Except Jamie was violating their legally acquired right to control the copying of the works she was helping to make copies of. She stopped being a customer the minute she put those songs on Kazaa.
No, you would lose. They are not obligated to provide you with anything at all. Where did you get the idea that you deserve their service regardless of your ability to pay or your credit-worthiness? Let me guess, you are in your mid-teens to early twenties and grew up hearing how special you are.
In the colder states during winter, one needs gas/electric to survive. One does not need internet to survive. You will not die if you can't check your email, read slashdot, or surf for porn.
Not running out of bits, but rather running out of bandwidth.
While there is an unlimited number of bits, there is a limit to the number of bits that can go down the wire at any one time. The more you use, the less that is available for everyone else. If everyone uses lots of service, then the company have to improve the infrastructure to support the desired service level, which will cost money, which they will earn by charging a higher rate to those with a higher usage rate.
If you knew the laws involved in telecom billing, you would understand that it is in the best interest of the major telecom companies to make as little, possibly even lose, money on landline phone service. It allows them to have higher profits overall.
Internet service went to "unlimited" plans back when it was hard for people to use more than about 5GB. They made money by offering their service at the price one would expect for the maximum amount of usage. Now, everyone is complaining about caps, etc. I have no doubt that if there is a law passed that prevents service caps, you will see a return of some sort of metered usage. If they are really smart, they will sell it at something like $10.00/GB rounding up.
limited time (we've gone over this time and time again), but *Authors* and *Inventors*
Two things: 1) Try looking up "work for hire". The person who commissions the work is considered the Author/Inventor. 2) The Author/Inventor can, and does, sell/license his rights to those "monied pockets of power". You are suggesting that the "*Authors*" should not be able to give exclusive licenses to their works should they so desire.
So, what you really want is to change the law and Constitution to reduce the rights of the authors to benefit you.
You have three votes. I have 3 votes. The each and every voting age American on slashdot has three votes. Your parents have six votes. Your siblings have 3 votes each. Shall I go on?
If you can't convince the people you know to support your cause, maybe you should take a better look at your cause.
Either quit your fucking whining, stop breaking the law (which hurts your cause), and start a grass roots movement to change the law or shut the fuck up. I don't care which but I am fucking tired of hearing "It's too hard!" when you don't even try.
You want to go to the moon? Quit whining and build a fucking rocket to get you there or shut the fuck up. I don't care which you do, just do it.
Before one downloads there are X copies of the work. After one downloads there are X+1 copies of the work.
The infringement is as simple as that.
By hosting the file, the "sharer" helped create the copy. It is two people working in concert committing a single act. Just because two people were involved in creating the copy and only one was identified, it does not follow that the one identified is blameless. Let me give you a simple example:
A and B go into a store. A pulls a gun and B grabs the loot. They run from the store, but B is caught. B is charged with armed robbery because his partner in the act pulled a gun.
No, because she lied about when it was replaced. The hard drive provided was represented as having been in the computer when the infringement occurred but was not. That means she falsified the evidence and any testimony in her favor concerning the contents of the drive is invalid. Because she stated under oath that the drive was in use in her computer during the infringement and knew that it was not, she has committed perjury and it calls into question every other statement she has made.
Had she stated that the drive was replaced, the claimant could have made an attempt to retrieve the drive that was in use at the time, but she hid the fact until it was effectively impossible to recover the drive to reveal the fact.
It's not the downloading they are punishing. It is the sharing.
No, it is violating the rights of others that they are punishing, specifically the right to control the creation of copies of protected works.
The copyright holders have a legally granted right (monopoly) on the creation of copies of the works to which they hold the copyright. It is a legally granted right, just like a bunch of other rights granted by law via the Constitution.
When one downloads a song via P2P, one creates an copy that has not been authorized by the copyright holder, which is a violation of that entity's rights as provided by law.
It is important that you have the facts and technicalities straight.
No, we are incensed at the mainstream music industry's blatant evil, including its bribery of Congress to get copyright lengths to insane levels. Personally, I will not respect any copyright on a work made more than a quarter century ago.
