There's a bit in the constitution about the freedom of the press, but they've got the same freedom of speech that you or I do. Well, that I do at least, don't know if you're an American.
There aren't many "press laws" - the press doesn't get particular special rights because it's the press. You too can file a FOIA and find out about the activities of the FBI, if you _really_ wanted to.
CNN is safe from lawsuit because TWarner won't sue itself. Not because of some ephemeral "press law."
Unless you know of one that I don't? Which is utterly possible, just tell me which it is.
This is what the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA were specifically designed for - indemnification of Internet Service Providers from business-destroying injunctions, even when there was the possibility of copyright infringement.
The fact that the judge overlooked that fact is a bit mind boggling.
Unless I missed something and Napster has been actually doing some of the work by means _other_ than automated processes, then they fit 512(a), no? And if so, then the injunctive relief that may be afforded the RIAA can only be under 512(j)(1)(B) which provides:
(B)
If the service provider qualifies for the limitation on remedies described in subsection (a), the court may only grant injunctive relief in one or both of the following forms:
(i) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to a subscriber or account holder of the service provider's system or network who is using the provider's service to engage in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified inthe order.
(ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States.
---
This of course begs the question of whether Napster finds itself within a 512(a) framework, which obviously the judge didn't see (I don't know why not, but IANAL _and_ I haven't read the decision) but if they do then the relief afforded the RIAA was wrong. I think. Like I say, IANAL.
And, because IANAL, this isn't legal advice, just MHO, and should be treated as such. In other words: don't rely on this, even for coctail party discussion.
Full text of 17 USC 512 is available online at http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/512.html
And no, I am not a lawyer, and if I were, that shouldn't be construed as advice.
But practicing law without a licence is a crime, and it's perpetrating a fraud on the other party, so I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. You point to nothing, but make vague insulting statements. "Do a bit more studying" does not answer as a retort, merely as an unfounded reply.
Maybe you know something I don't, and hey, that's fine with me. I'm new at this, and was flying off the handle. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Have you got an argument, or just a feeling that I can't possibly be right?
I concede that I may be wrong, but the onus is on you to show me how.
Wow, while that's funny advice, it's also mind numbingly stupid.
And in fact, it may be a crime - Fraud. "Mate in a suit" as lawyer, you've perpetrated a fraud on the company upon which they have relied, and if something goes wrong, you're screwed.
The last place I worked was the swanky Madison Avenue interactive branch of an old school Madison Avenue ad firm.
The design really rather reflected their attitude. Everyone got Aeron chairs. The creative team had one very very large room, and the account team had the other. This worked out nicely for them. They had plenty of space to freewheel and kick back and discuss and create.
The tech team, which actually built the sites that the creatives designed, were situated in a converted hallway, with their backs to one another, in such a cramped space that you couldn't sit Aeron to Aeron without bumping the body behind you.
Eventually, the techies were separated into vacant _offices_ with views of Madison Avenue and the nearby church. Not well thought out.
How many of you were sitting at work when you saw this item, and have since spent a good deal of time trying to write a bit of obfuscated perl to post here as your response?
Refusing to submit to an illegal search is _not_ grounds for arrest, _nor_ is it grounds for a search. What you expect is _at most_ a frisking for _weapons_.
He's not an idiot, he's a citizen with rights. The fact that the police regularly forget that is not his fault.
As a dedicated Mac user (don't laugh) I was disgusted to learn that the much beloved and often revolutionary BUNGIE software company had beenWhich means that HALO, which promised to be as revolutionary as Myth, will come out for the XBox only, and I'll never get to play.
Yes, but what you have to realize is that there is no spoon, and it's only you that bends.
[which, with reference to gaming, implies to me that if you're using a 'cheat' and racking up kills, it's you that's _getting_ cheated, because instead of learning to play and being good at it, you're merely bending yourself...]
They _did_ take this to the highest court possible. It's legal procedure - gotta start at the bottom and work your way up. Appeals are totally different from what most Americans think they are - an appeal is basically "the judge below got the law wrong" not a "well, we don't agree with the decision."
Actually, the courts have already determined (if memory serves) that hyperlinking is not a derivative work, it's a pointer. Deep linking on the other hand (where someone snags an image or a text fragment via RDF or a simple img pointer) is most likely infringment of one sort or another.
The point of the child-molestor boogeyman is precisely that: to get you to drop your guard a little bit, so that your civil liberties may be eroded.
Don't get me wrong, a whole lot of the folks in law enforcement are good people driven by a desire to see justice done.
Then again, there's also hairbrained idiots that give people like Joe McCarthy all the ammo he wants, by using the constitution as toilet paper.
