The judgement didn't award attorney's fees, the judgement stated the woman is eligible to APPLY for them under the copyright act. The only way the fees would actually be awared is if the lawsuit was frivolous or violated free speech rights or something like that. The lawsuit was not frivolous, because there was copyright infringement. It also sounds this woman tried everything she could do to avoid identifying who really did the copyright infringement (because the judgement states there were protracted negotiations).
This also does not mean that one would be shieled from legal problems related to an open WIFI connection. The only way this woman avoided getting sued is by identifying the actual infringer. If the owner of an open WIFI connection can't identify who did the deed in question, then they are exposed to liability. I would expect there to be a tendency for people to give them a break if they really are clueless, but nobody actually has to.
Umm, the woman in question is a film producer. I don't think implied illegal substance use is going to have much impact on hiring... Unless maybe she specializes in religeous broadcasts...
One of the lawyers in the case has posted that All they know, or have reason to believe, about Marie Lindor is that she was the person who signed the check paying for internet access through which the internet was accessed by an insecure wireless router in her house.
The router had been used by her adult children, but not at the time of the alleged screenshot, at which time there was no computer at all in the house.
Plaintiffs are completely aware that Marie Lindor herself did not infringe any copyrights. However, they refuse to drop the case against her, hoping to use the pressure on Ms. Lindor as a means of putting the squeeze on her family.
So this turns out to be another case of unsecured WAP mayhem. Perhaps the defense lawyers can convince the RIAA to sue the WAP vendor for negligence (shipping the WAP with encryption turned off) instead of their clueless client.
In the case where minor kids install the file sharing program without the parent's knowledge, the providers of the file sharing program might be liable. The reasoning goes like this:
1. Secretly publishing files off a computer belonging to person A without person A's permission is a felony.
2. The file sharing suppliers get around this by having the installer of the program agree to a EULA.
3. Minor children to do not have the authority to agree to the EULA; therefore, it is invalid.
On top of that, tricking children into doing something illegal is probably illegal in and of itself (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor).
If the RIAA lawyers are anything other than complete idiots, I would think they would jump at the chance to switch the blame to the file sharing program.
The proper way to address someone who intentionally stiffs the IRS is "inmate". And they still go on a payment plan when they get out of jail. It happened to an ex-employee where I used to work (quite a while after he was fired for something unrelated).
Umm, $11B income - $11B expenses = $0 net income, not a loss. Now, they could pay taxes on the $11B income the first year and then take the deduction in ensuing years, but that sounds like a bad idea.
That does bring up an Interest point, though. If they use the acruel method for doing their accounting, they will need to write this debt off before the end of the year....
It gets even better, the forgiver is supposed to send the IRS a 1099 when they forgive the debt. You don't need a court judgement to do that. All you have to do is bill the spammer (for something like wasted time), forgive the debt after 3 months and send a 1099 to the IRS. Anyone who can track down the spammer's address could do it. And the spammer would be forced to prove to the IRS it wasn't income.
On the down side, the requirement for filing the 1099 probably means you can't collect a reward on whatever the IRS collects.
I don't exactly know why, but Objective C just keeps reminding me of COBOL. Maybe it's just a revulsion to the ugly syntax...
It's especially gross that the syntax for the first parameter for method calls is different than all the other parameters.
Note that I said "parameter" and "method call" here, and don't say anything about "message passing" -- messages go one way and don't come back. A real message system doesn't have return values and doesn't wait....
Still is is impressive what they have managed build on top of such crude tool.
Everybody does that if the admins turn on password expirations.
They teach that in security 101. Well, I've been around too long to now know if there really is such a course, but this is known by anyone with even cursory knowledge of security procedures.
In other words, if the SysAdmins turn on password expirations, it is uncontrovertable evidence that they don't have a clue about what they are doing.
I would interpret this as a request to use the most easily broken passwored possible (or a post it note). It's too much of a waste of time memorizing a really good new password every few months.
Everybody knows that any non-manager who wears a suit at a tech company is incompetent. Even the smarter customers won't believe anything unless they hear it form somebody dressed in ratty jeans and an old shirt.
It was a good artical up until the tried to explain the poor server performance with MySQL and Apache. They totally blew it there. For starters, fork and exec have nothing to do with pthreads (and probably have nothing to do with the performance issue at hand either). Also, (as has already been pointed out), each POSIX thread gets its own Mach thread (actually task in MACH terminology) -- the POSIX threads are not implemented in user mode.
