To be honest, the DMV doesn't force you to use their services. It's not mandatory for every citizen in the US to drive, or write checks. Yes, it's pretty damn useful, and a lot of jobs require it, but the DMV doesn't force anyone to get a license.
Nope the DMV doesn't force you to have a Drivers License but you bright bulbs do realize that the DMV also issues the State Non-Driver ID you need if you don't have a Drivers License. Want a job you better have an ID to show or you can explain to ICE that you're really a Citizen and they can ask your Mom! Want to leave Town for a bit of Vacation DHS says you need to have that State ID or your Drivers License to board a Bus, Train, or Plane! Want an Apartment, Electric, Phone Service, Insurance then you better have some piece of ID from your local DMV!
Does 'knowingly' still apply if the process is automated? They probably just search on the titles of their movies and have a script takedown every hit.
If you make claims while using an automated system that you know is going to make false claims, and force take-downs, then you are guilty of knowingly violating Section 512(f). Warner Bros just figured that all the take-downs would be against Individuals with small pockets whom they would never fear hearing from in Court.
When the industry starts giving people what they want - DRM-free stuff they can 'own' and use whichever way they like, at a reasonable price - then piracy will go down.
Once again you and people like you are utterly clueless. You can go and buy DVD's, CD's and whatnot today AND you can use them for your own personal and private use pretty much any way you would like.
What you cannot do is decide to share them with the world by putting them on the net for anyone to download for free and that is what they have their panties in a bunch about.
My wife just loves John Mayer's music. We but it, she puts a copy on her iPod ( which she uses while bike riding and at the gym) through iTunes, we burn a copy of the CD and put on in the CD changer in the car and the original gets put into the CD collection. Guess what, the EVIL record companies don;t give a shit about that.
The EVIL record companies would take us to court if I set up a server, burned everything to MP3 and then connected it to the net, then advertised it on TPB!
If anyone is clueless I'd say it you since it seems you haven't kept track of what those Evil Record companies have actually said in court! Might want to check a discussion from 2007 here on Slashdot about just that in RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized
I know this is an unpopular view here, but I don't have any problem with it, as long as your whearabouts once your vehicle crosses a private property line is inadmissible. The cops can already get this information by dangerously and expensively tailing you or flying over your head, and they can do that without a warrant; why should obtaining the same information from a GPS be any different? I just don't see how your whereabouts of your vehicle on public roads creates any expectation of privacy.
To the argument that the GPS device is a modification to your property: I don't see how it's any more of a modification than the meter maid putting a chalk mark on your tires.
There should be reasonable suspicion, to be sure (just about any law enforcement activity requires it), but I don't think a GPS tracker crosses the line into needing probable cause and a warrant. Tracking your location on public roads is neither search nor seizure. The govt. built and owns the road; if you don't like it, don't drive.
1) The whole purpose of the GPS, or physically following, is to see what private property lines they cross. You think the Officers would place a GPS on your vehicle so they could see the roads you traveled?
2) Sure they could tail the person but in order to do so they would have to give the folks upstairs a valid reason for expending the man hours the same as they'd have to show a judge for a warrant. That is why they went the GPS route since its cheap and they're few Supervisors are going to put them back on the beat for wasting a $25 tracker!
3) You seem to forget that that it was Taxpayer money that pays for the Highways and the Taxpayers own them! Oh and that same Government has to follow that pesky Constitution.
4) Any time the Government gathers information on an Individual it is a search.
How is there a world of difference? Since he didn't pay the Firefighters would not have been covered by the Fire companies insurance if they had been injured.
As to the idea of it being the Firefighters fault if someone died in that house because they hadn't been doing their jobs. It would have actually been the Homeowners fault because he had never paid anyone to do said job. The Firefighters were doing their jobs in that they were protecting the properties where they had been paid to do the job.
I don't know why this is missed by people here, but OBVIOUSLY you would bill him for putting it out. OBVIOUSLY I mean the entire cost not the 75 dollars.
I would get fired before I let someones home burn down. To hide behind 'policy' and rules is a way to cover up entrenched callousness and cowardice.
