The Real World... Is What WE Make It
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
a lesson in the way the real world works
That the entrenched powers will always win their case. Individuals do not matter. Money is everything. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. Etc, etc, etc.
I much prefer optimism. The precedents which are being set now need be reversed. Then the geeks can move in and set the sorry state of affairs of our judiciary and corporate welfare right.
You do forget to address the outrageous amount being charged ("awarded") for each CD copied from optical media (on which it was bought) to magnetic media (a backup copy). Where in the world does the Judge get $25,000 per backup'd up CD from? Also, why is a business not allowed to make backup copies of music it has licensed (which mp3.com did when it bought the CD's) when an individual is? I say MP3.com was well within its rights when it backuped up those CD's to its hard drives, just as I am when I do. Streaming the music to other licensed owners seems to be the only grey area, though the judge exonerated them on that... Maybe because if you and I are both licensed to have the same IP then we can obviously share our copies of that IP. Duh!
Not the same thing. Copyright holders of Internet content have - in general - permitted the publishing of their words for viewers to download and read. I think Universal (and the judge) are wrong in this case. However, Universal did not permit my.mp3.com to publish their (Universal's) content to the web.
Less than one week prior to trial, on July 10, 2000, an executive vice president of Warner Brothers, one of the named plaintiffs,
revealed during depositions that the firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison represented and advised Warner Brothers over
an extended period of time, beginning in 1993, with respect to "DVD matters" when DVD technology was in its infancy and prior to
being brought to market (See, Exhibit __ attached to the initial Affidavit of Martin Garbus, being a portion of the transcript of the
King Deposition). At that time Judge Kaplan was a member of the Paul Weiss firm. Moreover, he worked in the antitrust unit of the
firm, on information and belief. Paul Weiss was then advising Warner Brothers on antitrust issues respecting DVDs, an issue in this
litigation.
That revelation, coming at approximately 8:00 p.m. on July 10, prompted a review by counsel of the approprietness of Judge
Kaplan continuing to sit as the preceding judge. It was during that review that an even more startling revelation came to light: that
Judge Kaplan, while still at Paul Weiss, had cautioned a colleague against associating with Mr. Garbus, the lead counsel for these
defendants, falsely accusing Mr. Garbus of engaging in a singularly odious violation of professional ethics by surreptitiously reading
Judge Kaplan's partner's files during a court recess.
Upon being informed of these reports, Mr. Garbus became concerned that not only had the Court an inappropriate relationship with
one of the named plaintiffs, but harbored a deep-seated animosity towards him personally, a belief already held, but whose origins
were now understood. He immediately contacted the Court and sought a telephone conference call with the Court on that very day,
July 11. During that conference call, Judge Kaplan confirmed that he had, in fact, known of "the story", but declined to say whether
or not he had adopted it as true, leaving unrebutted Mr. Kurnit's clear recollection that he used it in advising a colleague against
associating with Mr. Garbus (See, transcript of telephone proceeding of July 11, 2000 attached hereto as Exhibit __).
It is difficult to identify any idea that the Supreme Court has rebuffed so
repeatedly as the movie industry's overly agressive interpretation of
intellectual property rights. Movie industry credibility on copyright should be
treated like the tobacco industry on health matters: listen to what they say and
believe the opposite.
Normally, one would expect a Federal Judge to identify such clear overreaching.
The collective market power of the MPAA studios bears down on the DVD player
market, forcing an unwanted licence down the throats of any would be
competitor. The violation of antitrust laws, and the misuse of intellectual
property are so obvious it shocks the conscience.
Sadly, the judge in the NY DVD case refuses to recognize these arguments, but,
as he admits, his former law firm was responsible for advising Time Warner on
DVD antitrust matters while the Judge practiced there. Despite this, Judge
Kaplan refuses to recuse himself. No reasonable person could believe that such a
judge would repudiate the prophylactic antitrust work of his own firm, and any
hope of a fair judgement must be abandoned. The recent precedent in Panama v.
American Tobacco Company, No. 99-30685 (5th Cir. 7/20/2000) on a very similar
recusal situation only confirms that the judge should have stepped down.
Fortunately, the integrity of the process the Copyright Office has been using is
beyond reproach.
