So while I'm glad a single judge was able to figure it out eventually, will this case really have any significant impact upon future threats from the RIAA?
It doesn't make sense to assert that settling will be less painful (to whom?) when you organize your entire argument around an unanswered question. Yes, running away from a fight is less painful than getting punched, but this isn't necessarily the only criteria involved.
I just can't imagine any court procedings fixing our societal dilemma.
Beyond the assumption that the **AA problem can only be solved as a "societal dilemma," I'm guessing you aren't a lawyer.
I don't think you actually have any kids. If my daughter strapped a bunch of electronics to her chest and walked into an airport with a fistful of silly putty, and didn't have a VERY good reason for doing so, I'd be fucking furious.
Way to fly off the handle. What does that have to do with wanting the police to overreact?
Idiots like this student are only going to make airport security regulations worse.
Is that so? I thought it was the President, Congress, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Please direct me to any information that ties changing airport regulations to a particular act (besides 9/11).
I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.
Hey, you too?! Here's the awesome part, you should use this mindset with your children (if you have any; your parents, significant other, or friends if not). Only in this case, use yourself as the police. If they step out of line at all, what are you to do? They could get hurt crossing the street, so you'd better forbid it. If they never go into the street, it's much less likely they will be hit by a car. It's really a can't-lose strategy.
He's a reporter, not a computer expert, and he was fooled by some slick con artists. Don't hold him to an unreasonable standard, unless you have never ever been wrong about anything yourself.
Oh, fuck you and your apologizing for dear old stupid Dan Lyons. Using your logic, you also don't get to be right about anything unless you've been right about everything for all times, either. Doesn't sound so appealing that way, does it?
It's not an unreasonable standard to expect journalists to be impartial and get all sides of the story available to them. But no, this turd gave minor lip service to anything contradicting SCOs claims and openly mocked anybody who didn't see things Darl's way. He is an example of a very bad reporter who has forsaken his journalistic ethic in exchange for who-cares-what and hoping people have a short memory. The kind of studied and willful ignorance Dan Lyons practices is damaging to the very things he writes about. He thought he was all cool and famous when he was taunting the nerds, now he wants bygones to be bygones. Well boo-hoo for Mr. Lyons and his pussified career.
Think about it this way, after reading the article are you convinced that he would never do this again? Here, in case you haven't read the article:
I wrote that because in the 1990s SCO's predecessor company, Caldera, ran a similar shakedown on Microsoft
Yet Dan "Lyin'" Lyons did not use the word "shakedown" to describe SCOs lawsuits in print. Ever, as far as I can tell. His Forbes cohort Lisa DiCarlo did, but his is not a critical or even-handed limb that produces the stories that flow from his fingers.
Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true.
Highly partisan. Unlike him, of course. And of course he wasn't paid. Why would anybody ever think that? I don't know if he was, but the following line pretty much sums it up either way:
What can I say? I grew up Roman Catholic.
Dan Lyons hiding behind religion, what a surprise. But this isn't the end of it, because in this little nugget we get the proof that Dan Lyons does not care one way or the other whether he was right or not. If he does something bad, he just has to ask forgiveness. He doesn't have to think about what he's doing first. He can ridicule, browbeat, and mock entire industries because he's Catholic and modern journalism is all about clicks and eyeballs. He has no reason to be a real journalist.
Shall we bring in his later career publishing more attacks on Linux via his "Fake Steve Jobs" persona yet? Have we forgotten about FSJ already?
The guy is a charlatan and I'll leave it up to your imagination what he deserves. Maybe it's nothing and I'm completely off-base. I'm willing to stand behind my words though, unlike Dan, who blames Catholicism and "partisanship."
Second of all, this is really clear cut. The guy was disruptive, the police tried to escort him out peacefully, he refused, so the level of force against him escallated. How should things have gone? Easy. He should have left when the police asked him too and then immediately filed a civil suit against the police for violation of his first amendment rights.
Well, how about they let the guy finish his question like Kerry wanted? I think it's important to note that there was a point after which the police were out of control, cutting themselves off from outside influence.
For example it can in some country count as "faciliating a crime" if you leave your car unlocked with the keys on the seat and someone takes your car to commit a crime.
I've never ever heard of anybody getting prosecuted, or even arrested, for facilitating a crime by having their car stolen.
That defense can work, but only if you can convince a judge that you're "too dumb to know".
Not necessarily. You could say you only intended to share the files with yourself in another location. IANAL, but I don't believe the law requires an individual to take any special security precautions when dealing with copyrighted materials.
We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.
Great idea, let's start with the Geneva Conventions.
I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...
What if it's IDG who is getting paid by Slashdot to provide content? Much more likely a scenario...
Cops can ask you anything they want, but that does not necessarily constitute a seizure for 4th Amendment purposes.
I see you're a lawyer, but maybe you're busy and missed this one (scroll down to the list of states with these laws and note the state this story occurred in). I know it's only the Sixth Circuit, but in this day and age I wouldn't treat it as an anomaly.
You might have better luck with a car stereo that fully supports the ipod so you get all the playlists up on screen, can scroll through them, pick what you want, charge while you drive, etc.
