False positives are likely to be overlooked unless you're a high paying whale.
Like most other businesses, a casino can arbitrarily give you the boot whenever the damn well please. Even if they make a mistake, personal pride may prevent them from owning up to it. Either you meekly walk out the door with your tail between your legs, or you raise a fuss, attract attention from the higher ups, and get escorted out by security. Or, you get lucky and the casino operators are actually nice for a change and let you off.
My point is that they don't have to. If I think you're a card counter, I'm likely to go gung ho and throw you out even if you really aren't. It's not exactly something you can prove, so if you get a bad rap for it, it tends to stick.
The first thing we need to do is abolish the term completely. It's a conglomerate that practically begs to promote FUD through worst case intersection of applicable law.
For starters, there are three entirely different kinds of intellectual properties, and different laws apply to each kind.
You have trademarks, which are distinctive names or designs used for branding. Almost like a name for your product, like Nike, Microsoft, or McDonalds. Linux is a trademark that applies to the operating system by the same name, for example.
Trademarks need to be registered before use, and can be renewed indefinitely so long as the mark remains distinctive. Infringing a trademark is most comparable to forgery, rather than theft.
Copyrights are rights of exclusive derivation, and apply to works of information. If you write an original book, you have a copyright. If you take a picture of the Grand Canyon, you have a copyright. If you write a kick ass program, you have a copyright on the source code.
Unlike trademarks, copyrights exist upon fixation in a durable medium, and last for life plus some odd number of years, unless it was made by a corporation. Unlike a trademark, you don't break a copyright if you come up with an idea on your own. If two authors on opposite sides of the country simultaneously write exactly the same work, both of them enjoy copyright on their versions. With a trademark, however, the winner is whoever gets to the USPTO first. A copyright mostly applies to works of art and have creativity and expression as a key part of what they protect.
Patents apply to more physical things, like processes, devices, machines, and stuff that is more tangible. They last for 20 years, and, like trademarks, grant the owner exclusive use of the patented invention. Anyone using your idea without your permission is liable for patent infringement.
The problem with IP is that, owing to the "play it safe" attitude of many people, the copyright portion will often be applied to a patent, and vice versa.
As far as I know, nothing can be both copyrighted and patented at the same time. However, the ambiguous term of "Intellectual Property" doesn't specify which applies, so FUD-mongers get to delight in scaring people into honoring both styles, even though only one likely applies.
I don't care if Galileo called the Pope a pompous jerk.
Putting someone in jail for expressing an opinion, or misquoting it as fact, does not justify being condemned and "fatwa"'ed as a heretic. At worst, he should have been publicly humiliated and gotten the crap sued out of him for slander.
Honestly, I see little difference between the heresy accusation and consequent imprisonment, and the modern fatwa and sharia punishments.
Barring obvious exceptions, like making threats or shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, nobody should go to jail for what they say.
If I ever get to metamoderate this, I'm marking it down.
And btw, this is yet another case of how the adversarial system fails us. Why can't we put the burden of investigation on the court where it belongs? Going to court for a game of tug-o-war only ensures that the strongest one will win, and it promotes cheaters into playing dirty.
I think Hans should take a polygraph...if he can find an honest examiner.
For heavens sakes, do you think they actually have a choice in the matter?
Please remember that most of the middle east considers apostasy from islam as a capital offense. So, if you protest, you die.
Us americans have a choice. We could band together and vote out the crap in office. But we just don't care enough to do so. Iran (or any other oppressive government for that matter) can effectively scare its citizenry into reluctant compliance.
If you're facing up against a regime that doesn't respect basic human rights, you need more than mere smarts or a kick-ass attitude. You will likely need to be braver than shit, because anyone in power who has even the slightest bit of foresight will probably have you arrested and executed before you can blink an eye.
Perhaps if you were one of those citizens in the middle of this mess, you might think differently.
It's true that complacency can let you get screwed over. However, in this case it is FAR from being the only factor.
Dr. Robert Barefoot actually came up with a way of curing cancer by noticing a correlation between body pH and health.
He discovered that you can cure cancer by alkalinizing the body.
Why, then, are we still suffering?
Turns out poor Dr. B got slammed by the medical establishment because he was jeopardizing corporate profits.
