It appears to me, that the judge has made a very serious error. There are all sorts of technology that can be used to infringe on copyright. If we use this Judges logic, we would have to start banning internet browsers, email software, photocopiers, scanners, blank cds and dvds, and on and on the list goes. I hope this decision gets overturned on appeal.
[19] Key passages from the trial judgeâ(TM)s reasons with respect to the issue of whether hyperlinking in this case amounted to the publication of the defamatory articles by Mr. Newton are paras. 29-31, as follows:
[29] A hyperlink is like a footnote or a reference to a website in printed material such as a newsletter [as in Carter]. The purpose of a hyperlink is to direct the reader to additional material from a different source. The only difference is the ease with which a hyperlink allows the reader, with a simple click of the mouse, to instantly access the additional material.
[30] Although a hyperlink provides immediate access to material published on another website, this does not amount to republication of the content on the originating site. This is especially so as a reader may or may not follow the hyperlinks provided.
[31] I conclude that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Carter leads to the same conclusion on the narrower issue before me. Readers of a newsletter, whether in paper form or online, who read of a reference to a third party website, may go to that website. I conclude that that does not make the publisher of the web address a publisher of what readers find when they get there.
[20] The trial judge emphasized that Mr. Newton did not publish any defamatory material in his own article on the p2pnet website; he did not reproduce any of the content from the impugned articles; and he did not comment on them. The trial judge adopted the proposition found in MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S. 2d 520 (Sup. Ct. 1952), and Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638, 69 N.E. 2d 682 (Ct. App. 1946), that âoereference to an article containing defamatory content without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory contentâ.
I'm not for the USA, and I'm wondering why you would give your SSN to some business, such as a cable company? There are other ways of proving your identity to them.
Here in Canada I don't give my SIN (same thing as your SSN) to anyone, most don't ever ask for it either. Pretty much the only time you are required to hand that number over is if you are opening a bank account or starting a new job. There just is no reason for regular businesses needing it.
I read someone's post, stating that they worked for a company that used the SSN as an ID for customers in a database, that to me has all sorts of trouble written all over it.
I remember being a beta tester for Office 2007, and really liked the new ribbon, I still do. The only downside to it, is that it wastes valuable screen space.
OpenOffice SHOULD NOT COPY IT, and rather do a cross between MS ribbon/IBM Lotus Symphony/KOffice, and make use of the wasted space on the side of the documents.
The problem is most people don't like change, even if it is better but requires some learning.
I think those scientists where wearing their beer goggles. LOL.
I'm not sure what their definition of beautiful is, because where I live there sure seems to be a lot of ugly men & women reproducing like rabbits. Honestly sometimes I can't believe that some of these people actually can attract a partner they're so repulsive. Thankfully, not all their offspring turn out as ugly.
I guess there is some truth to it, as today women can enhance and beautify any part of their body they want.
But, wipe off all that make-up, take away the tweezers & razors, waxing strips, hair dyes, and cosmetic surgeons, and yup...they are just as hairy and ugly as 3000 years ago.
Yeah if Microsoft did this, we would get all the MS fanboys saying how great it is. Oh and how they'll twist it some way into Linux stole that idea from Windows. LOL
Nobody is forced to keep up with the most current incarnations of the desktop. Some like Gnome, some like KDE 3.5, others like Xfce, I happen to like KDE 4.
Yes some features were missing when kde4 came out, but it's starting to be pretty good now. I wouldn't go back to kde3.5, ever.
The problem is not so much the KDE developers, I blame the users that can't cope with change. There is a general fear of change in our society and it starting to really get on my nerves.
I'm a believer that sometimes it's a good thing to start over fresh, rather than fixing, patching, adding, to old code.
I've been using it with Kubuntu since 9.04 came out, and haven't had any problems at all. Maybe I just got lucky? but I doubt it.
I regularly back up everything anyway, so I'm not too worried.
Have you checked out techsoup.org - it's a tech site for non-profits. I came across it a few years ago when I was searching for software, when I worked for a nonprofit. There are forums, products, how-to's, etc.
I've tried installing Linux on a few computers too. I have had nothing but success. Not sure if it has to do with me always choosing KDE over Gnome (I doubt it).
I've never tried on laptops so I have no idea what that outcome would be like.
My advice to anyone who wants to try Linux is first to try it out with either Live CD's or in VirtualBox, and for goodness sake, pick up a book such as Linux Bible, a bit of reading never killed anyone.
What the hell is wrong with people. Microsoft does not have any real interest in being compatible with other office software, it doesn't currently help their bottom line. I can understand their employees and shareholders sticking up for them, but the average user has nothing to gain supporting them on this issue.
All the other office software programs that use ODF are more compatible with each other than any of them with MS's version of ODF. Doesn't look like MS even tried.
You know, I've read several articles over the past few years about various patents granted, I think that the US Patent Office patents anything these days.
I think software should only have copyright as it's not actually a thing, widget or device, it is similar to recipes(like in cook books).
Think of the environmental benefits of having fewer cd's dvd's produced - just to be stockpiled in everyones homes then to end up in the garbage dumps, and fewer gas guzzling trucks on the roads is certainly a plus too.
