My understanding is the when the get a DCMA take down notice the take it down, no questions asked. So, Why dont we ALL submit take down notices for all the major sites. Washington post, NY Times, and anyone else we can take down.
They may take it down no questions asked, for most sites, when notices are received from major organizations.
But two things.. (1) They don't have to; they just lose the safe harbor.
(2) They can be discriminatory. They may start asking questions when a takedown request comes in from some unknown organization to take down a large revenue-important customer who might sue them; they will probably be contacting the customer first, to give them the opportunity to file emergency counter notice as allowed by the DMCA.
DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury. While the targets of most frivolous notices are small and can't afford to sue or press charges, the issuers (major corporations) can defend any suit against them easily. Also, corporations get fined, individuals get jail time.
That's not clear. DMCA letters are supposed to be under penalty of perjury THAT THE AUTHOR owns rights to a work alleged to be infringed.
But even if you remove the "penalty of perjury" part from the letter, I think there's still a chance that GoDaddy/et al. might mistake a "look alike" cease and decist for a real DMCA letter
The question is how do we defend against it? Can we donate to IMSLP?
Can we start a class action suit against GoDaddy (by users of the site) for denial of service?
Nothing really entitles a domain registrar to submit a domain to NSI for removal
based on content of the domain, other than some shoddy "cover their ass" agreement,
they make the registrant agree too -- but the network community hasn't agreed to it.
And manage to have the brake lights not be activated in either picture...
I guess they will add 'malfunctioning breaklights / defective equipment' to the list of infractions,
in response to the speeding ticket dispute pointing out break lights not lit.
You mean I've been estimating path loss and link margins illegally all this time?
It wasn't illegal before Obama became president....
The problem is Math reveals some inconvenient facts, especially when practiced illegally by unlicensed meth users.
And use of math has been linked with racism, sexism, and being rich.
I believe the math refuting global warming theory is also involved, related to p***'ed off environmentalists; in any case, there's a war against illegal math users now;
insisting they all be brought to justice (especially statisticians with statistics in disagreement with the official version).
Apparently illegal math user prosecution has priority even over illegal immigrants.
You are wrong about resisting an officer, there is plenty of case law that says that you can use up to and including deadly force to resist an illegal arrest.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you are ultimately vindicated or not, that is small comfort.
If the officer shot you dead (illegally); the average person won't care that it was decided they were innocent because the officer's actions were ultimately found illegal when they were brought before the court.
If you are arrested and charged with a crime for not cooperating You still spent some time in jail; even if the court decides you were innocent and clears you of all the charges you still spent that time in jail.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Many officers believe they are above the law, and will arrest you and charge you, even if you will ultimately be vindicated, you still suffer as a result of not cooperating.
And it is not as if the court will reward you or 'make it worth your while' for having spent those days in a jail cell, before you were able to challenge the invalid charges on the basis that the arrest/actions of the officer were supposedly illegal.
There will probably (in most cases) be no action against the officer, either.
You have really been brainwashed by the state, you only have to follow lawful orders. If an officer removes something from your car that is considered a search, unless you give consent it is not a legal search unless something illegal is in plain sight.
No. I am not saying the officer's actions are legal.
I am saying you may be charged with a crime if you refuse to comply: even if you personally deem the orders to be illegal.
Especially if you attempt to prevent the officer from taking the phone (by grabbing it, or knocking it out of his hand, for example).
The question of the legality of the officer's search is something to be decided in court.
The illegality of the officer's actions doesn't make resistance on your part legal.
No an officer cannot seize anything he wants, he also cannot seize an item because he believes that it may contain evidence of an as of yet unknown crime, that is known as an illegal fishing expedition.
Yes. That doesn't make refusing to obeys his order to surrender the phone legal however.
It may be that both you and the officer broke the law in that case; the officer for asking, and you for resisting.
When an officer stops a vehicle he is only investigating the crime for which he pulled you over for (a traffic violation), this cannot be used as a pretext for searching your vehicle unless something illegal is in plain sight.
That might not be the case. He may be pulling you over because your vehicle looks suspicious, and using that as a pretext to give you a traffic ticket based on some minor offense he happened to notice while watching you on the road.
