http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID 132 Emphasis mine. It doesn't even require that you state a reason; you need only assert that your material doesn't infringe. The DMCA is really a mixed bag. This is one of the things they got pretty close to right.
Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?
Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
* The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.[512(f)]
a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use)
You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.
One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.
The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:
Entity A posts some content to service C. Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it. C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA. A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content. C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice). B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws. A and B go to court.
Trucks and public transportation were the first common carriers. The rules were established there before the issue came up for telephony and long before it came up with internet companies.
Does a bus forfeit common-carrier status by refusing to carry passengers without shoes? They do not.
Does a trucking company forfeit common carrier status because they refuse to carry live animals? They do not.
On the other hand, a trucking company will lose its common carrier status for insisting on inspecting your cargo absent an affirmative reason to believe its other than what you stated. And the bus will lose its common carrier status for refusing to let you on because they expect to be full at a later, more important stop.
Because government agencies and contractors have two overwhelming drives: 1. Justify next year's funding by spending this year's money. 2. Prevent scandal.
The first drive causes them to spend money like water. The second assures that that money will only be spent in pre-approved ways, of which exploratory technology improvements generally doesn't make the list.
The cure for scandal is policy. If you're drowning in policy so that you can't pick your nose without first checking the manual and getting three approvals then its a safe bet that no one can do anything "wrong" without violating a policy, thereby exempting the agency from responsibility. So, governments implement tremendous amounts of policy.
That same policy gets in the way of doing any work except for the carefully laid out routines. Fill a new order. Sure. Close an account. Sure. Change to a new technology? Ha!
Now, why should a private company, whose main responsibility is to make profits for their shareholders, voluntarily upgrade their technology, particularly when they enjoy a monopoly in their service area?
If they enjoy a monopoly then there is little motivation. That holds true whether the monopoly came about as a result of earlier competition or as a result of a MUNICIPAL CONTRACT. You might even say that the point of my "premise" was that municipal involvement tends to creates such a monopoly where one might not have otherwise evolved.
With competition in the market, upgrades are driven my the need to both capture market share from the competitors and protect your customer base from capture by the competitors. If a municipality wants to do its citizens a favor it should seek ways to encourage and foster competition rather than creating a taxpayer-funded juggernaut against which no one can compete.
And you assume that a local government would not be responsive to changes in technology?
They don't know how and the policy structure which exists within government is extremely resistant to change of any sort. I've both worked in a startup and worked for the government.
In the startup, I had an idea, found the equipment on ebay and implemented a major improvement the following week.
In the government it took a month to determine that it was OK to order a $40 battery for an UPS using the government credit card instead of processing it through regular procurement. Procurement wanted to swap my Smartups1400 with a Backups500 instead of just getting a battery.
Government is not designed to be flexible. Flexible leads to scandal because in a group of 10 people at least one of them has bad judgement. Scandal is bad so they set rigid policies. But the rigidity means that improvements proceed at a glacial pace.
Nobody wants to hear it but I'll say it anyway: Municipally owned and operated ISPs are a bad idea. No matter how hot your technology is today, tomorrow's technology will be hotter and the municipality won't be able to react. Governments and government contractors never can. Their taxpayer-funded presence in the market will, however, serve as a very effective means of encouraging for-profit companies to go elsewhere.
I have direct experience with this in the dialup market in Altoona PA in the late '90s. If you weren't happy with the sponsored ISP, tough luck. The small ISPs pulled out when they couldn't compete with Joe Taxpayer. I worked for one of those ISPs.
You want municipal wireless? Fine, but understand that means you'll ONLY get whatever products and quality of service your town's government is capable of. Servers and static IPs? Ho ho, good luck. And you'll be the last town in the nation to get anything better.
Are others of you seeing similar shifts in your search usage and if so, [...] what could that potentially mean for Google?"
What it could mean for google is obvious but a more interesting question is: what could it mean for Wikipedia? What happens when the "search rankings" industry decides that being well-linked from Wikipedia is important too?
