it may be even more complex than that. All of those senators who voted "yea" did so with the knowledge that Bush has threatened a veto. So it is very possible that their "yea" votes are very fickle (i.e. if they had any notion that their vote would actually mean something, they would have voted "nay").
This sort of thing has cropped up a lot in school vouchers in DC, an idea that easily passed the senate during Clinton's terms (when dems voting yes knew Clinton would veto the law) and now has a very uncertain future (because dems voting yes know Bush would actually sign the bill).
I don't know if this dynamic is at work here but it is something to consider whenever the President that publicly threatened a veto of pending legislation.
stealing nothing is still stealing
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
the absence of any text in so many lines of code might not totally sink SCO's case. Perhaps their novel theories of IP violations are based on this recent situation.
I don't know anything about the $20 figure the parent describes above. However, it appears to be a mechanism used by the RIAA to determine when it is going to exercise its discretion to bring a claim. It may be a fairly idiotic mechanism based on foolish notions of the value of its songs. If the figure is merely a means for determining whether or not to bring a claim, it will have little if any impact on the damages awarded by a court.
Check out this article for a decent discussion on statutory damages:
Under federal copyright law, the statutory damages for a knowing and willful infringement are $150,000 per infringing event. Because the damages are statutory, there technically is no need for the copyright holder to prove harm. From a practical perspective, however, judges will look at a number of factors when determining whether or not to go the entire $150K route (including how many copies were made, whether the infringer sold them, whether the infringer stopped once the holder made an express demand, plus a few other factors).
Even if the nature of the infringement does not merit an assessment of the full $150K statutory damages, please also keep in mind that the statutory damages are generally only the tip of the iceberg. Copyright holders who prevail in court will invariably have their attorneys fees awarded to them as well, which is often much more of a hammer to use against infringers than the potential for statutory damages.
So no matter how you look at it, being named as a defendant in a copyright claim really sucks.
Not sure if the parent is a troll or not but . . . I believe the 2400 mile figure is a reference to how much closer Mars is going to get to Earth than compared to the next closest pass over the past 150,000 years, not the actual distance between Mars and Earth
I imagine that a distance of a mere 2,400 miles would result in the most intense world surfing championships ever.
Not quite (at least in the US). You generally cannot avoid defaming someone simply by couching a statement in the form of an opinion. You have to look at the substance of the statement. Is it pure opinion or does it attempt to relay factual assertions apart from opinion? Generally, evaluative opinions will be protected (e.g. "I think you are an ugly person"). There are also deductive opinions (i.e. opinions that imply misconduct based on true information that is publicly available). These are also generally not actionable. Opinions will generally be actionable if they imply the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.
So, stating that you think someone is a thief because they are known to own a device that is used primarily for illicit purposes is probably protected.
But simply stating "I think you are a child molester" without anything more (i.e. any known true facts that might support this opinion) could easily be the basis for a defamation claim.
This is a very gross generalization and will vary among jurisdictions.
"I'll believe it when I see it mass marketed (which is probably in about two more years, if the usual 10 years to production timeline holds true)."
Actually, word on the street is that it will be mass marketed in exactly two weeks (i.e. one week after the scheduled delivery of my first DVD burner).
Generally, legislative intent is looked at only if the law itself is so ambiguous that a court cannot make heads or tails of what it should do (in many such cases (especially in a criminal setting), it would likely invalidate the law). In this case, the wording seems to be relatively clear. The problem with legislative intent is that there is rarely any single intent, mostly a variety of self-serving comments that support a huge variety of intents.
No kidding. The other day my father found a really good price for an HP ink jet at the Fort Lewis PX. The price was something like $40 on sale. He ended up buying four of them so he could use the ink catridges (both color and B&W were included) from three of them with the one he decides to use as an actual printer (I'm assuming that the printers came with real catridges and not the cheapo starter catridges with 1/10th the ink). It's pretty pathetic when the printer itself becomes a throw-away item.
Notwithstanding any taxes charged in Canada, I have bought six of the seven Star Trek Next Generation DVD sets and all of the X-Files set now out from Canadian online retailers for much less than they could be obtain from any US retailer. This includes shipping (albeit slow boat to China shipping). Any sales tax applies across state borders will make the price difference all that much more apparent in this one market. At least while the exchange rate is favorable.
And all along I thought the line about the "military industrial-entertainment complex" from the X-files "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" was just a joke.
Except for Canadian retailers. DVD sales are a good example. Few retailers in the US can approach Canadian etail DVD outlets because of the exchange rates. Additional taxes will make this problem all that much worse.
Mod the parent up. With Echostar and Hughes both agreeing to allow Cablevision access to their satellites in what will likely be a revised bid to merge (yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an editorial on this), Murdoch stands to be the only person on earth who can be against a merger (except for his lackeys in the FCC). He's been trying to buy Hughes' satellite service for awhile and an FCC rejection will make acquisition much more likely.
No. You simply have the right to not agree to it. However, courts often apply a slightly higher level of scrutiny when presented with such contracts (aka contracts of adhesion) and it may be easier to get a court to find that a certain provision is unconscionable.
