Only applies to content hosted on their network. If the ISP is not directly hosting the content on servers they own, then they have no requirement to take it down. When the content is hosted on the customers system the ISP has no legal liability regardless of claims to the contrary, Why? Because the they can take legal action against the person directly at that point, and they have a legal obligation to minimize the affects. That would be like me forcing LEVEL3 to take down Comcast because one of Comcast's customers is hosting a file for download on a machine outside of Comcast's direct control.
512. Limitations on liability relating to material online (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.-- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if-- (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider; (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider; (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person; (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
Notice there is no absolutely no requirement to terminate the user.
As any slashdot reader would already know, the document obviously had a RFID chip in it and that alerted security when it passed through exit to the building.
But if this was Apple vs Palm and iTunes instead of IBM and a mainframe OS, the fanboi's would be saying but Apple developed their software and have the right to deny the use of it to anyone else. Since this is IBM I bet the debate is going the other way... Lets go take a peek....
As a network administrator I feel that proxy services should be prohibited.
If my customers are having a problem reaching your web site, then I use whois to find the person to contact to resolve the issue. This is necessary more often than you might thing due to routing issues. I can call my upstream ISP if the problem is on their end, but if not you may need to contact your ISP so that the problem can be worked on from both ends.
Any domain not listing the actual contact information for the individuals responsible for the domain should be dropped from the db. There are other ways to handle contacts which would not require emails to be displayed. It's that simple. Whois information identifies the mailing address for the registered owner of the domain, and the full contact information for the technical and administrative contacts. For most cases that should be the domain administrators at your hosting company. If you opt to place your own information in those fields, then your information should be made available.
For example with a iphone or ipod the functionality can be included in the itunes software. Owner goes in program and selects block device. That device can no longer connect to the apple store. It's that simple if the device is returned or found the owner can select unblock device. Simple. Requires one database on apple's end, a couple hundred lines of code, and a check be made each time that device is connected. It is simple, foolproof, low maintance on Apple's part, and kills any incentive someone has to rob or kill you for that device.
It's simple when the registered owner of the device reports it stolen they add the serial number to a list. Devices in the list can not be updated and will present a message giving the owners phone number to contact about returning the device. Owner is happy because they either get the device back, or they know it can't be used. I asked Apple to do much the same thing when I lost my iPod last year. I feel it is negligence on the manufacturer's part when they do not implement some form of an anti-theft system especially when the device requires access to propriety company owned and operated services. In this instance DRM can work truly on behalf of the consumer.
I have broken several stories and regularly notify the CNN news desk when stories break that they would be interested in. Don't knock local media as local media is generally the source for the larger broadcasters and publishers.
It proves nothing. You can call a rose,a rose; and a pig, a pig; without being one your self. The history of Fox news is documented even in court cases...
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States...During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, "It's vindication for WTVT, and we're very pleased... It's the case we've been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."
What he is most likely hoping for is that the eight other giant publishing companies follow his lead and as act together as an oligopoly.
Firms often collude in an attempt to stabilise unstable markets, so as to reduce the risks inherent in these markets for investment and product development. There are legal restrictions on such collusion in most countries. There does not have to be a formal agreement for collusion to take place (although for the act to be illegal there must be a real communication between companies) - for example, in some industries, there may be an acknowledged market leader which informally sets prices to which other producers respond, known as price leadership.- Wikipedia
In this case the big publishing companies held a meeting with antitrust lawyers watching every step to map out a strategy to do just this.
Fox News and the other Rupert Murdoch properties charging for access is the best thing the Dems and Obama could ask for. It will limit the reach of the biased news content put out by his properties and limit the public exposure. Also as a publisher of a small Online Community Newspaper, I hope that Gannett and the other big news publishing companies follow suit. It's win win for me.
I will not play a game that rewards, or give extra benefits to, those who give cash to the company. Charge everyone a small fee, but keep everyone equal.
