The name War of the Worlds was the name of a book written by H.G. Wells which is now in the public domain, and as such, anyone can make a movie - or TV show (or even a new book) - based upon that name because it has become generic with the original story.
When it was originally made as a movie it is conceivably possible that if someone had at that time filed for trademark status there might (and maybe not even then) be other issues but not now. Thus it is possible for anyone to make a new book, movie or TV show on the ideas and can use the name for it because nobody can own the name.
Really, I am. You see, for years I've been putting up with "I'm a techie, too!" people. The kind that have no idea what they're doing.
And I think we have probably just as many if not more companies where the people hiring don't know what they are doing or the Human Resources people reject everyone who has any capacity other than exactly what they ask for. Or they ask for tech skills which it's impossible to get someone for because nobody could possibly have those skills (like asking for 5 years experience in Java when the language had only existed for 2). Or they post demands way, way, above what is necessary to do the job, simply so they can troll for resumes, I guess.
For every 100 people that say "Yeah, I work with computers, too!", I'm lucky if I meet three or four that actually have a clue, and (here's the important part) actually have any marketable skills.
Well, you must be advertising in the local throw-away papers because I routinely respond to ads, both in newspapers and on-line where my skill-set exceeds the requirements of what they are asking for, and I get nothing. Maybe I'll get a form-letter back. The companies routinely inflate their listings of what they need, and when I send in my resume where I know even from what they are asking I could do all of it, they presume I'm lying because too many others match their inflated request for skills with an inflated list of skills. Too many of them demand advanced degrees because they can use the requirements to do the thinking for them instead of being able to know what someone needs in order to do the job, probably because they can't.
Someone once suggested to try applying for something lower on the totem pole, and work up to the job you would want as it became available. I tried that in a few cases; that didn't work either. Many years ago I went to an interview once and the guy looked at me and asked me why I was applying for a job I was overqualified for. Having not been able to find any work at all for six months, I had half a mind to paste him one, and I'm not a violent person. I held my temper and finished the interview. I have a suspicion that company isn't in business anymore, with that kind of attitude, that being too good is a disqualification like drinking on the job or stealing.
Yes, they're the ones that whine and moan that "the market is flooded", "you can't get a job in (insert state name)", "it's all these people willing to work for nothing", or "the economy is so horrible."
Around 2000 I was between jobs and worked every day to get one. Took me three weeks. 2 1/2 years later I went on another aggressive job search just like the previous one over several months and could find nothing. The places I was qualified for would never contact me, the others either wanted advanced degrees (and I still could have done the work) or a security clearance. I think some of them figure because I have a lot of experience I'm unwilling to work for what they would offer to pay me (but won't even bother to find out) or for any number of reasons, some might even be illegal.
I know a lot of people who make their living with computers. And while "the economy was bad", I can honestly say that the job difficulties they faced were inversely proportional to their expertise. The better they really were, the less trouble they had.
I apparently am very good at what I do, every place I've either worked at or did freelance work was simply blown away with astonishment by the quality and speed of my work, I have over 20 years of experience, but I could not get a programming job anywhere within a 50-mile radius of where I live, 4 miles from Washington, DC and 3 miles from the Pentagon.
When we put an ad in the paper for a programmer who (a) has used Perl in a CGI environment, (b) has some knowledge of SQL, and (c) has some knowledge of HTML, you
3com has announced its new lines of routers poised to compete with Cisco. 'The company claims that these routers will cost 30 percent to 50 percent less than similar offerings from market leader Cisco.'
Cisco's routers at $9,000 and 3Com's undercutting those prices at $6,000 isn't hard to do when it's my understanding that you can do all or almost all of the features of those with a 233MHZ Pentium, a 1GB hard drive with CDROM, 64Meg of memory and any version of Linux or BSD and a couple of 4-port 100mbit Ethernet cards, in which the cards are the most expensive at $100 each, the PC is $50 and a copy of the BSD or Linux distro (if you don't already have one) is $5 including shipping from any number of the cheap distributors, and so with a little bit of skull sweat you can provide all the features of a $6,000 3COM 30% discount over Cisco, in a box that costs 5% of even the discounted 3COM price.
I'm not so sure about this though. I have an old cellphone I would like to keep in my car for dialing 911, but there's no way to know if it would actually work for that purpose after I have cancelled my service.
All cell phones - I believe it even includes ones blacklisted as stolen - are required under Federal law to be able to call 911. Even if the phone has no service you should still be able to use it for that purpose.
