Correct mmkkbb (Flamebait, my ass). If you think being slapped on the wrist by the MPAA is like being shot and shoved in a ditch by the SS, you need to take a step back from the computer screen and attempt to interact with the real world.
it is down now simply because they didn't have the money to fight a lawsuit.
Bull. The EFF, and various other civil rights groups -- as well as pro bono lawyers -- have come to the aid of those people wrongfully accused. DVD Jon springs to mind. The difference is, DVD Jon actually had a case. No-one is helping Loki Torrent because everyone knows they did exactly what they're accused of, and if the MPAA choose to continue litigation not even Johnny Cochrane could prevent the Loki boys getting absolutely crucified at trial.
This website has been permanently shut down by court order because it facilitates the illegal downloading of copyrighted motion pictures.
Let's face it. Every single word of that is true. Loki didn't quit because they ran out of money, they quit because they were going to lose, and they knew it.
They knew copyrighted material was being downloaded illegally, and they were more than happy to help facilitate that -- hell, that was pretty much the raison d'etre of their site.
No. They enforce retroactively. i) they insert clause in standard contract saying "We, the undersigned, are not buying our competitors trademarks" ii) if competitors notice that they have, and complain, google uses this clause to cancel contract, but keep money. iii) profit!
You don't have to. You just stop companies buying keywords that are other people's trademarks. And you don't even have to enforce that -- just reserve the right to unilaterally cancel the contract in the case of a rival pointing out that this has been done.
No, it doesn't. If amazon were to start selling that page position, it would. So if I searched on "Baseball Prospectus" and the "Readers also bought..." recommended "Baseball America", that's fine.
The difference is if Baseball America *paid* for that spot, so searching for their rival generates an ad for them.
Oh, yeah. You're right on this count. I was referring to the grand-parent who gave the example of lawn-mowing, as something that one could be fired for. I've no sympathy for Jen at all.
But you have to admit, there is something disturbing about the fact that they can fire you for, say, mowing your lawn in an inappropriate fashion
Well, I can't speak about the US, but in the UK, anyone fired for something completely unrelated to job performance and/or the company, can bring a case for wrongful dismissal, which usually results in cash damages and/or reinstatement.
PS : I know Tech people tend to have a reaction against union membership, but one has to wonder whether he'd still have a job if Google workers were unionised.
The masses do not expect the right to release sensitive information onto the internet. And the First Amendment says nothing about your employer's right to fire your ass if you badmouth them. Check your employment contract, if you don't believe me. You absolutely have the right to diss Google. And they absolutely have the right to fire you.
but the people in power don't like to grant it.
Google are not the people in power. They're a search engine company, silly.
Or that. It was an example, not and exhaustive list. Would you like me to have enumerate *every* possible example?
In short, I'm merely pointing out that accepting certain types of anti-social, vigilante behaviour (DDOS) *only* because we belive in their cause (hurting scammers) leads us very difficult moral ground when people with whom one does not agree use the same tactics.
Vigilante justive via DDOS. Well, that won't set a horrible precedent for people knobbling the web site's of those they don't like. Who's next? Radical pro-life groups DDOS'ing websites with abortion information?
(Yes, I know this has a slippery-slope element to it, but there are plenty of activist groups out there willing to be vigilantes, because they believe their actions to be either unambiguously moral, or divinely inspired.)
Neither of those are about this concern (homographs between Cyrillic and Latin alphabets). That's a concern about Verisign using non-IDN methods to do DNS-lookups, and (like the late, unlamented SiteFinder) doing fuzzy matches in the case of unrecognised UTF domain names.
It is not because they have any clue about what customer service is.
I think they're also helped by the fact that the vast majority of their customers never need the customer service. Feedback makes it relatively straightforward to identify reputable sellers, and if you're prepaid to pay a little more to deal exclusively with them, it usually just works. (Failings of the USPS notwithstanding.)
Making listings of your own is relatively tricky (although still not actually terribly difficult), but the vast majority of ebay users never do that.
These people are stupid. Not only do they discuss matters as whether they're arguably criminal conspirators / facilitators -- but they do so in on the record documents, as opposed to quiet chats in the cafeteria.
There's nothing inherently better about exercise or socializing versus watching a television program.
There is in a Darwinian sense. The immobile die earlier.
If people want to watch endless television then in a free society they darn well should be able to do so.
I never said they shouldn't be allowed. I just said it wouldn't be a bad thing if they didn't.
