If I hear another radio person say "my web site is at...
The announcer on NPR who reads off the underwriting credits needs to win some kind of award for annoying announcers. Every time he announces a.com address it sounds like.caam That just bugs the shit out of me.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
posting copyrighted material is the brou-ha-ha that's currently getting Slashdot into some hot shit with Microsoft
Wht makes you think that/. is in hot shit? This is the best of all possible worlds for them. They get a ton of free publicity fighting a company generally despised by their audience with virtually no legal liability. It costs them a relatively small amount for legal costs. What kind of actual damages is Microsoft going to claim? I really doubt that they filed for a copyright for the document before the infringement which would earn them statutory damages.
In short, there ain't no shit here -- neither hot nor cold.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Unless it's Fair Use. It's difficult to tell if something falls under the fair use defense to copyright infringement. There are a series of tests specified in Title 17 and no clear way to tell if an actual use is or is not fair use.
The fact that the entire document was posted tends to fight against fair use, but no single element is conclusive. Other elements include whether the infringement is for purposes of education or commentary, the effect on the market for similar works.
The fact that they have been giving away the dcoument argues in favor of fair use. The fact that the information was posted to assist interoperability of Samba with Windows 2000 argues in favor of fair use. The questions being asked by the lawyer here, if answered, would go to determining severla of the other elements of fair use.
In summary,/. having the entire document on its server does not automatically put it in the wrong.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I'm not surprised. But they must have not been educating their sales force on it becuase no one in the Manhattan store front that I visited last May knew a damn thing about it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
However, it is probably still a matter of copyright infringement
Unless it qualifies under Fair Use. The fact that the entire document was quoted tends to weigh against Fair Use but no one factor is determinitive. The other required features of the analysis seem to weigh in favor of Fair Use.
The questions being asked in the reply go directly to the other elements of Fair Use.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
A year ago I was looking or the same thing. Here in NYC, Omnipoint and AT&T didn't have a clue about wireless data, but Bell Atlantic Mobile had some sweet deals. I ended up buying a Sierra Wireless Aircard and a Mitsubishi Amity sub-notebook onto which I installed Mandrake (OK, I know it's not the form factor your interested in) and I now have 5 hours of wireless 640x480 web for a price of $25 per month and less than 2 lbs in my briefcase. I literally use it every day for email, web and ssh.
The last time I was in the BAM shop, they had Palm divices, so there are definately options out there.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Re:This is similar to VCR tapes.
on
Can I Lend DVDs?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the additional cost was all there was. There could very well be an additional license that the rental joint needs in order to charge for the rental that could even cost them a per copy fee.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The images (except for choosing which ad to serve up) are static data. The rest of the pages are extremely dynamic data. Each page you read is lovingly built just for you. The optimizations you want on the two very different types of web serving are very different. Ergo, two types of servers with different tunings. The number of servers of each type is then determined by the relative loads. I was suprised at the ratio of 3 image to 5 page servers. I would have thought that fewer image servers would be required.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Hello, AC, nice of you to join us. Why don't you get an ID and we can talk.
The slightly blue white plastic case of the lander is normal, if you do not like it, take a look at the original image, which shows also blue sky.
One can't tell if the blue-white plastic case is normal without a color standard to test it against. The apparent color of an object is a function of its reflective properties and the spectrum of light used to illuminate it. Something which is blue-white plastic on Eath may not appear blue-white on Mars if the spectrum of the incident light does not have the same spectral characteristics.
We can't compare to the original image if the original image hasn't been color corrected, but needs to be. And it appears to me that the original image has not been (properly) color corrected.
Furthermore, why would you expect that a method that "works" on Viking would work on Pathfinder unless the imaging hardware were identical?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The VCR tapes that you rent at the local video store often cost the store much more than the ones that they can sell to customers. Typically, the studios initially make tapes available to rental shops at a much higher price per copy and then later sell them to consumers at a lower rate.
There are exceptions where the studios want to get a whole lot of copies of a popular movie out, so all the copies are sold cheaply, but for limited interest releases (I had to wait 6 weeks after _The Truth About Cats and Dogs_ came out for rental before I could actually buy a copy as a present for my wife who, inexplicably, really liked the movie), the two stage release schedule is common.
The bottom line is, you can loan it to your friends and family, but you can't rent it for a fee. You would have to contract with the distributor and pay the higher for rent cost if you had the intention of renting them out.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
He says, "With the same method [ ] one arrives to 1 also with the graphic data Mars of the Pathfinders (Pic. F) at this colour (Pic. G), whereby however the sharpness of the original pictures by far not here is comparable with the excellent Viking data, there with the Pathfinder mission a information-reducing picture compression (comparable with JPEG) one used."