First off you discredited yourself by bringing up "Al Gore and friends". You showed your colors right off the shot. You should learn that politics and science never shall mix.
The science is not saying the current doesn't exist, just that it's not where they are currently looking for it. The law of thermodynamics makes clear that when you add heat into a system the system must change to accommodate it.
The current is a predicted effect of increased global warming causing the polar icecaps to melt. The worry is that with increased cold water entering the oceans that the flow of the current will cease. Nothing in here precludes that no matter where the current is. You have not discredited global warming at all.
I will be the first person to point out don't yet fully understand what the possible repercussions of this increased heat in our atmosphere.
Doesn't mean it's totally wrong, just that they are looking in the wrong place...
Using field observations and computer models, the study shows that much of the southward flow of cold water from the Labrador Sea moves not along the deep western boundary current, but along a previously unknown path in the interior of the North Atlantic.
The solution is the boxes network together and then select a master box that caches the content on the various neighborhood boxes which would mean that node (neighborhood) would only have to download the content once then distribute it between various boxes to the homes that select to receive it. This only works in a world where DRM does not restrict the use of the content to one subscriber. But that would result in a massive reduction in bandwidth requirements to watch popular content.
Hrm this kinda sounds like Bittorrent...
That is the issue isn't it the patent bar doesn't want the law and process to be more settled. Uncertainty for the patent bar means that they get more work and thus make more money.
There is a lot to learn here and most importantly putting in strong safeguards to prevent the NSA from ever being used inside or outside the United States against it's own citizens ever again.
"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself.
You also run into the issue that if I only license the music and my copy is damaged or lost, I then have the right to demand a replacement so that I can exercise my license. Currently none of the record companies will do so. They will instruct you to go out and purchase a new copy of the recording.
This is where the you license not buy argument proves to be fallacious.
It's not the DRM or cost of the players.
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's the cost of the content. Content is king and always will be. Consumers will pay more for a disc player which offers more features and functionality. They won't pay $30 per blueray disc when they are used to paying $14-20 for decent quality movie on DVD. Add DRM to that and ya it's doomed to a early demise and they were fools for thinking they could succeed so.
Slashdot Mirror
This is also a great argument for the use of open standards.
It seems to me that one can easily argue that laws are facts,and as since facts can not be copyrighted...
Only applies to content hosted on their network. If the ISP is not directly hosting the content on servers they own, then they have no requirement to take it down. When the content is hosted on the customers system the ISP has no legal liability regardless of claims to the contrary, Why? Because the they can take legal action against the person directly at that point, and they have a legal obligation to minimize the affects. That would be like me forcing LEVEL3 to take down Comcast because one of Comcast's customers is hosting a file for download on a machine outside of Comcast's direct control.
Notice there is no absolutely no requirement to terminate the user.
As any slashdot reader would already know, the document obviously had a RFID chip in it and that alerted security when it passed through exit to the building.
They want this because they would be one of the companies profiting off of selling them to people. It's a revenue stream to them and nothing more.
But if this was Apple vs Palm and iTunes instead of IBM and a mainframe OS, the fanboi's would be saying but Apple developed their software and have the right to deny the use of it to anyone else. Since this is IBM I bet the debate is going the other way... Lets go take a peek....
A properly configured hosts allow/deny
Rejects 99.9999% of connection attempts before they can even begin to guess.
thing = think
As a network administrator I feel that proxy services should be prohibited.
If my customers are having a problem reaching your web site, then I use whois to find the person to contact to resolve the issue. This is necessary more often than you might thing due to routing issues. I can call my upstream ISP if the problem is on their end, but if not you may need to contact your ISP so that the problem can be worked on from both ends.
Any domain not listing the actual contact information for the individuals responsible for the domain should be dropped from the db. There are other ways to handle contacts which would not require emails to be displayed. It's that simple. Whois information identifies the mailing address for the registered owner of the domain, and the full contact information for the technical and administrative contacts. For most cases that should be the domain administrators at your hosting company. If you opt to place your own information in those fields, then your information should be made available.
