If this goes to the Supreme Court everyone will be more trouble. The fact is that she did indeed go beyond the means of fair use, and that would really be the only argument that they could use in any other court. Distributing copy protected works that allow other people to avoid paying the normal price is against civil law. The Supreme court would no legal avenue other then to favor the RIAA.
However they could then award damages in line with the actual losses to the companies. Even if the statutory minimum is $750/song as stated that is much more reasonable. It would become a precedent for non commercial infringement. At that level it would not be worthwhile for the RIAA to take small infringers to court.
As the Supreme Court if they also made a statement to Congress that the law needed to be adjusted it would be more likely to be listened to.
They might also rule that actual infringing downloads from her would have to be shown conclusively and rule decisively against the "making available" theory. That would further limit future RIAA/MPAA cases.
True but most rich people didn't inherit their wealth (http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/rip-offs/10-things-millionaires-wont-tell-you-23697/ "or take the most common path: running your own business. That's how half of all millionaires made their money, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey. About a third had a professional practice or worked in the corporate world; only 3 percent inherited their wealth.").
So what percentage of those "self made" people had wealthy parents who could pay to put them through the best schools and connect them with those who could help them succeed?
Take Gates for example. His parents were well to do lawyers who sent him to Harvard and it was his mother who directed IBM to him for DOS. If he had been born to minimum wage parents would he be wealthy now? Maybe but much less likely.
1/ Other countries are INDEPENDENT and the United States has no authority to dictate to them.
2/ Industry funded studies designed to "prove" their viewpoint cannot be trusted.
3/ Copyright under the U.S. Constitution was not intended to be eternal. It was supposed to be for a limited time and I suspect that "limited" was meant in compared to the human life span not compared to eternity.
3/ The DMCA is bad law and should be repealed rather than encouraging others to implement the same
An update this year adds support for ECMA-376, an earlier version of OOXML standard, to Office 2007, but Microsoft won't support the ISO29500 specification until it releases its forthcoming Office 2010 technology. Office 2007 is the software that set off the controversy over document formats when Microsoft developed OOXML as its own XML-based file format for the suite.
We wouldn't accept such an incomplete standard from Microsoft. In fact, the rallying cry against OOXML was that it was "too complete" because it was X pages long.
It wasn't that it was too long that people complained. They complained because it enshrined errors that Microsoft had made in their earlier formats (wrong leap years for example). It also ignored existing standards (like how leap years are figured). Further it had things in the form of "Do like Word 95" rather than an actual definition of how.
ISO standards should respect and adhere to prior standards where they overlap rather than recreate it in an incompatible way. The leap year example shows how OOXML ignored existing standards.
On the other hand, there also is lots of support for MOO XML :
- Microsoft
Unfortunately this gives the impression that Microsoft supports Office Open XML but they don't. They plan to on the next version of MS-Office. They do support DOCX which is an ancestor of OOXML but they don't support OOXML itself. Neither does anyone else.
After all these years, creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments. I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical.
You wouldn't expect them to evolve would you? To do so would in fact be hypocritical of them. You can't expect them to compromise their faith by doing such a thing.
In many legal systems, appeals are limited to matters of law, not matters of fact. At least in certain levels of the legal system. The highest courts don't want to bother themselves with deciding the facts, they want to spend their precious time on examining the law. Whether the RIAA has their paperwork in order is a matter of fact.
Which does not apply here as this is not an appeal. The original trial was negated due to inappropriate jury instructions. That makes this effectively a new first trial (sort of like in football where you can get a new first down).
Re:The Fundamental Fatal Flaw Of Desktop Linux
on
KDE 4.2.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Disparate people/teams all working in isolation with no single controlling authority to enforce a consistent UI over the entire system.
All things that come as part of the OS should work the same right? Like when I choose to close IE and I use Alt-F followed by C to close it and Wordpad I use Alt-F followed by X? Exactly the same right? A truly consistent user interface from the "Masters" of interface design.