What method? Arbitrarially increasing the blue and the green because you liked how it looked on the Viking images?
The guy is also woefully misinformed about the amount of water in the atmosphere and the persistance of dust in the atmosphere.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Don't resort to the threats of lawyers when a technical solution is in your own hands. There's even a legal theory that one can't use the courts when one hasn't attempted to mitigate the damage using the means under your own control.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
He did a good deed for an evil corporation. It didn't cost him much out of pocket, but he bothered to do it. He entitled to use this soapbox occasionally. If he misuses or overuses it, we may choose to stop listening. We may choose not to listen to him now, but the soapbox is his. That's what free speech is all about. Look into it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
If somebody wrote a program for linux that allowed shell scripts to run when you double-click 'em, do you really think it would be any more secure?
Yes. Because someone would write it so that you had a choice of options. View the attachment, file the attachment, save the attachment to disk, execute the attachment. The broken, brain-damaged Microsoft way is there is only one way to "Open" a file and that is to open it with the program that is associated with that file extension. There are at least three instances of brokenness and/or brain-damage in the preceeding sentence. One of those is that MS uses extentions to associate files with applications, but Office applications use file contents to determine file types. You can save a Word document with a startup macro with a.rtf extension and MS Word will open the file and execute the Macro. The user has no means to determine if the file has what it's extension says it has.
I have to use Microsoft products at work, but I don't have to like it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Yeah, that MP sketch came to mind when I decided to change the post from three things to four things. Apparently I missed one instance of three. Gee, I wish that this browser edit control had a vi emulation mode. As it is, I'm in the habit of hitting Esc when I finish a thought and in this lousy browesr, Esc clears the edit control. =:^O
new To_Do_List_Item = "code up a vi-compatible edit control for Mozilla"
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Why does MS even need to invoke the DMCA here? It seems that they could just invoke the license agreement, and allege breach of contract or something.
Microsoft has no contract with Slashdot.
Microsoft does have the DCMA hammer with which to attempt to pound Slashdot, But as someone else said here, trying to censor the entire Internet is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
is slashdot gonna gun for the DMCA?
I hope so. Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down.
There are three types of things that Microsoft is demanding be taken down.
1. The posting of a complete copy of the document.
2. The posting of portions of the document.
3. The posting of links to the complete document.
4. The posting of comments describing how to open the document without running it.
#1 probably has to go and this is the point you've made. Slashdot can mark the single such post as -2 and it will disappear.
The remaining items must stay. #2 because the quoting in in the context of commenting on it is arguably fair use, but since the guidelines for determining fair use are deliberately not clearly specified, they have to choose between erring on the side of caution and erring on the side of freedom. The DCMA forces them to make determinations that only a court can make.
#3 must stay. A link is just a reference to another location. The contents of that location may or may not be infringing material. Slashdot has no comtrol over the other location and non-infringing material could be replaced with infringing material at any time. Microsoft needs to talk to the administrators of those sites.
#4 must stay because the DCMA section 1201(b) is not constitutional. I joked a few weeks ago about Microsoft suing someone on Slashdot because they told how to deencrypt the copyrighted phrase "Netscape engineers are weenies!" which had been encrypted by writing it backwards. The EXE file used to distribute the document does not run on Linux and other Open Source OSs, but the means to extract the content does. If Microsoft has given people the right to download the document, they have given people the right to read it.
The claims made by Microsoft are overbroad. The answer on three of them is clear. Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
What kind of damages can Microsoft win in this case? If they haven't filed for copyright protection before the infringing action occurs (and they probably haven't), they are not entitled to statutory damages. If they have to prove damages, they're effectively up a creek because they're giving the document away.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Pulling a post because it violates copyright in response to a specific complaint is not "editorial control".
I strongly suspect that/. will have to pull the posts that posted the entire contents of the document. It's hard to argue fair use when the entire document is published without comments.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The DCMA makes people who want to claim the ISP exemption make decisions about what is and what is not "fair use" that they are not qualified to make. Fair use is a very complex piece of law for which there are very few clear guidlines. News sources do not have the expertise nor the resources to judge fair use and the law which puts this burden on them may be unconstituional in that regard.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of whether strongarm tactics can be employed to take his off-shore site down, can he be prosecuted in the US for hosting it?
If he either lives or has assets in the US, yes. Just because a server is overseas, dosn't give him a free ride.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
According to Nitrozac!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
If I hear another radio person say "my web site is at...
.com address it sounds like .caam That just bugs the shit out of me.