The laws are meant specifically to cover corporate espionage. Those are usually pretty clear cut as to who is in the wrong. For journalism, however, things get trickier and the waters muddy. Publishing info obtained in violation of somebody else's NDA about future product releases is a very sensitive area. What if another company worked to leak that info to the paper's for its own benefit? Or, on the other hand, how can it be determined how the info travelled from inside to outside the corporation? What if a waiter overhears a dinner conversation between corporate employees, does not know the info is covered under NDA, and tells his friend in journalism the juicy details? Still, if you have a leaking ship, lawsuits are one way to help plug up the holes. I got the impression the info about the Cube was deliberately leaked by those under NDA and without Apple's permission (from reading the rumor sites myself in advance of the Cube's intro). Sueing the forumns where the info was published could serve to allow discovery (investigation) of who passed on the info, depending on how things go... It is hard to say I like anything which might stifle journalism, but I hardly expect these 'news' sources to cooperate with Apple without legal pressure. A judge really needs to decided how far Apple can go with its investigation, balancing the law referenced above with freedom of the press considerations. And that is exactly what will happen. Wait to see how it plays out. It may not be as bad as it seems.
This is the best article I've read posted to Slashdot in a long time. Kudo to CmdrTaco for standing up for opinion. And, hey, I happen to agree. There is no basis for the election of a president who used cocaine during his "formative" years and lies to the general public about such use (this is even before he's president) -- when at the same time he stands together with those -- mostly Republicans -- who choose to bash the current president over a perfectly legal sexual encounter. Vote NO for neW Coke!
Believe me, many people are trying to outlaw racism. I know a kid who was kicked out of school for using the "n" word. I think that really set a bad precedent for speech issues and, moreover, did more harm than good. Restricting the expression of a particular word, no matter how hurtful, gives the word power it would not otherwise have. I still am to this day afraid to use the word because of this incident, not because of how hurtful the utterance might be. Because it was so poweful as to necessitate action.
As Marcus Ranum, CTO for Network Flight Recorder, has clearly shown, the release of the information contained in these pages would constitute "full disclosure" of the blueprints for a possible hacker attack. The "grey hats" at Nature truly know not how security should be maintained. They have been silenced for your safety and protection. As a precautionary measure, their bodies have already been disposed of. There's nothing more to see here. Please move along.
Then, obviously, you can also do it with an IOMEGA Zip 250 disk drive cartridge, or Jaz (have those been discontinued yet?). Or, an ORB... I wish we had an industry standard form of removable small storage without licensor dominance by one company -- oh, yeah, a CD-R 650 to 700 MB disk. (Re)Writers can be purchased for a little more than Zip 100 or SuperDisk, media costs about $.40 cents in spindles of 100, and rewriteable (CD-RW) media is down to a dollar or less in bulk.
It shows how stupid Mr. Gates really is. Which is scarey because through his wealth he has more influence and power than anyone on this chatboard will ever help to have.
Knowing the specific purpose behind the protocol design of the Internet (back when it was ARPANET) -- to withstand bombing of nodes on the network without losing networking ability between the remaining nodes of the network/internet -- you should still be able to send your email with the U.S. ISP's being "off" (after the FBI's 'carnivore' switched us off).
Still, U.S. ISP's may own Internet infrastructure outside of the U.S. which could interfere with outside U.S. communications.
My suggestion: end Carnivore now -- it means the end to ANY private communications inside the U.S. -- about the worse thing to derive from the FBI since McCarthy (sp?).
Slashdot Mirror
a lesson in the way the real world works
That the entrenched powers will always win their case. Individuals do not matter. Money is everything. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. Etc, etc, etc.
I much prefer optimism. The precedents which are being set now need be reversed. Then the geeks can move in and set the sorry state of affairs of our judiciary and corporate welfare right.
--
I've been wondering... who's the industry sponsor?
--
You really shouldn't be punished for your beliefs.
--
You do forget to address the outrageous amount being charged ("awarded") for each CD copied from optical media (on which it was bought) to magnetic media (a backup copy). Where in the world does the Judge get $25,000 per backup'd up CD from? Also, why is a business not allowed to make backup copies of music it has licensed (which mp3.com did when it bought the CD's) when an individual is? I say MP3.com was well within its rights when it backuped up those CD's to its hard drives, just as I am when I do. Streaming the music to other licensed owners seems to be the only grey area, though the judge exonerated them on that... Maybe because if you and I are both licensed to have the same IP then we can obviously share our copies of that IP. Duh!