Which you then go on to lament does not exist. Where is this better luck?
I want the built in nav to get the proper voice controls, buttons on the steering wheel, etc, but then I lose out on proper ipod integration.
Something that would allow me to see the artist and title information on something larger than a 24 character segmented LCD is enough for me, but even that doesn't exist.
I do think that Apple is aware of this, and in my dreams a collaboration with some stereo company will be one of the cool things that a future Apple launch will give us. I'd say in the next two years. But, perhaps like you, I'm not sure my current car will hold out that long.:)
Irresponsible in what sense? I mean, who are they responsible to, and to what extent?
To themselves, I imagine. Another word for this concept is "reckless." I guess this doesn't matter if they're looking to throw their reputation away (or aren't but don't care if they do), but one has to presume that with the work they're putting into the site that they're not trying to be user-hostile.
Yes, this system demonstrates the correlation between the content and the majority opinion, not between the content and the correct information (assuming such objectively exists).
This objectivity does not and can not exist. Godel proved this one in mathematics before Derrida popularized it in literary criticism.
For something to be infringing, they will need to know whether or not the sender of the content is the copyright holder, a licensee for the content with permission to redistribute (like iTunes), the terms under which the content may be distributed (only if fee collected and DRM in place), whether those terms are met (valid credit card number used / the user hasn't implemented a hack to remove DRM), whether the copyright has expired (there are still some copyrights that expire), or whether the distribution constitutes an exception to copyright protection (such as a "fair use" under US law). How can the ISP possibly know these things?
Simply put, what we (and they) need is a set of extensions to TCP/IP so that a copyright information header is prepended to every payload, specifying in detail the rights the source host has in propagating the packet in question. These will have to be added to every packet and the TCP/IP standard will have to be rewritten, but it shouldn't affect service levels due to cheap and ubiquitous broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
So while I'm glad a single judge was able to figure it out eventually, will this case really have any significant impact upon future threats from the RIAA?
It doesn't make sense to assert that settling will be less painful (to whom?) when you organize your entire argument around an unanswered question. Yes, running away from a fight is less painful than getting punched, but this isn't necessarily the only criteria involved.
I just can't imagine any court procedings fixing our societal dilemma.
Beyond the assumption that the **AA problem can only be solved as a "societal dilemma," I'm guessing you aren't a lawyer.
I don't think you actually have any kids. If my daughter strapped a bunch of electronics to her chest and walked into an airport with a fistful of silly putty, and didn't have a VERY good reason for doing so, I'd be fucking furious.
Way to fly off the handle. What does that have to do with wanting the police to overreact?
Idiots like this student are only going to make airport security regulations worse.
Is that so? I thought it was the President, Congress, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Please direct me to any information that ties changing airport regulations to a particular act (besides 9/11).
I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.
Hey, you too?! Here's the awesome part, you should use this mindset with your children (if you have any; your parents, significant other, or friends if not). Only in this case, use yourself as the police. If they step out of line at all, what are you to do? They could get hurt crossing the street, so you'd better forbid it. If they never go into the street, it's much less likely they will be hit by a car. It's really a can't-lose strategy.
Um, did you actually read those articles?
OK Dan, we get it. You're desperate to salvage your credibility. Not that your employers care or anything..
Here, an AC helpfully posted links to some of his later articles:
So, by this count we can say what, 50-100 words out of 20,000 or so? That's minor lip-service in my book.
He's a reporter, not a computer expert, and he was fooled by some slick con artists. Don't hold him to an unreasonable standard, unless you have never ever been wrong about anything yourself.
Oh, fuck you and your apologizing for dear old stupid Dan Lyons. Using your logic, you also don't get to be right about anything unless you've been right about everything for all times, either. Doesn't sound so appealing that way, does it?
It's not an unreasonable standard to expect journalists to be impartial and get all sides of the story available to them. But no, this turd gave minor lip service to anything contradicting SCOs claims and openly mocked anybody who didn't see things Darl's way. He is an example of a very bad reporter who has forsaken his journalistic ethic in exchange for who-cares-what and hoping people have a short memory. The kind of studied and willful ignorance Dan Lyons practices is damaging to the very things he writes about. He thought he was all cool and famous when he was taunting the nerds, now he wants bygones to be bygones. Well boo-hoo for Mr. Lyons and his pussified career.
Think about it this way, after reading the article are you convinced that he would never do this again? Here, in case you haven't read the article:
I wrote that because in the 1990s SCO's predecessor company, Caldera, ran a similar shakedown on Microsoft
Yet Dan "Lyin'" Lyons did not use the word "shakedown" to describe SCOs lawsuits in print. Ever, as far as I can tell. His Forbes cohort Lisa DiCarlo did, but his is not a critical or even-handed limb that produces the stories that flow from his fingers.
Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true.
Highly partisan. Unlike him, of course. And of course he wasn't paid. Why would anybody ever think that? I don't know if he was, but the following line pretty much sums it up either way:
What can I say? I grew up Roman Catholic.