What is wrong with using a miscarried fetus for the cells? How is that any different than havesting organs from a miscarried baby for transplants? Should that fetus/baby die in vain when it could save lives?
you are aware that embryonic research has not been banned in the US, just no more tax dollars, right?
you are aware that embryonic research has not been banned in the US, just no more tax dollars, right?
You are aware that it went a little further than that aren't you? The block was extended to using anything that had ever had Federal money used on it. So if you used part of a prior grant to equip your lab for different research you had to scrap it all and start again. You couldn't even buy used equipment (or buildings) that might once have been paid for by Federal money.
Since most research facilities that could do this work had at some time used Federal money to do the research meant building a new lab and equipping it with all new equipment. That drove the "buy in" cost of doing the research way up.
Thus there is no such thing as a "level 5 dwarf". But there is such thing as a "level one slashdot troll"
Basic Dungeons and Dragons did have advancement within race for non humans so you could have a level 5 dwarf or elf (but not human). That changed within Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.
The GPL exists to force work that builds upon it to be GPL, as well. It directly opposes copyright by forcing that which builds upon it to be copyleft.
Without copyright the GPL is unenforceable. It requires copyright to exist. To be pro GPL you need to be pro copyright. You can still want changes to the current copyright system however.
There seems to be an assumption in this thread that copyright reform means copyright elimination. People can be pro reform while still being pro copyright. Reforming copyright can be as simple as changing the term from the current excessively long (IMO) time to a shorter one more in tune with the idea of "a limited time". They can also be in favour of a better system to get copyrights declared abandoned so abandoned materials can enter the public domain.
There are other aspects that people might like to see changed. Why does a photo of the Mona Lisa (just of the painting nothing else) deserve a copyright when the original is centuries out of protection? Why could I edit an old bible to correct punctuation errors and get a new copyright?
There are of course others who want copyright to last forever. A Senator for example wanted to legalize copyright vigilantes destroying computers that they believe contain unauthorized copies of their copyrighted materials. These too are reformers who are still pro copyright.
So you see people may well be pro copyright and still want changes
Well there is historical evidence, you just have to read the Bellum Judaicum by Flavius Josephus, the most important historian of this time and he has a special 10 liner about Jesus (speaking very favorable about him although he was not christian/jewish).
Jospehus the Jewish historian? There is substantial doubt as to the authenticity of the section "proving" the existence of Jesus. Josephus wrote in the 1st century AD. The earliest references to his "proving" Jesus come from the 4th century. Earlier references from the 3rd century clearly state that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ as the later references assert.
If Josephus had actually believed what is attributed to him he would have been a Christian not a Jew.
I'd bid on sco.com,for sure!!! I'd pay like $3 to use it for my future site devoted to South Carolina otters. That is, if I can get a loan, since funding has been hard to secure for this project, for some reason. Maybe I'll try to figure out who invested in SCO in recent years and hit them up.
fuck that, make it a goatse mirror!;)
He is trying to improve things not just keep the site the same as it's always been.
It has an Intel Atom N270 processor running at 1.6GHz, 1GB of RAM and a 160GB hard disk drive.
Video is powered by an onboard Mobile Intel 945 express chipset running at 1024x600 resolution. This chip is not DirectX 10 compliant, but that's no deal-breaker. You won't be running Crysis on this machine!
I don't consider a netbook with 1GB of RAM and a HD to be entry level. The entry level machines have 512MB of RAM and as little as 4GB of SSD for storage. The Aspire one used is perhaps at the bottom of the high end not having a 10" screen but is definitely not entry level.
It IS a crime. If they had control access to the botnet, then for the duration of time that they had control, they were responsible for what the botnet did during that time. Think of it as timeshare cracking.