The whole thing reeks of 3rd world policy.
Fun to see all the whack Jobs who keep focusing on the "Forgotten payment" without realizing what wasn't in force due to that fee not being paid! The Fellow lived outside of the Fire Company's coverage zone which meant that unless he was paying for the service there was no insurance coverage for any Firefighters who might have been hurt while fighting said fire!
You could accept the firing for putting out the fire but have you thought through what else you'd be accepting? You would also be willfully accept paying for the equipment damage out of your own pocket since there was no coverage for said equipment! You'd also be accepting the fact that you'd be paying out of your own pocket for treatment of any injuries you might sustain.
That'd be hard, since in the new system it doesn't display a character unless you choose to associate one. If you choose to do so, then yes, it would probably link it.
It's all spelled out in the actual article, which you haven't read closely enough;) (Though to be fair, there's a LOT of people who miss that point. They really should be bolding that or increasing its font size or something)
You might want to dig a bit deeper into RealID and not just what has been said on that thread. They've said RealID will be used on the Forums, not that 1st and last will be used, which means your RealID will be connected to your list of characters.
Nonsense. First, Blizzard already has the real name associated with an account. If they want, they can already do all that data-mining you're so concerned about. The publishing of the RealID names on the forum are completely unrelated to this.
Second, the forums only show your name. Not what characters you belong to. Not even what server you play on (disclaimer: you do have the option to associate with a character, but its not on by default).
So how is any of this not just tinfoil hat ravings?
Ooops I guess someone forgot to let you in on the fact that clicking on a posters name will take you to the Armory list of all their characters. Pesky things all little side notes the folks screaming about "Tin Hats" just gloss over.
Everyone who is slagging off steam, try it before you complain.
I have had ZERO problems with steam, before I was a sceptic and now I am a convert.
Is that like a rape victim learning to like it?
The auto-patching auto-updating goodness is worth its weight in gold.
Compared to what? Logging on seeing there is an update and clicking a button? Maybe if you weren't tied to Steam you wouldn't need all those updates that have more to do with Steam then they do with game play!
Never had a problem playing offline or whatever.
I've never had a problem with any of my games either but of course I only have to have the game running. No need to ask some other program and servers for permission first!
Rebuild a PC? no issue, unlimited re-downloads, much easier to kick off steam and walk away than dig out masses of discs, then go through hours or hunt and patch, etc.
Hmmm! Masses of discs? Ok what Eras games are you talking about since I haven't seen a single game in 5 years that wasn't on a single DVD.
I also don't go through hours of patches since I can keep everything backed up to a nice external drive so when I rebuild I only have to reinstall the game. Not the Steam client and the Game!
Games are CHEAP esp if you bag them on sale (GTA4 for 7 bucks USD, Op. Flashpoint Dragon Rising for 5 bucks etc.)
Yep they sure are but its my money paying for them and not Steams so Steam shouldn't be decidding what I can do with the game when I get bored with it! Maybe you enjoy having someone telling you what you can do with something you own and what you can do with it but I like retaining full ownership after I pay for it!
Since I'm from the Northern Great Plains, American Indian and a Great Plains Indian Wars historian just wanted you to know that it wasn't a genocide.
The Indian Wars were a low intensity conflict between small US Army units and small warrior bands.
90% of the American Indian population on the Great Plains were not killed, in fact only 8-9,000 American Indians died in the Great Plains from 1850-1900.
So the fact remains, the Federal Government is pushing a religion in BIA funded schools.
God! Are they still paying guys like you to do history rewrites? Do you still use that old History book that leaves out all of Custer's killing of women, children, and elders while burning villages before his "Heroic" last stand?
I also guess you and the poster you were commenting on are youngsters since you think teaching Tribal customs is Gov. funded religion. I say this since it seems you weren't forced to take a last name (for Church/Gov records), attend Sunday services, or do a daily prayer in order to attend school like Myself, and the generations before you!
Which is going to garner you the most hype from the Tech news media?
A) Hinting that you may have a tablet in the pipeline
or
B) Having one of your PR folks get a site to start a scavenger hunt for info and then have lawyer threaten said site over the hunt.