For example with a iphone or ipod the functionality can be included in the itunes software. Owner goes in program and selects block device. That device can no longer connect to the apple store. It's that simple if the device is returned or found the owner can select unblock device. Simple. Requires one database on apple's end, a couple hundred lines of code, and a check be made each time that device is connected. It is simple, foolproof, low maintance on Apple's part, and kills any incentive someone has to rob or kill you for that device.
It's simple when the registered owner of the device reports it stolen they add the serial number to a list. Devices in the list can not be updated and will present a message giving the owners phone number to contact about returning the device. Owner is happy because they either get the device back, or they know it can't be used. I asked Apple to do much the same thing when I lost my iPod last year. I feel it is negligence on the manufacturer's part when they do not implement some form of an anti-theft system especially when the device requires access to propriety company owned and operated services. In this instance DRM can work truly on behalf of the consumer.
I have broken several stories and regularly notify the CNN news desk when stories break that they would be interested in. Don't knock local media as local media is generally the source for the larger broadcasters and publishers.
It proves nothing. You can call a rose,a rose; and a pig, a pig; without being one your self. The history of Fox news is documented even in court cases...
What he is most likely hoping for is that the eight other giant publishing companies follow his lead and as act together as an oligopoly.
In this case the big publishing companies held a meeting with antitrust lawyers watching every step to map out a strategy to do just this.
Fox News and the other Rupert Murdoch properties charging for access is the best thing the Dems and Obama could ask for. It will limit the reach of the biased news content put out by his properties and limit the public exposure. Also as a publisher of a small Online Community Newspaper, I hope that Gannett and the other big news publishing companies follow suit. It's win win for me.
I will not play a game that rewards, or give extra benefits to, those who give cash to the company. Charge everyone a small fee, but keep everyone equal.
First off you discredited yourself by bringing up "Al Gore and friends". You showed your colors right off the shot. You should learn that politics and science never shall mix.
The science is not saying the current doesn't exist, just that it's not where they are currently looking for it. The law of thermodynamics makes clear that when you add heat into a system the system must change to accommodate it.
The current is a predicted effect of increased global warming causing the polar icecaps to melt. The worry is that with increased cold water entering the oceans that the flow of the current will cease. Nothing in here precludes that no matter where the current is. You have not discredited global warming at all.
I will be the first person to point out don't yet fully understand what the possible repercussions of this increased heat in our atmosphere.
Doesn't mean it's totally wrong, just that they are looking in the wrong place...
They should go to Facebook, they have even added a special language option just for them. English (Pirate)
The solution is the boxes network together and then select a master box that caches the content on the various neighborhood boxes which would mean that node (neighborhood) would only have to download the content once then distribute it between various boxes to the homes that select to receive it. This only works in a world where DRM does not restrict the use of the content to one subscriber. But that would result in a massive reduction in bandwidth requirements to watch popular content. Hrm this kinda sounds like Bittorrent...
That is the issue isn't it the patent bar doesn't want the law and process to be more settled. Uncertainty for the patent bar means that they get more work and thus make more money.
The geology of the Madeira Aplain further studies relevant to its suitability for radioactive waste disposal
There is a lot to learn here and most importantly putting in strong safeguards to prevent the NSA from ever being used inside or outside the United States against it's own citizens ever again.
"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself.
You also run into the issue that if I only license the music and my copy is damaged or lost, I then have the right to demand a replacement so that I can exercise my license. Currently none of the record companies will do so. They will instruct you to go out and purchase a new copy of the recording.
This is where the you license not buy argument proves to be fallacious.
It's the cost of the content. Content is king and always will be. Consumers will pay more for a disc player which offers more features and functionality. They won't pay $30 per blueray disc when they are used to paying $14-20 for decent quality movie on DVD. Add DRM to that and ya it's doomed to a early demise and they were fools for thinking they could succeed so.