No it won't, the local provider is required to provide 911 service on disconnected lines.
Can you provide a citation for this? While cellphones work this way, I can't imagine that landlines do. No power to the line, no dialtone, exactly how are you going to call 911?
In some areas they have enough free pairs and new equipment available that they can leave service terminated lines connected to the switch, in which case they have only "service terminated" connection (there is probably an official name for this type of phone "service" but I'm sure you know what I mean), the line cannot receive calls (it does not have a dialable number), and can only dial two numbers: the service connection number to have service turned on, and 911. If you try to call anything else, you get a recording telling you to call the service connection number (which it gives you.)
In places where they have older equipment that can't give you a service terminated connection, then you get either a battery line (dead line with hum) or they pull your pairs to give them to someone else (and you get a dead line with nothing, not even hum.) Back before they got the newer switches that supported service terminated connections, they had to cut you off to battery line or pull your pairs.
But if you dont have 'service', how will they tie your line back to a location since you have no account data?
Sure you can call, but if your unable to speak coherently, they may not find you in time..
Every POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service, e.g. wired telephone line) has two identifiers: the telephone number of the subscriber which may or may not be unique (because of various options such as the main number of a business being used, or a guest dialing a number from their room in a hotel and having the hotel's main phone number as their outgoing number) and which usually changes every time the subscriber changes, and a local circuit id number that is unique and never changes. The Circuit ID number ties your phone line to the actual physical connector on the main distribution frame (MDF, otherwise known as a switch) down at your Central Office. That number never changes and has nothing to do with your phone number, and the Circuit ID might not even be a number. Knowing which MDF serves a line and which Circuit ID a line is on that MDF, can be translated into a specific address.
In fact, given your area code and prefix (first three digits of your phone number) it is possible for you to determine the city and state, and obtain the 11-character switch identifier (sometimes called a CLLI code) of the MDF (basically a computer set up as a telephone switch) where your call is being carried from, and possibly even the address of the building where the MDF is located.
For example, George W. Bush's telephone number, 202-456-1414 is handled by the switch ID WASHDCMTDS, which also handles 30 other prefixes besides 456, is located at 2055 L ST NW in Washington, DC. (One use for the CLLI code is to determine if you're close enough in distance to your MDF to get DSL service; another is to determine how much you're charged, based on mileage, for toll calls between your MDF and the destination called party MDF). Translate the CLLI plus the circuit ID and you can have the address of the line itself (the street address of the phone) as a non-changeable ID.
If it would be necessary to return a call from 911, that identifier of CLLI+Circuit ID needs to be translated into some sort of dialable number that only 911 or the local telco can call, perhaps a local number starting with 0 and a 6-digit transfer id corresponding to the MDF circuit ID or something. Perhaps a special area code so that it can be identified to a specific local dial-tone carrier if necessary.
Well, clearly the University can't prevent the students from operating the wireless points just because they are the landlords. But can they do it as part of the student agreement?
No.
Can they do it in a housing contract?
No again.
My questions are:
1) Can a landlord restrict use of a technology by explicitly putting it in the contract?
No. Any local restriction violates FCC regulations because the landlord does not have a license and thus has no more right to regulate use of the space than any other unlicensed user.
The answer may seem obvious, but keep in mind that anyone can put up a DirecTV dish in their apartment no matter what the landlord says. And if they were allowed to, would landlords start restricting the use of WiFi as part of their contract or demand payement for it? I think that's what the FCC is trying to avoid.
I think that's about right. And it's more-or-less exactly as you have stated.
2) Can the university bar the access points as a condition of being an enrolled student?
No. They have no ownership right in the spectrum as they are not a licensed user of the space and thus have no authority to regulate as such. If they could 'back door' regulation that way it would be of the same force and effect of a private landlord having penalties or eviction for operating your own wifi AP or having a non-obtrusive satellite dish installed.
If so, can they also ban other legal activities such as gambling, marching in protest or interracial dating?
It's even stronger on that point because it's a state university, they're subject to even tighter restrictions on what they can and can't forbid than a private university.
Not sure of the answer, but my guess is they can't.
I'm inclined to believe that the U. is without recourse here, at least one an affected student gets a lawyer. If they wanted to control the spectrum, they should've used a licensed band instead. I expect the policy won't last long.
My guess is once someone points out that their rule is in violation of federal law they'll fold up faster than a gypsy roofing company.
the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC.