Apple says they're not charging a fee for this. Being the control freaks they usually are, they're working on opening it to everyone rather than just letting it out there: "We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own. There is no production fee charged by Apple."
OMG! If Apple has said this after being accused of doing something shady we know the accusation must not be true! We all know how scrupulous Apple is about the truth!
So how long is "Soon"? Is it per chance as long as say the continued review of the Google Voice app for Iphone?
There are nonlethal means of defending one's self, these days. While most may only work at arm's reach, that's also the range you're most likely to be at, in a situation you'd want to use a gun defensively.... and have any realistic chance of it being effective, anyway.
You do realize that those same nonlethal means you speak off are also banned in most of the cities that also ban, or make it difficult, to obtain a gun permit. In cities like NYC you'll face the same weapon charges as someone caught with an illegal firearm.
What these "Brainiacs" at St. Ansgar have failed to realize is that in order to cover the whole school they would also have to jam the surrounding public area. Maybe someone in their science department should enlighten them to how radio signals propagate!
There is no way to restrict the jamming to just the school! Hell if they are paying $5000 for the system it could probably jam as far as five miles which in an urban area would be a disaster! This is the reason its against the law to even build one in the US.
They should just go with the system the NYC schools use. Student cell phones are banned from school property and are confiscated when found.
So tell me where would all your friends be finding out about these new artists if everyone but the Big Boys of the Industry get shut down due to the fees? If its only the Big Boys left they'll probably do what Pandora is now and do everything they can to keep the RIAA and its ilk happy by only playing the music of the Big Four and shut out the independents.
Oh! Your friends will find out on sites like Youtube you say. Well who do you think will be the next target? They'll use some excuse about there being no way to legally prove its the artists themselves posting there and that they can always get the royalty back from Soundexchange anyway if it is them posting.
As too the argument that the Music Industry doesn't get anything back from the free play of music on the Radio. musicFIRST a coalition of artist who have testified before Congress asking that Radio pay the fees is also the same coalition which has petitioned the FCC over the fact Radio Stations have stopped playing the songs of Members of musicFIRST and Artists of the Big Four. Seems they want Radio to be forced to pay royalties for playing their songs and be forced to play them since not doing so hurts since the public never hears of them.
As to Independents collecting their Royalties from these collected fees. The list of Artist whom Soundexchange, the group who collects the fees, can't find in order to pay is laughable since it seems to find such "Obscure" artists as Ted Nugent and has yet to pay out over 50% of what they;ve collected.
Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement. Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did? Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude? It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.
Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.
I guess maybe you're either a RIAA loved child or somewhere along the line you've missed the information that the RIAA using their perfect Media Sentry evidence and expert witnesses have sent "settlement" letters to those who have never owned a computer, the deaf, and the dead.
Now lets see!
If instead of tying IE to Windows they had required every program that ran on Windows to be sold through them after a lengthy approval process, for the safety of your system mind you, I guess it wouldn't have been Anti-Competitive Behavior!
I'm just wondering why its legit for one company to decide what can run on its system, and make a profit being the only reseller, while MS has to always let every Tom, Dick and Steve do so. Must have been the mistake of making an operating system that wasn't tied to a machine only Microsoft could build and instead making it a system to run on a machine everyone could build.
Hmmmm! Guess it only Anti-Competitive Behavior when you start making a bigger profit from selling a system everyone can run on their machines and don't use the its "For the safety of the customer" as your PR.
Look back over the recent months and you'll notice immediately that the reaction of any government agency when faced with the public finding out they haven't secured something properly isn't that agency coming clean it is that agency immediately calling in law enforcement against the whistle blower. Right now for all we know, and all we'll ever know since they've probably locked down the system, is what the School and the politician who appointed those officials what you to hear. Notice that while they can't name the student because of his age we also haven't see any mention of who screwed up with security?
I was once a resident of the district mentioned and I'm betting that if, big if up there, the whole story comes out we find that the server was set up in such a way that when a student logged on for authorized information the "secure" file was sitting right amid that weeks home work assignments.
Not necessarily.