On the road, the standard for searching a vehicle is much lower than probable cause also.
Basically, if the officer is suspicious and wants to search your car, and he can justify it in some manner as
suspicion, he can search.
If you resist/fail to cooperate, something you said can create sufficient suspicion to perform a full search.
And unless there actually is a firearm in the glove box the police cannot seize anything,
Yes they can. Whether it is legal for them to seize anything is a different question from will they seize anything.
You think police officers always follow the law?
People like you are the kind that police love, you'll let them violate your rights, the whole time believing that they have authority to do whatever they want.
No. People like me live to tell about it, when we encounter tyrannical police. People who refuse to cooperate wind up dead for "they guy made a quick motion into his pocket and looked like he was pulling a gun".
When faced with a Police officer who does not follow the law, you better do what they say, or they may come up with pretext to shoot and lie about what happened.
Do not believe the police when they say things like "we're going to search your car, you might as well cooperate"
If they say they're going to search your car, then they are probably going to search your car.
Dirty Harry is mad that a scumbag got off on a technicality; he isn't scared that his illegal search somehow turned into a burglary charge against him. Why would DCMA be any different?
Because the DA has the "prosecutorial discretion" not to charge the officer, and he almost certainly won't.
The DA has to consider the political ramifications of charging an officer,
especially if criminal intent is hard to prove.
However, the DA doesn't get any discretion in the prosecution of civil matters; criminal charges can only be raised by the DA, _anyone_ can sue in civil court -- so, the DMCA exemption for law enforcement, doesn't exclude them from being sued over an illegal search
They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply.
You do have to comply. If there is an item in your car in plain sight then and there, and an officer orders you to give it to them, you cannot refuse.
You do not have to consent to a search, but you cannot interfere, or refuse to follow orders too.
If the officer asks you to give him something, and you refuse, the crime of so-called disorderly conduct has been committed.
The officer can legally seize any item he happens to see, if there is suspicion it could contain evidence of a criminal act; which is especially likely to happen if an unusual or out of place item is seen, such as a phone hidden in a compartment, or...
If the officer happens to see anything he suspects to be a gun/weapon in your glove box when you open it to get out registration; an even more inconvenient (for you) response is likely, Hint: you won't be allowed to be the one rummaging around in the glove box.
would financial vulnerability fall under "vulnerabilities"? would a town's financially vulnerable library network be able to use this exemption store copies of dvds in order address their municipal-level financial vulnerability of the network?
Only if they are lawfully authorized to do so. The DMCA 1201(e) provides an exemption to the anticircumvention provisions; it doesn't provide an exemption to copyright law.
Or use your modification to trigger a thermal runaway in the Li-ion battery >:-).
The problem with that is.... (1) someone could get hurt, (2) it would destroy the phone, and (3) you might be arrested due to intentionally creating a life-threatening situation "trying to cause a fire/explosion"
Not to mention you can toss it in a glove box and at that point they will need a your permission, a warrant, or to impound the car in order to search it.
Officer: License, registration, and proof of insurance, please?
You: *opens glove box*
Officer: Hey, let me see that cell phone for a second.
No, the 1201(e) exemption does not apply to an illegal search. 1201(E) is taylored narrowly enough that law enforcement does not have a blank check, only certain law enforcement activities are exempt.
(e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term ''information security'' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
You can also erase your phone by creating a 150,000 volt potential difference with your phone in the middle.
How about having an app running on the phone that creates a high potential difference between the phone and the "analyzer" device plugged into it, by shorting the terminals of the battery directly to the unapproved device,
while intentionally blowing some custom fusible links installed to the leads required in order to actually communicate with the phone?
(In addition to modification from the standard USB pinout, or possibly another cutout section on the jack, with a modified cable for your own use to make contact with the new separated receive/transmit PINs).
A moderately effective stopgap, perhaps, but having to nuke all your phone data because you were pulled over for something that may or may not have been a traffic violation is hardly an acceptable state of affairs.
How about you make an 'unofficial' modification to your phone's communication port that includes breaking the receive line and emitting random bursts of high-voltage high-amperage current, way outside normal USB specs, if plugged in with a NORMAL USB cable, instead of your specially modified cable?
