...ISPs being required to disconnnect infected computers.
The analogies are pointless. It comes down to factors such as feasability, harm done, harm prevented and responsibility. An ISP is capable of disconnecting the computers from the internet. Forcing them to do so would prevent harm. So it comes to whether the cure is worse than the disease.
The ISPs make the perfectly reasonable point that the goals can be achieved by self regulation, and this will be much more flexible. On the whole the ISPs are should be in favour of removing infected computers. They're an expensive annoyance.
Apple aren't selling the OS. They're selling a phone that happens to have the OS as a component. If you want an alternative, there are several viable options. If you wanted an alternative to Windows, there wasn't a particularly viable option even with different hardware. At the time, Apple was the largest competitor and really wasn't a significant player outside of certain niche applications.
This is reliable. It is comaptible with the spec (otherwise it wouldn't be reliable), and it's faster.
I don't think it matters whether Google "cheats" or not. I and they both want me to get the data as quickly as possible. Strict adherence to the guidelines doesn't matter to either of us and doesn't affect anyone else.
On the other hand, from what I read in Viz I would assume that the UK had no libel laws.
There's the "reasonable man" test. In the case of Viz, would a reasonable man believe what he's reading to be true. since Viz is a crude comic, the newspaper style articles in Viz are entirely ridiculous parody, and clearly intended as such, it's unlikely that anyone would think it to be true.
The extra "strictness" comes in two fronts. Firstly, the defendant needs to prove the allegations are true (not just that they believed they were true - journalists are meant to fact check), and secondly you can sue the author or the publication (not unresonable) or the publisher. There is legal opinion at least that a publisher includes everyone up to the retailer. In the case of online material, the fact that it's technically published everywhere it's accessed effectively gives British courts jusrisdiction over the entire internet. It's possible to sue an ISP over a usenet posting even if the posting originated from a user of a different ISP.
After the American revolution, the British governmnet was a lot more open to greater independence in the other colonies since the War of Independence was something of an expensive embarrassment. In fact, even before 1776, there was reasonable support for representation of America in parliament.
That sort of thing is presumably of interest to statisticians. For an individual it's a little low detailed since I can affect my chances of being involved in a car accident by not travelling by car, and can affect the probability of being involved in a terror incident by not using public transport or visiting important buildings.
We could give a few actions a equivalent driving distance risk. For example travelling on a plane has equivalent risk from terror attacks as dying from driving 5 miles. That's assuming we take data for 10 years including 9/11.
Okay, but the statement was about educated people being aware. So there's a qualifier as well as the requirement being only that they should be aware. If education is so terrible can we really say they're educated?
Interesting. So does Righthaven simply purchase a swathe of articles and hope that someone infringes, or do they wait for someone to infringe and then buy the article?
Either way, this does change things. If the former then their net profit from a typical article is negligible and the net loss is also extremely small considering the value they place on an article (this business model will not be viable if they pay a reasonable amount per article). If the latter then it seems bizarre to buy a property known to be damaged and then sue the person who damaged it, and this is essentially what they are doing.
The comment was 'No educated person on the planet looks at the swastika symbol (...) and says "oh, that symbol has nothing at all in any way to do with global genocide of an entire race"'.
The point being that everybody is at least aware that the symbol is associated with the Nazis. It's not that they don't have the right to use it, simply that they can't make the argument that they are not aware of the association. Most will avoid using it out of the context of their religion becuase they are aware that sme people will make this association.
Do you really think that Buddhists and hindus aren't aware that a variant of that symbol was used as the symbol for the Nazi party, and that the Nazis were responsible for attempted genocide?
Depends on the level of fine. If they charge retail cost of game + 50% or so then - well that's the risk you take when pirating. I'll have a hard time feeling sympathy.
I do have issues with it being called a "fine" though. Private companies do not have the right to levy a fine.
Actually it wouldn't. The statutory damages for sharing a single song is at least $200, typically a minimum of $750. The statutory damages for "sharing" a single piece of top secret company information is a maximum of $150,000. More than that and you have to prove damages.
This is true. They o have an incentive toact if the entire profession is being brought into disrepute though, and threatening hundreds of people for filesharing is such a small part of the overal profession's income (which is presumably mostly property, wills and small business contracts) that there's not a lot of harm to putting a stop to it.
In fact one of the regular concerns in British civil law seems to be being too American. The heavy litigation culture in the US is generally seen as a warning.
As mentioned in the article, a law firm is required to act in the best interests of its client. I'm sure this is the case in the US as well, but in Britain it's taken very seriously. But there are other factors to consider.