There was a very similar situation with Malcolm McBratney, who's nickname is McBrat. He sponsored a Rugby team an put his nickname on the shorts. McDonalds tried to sue him, partially based on their plans for a childrens clothing range. Although their planned name was McKids, NOT McBrats.
Anyway, they lost. It probably didn't help them that Malcom is an IP lawyer.
And that lawsuit was brought to you by the same company who tried forcing a Scottish family to change the name of their restaurant even though it had been in business for over 50 years. They're name by the way was McDonald. They lost.
Works in a similar fashion as the domain being discussed. In all actuality since the grad student registered the domain in 2004 he not only legally owns the domain but may very well have a copyright against the use of the term "Chicago2016" unless someone can prove he has inside information on the fact Chicago would be trying for the 2016 Olympics.
Well, if we make your example into something more sensible:
Say you walk into stores and threaten to sue them for $8000 if they don't pay you the $3000...
Then there's nothing really wrong with that. You're not really exerting any undue influence or behaving unconscionably - just exercising your right to file suit. If you genuinely believe that the suit has merit (as the RIAA does), then them signing the contract as a genuine compromise is legal and really quite commonplace.
I don't really see the problem with this. Lets say like the RIAA I have hired folks who have Illegally done the investigations (unlicensed), have dropped most cases like a hot potato when I've been asked for the evidence, have continued cases when I knew I had the wrong defendant, dropped and refiled when I got a judge I didn't like and have only won a case when a Judge made a error would you then consider it extortion. Especially given the fact that it looks more and more like the RIAA , and their Lawyers, know the cases really have no merit but are really just a scare tactic?
How is this not racketeering and extortion? I mean, c'mon... It's not either of those things, I'm afraid.
My girlfriend IAL; she says this particular practice of the RIAA is perfectly legal. A party to a civil litigation can alter the settlement terms basically however they want, whenever they want (subject to public policy, of course: RIAA can't alter the terms to include the forfeit of your firstborn child or whatever). A settlement is just a contract, after all.
This makes sense, so the argument goes, because a party's costs for litigating a particular case become higher and higher as the case progresses. So, the settlement costs must increase concordantly.
Your GF might be right if they were stating that they would ask for a higher settlement if the case was prolonged but in the case mentioned here its no different then my walking into every store on the block and threatening a lawsuit for $8000 if they didn't pay me $3000 now.
Remember that when the RIAA sends out their little settlement letters they have already dropped a lawsuit against Doe, have not filed the new lawsuit, and it isn't the RIAA legal team who are asking for the money.
If video footage of a crime in-the-act is caught, should it reasonably be expected that all of the above information about the digital camcorder be provided to validate the evidence? The storage media also?.. and the computer used to view and process? Its called the chain of custody and said information is needed to show for a fact that along the line from the time the video was taken until the point where the video entered the court it wasn't altered. Not only would I want make sure I'd taken that camera into custody but that I'd made sure its time setting matched when the crime supposedly occurred. I'd have the Storage media entered into evidence so that I could show that between the time it entered my custody and when the file was shown in court it hadn't been altered in any way. Then I'd want to state what programs had been used to download it to the computer, view, and process it so that I could again show that said software did not alter the file.
Before anyone tries to defend the RIAA's statement as it was made you need to read as a lawyer in the next case will use it and not as a layperson would accept a simple statement.
It reads
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies..."
Looks simple doesn't it since the normal person would assume they are talking merely about a "Kazaa" shared folder but it isn't that simple. It becomes complicated since the question from the Judge was if the MP3s themselves were unauthorized.
Now you and I, normally, would assume they only meant a "Kazaa" folder but they left out the wording needed for that in a legal brief where they would have said "and they are in his Kazaa shared folder". Instead they most likely choose to use the wording they did so that with the wording used all copies can be declared unauthorized since almost all folders on a computer are shared folders (ie: you've got a roommate who shares your computer so the copies are not for personal use). They also choose that wording because the law states its illegal to distribute, and prove of distribution must be shown, but the RIAA can't show that they were actually distributed to anyone but their agent who was authorized to receive copies.