This whole story should be modded Score:-1, Overrated. A university apartment is *not* the student's property - it's *university* property and the university can impose regulations like this as they see fit.
No, they can not. The FCC went over this whole issue in their notice which I was the one that posted the original article almost a month ago. The Denver Airport wanted airlines renting space to use only its (for pay) wifi network and tried to enforce that requirement. FCC stated that as long as someone has legitimate use of a space they may run their own wireless network and may not be forced to use the landlord's network. No private party or state or local government has any authority to regulate or prohibit the unlicensed use of spectrum authorized for unlicensed use.
The FCC aren't going to care if a university prohibits the use of a non-University provided AP, there's no law stopping the University from forbidding the use of random APs brought in by students.
Federal law and FCC regulations, as a matter of fact, are a law and do stop the university from forbidding the use of random APs brought in by students (that are not connected to the University's network).
If the student doesn't like the policy they are free to rent privately or go to another university.
So if a university is issuing a rule in violation of federal law, people should just accept it?
It's no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot. That's not pre-empting the FAA which regulates airspace - it's simply the landowner (the university) imposing conditions of using their land.
Except the university owns the land. It has no ownership right over the wireless space which it, itself, is an unlicensed user.
Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different - if you don't like the rule, rent an apartment where the rules don't forbid 802.11b.
Private parties are not allowed to regulate use of wireless spectrum because they do not own the spectrum in the first place.
It's entirely reasonable for the university to restrict 802.11b access points being plugged into *their* network too from a security point of view (non-secured AP + wardriver = nice big hole through any firewall they have).
You, like so many others, failed to read the original article or the university's own rule. This has absolutely nothing to do with use of the University's network or any connection to it. This is an attempt by the university to regulate non-university-connected networks using unlicensed 802.11b or g freqency space in violation of federal regulations which do not permit the university to regulate such use.
I absolutely agree with the university's decision. There's already a wireless network in place, and since it is overseen by the IT staff, I think it's safe to assume that somebody there has the responsibility of making the network secure and functional for all the students, staff, and faculty to use. Use that, for everybody's sake. Be neighborly.
Only problem is, the university is not a licensed user of the wireless space in question, it has no more right to ban use of the spectrum by other unlicensed parties than it does to prohibit someone from using their own cell phone and requiring you to buy and use their cell phones on their network at their rates.
Setting up a wireless node implies that the node connects to the external network.
No, it does not. I can, for example buy a DSL connection or just have a desktop computer, put up a wireless router and then put a wifi card in a notebook computer so I could use my network anywhere in the area. Nothing says I have to be using the University's network at all. I may want to test Windows Networking / Samba or do some experimenting with networking on my computers.
That means it uses university bandwidth,
This is not what is being discussed under the policy, it has absolutely nothing to do with use of the University's network, it has to do with the use of 802.11b or g wireless systems which are not part of the university's network.
and that means it falls under the university's computer use guidelines (
(here: ) One guideline is that "infrastructure modifications are to be performed only by authorized departments." Adding a wireless node counts as infrastructure.
Not when you're not connecting to their network, you are on a completely unconnected network from theirs.
I assume that a student doesn't count as an authorized department. You lose. Sorry.
Again, you misunderstand the issue.
If the node isn't on the LAN, perhaps that's a different story.
That is exactly what the issue is.
But I'd hate to have to discover and figure out which ones were live and which ones were contained. It's a drain on resources, and a pain in the ass.
You use unlicensed bandwidth, that's one of the problems you have to live with. Besides, the issue isn't over students having access to the school's networks (they already have that and that's not what the policy in question is about). It's the school saying that no one shall operate any non-university network over unlicensed 802.11b or g wireless frequencies anywhere on campus.
If you're doing something that requires you to have your own network, go get an account with a service provider
That is exactly what people have done, that the university claims it has the right to prohibit.
or use the facilities provided by the school. Going that far out of your way would seem to indicate that a rogue wireless node probably is not the right solution anyway.
There is no such thing as a 'rogue wireless node' under 802.11b or g since all use of the frequency spectrum is permitted without FCC license, and under FCC regulations neither a private party nor a local or state government has any authority to impose restrictions on use or require use of some other network.
I attened UTD several years back when they were building the apartments. The apartments are owned by the University who leased the right to manage them to a 3rd party. This case boils down to voluntary contracts which restrict activities. The FCC is not involved in this case because this is not a governmental body trying to regulate the spectrum.