People that sell used games are potential customers for new games. Not being able to sell the old game affects their ability to purchase another new game.
Not really. Players selling at a used game shop get pennies on the dollar compared to the new price of the game.
Eliminating the ability to buy used also removes a financial incentive for people to forego the 'new' release and hold out until they can get it used for cheap.
It eliminates not buying it new as an option that can still provide the game player (delayed) gratification. With buying used for cheap off the table; buying it new now, later, or not obtaining it, become the only real options.
And if they opt not to buy and want the game, the demand still exists (not met by the used game), hence, they will buy it, when they can afford it.
Either the player saves up more money, or the manufacturer comes up with a price adjustment scheme where old releases are decreased in price, eventually... with care to stage it as to avoid marring the market for the new release.
At least then the (reduced) amount from buying an old product goes to the manufacturer instead of getting pocketed by a used games shop.
The period following the bankruptcy recovery was marked by a rapid growth and expansion of the knowledge base and saw technical advances. Experts-Exchange was chosen as a runner-up for Best web resource for developers award by VSJ on 2006
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is the when the get a DCMA take down notice the take it down, no questions asked. So, Why dont we ALL submit take down notices for all the major sites. Washington post, NY Times, and anyone else we can take down.
They may take it down no questions asked, for most sites, when notices are received from major organizations.
But two things.. (1) They don't have to; they just lose the safe harbor.
(2) They can be discriminatory. They may start asking questions when a takedown request comes in from some unknown organization to take down a large revenue-important customer who might sue them; they will probably be contacting the customer first, to give them the opportunity to file emergency counter notice as allowed by the DMCA.
I have a good faith allegation that every site on the internet infringes upon my work. I call my work "a neat web page"
It includes content such as: <html><head><title>A neat web page</title><body>Neat</body>
I have it from a good source, that even sites like Slashdot contain parts of my work such as "<html><head><title>"
DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury. While the targets of most frivolous notices are small and can't afford to sue or press charges, the issuers (major corporations) can defend any suit against them easily. Also, corporations get fined, individuals get jail time.
That's not clear. DMCA letters are supposed to be under penalty of perjury THAT THE AUTHOR owns rights to a work alleged to be infringed.
But even if you remove the "penalty of perjury" part from the letter, I think there's still a chance that GoDaddy/et al. might mistake a "look alike" cease and decist for a real DMCA letter
The question is how do we defend against it? Can we donate to IMSLP?
Can we start a class action suit against GoDaddy (by users of the site) for denial of service?
Nothing really entitles a domain registrar to submit a domain to NSI for removal based on content of the domain, other than some shoddy "cover their ass" agreement, they make the registrant agree too -- but the network community hasn't agreed to it.
And manage to have the brake lights not be activated in either picture...
I guess they will add 'malfunctioning breaklights / defective equipment' to the list of infractions, in response to the speeding ticket dispute pointing out break lights not lit.
You mean I've been estimating path loss and link margins illegally all this time?
It wasn't illegal before Obama became president....
The problem is Math reveals some inconvenient facts, especially when practiced illegally by unlicensed meth users. And use of math has been linked with racism, sexism, and being rich.
I believe the math refuting global warming theory is also involved, related to p***'ed off environmentalists; in any case, there's a war against illegal math users now; insisting they all be brought to justice (especially statisticians with statistics in disagreement with the official version). Apparently illegal math user prosecution has priority even over illegal immigrants.
You are wrong about resisting an officer, there is plenty of case law that says that you can use up to and including deadly force to resist an illegal arrest.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you are ultimately vindicated or not, that is small comfort.
If the officer shot you dead (illegally); the average person won't care that it was decided they were innocent because the officer's actions were ultimately found illegal when they were brought before the court.
If you are arrested and charged with a crime for not cooperating You still spent some time in jail; even if the court decides you were innocent and clears you of all the charges you still spent that time in jail.
What's so hard to understand about this? Many officers believe they are above the law, and will arrest you and charge you, even if you will ultimately be vindicated, you still suffer as a result of not cooperating.