Instead of what doing what they were asked to do by the Judge in the case they choose wording with which they can create law if the Judge accepts their wording.
Just ask yourself one question. If you'd been the lawyer answering the Judge's question about the MP3s being authorized would you have said on point that "Once placed his copies in his Kazaa shared folder they were not authorized copies" or "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies..."?
As far as I'm concerned everything thats come out of the RIAA is all smoke and mirrors. Has anyone seen a chain of custody for these alleged "screenshots" from MediaSentry or even how they obtained them? Since even their "Expert" Jacobson, nor any certification authority, hasn't I'm left with a saying from the 90s in my head when I read about one of these cases and thats "Show me the beef!!"
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, the DMV doesn't force you to use their services. It's not mandatory for every citizen in the US to drive, or write checks. Yes, it's pretty damn useful, and a lot of jobs require it, but the DMV doesn't force anyone to get a license.
Nope the DMV doesn't force you to have a Drivers License but you bright bulbs do realize that the DMV also issues the State Non-Driver ID you need if you don't have a Drivers License. Want a job you better have an ID to show or you can explain to ICE that you're really a Citizen and they can ask your Mom! Want to leave Town for a bit of Vacation DHS says you need to have that State ID or your Drivers License to board a Bus, Train, or Plane! Want an Apartment, Electric, Phone Service, Insurance then you better have some piece of ID from your local DMV!
Does 'knowingly' still apply if the process is automated? They probably just search on the titles of their movies and have a script takedown every hit.
If you make claims while using an automated system that you know is going to make false claims, and force take-downs, then you are guilty of knowingly violating Section 512(f). Warner Bros just figured that all the take-downs would be against Individuals with small pockets whom they would never fear hearing from in Court.
Judge: Release the records.
Government: No.
Judge: What?? I said release them!
Government: We said no.
Judge: Release them, or else!
Government: Or else what?
Judge: Due to your refusal to comply with a Court order any evidence you gathered due to the use of GPS data is unusable in these proceedings!
When the industry starts giving people what they want - DRM-free stuff they can 'own' and use whichever way they like, at a reasonable price - then piracy will go down.
Once again you and people like you are utterly clueless. You can go and buy DVD's, CD's and whatnot today AND you can use them for your own personal and private use pretty much any way you would like.
What you cannot do is decide to share them with the world by putting them on the net for anyone to download for free and that is what they have their panties in a bunch about.
My wife just loves John Mayer's music. We but it, she puts a copy on her iPod ( which she uses while bike riding and at the gym) through iTunes, we burn a copy of the CD and put on in the CD changer in the car and the original gets put into the CD collection. Guess what, the EVIL record companies don;t give a shit about that.
The EVIL record companies would take us to court if I set up a server, burned everything to MP3 and then connected it to the net, then advertised it on TPB!
If anyone is clueless I'd say it you since it seems you haven't kept track of what those Evil Record companies have actually said in court! Might want to check a discussion from 2007 here on Slashdot about just that in RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized
I know this is an unpopular view here, but I don't have any problem with it, as long as your whearabouts once your vehicle crosses a private property line is inadmissible. The cops can already get this information by dangerously and expensively tailing you or flying over your head, and they can do that without a warrant; why should obtaining the same information from a GPS be any different? I just don't see how your whereabouts of your vehicle on public roads creates any expectation of privacy.
To the argument that the GPS device is a modification to your property: I don't see how it's any more of a modification than the meter maid putting a chalk mark on your tires.
There should be reasonable suspicion, to be sure (just about any law enforcement activity requires it), but I don't think a GPS tracker crosses the line into needing probable cause and a warrant. Tracking your location on public roads is neither search nor seizure. The govt. built and owns the road; if you don't like it, don't drive.
1) The whole purpose of the GPS, or physically following, is to see what private property lines they cross. You think the Officers would place a GPS on your vehicle so they could see the roads you traveled?
2) Sure they could tail the person but in order to do so they would have to give the folks upstairs a valid reason for expending the man hours the same as they'd have to show a judge for a warrant. That is why they went the GPS route since its cheap and they're few Supervisors are going to put them back on the beat for wasting a $25 tracker!