This is exactly what it is. A private party - the university - prohibits anyone from operating a non -university 802.11b or g network anywhere on campus.
Federal law does not trump anything here because federal law is the controlling law. One can voluntarily restrict yourself above and beyond any law. When you buy a house with deed restrictions that limit satillite dishes etc...
The FCC has already said any such restrictions are illegal if they absolutely prohibit satellite dishes. If they say you can't mount one on the roof or outside the building because of appearance, that's one thing. The landlord can't prohibit you from putting one on your balcony or in your back yard if you could put other furniture there, even if there is a prohibition in your lease.
that is exactly what you are doing. People sign voluntary restrictions all the time. As mentioned by others, you can leagally use the spectrum, but you will be punished outside the legal system by the school.
Any type of penalty or prohibition violates FCC regulations since the penalty would be based on use of unlicensed wireless space in violation of a local regulation that the FCC has specifically stated the local organization may not legally impose.
The school can not criminally prosecute you for using the spectrum, mearly withold the priviledge of attending their university and their lease no doubt says they have to attend the university to live there. If there is a catch all phrase that allows arbitrary rules in either the lease they sign or the university admissions, and you can bet there is, then there is no probroblem here. They might be able to have some wiggle room due to the introduction of the rule after they signed what ever document is the enforcing instrument. However this objection will go away as soon as the students resign their lease or sign up for another semester with the new rule added.
The university's attempt to punish people for the unlicensed use of 802.11b or g wireless space on their own private network in violation of either a contract, lease or university rule is a violation of FCC regulations that specifically prohibit the very rule that the university is attempting to impose.
They are just choosing not to give you a wired internet connection if you have such a device attatched.. That is perfectly legal and within their rights, FCC or not.
Try reading the article and the university policy again. This is a straight regulatory prohibition on all 802.11b and g wireless networks anywhere on campus except university supplied ones, in violation of FCC regulations prohibiting private parties and local governments from regulating unlicensed wireless spectrum by legitimate occupants of the area.
The University of Texas, which does receive some funds from the federal government and probably some research grants, too,
This is irrelevant. The prohibition on local restriction of unlicensed wireless space applies to everyone, including private parties who receive no federal funding. If you live in a rented condo in a private building, neither the building owner nor your landlord have any legal authority to prohibit you from running a wireless AP network of your own.
does not have the right to ban the presence of wireless access points on the campus.
You have this exactly right. And this is exactly what the university is attempting.
They do, however, have the right to restrict what types of devices can connect to their network (unless the network is funded with public money).
You didn't read the original article - or the university policy - either. This is not what they are restricting. The university is attempting to claim it can ban all non-university network 802b and g access points, even where it's someone else's network completely unconnected to the university's and used legally by the persons having access to that network.
The person that owns the apartment has the right to restrict this.
Wrong. The FCC has stated that the neither a landlord or any private party nor a state or local government has jurisdiction to regulate, restrict, control or prohibit the use of unlicensed radio frequency use by legitimate occupants of a space. The specific issue was over airports requiring airlines to use (and pay for use of) the airport's wifi network as opposed to the airline setting up their own network in the space they rent. The airport may not prohibit this, no state or local law may prohibit this, and any lease contract provisiona prohibiting this are unenforceable.
I'm a little rusty on wireless, but lets see... There are 11 possible channels. Say a dorm room has 50 kids in it and half of them have an AP. Who's going to get called when they all start clashing? The university tech dept..
If I'm not mistaken, wifi is done such that several users can be on the same channel, or that a unit can ramp down power.
They are using unlicensed spectrum, interference is one of the problems that, if it occurs, you have to put up with.
The FCC has already stated that no private party or state or local government has any jurisdiction whatsoever about the use of unlicensed spectrum. This is on the order of the university attempting to prohibit students from using certain CB or family radio channels or using unlicensed radio channels at all.
The University cannot restrict wireless APs, but they can restrict what gets connected to their network.
You have it exactly backwards, as what they are trying to do is exactly what you yourself said they are not permitted to do: to regulate ALL wireless AP use on campus, even that not on the University's network:
A letter has been sent to Waterview Apartment residents describing the situation in some detail and advising them that no wireless access points other than university-installed ones will be allowed - with a specific exception.
No 802.11b or 802.11g wireless access points may be installed within the Waterview Apartments by residents.
