Nobel prize, like most western institutions, has an enormous western bias and is unable to see beyond the borders of western civilization, for most parts. This is not a complaint, it is just a fact!!
It is NOT a fact, in fact the opposite is true. The winners in the last 10 years have been:
The whole award means a lot less since even Gore was able to secure one with little but political rhetoric.
The award meant less when Henry Kissinger won it. Gore's actually more deserving than some of the winners in the past few decades; at least he never actively worked against peace.
Where in the opinion is the strange part? It's not like he spun the legal theory out of thin air, he's citing both the cases and the relevant statutes.
But nobody would pay an artist not to paint. You should talk to a lawyer -- just a consult -- there are laws against overly restrictive agreements, especially if the individual's ability to make a living is encroached on, for one example.
Well, speaking AAL, I think this agreement is extremely restrictive and would probably be upheld. They're not even saying he can't compete against them, but rather simply that he can't compete against them by working on this specific project. He could theoretically work on other projects that directly compete with them, as long as it's not this one specific project.
The indefinite time limitation for this would probably be thrown out, though, and I know around here a judge would most likely say it only lasts for a few years.
The way I read the opinion is that the judge quashed the original subpoena not because the plaintiff didn't have evidence that John Doe committed copyright infringement, but rather because the subpoena placed an undue burden on the university to actively investigate who was using which IP addresses to transfer files.
The judge brought up the technical difficulties involved in determining the identity of the alleged file sharer not to invalidate the propriety of the RIAA issuing the subpoena, but merely to show the burden that would be placed on the University if they were forced to follow the plain language of the subpoena.
By that logic, a less broad subpoena--requesting only which IP addresses were assigned to which dorms--would presumably not be quashed.
Under Gillespie v. Civiletti, plaintiffs are allowed to find out the identity of John Doe defendants through discovery. The court here reasons that this does not preclude Rule 45 subpoenas.
Now you can argue that the subpoena would not lead to the uncovering of the alleged infringers' identities, and therefore is disallowed under Gillespie, but I think it's a debatable point. Gillespie talks about "discovery" in general terms; turning over the identities of the inhabitants of the dorm may lead to other discovery that actually found the alleged infringers.
My point here is not that the judge made the right decision, but rather it was not obviously and unambiguously wrong, a sign of judicial corruption, bribery, etc. that everyone else here seems to believe. Under Gillespie the decision makes some sense.
In a real free market, subprime loans wouldn't even exist. This was one of your beloved regulatory mandates.
Then how do you explain the fact that half of the subprime loans made were made by banks that were NOT subject to the CRA and had no legal obligation to make these loans to anyone?
The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, "I'm not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it'll save you $1,000. Want to take it?") That section had expired as of January 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.
Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs until 2006 and current U.S. Treasury Secretary succeeded in scaring the public and Congress into giving him a $700B blank check to bail out his friends. If you think that money will "trickle down" to you or small business owners, or anyone other than the people it's directly going to, you are mistaken.
Paulson is in office for another 3 months. He doesn't even have time to bail out his friends.
Given that this judge's decision flies in the face of established legal doctrine, industry practice and plain old common sense, I don't see how this can be anything other than either a) the judge being incredibly stupid or b) bribed.
I've read the opinion at issue. It makes a convincing argument regarding legal doctrine, and at the very least there is nothing plainly and clearly incorrect about it.
Never attribute to laziness (or anything else for that matter) what can adequately be explained by a bribe, particularly when an organization like the RIAA is involved.
I've always wondered, every time a story comes up about a judge making a ruling we don't like, there are inevitably several accusations of bribery. You all don't actually believe it, right? I assumed everyone is just venting, but anyone who literally believes the RIAA bribed a federal judge in order to get a ruling they wanted on a discovery order, do you? I mean, in the history of American jurisprudence there have been judges who have bribed, but anyone that thinks this is common is way off base.
As a practical matter, if a federal judge was that greedy, why would he or she be a federal judge? They could make many times what they're making now in the private sector.
I've read the opinion. There is nothing especially crazy in it, and the legal reasoning, while it may result in a decision we do not like, was not bizarre or unsupportable.
If it does, then the trial court can enjoin the defendant from infringing. If it doesn't, then the defendant's remedy is seek damages under contract law.
Actually I spoke too soon, the more I read it the less accurate the summary is. I should have known I was giving a coder too much credit for legal analysis (no offense, coders, but you yell at lawyers and judges for faulty technology analysis all the time). It may be splitting hairs, but the court here wasn't looking at whether open source license provisions were enforceable in general (in fact both parties seemed to recognize that they were), but whether violating those terms falls under copyright law protection.