3) You seem to forget that that it was Taxpayer money that pays for the Highways and the Taxpayers own them! Oh and that same Government has to follow that pesky Constitution.
4) Any time the Government gathers information on an Individual it is a search.
How is there a world of difference? Since he didn't pay the Firefighters would not have been covered by the Fire companies insurance if they had been injured.
As to the idea of it being the Firefighters fault if someone died in that house because they hadn't been doing their jobs. It would have actually been the Homeowners fault because he had never paid anyone to do said job. The Firefighters were doing their jobs in that they were protecting the properties where they had been paid to do the job.
It set the precedent that your human beings.
I don't know why this is missed by people here, but OBVIOUSLY you would bill him for putting it out. OBVIOUSLY I mean the entire cost not the 75 dollars.
I would get fired before I let someones home burn down. To hide behind 'policy' and rules is a way to cover up entrenched callousness and cowardice.
The whole thing reeks of 3rd world policy.
Fun to see all the whack Jobs who keep focusing on the "Forgotten payment" without realizing what wasn't in force due to that fee not being paid! The Fellow lived outside of the Fire Company's coverage zone which meant that unless he was paying for the service there was no insurance coverage for any Firefighters who might have been hurt while fighting said fire!
You could accept the firing for putting out the fire but have you thought through what else you'd be accepting? You would also be willfully accept paying for the equipment damage out of your own pocket since there was no coverage for said equipment! You'd also be accepting the fact that you'd be paying out of your own pocket for treatment of any injuries you might sustain.
That'd be hard, since in the new system it doesn't display a character unless you choose to associate one. If you choose to do so, then yes, it would probably link it.
It's all spelled out in the actual article, which you haven't read closely enough ;) (Though to be fair, there's a LOT of people who miss that point. They really should be bolding that or increasing its font size or something)
You might want to dig a bit deeper into RealID and not just what has been said on that thread. They've said RealID will be used on the Forums, not that 1st and last will be used, which means your RealID will be connected to your list of characters.
Nonsense. First, Blizzard already has the real name associated with an account. If they want, they can already do all that data-mining you're so concerned about. The publishing of the RealID names on the forum are completely unrelated to this.
Second, the forums only show your name. Not what characters you belong to. Not even what server you play on (disclaimer: you do have the option to associate with a character, but its not on by default).
So how is any of this not just tinfoil hat ravings?
Ooops I guess someone forgot to let you in on the fact that clicking on a posters name will take you to the Armory list of all their characters. Pesky things all little side notes the folks screaming about "Tin Hats" just gloss over.
Seriously
Everyone who is slagging off steam, try it before you complain. I have had ZERO problems with steam, before I was a sceptic and now I am a convert.
Is that like a rape victim learning to like it?
The auto-patching auto-updating goodness is worth its weight in gold.
Compared to what? Logging on seeing there is an update and clicking a button? Maybe if you weren't tied to Steam you wouldn't need all those updates that have more to do with Steam then they do with game play!
Never had a problem playing offline or whatever.
I've never had a problem with any of my games either but of course I only have to have the game running. No need to ask some other program and servers for permission first!
Rebuild a PC? no issue, unlimited re-downloads, much easier to kick off steam and walk away than dig out masses of discs, then go through hours or hunt and patch, etc.
Hmmm! Masses of discs? Ok what Eras games are you talking about since I haven't seen a single game in 5 years that wasn't on a single DVD. I also don't go through hours of patches since I can keep everything backed up to a nice external drive so when I rebuild I only have to reinstall the game. Not the Steam client and the Game!
Games are CHEAP esp if you bag them on sale (GTA4 for 7 bucks USD, Op. Flashpoint Dragon Rising for 5 bucks etc.)
Yep they sure are but its my money paying for them and not Steams so Steam shouldn't be decidding what I can do with the game when I get bored with it! Maybe you enjoy having someone telling you what you can do with something you own and what you can do with it but I like retaining full ownership after I pay for it!
Since I'm from the Northern Great Plains, American Indian and a Great Plains Indian Wars historian just wanted you to know that it wasn't a genocide.