--
Not the same thing. Copyright holders of Internet content have - in general - permitted the publishing of their words for viewers to download and read. I think Universal (and the judge) are wrong in this case. However, Universal did not permit my.mp3.com to publish their (Universal's) content to the web.
--
It sounds like Napster is 100% legal then.
--
I am disgusted by arbitrary taxes on any consumer electronics devices, and now, it seems, computer devices.
From where does the United States government derive the right to tax on behalf of Sony?
Is this why the Philips CD-R stereo component costs about $200 more than a similar computer CD-R drive?
--
KDE is already playing the game by responding. Kind of funny to see them squirm though.
--
And, finally, a computer virus will be a real virus.
--
http://ww w.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000714_def_ny_ recus_aff.html
--
http://www.e ff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000714_def_ny_rec us_memo.html
c us_memo.html
Less than one week prior to trial, on July 10, 2000, an executive vice president of Warner Brothers, one of the named plaintiffs, revealed during depositions that the firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison represented and advised Warner Brothers over an extended period of time, beginning in 1993, with respect to "DVD matters" when DVD technology was in its infancy and prior to being brought to market (See, Exhibit __ attached to the initial Affidavit of Martin Garbus, being a portion of the transcript of the King Deposition). At that time Judge Kaplan was a member of the Paul Weiss firm. Moreover, he worked in the antitrust unit of the firm, on information and belief. Paul Weiss was then advising Warner Brothers on antitrust issues respecting DVDs, an issue in this litigation.
That revelation, coming at approximately 8:00 p.m. on July 10, prompted a review by counsel of the approprietness of Judge Kaplan continuing to sit as the preceding judge. It was during that review that an even more startling revelation came to light: that Judge Kaplan, while still at Paul Weiss, had cautioned a colleague against associating with Mr. Garbus, the lead counsel for these defendants, falsely accusing Mr. Garbus of engaging in a singularly odious violation of professional ethics by surreptitiously reading Judge Kaplan's partner's files during a court recess.
Upon being informed of these reports, Mr. Garbus became concerned that not only had the Court an inappropriate relationship with one of the named plaintiffs, but harbored a deep-seated animosity towards him personally, a belief already held, but whose origins were now understood. He immediately contacted the Court and sought a telephone conference call with the Court on that very day, July 11. During that conference call, Judge Kaplan confirmed that he had, in fact, known of "the story", but declined to say whether or not he had adopted it as true, leaving unrebutted Mr. Kurnit's clear recollection that he used it in advising a colleague against associating with Mr. Garbus (See, transcript of telephone proceeding of July 11, 2000 attached hereto as Exhibit __).
http://www.e ff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000714_def_ny_re
--
http://bioinformatics.u csf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/LOC_109_RFC.txt
It is difficult to identify any idea that the Supreme Court has rebuffed so repeatedly as the movie industry's overly agressive interpretation of intellectual property rights. Movie industry credibility on copyright should be treated like the tobacco industry on health matters: listen to what they say and believe the opposite.
Normally, one would expect a Federal Judge to identify such clear overreaching. The collective market power of the MPAA studios bears down on the DVD player market, forcing an unwanted licence down the throats of any would be competitor. The violation of antitrust laws, and the misuse of intellectual property are so obvious it shocks the conscience.
Sadly, the judge in the NY DVD case refuses to recognize these arguments, but, as he admits, his former law firm was responsible for advising Time Warner on DVD antitrust matters while the Judge practiced there. Despite this, Judge Kaplan refuses to recuse himself. No reasonable person could believe that such a judge would repudiate the prophylactic antitrust work of his own firm, and any hope of a fair judgement must be abandoned. The recent precedent in Panama v. American Tobacco Company, No. 99-30685 (5th Cir. 7/20/2000) on a very similar recusal situation only confirms that the judge should have stepped down. Fortunately, the integrity of the process the Copyright Office has been using is beyond reproach.
