Actually, the libraries pay fees that are distributed based on some formulae, and that covers the copyright fees and licences. Payment of those fees makes it a non-infringing use.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think link aggregation is in any way equivalent to actual infringement, but comparing it to library copiers is not the way to go.
You're either very cynical, or not remembering that trademarks only apply to situations where there's a reasonable amount of overlap in business. If iCloud Communications either felt the business was dissimilar enough, or was unaware of the previous existence of Xcerion's use, then they aren't in any instance at fault for not pursuing it. Since the business scope is different between Xcerion and Apple, that changes the equation, and I reiterate, they may now feel the scope Apple brings will harm their business.
As for the domain issue, they have icloudcommunications.com, and it redirects to geticloud.com. Obviously they have a web presence, so is it unreasonable to assume they simply didn't think/want to register just "icloud.com" for whatever reason? Assuming everyone's scumsucking and out to screw over everyone else is a good way to become like that yourself, so again, I'm going to assume both parties are simply doing the best they can for their business, until someone proves otherwise.
Well, as for the reason they care now as opposed to before is because that other company wasn't really doing much with it, since apparently most people had never heard of them, and I doubt it was very similar to the company's niche. Now that Apple is doing things with it, and it's getting tons of publicity, it's finally possible that it will actually damage their business.
As for why/. nerds care, yeah, Apple. I feel that iCloud should have registered ages ago as a simple precautionary measure, though I bear no particular investment in either side's victory, being neither a user of Apple products nor a citizen of the US. I'm mostly interested in seeing what the inevitable ruling/settlement shakes out as.
Thank you! Christ. Even worse, if you don't make the back-up, it's possible to just go grab a completed file off the internet and throw that on. When I got RE4: Wii Edition, I didn't bother doing the stuff I'd already done a dozen times on my GCN, I just grabbed a save file and played the stuff I hadn't played before. I can't imagine anyone playing through something 3 times for someone else willingly with the only goal of unlocking it when you can just toss a file on instead.
As much as I hate to admit it, there's a fair number of "terrorists" who get in to Canada because we're not using the US's "watch list," and they then hop the border from us to the US. The problem is, the US's list isn't actually based on evidence, so much as profiling, and I don't think I'm terribly comfortable with closing the borders to someone just because a group of fear-mongers in the US picked a fairly arbitrary list.
Realistically, explain to me the difference beyond the time investment. Cross-breeding of different strains of plants, and of similar plants was occurring decades ago, and longer. It's just that now, instead of waiting 18+ plant generations to see results, we see them in 1 generation, allowing faster, better tweaks, and more thorough experimentation for side effects.
People who think there's a fundamental difference between selective breeding and genetic modification make me sick due to their ignorance. The only explanation I can come up with is "Well, I won't be around to see the results, so I don't have to care."
The AC's wrong, but right at the same time. The bananas we know aren't the bananas that were originally found. They were selectively bred to the point where there's basically no resemblance to the original plant. And realistically, I don't see a difference between selective breeding and genetic modification beyond the scale of the timeline.
No, it's not relevant, the only thing that story is relevant to is that the US courts again prove that they were completely disconnected from reality and patent/copyright laws in general need to be fixed.
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm thinking. This is a big "So what?" story. The game's being released, people put down money on it. If they didn't get a copy, then they're either owed a refund, or Gamestop's committing theft.
Well, to be fair, the "only marrying Jews" thing isn't an Israeli thing, but across the whole religion of Judaism. It's just the only place it can be enforced is there. Same as with homosexuality disqualifying you for marriage in other countries heavily run by religion.
Except as pointed out, the payment is coming from UN financial support of the area, so your little "imagine if" scenario fell apart after the "wasn't supported by the West."
Really? Not really. A great deal of the community follows his licence recommendations, and without that licence, often projects will flounder. Further, it leads to in-fighting over what licences should be used and which advances the cause of OSS the most, and that's the height of idiocy, because the answer is simply "all and none." Fighting over what licence is best is useless and redirects effort from where it should be, which is heightening the profile of OSS.
