... he's an idiot. If he has access logs like the article says, he's got a good, solid case for libel and defamation. And the MPAA is based in California, where there are no limits on punitive damages. It would take about 30 seconds to find a lawyer who'd take that billion dollar lawsuit on a percentage.
Unfortunately, people are so terrified of being confrontational, most will simply roll over and die rather than object to the slightest offense against them. At which point, they deserve it.
How can freeing a man possibly be used to support the law under which the man was imprisoned?
As evidence that it wasn't challenged in the past. If it wasn't challenged then, why should it be now?
ME:
If, by personal gain, you mean getting bad law removed from the book, yes.
YOU:
I can't really say anything to this other than if this is the prevailing attitude, then we really have lost. I am truly ready to cry.
If you have to choose between two evils, it is better to choose the lesser of the two than to fail to choose at all. Failing to choose at all leaves DMCA on the books, enforceable with criminal convictions for excercising what has been fair use rights for centuries.
ME:
And having a family man in jail, thousands of miles from home, in a foreign country, is a powerful tool, as Adobe has found out.
YOU:
*shudder* Do you realize what you are saying? It's possible to get a law overturned without having someone physically imprisoned.
But far more likely to do so with a martyr. Orders of magnitude more likely. Thing is, it's not your decision, or even Adobe's. It's entirely up to the man who will be our next Attorney General. Has Skylarov been freed yet? It's been nearly a day since Adobe has publicy announced they will not help the prosection. Think about that.
ME
If he gets out, 99% of the people who were in the streets with picket signs will think they've won,
YOU:
And they will have, as far as the Dmitry situation is concerned.
Not even then. Having the charged dropped without a direct (and successful) challenge to DMCA will not stop them from arresting him again the next time he comes to the US on the same charge from the same piece of software. Or arresting you, or me, or anyone else who wants to excercise explicitly recongnized fair use rights, like making backup copies of a book we've bought.
ME:
And DMCA will continue to be law, and next time, the fact that it wasn't challenged this time will be used to fight any future challenges.
YOU:
No, a settlement or dropping of a case has zero legal bearing on future cases.
If you believe that, you're of no use to this fight. Precendent is the only thing that matters in our legal system.
It does, however, have the benefit of making prosecutors think twice before acting.
Why would it? What deterrent will it serve? They lose nothing by letting this one go. They just wait until they have a better chance to set a precedent. They only need to win once to have solid ammunition for more widespread enforcement. That's how it's done with unconstitutional laws. It's been a well established pattern for a century and more.
ME:
Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
YOU:
I want to be right. The win will come in due course
Tell yourself that when you hear that knock on the door at 3:00 AM. Or when you don't hear it before they kick the door in. It'll be a great comfort to you.
Putting the first criminal charges brought in the US under DMCA to the Supreme Court, rather than letting this be used to support a blatantly unconstitutional law the next time.
Are you saying that keeping a man in prison is a tool we can wield for personal gain?
If, by personal gain, you mean getting bad law removed from the book, yes.
We have a good court case already. In fact, it's a better one than Dmitry's because it's a clear case of speech restriction. The government can always argue that Dmitry was arrested for selling software and we all know that the "speech" classification of software is a tenuous one, at best.
Software has already been ruled protected free speech by the Supreme Court. And having a family man in jail, thousands of miles from home, in a foreign country, is a powerful tool, as Adobe has found out. If he gets out, 99% of the people who were in the streets with picket signs will think they've won, and stop trying. And DMCA will continue to be law, and next time, the fact that it wasn't challenged this time will be used to fight any future challenges.
This case is completely unnecessary to challenge the DMCA. Keeping a man in prison unjustly is simply immoral, I don't care how "ugly" politics is.
But it is effective. Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
As soon as we give up our most effective tool, we lose. That's how politics work. Once the other side figures out we're not willing to make a sacrifice, they will make certain that sacrifice is the only way we can win. Politics is ugly, and the are more casualties than in war. But that's the price you pay, unless you want to lose.
I honestly can't see how you can possibly "see it both ways." Every individual has rights and those rights cannot be set aside no matter how good the intentions. It is unthinkable even to ask Dmitry to be a guinea pig.
Are you more interesting in being right, or in winning? You cannot have both in this case.
