Where in the license does it say that they are obligated to replace the media if it becomes damaged? You are not licensing the media, you own the physical medium. You do not have the right to make copies of the copyrighted work, with certain narrow exceptions.
The commerce clause doesn't restrict a state's ability to govern the activities of a company operating in the state. If the ISP has customers in Utah, it is operating in Utah. It must follow Utah law. 7-11 has stores in ever state. Do you think the commerce clause exempts them from charging sales tax outside of Texas?
WTF should Vonage get any public funding? You act as though the reson Vonage doesn't offer real 911 service is because of raodblocking, but the reality is that Vonage lobbied hard to not be considered a telephone service, so that they would be excluded from all of the regulations including providing 911 service. If Vonage were legally a phone service, then the Bells would be required to provide them the appropriate interface. Vonage wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want the gov't to not treat them as a phone company, but they want the LEC's to be required to treat them as a phone company.
As we've found out in a part of my country, a sudden crackdown on morals just gives you things like 80% of year 10 girls pregnant
Why would you crackdown on morals? If those girls had morals, they wouldn't be pregnant at 10.
The wierd USA mixed morals thing just gives you strip clubs with stickers over nipples - just as much or more sleaze but stickers? Is it illegal to breast feed in public in the USA
No it isn't. But you seem to be very ignorant of how the legal system in the US works. We actually have very few (comparatively) laws at the federal level that affect our daily lives. So there may be some locality in the US where it is illegal to breastfeed in public (although I've never been there) but it isn't the "USA" and it certainly isn't common.
That's pretty much it. The ISP must have opt-in filtering, using a list provided by the AG. The filtering can be on the ISP's network, or via free software provided to customers. There's no technical problem with this law other than the challenge of compiling the list (which the ISP's don;t have to worry about) no modification to ISP's networks or policies necessary. The only real challenge to this law is going to be whether the state compiling the list violates the 1st amendment.
Not only that, but the ISP doesn't even have to do the filtering on their end, nor come up with their own list. The list will be provided by the state AG, and the ISP's obligation can be satisfied by providing free client side software. ISP's with more than 7,500 customers cannot charge for the software, but they can raise prices for all customers to offset their costs.
Yes, the media belongs to you. You can burn it, eat it, make it into a paper airplane. You are not buying the song. When you download a song from iTunes, what media are you buying?
It's really quite simple. If you buy something, you can do whatever the hell you want with it, so long as your actions don't harm anyone.
Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that your statement is correct, it's still irrelevant. When you buy a song on iTunes, you aren't buying the song itself. You are buying a license to use the song in particular ways, governed by the license. Books don't contain any DRM, yet it is still illegal to photocopy entire books and distribute the copies to all of your friends. Most people consider this unethical as well. Why is music different?
Harvard is walking into a huge legal quagmire. If this was an 'ethical litmus test' as Harvard is purporting implicitly, then they must apply this in a uniform manner. They clearly did not. This is very true of job applications, and probably applies to college admissions as well.
Bullbutter. Harvard is a private institution and they can apply whatever arbitrary tests they like, as long as they don't descriminate against any protected class. Geeks are not a protected class.
If you knew that your admission status was kept in a certain unlocked drawer, in a certain unlocked office, but you also knew that you weren't supposed to find out until a certain date, would you go and look?
Can you cite a legal ruling that a broadcast station has a monopoly wrt consumers? Your comparing Google to an industry that is already has heavy regulation that has nothing to do with monopolies. Apples and Volvos.
WTF. I don't pay for my searches on Google. I just assumed that nobody else did either. So, what exactly do you think Google has a monopoly on, giving away search results?
Unsupported also means that patches aren't tested on that configuration. That can lead to unexpected results which may leave your system in worse shape than before you installed the patch. It isn't unreasonable that MS wants to avoid this situation. You'll say that you accept that risk by running an unsupported system, but we all know that's bullshit and all the zealots would come running here bitching that M$ broke their Wine install.
How are they actively fucking you? They are simply refusing to support your configuration, and that includes patches. It actually makes a lot of sense since they haven't tested those patches or accessories, on Wine. If you downloaded some "critical" patch that made life easier for XO users, but really screwed up Wine, you'd be here bitching that M$ was actively fucking Wine users.
Hmm. Microsoft's website lists the requirements for running Office 2000:
Microsoft Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6 (SP6),1 Windows 2000, or Windows XP or later.
