Step 1: Pay a spammer to advertise your competitor. Step 2: Organize a class action lawsuit against your competitor. Step 3: ???? (well actually laugh when your competitor is ruined by the verdict) Step 4: Enjoy your monopoly.
No, but it might cause enough outrage to get the laws changed. As long as teenagers can be prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves, there is something seriously wrong.
The problem is that you are still attempting to file charges and penalize someone not in the country, for action not done in the country, by people who are not citizens of that country.
Kind of like that case of Gary McKinnon? It will be interesting to see what the US does if the EU does decide to press charges.
But rapidshare isn't the one sharing the material. They don't even enable searching for files. They just provide storage and downloads of files someone else uploads and then tells people about.
Would you consider google evil for enabling the sharing of files through email? Or ISPs evil for providing their customers upstream bandwidth?
But they only find out about the malfunction when they check out the machine. And since the machine is now determined to be defective, why they should be forced to assume that it was defective since it's last checkup. So the law should require them to review their video archives and refund every single person that used it in that period (finding them should be their expense). Then they could either check their machines more often (making it easier to dispute their 'error' claim in court), or just pay out the jackpot.
When was the last time a casino refunded people when they found a machine was malfunctioning? If it's a defective machine, they should refund all people who used it since it's last maintnance.
You'd soon get people that would take the entire truckload, then sell it as fertilizer or something like that. Whenever you give away something for free you need some sort of a mechanism to stop a single person from taking it all. How about a 'ration-cafeteria'? You can take as much as you want, you just have to eat it right there and then.
You're looking at the whole thing from the wrong angle. The CEO won't care what happens to the company 10 years down the line. By then he'll have taken his golden parachute and cashed in his stock options.
The only thing that matters is the next few bottom lines. So the answer is to get as much money NOW, then run away before the shit hits the fan.
Are they respecting patents on the technologies used to make those parts? And are they designing their own parts/machines or just making copies of the imported ones?
'Hi there Timmy. You know that test you took two weeks ago? We've just found out that there is a high chance you cheated, so you have to take it again. And just to make sure you're properly motivated, we won't just make you repeat the course if you fail, we'll actually expel you. But no pressure.'
But still, why? Why legally enforce separate markets for goods?
If the producer can buy raw materials in country A, build the product in countries B,C and D, while claiming patent protection in country E, while suing competitors in a dozen other countries, why should customers (either end users or other corporations) be limited to what is sold in their neighborhood?
Why are only corporations allowed to take advantage of the 'global economy' (outsourcing), but customers should be prevented from purchasing goods where they are cheapest?
The US has a history of toppling governments it doesn't agree with, even if their countries are free and prosperous. And supporting other governments, which are anything but free, as long as they are 'allies'. It would likely have supported the South Vietnamese government in anything, as long as it didn't become communist, and any 'moderation' would probably just have been advice to not let mass killings be seen or filmed by reporters.
Why would you prefer that a country end up being controlled by a hostile government?
Isn't that a question for the American people? Let them decide if they want to support a brutal regime just because it's friendly to the US government.
So if your lawyer is lazy/overworked then you deserve less justice then someone who can afford a dozen lawyers?
The COURT should make sure that ALL relevant information is made available to the jury, the lawyers can then choose to further explain it during the trial if they so choose.
Let's look at it in a different way. I'm sure drawing a picture of Mohammed is against the law in many countries. Should the world lock up everyone that does it, even if it was done in a place where it was legal?
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the new age of economic warfare.
Step 1: Pay a spammer to advertise your competitor.
Step 2: Organize a class action lawsuit against your competitor.
Step 3: ???? (well actually laugh when your competitor is ruined by the verdict)
Step 4: Enjoy your monopoly.
As long as they aren't politicians.
No, but it might cause enough outrage to get the laws changed. As long as teenagers can be prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves, there is something seriously wrong.
The problem is that you are still attempting to file charges and penalize someone not in the country, for action not done in the country, by people who are not citizens of that country.