... in the history of
Title 47, Section 227 of the US Code (the anti-fax spam law). The legal issues are nearly identical - the anti-fax law prohibited unsolicited faxes selling things because they shift the cost of unwelcome advertising to an unwilling recipient. The cast that tested this that I'm aware of is Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir. 1995), which addressed the constitutionality of 42 227 under the 1st Amendment. It noted, specifically, that under prevailing Supreme Court case law at the time (and it hasn't changed substantially), such restrictions must be very specific - in this case, unsolicited faxes advertising goods or services - and must be the only way of accomplishing the public good the law is intended to accomplish. In particular, it noted that unsolicited faxes not advertising commercial services, such as political messages, were protected by the 1st Amendment, even if they cost an unwilling recipient money. I believe the principal is that if you make a fax machine (or email server) readily available to the general public, there is some responsibility to accept whatever gets sent to it - except for some very specific exceptions..
In any event, it seems likely the same legal thinking will apply to any anti-spam law. Since most email spam is, in fact, commercial ads, that would appear to be something that can be banned. Chain letters (that are not other wise illegal, like Ponzi scams), political messages, even ones asking for donations, and many other kinds of email are going to be protected, in the end. Or so it looks to me.
The Supreme Court (and it will probably go that far) won't give a flying fuck about subject lines, false routing or any other characteristic of spam until they establish that one state has jurisdiction over another state's citizens, which it will not do, since that will violate the other state's sovereignty, which the current SC has consistently strengthened, not weakened. There are issues here far more important than spam.
Would you want to go to prison because you downloaded porn from a server in a state where it's legal, to a state where it's legal, but went through a state where it's not? That is what's at stake here, and there are states that will try it.
Aside from the fact that copyright license can only be done in writing, with a legal signature, your headline doesn't even agree with the body of the store.
Giving someone a license to reproduce a copyrighted work does not transfer ownership.
Anything we expect to stay in space needs some kind of station-keeping propulsion.
What you describe, however, is really a matter of the up-station serving as a kinetic energy sink - the energy the elevator car absorbs going up is released again on the way down. There'd be losses to various mechanical inefficiency, but that can be measured and controlled.
"Whether waiting time is time worked under the Act depends upon particular circumstances. The determination involves ``scrutiny and construction of the agreements between particular parties, appraisal of their practical construction of the working agreement by conduct,
consideration of the nature of the service, and its relation to the waiting time, and all of the circumstances."
Periods during which an employee is completely relieved from duty and which are long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes are not hours worked. He is not completely relieved from duty and cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes unless he is definitely told in advance that he may
leave the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified hour has arrived. Whether the time is long enough
to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The general rule seems to be whether or not the employee is free to do as he pleases, or is restricted - tied to a phone, for instance - while waiting for the call.
If the most oppressive member of the international Council of Europe may prosecute citizens of member countries, then the rights enjoyed by those citizens are non-existant when using the Internet. Now, instead of France suing eBay for selling Nazi memorabilia, they can extradite the American citizen posting it as well.
Be a lot scarier if there were any chance in hell of it passign a constitutional challenge, but there's not. The Supreme Court will not uphold a treaty provision that surrenders US sovereignty.
Selling newspapers. Figure out why covering your story will sell newspapers, or TV ads during the news, and you'll get all the coverage you need. All else is irrelevant. News is a business.
Nope. But I am a (part time) publishers, and it is certainly in my interest to understand copyright law. And Title 17 is written in fairly plain English.
Copyright is not governed by contract law or the Uniform Commercial Code, it is governed by Title 17 of the US Code - copyright law. And only by Title 17.
And Title 17 says that copyright rights can only be transferred in writing, signed by the copyright owner. And case law says that written transfer has to name the IP involved explictly.
You cannot transfer copyright ownership (or even license partial rights) without being aware of it.
The only difference in the renewal of my certificate last week was that it took about three times as long. Even though they said (when I inquired what the hell was taking so long) they had to talk to me on the phone, they issued the certificate a few hours later, and I've never gotten the phone call.
Tasini is not, and has never been, piracy. Those who call it that are simply spewing anti-big publisher crap, and are not familiar with even the slightest hint of the details of the case. These writers have been paid already for their work, just not as much as they now think they should have been because electronic rights were meaningless at the time.
Tasini is about whether copyright rights to new media are opt-in or opt-out. In other words, when you sell the New York Times rights to an article for their paper, do they get electronic rights if the contract doesn't specify - and electronic rights haven't really been invented as a publishing medium yet.
In the end, this case is about the past, not the future, though. Now, if you sell an article to a big publisher like the NYT, the contract does specify they get reprint rights in all media.
But don't let that stop the morons from ranting about big, evil publishers.
WRONG. Any employee is a portion of a company. A company is nothing without employees. Each employee has the responsibility to make sure his company succeeds. Spamming will not help this cause.
I've fired people for having attitudes like that.
You have taken the attitude of many idiotic Americans that work for big businesses, like Microsoft, Sprint, AOL, AT&T, etc. You think that one person cannot change a company, but you are VERY VERY VERY wrong. One person, with the right motivation, can cripple any one of those companies.