The court here is simply being asked to determine whether violating an open source license agreement constitutes copyright infringement. If it does, then the trial court can enjoin the defendant from infringing. If it doesn't, then the defendant's remedy is seek damages under contract law. If damages are his only remedy, however, then the court isn't supposed to grant injunctions. Even if the trial court had been upheld, that doesn't mean that open source licenses would have been invalidated, just that violating the terms of the license didn't infringe a copyright, but rather a contract.
Now the trial court found no copyright rights existed because copyright law is solely meant to protect economic rights. The appellate court disagreed, and explicitly recognized that an open source licensor does gain an economic benefit from releasing open source software, in terms of such things as better reputation, business opportunities, and the improvement of the released software. The main point of the opinion is therefore that going beyond the terms of the license is a copyright violation, and therefore all the legal remedies for copyright violations are available.
Mine stays on 24/7 because I do Folding@Home. Or should I refrain from using energy that can help find cures for disease because our environmental overlords say that's a bad thing?
Good grief, he said you should turn it off when you're not using it. If you're using it for Folding@Home, you're using it. Why on earth would you choose to misinterpret that so badly? Or was that just an opportunity to take a shot at those awful, awful people who think maybe we shouldn't destroy the environment as quickly as we have been?
There are plenty of ways of communicating religious or political messages that do not require forging email headers. First, there are anonymous email accounts that do not forge anything. Second, there are anonymous blogging services
None of these are truly anonymous, however. Someone always knows which IP the mail is coming from.
I'm an attorney too, which is why it especially annoys me when people get all outraged about cases that they misinterpret.
I read about 1/3 of what he had to say, but after a point I realized he was quoting way too much to maintain my interest. If I wanted to read the case I would have downloaded it...
By showing that the factual bases cited in the decision were flawed, Haselton is trying to show that the legal conclusions must also therefore be flawed.
I think his analysis of the factual basis is a bit off-base too, though later posters have debunked it more thoroughly further down in the comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobel prize, like most western institutions, has an enormous western bias and is unable to see beyond the borders of western civilization, for most parts. This is not a complaint, it is just a fact!!
It is NOT a fact, in fact the opposite is true. The winners in the last 10 years have been:
4 international organizations,
2 Americans
1 Bangladeshi 1 Bandladeshi organization,
1 Egyptian,
1 Korean,
1 Kenyan, 1 Iranian,
2 Irish (well North Irish),
1 Ghanan.
So, out of the 10 individuals who won, only 4 were western.
The whole award means a lot less since even Gore was able to secure one with little but political rhetoric.
The award meant less when Henry Kissinger won it. Gore's actually more deserving than some of the winners in the past few decades; at least he never actively worked against peace.
Where in the opinion is the strange part? It's not like he spun the legal theory out of thin air, he's citing both the cases and the relevant statutes.
But nobody would pay an artist not to paint. You should talk to a lawyer -- just a consult -- there are laws against overly restrictive agreements, especially if the individual's ability to make a living is encroached on, for one example.
Well, speaking AAL, I think this agreement is extremely restrictive and would probably be upheld. They're not even saying he can't compete against them, but rather simply that he can't compete against them by working on this specific project. He could theoretically work on other projects that directly compete with them, as long as it's not this one specific project.
The indefinite time limitation for this would probably be thrown out, though, and I know around here a judge would most likely say it only lasts for a few years.
The way I read the opinion is that the judge quashed the original subpoena not because the plaintiff didn't have evidence that John Doe committed copyright infringement, but rather because the subpoena placed an undue burden on the university to actively investigate who was using which IP addresses to transfer files.
The judge brought up the technical difficulties involved in determining the identity of the alleged file sharer not to invalidate the propriety of the RIAA issuing the subpoena, but merely to show the burden that would be placed on the University if they were forced to follow the plain language of the subpoena.
By that logic, a less broad subpoena--requesting only which IP addresses were assigned to which dorms--would presumably not be quashed.
Under Gillespie v. Civiletti, plaintiffs are allowed to find out the identity of John Doe defendants through discovery. The court here reasons that this does not preclude Rule 45 subpoenas.
Now you can argue that the subpoena would not lead to the uncovering of the alleged infringers' identities, and therefore is disallowed under Gillespie, but I think it's a debatable point. Gillespie talks about "discovery" in general terms; turning over the identities of the inhabitants of the dorm may lead to other discovery that actually found the alleged infringers.
My point here is not that the judge made the right decision, but rather it was not obviously and unambiguously wrong, a sign of judicial corruption, bribery, etc. that everyone else here seems to believe. Under Gillespie the decision makes some sense.
In a real free market, subprime loans wouldn't even exist. This was one of your beloved regulatory mandates.