US elections are controlled at the local level, so unfortunately such a nationwide fix would not be workable here.
Sure it would. Powers reserved for the states have been nationalized over and over again by the simple application of cash: The federal government offers funding for a particular project but you have to follow the federal rules to get it. The federal rules are rarely too onorous and the money you don't have to collect in local taxes is too much to turn down when the neighboring states all take it.
Lots of database files. Which database are you using that has huge amounst of empty space in the files?
As for p2p, no. Then again, I'm not clear why you would even -try- to back up p2p downloads in progress. Seems like prime candidates for exclusion from the backup process.
This works great until the first power outage. Then the A/C unit doesn't come back on afterwards: its got digital controls like virtually all new window A/C's. The temperature in the closet jumps about 50F and if you're really lucky someone notices BEFORE the equipment fails.
99% of the time there is only one sparse file of any significance on your machine:/var/log/lastlog
Unless you really care about the timestamp of each users' prior login, you can safely exclude this file from the backup. Following a restore, "touch/var/log/lastlog" and the system will work as normal.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID 132 Emphasis mine. It doesn't even require that you state a reason; you need only assert that your material doesn't infringe. The DMCA is really a mixed bag. This is one of the things they got pretty close to right.
Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?
Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
* The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.[512(f)]
a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use)
You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.
One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.
The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:
Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content.
C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
A and B go to court.
Who cares about his signing statements? They nothing more than little statements of disrespect for congress. They have no force of law.
The standard truism is this:
If you didn't vote then you voted for the winner of the election. If you don't like what he does, its your fault.
Trucks and public transportation were the first common carriers. The rules were established there before the issue came up for telephony and long before it came up with internet companies.
Does a bus forfeit common-carrier status by refusing to carry passengers without shoes? They do not.
Does a trucking company forfeit common carrier status because they refuse to carry live animals? They do not.
On the other hand, a trucking company will lose its common carrier status for insisting on inspecting your cargo absent an affirmative reason to believe its other than what you stated. And the bus will lose its common carrier status for refusing to let you on because they expect to be full at a later, more important stop.
"The methodology behind this scorecard is cuckoo for cocoa puffs," Kerry spokesman David Wade said.
That about sums it up.
Seriously, Rep Boucher, the House's paragon of Internet consumer rights issues scored a "50%".
Yeah, I deserve an "off topic" for that one. I posted it to the wrong story...
Here's the problem with cut-scenes:
A 90-minute cut-scene (aka a movie) costs $7 to watch and $20 to own.
Why would I go to a computer store and pay $40 for it?
Why?
Because government agencies and contractors have two overwhelming drives: 1. Justify next year's funding by spending this year's money. 2. Prevent scandal.
The first drive causes them to spend money like water. The second assures that that money will only be spent in pre-approved ways, of which exploratory technology improvements generally doesn't make the list.
I could walk the 12 miles to work for free but, I, and nearly everyone else I know, buys a car and drives.
You wouldn't do it if it was a toll road and you paid directly for its use instead of the cost being rolled up in your taxes.
Or maybe you would. Some people do drive to work on toll roads... but not enough to make toll roads viable except in very densely packed areas.
I agree. Monopolies are stifle progress. So how is a taxpayer-funded monopoly with an extra helping of red tape the solution to that problem?
what is it about municipalities that will prevent them from "reacting" when a for-profit organization can?
Governments can't tolerate scandal. Private companies (especially small private companies) don't care.
The cure for scandal is policy. If you're drowning in policy so that you can't pick your nose without first checking the manual and getting three approvals then its a safe bet that no one can do anything "wrong" without violating a policy, thereby exempting the agency from responsibility. So, governments implement tremendous amounts of policy.
That same policy gets in the way of doing any work except for the carefully laid out routines. Fill a new order. Sure. Close an account. Sure. Change to a new technology? Ha!
Now, why should a private company, whose main responsibility is to make profits for their shareholders, voluntarily upgrade their technology, particularly when they enjoy a monopoly in their service area?