As an example, cesium chloride is VERY effective in alkalinizing the body. It was written that if you have a terminal case, and have only 30 days to live, cesium could save your ass. Alkaline atoms so darn big they can't get out of your cells, and quenching the acidity like a ton of baking soda on a drop of vinegar.
However, there was a big "scandal", the inventor lost his medical license and cesium was banned for all time, precisely *because* it worked. Big greedy companies didn't like their patients getting well again, so they ganged up on him and made sure he could never help anyone. It's just like the mafia whacking a witness.
There is a cure for cancer, but unfortunately there are many companies who would rather you not know about it.
Even if sending a bazillion spams a day is protected by the constitution, cracking into millions of computers to build up your botnet is not.
Just because you have free speech doesn't make it ok for you to steal a megaphone, or break into a TV station.
Modern day spamming has nothing to do with free speech rights. It's simply a continuation of the crime of computer fraud, which you committed the moment you sent out your virus emails in the first place. Having a hacked botnet is itself illegal, whether you use it to spam or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, we do have metamoderation ya know...
Actually, neither.
If you post in an article, you can't mod any posts, and any mod points you already spent are cancelled and forfeited.
Shoulda kept your trap shut if you wanted to mod anyone.
False positives are likely to be overlooked unless you're a high paying whale.
Like most other businesses, a casino can arbitrarily give you the boot whenever the damn well please. Even if they make a mistake, personal pride may prevent them from owning up to it. Either you meekly walk out the door with your tail between your legs, or you raise a fuss, attract attention from the higher ups, and get escorted out by security. Or, you get lucky and the casino operators are actually nice for a change and let you off.
My point is that they don't have to. If I think you're a card counter, I'm likely to go gung ho and throw you out even if you really aren't. It's not exactly something you can prove, so if you get a bad rap for it, it tends to stick.
Maybe that's why the FBI's wiretaps got cancelled
For example, there's a REASON that the EU is all over them for anti-trust, and let's not forget the "Halloween Papers".
Apple's having a field day with Mac vs. PC ads.
I'm not feeling sorry for Microsoft getting a bum rap.
They've earned their bad reputation fair and square.
I don't know about copyright, but why aren't they just calling the information classified and taking it down that way?
I've got a feeling some lawyer's got them by the balls to stop them from doing just that.
Yet another case where the one who has the gold makes the rules.
Actually, it applies to all governments.
The US Supreme Court ruled so when it applied the 14th amendment to the others, requiring equal protection.
Sheesh, why use such crude language?
I already posted, so I can't mod you down for flamebait.
The first thing we need to do is abolish the term completely. It's a conglomerate that practically begs to promote FUD through worst case intersection of applicable law.
For starters, there are three entirely different kinds of intellectual properties, and different laws apply to each kind.
You have trademarks, which are distinctive names or designs used for branding. Almost like a name for your product, like Nike, Microsoft, or McDonalds. Linux is a trademark that applies to the operating system by the same name, for example.
Trademarks need to be registered before use, and can be renewed indefinitely so long as the mark remains distinctive. Infringing a trademark is most comparable to forgery, rather than theft.
Copyrights are rights of exclusive derivation, and apply to works of information. If you write an original book, you have a copyright. If you take a picture of the Grand Canyon, you have a copyright. If you write a kick ass program, you have a copyright on the source code.
Unlike trademarks, copyrights exist upon fixation in a durable medium, and last for life plus some odd number of years, unless it was made by a corporation. Unlike a trademark, you don't break a copyright if you come up with an idea on your own. If two authors on opposite sides of the country simultaneously write exactly the same work, both of them enjoy copyright on their versions. With a trademark, however, the winner is whoever gets to the USPTO first. A copyright mostly applies to works of art and have creativity and expression as a key part of what they protect.
Patents apply to more physical things, like processes, devices, machines, and stuff that is more tangible. They last for 20 years, and, like trademarks, grant the owner exclusive use of the patented invention. Anyone using your idea without your permission is liable for patent infringement.
The problem with IP is that, owing to the "play it safe" attitude of many people, the copyright portion will often be applied to a patent, and vice versa.