If someone wants to set up a private network for their own connection to the Internet (such as to a cable modem or DSL) or simply hook two or more computers in a private wireless network not using the campus' network, the University is saying that they have the right to prohibit such usage.
The FCC has already stated that such a probibition by private parties such as landlords, or by state or local governments or agencies of such is not permissible.
Hey, grandpa, ever heard of a CD, DVD, USB Key? And a machine with no networking? Sell all of the shit in your basement on ebay and buy a new computer.
I have a ten-year-old automobile that continues to be usable on the road, and will work for the purpose to which it was designed. I don't have to expect that I'll have to junk it because I can't buy a particular exact formulation of gasoline for it a couple of years after purchase. This sort of arrogance in presuming technological obsolescence is reasonable and necessary is the reason a lot of people are not exactly enamored with our industry. It's one thing to talk about, say, vinyl phonorecords, it took something like 20 years from the development of the CD for it to die, and it had been around for 80 years. And same for the change over from leaded to unleaded gasoline. But we are seeing too many cases of technology having extremely short life spans then dying off, quite possibly leaving people with no alternative other than very expensive upgrades. But acting as if someone should upgrade and having a holier-than-thou attitude because they would prefer to be able to continue to use original equipment is a really sick attitude.
To quote Winston Churchill, "This is the sort of arrogant pedantry up which I will not put."
I thought I'd bring you the "News for Nerds" that the Slashdot editors thought was not appropriate for you to discuss..
Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft?
What's there to discuss? Forbes is using Microsoft's patented flawed method of making Linux look more expensive than Windows, by comparing a full-list price commercial release of Red Hat Server against the lowest negotiated price of XP. It does not note that if you're going to go that route if you're smart enough to install Linux you probably have enough home-grown intelligence to use one of the less expensive releases and support it yourself. It also fails to note that except for commercial proprietary applications you only need to buy one copy of Linux and you can install it and all non-proprietary apps multiple places without buying additional licenses. Also not noted is the support level for Red Hat is much higher than that for Windows XP, to which any support requests require purchase of incident reporting packs, if I'm not mistaken.
The "penalty of perjury" bit only applies to the belief that they represent the copyright holder. It's a common misconception (propagated by the DMCA creators) to think they need to be sure before sending threats.
No, actually the law does require good faith (See Below).
I can send a DMCA to any ISP and claim that
a) I think a particular file contains copyrighted work written (shot/drawn) by my sister
b) under penalty of perjury I promise that I represent my sister
Deat Sir: We have received your take-down notice under the Digital Millenium copyright act. Your notice fails to state that you have a good-faith belief the material is infringing. It also fails to state that, as part of the notice under penalty of perjury, that the statements made in the notice (including the belief in good faith that the materials are infringing) are accurate, as is required for the notice to be effective under 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v) and (vi), which reads as follows:
(3) Elements of notification. --
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that you are, or are authorized by, the copyright proprietor to demand take down, and that you have made a good faith effort to ensure that the work you are requesting to be removed is in fact an infringement of a work that you are the owner or the representative of, and to provide for damages against you in the event your demand was not in good faith.
As your notice does not include the statement required under the law, the notice is defective. Were we to remove this material without a statement from you under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief the material is infringing as well as the copyright holder or their agent, it may be considered that we alone are liable for damages to any third party in the event your request was not made in good faith. By your including a statement that you have acted in good faith and a statement which indicates that statement is correct and under penalty of perjury, we are not liable to third parties as a result of removing the material.
Please send us a new notice stating that you have a good faith belief that the material you are requesting to remove is infringing upon a copyright you own or are the agent for the owner, and under penalty of perjury that the information stated in the preceding notice is accurate, as is required by the statute. At such time as we receive a notice complying with the law we wil
We had one of these letters once delivered to Postmaster and Webmaster accounts for the company I work for. After a half hour of scurrying around trying to find the offending files on the system and failing, we double-checked the IP address that they said was the server with the offending files, and sure enough, they had made a typo between the time their script found the files, and they did a lookup on the ip address. The offending subnet, completely not owned by our company, was transposed a few digits.
So, we replied back to them, told them of their idiocy, and got a somewhat reasonable apology back - but nothing like what it SHOULD have been based on the language and severe tone of their warning.
Pursuant to 17 USC 512(f), did you send them a bill for the damages caused by their false notice of infringement? The time your company's employees had to spend to look for the material is certainly compensable. If the search took five people 1/2 hour, and the fully burdened labor cost per employee is perhaps $120 an hour, they've injured your company to the tune of at least $300.00 or more. And if they don't pay, the law also provides for court costs and attorney's fees.