But the entire point of the saying is to change people's perception as to the meaning of the word "Free." So why would they pick something that's still possible to cause confusion over, because I've never seen "free as in $0" beer. If anything, they should have picked "Free as in air" or something similar that you don't actually have to pay for ever, rather than relying on the kindness of others to give up something.
I took it to mean actually *running* in the background. Getting updates on scores (they are sports apps, after all), stuff like that. Preventing the radio from being in stand-by, etc.
The line I've been told is that women in porn aren't there because they want to display themselves, it's because they've no other choices, and are doing it for low pay, in bad conditions, and usually being abused during it. Therefore, it's immoral to support an industry based upon exploitation of human beings.
Keep in mind though, that was told to me by my Christian mother when I was a young teenager, so the validity is suspect.
Even worse, the article says www.skype.com is unavailable. I just went there and it loaded up instantly and completely. Pretty sure the whole thing's bullshit, just someone with an axe to grind.
Yes, it is, however, it's also not supposed to be a bludgeon, which is what it's used as in cases like these. The simple answer is to tack on the cost of things such as forensic investigation to any penalties levied against people found guilty. That prevents mass lawsuits where there isn't a preponderance of evidence against individuals, allows the small guy to get in on protecting his property. If a corporation has to eat it when they wrongly accuse someone, they'll be more careful.
Of course, to balance out the increased time it would take to operate under this onus, I'd not be opposed to lengthening the amount of time a rights holder has to bring suit, assuming they are showing forward movement. That way, a company or individual could move against a few of the individuals, get a judgement, and still be able to bring suit against the others, rather than feeling they need to do it RIGHT NOW. I think this would also move towards legitimate suits instead of the mass blackmail equivalent we're getting now.
As for the phrasing of my statement in that quote you've got, I still stand by it. If a company is going to sue thousands of people at a time, if they're legitimately protecting their rights, cost shouldn't be the deciding issue, which it clearly is with the borderline illegal joinders. It was also due to the tone of the GP's post, and the unmitigated arrogance in it. It's not a general statement of "if you're considering cost, you're a fucking moron." Just Goobertoo.
Ugh, posts like yours make my head hurt. You're arguing that the judge is wrong and right in the same paragraph, and then claiming you have logical consistency.
You say the judge is 100% wrong, and then that IP addresses aren't a positive ID but then say that IP addresses are cause for investigation. And that part's true. But you forget that the next step after identifying parties isn't more investigation, it's the copyright holder filing the lawsuit with that person's name attached. The judge is saying now that you need to do more investigation to prove the specific name attached to the IP is actually the culprit. And since it's not police doing the investigation, an invasion of privacy by a corporation SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the Internet equivalent of "Your car was seen parked outside the store on the day of the robbery." Police would actually come and question you, ask where you were that day, if anyone used your car, and maybe even check if it actually was your car instead of a same make/model with a similar licence plate. The cops wouldn't just show up and go "You're under arrest for having a vehicle present at the scene of a crime." (Also note, at no time am I saying YOU were seen at the scene of a crime. That would be a positive and solid ID). By the same token, simply saying an IP address was noted downloading something doesn't mean that the person listed as the current user of the IP is the culprit. But companies doing the suing always proceed directly to sending the intimidating "We know what you did, so pay up or be dragged to court" the millisecond they have a name. No further investigation is done until after legal proceedings have started. What and how investigations are to proceed are irrelevant to the court, just that the judge is now saying "an IP is like a car, you need to link it to someone more firmly first before you sue them."
So, which is it? Should the judge enforce more investigation, or should he rubber stamp the subpoenas for name and address, knowing that it's not leading to greater investigation?
In a nut shell, you're a zealot, and have no logical consistency, and are completely wrong. The judge may or may not have made an incorrect judgement, but you sure as fuck haven't made anything resembling a coherent argument to support your view.