So, rather than work to fix the law by taming your congresscritters, you prefer to break the law because it is easier than actually fixing the law and then whine when you get caught that the law is unfair. I am sure that will work out great and get things fixed up in no time.
Why does anyone have to give fingerprints, turn over documents and emails, submit to questioning, allow their property to be searched, etc?
It is something called evidence gathering and involves things like subpoenas, warrants, and depositions. Try learning a little about the law some time.
Because infringement is still infringement. They have the legally granted copy rights to the works and they are protecting their legally granted rights. Whether she profited from the copying is irrelevant.
Why don't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying. Instead of suing end users, grannies and dead people? Or did the CAN-SPAM act indemnify the ISPs.
The ISP was not hosting the material. Jamie was hosting the material. Good enough reason for you?
Or, are you suggesting that ISPs be held accountable for the information on their customer's computers?
I believe the item you quoted refers to industrial-scale manufacture of the buckywires themselves.
While a number of possible applications are mentioned, none are anything more than speculation and neither of the two named (photovoltaics and drug-delivery) require the specificity you mention.
One only needs to be able to "selectively aggregate nanoscale materials into arbitrary shapes" if one is making a complex nano-scale object. That is not what is mentioned in this article nor is it even implied.
Money saved/earned through the use of IT. man-hours and/or dollars lost to IT issues " per ticket " caused by users not following policy/directions " caused by (mis)management
See, the thing is that people have been doing this without computers or the internet for a long time. Just adding an internet or computer component to something like this is obvious, even if it hasn't been done before. And, really, this kind of thing is a bad idea simply because of griefers.
Oh, and a better example of "prior art" may be AskYahoo! where hundreds if not thousands of girls have been doing this very thing.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the media are presented as a pair of images, each image depicting a different instance of related personal appearance information and each image selectable by the viewer to provide the vote.
But, I really don't think one should be able to patent this either. There is nothing innovative about showing a group of people two pictures of one's self dressed in different styles and asking them which is better.
I see you are an idiot. Maybe you should ask Ray. Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal cases. If that were not the case, one would not automatically lose if one did not show up for a civil case.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Jamie was violating their legally acquired right to control the copying of the works she was helping to make copies of. She stopped being a customer the minute she put those songs on Kazaa.
No, you would lose. They are not obligated to provide you with anything at all. Where did you get the idea that you deserve their service regardless of your ability to pay or your credit-worthiness? Let me guess, you are in your mid-teens to early twenties and grew up hearing how special you are.
In the colder states during winter, one needs gas/electric to survive. One does not need internet to survive. You will not die if you can't check your email, read slashdot, or surf for porn.
It is not that they didn't pay their bill. It is that they ran up a $250 bill in one month.
That is not necessarily true. I have seen people get their electricity and water cut off because they used more than their credit limit.
Not running out of bits, but rather running out of bandwidth.
While there is an unlimited number of bits, there is a limit to the number of bits that can go down the wire at any one time. The more you use, the less that is available for everyone else. If everyone uses lots of service, then the company have to improve the infrastructure to support the desired service level, which will cost money, which they will earn by charging a higher rate to those with a higher usage rate.
If you knew the laws involved in telecom billing, you would understand that it is in the best interest of the major telecom companies to make as little, possibly even lose, money on landline phone service. It allows them to have higher profits overall.
Internet service went to "unlimited" plans back when it was hard for people to use more than about 5GB. They made money by offering their service at the price one would expect for the maximum amount of usage. Now, everyone is complaining about caps, etc. I have no doubt that if there is a law passed that prevents service caps, you will see a return of some sort of metered usage. If they are really smart, they will sell it at something like $10.00/GB rounding up.
Then I guess they are busy bringing charges against LiveJournal and every other website that stores IP addresses.
Two things:
1) Try looking up "work for hire". The person who commissions the work is considered the Author/Inventor.
2) The Author/Inventor can, and does, sell/license his rights to those "monied pockets of power". You are suggesting that the "*Authors*" should not be able to give exclusive licenses to their works should they so desire.