And I bet that same list was on the outside of the box when you bought it. So if you are running Office 2000 on Wine, you knew from the very beginning that it was an unsupported configuration.
I believe the courts ruled that making digital backups is legal for the consumer as long as they own a legit copy of the original (and keep it). So no copying the original dvd, and then selling (giving) the original dvd to someone while keeping the copy.
Yes, it's legal, but there's a whole ocean of difference between something being legal, and something being a right. Just because it would be legal for you to copy a DVD, does not meant that the manufacturer is under any obligation to make sure that it's technically easy or even feasible. Then along come the DMCA, that says if they copy protect the disc, you aren't allowed to break it. You'll notice, that this isn't at all in conflict with the notion that copying the disc isn't a right.
If you cannot or will not see this as a Constitutional issue, then there is nothing further to discuss.
Can you explain how this is a Constitutional issue? Specifically, how is the government infringing on anyone's right to free expression if Apple subpoena's the names of the sources? Just to clarify, the Constitution does not protect any of your rights from intrusion by Apple.
How do you suggest that Apple go about sueing the responsible parties if they can't discover who they are?
That's not the journalists' problem. That's Apple's problem and has NOTHING to do with the rights that journalists have regarding protection of sources.
It is the journalists' problem because they disseminating information that they knew was trade secret. It's also their problem because the information on who their sources are is discoverable in the suit against them, as well as the suit against the sources.
Journalist shield laws are intended to protect the journalist's ability to gather information and disseminate it. They are always balanced against the other party's need to know the source. Do you really believe that some blogger's need to disseminate trade secrets is greater than Apple's need to track down the leak?
If you break our NDA and I am injured, I will sue you. We'll go in front of a judge and maybe a jury, and we'll argue our cases. I'll win, and the court will enforce a judgement against you. Breaching a contract isn't usually a criminal offense, but "law" > "criminal law".
You seem to be confused. When the RBOC's were broken up, PacBell was part of Pacific Telesis (along with Nevada Bell), and SNET was independant. Verizon does indeed own GTE. Accurate information here.
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the license does it say that they are obligated to replace the media if it becomes damaged? You are not licensing the media, you own the physical medium. You do not have the right to make copies of the copyrighted work, with certain narrow exceptions.
Is Vonage providing subsidized service in rural areas?
The commerce clause doesn't restrict a state's ability to govern the activities of a company operating in the state. If the ISP has customers in Utah, it is operating in Utah. It must follow Utah law. 7-11 has stores in ever state. Do you think the commerce clause exempts them from charging sales tax outside of Texas?
WTF should Vonage get any public funding? You act as though the reson Vonage doesn't offer real 911 service is because of raodblocking, but the reality is that Vonage lobbied hard to not be considered a telephone service, so that they would be excluded from all of the regulations including providing 911 service. If Vonage were legally a phone service, then the Bells would be required to provide them the appropriate interface. Vonage wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want the gov't to not treat them as a phone company, but they want the LEC's to be required to treat them as a phone company.
As we've found out in a part of my country, a sudden crackdown on morals just gives you things like 80% of year 10 girls pregnant
Why would you crackdown on morals? If those girls had morals, they wouldn't be pregnant at 10.
The wierd USA mixed morals thing just gives you strip clubs with stickers over nipples - just as much or more sleaze but stickers? Is it illegal to breast feed in public in the USA
No it isn't. But you seem to be very ignorant of how the legal system in the US works. We actually have very few (comparatively) laws at the federal level that affect our daily lives. So there may be some locality in the US where it is illegal to breastfeed in public (although I've never been there) but it isn't the "USA" and it certainly isn't common.
That's pretty much it. The ISP must have opt-in filtering, using a list provided by the AG. The filtering can be on the ISP's network, or via free software provided to customers. There's no technical problem with this law other than the challenge of compiling the list (which the ISP's don;t have to worry about) no modification to ISP's networks or policies necessary. The only real challenge to this law is going to be whether the state compiling the list violates the 1st amendment.
Not only that, but the ISP doesn't even have to do the filtering on their end, nor come up with their own list. The list will be provided by the state AG, and the ISP's obligation can be satisfied by providing free client side software. ISP's with more than 7,500 customers cannot charge for the software, but they can raise prices for all customers to offset their costs.