In fact, in furtherance of your making of a valid argument, I'll even tell you what the subpoenas should be, instead of name/address requests, and that's requesting forensic investigation of computers linked to the IP. They ask the court for the ability to have the computers taken and submitted to neutral 3rd parties for further investigation. In fact, ideally, the company doing the requesting would not get any names or addresses, but instead the 3rd party doing the assessment would receive the information from the ISP, go with the subpoena, get the computer, and if nothing's found, the computer returned, the IP registered as a dead end, and the copyright holder or their lawyers never gets the name or address. If something's found, then the actual evidence is passed along to the court, who would okay the naming of the computer owner to the lawsuit. Thus, actual evidence linking someone to a crime is found, privacy's not further invaded than necessary, and people avoid settling out of fear of a legal battle despite innocence.
And I swear to all that anyone has ever held holy, if you say "That would be too expensive for the rights holder," you are the dumbest sack of shit I'll have ever communicated with via electronic means, since if they're not prepared to pay for actual investigation they have no goddamn cause to be suing hundreds or thousands of people.
Not enough product shipped to stores (we got 3 64GB models, just enough to satisfy preorders on launch day), they didn't hype the fact that we'd be opening an hour early on launch day for those who wanted to pick up one, they didn't get a demo model out so people could play with it to entice more preorders, didn't get a demo out to stores so staff could learn a bit and show people fun stuff about it, or useful stuff about it, and accessories didn't reach the store for the most part until the day after launch or later. Three mediocre cases, that's all there was available for people to chose from. Seriously one of the worst product launches I've seen pretty much ever.
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
There is no Magic.
I have a very large collection of cards that would like to disagree with you. Also some wizards who are from some coast.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the libraries pay fees that are distributed based on some formulae, and that covers the copyright fees and licences. Payment of those fees makes it a non-infringing use.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think link aggregation is in any way equivalent to actual infringement, but comparing it to library copiers is not the way to go.
You're either very cynical, or not remembering that trademarks only apply to situations where there's a reasonable amount of overlap in business. If iCloud Communications either felt the business was dissimilar enough, or was unaware of the previous existence of Xcerion's use, then they aren't in any instance at fault for not pursuing it. Since the business scope is different between Xcerion and Apple, that changes the equation, and I reiterate, they may now feel the scope Apple brings will harm their business.
As for the domain issue, they have icloudcommunications.com, and it redirects to geticloud.com. Obviously they have a web presence, so is it unreasonable to assume they simply didn't think/want to register just "icloud.com" for whatever reason? Assuming everyone's scumsucking and out to screw over everyone else is a good way to become like that yourself, so again, I'm going to assume both parties are simply doing the best they can for their business, until someone proves otherwise.
Well, as for the reason they care now as opposed to before is because that other company wasn't really doing much with it, since apparently most people had never heard of them, and I doubt it was very similar to the company's niche. Now that Apple is doing things with it, and it's getting tons of publicity, it's finally possible that it will actually damage their business.
As for why /. nerds care, yeah, Apple. I feel that iCloud should have registered ages ago as a simple precautionary measure, though I bear no particular investment in either side's victory, being neither a user of Apple products nor a citizen of the US. I'm mostly interested in seeing what the inevitable ruling/settlement shakes out as.
Because damnit man, 30% of nothing is a hell of a lot of something, and would bankrupt those poor developers.
After all, we all know there's no free programs on iOS.
Good point. On what platform are iOS applications going to be written?
Windows.
Thank you! Christ. Even worse, if you don't make the back-up, it's possible to just go grab a completed file off the internet and throw that on. When I got RE4: Wii Edition, I didn't bother doing the stuff I'd already done a dozen times on my GCN, I just grabbed a save file and played the stuff I hadn't played before. I can't imagine anyone playing through something 3 times for someone else willingly with the only goal of unlocking it when you can just toss a file on instead.