So we're clear, the right to privacy is _not_ in the Constitution, it's been implied by the Supreme Court. However, to allow the Feds unfettered email access, even "court order only" access to any email they want, is tantamount to saying that while we like the Fourth Fifth and Sixth amendments, they really don't apply on the net.
Which could technically be argued - no reasonable expectation of privacy because your email goes through proprietary systems and not pure common carrier systems, as the phone company has been designated. They may have a legal leg to stand on, unfortunately. I don't want to think about that.
But as far as your "child molestors and their like" go, I must say that I wonder if you were being sarcastic. Who else is like a child molestor? Depends on who is legislating, no? Perhaps an abortion foe? Or an abortion activist? Or a Jew? Or a Muslim?
I mean, we should REALLY be cracking down on those middle eastern peoples, anyone who came here from Iran or Iraq or Libya or whatnot, whenEVER should be able to have their email scanned at will, because they might be emailing Ossama Bin Laden. (note: sarcasm)
Those of you that give up your Freedoms for freedoms (your Bill of Rights Freedoms for the freedom to live without fear, or so you believe) are exactly those that De'Tocqueville warned would cause the inevitable destruction of the "Great Experiment." Those who would rather a bottle of vodka, a linux box and oral sex once a week, instead of the Freedom to be secure in our persons from an intrusive government.
Put me down on the side of "Freedom" thanks. I don't mind if I live in a little bit of fear of my neighbors, if I don't have to fear being rounded up by the government because they saw me chatting with a friend, via email, about DeCSS.
For a good primer on Domain Name Disputes, try here. Literally, thousands of pages have been written on this subject. Fifty of them, by me. Unfortunately, it looks like WIPO is within it's treaty rights. I'm as much in favor of strong IP as the next guy, but WIPO is an adjudicative body pursuant to treaties, which is independant of yet binding on signatory governments. No, I don't like it one bit, personally. Especially since their dispute policy is basically "You tell us the facts, and we'll tell you where to stick them." First they came for corinthians.com, and I didn't say anything because I don't read scripture. Then they came for Water.com and I didn't say anything because it's not my domain. Now they're coming for Swerdloff.com, and ummm, who the hell but me would want that?
I'm just looking at it from a purely legal standpoint. By law, corporations are treated as humans for purposes of virtually everything except voting and the criminal code, because it's impossible to lock up a corporation.
For christs sake, do a little research before you start firing off terms that actually mean something. If you were to download a barney song and remaster it as a parody, then that would fall under the Parody caselaw, NOT the fair use provision. Fair Use is about copying. And yes, it matters - this isn't parody, it's a commercial use making derivative copies that violate copyright. (IANALBIAAJD)
Whereas what you do with napster is pure copyright infringment, what Deja does is too, just of a different right.
17 USC 107 is the Fair Use provision:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Don't they have lawyers over there? Something about 17 USC 106(2)?
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of a copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Of coures, hypocritical/.ers complain about overly restrictive copyright laws, and how evil IP laws are, and then Deja does something like this, which is almost definitely (although IANAL) and then they piss vinegar about something like this?
We don't want strong IP laws for Napster or DeCSS, but damn, don't touch my usenet post.
Go ahead and moderate me down for pointing out the hypocrisy, and don't bother defending it with "but they're corporations and we're people" that's as valid as a racial, ethnic or gender based discrimination.
I said: Didn't Yahoo just do exactly that with Google?
You Said:
Why would such a company buy a site from a 3rd party anyway? It seems that all that that company does is operate that site. It's kind of like operating a search engine and buying all of the data from another search engine.
In other news, these lawsuits are generally won by the plaintiff:
1) Mechanic does a poor job on his clients car and the car careens out of control. That's called negligence, or products liability, depending on your jurisdiction and what the mechanic did. People tend to die.
2) Doctor misdiagnoses a condition. Again, someone gets maltreated. Or gets worse. Or dies.
3) Building contractors walls start cracking, then the cracks become holes, and the building falls down.
A business with a semi-lame business plan (I know, we'll put, ummm, actors, on the ummm, what's that thing called? The Internet?) hires a name-brand and finds out that A: Their business plan is crap B: Cutting edge design usually compromises usability
Slashdot Mirror
What freedom of press laws?
There's a bit in the constitution about the freedom of the press, but they've got the same freedom of speech that you or I do. Well, that I do at least, don't know if you're an American.
There aren't many "press laws" - the press doesn't get particular special rights because it's the press. You too can file a FOIA and find out about the activities of the FBI, if you _really_ wanted to.
CNN is safe from lawsuit because TWarner won't sue itself. Not because of some ephemeral "press law."
Unless you know of one that I don't? Which is utterly possible, just tell me which it is.
(IANALATINLA)
This is what the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA were specifically designed for - indemnification of Internet Service Providers from business-destroying injunctions, even when there was the possibility of copyright infringement.
The fact that the judge overlooked that fact is a bit mind boggling.
Unless I missed something and Napster has been actually doing some of the work by means _other_ than automated processes, then they fit 512(a), no? And if so, then the injunctive relief that may be afforded the RIAA can only be under 512(j)(1)(B) which provides:
(B)
If the service provider qualifies for the limitation on remedies described in subsection (a), the court may only grant injunctive relief in one or both of the following forms:
(i) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to a subscriber or account holder of the service provider's system or network who is using the provider's service to engage in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified inthe order.
(ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States.
---
This of course begs the question of whether Napster finds itself within a 512(a) framework, which obviously the judge didn't see (I don't know why not, but IANAL _and_ I haven't read the decision) but if they do then the relief afforded the RIAA was wrong. I think. Like I say, IANAL.
And, because IANAL, this isn't legal advice, just MHO, and should be treated as such. In other words: don't rely on this, even for coctail party discussion.
Full text of 17 USC 512 is available online at http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/512.html
I'm still not clear on the concept - you can't sell your vote, but you can buy your congressman?
Don't seem right to me.
I'm sorry, which part was incorrect?
And no, I am not a lawyer, and if I were, that shouldn't be construed as advice.
But practicing law without a licence is a crime, and it's perpetrating a fraud on the other party, so I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. You point to nothing, but make vague insulting statements. "Do a bit more studying" does not answer as a retort, merely as an unfounded reply.
Maybe you know something I don't, and hey, that's fine with me. I'm new at this, and was flying off the handle. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Have you got an argument, or just a feeling that I can't possibly be right?
I concede that I may be wrong, but the onus is on you to show me how.
Wow, while that's funny advice, it's also mind numbingly stupid.
And in fact, it may be a crime - Fraud. "Mate in a suit" as lawyer, you've perpetrated a fraud on the company upon which they have relied, and if something goes wrong, you're screwed.
The last place I worked was the swanky Madison Avenue interactive branch of an old school Madison Avenue ad firm.
The design really rather reflected their attitude. Everyone got Aeron chairs. The creative team had one very very large room, and the account team had the other. This worked out nicely for them. They had plenty of space to freewheel and kick back and discuss and create.
The tech team, which actually built the sites that the creatives designed, were situated in a converted hallway, with their backs to one another, in such a cramped space that you couldn't sit Aeron to Aeron without bumping the body behind you.
Eventually, the techies were separated into vacant _offices_ with views of Madison Avenue and the nearby church. Not well thought out.
Damn.
I was wrong.
Now I've gotta give all seven dollars to myself.
Man.
I've got $7 that says it doesn't get moderated at all.
Of course, why my cash is talking to me is a different story.
How many of you were sitting at work when you saw this item, and have since spent a good deal of time trying to write a bit of obfuscated perl to post here as your response?
I'm not the only one, fess up.
Refusing to submit to an illegal search is _not_ grounds for arrest, _nor_ is it grounds for a search. What you expect is _at most_ a frisking for _weapons_.
He's not an idiot, he's a citizen with rights. The fact that the police regularly forget that is not his fault.
B-U-N-G-I-E.
As a dedicated Mac user (don't laugh) I was disgusted to learn that the much beloved and often revolutionary BUNGIE software company had beenWhich means that HALO, which promised to be as revolutionary as Myth, will come out for the XBox only, and I'll never get to play.
Jerks.
'Nuff said.
Yes, but what you have to realize is that there is no spoon, and it's only you that bends.
[which, with reference to gaming, implies to me that if you're using a 'cheat' and racking up kills, it's you that's _getting_ cheated, because instead of learning to play and being good at it, you're merely bending yourself...]
alt.binaries.nospam
that works.
They _did_ take this to the highest court possible. It's legal procedure - gotta start at the bottom and work your way up. Appeals are totally different from what most Americans think they are - an appeal is basically "the judge below got the law wrong" not a "well, we don't agree with the decision."
Haven't these people ever heard of alt.binaries.erotica? Why pay for porn?
Not that I would know, of course...
Actually, the courts have already determined (if memory serves) that hyperlinking is not a derivative work, it's a pointer. Deep linking on the other hand (where someone snags an image or a text fragment via RDF or a simple img pointer) is most likely infringment of one sort or another.
That's why I said it was a trick question. Jeez.
The point of the child-molestor boogeyman is precisely that: to get you to drop your guard a little bit, so that your civil liberties may be eroded.