Now, if it's a free download, and you're only offered the download if you click through the EULA, that's an entirely different matter: there's clear consideration in that you're being allowed the download at all. On the other hand, if you purchase the software without the EULA being a condition of the purchase, unless the EULA offers some further consideration it may not be binding at all.
I would be surprised if a court would review the EULA in total isolation in a purchase situation (i.e. completely separate from the purchase price) for the purpose of determining whether or not consideration was given. Courts generally try very hard to find consideration in contractual relationships when this becomes an issue. More likely, a court would say that in consideration for giving both a sum of money and agreeing to the EULA, the company is permitting you to use the software.
My post was more specific to the issue I guess. The point was that a lack of broadband doesn't restrict freedom in any meaningful way. And it certainly isn't a symptom of an overarching desire to restrict any fundamental freedom (as the lack of photocopiers in the USSR was).
And the article was woefully short on details as to what possible innovations might be hurt by a lack of universal broadband. The sole example given was the convergence of certain home appliances. I'm not ready to predict the fall of a nation because telephones, tvs, and computers could not be merged into one device that had broadband access.
Except how many people really communicate using P2P systems like napster, kazaa, etc? I supposed there might be someone who downloads academic papers. But as far as interactive communication?
But more to the point, since when has anyone needed broadband access in order to engage in meaningful communication over the net? I can access any news site, news group, as well as all the e-mail I can handle using my measely 28.8 connection. Now, if I want to download mp3s and such, I'm pretty much screwed, but I cannot believe that any reasonable person would consider the ability to download songs quickly as an inalienable human right.
A lot of trouble can be created using very simple and slow technology. Do you think Al Queda had T1 lines run into their Afghan caves when they communicated their plans via e-mail? Suffice it to say, if we find ourselves in the same predicament as the Soviet scientist, virtually everyone in the country has access to sufficient bandwidth ecessary to communicate with one another about our plan of attack as quickly as needed.
The real question is whether we can do so securely and that issue has nothing to do with speed.
Just my own experience at the various Blockbusters I have been to the PDX area and the teeming hordes that post their rants on dvdfile.com and dvdtalk.com. Admitedly not a scientific poll. As I remember, the whole issue started to come to light on the forums when Mummy Returns came out and no one could find it at Blockbuster in widescreen. Since then it seems that more forum posters have been on the lookout for this sort of practice.
Slashdot Mirror
it may be even more complex than that. All of those senators who voted "yea" did so with the knowledge that Bush has threatened a veto. So it is very possible that their "yea" votes are very fickle (i.e. if they had any notion that their vote would actually mean something, they would have voted "nay").
This sort of thing has cropped up a lot in school vouchers in DC, an idea that easily passed the senate during Clinton's terms (when dems voting yes knew Clinton would veto the law) and now has a very uncertain future (because dems voting yes know Bush would actually sign the bill).
I don't know if this dynamic is at work here but it is something to consider whenever the President that publicly threatened a veto of pending legislation.
the absence of any text in so many lines of code might not totally sink SCO's case. Perhaps their novel theories of IP violations are based on this recent situation.
copyrighting silence
Straight from the "Nothing surprises me anymore" department.
I don't know anything about the $20 figure the parent describes above. However, it appears to be a mechanism used by the RIAA to determine when it is going to exercise its discretion to bring a claim. It may be a fairly idiotic mechanism based on foolish notions of the value of its songs. If the figure is merely a means for determining whether or not to bring a claim, it will have little if any impact on the damages awarded by a court.
Check out this article for a decent discussion on statutory damages:
Statutory damages article
Under federal copyright law, the statutory damages for a knowing and willful infringement are $150,000 per infringing event. Because the damages are statutory, there technically is no need for the copyright holder to prove harm. From a practical perspective, however, judges will look at a number of factors when determining whether or not to go the entire $150K route (including how many copies were made, whether the infringer sold them, whether the infringer stopped once the holder made an express demand, plus a few other factors).
Even if the nature of the infringement does not merit an assessment of the full $150K statutory damages, please also keep in mind that the statutory damages are generally only the tip of the iceberg. Copyright holders who prevail in court will invariably have their attorneys fees awarded to them as well, which is often much more of a hammer to use against infringers than the potential for statutory damages.
So no matter how you look at it, being named as a defendant in a copyright claim really sucks.
death + knell = Dell
makes sense to me
Not sure if the parent is a troll or not but . . . I believe the 2400 mile figure is a reference to how much closer Mars is going to get to Earth than compared to the next closest pass over the past 150,000 years, not the actual distance between Mars and Earth
I imagine that a distance of a mere 2,400 miles would result in the most intense world surfing championships ever.
Not quite (at least in the US). You generally cannot avoid defaming someone simply by couching a statement in the form of an opinion. You have to look at the substance of the statement. Is it pure opinion or does it attempt to relay factual assertions apart from opinion? Generally, evaluative opinions will be protected (e.g. "I think you are an ugly person"). There are also deductive opinions (i.e. opinions that imply misconduct based on true information that is publicly available). These are also generally not actionable. Opinions will generally be actionable if they imply the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.
So, stating that you think someone is a thief because they are known to own a device that is used primarily for illicit purposes is probably protected.