The announcer on NPR who reads off the underwriting credits needs to win some kind of award for annoying announcers. Every time he announces a
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
posting copyrighted material is the brou-ha-ha that's currently getting Slashdot into some hot shit with Microsoft
/. is in hot shit? This is the best of all possible worlds for them. They get a ton of free publicity fighting a company generally despised by their audience with virtually no legal liability. It costs them a relatively small amount for legal costs. What kind of actual damages is Microsoft going to claim? I really doubt that they filed for a copyright for the document before the infringement which would earn them statutory damages.
Wht makes you think that
In short, there ain't no shit here -- neither hot nor cold.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
/. having the entire document on its server does not automatically put it in the wrong.
Unless it's Fair Use. It's difficult to tell if something falls under the fair use defense to copyright infringement. There are a series of tests specified in Title 17 and no clear way to tell if an actual use is or is not fair use.
The fact that the entire document was posted tends to fight against fair use, but no single element is conclusive. Other elements include whether the infringement is for purposes of education or commentary, the effect on the market for similar works.
The fact that they have been giving away the dcoument argues in favor of fair use. The fact that the information was posted to assist interoperability of Samba with Windows 2000 argues in favor of fair use. The questions being asked by the lawyer here, if answered, would go to determining severla of the other elements of fair use.
In summary,
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
AT&T has had wireless data out for 3 years
I'm not surprised. But they must have not been educating their sales force on it becuase no one in the Manhattan store front that I visited last May knew a damn thing about it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
However, it is probably still a matter of copyright infringement
Unless it qualifies under Fair Use. The fact that the entire document was quoted tends to weigh against Fair Use but no one factor is determinitive. The other required features of the analysis seem to weigh in favor of Fair Use.
The questions being asked in the reply go directly to the other elements of Fair Use.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
A year ago I was looking or the same thing. Here in NYC, Omnipoint and AT&T didn't have a clue about wireless data, but Bell Atlantic Mobile had some sweet deals. I ended up buying a Sierra Wireless Aircard and a Mitsubishi Amity sub-notebook onto which I installed Mandrake (OK, I know it's not the form factor your interested in) and I now have 5 hours of wireless 640x480 web for a price of $25 per month and less than 2 lbs in my briefcase. I literally use it every day for email, web and ssh.
The last time I was in the BAM shop, they had Palm divices, so there are definately options out there.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the additional cost was all there was. There could very well be an additional license that the rental joint needs in order to charge for the rental that could even cost them a per copy fee.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The images (except for choosing which ad to serve up) are static data. The rest of the pages are extremely dynamic data. Each page you read is lovingly built just for you. The optimizations you want on the two very different types of web serving are very different. Ergo, two types of servers with different tunings. The number of servers of each type is then determined by the relative loads. I was suprised at the ratio of 3 image to 5 page servers. I would have thought that fewer image servers would be required.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I am sorry, but i do not know anything about web serving
/. before the new server? Unless you're sitting on a T1, it was actually painful.
Yes, but did you actually try to read
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Hello, AC, nice of you to join us. Why don't you get an ID and we can talk.
The slightly blue white plastic case of the lander is normal, if you do not like it, take a look at the original image, which shows also blue sky.
One can't tell if the blue-white plastic case is normal without a color standard to test it against. The apparent color of an object is a function of its reflective properties and the spectrum of light used to illuminate it. Something which is blue-white plastic on Eath may not appear blue-white on Mars if the spectrum of the incident light does not have the same spectral characteristics.
We can't compare to the original image if the original image hasn't been color corrected, but needs to be. And it appears to me that the original image has not been (properly) color corrected.
Furthermore, why would you expect that a method that "works" on Viking would work on Pathfinder unless the imaging hardware were identical?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The VCR tapes that you rent at the local video store often cost the store much more than the ones that they can sell to customers. Typically, the studios initially make tapes available to rental shops at a much higher price per copy and then later sell them to consumers at a lower rate.
There are exceptions where the studios want to get a whole lot of copies of a popular movie out, so all the copies are sold cheaply, but for limited interest releases (I had to wait 6 weeks after _The Truth About Cats and Dogs_ came out for rental before I could actually buy a copy as a present for my wife who, inexplicably, really liked the movie), the two stage release schedule is common.
The bottom line is, you can loan it to your friends and family, but you can't rent it for a fee. You would have to contract with the distributor and pay the higher for rent cost if you had the intention of renting them out.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
He says, "With the same method [ ] one arrives to 1 also with the graphic data Mars of the Pathfinders (Pic. F) at this colour (Pic. G), whereby however the sharpness of the original pictures by far not here is comparable with the excellent Viking data, there with the Pathfinder mission a information-reducing picture compression (comparable with JPEG) one used."