http://bioinformatics.u csf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/LOC_109_RFC.txt
--
The laws are meant specifically to cover corporate espionage. Those are usually pretty clear cut as to who is in the wrong. For journalism, however, things get trickier and the waters muddy. Publishing info obtained in violation of somebody else's NDA about future product releases is a very sensitive area. What if another company worked to leak that info to the paper's for its own benefit? Or, on the other hand, how can it be determined how the info travelled from inside to outside the corporation? What if a waiter overhears a dinner conversation between corporate employees, does not know the info is covered under NDA, and tells his friend in journalism the juicy details? Still, if you have a leaking ship, lawsuits are one way to help plug up the holes. I got the impression the info about the Cube was deliberately leaked by those under NDA and without Apple's permission (from reading the rumor sites myself in advance of the Cube's intro). Sueing the forumns where the info was published could serve to allow discovery (investigation) of who passed on the info, depending on how things go... It is hard to say I like anything which might stifle journalism, but I hardly expect these 'news' sources to cooperate with Apple without legal pressure. A judge really needs to decided how far Apple can go with its investigation, balancing the law referenced above with freedom of the press considerations. And that is exactly what will happen. Wait to see how it plays out. It may not be as bad as it seems.
--
Ha-ha... well, then, it's perfect for porn!
(Trade secrets, product rumors, & illegal device compatibility descriptions - like DeCSS - will fit nicely, too.)
--
This is the best article I've read posted to Slashdot in a long time. Kudo to CmdrTaco for standing up for opinion. And, hey, I happen to agree. There is no basis for the election of a president who used cocaine during his "formative" years and lies to the general public about such use (this is even before he's president) -- when at the same time he stands together with those -- mostly Republicans -- who choose to bash the current president over a perfectly legal sexual encounter. Vote NO for neW Coke!
--
If you want to refute -- especially commonly accepted info previously documented on Slashdot -- provide documentation.
Windows 2000 Has 65,000+ Bugs
--
There is no such thing as "a 'trade secret to protect copyright issue'."
--
Believe me, many people are trying to outlaw racism. I know a kid who was kicked out of school for using the "n" word. I think that really set a bad precedent for speech issues and, moreover, did more harm than good. Restricting the expression of a particular word, no matter how hurtful, gives the word power it would not otherwise have. I still am to this day afraid to use the word because of this incident, not because of how hurtful the utterance might be. Because it was so poweful as to necessitate action.
--
As Marcus Ranum, CTO for Network Flight Recorder, has clearly shown, the release of the information contained in these pages would constitute "full disclosure" of the blueprints for a possible hacker attack. The "grey hats" at Nature truly know not how security should be maintained. They have been silenced for your safety and protection. As a precautionary measure, their bodies have already been disposed of. There's nothing more to see here. Please move along.
--
Lol!
--
Then, obviously, you can also do it with an IOMEGA Zip 250 disk drive cartridge, or Jaz (have those been discontinued yet?). Or, an ORB... I wish we had an industry standard form of removable small storage without licensor dominance by one company -- oh, yeah, a CD-R 650 to 700 MB disk. (Re)Writers can be purchased for a little more than Zip 100 or SuperDisk, media costs about $.40 cents in spindles of 100, and rewriteable (CD-RW) media is down to a dollar or less in bulk.
--
It shows how stupid Mr. Gates really is. Which is scarey because through his wealth he has more influence and power than anyone on this chatboard will ever help to have.
--
Seems someone else noticed the disappearance of Cryptome.org after the FBI ordered them to remove material. Hmm...
--
I found a copy here: http://web.elastic.org/~fche/mirror s/coxreport/.
Please set up a mirror quickly.
--
Knowing the specific purpose behind the protocol design of the Internet (back when it was ARPANET) -- to withstand bombing of nodes on the network without losing networking ability between the remaining nodes of the network/internet -- you should still be able to send your email with the U.S. ISP's being "off" (after the FBI's 'carnivore' switched us off).
Still, U.S. ISP's may own Internet infrastructure outside of the U.S. which could interfere with outside U.S. communications.
My suggestion: end Carnivore now -- it means the end to ANY private communications inside the U.S. -- about the worse thing to derive from the FBI since McCarthy (sp?).
I am very disturbed by this article at The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12117.html , since it seems that the FBI has succeeded in removing the website as of today.
--