For example, murder (unless of a federal officer or certain other unusual circumstances) is not against federal law, but if I commit a murder in Nevada I can sure as hell be arrested in California for it.
Yep. And then be extradited to Nevada to stand trial. California cannot put you on trial for someone you do outside of California; they can only send you back to where the crime was committed.
Likewise, California cannot put you on trial for something you did somewhere else that isn't illegal there. The only trick is making sure you understand where the law says your actions take place.
"(you don't have to be in California--you just have to spam someone in California)"
I'm having a hard time believing this is true. I think you probably have to be doing business in California...
You do, or so says the Supreme Court (more than once). But that won't stop someone from suing you anyway, and even if it gets tossed at the first hearing, it's bloody expensive.
The ACLU seeks to guarentee civil rights for *everyone*...even if they don't like what they stand for...
Except for gun owners. The official position of the ACLU is that "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is not the same as "the people" referred to in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments, even though the term and usage is identical.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, we all remember how eToys stomped the shit out of those artists types, and took away their domain.
... he's an idiot. If he has access logs like the article says, he's got a good, solid case for libel and defamation. And the MPAA is based in California, where there are no limits on punitive damages. It would take about 30 seconds to find a lawyer who'd take that billion dollar lawsuit on a percentage.
Unfortunately, people are so terrified of being confrontational, most will simply roll over and die rather than object to the slightest offense against them. At which point, they deserve it.
As evidence that it wasn't challenged in the past. If it wasn't challenged then, why should it be now?
ME:
If, by personal gain, you mean getting bad law removed from the book, yes.
YOU:
I can't really say anything to this other than if this is the prevailing attitude, then we really have lost. I am truly ready to cry.
If you have to choose between two evils, it is better to choose the lesser of the two than to fail to choose at all. Failing to choose at all leaves DMCA on the books, enforceable with criminal convictions for excercising what has been fair use rights for centuries.
ME:
And having a family man in jail, thousands of miles from home, in a foreign country, is a powerful tool, as Adobe has found out.
YOU:
*shudder* Do you realize what you are saying? It's possible to get a law overturned without having someone physically imprisoned.
But far more likely to do so with a martyr. Orders of magnitude more likely. Thing is, it's not your decision, or even Adobe's. It's entirely up to the man who will be our next Attorney General. Has Skylarov been freed yet? It's been nearly a day since Adobe has publicy announced they will not help the prosection. Think about that.
ME
If he gets out, 99% of the people who were in the streets with picket signs will think they've won,
YOU:
And they will have, as far as the Dmitry situation is concerned.
Not even then. Having the charged dropped without a direct (and successful) challenge to DMCA will not stop them from arresting him again the next time he comes to the US on the same charge from the same piece of software. Or arresting you, or me, or anyone else who wants to excercise explicitly recongnized fair use rights, like making backup copies of a book we've bought.
ME:
And DMCA will continue to be law, and next time, the fact that it wasn't challenged this time will be used to fight any future challenges.
YOU:
No, a settlement or dropping of a case has zero legal bearing on future cases.
If you believe that, you're of no use to this fight. Precendent is the only thing that matters in our legal system.
It does, however, have the benefit of making prosecutors think twice before acting. Why would it? What deterrent will it serve? They lose nothing by letting this one go. They just wait until they have a better chance to set a precedent. They only need to win once to have solid ammunition for more widespread enforcement. That's how it's done with unconstitutional laws. It's been a well established pattern for a century and more.
ME:
Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
YOU:
I want to be right. The win will come in due course
Tell yourself that when you hear that knock on the door at 3:00 AM. Or when you don't hear it before they kick the door in. It'll be a great comfort to you.
Putting the first criminal charges brought in the US under DMCA to the Supreme Court, rather than letting this be used to support a blatantly unconstitutional law the next time.
Are you saying that keeping a man in prison is a tool we can wield for personal gain?
If, by personal gain, you mean getting bad law removed from the book, yes.
We have a good court case already. In fact, it's a better one than Dmitry's because it's a clear case of speech restriction. The government can always argue that Dmitry was arrested for selling software and we all know that the "speech" classification of software is a tenuous one, at best.
Software has already been ruled protected free speech by the Supreme Court. And having a family man in jail, thousands of miles from home, in a foreign country, is a powerful tool, as Adobe has found out. If he gets out, 99% of the people who were in the streets with picket signs will think they've won, and stop trying. And DMCA will continue to be law, and next time, the fact that it wasn't challenged this time will be used to fight any future challenges.