Like taking heroin, there's nothing intrinsically bad with watching television, it's just that doing it all the time dramatically reduces your life expectancy.
PC gaming 'Took Off' without PCs being easy/simple to use devices
But the market has changed drastically since then. Early PCs weren't competing against easy-to-use devices (or rather they were, but the cartridge based machines were extremely primitive). So for good performance, you put up with hassles of configuration. Now Linux is competing with easy-to-use and non-primitive kit like the PS2 and XBox, or the almost-as-easy-to-use Windows PC. Until it can get usability up to the level of the latter, it's not going to dent the market.
you have to remember that Japan doesn't have a problem with obesity
I didn't suggest TV watching causes obesity. The cultural reasons -- and the cultural and physiological differences between Americans and Japanese -- run far deeper than that. But that doesn't mean that cutting down on TV would be beneficial...
Slashdot Mirror
Correct mmkkbb (Flamebait, my ass). If you think being slapped on the wrist by the MPAA is like being shot and shoved in a ditch by the SS, you need to take a step back from the computer screen and attempt to interact with the real world.
Where's Godwin when we need him.
They knew copyrighted material was being downloaded illegally, and they were more than happy to help facilitate that -- hell, that was pretty much the raison d'etre of their site.
No. They enforce retroactively.
i) they insert clause in standard contract saying "We, the undersigned, are not buying our competitors trademarks"
ii) if competitors notice that they have, and complain, google uses this clause to cancel contract, but keep money.
iii) profit!
Then that would be probably be ruled illegal in France.
NB : I am not a Lawyer.
I am not French.
You don't have to. You just stop companies buying keywords that are other people's trademarks. And you don't even have to enforce that -- just reserve the right to unilaterally cancel the contract in the case of a rival pointing out that this has been done.
Easy peasy.
No, it doesn't. If amazon were to start selling that page position, it would. So if I searched on "Baseball Prospectus" and the "Readers also bought..." recommended "Baseball America", that's fine.
The difference is if Baseball America *paid* for that spot, so searching for their rival generates an ad for them.
Whatever gets you through the night, dude.
Oh, yeah. You're right on this count. I was referring to the grand-parent who gave the example of lawn-mowing, as something that one could be fired for. I've no sympathy for Jen at all.
PS : I know Tech people tend to have a reaction against union membership, but one has to wonder whether he'd still have a job if Google workers were unionised.
Or that. It was an example, not and exhaustive list. Would you like me to have enumerate *every* possible example?
In short, I'm merely pointing out that accepting certain types of anti-social, vigilante behaviour (DDOS) *only* because we belive in their cause (hurting scammers) leads us very difficult moral ground when people with whom one does not agree use the same tactics.
Vigilante justive via DDOS. Well, that won't set a horrible precedent for people knobbling the web site's of those they don't like. Who's next? Radical pro-life groups DDOS'ing websites with abortion information?
(Yes, I know this has a slippery-slope element to it, but there are plenty of activist groups out there willing to be vigilantes, because they believe their actions to be either unambiguously moral, or divinely inspired.)
Neither of those are about this concern (homographs between Cyrillic and Latin alphabets). That's a concern about Verisign using non-IDN methods to do DNS-lookups, and (like the late, unlamented SiteFinder) doing fuzzy matches in the case of unrecognised UTF domain names.
Since I haven't got any half-decent Cyrillic fonts installed, the "homographs" don't look remotely the same on this machine.
Making listings of your own is relatively tricky (although still not actually terribly difficult), but the vast majority of ebay users never do that.
Everyone's honorable, if you narrow who matters to a suitably small set of friends. Being truly honorable means you have to respect your enemies, too.
Maybe we need a new cliche:
i) Download file sharing software
ii) Share files copyrighted by RIAA/MPAA members
iii) ???
iv) Prison!
These people are stupid. Not only do they discuss matters as whether they're arguably criminal conspirators / facilitators -- but they do so in on the record documents, as opposed to quiet chats in the cafeteria.
That's Richard-Nixon-tastic.
Like taking heroin, there's nothing intrinsically bad with watching television, it's just that doing it all the time dramatically reduces your life expectancy.
Rule #2 of language : Whenever a pseudo-intellectual misuses a word, they will make a spurious appeal to Rule #1 in an attempt to get out of it.
Err... yes, you're right. I meant the opposite of what I wrote. Bugger.