Oh this one's easy. Check Article 29.2 of the UDHR: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." All UDHR Rights, if they were capable of judicial interpretation, are qualified. Besides, in the order of the articles, one can argue that even cultural life takes precedence over copyright.
I would be quite shocked myself that living on your copyright is a fundamental human right of gross importance.
Parent may not be accurate in stating that this was a jury trial, but his general point still stands: you can't appeal just because you don't like the law. In common law, there would be a procedure where you have to convince a judge that the appeal is worth hearing by the superior court. You can't raise novel points of law, and appeals are generally slow to overturn convictions unless the judge obviously got the case wrong.
Nevertheless, this tactic of letting the highest court hear cases just because there are new and interesting points of law is stupid. Unless TPB has a lot of cash to burn.
As the article already mentions, the case against TPB is very much a moral victory for the MAFIAA. They need to show you can't "get away" with it.
If Google wants to "co-operate" and avoid this kind of shitstorm, they'd enter into agreements with content owners where they'd agree on what kind of limitations is acceptable, in exchange for giving them a break and not pressuring governments to act.
The bad thing would be that this is all settled privately, and not checked by some kind of "rule of law". You might not even be able to tell how they'd modify their search to support such agreements without studying search results all day...
Wubi? Whoopee!
How does that work? Anybody has had any experience? It sounds quite incongruous with the whole idea of "dual-boot" or having two OSes for that matter.
I'm a law student here and I actually wrote a paper on this subject:P. But I can't be bothered to RTFA, so I don't have an opinion on this issue.
Interestingly though, something like this happened in sunny Singapore and went all the way to appeal in the highest court -- http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/30117.html. But those guys were evil (buying over 4000 printers for $66 when it cost $3K), so the judge had no qualms pissing them away (affirmed on appeal). The buyers sound reasonably innocent here. I think they have a better case.
I know you're referring to the whole invitation to treat thing here, but the fact is that as long as Amazon communicated its acceptance, the contract is formed. This could come from an email sent by Amazon acknowledging and accepting the offer.
The shady way in which Amazon is dealing with this does hint that they do believe that a contract had already been formed. I'm not too sure of American Contract Law, but my impression is that they are a lot nicer to consumers. I hope somebody brings this to court, at least for the selfish sake of jurisprudence.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Never heard of him.
This draft is so vague I don't even know when I am supposed to feel angry or sad.
Oh this one's easy. Check Article 29.2 of the UDHR: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." All UDHR Rights, if they were capable of judicial interpretation, are qualified. Besides, in the order of the articles, one can argue that even cultural life takes precedence over copyright.
I would be quite shocked myself that living on your copyright is a fundamental human right of gross importance.
"Google haven't been able to innovate a lot of the UI"
Huh?
Democracy is the force of the majority over the minority. It doesn't matter if you have elections or not.. that's just a formality.
That's just a facet of first-past-the-post democracies.
There are actually democracies where it's virtually impossible to get a majority.
Americans...
Parent may not be accurate in stating that this was a jury trial, but his general point still stands: you can't appeal just because you don't like the law. In common law, there would be a procedure where you have to convince a judge that the appeal is worth hearing by the superior court. You can't raise novel points of law, and appeals are generally slow to overturn convictions unless the judge obviously got the case wrong.
Nevertheless, this tactic of letting the highest court hear cases just because there are new and interesting points of law is stupid. Unless TPB has a lot of cash to burn.
As the article already mentions, the case against TPB is very much a moral victory for the MAFIAA. They need to show you can't "get away" with it.
If Google wants to "co-operate" and avoid this kind of shitstorm, they'd enter into agreements with content owners where they'd agree on what kind of limitations is acceptable, in exchange for giving them a break and not pressuring governments to act.
The bad thing would be that this is all settled privately, and not checked by some kind of "rule of law". You might not even be able to tell how they'd modify their search to support such agreements without studying search results all day...
... And for those of us who already know the answer, this is a good opportunity to find out whether there's something new we should be looking at too.
The best argument against any democratic system is a 5 minute conversation with the 'average voter'. This seems little different in that regard.
And the worse part is then, you have to imagine that half of the voters are worse than that.
Wubi? Whoopee! How does that work? Anybody has had any experience? It sounds quite incongruous with the whole idea of "dual-boot" or having two OSes for that matter.
Interestingly though, something like this happened in sunny Singapore and went all the way to appeal in the highest court -- http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/30117.html. But those guys were evil (buying over 4000 printers for $66 when it cost $3K), so the judge had no qualms pissing them away (affirmed on appeal). The buyers sound reasonably innocent here. I think they have a better case.
I know you're referring to the whole invitation to treat thing here, but the fact is that as long as Amazon communicated its acceptance, the contract is formed. This could come from an email sent by Amazon acknowledging and accepting the offer.
The shady way in which Amazon is dealing with this does hint that they do believe that a contract had already been formed. I'm not too sure of American Contract Law, but my impression is that they are a lot nicer to consumers. I hope somebody brings this to court, at least for the selfish sake of jurisprudence. :P