There's been some mention in the discussion of making phony files with infringing-sounding names (perhaps oops_i_did_it_again.mp3). This could at some point generate a letter from the RIAA to your ISP in which they accuse you of infringing their copyright.
IANAL, but that sounds an awful lot like libel to me - lying about me to a third party, trying to besmirch my reputation, trying to instigate problems for me. Would that work as an offensive tactic against the RIAA?
I would say yes. IANAL either, but I think it would be better to pick a name which has been used more than once, like "Tonights_The_Night.MP3" (Kool & The Gang, Rod Stewart) different songs; "9_to_5.MP3" (Sheena Easton, Dolly Parton) different songs; or "Give_Peace_a_Chance.MP3 (The Beatles, Joe Cocker) different songs. Now if it's a spoken commentary about the other song (that doesn't use any of it) then it might be okay.
Then when a takedown notice comes along from one of these organizations, and the MP3 is played in a court case showing it isn't one of their songs, it becomes a bad faith takedown notice under 17 USC 512(f) for which the party demanding takedown is liable for damages due to any injury caused by the takedown as well as costs and attorney's fees. If it can be shown that all that would have been necessary to show it wasn't infringing was to examine the file and see (say by file size, or by playing it) then it is obvious bad faith and actionable.
1. Program two pieces of software, one called X-Files.zip with code to break the protection of the program called HalfLife.zip 2. Put them online always stating that downloading X-Files.zip is ilegal 3. Let's the bots come to you 4. ??? 5. Profit
Here's your #4: 4. Sue for damages, costs and attorney's fees for filing a false notice of infringement under 17 USC 512(f).
Perhaps there should be a penalty for knowingly or carelessly making a false accusation?
There is:
Section 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online [ ]
(f) Misrepresentations. -- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section --
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. - 17 U.S.C. 512(f)
So the company that takes down the material, then puts it back up because of a counternotice, can obtain damages from the MPAA/RIAA or other organization that gives a false "take down" order. (They've had to expend expensive employee resources to remove or disable the offending material.) And the party who was falsely accused can sue for any damages (libel). Plus court costs and attorney's fees. Also, if it was taken down and it was, say, a shareware package that a third party was selling, that copyright owner would have a case against them as well (since it could have deprived them of sales) or may have damaged their reputation by accusing them of committing copyright infringement (or may constitute slander of title, one of the issues SCO is/was suing Novell over).
Maybe just the threat of a public judgement in federal court against them for this would make them settle, just like these organizations have forced people who used file sharing systems to settle for stiff 4 and 5 figure private fines rather than face trial.
Slashdot Mirror
When it was originally made as a movie it is conceivably possible that if someone had at that time filed for trademark status there might (and maybe not even then) be other issues but not now. Thus it is possible for anyone to make a new book, movie or TV show on the ideas and can use the name for it because nobody can own the name.
And I think we have probably just as many if not more companies where the people hiring don't know what they are doing or the Human Resources people reject everyone who has any capacity other than exactly what they ask for. Or they ask for tech skills which it's impossible to get someone for because nobody could possibly have those skills (like asking for 5 years experience in Java when the language had only existed for 2). Or they post demands way, way, above what is necessary to do the job, simply so they can troll for resumes, I guess.
Well, you must be advertising in the local throw-away papers because I routinely respond to ads, both in newspapers and on-line where my skill-set exceeds the requirements of what they are asking for, and I get nothing. Maybe I'll get a form-letter back. The companies routinely inflate their listings of what they need, and when I send in my resume where I know even from what they are asking I could do all of it, they presume I'm lying because too many others match their inflated request for skills with an inflated list of skills. Too many of them demand advanced degrees because they can use the requirements to do the thinking for them instead of being able to know what someone needs in order to do the job, probably because they can't.
Someone once suggested to try applying for something lower on the totem pole, and work up to the job you would want as it became available. I tried that in a few cases; that didn't work either. Many years ago I went to an interview once and the guy looked at me and asked me why I was applying for a job I was overqualified for. Having not been able to find any work at all for six months, I had half a mind to paste him one, and I'm not a violent person. I held my temper and finished the interview. I have a suspicion that company isn't in business anymore, with that kind of attitude, that being too good is a disqualification like drinking on the job or stealing.