Then how do you explain the fact that half of the subprime loans made were made by banks that were NOT subject to the CRA and had no legal obligation to make these loans to anyone?
Do you have a cite for this? I know the Patriot Act can allow that kind of ridiculousness, but never heard about the IRS having something similar.
Good. Let them catch more tax cheats.
Our currency is based on a perception of value (no more gold standard).
The gold standard was based on a perception of value as well.
Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs until 2006 and current U.S. Treasury Secretary succeeded in scaring the public and Congress into giving him a $700B blank check to bail out his friends. If you think that money will "trickle down" to you or small business owners, or anyone other than the people it's directly going to, you are mistaken.
Paulson is in office for another 3 months. He doesn't even have time to bail out his friends.
Given that this judge's decision flies in the face of established legal doctrine, industry practice and plain old common sense, I don't see how this can be anything other than either a) the judge being incredibly stupid or b) bribed.
I've read the opinion at issue. It makes a convincing argument regarding legal doctrine, and at the very least there is nothing plainly and clearly incorrect about it.
Never attribute to laziness (or anything else for that matter) what can adequately be explained by a bribe, particularly when an organization like the RIAA is involved.
I've always wondered, every time a story comes up about a judge making a ruling we don't like, there are inevitably several accusations of bribery. You all don't actually believe it, right? I assumed everyone is just venting, but anyone who literally believes the RIAA bribed a federal judge in order to get a ruling they wanted on a discovery order, do you? I mean, in the history of American jurisprudence there have been judges who have bribed, but anyone that thinks this is common is way off base.
As a practical matter, if a federal judge was that greedy, why would he or she be a federal judge? They could make many times what they're making now in the private sector.
I've read the opinion. There is nothing especially crazy in it, and the legal reasoning, while it may result in a decision we do not like, was not bizarre or unsupportable.
You can also find early recordings by people such as Theodore Roosevelet on Youtube, if you're bored...
That should read "the plaintiff's remedy."
Actually I spoke too soon, the more I read it the less accurate the summary is. I should have known I was giving a coder too much credit for legal analysis (no offense, coders, but you yell at lawyers and judges for faulty technology analysis all the time). It may be splitting hairs, but the court here wasn't looking at whether open source license provisions were enforceable in general (in fact both parties seemed to recognize that they were), but whether violating those terms falls under copyright law protection.
The court here is simply being asked to determine whether violating an open source license agreement constitutes copyright infringement. If it does, then the trial court can enjoin the defendant from infringing. If it doesn't, then the defendant's remedy is seek damages under contract law. If damages are his only remedy, however, then the court isn't supposed to grant injunctions. Even if the trial court had been upheld, that doesn't mean that open source licenses would have been invalidated, just that violating the terms of the license didn't infringe a copyright, but rather a contract.
Now the trial court found no copyright rights existed because copyright law is solely meant to protect economic rights. The appellate court disagreed, and explicitly recognized that an open source licensor does gain an economic benefit from releasing open source software, in terms of such things as better reputation, business opportunities, and the improvement of the released software. The main point of the opinion is therefore that going beyond the terms of the license is a copyright violation, and therefore all the legal remedies for copyright violations are available.
For once, a programmer actually summarized a legal decision more or less accurately, it's quite surprising...
Tell them you're a lion tamer.
Mine stays on 24/7 because I do Folding@Home. Or should I refrain from using energy that can help find cures for disease because our environmental overlords say that's a bad thing?
Good grief, he said you should turn it off when you're not using it. If you're using it for Folding@Home, you're using it. Why on earth would you choose to misinterpret that so badly? Or was that just an opportunity to take a shot at those awful, awful people who think maybe we shouldn't destroy the environment as quickly as we have been?
But it also knows where the packets are coming from.
And whoever owns the first onion router you're transmitting via Tor with?
There are plenty of ways of communicating religious or political messages that do not require forging email headers. First, there are anonymous email accounts that do not forge anything. Second, there are anonymous blogging services
None of these are truly anonymous, however. Someone always knows which IP the mail is coming from.
I'm an attorney too, which is why it especially annoys me when people get all outraged about cases that they misinterpret.
I read about 1/3 of what he had to say, but after a point I realized he was quoting way too much to maintain my interest. If I wanted to read the case I would have downloaded it...
By showing that the factual bases cited in the decision were flawed, Haselton is trying to show that the legal conclusions must also therefore be flawed.
I think his analysis of the factual basis is a bit off-base too, though later posters have debunked it more thoroughly further down in the comments.
Most /. articles that start with Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes... end up that way. You can always choose not to read them.
If we're going to have long articles parsing legal issues, why not have an actual lawyer write them rather than a layman like Haselton?