So, what you really want is to change the law and Constitution to reduce the rights of the authors to benefit you.
You have three votes. I have 3 votes. The each and every voting age American on slashdot has three votes. Your parents have six votes. Your siblings have 3 votes each. Shall I go on?
If you can't convince the people you know to support your cause, maybe you should take a better look at your cause.
Either quit your fucking whining, stop breaking the law (which hurts your cause), and start a grass roots movement to change the law or shut the fuck up. I don't care which but I am fucking tired of hearing "It's too hard!" when you don't even try.
You want to go to the moon? Quit whining and build a fucking rocket to get you there or shut the fuck up. I don't care which you do, just do it.
Before one downloads there are X copies of the work.
After one downloads there are X+1 copies of the work.
The infringement is as simple as that.
By hosting the file, the "sharer" helped create the copy. It is two people working in concert committing a single act. Just because two people were involved in creating the copy and only one was identified, it does not follow that the one identified is blameless. Let me give you a simple example:
No, because she lied about when it was replaced. The hard drive provided was represented as having been in the computer when the infringement occurred but was not. That means she falsified the evidence and any testimony in her favor concerning the contents of the drive is invalid. Because she stated under oath that the drive was in use in her computer during the infringement and knew that it was not, she has committed perjury and it calls into question every other statement she has made.
Had she stated that the drive was replaced, the claimant could have made an attempt to retrieve the drive that was in use at the time, but she hid the fact until it was effectively impossible to recover the drive to reveal the fact.
All told, it looks like she was hiding evidence.
No, it is violating the rights of others that they are punishing, specifically the right to control the creation of copies of protected works.
The copyright holders have a legally granted right (monopoly) on the creation of copies of the works to which they hold the copyright. It is a legally granted right, just like a bunch of other rights granted by law via the Constitution.
When one downloads a song via P2P, one creates an copy that has not been authorized by the copyright holder, which is a violation of that entity's rights as provided by law.
It is important that you have the facts and technicalities straight.
So, rather than work to fix the law by taming your congresscritters, you prefer to break the law because it is easier than actually fixing the law and then whine when you get caught that the law is unfair. I am sure that will work out great and get things fixed up in no time.
Why does anyone have to give fingerprints, turn over documents and emails, submit to questioning, allow their property to be searched, etc?
It is something called evidence gathering and involves things like subpoenas, warrants, and depositions. Try learning a little about the law some time.
Because infringement is still infringement. They have the legally granted copy rights to the works and they are protecting their legally granted rights. Whether she profited from the copying is irrelevant.
The ISP was not hosting the material. Jamie was hosting the material. Good enough reason for you?
Or, are you suggesting that ISPs be held accountable for the information on their customer's computers?
I believe the item you quoted refers to industrial-scale manufacture of the buckywires themselves.
While a number of possible applications are mentioned, none are anything more than speculation and neither of the two named (photovoltaics and drug-delivery) require the specificity you mention.
One only needs to be able to "selectively aggregate nanoscale materials into arbitrary shapes" if one is making a complex nano-scale object. That is not what is mentioned in this article nor is it even implied.
Five good metrics:
Money saved/earned through the use of IT.
man-hours and/or dollars lost to IT issues
" per ticket
" caused by users not following policy/directions
" caused by (mis)management
Surf's up!!!!!!
See, the thing is that people have been doing this without computers or the internet for a long time. Just adding an internet or computer component to something like this is obvious, even if it hasn't been done before. And, really, this kind of thing is a bad idea simply because of griefers.
Oh, and a better example of "prior art" may be AskYahoo! where hundreds if not thousands of girls have been doing this very thing.
But, I really don't think one should be able to patent this either. There is nothing innovative about showing a group of people two pictures of one's self dressed in different styles and asking them which is better.
I see you are an idiot. Maybe you should ask Ray. Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal cases. If that were not the case, one would not automatically lose if one did not show up for a civil case.
No, it was not. That is why it is not a loop hole.
That is only in criminal cases. Civil cases are different.