That won't work at all. It is expensive to lay fibre and silly to have dozens of fibres running to every house. A better solution would be to recognize the natural monopoly in last-mile connectivity: have one regulated fibre provider, and allow anyone to create an ISP at the other end.
To save against the unpredictable costs of insurance, he could incorporate, sell the closed source version through the corporation, and then dividend out the money.
Every time Hollywood complains about "billions of dollars of lost revenue", people should rebut and complain about Hollywood stealing millions of dollars of people's time with those FBI warnings.
Well, the MPAA knew that it could rely on Grokster to get a judgment in the US. Given the lack of case law in Canada covering the subject, if they were to sue in Canada now, they could then refer back to that American victory, which might provide additional ammo in their suit. For example, the recent Supreme Court of Canada judgments that expanded libel defences referred to case law in the Commonwealth and the US as part of the rationale.
The judgment itself (pdf) is quite an interesting read. It gives a good overview of the relevant case law, explains how contributory infringement works, as well as why the court is claiming jurisdiction.
The judgment mentions that the US believes it has jurisdiction over an infringment so long as one of the parties is in the United States. Additionally, the person doing the inducing doesn't have to be in the US.
On page 18:
In the context of secondary liability, an actor may be liable for 'activity undertaken abroad that knowingly induces infringement within the United States.'
iMovie isn't nearly as useful as I'd hoped it would be. You'd have to go for Final Cut (Express/Pro) too if you got a mac. I'm excited to see what happens with the VLC editor.
I'm pretty sure that in the US, under Sullivan, plaintiffs only need show "actual malice" if they're public figures. The Grant decision even mentions that:
[67]: In Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court applied the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee to hold that a “public official” cannot recover in defamation absent proof that the defendant was motivated by “actual malice”, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless indifference to truth. In subsequent cases, the “actual malice” rule was extended to apply to all “public figures”, not only people formally involved in government or politics: Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). Sullivan and its progeny have made it extremely difficult for anyone in the public eye to sue successfully for defamation.
The Grant decision offers a two part test: (1) was the publication on a matter of public interest; and (2) was publication of the defamatory communication responsible? It gives a couple of "relevant factors that may aid in determining whether a defamatory communication on a matter of public interest was responsibly made" which should thought of as "illustrative guides". They are:
-The Seriousness of the Allegation -The Public Importance of the Matter -The Urgency of the Matter -The Status and Reliability of the Source -Whether the Plaintiff’s Side of the Story Was Sought and Accurately Reported -Whether Inclusion of the Defamatory Statement was Justifiable -Whether the Defamatory Statement’s Public Interest Lay in the Fact That it Was Made Rather Than its Truth (“Reportage”)
It seems likely that a blogger that ignored all of those factors would likely be at more risk of losing a defamation case than one that went to efforts to maintain some sort of journalistic standards and satisfy most of those factors .
Michael Geist also covers this, writing "This is crucial decision for all publishers both big and small. It represents a major win for freedom of expression in Canada and should remove some of the libel chill that arises far too frequently."
Slashdot Mirror
That won't work at all. It is expensive to lay fibre and silly to have dozens of fibres running to every house. A better solution would be to recognize the natural monopoly in last-mile connectivity: have one regulated fibre provider, and allow anyone to create an ISP at the other end.
Once they get to the 100 page monologue, they'll stop on their own.
You're making a big assumption there. There are lots of creative folks on slashdot.
My question to you is why physical property should be treated any differently?
Because it's different?
It's not a binding precedent, but it's still a precedent. See persuasive precedent.
Why not just generate a new random password for every site and just let firefox remember it? Security and convenience.
Technically I think there's no room in the USB spec for drawing more than minimal power without a proper controller.
To save against the unpredictable costs of insurance, he could incorporate, sell the closed source version through the corporation, and then dividend out the money.
How do you effectively search your email history if it's all encrypted? Are there algorithms for indexing encrypted data without giving too much away?
Any reason you don't just "bookmark all tabs" before closing the browser window and reopen them at your leisure?
Another commenter addresses this based on what's in the actual order.
Every time Hollywood complains about "billions of dollars of lost revenue", people should rebut and complain about Hollywood stealing millions of dollars of people's time with those FBI warnings.
But why fight it? They can't actually do anything to get relief.
Well, the MPAA knew that it could rely on Grokster to get a judgment in the US. Given the lack of case law in Canada covering the subject, if they were to sue in Canada now, they could then refer back to that American victory, which might provide additional ammo in their suit. For example, the recent Supreme Court of Canada judgments that expanded libel defences referred to case law in the Commonwealth and the US as part of the rationale.
The judgment itself (pdf) is quite an interesting read. It gives a good overview of the relevant case law, explains how contributory infringement works, as well as why the court is claiming jurisdiction.
The judgment mentions that the US believes it has jurisdiction over an infringment so long as one of the parties is in the United States. Additionally, the person doing the inducing doesn't have to be in the US.
On page 18:
What neither writer makes clear is why isoHunt and Fung, both Canadian, are participating in a lawsuit in California.
Kdenlive was unusable for me in Ubuntu (Hardy and Intrepid). It crashed within a minute, every time.
iMovie isn't nearly as useful as I'd hoped it would be. You'd have to go for Final Cut (Express/Pro) too if you got a mac. I'm excited to see what happens with the VLC editor.
Haha I asked a former lawyer about doing that. They said it likely wouldn't work (in Canada, at least).
That sounds like a horrible abuse of a defamation suit. Sorry to hear about it. Where did this happen?
I'm pretty sure that in the US, under Sullivan, plaintiffs only need show "actual malice" if they're public figures. The Grant decision even mentions that:
So I'm not sure 3 is true in the general case.
The Grant decision offers a two part test: (1) was the publication on a matter of public interest; and (2) was publication of the defamatory communication responsible? It gives a couple of "relevant factors that may aid in determining whether a defamatory communication on a matter of public interest was responsibly made" which should thought of as "illustrative guides". They are:
-The Seriousness of the Allegation
-The Public Importance of the Matter
-The Urgency of the Matter
-The Status and Reliability of the Source
-Whether the Plaintiff’s Side of the Story Was Sought and Accurately Reported
-Whether Inclusion of the Defamatory Statement was Justifiable
-Whether the Defamatory Statement’s Public Interest Lay in the Fact That it Was Made Rather Than its Truth (“Reportage”)
It seems likely that a blogger that ignored all of those factors would likely be at more risk of losing a defamation case than one that went to efforts to maintain some sort of journalistic standards and satisfy most of those factors .
Michael Geist also covers this, writing "This is crucial decision for all publishers both big and small. It represents a major win for freedom of expression in Canada and should remove some of the libel chill that arises far too frequently."
Long term thinking is something we largely lack today
Fixed.