This case is completely unnecessary to challenge the DMCA. Keeping a man in prison unjustly is simply immoral, I don't care how "ugly" politics is.
But it is effective. Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
As soon as we give up our most effective tool, we lose. That's how politics work. Once the other side figures out we're not willing to make a sacrifice, they will make certain that sacrifice is the only way we can win. Politics is ugly, and the are more casualties than in war. But that's the price you pay, unless you want to lose.
And explicitly so unde DMCA, for purposes of cross-compatibility. Like converting one file format to another.
Are you more interesting in being right, or in winning? You cannot have both in this case.
In any event, it seems likely the same legal thinking will apply to any anti-spam law. Since most email spam is, in fact, commercial ads, that would appear to be something that can be banned. Chain letters (that are not other wise illegal, like Ponzi scams), political messages, even ones asking for donations, and many other kinds of email are going to be protected, in the end. Or so it looks to me.
Would you want to go to prison because you downloaded porn from a server in a state where it's legal, to a state where it's legal, but went through a state where it's not? That is what's at stake here, and there are states that will try it.
... that the Washington State Supreme Court has no legal jurisiction to rule on whether or not they have jurisdiction in other states.
Giving someone a license to reproduce a copyrighted work does not transfer ownership.
Morons.
What you describe, however, is really a matter of the up-station serving as a kinetic energy sink - the energy the elevator car absorbs going up is released again on the way down. There'd be losses to various mechanical inefficiency, but that can be measured and controlled.
before Microsoft announced they weren't going to be using the subscription model with Office XP.
"Whether waiting time is time worked under the Act depends upon particular circumstances. The determination involves ``scrutiny and construction of the agreements between particular parties, appraisal of their practical construction of the working agreement by conduct, consideration of the nature of the service, and its relation to the waiting time, and all of the circumstances."
Periods during which an employee is completely relieved from duty and which are long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes are not hours worked. He is not completely relieved from duty and cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes unless he is definitely told in advance that he may leave the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified hour has arrived. Whether the time is long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The general rule seems to be whether or not the employee is free to do as he pleases, or is restricted - tied to a phone, for instance - while waiting for the call.
There's an overview at http://www.mrsc.org/legal/flsa/nutsbolt.htm#E9E2
Be a lot scarier if there were any chance in hell of it passign a constitutional challenge, but there's not. The Supreme Court will not uphold a treaty provision that surrenders US sovereignty.
Selling newspapers. Figure out why covering your story will sell newspapers, or TV ads during the news, and you'll get all the coverage you need. All else is irrelevant. News is a business.
Nope. But I am a (part time) publishers, and it is certainly in my interest to understand copyright law. And Title 17 is written in fairly plain English.
That's now how Title 17 works. Read it. It's in plain English. Any grant of rights is a transfer of rights, and governed by Title 17.
And Title 17 says that copyright rights can only be transferred in writing, signed by the copyright owner. And case law says that written transfer has to name the IP involved explictly.
You cannot transfer copyright ownership (or even license partial rights) without being aware of it.
Get a grip people.
The only difference in the renewal of my certificate last week was that it took about three times as long. Even though they said (when I inquired what the hell was taking so long) they had to talk to me on the phone, they issued the certificate a few hours later, and I've never gotten the phone call.
Tasini is about whether copyright rights to new media are opt-in or opt-out. In other words, when you sell the New York Times rights to an article for their paper, do they get electronic rights if the contract doesn't specify - and electronic rights haven't really been invented as a publishing medium yet.
In the end, this case is about the past, not the future, though. Now, if you sell an article to a big publisher like the NYT, the contract does specify they get reprint rights in all media.
But don't let that stop the morons from ranting about big, evil publishers.
I've fired people for having attitudes like that.
You have taken the attitude of many idiotic Americans that work for big businesses, like Microsoft, Sprint, AOL, AT&T, etc. You think that one person cannot change a company, but you are VERY VERY VERY wrong. One person, with the right motivation, can cripple any one of those companies.
And rightly face criminal prosecution for it.
Yep. And then be extradited to Nevada to stand trial. California cannot put you on trial for someone you do outside of California; they can only send you back to where the crime was committed.
Likewise, California cannot put you on trial for something you did somewhere else that isn't illegal there. The only trick is making sure you understand where the law says your actions take place.
I'm having a hard time believing this is true. I think you probably have to be doing business in California...
You do, or so says the Supreme Court (more than once). But that won't stop someone from suing you anyway, and even if it gets tossed at the first hearing, it's bloody expensive.
Except for gun owners. The official position of the ACLU is that "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is not the same as "the people" referred to in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments, even though the term and usage is identical.
Hypocrites.