Many doctors and teachers are diagnosing kids at ADHD because they have too many kids in a class to manage properly.
Did they ever consider it not a disease, but lack of teaching? Most geeks lack social skills and are poor at picking up social clues. Now, if they have children, where will their children learn this from?
It is not a suprising ruling. The US Supreme Court ruled in Lowell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938) ruled the protection of the press extends to "the lonely paphleteer."
Even so, a website is similar to any other news media, except that there is a lower cost of entry.
In libel cases it is preferred that determinations are made earlier, as this can chill free expression and debate.
[S]ummary judgment procedures are especially favored in defamation cases. Godbout v. Cousens, 396 Mass. 254, 258 (1985).
"Allowing a trial to take place in a meritless case 'would put an unjustified and serious damper on freedom of expression.'" Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32, 37 (1985), quoting National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 233 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 935 (1980).
Even if a defendant in a libel case is ultimately successful at trial, the
costs of litigation may induce an unnecessary and undesirable self-censorship. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra at 279."
King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705, 708 (1987),
cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940 (1988).
Do you think that we have to outlaw webrowsers, ftp, irc, email that do not have a built-in check that prevents anyone from violating a copyright, trademark, or license agreement?
Is it that much more of a security risk as having a remote starter for the car? Having a remote starter for a car always seemed to me as an security risk in itself. Why is it needed? It is not as though the car will park itself for you and pick you up at the door.
I got a spam from one spammer, who gave a an 800#.
I called him, and he was saying that it was un-American to stop spam. In my case, he He got the email address from a the prairielaw.com website, but it was too expensive for him to pay for advertising.
Maybe you'd like to discuss it with him.
Locators, Inc
Who said that they are not upgrading, if they remove the file that checks?
There are cases where you remove the old product before installing the upgrade. What if you upgraded, then the drive melted? Do you install the old version, then the new version?
It must be read carefully. You have to keep in mind, that the ruling may change the line between fact and opinion, but not that much.
The analysis of fact and opinion has been based on context and content. This ruling recognizes the context portion or the analysis. And states that it being in that forum makes it as from a disgruntled stockholder as opposed to someone in "the know" or with authority.
Was part of the intent behind your actions to trap the RIAA into making a threat so that you could attack the DMCA? Or was the threat from the RIAA unexpected?
I am not talking about breaking the watermark itself, but the planned presentation and then you not presenting because of the RIAA threat?
You put the unique email address on a page that the bot is not authorized to grab. The use of the email address is evidence that the page was accessed, as it is the only place that the address is listed.
If its online, then its publicly viewable. While some sites have legal statements saying that you cant use any
of the herin information for commercial purposes, most dont.
The point is to place terms of use on a site. Look at the terms of use on my site. This has not been tested in court, yet.
Even without a terms of use or copyright notice, copyright still applies.
Many spammers are using bots to grab email addresses off of web pages. Why not use the fact that they are illegally copying the websites to get them?
Of course the SPAM lists that some companies sell is a derivitive product.
Remember Bidder's Edge v. Ebay, they argued using bots to collect information is illegal. Companies selling software to use open relays and collect addresses is as illegal as napster (if not more). Lets use some of these rulings against spammers.
The DMCA provides incentive for an ISP to shut down a site where it is complained that the ISP has violated copyright of another. Shutting down a SPAMMER is using the terms of service of a provider.
I am looking into a way to use copyright law to stop spammers.
On the DMCA takedown provision, we should provide liquidated damages to victims of wrongful take downs. That is, if a company does have someone's service cut (either web server or connection) disconnected, wrongfully, the party should be required to pay either $10K or actual damages plus attorney fees. This would make companies a little more careful on whom they try to shut down.
You get on the space shuttle after going through the metal detector and have wand waived over you by some person that is like an idiot savant that is not good at math.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they ever consider it not a disease, but lack of teaching? Most geeks lack social skills and are poor at picking up social clues. Now, if they have children, where will their children learn this from?
I can watch TV while I work; pipe cable TV to my non-cable TV, or watch movies from the computer displayed on the TV.
Even so, a website is similar to any other news media, except that there is a lower cost of entry.
In libel cases it is preferred that determinations are made earlier, as this can chill free expression and debate.
Do you think that we have to outlaw webrowsers, ftp, irc, email that do not have a built-in check that prevents anyone from violating a copyright, trademark, or license agreement?
If the government refuses to prosecute a SPAMMER (in the USA) for violating the DMCA can we use that as a start to destroy the DMCA?
Is it that much more of a security risk as having a remote starter for the car? Having a remote starter for a car always seemed to me as an security risk in itself. Why is it needed? It is not as though the car will park itself for you and pick you up at the door.
I called him, and he was saying that it was un-American to stop spam. In my case, he He got the email address from a the prairielaw.com website, but it was too expensive for him to pay for advertising.
Maybe you'd like to discuss it with him.
Locators, Inc
888-595-9131 Toll Free
There are cases where you remove the old product before installing the upgrade. What if you upgraded, then the drive melted? Do you install the old version, then the new version?
The analysis of fact and opinion has been based on context and content. This ruling recognizes the context portion or the analysis. And states that it being in that forum makes it as from a disgruntled stockholder as opposed to someone in "the know" or with authority.
Even on a web posting, libel can still be found.
I am not talking about breaking the watermark itself, but the planned presentation and then you not presenting because of the RIAA threat?
Of course, I don't want to stop the googles and the like. I want to stop spammers. It is a very thin blade one must use.
You put the unique email address on a page that the bot is not authorized to grab. The use of the email address is evidence that the page was accessed, as it is the only place that the address is listed.
If they are not available anywhere else, then their grabbing them is a copyright violation.
Mail money order to them in an envelope.
Don't put a return address on the envelope.
The point is to place terms of use on a site. Look at the terms of use on my site. This has not been tested in court, yet.
Even without a terms of use or copyright notice, copyright still applies.
Of course the SPAM lists that some companies sell is a derivitive product.
Remember Bidder's Edge v. Ebay, they argued using bots to collect information is illegal. Companies selling software to use open relays and collect addresses is as illegal as napster (if not more). Lets use some of these rulings against spammers.
I am looking into a way to use copyright law to stop spammers.
Ever see The Distingueshed Gentleman with Eddie Murphy? It is a documentary on Washington politics.
She does not have the right to strip us of our rights.
Look at the DMCA.