But simply stating "I think you are a child molester" without anything more (i.e. any known true facts that might support this opinion) could easily be the basis for a defamation claim.
This is a very gross generalization and will vary among jurisdictions.
"I'll believe it when I see it mass marketed (which is probably in about two more years, if the usual 10 years to production timeline holds true)."
Actually, word on the street is that it will be mass marketed in exactly two weeks (i.e. one week after the scheduled delivery of my first DVD burner).
They are apparently able to produce graduates who are now passing state bar examinations.
MSNBC Article
Go watch the movie Johny Dangerously you farging icehole
Generally, legislative intent is looked at only if the law itself is so ambiguous that a court cannot make heads or tails of what it should do (in many such cases (especially in a criminal setting), it would likely invalidate the law). In this case, the wording seems to be relatively clear. The problem with legislative intent is that there is rarely any single intent, mostly a variety of self-serving comments that support a huge variety of intents.
No kidding. The other day my father found a really good price for an HP ink jet at the Fort Lewis PX. The price was something like $40 on sale. He ended up buying four of them so he could use the ink catridges (both color and B&W were included) from three of them with the one he decides to use as an actual printer (I'm assuming that the printers came with real catridges and not the cheapo starter catridges with 1/10th the ink). It's pretty pathetic when the printer itself becomes a throw-away item.
Notwithstanding any taxes charged in Canada, I have bought six of the seven Star Trek Next Generation DVD sets and all of the X-Files set now out from Canadian online retailers for much less than they could be obtain from any US retailer. This includes shipping (albeit slow boat to China shipping). Any sales tax applies across state borders will make the price difference all that much more apparent in this one market. At least while the exchange rate is favorable.
NPR had a nice bit a few weeks ago interviewing the guy setting this up. NPR story
And all along I thought the line about the "military industrial-entertainment complex" from the X-files "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" was just a joke.
Except for Canadian retailers. DVD sales are a good example. Few retailers in the US can approach Canadian etail DVD outlets because of the exchange rates. Additional taxes will make this problem all that much worse.
Jay
Mod the parent up. With Echostar and Hughes both agreeing to allow Cablevision access to their satellites in what will likely be a revised bid to merge (yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an editorial on this), Murdoch stands to be the only person on earth who can be against a merger (except for his lackeys in the FCC). He's been trying to buy Hughes' satellite service for awhile and an FCC rejection will make acquisition much more likely.
No. You simply have the right to not agree to it. However, courts often apply a slightly higher level of scrutiny when presented with such contracts (aka contracts of adhesion) and it may be easier to get a court to find that a certain provision is unconscionable.
Now, if it's a free download, and you're only offered the download if you click through the EULA, that's an entirely different matter: there's clear consideration in that you're being allowed the download at all. On the other hand, if you purchase the software without the EULA being a condition of the purchase, unless the EULA offers some further consideration it may not be binding at all.
I would be surprised if a court would review the EULA in total isolation in a purchase situation (i.e. completely separate from the purchase price) for the purpose of determining whether or not consideration was given. Courts generally try very hard to find consideration in contractual relationships when this becomes an issue. More likely, a court would say that in consideration for giving both a sum of money and agreeing to the EULA, the company is permitting you to use the software.
Wasn't it Lisa Marie Presley (former Jacko spouse)?
Yes, but the dollar itself has been relatively strong.
But wouldn't having stupid enemas actually make them *less* stupid?
My post was more specific to the issue I guess. The point was that a lack of broadband doesn't restrict freedom in any meaningful way. And it certainly isn't a symptom of an overarching desire to restrict any fundamental freedom (as the lack of photocopiers in the USSR was).
And the article was woefully short on details as to what possible innovations might be hurt by a lack of universal broadband. The sole example given was the convergence of certain home appliances. I'm not ready to predict the fall of a nation because telephones, tvs, and computers could not be merged into one device that had broadband access.
Except how many people really communicate using P2P systems like napster, kazaa, etc? I supposed there might be someone who downloads academic papers. But as far as interactive communication?
But more to the point, since when has anyone needed broadband access in order to engage in meaningful communication over the net? I can access any news site, news group, as well as all the e-mail I can handle using my measely 28.8 connection. Now, if I want to download mp3s and such, I'm pretty much screwed, but I cannot believe that any reasonable person would consider the ability to download songs quickly as an inalienable human right.
A lot of trouble can be created using very simple and slow technology. Do you think Al Queda had T1 lines run into their Afghan caves when they communicated their plans via e-mail? Suffice it to say, if we find ourselves in the same predicament as the Soviet scientist, virtually everyone in the country has access to sufficient bandwidth ecessary to communicate with one another about our plan of attack as quickly as needed.
The real question is whether we can do so securely and that issue has nothing to do with speed.
Just my own experience at the various Blockbusters I have been to the PDX area and the teeming hordes that post their rants on dvdfile.com and dvdtalk.com. Admitedly not a scientific poll. As I remember, the whole issue started to come to light on the forums when Mummy Returns came out and no one could find it at Blockbuster in widescreen. Since then it seems that more forum posters have been on the lookout for this sort of practice.