What I have heard is bad about OS X threading is that the mach threads use the POSIX mutexes and the POSIX mutexes cause priority inversion problems, but that would be the same with all POSIX thread implementations.
I would guess that the more likely cause of problems is the way I/O drivers are written as mach tasks that run in the kernel process (or was it that all drivers ran in a single kernel thread -- something like that). There might also be a big hammer lock around the entire file system. The downside of messaging systems is that they tend to bottleneck when one thread does too much work. The same as the way a locking system behaves when the locks don't have a fine enough granularity. Neither architecture is really "the answer". Neither architecture makes doing MP easy...
Using the term "spam" for UCE has passed into the venacular a long, long time ago. The only way Hormel can get it back, now, is to get rid of e-mail spam. They probably have grounds for a really huge trade dress lawsuit against the large spammers!
Now, let me get this straight. You are basically saying that because the Recording Industry rips off musicians and (to a lesser extent) songwriters it is OK for wealthy college students to do it, too?
Nice.
How many of your "musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due" think that because the RIAA stiffs them it's OK for everyone else to stiff them, too?
Do you think that College Professors should work for nothing? After all, you should delighted to teach a bunch of ungrateful spoiled children during the day and do your research on the temporal aspects of music performance for nothing at night. And you should be grateful for the opportunity to pay for your own research and living expenses by flipping Burgers at McDonalds while you are doing it. Right? This would solve the college tuition problem for a lot of people!
Slashdot Mirror
The judgement didn't award attorney's fees, the judgement stated the woman is eligible to APPLY for them under the copyright act. The only way the fees would actually be awared is if the lawsuit was frivolous or violated free speech rights or something like that. The lawsuit was not frivolous, because there was copyright infringement. It also sounds this woman tried everything she could do to avoid identifying who really did the copyright infringement (because the judgement states there were protracted negotiations).
This also does not mean that one would be shieled from legal problems related to an open WIFI connection. The only way this woman avoided getting sued is by identifying the actual infringer. If the owner of an open WIFI connection can't identify who did the deed in question, then they are exposed to liability. I would expect there to be a tendency for people to give them a break if they really are clueless, but nobody actually has to.
Umm, the woman in question is a film producer. I don't think implied illegal substance use is going to have much impact on hiring... Unless maybe she specializes in religeous broadcasts...
It's time to orchestrate a letter writing campaign to the FTC complaining about Apple's bundling practices.
It should probably mention iTunes and iPod while you are at it.
Last I heard, bundling was illegal.
One of the lawyers in the case has posted that
All they know, or have reason to believe, about Marie Lindor is that she was the person who signed the check paying for internet access through which the internet was accessed by an insecure wireless router in her house.
The router had been used by her adult children, but not at the time of the alleged screenshot, at which time there was no computer at all in the house.
Plaintiffs are completely aware that Marie Lindor herself did not infringe any copyrights. However, they refuse to drop the case against her, hoping to use the pressure on Ms. Lindor as a means of putting the squeeze on her family.
So this turns out to be another case of unsecured WAP mayhem. Perhaps the defense lawyers can convince the RIAA to sue the WAP vendor for negligence (shipping the WAP with encryption turned off) instead of their clueless client.
In the case where minor kids install the file sharing program without the parent's knowledge, the providers of the file sharing program might be liable. The reasoning goes like this:
1. Secretly publishing files off a computer belonging to person A without person A's permission is a felony.
2. The file sharing suppliers get around this by having the installer of the program agree to a EULA.
3. Minor children to do not have the authority to agree to the EULA; therefore, it is invalid.
On top of that, tricking children into doing something illegal is probably illegal in and of itself (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor).
If the RIAA lawyers are anything other than complete idiots, I would think they would jump at the chance to switch the blame to the file sharing program.
Subject says it all...
Would you look at that. Those "cool running Intel CPUs" have liquid cooling too. I wonder what Steve Jobs has to say about that?
And it was BILLED at $50 an hour (that's after overhead and margin, remember). I'm pretty sure that wasn't any of IBM's U.S. employees.
The proper way to address someone who intentionally stiffs the IRS is "inmate". And they still go on a payment plan when they get out of jail. It happened to an ex-employee where I used to work (quite a while after he was fired for something unrelated).