PS...I'm not a green peace freak, just trying to look on the bright side of things. lol.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears to me, that the judge has made a very serious error. There are all sorts of technology that can be used to infringe on copyright. If we use this Judges logic, we would have to start banning internet browsers, email software, photocopiers, scanners, blank cds and dvds, and on and on the list goes.
I hope this decision gets overturned on appeal.
[19] Key passages from the trial judgeâ(TM)s reasons with respect to the issue of whether hyperlinking in this case amounted to the publication of the defamatory articles by Mr. Newton are paras. 29-31, as follows:
[29] A hyperlink is like a footnote or a reference to a website in printed material such as a newsletter [as in Carter]. The purpose of a hyperlink is to direct the reader to additional material from a different source. The only difference is the ease with which a hyperlink allows the reader, with a simple click of the mouse, to instantly access the additional material.
[30] Although a hyperlink provides immediate access to material published on another website, this does not amount to republication of the content on the originating site. This is especially so as a reader may or may not follow the hyperlinks provided.
[31] I conclude that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Carter leads to the same conclusion on the narrower issue before me. Readers of a newsletter, whether in paper form or online, who read of a reference to a third party website, may go to that website. I conclude that that does not make the publisher of the web address a publisher of what readers find when they get there.
[20] The trial judge emphasized that Mr. Newton did not publish any defamatory material in his own article on the p2pnet website; he did not reproduce any of the content from the impugned articles; and he did not comment on them. The trial judge adopted the proposition found in MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S. 2d 520 (Sup. Ct. 1952), and Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638, 69 N.E. 2d 682 (Ct. App. 1946), that âoereference to an article containing defamatory content without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory contentâ.
I'm not for the USA, and I'm wondering why you would give your SSN to some business, such as a cable company? There are other ways of proving your identity to them. Here in Canada I don't give my SIN (same thing as your SSN) to anyone, most don't ever ask for it either. Pretty much the only time you are required to hand that number over is if you are opening a bank account or starting a new job. There just is no reason for regular businesses needing it. I read someone's post, stating that they worked for a company that used the SSN as an ID for customers in a database, that to me has all sorts of trouble written all over it.
Well Said. Thank you.
I remember being a beta tester for Office 2007, and really liked the new ribbon, I still do. The only downside to it, is that it wastes valuable screen space. OpenOffice SHOULD NOT COPY IT, and rather do a cross between MS ribbon/IBM Lotus Symphony/KOffice, and make use of the wasted space on the side of the documents. The problem is most people don't like change, even if it is better but requires some learning.
I think those scientists where wearing their beer goggles. LOL. I'm not sure what their definition of beautiful is, because where I live there sure seems to be a lot of ugly men & women reproducing like rabbits. Honestly sometimes I can't believe that some of these people actually can attract a partner they're so repulsive. Thankfully, not all their offspring turn out as ugly. I guess there is some truth to it, as today women can enhance and beautify any part of their body they want. But, wipe off all that make-up, take away the tweezers & razors, waxing strips, hair dyes, and cosmetic surgeons, and yup...they are just as hairy and ugly as 3000 years ago.
Yeah if Microsoft did this, we would get all the MS fanboys saying how great it is. Oh and how they'll twist it some way into Linux stole that idea from Windows. LOL
Hey, thanks for the example
Nobody is forced to keep up with the most current incarnations of the desktop. Some like Gnome, some like KDE 3.5, others like Xfce, I happen to like KDE 4. Yes some features were missing when kde4 came out, but it's starting to be pretty good now. I wouldn't go back to kde3.5, ever. The problem is not so much the KDE developers, I blame the users that can't cope with change. There is a general fear of change in our society and it starting to really get on my nerves. I'm a believer that sometimes it's a good thing to start over fresh, rather than fixing, patching, adding, to old code.
I've been using it with Kubuntu since 9.04 came out, and haven't had any problems at all. Maybe I just got lucky? but I doubt it. I regularly back up everything anyway, so I'm not too worried.
Have you checked out techsoup.org - it's a tech site for non-profits. I came across it a few years ago when I was searching for software, when I worked for a nonprofit. There are forums, products, how-to's, etc.
I've tried installing Linux on a few computers too. I have had nothing but success. Not sure if it has to do with me always choosing KDE over Gnome (I doubt it). I've never tried on laptops so I have no idea what that outcome would be like. My advice to anyone who wants to try Linux is first to try it out with either Live CD's or in VirtualBox, and for goodness sake, pick up a book such as Linux Bible, a bit of reading never killed anyone.
What the hell is wrong with people. Microsoft does not have any real interest in being compatible with other office software, it doesn't currently help their bottom line. I can understand their employees and shareholders sticking up for them, but the average user has nothing to gain supporting them on this issue. All the other office software programs that use ODF are more compatible with each other than any of them with MS's version of ODF. Doesn't look like MS even tried.
You know, I've read several articles over the past few years about various patents granted, I think that the US Patent Office patents anything these days. I think software should only have copyright as it's not actually a thing, widget or device, it is similar to recipes(like in cook books).
Well said!!
Think of the environmental benefits of having fewer cd's dvd's produced - just to be stockpiled in everyones homes then to end up in the garbage dumps, and fewer gas guzzling trucks on the roads is certainly a plus too. PS...I'm not a green peace freak, just trying to look on the bright side of things. lol.