Perhaps not. If I understand it correctly they acquired the domain (legally) and their only "control" act was to send the proper response when queried to find if they were the "masters". They then accepted the stolen data (that might well be a crime in itself though). Beyond saying "We are the correct site to send to" they don't seem to have sent any commands. Other than being in receipt of stolen data I don't think they could really be said to have any criminal acts here.
"If YOUR homeland security fiddles with MY government computer, get ready for international troubles."
I would assume that the computer hacking side of government security does have their own form of black ops? A building/fake business with an internet connection under a false name. Of course any such "fiddling" would not remove the black op connection to your government system but merely the botnet that would be likely to be found eventually.
What occurred to me is that if there were an interest larger than government that could get Microsoft to change its ways and fix its stuff, it would be "big money." I wonder if big money has even considered this?
They have. Why do you think that Microsoft have spent so much effort on security? Unfortunately expending effort does not mean the same thing as achieving success by that effort. Among their major efforts have been their repeated advertising campaigns, "Windows Version X.Y is our MOST secure Windows EVER!!!!!", or hadn't you noticed? Don't forget their defensive campaigns like "Get the Facts!!!!!".
Then of course there are those interests who want security to be low. Anti virus companies, Firewall makers. Police/National Security people who want to be able to access the computers of alleged criminals and so forth.
Slashdot Mirror
They weren't Zebras, they were Pegasi. Who wouldn't want their very own Pegasus when the neighbour only has a horse?
However they could then award damages in line with the actual losses to the companies. Even if the statutory minimum is $750/song as stated that is much more reasonable. It would become a precedent for non commercial infringement. At that level it would not be worthwhile for the RIAA to take small infringers to court.
As the Supreme Court if they also made a statement to Congress that the law needed to be adjusted it would be more likely to be listened to.
They might also rule that actual infringing downloads from her would have to be shown conclusively and rule decisively against the "making available" theory. That would further limit future RIAA/MPAA cases.
DRM
So what percentage of those "self made" people had wealthy parents who could pay to put them through the best schools and connect them with those who could help them succeed?
Take Gates for example. His parents were well to do lawyers who sent him to Harvard and it was his mother who directed IBM to him for DOS. If he had been born to minimum wage parents would he be wealthy now? Maybe but much less likely.
Some things the Senator needs to understand:
1/ Other countries are INDEPENDENT and the United States has no authority to dictate to them.
2/ Industry funded studies designed to "prove" their viewpoint cannot be trusted.
3/ Copyright under the U.S. Constitution was not intended to be eternal. It was supposed to be for a limited time and I suspect that "limited" was meant in compared to the human life span not compared to eternity.
3/ The DMCA is bad law and should be repealed rather than encouraging others to implement the same
I thought it best that I provide evidence:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/165077/microsoftled_forum_yields_tools_for_ooxml_interoperability.html
An update this year adds support for ECMA-376, an earlier version of OOXML standard, to Office 2007, but Microsoft won't support the ISO29500 specification until it releases its forthcoming Office 2010 technology. Office 2007 is the software that set off the controversy over document formats when Microsoft developed OOXML as its own XML-based file format for the suite.
It wasn't that it was too long that people complained. They complained because it enshrined errors that Microsoft had made in their earlier formats (wrong leap years for example). It also ignored existing standards (like how leap years are figured). Further it had things in the form of "Do like Word 95" rather than an actual definition of how.
ISO standards should respect and adhere to prior standards where they overlap rather than recreate it in an incompatible way. The leap year example shows how OOXML ignored existing standards.
Unfortunately this gives the impression that Microsoft supports Office Open XML but they don't. They plan to on the next version of MS-Office. They do support DOCX which is an ancestor of OOXML but they don't support OOXML itself. Neither does anyone else.
Thanks. That is a trick I didn't know. It doesn't (at least on my system) work with maximized windows but does with non maximized ones.
You wouldn't expect them to evolve would you? To do so would in fact be hypocritical of them. You can't expect them to compromise their faith by doing such a thing.
