a "right" to defend yourself for example and self-defense is an affirmative defense.
Actually no. The end result is we all take the blue pill. The red pill allows Neo to see the truth behind the illusion, the blue pill sends him back into the MMOG that is the Matrix.
Realize that this law was to prevent people from scamming consumers by sending them items unordered and then billing them for it, hoping they'd pay, not to allow you to get free stuff because of a shipping mistake. (Scammers used to send out family bibles to people who had just died and then send a bill. The next of kin wouldn't realize it was a scam and pay the bill).
If there are uncontactable they proably *don't* have an "army of corporate lawyers", but rather it's "Bob" working out of his mother's basement who have no attorney at all.
The good side of this is that you'll win your case and get your domain name back. The downside is that they are most likely judgement proof and you won't actually recover any damages.
Nice try, but that's essentially the same as what Napster was doing. Providing a central "database" where the material was linked.
The only defense here for such a website is that DMCA-style laws and even old copyright laws provide a safe haven clause. This means that the copyright holder must inform them that the content is copyrighted and unauthorized for sharing.
Umm.. IANAL, but I am a law student. While this certainly isn't legal advice:
1) If you read the Napster decision the problem wasn't only that they hosted the central index, but that they actually profited from people using the software (via advertising). hosting a torrent doesn't mean you profit.
2) Traditional copyright law has no "safe harbor" exception other than fair use. If you are distributing copyrighted material they can certainly sue you even if they have not asked you to remove the material. (Of course if they do ask and you refuse I can assure you that the judge will take that into account).
Great thought experiment, but it won't work. I guarentee that your XORed file will be what is called a "derivative work" and is just as much a copyright infringement to distribute as the original song. Sorry, thats just the may current copyright is set up.
I think people are overlooking what is really going on here.
There are two parts we need to look at:
1) Is the distribution system legal?
People keep on commenting on whether this is acceptable under copyright laws. This is a moot point. The real question is whether it is allowed under the MIT contract. Since that isn't posted I don't see how anyone can make an argument either way. If it's not allowed under the contract it is clearly infringement.
2) Even if it's acceptable, who cares? All this allows you to do is the equivilent to a radio station that you can make requests. The licence doesn't seem to give the students the right to RECORD these broadcasts on their PCs. That would still be infringement.
Of course as any good Slashdot reader, I only skimmed the article so I could be totally off base here. Oh, IANAL and this isn't legal advice.
Might is *possibly* be because some people are stupid enough to actually *spray* windex in their eyes?
You're over simplifying a bit. Simple things like cameras that watch for lines on the road fail pretty easily if the road is covered by, for example, snow or rain. Before this is feasible it needs to be absolutely bulletproof. People's live are literally riding on it.
David Shanks
CEO, Penguin-Putnam, Inc.
david.shanks@us.penguingroup.com
On the contrary, this makes perfect sense. How in the world do you expect someone without legal training to understand, let alone *write* new laws? Thats like being disappointed that people with degrees in computer science go on to get jobs writing software.
When companies shifted to cubes one of the reasons given was to allow easier interaction between employees. It works. However what was lost is a way for a person to get needed privacy to work on projects requiring concentration without the guy from two cubes down coming by to BS about the election.
I'd highly suggest some way to isolate your work areas, even if it's something minimal like pop up "go away I'm working" flags.
The base reason is that US wants the ability to turn off civilain GPS when they want to. If Europe puts up a system that US doesn't have control over than turning off GPS becomes useless and they lose )what they believe to be) a tactical advantage.
I'm switching to the previously posted RF proof wallpaper myself. Much more festive looking.
The reason the Supreme Court only hears cases it wishes is twofold.
1) As the original poster suggested, it allows them to only decide cases they feel are "ripe"
and more importantly:
2) The Supreme Court receives over *8000* requests for cert each year. They can only hand 80-120 cases or so. Needless to say they have to be able to filter some of the "junk" out.
The Bittorrent link is at http://syd2.ausgamers.com:88/incoming/torrents/pgd vd.iso.torrent
Check it out.
They don't expect you to. What they are doing this for is so that when you willfully fail to declare your out of state purchases they can go after you for tax evasion.