Wealth may have little to do with the issue of copyright infringement, however, it probably has everything to do with what's going to *actually* happen in the legal system.
If she's rich enough to afford lawyers, then she can probably extract a huge settlement, or even steamroll an outright victory if the defendant fails to jump through a critcal hoop. Money is might, and might makes right. It usually doesn't matter who's morally right, or even legally right. The rich have a far better chance than the poor to win a lawsuit as either plaintiff or defendant. Incidentally, this is probably why they are more prone to abuse the legal system in the first place, as they can do so with relative impunity.
Consider also, that this was a bench trial. Why the defendants didn't assert their right to a jury trial is beyond me, and may or may not have any relevance as to the veracity of NYCL's summary.
Also, considering that the defendant is apparently Warner Bros. and not Rowling, attributing the original suit to rowling may even be patently erroneous itself.
Considering how thrilled she usually is with creative derivative works, I wouldn't put it past Warner to be the plaintiff instead of rowling. NYCL has once said that it was "A particularly litigious company".
On the other hand, going snooping for trade secrets is liable to land you in hot water. Last time I checked, corporate espionage was a criminal offense.
Jealousy of the rich is not entirely unwarranted if the rich didn't play fair in getting that way.
I have a gun, I put it to your head, I shoot, and take away all your money. Then I dispose of your carcass. I am now rich.
Why don't people do this often these days? Because of police, because of a big government with even bigger guns that's willing to stand up and protect you.
Unfortunately, in the grown up business world, there is no such thing, at least, definitely not as strong.
Some big company "murders" you by suing you into oblivion, they get away with it because of how the legal system's set up. If you don't have a lawyer, you're screwed, because unless you're willing to give up everything that's worth living for, there is no way you are going to keep up with the corporate steamroller.
As long as the process makes sure that reinstallation of the OS doesn't burn up any licenses for anything (I'm looking at YOU EA...), then I would be in favor of such a move.
The annoying inconvenience should be incentive enough for people to invest in securing their computers. Anything more severe than that, and you're treating the disease by killing the patient.
As far as getting caught, I just remember that galileo got tried for heresy for stating the truth. If it's worth the risk, go for it as long as nobody innocent gets profoundly hurt.
I'm surprised the plaintiffs aren't moving for application of "spoliation" or whatever you call it. Basically, the guilty ring of fudge you see on a kid who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.
I think the RIAA should suck balls, however, if the RIAA were to say "The evidence should be considered favorable because the defendat's destruction of same implies said evidence was incriminating".
It puzzles me that the RIAA's lawyers haven't tried that, given what they assert about computer disposal by plaintiffs.
Any thoughts NYCL, or anyone else for that matter?
disclaimer: I am not a laywer, so please forgive any possible ignorance.
Just hope you don't run into any trouble like was revealed in that story about judges failing to read booby-trapped motions before rejecting them. I wish you the best of luck in the courtrooms of reality.
If you run into any rotten judges I hope you get them roasted.
It could be that presidential candidates or not, they're still citizens just as entitled to police protection as anyone else, and that they just reported the attack just like joe sixpack might.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean South America
The particular nastiness of the plaintiffs leads me to believe that it is Warner Bros., rather than J.K.Rowling, leading the primary offensive.
What I would like to know is how much influence Rowling actually has in this case.
botnets may still have been used.
The ISP could have, however, been hosting the botnet operator.
At least he has the decency to admit when he's wrong.
Given that editing is forbidden, a clarifying retraction is the best he could have done.
Yeah, the whole thing stinks.
Wealth may have little to do with the issue of copyright infringement, however, it probably has everything to do with what's going to *actually* happen in the legal system.
If she's rich enough to afford lawyers, then she can probably extract a huge settlement, or even steamroll an outright victory if the defendant fails to jump through a critcal hoop. Money is might, and might makes right. It usually doesn't matter who's morally right, or even legally right. The rich have a far better chance than the poor to win a lawsuit as either plaintiff or defendant. Incidentally, this is probably why they are more prone to abuse the legal system in the first place, as they can do so with relative impunity.
Consider also, that this was a bench trial. Why the defendants didn't assert their right to a jury trial is beyond me, and may or may not have any relevance as to the veracity of NYCL's summary.
Also, considering that the defendant is apparently Warner Bros. and not Rowling, attributing the original suit to rowling may even be patently erroneous itself.