As much as I hate to admit it, there's a fair number of "terrorists" who get in to Canada because we're not using the US's "watch list," and they then hop the border from us to the US. The problem is, the US's list isn't actually based on evidence, so much as profiling, and I don't think I'm terribly comfortable with closing the borders to someone just because a group of fear-mongers in the US picked a fairly arbitrary list.
Probably they get the proceeds from these calls/SMS'. Couple shell companies to an anonymous account, and you're making money well.
Realistically, explain to me the difference beyond the time investment. Cross-breeding of different strains of plants, and of similar plants was occurring decades ago, and longer. It's just that now, instead of waiting 18+ plant generations to see results, we see them in 1 generation, allowing faster, better tweaks, and more thorough experimentation for side effects.
People who think there's a fundamental difference between selective breeding and genetic modification make me sick due to their ignorance. The only explanation I can come up with is "Well, I won't be around to see the results, so I don't have to care."
The AC's wrong, but right at the same time. The bananas we know aren't the bananas that were originally found. They were selectively bred to the point where there's basically no resemblance to the original plant. And realistically, I don't see a difference between selective breeding and genetic modification beyond the scale of the timeline.
The problem isn't GMO, it's patents and business models. Getting rid of GMO won't fix anything.
No, it's not relevant, the only thing that story is relevant to is that the US courts again prove that they were completely disconnected from reality and patent/copyright laws in general need to be fixed.
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm thinking. This is a big "So what?" story. The game's being released, people put down money on it. If they didn't get a copy, then they're either owed a refund, or Gamestop's committing theft.
Well, to be fair, the "only marrying Jews" thing isn't an Israeli thing, but across the whole religion of Judaism. It's just the only place it can be enforced is there. Same as with homosexuality disqualifying you for marriage in other countries heavily run by religion.
Except as pointed out, the payment is coming from UN financial support of the area, so your little "imagine if" scenario fell apart after the "wasn't supported by the West."
Really? Not really. A great deal of the community follows his licence recommendations, and without that licence, often projects will flounder. Further, it leads to in-fighting over what licences should be used and which advances the cause of OSS the most, and that's the height of idiocy, because the answer is simply "all and none." Fighting over what licence is best is useless and redirects effort from where it should be, which is heightening the profile of OSS.
But the entire point of the saying is to change people's perception as to the meaning of the word "Free." So why would they pick something that's still possible to cause confusion over, because I've never seen "free as in $0" beer. If anything, they should have picked "Free as in air" or something similar that you don't actually have to pay for ever, rather than relying on the kindness of others to give up something.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm
How's Egypt work for you?
I took it to mean actually *running* in the background. Getting updates on scores (they are sports apps, after all), stuff like that. Preventing the radio from being in stand-by, etc.
The line I've been told is that women in porn aren't there because they want to display themselves, it's because they've no other choices, and are doing it for low pay, in bad conditions, and usually being abused during it. Therefore, it's immoral to support an industry based upon exploitation of human beings.
Keep in mind though, that was told to me by my Christian mother when I was a young teenager, so the validity is suspect.
Even worse, the article says www.skype.com is unavailable. I just went there and it loaded up instantly and completely. Pretty sure the whole thing's bullshit, just someone with an axe to grind.
Yes, it is, however, it's also not supposed to be a bludgeon, which is what it's used as in cases like these. The simple answer is to tack on the cost of things such as forensic investigation to any penalties levied against people found guilty. That prevents mass lawsuits where there isn't a preponderance of evidence against individuals, allows the small guy to get in on protecting his property. If a corporation has to eat it when they wrongly accuse someone, they'll be more careful.
Of course, to balance out the increased time it would take to operate under this onus, I'd not be opposed to lengthening the amount of time a rights holder has to bring suit, assuming they are showing forward movement. That way, a company or individual could move against a few of the individuals, get a judgement, and still be able to bring suit against the others, rather than feeling they need to do it RIGHT NOW. I think this would also move towards legitimate suits instead of the mass blackmail equivalent we're getting now.