As far as I know, nothing can be both copyrighted and patented at the same time. However, the ambiguous term of "Intellectual Property" doesn't specify which applies, so FUD-mongers get to delight in scaring people into honoring both styles, even though only one likely applies.
Well common sense does meet the "non-obviousness" and "novelty" requirements...
yeesh, that could be trouble. I just hope that "prior art" saves us.
Still though, I'd hardly consider sheer arrogance to be a serious criminal offense.
So by contradicting the teachings of the Pope, he was committing treason?
Er, I was merely explaining why staplers and stuff aren't subject to property tax. :/
I didn't even go into IP.
I don't care if Galileo called the Pope a pompous jerk.
Putting someone in jail for expressing an opinion, or misquoting it as fact, does not justify being condemned and "fatwa"'ed as a heretic. At worst, he should have been publicly humiliated and gotten the crap sued out of him for slander.
Honestly, I see little difference between the heresy accusation and consequent imprisonment, and the modern fatwa and sharia punishments.
Barring obvious exceptions, like making threats or shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, nobody should go to jail for what they say.
a mouse, telephone, coke, screwdriver, keyboard, 2 monitors, flashlight, and blank DVD spindle are not real property.
Real property refers to real estate, which is "the land and anything permanently affixed to it". Personal property is everything else.
Get your definitions straight.
Even better would be *dollars* stolen versus *dollars* handled
And what nincompoop gave this a flamebait rating?
If I ever get to metamoderate this, I'm marking it down.
And btw, this is yet another case of how the adversarial system fails us. Why can't we put the burden of investigation on the court where it belongs? Going to court for a game of tug-o-war only ensures that the strongest one will win, and it promotes cheaters into playing dirty.
I think Hans should take a polygraph...if he can find an honest examiner.
For heavens sakes, do you think they actually have a choice in the matter?
Please remember that most of the middle east considers apostasy from islam as a capital offense. So, if you protest, you die.
Us americans have a choice. We could band together and vote out the crap in office. But we just don't care enough to do so. Iran (or any other oppressive government for that matter) can effectively scare its citizenry into reluctant compliance.
If you're facing up against a regime that doesn't respect basic human rights, you need more than mere smarts or a kick-ass attitude. You will likely need to be braver than shit, because anyone in power who has even the slightest bit of foresight will probably have you arrested and executed before you can blink an eye.
Perhaps if you were one of those citizens in the middle of this mess, you might think differently.
It's true that complacency can let you get screwed over. However, in this case it is FAR from being the only factor.
Or it could even be 10 cents a month.
The point is to make it a burden to hang onto IPs and not do anything with them.
Dr. Robert Barefoot actually came up with a way of curing cancer by noticing a correlation between body pH and health.
He discovered that you can cure cancer by alkalinizing the body.
Why, then, are we still suffering?
Turns out poor Dr. B got slammed by the medical establishment because he was jeopardizing corporate profits.
As an example, cesium chloride is VERY effective in alkalinizing the body. It was written that if you have a terminal case, and have only 30 days to live, cesium could save your ass. Alkaline atoms so darn big they can't get out of your cells, and quenching the acidity like a ton of baking soda on a drop of vinegar.
However, there was a big "scandal", the inventor lost his medical license and cesium was banned for all time, precisely *because* it worked. Big greedy companies didn't like their patients getting well again, so they ganged up on him and made sure he could never help anyone. It's just like the mafia whacking a witness.
There is a cure for cancer, but unfortunately there are many companies who would rather you not know about it.
Even if sending a bazillion spams a day is protected by the constitution, cracking into millions of computers to build up your botnet is not.
Just because you have free speech doesn't make it ok for you to steal a megaphone, or break into a TV station.
Modern day spamming has nothing to do with free speech rights. It's simply a continuation of the crime of computer fraud, which you committed the moment you sent out your virus emails in the first place. Having a hacked botnet is itself illegal, whether you use it to spam or not.
The problem is that we run on an adversarial system where the only person who has an interest in your case is the same guy you're paying.
I think we need to move to the inquisitorial system. Turn the judge into a PI, and let everyone dig deep on both sides.
The US court system promotes aggression.
Yaay! A .cx that *isn't* goatse. :)