What method? Arbitrarially increasing the blue and the green because you liked how it looked on the Viking images?
The guy is also woefully misinformed about the amount of water in the atmosphere and the persistance of dust in the atmosphere.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Don't resort to the threats of lawyers when a technical solution is in your own hands. There's even a legal theory that one can't use the courts when one hasn't attempted to mitigate the damage using the means under your own control.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Is there something wrong with the After Y2K Slashdot Gladiators poster? Or this classic pool shot?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I mean, Steve Case owns a bundle of AOL and soon will own a bundle of Time-Warner.
What's that?
Stevie Case?
<click> <click> <click>
Never mind.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
He did a good deed for an evil corporation. It didn't cost him much out of pocket, but he bothered to do it. He entitled to use this soapbox occasionally. If he misuses or overuses it, we may choose to stop listening. We may choose not to listen to him now, but the soapbox is his. That's what free speech is all about. Look into it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
If somebody wrote a program for linux that allowed shell scripts to run when you double-click 'em, do you really think it would be any more secure?
.rtf extension and MS Word will open the file and execute the Macro. The user has no means to determine if the file has what it's extension says it has.
Yes. Because someone would write it so that you had a choice of options. View the attachment, file the attachment, save the attachment to disk, execute the attachment. The broken, brain-damaged Microsoft way is there is only one way to "Open" a file and that is to open it with the program that is associated with that file extension. There are at least three instances of brokenness and/or brain-damage in the preceeding sentence. One of those is that MS uses extentions to associate files with applications, but Office applications use file contents to determine file types. You can save a Word document with a startup macro with a
I have to use Microsoft products at work, but I don't have to like it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Yeah, that MP sketch came to mind when I decided to change the post from three things to four things. Apparently I missed one instance of three. Gee, I wish that this browser edit control had a vi emulation mode. As it is, I'm in the habit of hitting Esc when I finish a thought and in this lousy browesr, Esc clears the edit control. =:^O
new To_Do_List_Item = "code up a vi-compatible edit control for Mozilla"
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Why does MS even need to invoke the DMCA here? It seems that they could just invoke the license agreement, and allege breach of contract or something.
Microsoft has no contract with Slashdot.
Microsoft does have the DCMA hammer with which to attempt to pound Slashdot, But as someone else said here, trying to censor the entire Internet is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
is slashdot gonna gun for the DMCA?
I hope so.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down.
There are three types of things that Microsoft is demanding be taken down.
1. The posting of a complete copy of the document.
2. The posting of portions of the document.
3. The posting of links to the complete document.
4. The posting of comments describing how to open the document without running it.
#1 probably has to go and this is the point you've made. Slashdot can mark the single such post as -2 and it will disappear.
The remaining items must stay. #2 because the quoting in in the context of commenting on it is arguably fair use, but since the guidelines for determining fair use are deliberately not clearly specified, they have to choose between erring on the side of caution and erring on the side of freedom. The DCMA forces them to make determinations that only a court can make.
#3 must stay. A link is just a reference to another location. The contents of that location may or may not be infringing material. Slashdot has no comtrol over the other location and non-infringing material could be replaced with infringing material at any time. Microsoft needs to talk to the administrators of those sites.
#4 must stay because the DCMA section 1201(b) is not constitutional. I joked a few weeks ago about Microsoft suing someone on Slashdot because they told how to deencrypt the copyrighted phrase "Netscape engineers are weenies!" which had been encrypted by writing it backwards. The EXE file used to distribute the document does not run on Linux and other Open Source OSs, but the means to extract the content does. If Microsoft has given people the right to download the document, they have given people the right to read it.
The claims made by Microsoft are overbroad. The answer on three of them is clear.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
What kind of damages can Microsoft win in this case? If they haven't filed for copyright protection before the infringing action occurs (and they probably haven't), they are not entitled to statutory damages. If they have to prove damages, they're effectively up a creek because they're giving the document away.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Pulling a post because it violates copyright in response to a specific complaint is not "editorial control".
/. will have to pull the posts that posted the entire contents of the document. It's hard to argue fair use when the entire document is published without comments.
I strongly suspect that
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The DCMA makes people who want to claim the ISP
exemption make decisions about what is and what is not "fair use" that they are not qualified to make. Fair use is a very complex piece of law for which there are very few clear guidlines. News sources do not have the expertise nor the resources to judge fair use and the law which puts this burden on them may be unconstituional in that regard.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected