You know that copyright itself is not criminal law?
If people can go to jail for violations, I don't quite see it that way, but right, the law's the law.. And I find it very unfortunate that the accuser can sting a guy with a mere "preponderance of evidence". It's a bogus two tiered system. "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied much more strenuously and forcefully to all charges leveled against anybody.
The hosting service doesn't need to remove the content, but then they are liable to defend it in court.
That is precisely the problem. The accuser should pay all costs, and the video should stay up until the case is closed. Unfortunately a hosting company has little to gain from defending the client's rights, so, down it comes. The internet needs to be more P2P to make the removal of content more difficult.
I didn't know I needed to specify every little piece of the service, which, to me, encompasses the phone, software, the bank through which you pay the bill... Once anybody receives "the letter", all your communications are up for grabs. These guys are selling snake oil. Trust is not an option.
No, what the DMCA did was reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The "safe harbor" provision was a marketing ploy to sell the law.
I how you are aware that it doesn't matter. Back doors are simply mandated into the service, possibly, or probably, by secret law, or it is declared illegal for use. Read the contract. Unless it specifically says the company will never, under any circumstances comply with a government order to open up its communications, then the service should not be considered secure. And even then, you still have to trust them. That is living a fantasy in today's world.
A marriage contract amongst blood relatives would be superfluous and redundant. And minors are not allowed to sign binding contracts. However let's not stop people from delving into the absurd if they are looking to keep homosexuals out also. Personally, I think they'll get more mileage out of the "religious freedom" angle, where civil rights law is considered "discriminatory". People are actually falling for that one.
Damn you for reading my mind! That's exactly what's happening. They have to build a list of exceptions, and I'm sure one can get on that list for a "small fee".
That sounds like a design flaw, or maybe turning everything into client-server was intentional on the game vendors' part. I mean, a "phonebook" style of directory service is nice, but you shouldn't have to depend on it if you're just hooking up with a few friends who can text their IPs to each other. For a game service to be real, I should be able to connect with a thin client.
No, but it will conveniently record everything you say, in case you need it for future reference. Say, for instance, you're having a "debate" with your wife.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the obligatory /. cheap shot at religion...
More whine, my dear?
You know that copyright itself is not criminal law?
If people can go to jail for violations, I don't quite see it that way, but right, the law's the law.. And I find it very unfortunate that the accuser can sting a guy with a mere "preponderance of evidence". It's a bogus two tiered system. "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied much more strenuously and forcefully to all charges leveled against anybody.
Nearly unbreakable using traditional methods
This won't take long
Shouldn't be
Supposed to be the norm
Innocent until proven guilty, that's why...
The hosting service doesn't need to remove the content, but then they are liable to defend it in court.
That is precisely the problem. The accuser should pay all costs, and the video should stay up until the case is closed. Unfortunately a hosting company has little to gain from defending the client's rights, so, down it comes. The internet needs to be more P2P to make the removal of content more difficult.
3,500 is a nice number to trigger an IRS reporting requirement. What could possibly be better for your privacy?
I didn't know I needed to specify every little piece of the service, which, to me, encompasses the phone, software, the bank through which you pay the bill... Once anybody receives "the letter", all your communications are up for grabs. These guys are selling snake oil. Trust is not an option.
No, what the DMCA did was reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The "safe harbor" provision was a marketing ploy to sell the law.
hope... not how... hope
Thank you in advanced
I how you are aware that it doesn't matter. Back doors are simply mandated into the service, possibly, or probably, by secret law, or it is declared illegal for use. Read the contract. Unless it specifically says the company will never, under any circumstances comply with a government order to open up its communications, then the service should not be considered secure. And even then, you still have to trust them. That is living a fantasy in today's world.
A marriage contract amongst blood relatives would be superfluous and redundant. And minors are not allowed to sign binding contracts. However let's not stop people from delving into the absurd if they are looking to keep homosexuals out also. Personally, I think they'll get more mileage out of the "religious freedom" angle, where civil rights law is considered "discriminatory". People are actually falling for that one.
Pull the other one... A phone has more than one chip in it.
That's why it's called a marriage contract. And everybody is entitled to one, as in, it is a fundamental right.
...excluding the duty to mediate contracts.
What the hell do you think marriage is???
Naah... Everybody knows that ideology takes precedence over everything.
Damn you for reading my mind! That's exactly what's happening. They have to build a list of exceptions, and I'm sure one can get on that list for a "small fee".
They should revoke all copyrights and patents instead if Microsoft won't sell, license, or support the software.
What's a "facebook" friend?
Nope, You don't have that privilege. It is a clear violation. You amend the constitution first. After that, knock yourselves out.
That sounds like a design flaw, or maybe turning everything into client-server was intentional on the game vendors' part. I mean, a "phonebook" style of directory service is nice, but you shouldn't have to depend on it if you're just hooking up with a few friends who can text their IPs to each other. For a game service to be real, I should be able to connect with a thin client.
Very nice... How long until you shut down? :-)
Why do we need this stuff? I thought the internet was P2P...
Windshields also. They can see outside with the cameras going to their iPhone, which is what they are looking at anyway while the driver is texting.
Considering the abuse, Apple should lose its patent to its MagSafe connector. Then, maybe somebody can build a reliable one that won't fry.
No, but it will conveniently record everything you say, in case you need it for future reference. Say, for instance, you're having a "debate" with your wife.