The Indian Wars were a low intensity conflict between small US Army units and small warrior bands.
90% of the American Indian population on the Great Plains were not killed, in fact only 8-9,000 American Indians died in the Great Plains from 1850-1900.
So the fact remains, the Federal Government is pushing a religion in BIA funded schools.
God! Are they still paying guys like you to do history rewrites? Do you still use that old History book that leaves out all of Custer's killing of women, children, and elders while burning villages before his "Heroic" last stand?
I also guess you and the poster you were commenting on are youngsters since you think teaching Tribal customs is Gov. funded religion. I say this since it seems you weren't forced to take a last name (for Church/Gov records), attend Sunday services, or do a daily prayer in order to attend school like Myself, and the generations before you!
Which is going to garner you the most hype from the Tech news media?
A) Hinting that you may have a tablet in the pipeline
or
B) Having one of your PR folks get a site to start a scavenger hunt for info and then have lawyer threaten said site over the hunt.
Apple says they're not charging a fee for this. Being the control freaks they usually are, they're working on opening it to everyone rather than just letting it out there: "We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own. There is no production fee charged by Apple."
OMG! If Apple has said this after being accused of doing something shady we know the accusation must not be true! We all know how scrupulous Apple is about the truth!
So how long is "Soon"? Is it per chance as long as say the continued review of the Google Voice app for Iphone?
There are nonlethal means of defending one's self, these days. While most may only work at arm's reach, that's also the range you're most likely to be at, in a situation you'd want to use a gun defensively. ... and have any realistic chance of it being effective, anyway.
You do realize that those same nonlethal means you speak off are also banned in most of the cities that also ban, or make it difficult, to obtain a gun permit. In cities like NYC you'll face the same weapon charges as someone caught with an illegal firearm.
What these "Brainiacs" at St. Ansgar have failed to realize is that in order to cover the whole school they would also have to jam the surrounding public area. Maybe someone in their science department should enlighten them to how radio signals propagate!
There is no way to restrict the jamming to just the school! Hell if they are paying $5000 for the system it could probably jam as far as five miles which in an urban area would be a disaster! This is the reason its against the law to even build one in the US.
They should just go with the system the NYC schools use. Student cell phones are banned from school property and are confiscated when found.
So tell me where would all your friends be finding out about these new artists if everyone but the Big Boys of the Industry get shut down due to the fees? If its only the Big Boys left they'll probably do what Pandora is now and do everything they can to keep the RIAA and its ilk happy by only playing the music of the Big Four and shut out the independents.
Oh! Your friends will find out on sites like Youtube you say. Well who do you think will be the next target? They'll use some excuse about there being no way to legally prove its the artists themselves posting there and that they can always get the royalty back from Soundexchange anyway if it is them posting.
As too the argument that the Music Industry doesn't get anything back from the free play of music on the Radio. musicFIRST a coalition of artist who have testified before Congress asking that Radio pay the fees is also the same coalition which has petitioned the FCC over the fact Radio Stations have stopped playing the songs of Members of musicFIRST and Artists of the Big Four. Seems they want Radio to be forced to pay royalties for playing their songs and be forced to play them since not doing so hurts since the public never hears of them.
As to Independents collecting their Royalties from these collected fees. The list of Artist whom Soundexchange, the group who collects the fees, can't find in order to pay is laughable since it seems to find such "Obscure" artists as Ted Nugent and has yet to pay out over 50% of what they;ve collected.
Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement. Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did? Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude? It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.
Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.
I guess maybe you're either a RIAA loved child or somewhere along the line you've missed the information that the RIAA using their perfect Media Sentry evidence and expert witnesses have sent "settlement" letters to those who have never owned a computer, the deaf, and the dead.
Now lets see! If instead of tying IE to Windows they had required every program that ran on Windows to be sold through them after a lengthy approval process, for the safety of your system mind you, I guess it wouldn't have been Anti-Competitive Behavior!
