I bought the Lost Season 1 pilot because I wanted to see how iTunes+Video worked out. Interesting. Then I actually watched Lost, got toatlly sucked in, watched 3 DVDs from Netflix in one day (just over half the first season) and then used Bit Torrent to get the rest of season 1 plus all of season 2 in under three days. Done. I have watched all the episodes now.
But we could use it for Authentication, right?
on
Geocoding All Content
·
· Score: 1
I suppose this could prove where you authored something, as well as when. Yet I just can't think of why this is important when the internet transcends boundaries. Why would I want to do this when the whole point of my digital life seems to be that I can conduct it via IP over anything?
As far as Yahoo! is operating in France, you are right on to suggest that they do have to obey French law, as a French company would have to obey US law.
And they hope that by appealing to a US court they can ignore other countries laws.
Well, the issue here is whether France can exercise jurisdiction over content that is substantially NOT within France (yahoo.com as opposed to yahoo.fr). The indictment from the anti-hate speech groups is saying that France can and should do just that.
If the court rules that a foreign based business doesn't have to obey the laws in other countries, could the US become a major dumping ground for toxic wastes?
This isn't the issue at all. If the court rules in Yahoo!'s favor, it would be ruling that US companies would not have to change domestic behavior (as I think we can agree that to the extent that IP addresses are located anywhere, www.yahoo.com is located in the US) in the face of foreign laws.
Finally, I think I should add that this case does have the potential to go in France's favor because US courts frequently refuse to make unenforceable judgements (i.e. you cannot sue Libya in US court, because even if you won, what would the court's ruling even do? Nothing at all.).
Would a pro-yahoo judgement mean that France would have to take this matter up with the State Dept.? Would yahoo.fr just have to disappear (I'm assuming that the French would take it away). Would the state dept. even involve itself?
Oh, one final thought: isn't this analogous to state courts not having jurisdiction over defendants who do not make any effort to interact with the plaintiff's state? Hmmmm.
I'm not so sure the only way to defeat this is by hiding your data via a tunneling protocol. This proposal will be subject to the same sorts of limitations as every internet law passed by Congress: JURISDICTION. I wouldn't let the EU get their socialist paws on my pipe to the net, but if they did, maybe some sort of leased farm of X-servers in the states to ssh to would help. just keep everything there- all they have is a record of the ssh packets.
With broadband net access for everyone in the not-so-distant future, I think it might actually be funny to see how unworkable the EU's 'net legislation is going to become.
Or you could move to Trinidad and start a gambling site (fie on extradition).
The Constitution says that you can't be prosecuted for an act that you committed before they passed a law against it (it's called an ex post facto law, in that case). What US common law has never protected against is ignorance of the law. The courts, as Philtho speculates, would never allow that. However, a mistake of fact (I thought I was taking my pen, but in fact it was Joe's) is excusable. If you don't know you have a pirated mp3, then you are ok. Most people cannot be alleged to be so stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
They should look into Genuine People Personalitiies.
Snakes on a Plane comes out in 2006.
o therfucking-plane.html
see also http://hucksblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/snakes-on-m
I bought the Lost Season 1 pilot because I wanted to see how iTunes+Video worked out. Interesting. Then I actually watched Lost, got toatlly sucked in, watched 3 DVDs from Netflix in one day (just over half the first season) and then used Bit Torrent to get the rest of season 1 plus all of season 2 in under three days. Done. I have watched all the episodes now.
Why should I buy the DVDs?
I can store 80 gigs of data in my head!
I suppose this could prove where you authored something, as well as when. Yet I just can't think of why this is important when the internet transcends boundaries. Why would I want to do this when the whole point of my digital life seems to be that I can conduct it via IP over anything?
I always wondered what a 1 Mbps mp3 stream would sound like....
-Ben
Maybe it's just my browser, but I think the story is being parsed so that the story doesn't work.
try this.
As far as Yahoo! is operating in France, you are right on to suggest that they do have to obey French law, as a French company would have to obey US law.
And they hope that by appealing to a US court they can ignore other countries laws.
Well, the issue here is whether France can exercise jurisdiction over content that is substantially NOT within France (yahoo.com as opposed to yahoo.fr). The indictment from the anti-hate speech groups is saying that France can and should do just that.
If the court rules that a foreign based business doesn't have to obey the laws in other countries, could the US become a major dumping ground for toxic wastes?
This isn't the issue at all. If the court rules in Yahoo!'s favor, it would be ruling that US companies would not have to change domestic behavior (as I think we can agree that to the extent that IP addresses are located anywhere, www.yahoo.com is located in the US) in the face of foreign laws.
Finally, I think I should add that this case does have the potential to go in France's favor because US courts frequently refuse to make unenforceable judgements (i.e. you cannot sue Libya in US court, because even if you won, what would the court's ruling even do? Nothing at all.).
Would a pro-yahoo judgement mean that France would have to take this matter up with the State Dept.? Would yahoo.fr just have to disappear (I'm assuming that the French would take it away). Would the state dept. even involve itself?
Oh, one final thought: isn't this analogous to state courts not having jurisdiction over defendants who do not make any effort to interact with the plaintiff's state? Hmmmm.
I'm not so sure the only way to defeat this is by hiding your data via a tunneling protocol. This proposal will be subject to the same sorts of limitations as every internet law passed by Congress: JURISDICTION. I wouldn't let the EU get their socialist paws on my pipe to the net, but if they did, maybe some sort of leased farm of X-servers in the states to ssh to would help. just keep everything there- all they have is a record of the ssh packets.
With broadband net access for everyone in the not-so-distant future, I think it might actually be funny to see how unworkable the EU's 'net legislation is going to become.
Or you could move to Trinidad and start a gambling site (fie on extradition).
The Constitution says that you can't be prosecuted for an act that you committed before they passed a law against it (it's called an ex post facto law, in that case). What US common law has never protected against is ignorance of the law. The courts, as Philtho speculates, would never allow that. However, a mistake of fact (I thought I was taking my pen, but in fact it was Joe's) is excusable. If you don't know you have a pirated mp3, then you are ok. Most people cannot be alleged to be so stupid.