Around 2000 I was between jobs and worked every day to get one. Took me three weeks. 2 1/2 years later I went on another aggressive job search just like the previous one over several months and could find nothing. The places I was qualified for would never contact me, the others either wanted advanced degrees (and I still could have done the work) or a security clearance. I think some of them figure because I have a lot of experience I'm unwilling to work for what they would offer to pay me (but won't even bother to find out) or for any number of reasons, some might even be illegal.
I apparently am very good at what I do, every place I've either worked at or did freelance work was simply blown away with astonishment by the quality and speed of my work, I have over 20 years of experience, but I could not get a programming job anywhere within a 50-mile radius of where I live, 4 miles from Washington, DC and 3 miles from the Pentagon.
It would have been Spam if the Cunard line had sent the telegrams collect!
In places where they have older equipment that can't give you a service terminated connection, then you get either a battery line (dead line with hum) or they pull your pairs to give them to someone else (and you get a dead line with nothing, not even hum.) Back before they got the newer switches that supported service terminated connections, they had to cut you off to battery line or pull your pairs.
In fact, given your area code and prefix (first three digits of your phone number) it is possible for you to determine the city and state, and obtain the 11-character switch identifier (sometimes called a CLLI code) of the MDF (basically a computer set up as a telephone switch) where your call is being carried from, and possibly even the address of the building where the MDF is located.
For example, George W. Bush's telephone number, 202-456-1414 is handled by the switch ID WASHDCMTDS, which also handles 30 other prefixes besides 456, is located at 2055 L ST NW in Washington, DC. (One use for the CLLI code is to determine if you're close enough in distance to your MDF to get DSL service; another is to determine how much you're charged, based on mileage, for toll calls between your MDF and the destination called party MDF). Translate the CLLI plus the circuit ID and you can have the address of the line itself (the street address of the phone) as a non-changeable ID.
If it would be necessary to return a call from 911, that identifier of CLLI+Circuit ID needs to be translated into some sort of dialable number that only 911 or the local telco can call, perhaps a local number starting with 0 and a 6-digit transfer id corresponding to the MDF circuit ID or something. Perhaps a special area code so that it can be identified to a specific local dial-tone carrier if necessary.
The FCC has already stated that such a probibition by private parties such as landlords, or by state or local governments or agencies of such is not permissible.
To quote Winston Churchill, "This is the sort of arrogant pedantry up which I will not put."
No, actually the law does require good faith (See Below).
Deat Sir:
We have received your take-down notice under the Digital Millenium copyright act. Your notice fails to state that you have a good-faith belief the material is infringing. It also fails to state that, as part of the notice under penalty of perjury, that the statements made in the notice (including the belief in good faith that the materials are infringing) are accurate, as is required for the notice to be effective under 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v) and (vi), which reads as follows:
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that you are, or are authorized by, the copyright proprietor to demand take down, and that you have made a good faith effort to ensure that the work you are requesting to be removed is in fact an infringement of a work that you are the owner or the representative of, and to provide for damages against you in the event your demand was not in good faith.
As your notice does not include the statement required under the law, the notice is defective. Were we to remove this material without a statement from you under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief the material is infringing as well as the copyright holder or their agent, it may be considered that we alone are liable for damages to any third party in the event your request was not made in good faith. By your including a statement that you have acted in good faith and a statement which indicates that statement is correct and under penalty of perjury, we are not liable to third parties as a result of removing the material.
Please send us a new notice stating that you have a good faith belief that the material you are requesting to remove is infringing upon a copyright you own or are the agent for the owner, and under penalty of perjury that the information stated in the preceding notice is accurate, as is required by the statute. At such time as we receive a notice complying with the law we wil
Then when a takedown notice comes along from one of these organizations, and the MP3 is played in a court case showing it isn't one of their songs, it becomes a bad faith takedown notice under 17 USC 512(f) for which the party demanding takedown is liable for damages due to any injury caused by the takedown as well as costs and attorney's fees. If it can be shown that all that would have been necessary to show it wasn't infringing was to examine the file and see (say by file size, or by playing it) then it is obvious bad faith and actionable.
4. Sue for damages, costs and attorney's fees for filing a false notice of infringement under 17 USC 512(f).
Maybe just the threat of a public judgement in federal court against them for this would make them settle, just like these organizations have forced people who used file sharing systems to settle for stiff 4 and 5 figure private fines rather than face trial.
Paul Robinson