Kind of like that case of Gary McKinnon? It will be interesting to see what the US does if the EU does decide to press charges.
And there is no connection between the number of guns available in Mexico and the country with very lax gun laws to the north.
But TPB didn't HOST the files. They just helped people find them.
But rapidshare isn't the one sharing the material. They don't even enable searching for files. They just provide storage and downloads of files someone else uploads and then tells people about.
Would you consider google evil for enabling the sharing of files through email? Or ISPs evil for providing their customers upstream bandwidth?
But they only find out about the malfunction when they check out the machine. And since the machine is now determined to be defective, why they should be forced to assume that it was defective since it's last checkup. So the law should require them to review their video archives and refund every single person that used it in that period (finding them should be their expense).
Then they could either check their machines more often (making it easier to dispute their 'error' claim in court), or just pay out the jackpot.
When was the last time a casino refunded people when they found a machine was malfunctioning? If it's a defective machine, they should refund all people who used it since it's last maintnance.
Why settle for just 1M? Play the lottery for a few weeks and you don't even have to bother writing an article to be rich.
Let them fry?
You'd soon get people that would take the entire truckload, then sell it as fertilizer or something like that. Whenever you give away something for free you need some sort of a mechanism to stop a single person from taking it all. How about a 'ration-cafeteria'? You can take as much as you want, you just have to eat it right there and then.
You're looking at the whole thing from the wrong angle. The CEO won't care what happens to the company 10 years down the line. By then he'll have taken his golden parachute and cashed in his stock options.
The only thing that matters is the next few bottom lines. So the answer is to get as much money NOW, then run away before the shit hits the fan.
Are they respecting patents on the technologies used to make those parts? And are they designing their own parts/machines or just making copies of the imported ones?
If all information about Mugabe was free, even his supporters would probably lynch him.
How can the leaders accountable if they can classify nearly everything they do?
'Hi there Timmy. You know that test you took two weeks ago? We've just found out that there is a high chance you cheated, so you have to take it again. And just to make sure you're properly motivated, we won't just make you repeat the course if you fail, we'll actually expel you. But no pressure.'
So kind of like an EULA you only get to read after purchasing a product?
All he needs to add is: 'If you do not agree to these conditions, please contact %site_email_provider to delete your email from our inbox'
Or at least allow the victim to reverse the transfer they made. Let the Malaysian bank collect from the scammer.
But still, why? Why legally enforce separate markets for goods?
If the producer can buy raw materials in country A, build the product in countries B,C and D, while claiming patent protection in country E, while suing competitors in a dozen other countries, why should customers (either end users or other corporations) be limited to what is sold in their neighborhood?
Why are only corporations allowed to take advantage of the 'global economy' (outsourcing), but customers should be prevented from purchasing goods where they are cheapest?
Did anyone expect Avatar to have a deep story? It was meant as a tech demo for some sweet 3D effects, that's more or less it. And people liked it.
So the effects certainly did their job. Now those same effects can be used in a movie that has a story.
As for watching it in 2D, why did you? It's like going to see the 'first movie in color' and seeing it in B&W. You can do it but it's a bad choice.
The US has a history of toppling governments it doesn't agree with, even if their countries are free and prosperous. And supporting other governments, which are anything but free, as long as they are 'allies'. It would likely have supported the South Vietnamese government in anything, as long as it didn't become communist, and any 'moderation' would probably just have been advice to not let mass killings be seen or filmed by reporters.
Why would you prefer that a country end up being controlled by a hostile government?
Isn't that a question for the American people? Let them decide if they want to support a brutal regime just because it's friendly to the US government.
So if your lawyer is lazy/overworked then you deserve less justice then someone who can afford a dozen lawyers?
The COURT should make sure that ALL relevant information is made available to the jury, the lawyers can then choose to further explain it during the trial if they so choose.
Let's look at it in a different way. I'm sure drawing a picture of Mohammed is against the law in many countries. Should the world lock up everyone that does it, even if it was done in a place where it was legal?