Yes, the media belongs to you. You can burn it, eat it, make it into a paper airplane. You are not buying the song. When you download a song from iTunes, what media are you buying?
It's really quite simple. If you buy something, you can do whatever the hell you want with it, so long as your actions don't harm anyone.
Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that your statement is correct, it's still irrelevant. When you buy a song on iTunes, you aren't buying the song itself. You are buying a license to use the song in particular ways, governed by the license. Books don't contain any DRM, yet it is still illegal to photocopy entire books and distribute the copies to all of your friends. Most people consider this unethical as well. Why is music different?
Harvard is walking into a huge legal quagmire. If this was an 'ethical litmus test' as Harvard is purporting implicitly, then they must apply this in a uniform manner. They clearly did not. This is very true of job applications, and probably applies to college admissions as well.
Bullbutter. Harvard is a private institution and they can apply whatever arbitrary tests they like, as long as they don't descriminate against any protected class. Geeks are not a protected class.
If you knew that your admission status was kept in a certain unlocked drawer, in a certain unlocked office, but you also knew that you weren't supposed to find out until a certain date, would you go and look?
It isn't that simple. The URL could not be found by crawling.
Can you cite a legal ruling that a broadcast station has a monopoly wrt consumers? Your comparing Google to an industry that is already has heavy regulation that has nothing to do with monopolies. Apples and Volvos.
WTF. I don't pay for my searches on Google. I just assumed that nobody else did either. So, what exactly do you think Google has a monopoly on, giving away search results?
Unsupported also means that patches aren't tested on that configuration. That can lead to unexpected results which may leave your system in worse shape than before you installed the patch. It isn't unreasonable that MS wants to avoid this situation. You'll say that you accept that risk by running an unsupported system, but we all know that's bullshit and all the zealots would come running here bitching that M$ broke their Wine install.
How are they actively fucking you? They are simply refusing to support your configuration, and that includes patches. It actually makes a lot of sense since they haven't tested those patches or accessories, on Wine. If you downloaded some "critical" patch that made life easier for XO users, but really screwed up Wine, you'd be here bitching that M$ was actively fucking Wine users.
And I bet that same list was on the outside of the box when you bought it. So if you are running Office 2000 on Wine, you knew from the very beginning that it was an unsupported configuration.
IOW, just because it isn't in the BOW, doesn't mean it isn't a right. But that doesn't say anything about what IS a right.
I believe the courts ruled that making digital backups is legal for the consumer as long as they own a legit copy of the original (and keep it). So no copying the original dvd, and then selling (giving) the original dvd to someone while keeping the copy.
Yes, it's legal, but there's a whole ocean of difference between something being legal, and something being a right. Just because it would be legal for you to copy a DVD, does not meant that the manufacturer is under any obligation to make sure that it's technically easy or even feasible. Then along come the DMCA, that says if they copy protect the disc, you aren't allowed to break it. You'll notice, that this isn't at all in conflict with the notion that copying the disc isn't a right.
If you cannot or will not see this as a Constitutional issue, then there is nothing further to discuss.
Can you explain how this is a Constitutional issue? Specifically, how is the government infringing on anyone's right to free expression if Apple subpoena's the names of the sources? Just to clarify, the Constitution does not protect any of your rights from intrusion by Apple.
How do you suggest that Apple go about sueing the responsible parties if they can't discover who they are?
Next question.
Why?
Actually, freedom of the press is absolute and we must all remain vigilant to protect it.
There are no absolutes. Not even in the Bill of Rights.
That's not the journalists' problem. That's Apple's problem and has NOTHING to do with the rights that journalists have regarding protection of sources.
It is the journalists' problem because they disseminating information that they knew was trade secret. It's also their problem because the information on who their sources are is discoverable in the suit against them, as well as the suit against the sources.
Journalist shield laws are intended to protect the journalist's ability to gather information and disseminate it. They are always balanced against the other party's need to know the source. Do you really believe that some blogger's need to disseminate trade secrets is greater than Apple's need to track down the leak?
If you break our NDA and I am injured, I will sue you. We'll go in front of a judge and maybe a jury, and we'll argue our cases. I'll win, and the court will enforce a judgement against you. Breaching a contract isn't usually a criminal offense, but "law" > "criminal law".
You seem to be confused. When the RBOC's were broken up, PacBell was part of Pacific Telesis (along with Nevada Bell), and SNET was independant. Verizon does indeed own GTE. Accurate information here.