War is all about who has the bigger army, who can push harder on the battle field, and generally who is "better" in a strength contest.
War doesn't decide who is right, only who is stronger. And just like on the playground, you don't just up and pick a fight with the top bully if you're a little pipsqueak.
The mind, being an opaque area where thoughts are processed, does not avail itself to proofs that a potential conflict of interest did or did not sway a decision.
Therefore, we don't take chances, and require these "maybes" to be taken as "no" to be on the safe side.
The drafting of the constitution, by virtue of being a creation of law, is protected under the fair use exception "incidental reproduction in the course of a judicial or legislative proceeding"
If your gas tank leaks into my well then you are negligent for not keeping your gasoline properly sealed. You are in possession of a dangerous toxic substance and thus have a duty of care not to be endangering other people with it. By letting it leak elsewhere you have breached that duty. As a result, my drinking water is contaminated and you have damaged its purity. And it wouldn't have happened but for your negligence in allowing your gasoline to leak.
The environmental violations are just icing on the cake, good old fashioned negligence torts already have you nailed.
And pirates, by definition, don't give a shit about copyright laws, and will circumvent it for everything, fair use or not.
Trying to put DRM on something is like trying to outlaw guns. It only hurts the good guys, while leaving the bad guys that don't give a shit unscathed.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't matter if it shows when you first boot it up.
If it is presented any time after the sale, it is unenforceable.
At least until the right judge is paid off to say differently.
Eat peppermint oil.
As far as Nintendo is concerned, there is no difference between homebrew and pirated games.
They both are competitors for commercial offerings.
We are a superpower. We don't GET invaded.
War is all about who has the bigger army, who can push harder on the battle field, and generally who is "better" in a strength contest.
War doesn't decide who is right, only who is stronger. And just like on the playground, you don't just up and pick a fight with the top bully if you're a little pipsqueak.
I'm pretty sure also that it wasn't a government hit job.
You piss off a local crime ring, you can expect a bullet. The government has more red tape to go through.
With monopoly money, you just need colored paper and you can actually print it.
In a virtual world, you at least have to have someone grind it out for you.
Paper and ink versus internet service, subscription, and electricity.
Not everyone can afford to sue the companies that pollute. And not every company is both able and willing to pay for their pollution.
That is what the superfund does, it finances cleanups. Recovery from the polluter is a secondary objective.
Why don't they let them finish the existing wells in progress and just ban the starting of any more?
That would seem to make more sense, since in theory they'd have had to get permits before they even started drilling.
An economic impact can be considered damages if it affects your own pocketbook.
Selective prosecution, however, IS illegal.
Using dormant violations as leverage against someone is just not ok.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons we have a statute of limitations.
The mind, being an opaque area where thoughts are processed, does not avail itself to proofs that a potential conflict of interest did or did not sway a decision.
Therefore, we don't take chances, and require these "maybes" to be taken as "no" to be on the safe side.
That doesn't mean squat.
This is a bona fide conflict of interest and the judge should have recused himself, no ifs ands or buts.
The fact that he didn't will almost certainly be a point to be attacked on appeal.
The very fact that the company claimed it would work is an express warranty, and it ceases to be an "as is" sale.
It's called an increase in demand.
With more people getting subsidies and being ABLE to go to college, there is more demand for the resource of education, which pushes prices up.
The reason his works have been published so far and wide is precisely BECAUSE they were not under an onerous copyright.
The drafting of the constitution, by virtue of being a creation of law, is protected under the fair use exception "incidental reproduction in the course of a judicial or legislative proceeding"
If your gas tank leaks into my well then you are negligent for not keeping your gasoline properly sealed. You are in possession of a dangerous toxic substance and thus have a duty of care not to be endangering other people with it. By letting it leak elsewhere you have breached that duty. As a result, my drinking water is contaminated and you have damaged its purity. And it wouldn't have happened but for your negligence in allowing your gasoline to leak.
The environmental violations are just icing on the cake, good old fashioned negligence torts already have you nailed.
Revoking public domain would IMHO be akin to an ex post facto law.
Artists and musicians have to eat.
So do programmers.
I'm against anything that lets others copycat their work and make a profit without investing their share of the R&D.
They could just deny certiorari.
This would likely run afoul on the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Retroactive conviction for copyright infringement would seem to violate that.
What would be best would be local municipally owned wires leased to ISPs, perhaps multiple ISPs.
It's good enough that companies will sue to stop it, like TDS did.
It's whatever your employment agreement says.
*whoosh*
DRM is made to guard against pirates.
And pirates, by definition, don't give a shit about copyright laws, and will circumvent it for everything, fair use or not.
Trying to put DRM on something is like trying to outlaw guns. It only hurts the good guys, while leaving the bad guys that don't give a shit unscathed.