Don't get me wrong, a whole lot of the folks in law enforcement are good people driven by a desire to see justice done.
Then again, there's also hairbrained idiots that give people like Joe McCarthy all the ammo he wants, by using the constitution as toilet paper.
So we're clear, the right to privacy is _not_ in the Constitution, it's been implied by the Supreme Court. However, to allow the Feds unfettered email access, even "court order only" access to any email they want, is tantamount to saying that while we like the Fourth Fifth and Sixth amendments, they really don't apply on the net.
Which could technically be argued - no reasonable expectation of privacy because your email goes through proprietary systems and not pure common carrier systems, as the phone company has been designated. They may have a legal leg to stand on, unfortunately. I don't want to think about that.
But as far as your "child molestors and their like" go, I must say that I wonder if you were being sarcastic. Who else is like a child molestor? Depends on who is legislating, no? Perhaps an abortion foe? Or an abortion activist? Or a Jew? Or a Muslim?
I mean, we should REALLY be cracking down on those middle eastern peoples, anyone who came here from Iran or Iraq or Libya or whatnot, whenEVER should be able to have their email scanned at will, because they might be emailing Ossama Bin Laden. (note: sarcasm)
Those of you that give up your Freedoms for freedoms (your Bill of Rights Freedoms for the freedom to live without fear, or so you believe) are exactly those that De'Tocqueville warned would cause the inevitable destruction of the "Great Experiment." Those who would rather a bottle of vodka, a linux box and oral sex once a week, instead of the Freedom to be secure in our persons from an intrusive government.
Put me down on the side of "Freedom" thanks. I don't mind if I live in a little bit of fear of my neighbors, if I don't have to fear being rounded up by the government because they saw me chatting with a friend, via email, about DeCSS.
For a good primer on Domain Name Disputes, try here. Literally, thousands of pages have been written on this subject. Fifty of them, by me.
Unfortunately, it looks like WIPO is within it's treaty rights. I'm as much in favor of strong IP as the next guy, but WIPO is an adjudicative body pursuant to treaties, which is independant of yet binding on signatory governments. No, I don't like it one bit, personally. Especially since their dispute policy is basically "You tell us the facts, and we'll tell you where to stick them."
First they came for corinthians.com, and I didn't say anything because I don't read scripture. Then they came for Water.com and I didn't say anything because it's not my domain. Now they're coming for Swerdloff.com, and ummm, who the hell but me would want that?
I'm just looking at it from a purely legal standpoint. By law, corporations are treated as humans for purposes of virtually everything except voting and the criminal code, because it's impossible to lock up a corporation.
If you don't like the rules, vote.
For christs sake, do a little research before you start firing off terms that actually mean something. If you were to download a barney song and remaster it as a parody, then that would fall under the Parody caselaw, NOT the fair use provision. Fair Use is about copying. And yes, it matters - this isn't parody, it's a commercial use making derivative copies that violate copyright. (IANALBIAAJD)
Whereas what you do with napster is pure copyright infringment, what Deja does is too, just of a different right.
17 USC 107 is the Fair Use provision:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Two Words: Copyright infringement.
/.ers complain about overly restrictive copyright laws, and how evil IP laws are, and then Deja does something like this, which is almost definitely (although IANAL) and then they piss vinegar about something like this?
Don't they have lawyers over there? Something about 17 USC 106(2)?
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of a copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Of coures, hypocritical
We don't want strong IP laws for Napster or DeCSS, but damn, don't touch my usenet post.
Go ahead and moderate me down for pointing out the hypocrisy, and don't bother defending it with "but they're corporations and we're people" that's as valid as a racial, ethnic or gender based discrimination.
Flame away and moderate away.
I said:
Didn't Yahoo just do exactly that with Google?
You Said:
Why would such a company buy a site from a 3rd party anyway? It seems that all that that company does is operate that site. It's kind of like operating a search engine and buying all of the data from another search engine.
In other news, these lawsuits are generally won by the plaintiff:
1) Mechanic does a poor job on his clients car and the car careens out of control. That's called negligence, or products liability, depending on your jurisdiction and what the mechanic did. People tend to die.
2) Doctor misdiagnoses a condition. Again, someone gets maltreated. Or gets worse. Or dies.
3) Building contractors walls start cracking, then the cracks become holes, and the building falls down.
A business with a semi-lame business plan (I know, we'll put, ummm, actors, on the ummm, what's that thing called? The Internet?) hires a name-brand and finds out that
A: Their business plan is crap
B: Cutting edge design usually compromises usability
And then their business dies.
Lawsuit.
-Swerdloff (IANAL, BIAAJD)