Which does not apply here as this is not an appeal. The original trial was negated due to inappropriate jury instructions. That makes this effectively a new first trial (sort of like in football where you can get a new first down).
All things that come as part of the OS should work the same right? Like when I choose to close IE and I use Alt-F followed by C to close it and Wordpad I use Alt-F followed by X? Exactly the same right? A truly consistent user interface from the "Masters" of interface design.
What is wrong with using a miscarried fetus for the cells? How is that any different than havesting organs from a miscarried baby for transplants? Should that fetus/baby die in vain when it could save lives?
You are aware that it went a little further than that aren't you? The block was extended to using anything that had ever had Federal money used on it. So if you used part of a prior grant to equip your lab for different research you had to scrap it all and start again. You couldn't even buy used equipment (or buildings) that might once have been paid for by Federal money.
Since most research facilities that could do this work had at some time used Federal money to do the research meant building a new lab and equipping it with all new equipment. That drove the "buy in" cost of doing the research way up.
Basic Dungeons and Dragons did have advancement within race for non humans so you could have a level 5 dwarf or elf (but not human). That changed within Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.
Without copyright the GPL is unenforceable. It requires copyright to exist. To be pro GPL you need to be pro copyright. You can still want changes to the current copyright system however.
There seems to be an assumption in this thread that copyright reform means copyright elimination. People can be pro reform while still being pro copyright. Reforming copyright can be as simple as changing the term from the current excessively long (IMO) time to a shorter one more in tune with the idea of "a limited time". They can also be in favour of a better system to get copyrights declared abandoned so abandoned materials can enter the public domain.
There are other aspects that people might like to see changed. Why does a photo of the Mona Lisa (just of the painting nothing else) deserve a copyright when the original is centuries out of protection? Why could I edit an old bible to correct punctuation errors and get a new copyright?
There are of course others who want copyright to last forever. A Senator for example wanted to legalize copyright vigilantes destroying computers that they believe contain unauthorized copies of their copyrighted materials. These too are reformers who are still pro copyright.
So you see people may well be pro copyright and still want changes
Jospehus the Jewish historian? There is substantial doubt as to the authenticity of the section "proving" the existence of Jesus. Josephus wrote in the 1st century AD. The earliest references to his "proving" Jesus come from the 4th century. Earlier references from the 3rd century clearly state that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ as the later references assert.
If Josephus had actually believed what is attributed to him he would have been a Christian not a Jew.
He is trying to improve things not just keep the site the same as it's always been.
I don't consider a netbook with 1GB of RAM and a HD to be entry level. The entry level machines have 512MB of RAM and as little as 4GB of SSD for storage. The Aspire one used is perhaps at the bottom of the high end not having a 10" screen but is definitely not entry level.
Perhaps not. If I understand it correctly they acquired the domain (legally) and their only "control" act was to send the proper response when queried to find if they were the "masters". They then accepted the stolen data (that might well be a crime in itself though). Beyond saying "We are the correct site to send to" they don't seem to have sent any commands. Other than being in receipt of stolen data I don't think they could really be said to have any criminal acts here.
I would assume that the computer hacking side of government security does have their own form of black ops? A building/fake business with an internet connection under a false name. Of course any such "fiddling" would not remove the black op connection to your government system but merely the botnet that would be likely to be found eventually.
They have. Why do you think that Microsoft have spent so much effort on security? Unfortunately expending effort does not mean the same thing as achieving success by that effort. Among their major efforts have been their repeated advertising campaigns, "Windows Version X.Y is our MOST secure Windows EVER!!!!!", or hadn't you noticed? Don't forget their defensive campaigns like "Get the Facts!!!!!".
Then of course there are those interests who want security to be low. Anti virus companies, Firewall makers. Police/National Security people who want to be able to access the computers of alleged criminals and so forth.
In the example given 1 hour of training is enough. How much retraining do people need to make the jump to Vista from XP (or earlier)?
Scotty the eco-terrorist.