Man you are very fortunate to stay in such a beautiful place during the summer. I'm a computer scientist and spent all my childhood summers on the Cape. The summer is only two months in the Northeast, so it may not be worth putting up a satellite dish (one of the only available options for you). I suggest taking advantage of the summer and if your bored, read some technical books. Maybe try some development on your workstation. Maybe digital amateur radio (D-Star) is interesting to you and the Cape is a great location to try it. Go sailing. In a few years when you start working full time, you will wish you did this. If you really need the bandwidth, I suspect there are coffee shops in the area that offer it. You can bring your laptop.
Folks,
I agree with the replies that this bill may not be enforceable. It probably won't pass either because it conflicts with the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and recent court rulings in favor of Anonymous Bloggers. People have the first Amendment right to post Anonymously, however we must understand the message this bill sends. I suspect many of us that are opposed to such legislation have never had libelous, defamatory or slanderous comments made online about them. I also suspect many Slashdot readers work in the world of Information Technology or Software Engineering.
Ask yourself, what would your position be if comments were posted about you and such comments caused your employer to terminate you high salary job? Yes, the very job that lets you read Slashdot all day. What if they were incorrect and placed you in false light? What if such comments prevented you from finding a new job or hurt your community standing?
The First Amendment is definitely our right, but there should be an easier means to remove incorrect content and if the party has not acted within the law. At the moment, this is difficult for the average American. They must first determine the website owner. Good luck considering most "whois" domain records are either false or held by a third party. Domains by Proxy shield some and others decide to register a domain in a foreign country but host the site in the USA. Then file a lawsuit for defamation, libel or slander. After that, try to subpoena the posters identity. Even after that, if it's a Blogger, they may be immune because recent rulings have considered them "Service Providers".
When all this court work is done, you have a expensive legal bill and also introduced the very material causing damage into public record. Was it worth it? Wait, you can't pay the legal bill because you lost your job. Do individuals have an easy remedy today? I think not.
This shows not only how difficult it is for the average Joe to litigate copyright infringement (18 months for ruling), but also how difficult it is to obtain damages. I suspect if this guy used a copyright lawyer for litigation, the awarded damages would have been much higher. The defendant clearly stole the picture without a valid licensing agreement and then appeared to deny doing so. The defendant even claimed the picture was licensed by a third party (who from the court documents did not even exist). Introducing this phony document alone should have resulting in serious damages awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was lucky as this third party did not appear in any search by skip traces. If the defendant used another fictitious third party name in a licensing agreement, one with perhaps a common US name, the plaintiff would have had even more trouble obtaining this ruling. If more damages were awarded, this would have set a better example to corporations that try steal intellectual property. Imagine how much this would cost (upfront) if a lawyer was involved. $20,000? $30,000? Unfortunately, because he litigated pro-se (represented himself without lawyer) he doesn't get awarded attorney fees. Not even for the cost of filing the lawsuit in court! He should at least be award that back!
Agreed. Vivid has a "Vivid Cash" campaign to encourage website operators to post pornographic material online. The operator is paid back by how many times people are directed to the Vivid website. I.e. track.vivid.com. Both Vivid and the website operator make profit. Many times, website operators post either pornographic or infringing material to get hits.
I'm normally opposed to government regulation and programs, however if online child protection is to be cleaned up, US laws must be set and enforced regarding obscenity. There are many US service providers hosting such material. The US should take legal action against the providers. It should be up to Google and Yahoo to restrict their search results.
Slashdot Mirror
Man you are very fortunate to stay in such a beautiful place during the summer. I'm a computer scientist and spent all my childhood summers on the Cape. The summer is only two months in the Northeast, so it may not be worth putting up a satellite dish (one of the only available options for you). I suggest taking advantage of the summer and if your bored, read some technical books. Maybe try some development on your workstation. Maybe digital amateur radio (D-Star) is interesting to you and the Cape is a great location to try it. Go sailing. In a few years when you start working full time, you will wish you did this. If you really need the bandwidth, I suspect there are coffee shops in the area that offer it. You can bring your laptop.
Folks, I agree with the replies that this bill may not be enforceable. It probably won't pass either because it conflicts with the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and recent court rulings in favor of Anonymous Bloggers. People have the first Amendment right to post Anonymously, however we must understand the message this bill sends. I suspect many of us that are opposed to such legislation have never had libelous, defamatory or slanderous comments made online about them. I also suspect many Slashdot readers work in the world of Information Technology or Software Engineering. Ask yourself, what would your position be if comments were posted about you and such comments caused your employer to terminate you high salary job? Yes, the very job that lets you read Slashdot all day. What if they were incorrect and placed you in false light? What if such comments prevented you from finding a new job or hurt your community standing? The First Amendment is definitely our right, but there should be an easier means to remove incorrect content and if the party has not acted within the law. At the moment, this is difficult for the average American. They must first determine the website owner. Good luck considering most "whois" domain records are either false or held by a third party. Domains by Proxy shield some and others decide to register a domain in a foreign country but host the site in the USA. Then file a lawsuit for defamation, libel or slander. After that, try to subpoena the posters identity. Even after that, if it's a Blogger, they may be immune because recent rulings have considered them "Service Providers". When all this court work is done, you have a expensive legal bill and also introduced the very material causing damage into public record. Was it worth it? Wait, you can't pay the legal bill because you lost your job. Do individuals have an easy remedy today? I think not.
This shows not only how difficult it is for the average Joe to litigate copyright infringement (18 months for ruling), but also how difficult it is to obtain damages. I suspect if this guy used a copyright lawyer for litigation, the awarded damages would have been much higher. The defendant clearly stole the picture without a valid licensing agreement and then appeared to deny doing so. The defendant even claimed the picture was licensed by a third party (who from the court documents did not even exist). Introducing this phony document alone should have resulting in serious damages awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was lucky as this third party did not appear in any search by skip traces. If the defendant used another fictitious third party name in a licensing agreement, one with perhaps a common US name, the plaintiff would have had even more trouble obtaining this ruling. If more damages were awarded, this would have set a better example to corporations that try steal intellectual property. Imagine how much this would cost (upfront) if a lawyer was involved. $20,000? $30,000? Unfortunately, because he litigated pro-se (represented himself without lawyer) he doesn't get awarded attorney fees. Not even for the cost of filing the lawsuit in court! He should at least be award that back!
Agreed. Vivid has a "Vivid Cash" campaign to encourage website operators to post pornographic material online. The operator is paid back by how many times people are directed to the Vivid website. I.e. track.vivid.com. Both Vivid and the website operator make profit. Many times, website operators post either pornographic or infringing material to get hits. I'm normally opposed to government regulation and programs, however if online child protection is to be cleaned up, US laws must be set and enforced regarding obscenity. There are many US service providers hosting such material. The US should take legal action against the providers. It should be up to Google and Yahoo to restrict their search results.