And it is not as if the court will reward you or 'make it worth your while' for having spent those days in a jail cell, before you were able to challenge the invalid charges on the basis that the arrest/actions of the officer were supposedly illegal.
There will probably (in most cases) be no action against the officer, either.
You have really been brainwashed by the state, you only have to follow lawful orders. If an officer removes something from your car that is considered a search, unless you give consent it is not a legal search unless something illegal is in plain sight.
No. I am not saying the officer's actions are legal. I am saying you may be charged with a crime if you refuse to comply: even if you personally deem the orders to be illegal. Especially if you attempt to prevent the officer from taking the phone (by grabbing it, or knocking it out of his hand, for example).
The question of the legality of the officer's search is something to be decided in court. The illegality of the officer's actions doesn't make resistance on your part legal.
No an officer cannot seize anything he wants, he also cannot seize an item because he believes that it may contain evidence of an as of yet unknown crime, that is known as an illegal fishing expedition.
Yes. That doesn't make refusing to obeys his order to surrender the phone legal however.
It may be that both you and the officer broke the law in that case; the officer for asking, and you for resisting.
When an officer stops a vehicle he is only investigating the crime for which he pulled you over for (a traffic violation), this cannot be used as a pretext for searching your vehicle unless something illegal is in plain sight.
That might not be the case. He may be pulling you over because your vehicle looks suspicious, and using that as a pretext to give you a traffic ticket based on some minor offense he happened to notice while watching you on the road.
On the road, the standard for searching a vehicle is much lower than probable cause also. Basically, if the officer is suspicious and wants to search your car, and he can justify it in some manner as suspicion, he can search. If you resist/fail to cooperate, something you said can create sufficient suspicion to perform a full search.
And unless there actually is a firearm in the glove box the police cannot seize anything,
Yes they can. Whether it is legal for them to seize anything is a different question from will they seize anything. You think police officers always follow the law?
People like you are the kind that police love, you'll let them violate your rights, the whole time believing that they have authority to do whatever they want.
No. People like me live to tell about it, when we encounter tyrannical police. People who refuse to cooperate wind up dead for "they guy made a quick motion into his pocket and looked like he was pulling a gun".
When faced with a Police officer who does not follow the law, you better do what they say, or they may come up with pretext to shoot and lie about what happened.
Do not believe the police when they say things like "we're going to search your car, you might as well cooperate"
If they say they're going to search your car, then they are probably going to search your car.
Dirty Harry is mad that a scumbag got off on a technicality; he isn't scared that his illegal search somehow turned into a burglary charge against him. Why would DCMA be any different?
Because the DA has the "prosecutorial discretion" not to charge the officer, and he almost certainly won't. The DA has to consider the political ramifications of charging an officer, especially if criminal intent is hard to prove.
However, the DA doesn't get any discretion in the prosecution of civil matters; criminal charges can only be raised by the DA, _anyone_ can sue in civil court -- so, the DMCA exemption for law enforcement, doesn't exclude them from being sued over an illegal search
with ideas like that we can confirm that there are no bounds on human stupidity.
I will confirm there are no bounds on human stupidity when congress passes a new law banning the sale and/or possession of VHS tapes.
They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply.
You do have to comply. If there is an item in your car in plain sight then and there, and an officer orders you to give it to them, you cannot refuse.
You do not have to consent to a search, but you cannot interfere, or refuse to follow orders too. If the officer asks you to give him something, and you refuse, the crime of so-called disorderly conduct has been committed.
The officer can legally seize any item he happens to see, if there is suspicion it could contain evidence of a criminal act; which is especially likely to happen if an unusual or out of place item is seen, such as a phone hidden in a compartment, or...
If the officer happens to see anything he suspects to be a gun/weapon in your glove box when you open it to get out registration; an even more inconvenient (for you) response is likely, Hint: you won't be allowed to be the one rummaging around in the glove box.
would financial vulnerability fall under "vulnerabilities"? would a town's financially vulnerable library network be able to use this exemption store copies of dvds in order address their municipal-level financial vulnerability of the network?