I'm just wondering why its legit for one company to decide what can run on its system, and make a profit being the only reseller, while MS has to always let every Tom, Dick and Steve do so. Must have been the mistake of making an operating system that wasn't tied to a machine only Microsoft could build and instead making it a system to run on a machine everyone could build.
Hmmmm! Guess it only Anti-Competitive Behavior when you start making a bigger profit from selling a system everyone can run on their machines and don't use the its "For the safety of the customer" as your PR.
Look back over the recent months and you'll notice immediately that the reaction of any government agency when faced with the public finding out they haven't secured something properly isn't that agency coming clean it is that agency immediately calling in law enforcement against the whistle blower. Right now for all we know, and all we'll ever know since they've probably locked down the system, is what the School and the politician who appointed those officials what you to hear. Notice that while they can't name the student because of his age we also haven't see any mention of who screwed up with security?
I was once a resident of the district mentioned and I'm betting that if, big if up there, the whole story comes out we find that the server was set up in such a way that when a student logged on for authorized information the "secure" file was sitting right amid that weeks home work assignments.
Not necessarily.
There was a very similar situation with Malcolm McBratney, who's nickname is McBrat. He sponsored a Rugby team an put his nickname on the shorts. McDonalds tried to sue him, partially based on their plans for a childrens clothing range. Although their planned name was McKids, NOT McBrats.
Anyway, they lost. It probably didn't help them that Malcom is an IP lawyer.
You can read more at: http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/McBrats-wins-in-IP-lawyer-vs-Maccas-case_z68530.htm
And that lawsuit was brought to you by the same company who tried forcing a Scottish family to change the name of their restaurant even though it had been in business for over 50 years. They're name by the way was McDonald. They lost.
Works in a similar fashion as the domain being discussed. In all actuality since the grad student registered the domain in 2004 he not only legally owns the domain but may very well have a copyright against the use of the term "Chicago2016" unless someone can prove he has inside information on the fact Chicago would be trying for the 2016 Olympics.
My girlfriend IAL; she says this particular practice of the RIAA is perfectly legal. A party to a civil litigation can alter the settlement terms basically however they want, whenever they want (subject to public policy, of course: RIAA can't alter the terms to include the forfeit of your firstborn child or whatever). A settlement is just a contract, after all.
This makes sense, so the argument goes, because a party's costs for litigating a particular case become higher and higher as the case progresses. So, the settlement costs must increase concordantly.
Your GF might be right if they were stating that they would ask for a higher settlement if the case was prolonged but in the case mentioned here its no different then my walking into every store on the block and threatening a lawsuit for $8000 if they didn't pay me $3000 now. Remember that when the RIAA sends out their little settlement letters they have already dropped a lawsuit against Doe, have not filed the new lawsuit, and it isn't the RIAA legal team who are asking for the money.It reads
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed
Looks simple doesn't it since the normal person would assume they are talking merely about a "Kazaa" shared folder but it isn't that simple. It becomes complicated since the question from the Judge was if the MP3s themselves were unauthorized.
Now you and I, normally, would assume they only meant a "Kazaa" folder but they left out the wording needed for that in a legal brief where they would have said "and they are in his Kazaa shared folder". Instead they most likely choose to use the wording they did so that with the wording used all copies can be declared unauthorized since almost all folders on a computer are shared folders (ie: you've got a roommate who shares your computer so the copies are not for personal use). They also choose that wording because the law states its illegal to distribute, and prove of distribution must be shown, but the RIAA can't show that they were actually distributed to anyone but their agent who was authorized to receive copies.
Instead of what doing what they were asked to do by the Judge in the case they choose wording with which they can create law if the Judge accepts their wording.
Just ask yourself one question. If you'd been the lawyer answering the Judge's question about the MP3s being authorized would you have said on point that "Once placed his copies in his Kazaa shared folder they were not authorized copies" or "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed
As far as I'm concerned everything thats come out of the RIAA is all smoke and mirrors. Has anyone seen a chain of custody for these alleged "screenshots" from MediaSentry or even how they obtained them? Since even their "Expert" Jacobson, nor any certification authority, hasn't I'm left with a saying from the 90s in my head when I read about one of these cases and thats "Show me the beef!!"