As for the phrasing of my statement in that quote you've got, I still stand by it. If a company is going to sue thousands of people at a time, if they're legitimately protecting their rights, cost shouldn't be the deciding issue, which it clearly is with the borderline illegal joinders. It was also due to the tone of the GP's post, and the unmitigated arrogance in it. It's not a general statement of "if you're considering cost, you're a fucking moron." Just Goobertoo.
Ugh, posts like yours make my head hurt. You're arguing that the judge is wrong and right in the same paragraph, and then claiming you have logical consistency.
You say the judge is 100% wrong, and then that IP addresses aren't a positive ID but then say that IP addresses are cause for investigation. And that part's true. But you forget that the next step after identifying parties isn't more investigation, it's the copyright holder filing the lawsuit with that person's name attached. The judge is saying now that you need to do more investigation to prove the specific name attached to the IP is actually the culprit. And since it's not police doing the investigation, an invasion of privacy by a corporation SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the Internet equivalent of "Your car was seen parked outside the store on the day of the robbery." Police would actually come and question you, ask where you were that day, if anyone used your car, and maybe even check if it actually was your car instead of a same make/model with a similar licence plate. The cops wouldn't just show up and go "You're under arrest for having a vehicle present at the scene of a crime." (Also note, at no time am I saying YOU were seen at the scene of a crime. That would be a positive and solid ID). By the same token, simply saying an IP address was noted downloading something doesn't mean that the person listed as the current user of the IP is the culprit. But companies doing the suing always proceed directly to sending the intimidating "We know what you did, so pay up or be dragged to court" the millisecond they have a name. No further investigation is done until after legal proceedings have started. What and how investigations are to proceed are irrelevant to the court, just that the judge is now saying "an IP is like a car, you need to link it to someone more firmly first before you sue them."
So, which is it? Should the judge enforce more investigation, or should he rubber stamp the subpoenas for name and address, knowing that it's not leading to greater investigation?
In a nut shell, you're a zealot, and have no logical consistency, and are completely wrong. The judge may or may not have made an incorrect judgement, but you sure as fuck haven't made anything resembling a coherent argument to support your view.
In fact, in furtherance of your making of a valid argument, I'll even tell you what the subpoenas should be, instead of name/address requests, and that's requesting forensic investigation of computers linked to the IP. They ask the court for the ability to have the computers taken and submitted to neutral 3rd parties for further investigation. In fact, ideally, the company doing the requesting would not get any names or addresses, but instead the 3rd party doing the assessment would receive the information from the ISP, go with the subpoena, get the computer, and if nothing's found, the computer returned, the IP registered as a dead end, and the copyright holder or their lawyers never gets the name or address. If something's found, then the actual evidence is passed along to the court, who would okay the naming of the computer owner to the lawsuit. Thus, actual evidence linking someone to a crime is found, privacy's not further invaded than necessary, and people avoid settling out of fear of a legal battle despite innocence.
And I swear to all that anyone has ever held holy, if you say "That would be too expensive for the rights holder," you are the dumbest sack of shit I'll have ever communicated with via electronic means, since if they're not prepared to pay for actual investigation they have no goddamn cause to be suing hundreds or thousands of people.
Not enough product shipped to stores (we got 3 64GB models, just enough to satisfy preorders on launch day), they didn't hype the fact that we'd be opening an hour early on launch day for those who wanted to pick up one, they didn't get a demo model out so people could play with it to entice more preorders, didn't get a demo out to stores so staff could learn a bit and show people fun stuff about it, or useful stuff about it, and accessories didn't reach the store for the most part until the day after launch or later. Three mediocre cases, that's all there was available for people to chose from. Seriously one of the worst product launches I've seen pretty much ever.
There is no Magic.
I have a very large collection of cards that would like to disagree with you. Also some wizards who are from some coast.