Only if they are lawfully authorized to do so. The DMCA 1201(e) provides an exemption to the anticircumvention provisions; it doesn't provide an exemption to copyright law.
Or use your modification to trigger a thermal runaway in the Li-ion battery >:-).
The problem with that is.... (1) someone could get hurt, (2) it would destroy the phone, and (3) you might be arrested due to intentionally creating a life-threatening situation "trying to cause a fire/explosion"
Officer: "May I search your car?"
You: "No, you may not."
Saying no may mean that they decide to detain you, until they can get a warrant.
Those running CDMA phones with bluetooth off and a password lock activated should be safe(r) from this machine.
Officer: Ok, give me the password to the phone, now.
You: No
Officer: Tell me the password, or you are going to jail.
Not to mention you can toss it in a glove box and at that point they will need a your permission, a warrant, or to impound the car in order to search it.
Officer: License, registration, and proof of insurance, please?
You: *opens glove box*
Officer: Hey, let me see that cell phone for a second.
This is not about lane changes... this is about getting your porn, and seeing if any possible/known criminals/druggies are in your contact lists.
1201(e) exempts law enforcement.
No, the 1201(e) exemption does not apply to an illegal search. 1201(E) is taylored narrowly enough that law enforcement does not have a blank check, only certain law enforcement activities are exempt.
You can also erase your phone by creating a 150,000 volt potential difference with your phone in the middle.
How about having an app running on the phone that creates a high potential difference between the phone and the "analyzer" device plugged into it, by shorting the terminals of the battery directly to the unapproved device, while intentionally blowing some custom fusible links installed to the leads required in order to actually communicate with the phone?
(In addition to modification from the standard USB pinout, or possibly another cutout section on the jack, with a modified cable for your own use to make contact with the new separated receive/transmit PINs).
A moderately effective stopgap, perhaps, but having to nuke all your phone data because you were pulled over for something that may or may not have been a traffic violation is hardly an acceptable state of affairs.
How about you make an 'unofficial' modification to your phone's communication port that includes breaking the receive line and emitting random bursts of high-voltage high-amperage current, way outside normal USB specs, if plugged in with a NORMAL USB cable, instead of your specially modified cable?
People that sell used games are potential customers for new games. Not being able to sell the old game affects their ability to purchase another new game.
Not really. Players selling at a used game shop get pennies on the dollar compared to the new price of the game.
Eliminating the ability to buy used also removes a financial incentive for people to forego the 'new' release and hold out until they can get it used for cheap.
It eliminates not buying it new as an option that can still provide the game player (delayed) gratification. With buying used for cheap off the table; buying it new now, later, or not obtaining it, become the only real options.
And if they opt not to buy and want the game, the demand still exists (not met by the used game), hence, they will buy it, when they can afford it.
Either the player saves up more money, or the manufacturer comes up with a price adjustment scheme where old releases are decreased in price, eventually... with care to stage it as to avoid marring the market for the new release.
At least then the (reduced) amount from buying an old product goes to the manufacturer instead of getting pocketed by a used games shop.
however, not once, in years, have i seen "experts exchange" written in such a way in your post that it makes me think "expert sex change"
It's obviously a cold cruel jab based on an old gaffe that was their original doman name; Initially the URL of the site was expertsexchange.com, but because of the potential for confusion, the domain name was subsequently changed to experts-exchange.com. Experts-Exchange went bankrupt in 2001 after venture capitalists moved the company to San Mateo, CA, and was brought back largely through the efforts of unpaid volunteers.
The period following the bankruptcy recovery was marked by a rapid growth and expansion of the knowledge base and saw technical advances. Experts-Exchange was chosen as a runner-up for Best web resource for developers award by VSJ on 2006
They still have poor answers hiding behind all the bullshit you have to scroll, through.
Poor answers sometimes... Good answers sometimes.
Just like other technical forums. But other technical forums aren't so aggressively trying to monetize their members' postings
If the used game market is eliminated entirely, prices will have to fall accordingly or they will simply sell less units.
They don't earn $$$ off used sales, why would the original game maker want used sales to continue? Unless they give them a revenue opportunity....
If sugar is bad for you... how come the human body turns what you eat into sugar?