Umm, $11B income - $11B expenses = $0 net income, not a loss. Now, they could pay taxes on the $11B income the first year and then take the deduction in ensuing years, but that sounds like a bad idea.
That does bring up an Interest point, though. If they use the acruel method for doing their accounting, they will need to write this debt off before the end of the year....
It gets even better, the forgiver is supposed to send the IRS a 1099 when they forgive the debt. You don't need a court judgement to do that. All you have to do is bill the spammer (for something like wasted time), forgive the debt after 3 months and send a 1099 to the IRS. Anyone who can track down the spammer's address could do it. And the spammer would be forced to prove to the IRS it wasn't income.
On the down side, the requirement for filing the 1099 probably means you can't collect a reward on whatever the IRS collects.
I disagree.
They are both ugly warts.
They both have really stupid syntax for making subroutine calls.
They are (or at least were) both heavily proselytized by fanatic propopents touting thier almost magical properties.
I don't exactly know why, but Objective C just keeps reminding me of COBOL. Maybe it's just a revulsion to the ugly syntax...
It's especially gross that the syntax for the first parameter for method calls is different than all the other parameters.
Note that I said "parameter" and "method call" here, and don't say anything about "message passing" -- messages go one way and don't come back. A real message system doesn't have return values and doesn't wait....
Still is is impressive what they have managed build on top of such crude tool.
It'll probably get hacked within the first year and be used to out the comings and goings of public officials...
Sounds like somebody is going to make a killing in UV strobe lights.
So they'll sue him for damages under the same logic that applies to unfenced swimming pools...
Everybody does that if the admins turn on password expirations.
They teach that in security 101. Well, I've been around too long to now know if there really is such a course, but this is known by anyone with even cursory knowledge of security procedures.
In other words, if the SysAdmins turn on password expirations, it is uncontrovertable evidence that they don't have a clue about what they are doing.
I would interpret this as a request to use the most easily broken passwored possible (or a post it note). It's too much of a waste of time memorizing a really good new password every few months.
Everybody knows that any non-manager who wears a suit at a tech company is incompetent. Even the smarter customers won't believe anything unless they hear it form somebody dressed in ratty jeans and an old shirt.
It was a good artical up until the tried to explain the poor server performance with MySQL and Apache. They totally blew it there. For starters, fork and exec have nothing to do with pthreads (and probably have nothing to do with the performance issue at hand either). Also, (as has already been pointed out), each POSIX thread gets its own Mach thread (actually task in MACH terminology) -- the POSIX threads are not implemented in user mode.
What I have heard is bad about OS X threading is that the mach threads use the POSIX mutexes and the POSIX mutexes cause priority inversion problems, but that would be the same with all POSIX thread implementations.
I would guess that the more likely cause of problems is the way I/O drivers are written as mach tasks that run in the kernel process (or was it that all drivers ran in a single kernel thread -- something like that). There might also be a big hammer lock around the entire file system. The downside of messaging systems is that they tend to bottleneck when one thread does too much work. The same as the way a locking system behaves when the locks don't have a fine enough granularity. Neither architecture is really "the answer". Neither architecture makes doing MP easy...
Using the term "spam" for UCE has passed into the venacular a long, long time ago. The only way Hormel can get it back, now, is to get rid of e-mail spam. They probably have grounds for a really huge trade dress lawsuit against the large spammers!
For diluting their trademark with the CAN SPAM act...
I thought this was going to be full of British refrigerator jokes...
u cas-prince.html
http://www.kitcar.com/articles-kitcar/humordept/l
That's more than the RIAA asks for. The highest figure I have seen mentioned in news articals is $5000....
To: Roger B. Dannenberg
.
CC: various department heads at CMU
I read your letter to the Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05123/497993.stm)
Now, let me get this straight. You are basically saying that because the Recording Industry rips off musicians and (to a lesser extent) songwriters it is OK for wealthy college students to do it, too?
Nice.
How many of your "musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due" think that because the RIAA stiffs them it's OK for everyone else to stiff them, too?
Do you think that College Professors should work for nothing? After all, you should delighted to teach a bunch of ungrateful spoiled children during the day and do your research on the temporal aspects of music performance for nothing at night. And you should be grateful for the opportunity to pay for your own research and living expenses by flipping Burgers at McDonalds while you are doing it. Right? This would solve the college tuition problem for a lot of people!
Herbie Robinson
He has already gone after spammers. Scott Richter in particular.