Seems to me that this is a quick-and-easy fix for the ISP: "Rather than find a way to help our client help (protect) himself (and ourselves), rather than being a good *service*, we'll take the easy way out and just shut-down the client and call it good. "
It suprises me that more ISPs haven't done this. I figure many, if not most providers have a bandwidth limitation in their TOS that, in this kind of situation, they could pull out at their convenience(sp?).
... but copyrights don't. (They used to, many many years ago, but they don't nowadays.)
I was not aware of this. Sould someone point me in the right direction here and explain when this occured and what case/legislative act brought this about.
Obviously, I was under the assumtion that a copywrite holder had to pursue protection of their property. For me this was a logical explination for some of the more boneheaded suits persued when it seemed obvious that fair use was in play. Guess I'll have to give up that comfy little fantasy world.
I think a way that would work out well is that if the plaintiff loses the case, they would have to pay for all the defendant's legal fees, along with compensation for all the time they could have spent doing better things.
I think our UK ounterparts can clarify/correct this: Isn't this the way it's done in England? I mean, loser pays the winner's fees. I'm sure I read somewhere that there is a legal system out there that does this.
how many people out there realize the amount of work that goes into not being able to notice any differences?
Believe me I noticed the difference.... And it is *very* much appreciated.
Bingo. The main page loaded on my machine much faster. Almost nil transfer time. Much nicer than the old delay (which occationally took so long my browser eventually gave up and reported the server as down).
Good job guys. I hope the post transfer fixes go smoothly.:)
Alright, this is something that I've been turning over in my head for awhile. Excuse me if this is going to seem obvious. I guess I need to vent a bit.
It appears one of the problems in trademark and copyright law stems from the interpretation that's been put to "defend your trademark". As long as the legal system takes that part of the law to mean "attack with the most draconian means possible" (A bit of stong/reactionary language, I know, but it's late.) ridiculous incidents like this will keep happening.
How can this be fixed? Would it require rewriting the copywrite and trademark laws?
I think most would agree that people should defend their property and that individuals and companies have a right to do so. I think, though, that somewhere along the line these rights have become weapons for overzealous watchdogs.
Slashdot Mirror
Lower costs passed passed on to consumers?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Boy, that's a good one.
Seems to me that this is a quick-and-easy fix for the ISP: "Rather than find a way to help our client help (protect) himself (and ourselves), rather than being a good *service*, we'll take the easy way out and just shut-down the client and call it good. "
It suprises me that more ISPs haven't done this. I figure many, if not most providers have a bandwidth limitation in their TOS that, in this kind of situation, they could pull out at their convenience(sp?).
... but copyrights don't. (They used to, many many years ago, but they don't nowadays.)
I was not aware of this. Sould someone point me in the right direction here and explain when this occured and what case/legislative act brought this about.
Obviously, I was under the assumtion that a copywrite holder had to pursue protection of their property. For me this was a logical explination for some of the more boneheaded suits persued when it seemed obvious that fair use was in play. Guess I'll have to give up that comfy little fantasy world.
I think a way that would work out well is that if the plaintiff loses the case, they would have to pay for all the defendant's legal fees, along with compensation for all the time they could have spent doing better things.
I think our UK ounterparts can clarify/correct this: Isn't this the way it's done in England? I mean, loser pays the winner's fees. I'm sure I read somewhere that there is a legal system out there that does this.
how many people out there realize the amount of work that goes into not being able to notice any differences?
:)
Believe me I noticed the difference.... And it is *very* much appreciated.
Bingo. The main page loaded on my machine much faster. Almost nil transfer time. Much nicer than the old delay (which occationally took so long my browser eventually gave up and reported the server as down).
Good job guys. I hope the post transfer fixes go smoothly.
Alright, this is something that I've been turning over in my head for awhile. Excuse me if this is going to seem obvious. I guess I need to vent a bit.
It appears one of the problems in trademark and copyright law stems from the interpretation that's been put to "defend your trademark". As long as the legal system takes that part of the law to mean "attack with the most draconian means possible" (A bit of stong/reactionary language, I know, but it's late.) ridiculous incidents like this will keep happening.
How can this be fixed? Would it require rewriting the copywrite and trademark laws?
I think most would agree that people should defend their property and that individuals and companies have a right to do so. I think, though, that somewhere along the line these rights have become weapons for overzealous watchdogs.
Just a late-night ramble.