If they enjoy a monopoly then there is little motivation. That holds true whether the monopoly came about as a result of earlier competition or as a result of a MUNICIPAL CONTRACT. You might even say that the point of my "premise" was that municipal involvement tends to creates such a monopoly where one might not have otherwise evolved.
With competition in the market, upgrades are driven my the need to both capture market share from the competitors and protect your customer base from capture by the competitors. If a municipality wants to do its citizens a favor it should seek ways to encourage and foster competition rather than creating a taxpayer-funded juggernaut against which no one can compete.
And you assume that a local government would not be responsive to changes in technology?
They don't know how and the policy structure which exists within government is extremely resistant to change of any sort. I've both worked in a startup and worked for the government.
In the startup, I had an idea, found the equipment on ebay and implemented a major improvement the following week.
In the government it took a month to determine that it was OK to order a $40 battery for an UPS using the government credit card instead of processing it through regular procurement. Procurement wanted to swap my Smartups1400 with a Backups500 instead of just getting a battery.
Government is not designed to be flexible. Flexible leads to scandal because in a group of 10 people at least one of them has bad judgement. Scandal is bad so they set rigid policies. But the rigidity means that improvements proceed at a glacial pace.
Nobody wants to hear it but I'll say it anyway: Municipally owned and operated ISPs are a bad idea. No matter how hot your technology is today, tomorrow's technology will be hotter and the municipality won't be able to react. Governments and government contractors never can. Their taxpayer-funded presence in the market will, however, serve as a very effective means of encouraging for-profit companies to go elsewhere.
I have direct experience with this in the dialup market in Altoona PA in the late '90s. If you weren't happy with the sponsored ISP, tough luck. The small ISPs pulled out when they couldn't compete with Joe Taxpayer. I worked for one of those ISPs.
You want municipal wireless? Fine, but understand that means you'll ONLY get whatever products and quality of service your town's government is capable of. Servers and static IPs? Ho ho, good luck. And you'll be the last town in the nation to get anything better.
Sure, but where will you keep the USB stick? In the case with the laptop of course.
Are others of you seeing similar shifts in your search usage and if so, [...] what could that potentially mean for Google?"
What it could mean for google is obvious but a more interesting question is: what could it mean for Wikipedia? What happens when the "search rankings" industry decides that being well-linked from Wikipedia is important too?
The US abandoned a simlar plan for a nuclear plant off the coast of New Jersey called the "Atlantic Generating Station."
r es/140e_atlantic_generating_station.pdf
http://s159443129.onlinehome.us/pdf/ocean_structu
It wouldn't float but it would be offshore.
You must be working in a very different environment than I am. My users have yet to create a large sparse file.
US elections are controlled at the local level, so unfortunately such a nationwide fix would not be workable here.
Sure it would. Powers reserved for the states have been nationalized over and over again by the simple application of cash: The federal government offers funding for a particular project but you have to follow the federal rules to get it. The federal rules are rarely too onorous and the money you don't have to collect in local taxes is too much to turn down when the neighboring states all take it.
Lots of database files. Which database are you using that has huge amounst of empty space in the files?
As for p2p, no. Then again, I'm not clear why you would even -try- to back up p2p downloads in progress. Seems like prime candidates for exclusion from the backup process.
This works great until the first power outage. Then the A/C unit doesn't come back on afterwards: its got digital controls like virtually all new window A/C's. The temperature in the closet jumps about 50F and if you're really lucky someone notices BEFORE the equipment fails.
Yeah, been there, done that.
A comment about sparse files:
/var/log/lastlog
/var/log/lastlog" and the system will work as normal.
99% of the time there is only one sparse file of any significance on your machine:
Unless you really care about the timestamp of each users' prior login, you can safely exclude this file from the backup. Following a restore, "touch
Why would SpamHaus sue ICANN? ICANN doesn't control .ORG domains; PIR does.
Spamhaus does not block. Spamhaus just lists. Mail admins block.
Murders don't kill people. Guns kill people. Murderers just point and twitch thier index finger.