Dan Lyons hiding behind religion, what a surprise. But this isn't the end of it, because in this little nugget we get the proof that Dan Lyons does not care one way or the other whether he was right or not. If he does something bad, he just has to ask forgiveness. He doesn't have to think about what he's doing first. He can ridicule, browbeat, and mock entire industries because he's Catholic and modern journalism is all about clicks and eyeballs. He has no reason to be a real journalist.
Shall we bring in his later career publishing more attacks on Linux via his "Fake Steve Jobs" persona yet? Have we forgotten about FSJ already?
The guy is a charlatan and I'll leave it up to your imagination what he deserves. Maybe it's nothing and I'm completely off-base. I'm willing to stand behind my words though, unlike Dan, who blames Catholicism and "partisanship."
There were four officers, not six. And while on the ground, he continued to struggle to prevent them from cuffing him.
"DUHHHH, BOSS SAYS I HAVE 2 SUBDUE PPL WATEVER IT TAKES WHENEVER THEY DO SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE. I DUN WANT OTHER COPS 2 THINK I'M A PUSSY."
Second of all, this is really clear cut. The guy was disruptive, the police tried to escort him out peacefully, he refused, so the level of force against him escallated. How should things have gone? Easy. He should have left when the police asked him too and then immediately filed a civil suit against the police for violation of his first amendment rights.
Well, how about they let the guy finish his question like Kerry wanted? I think it's important to note that there was a point after which the police were out of control, cutting themselves off from outside influence.
For example it can in some country count as "faciliating a crime" if you leave your car unlocked with the keys on the seat and someone takes your car to commit a crime.
I've never ever heard of anybody getting prosecuted, or even arrested, for facilitating a crime by having their car stolen.
No. Next question.
What is PCC?
That defense can work, but only if you can convince a judge that you're "too dumb to know".
Not necessarily. You could say you only intended to share the files with yourself in another location. IANAL, but I don't believe the law requires an individual to take any special security precautions when dealing with copyrighted materials.
We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.
Great idea, let's start with the Geneva Conventions.
The down side of ala carte is there are no guarantees so it's a major risk to produce content.
This is still the case, perhaps even more so, when producing an entire season. A la carte doesn't add any risk.
let me repeat: the yro color scheme sucks. Particularly the part where comment titles are a slightly darker shade of red than the background box.
Ha ha, you still use the default theme? I use the "Practically Text Only" which has barely any color fields. I'd go nuts otherwise.
Moral: If your data is that important to you, don't leave one single organisation in charge of its safety.
Ethic: Be a part of the escalation path that concerns you.
Corollary: Don't pass the buck.
The difference is that PHP will eventually decline due to drowning in its own cruft.
I believe this to be true for RoR right now as well.
I believe you've just typed the longest explanation of American job-security.
I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...
What if it's IDG who is getting paid by Slashdot to provide content? Much more likely a scenario...
Cops can ask you anything they want, but that does not necessarily constitute a seizure for 4th Amendment purposes.
I see you're a lawyer, but maybe you're busy and missed this one (scroll down to the list of states with these laws and note the state this story occurred in). I know it's only the Sixth Circuit, but in this day and age I wouldn't treat it as an anomaly.
You might have better luck with a car stereo that fully supports the ipod so you get all the playlists up on screen, can scroll through them, pick what you want, charge while you drive, etc.
:)
Which you then go on to lament does not exist. Where is this better luck?
I want the built in nav to get the proper voice controls, buttons on the steering wheel, etc, but then I lose out on proper ipod integration.
Something that would allow me to see the artist and title information on something larger than a 24 character segmented LCD is enough for me, but even that doesn't exist.
I do think that Apple is aware of this, and in my dreams a collaboration with some stereo company will be one of the cool things that a future Apple launch will give us. I'd say in the next two years. But, perhaps like you, I'm not sure my current car will hold out that long.
Asking for ID does not constitute a Terry stop.
Irresponsible in what sense? I mean, who are they responsible to, and to what extent?
To themselves, I imagine. Another word for this concept is "reckless." I guess this doesn't matter if they're looking to throw their reputation away (or aren't but don't care if they do), but one has to presume that with the work they're putting into the site that they're not trying to be user-hostile.
Yes, this system demonstrates the correlation between the content and the majority opinion, not between the content and the correct information (assuming such objectively exists).
This objectivity does not and can not exist. Godel proved this one in mathematics before Derrida popularized it in literary criticism.
For something to be infringing, they will need to know whether or not the sender of the content is the copyright holder, a licensee for the content with permission to redistribute (like iTunes), the terms under which the content may be distributed (only if fee collected and DRM in place), whether those terms are met (valid credit card number used / the user hasn't implemented a hack to remove DRM), whether the copyright has expired (there are still some copyrights that expire), or whether the distribution constitutes an exception to copyright protection (such as a "fair use" under US law). How can the ISP possibly know these things?
Simply put, what we (and they) need is a set of extensions to TCP/IP so that a copyright information header is prepended to every payload, specifying in detail the rights the source host has in propagating the packet in question. These will have to be added to every packet and the TCP/IP standard will have to be rewritten, but it shouldn't affect service levels due to cheap and ubiquitous broadband.
"This is more difficult than we thought it would be. If we targeted more platforms the schedule would slip into the next presidential administration."