Considering how thrilled she usually is with creative derivative works, I wouldn't put it past Warner to be the plaintiff instead of rowling. NYCL has once said that it was "A particularly litigious company".
It might be able to expose trade secrets however.
On the other hand, going snooping for trade secrets is liable to land you in hot water. Last time I checked, corporate espionage was a criminal offense.
Jealousy of the rich is not entirely unwarranted if the rich didn't play fair in getting that way.
I have a gun, I put it to your head, I shoot, and take away all your money. Then I dispose of your carcass. I am now rich.
Why don't people do this often these days? Because of police, because of a big government with even bigger guns that's willing to stand up and protect you.
Unfortunately, in the grown up business world, there is no such thing, at least, definitely not as strong.
Some big company "murders" you by suing you into oblivion, they get away with it because of how the legal system's set up. If you don't have a lawyer, you're screwed, because unless you're willing to give up everything that's worth living for, there is no way you are going to keep up with the corporate steamroller.
For one thing, it would get the MAFIAA off of our backs.
They're nigerians, not niggers.
In this case though, I hope MS did pay the bribe...
You know that any money you pay will just get you nowhere and you'll need to pay more fees later.
The trouble with this plan is collateral damage.
Often, zombies are also hostages.
As long as the process makes sure that reinstallation of the OS doesn't burn up any licenses for anything (I'm looking at YOU EA...), then I would be in favor of such a move.
The annoying inconvenience should be incentive enough for people to invest in securing their computers. Anything more severe than that, and you're treating the disease by killing the patient.
As far as getting caught, I just remember that galileo got tried for heresy for stating the truth. If it's worth the risk, go for it as long as nobody innocent gets profoundly hurt.
What I'd like to know is how Windows could be buggy enough to allow an invalid filename to even be created in the first place. ...oh wait...
Personally I don't have problem with drafts.
However, I think that draftees and volunteers should be treated differently.
Forcing someone into the military to ship them overseas and accomplish a political goal is IMHO an abuse of government.
However, if the US were to institute a draft AND make sure that draftees are only stationed in our homeland, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Not to mention if you yourself get targeted, I hope it doesn't clog up your business, or otherwise gag your blog.
May the force be with you.
nt.
I'm surprised the plaintiffs aren't moving for application of "spoliation" or whatever you call it. Basically, the guilty ring of fudge you see on a kid who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.
I think the RIAA should suck balls, however, if the RIAA were to say "The evidence should be considered favorable because the defendat's destruction of same implies said evidence was incriminating".
It puzzles me that the RIAA's lawyers haven't tried that, given what they assert about computer disposal by plaintiffs.
Any thoughts NYCL, or anyone else for that matter?
disclaimer: I am not a laywer, so please forgive any possible ignorance.
Surprisingly, I honestly don't know.
I hope it does.
Just hope you don't run into any trouble like was revealed in that story about judges failing to read booby-trapped motions before rejecting them. I wish you the best of luck in the courtrooms of reality.
If you run into any rotten judges I hope you get them roasted.
I'm almost certain that MS is cozier with OEMs that ignore linux.
Naturally, I can't prove it, but we are after all talking about a company that was indicted by the US Justice Department for anti-trust violations.
While I agree that telcos shouldn't have to service unprofitable markets, laying the blame on members of said market is pretty low.
Ever think that maybe the hardware makers and MS are in cahoots and they have some sort of deal that says
"We will only support your hardware if you shaft "
Patty cake patty cake baker's man
Troll me a thread as fast as you can.
Not really IMHO
In that case, the transmitters themselves would become leasable.
Naturally, I'd rather the entire spectrum be outsourced like white-space recently was. Excepting such things as military usage, of course.
I think spectrum should be divided into 9 bands.
all 9 combinations of short vs medium vs long wave, and individual vs business vs government.
individual is a free-for-all, with the restriction that commercial entities such as corporations can't touch it without getting hefty fines
business gets licensed on auction basis for periods of 5 years.
And government is treated like .gov, only for government use only.
It could be that presidential candidates or not, they're still citizens just as entitled to police protection as anyone else, and that they just reported the attack just like joe sixpack might.
And take away the flamebait modder's silly juice.
I think that these licenses should always be reauctioned every year.
Winning the bid means you get to use the airwaves for the next year.
Proceeds should be parcelled out to towns and counties for the development of internet infrastructure.