There are no statutory damages in English copyright law (as far as I'm aware. IANAL). The damages that can be claimed are the ones that can be demonstrated on court. Litigation should in general be avoided. After a settlement letter, it would be quite reasonable for the recipient to request a justification of the charge. Since legal fees can not be claimed for small claims, this would have to be based on actual losses. Now, assuming you want to accept responsibility (perhaps you actually did share the file) presumably offering to pay the actual retail cost of the infringing file would be a reasonable counter offer. If they reject that they'll need to justify the amount they're charging. £500 for writing a letter does not look like a reasonable cost.
It makes perfect sense for a company to operate in the country where taxes re lowest. Why do you think MS and Google have European HQs in Ireland in the first place? It's not exactly central is it?
It does look similar to a Tomahawk but that doesn't prove it was copied. Aircraft that serve similar functions will have similar designs. Even if it was - the outward appearance of a Tomahawk is public knowledge.
I know that I can request cinema times or stock tickers or formula conversions and Google will do that for me. It's pretty cool that it gives health information as well.
I never assumed this was a search. Just Google deciding it was an information provider where search is one of the processes it uses.
I think this is Microsoft's reason. I think that "That wouldn't be good for Microsoft." is simply wrong.
Microsoft is sued a lot for patent infringement in suits with various levels of merit. Even if they win, they lose since it costs money to defend these cases.
Microsoft will occasionally licence their patents and will occasionally sue for patent infringement bt this is a very small part of their business. It's also something that is largely avoided. Microsoft has big enough PR problems withut being accused of being a patent troll as well. They lose a lot more in patents litigation than they gain. Even being used to support their monopoloy only has limited success. TomTom's settlement didn't require TomTom to switch to Windows CE, and it would not have made sense for them to do so since that would involve porting to a very different architecture. The easiest solution for most violators is simply to stop using the patented technology.
Mostly they cross-licence. The effect of a eliminating patents would be that they could still use their partners' technology but wouldn't need to waste time on formal agreements.
So the result of patents being abolished for software would be that Microsoft would lose a little in litigation, gain a lot in reduced defensive legal costs, and still have access to a lot of technology.
A statistical approach will give false negatives and false positives. This method will have much better accuracy. So much so in fact that the statistical analysis isn't even needed. He could just claim that he knows how many have cheated, threaten those who don't confess and see if they cal his bluff.
She really seemed to not have a clue about copyright law, and continues to be oblivious. She started off assuming the web was public domain. Now she seems to be assuming that's unless there's a copyright notice attached. I don't believe her when she claims to have failed to check. Otherwise she would have been a little more apologetic.
Actually I think we might have forgiven her for this if she didn't then add rudeness. If she'd have said "I'm sorry, and while I'd love to give money to the universtiy we're a tiny business barely scraping by. Is there anything else we could do?" she might, just, have been forgiven. she didn't take this route. Probably because at the time she genuinely believed she hadn't done anything wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
...ISPs being required to disconnnect infected computers.
The analogies are pointless. It comes down to factors such as feasability, harm done, harm prevented and responsibility. An ISP is capable of disconnecting the computers from the internet. Forcing them to do so would prevent harm. So it comes to whether the cure is worse than the disease.
The ISPs make the perfectly reasonable point that the goals can be achieved by self regulation, and this will be much more flexible. On the whole the ISPs are should be in favour of removing infected computers. They're an expensive annoyance.
Another logical option would be to generate as many patents as possible and sue everyone else.
Apple aren't selling the OS. They're selling a phone that happens to have the OS as a component. If you want an alternative, there are several viable options. If you wanted an alternative to Windows, there wasn't a particularly viable option even with different hardware. At the time, Apple was the largest competitor and really wasn't a significant player outside of certain niche applications.
This is reliable. It is comaptible with the spec (otherwise it wouldn't be reliable), and it's faster.
I don't think it matters whether Google "cheats" or not. I and they both want me to get the data as quickly as possible. Strict adherence to the guidelines doesn't matter to either of us and doesn't affect anyone else.
It might not be. Having a business that gives directions to all the drug dealers might be.
On the other hand, from what I read in Viz I would assume that the UK had no libel laws.
There's the "reasonable man" test. In the case of Viz, would a reasonable man believe what he's reading to be true. since Viz is a crude comic, the newspaper style articles in Viz are entirely ridiculous parody, and clearly intended as such, it's unlikely that anyone would think it to be true.
The extra "strictness" comes in two fronts. Firstly, the defendant needs to prove the allegations are true (not just that they believed they were true - journalists are meant to fact check), and secondly you can sue the author or the publication (not unresonable) or the publisher. There is legal opinion at least that a publisher includes everyone up to the retailer. In the case of online material, the fact that it's technically published everywhere it's accessed effectively gives British courts jusrisdiction over the entire internet. It's possible to sue an ISP over a usenet posting even if the posting originated from a user of a different ISP.
After the American revolution, the British governmnet was a lot more open to greater independence in the other colonies since the War of Independence was something of an expensive embarrassment. In fact, even before 1776, there was reasonable support for representation of America in parliament.
That sort of thing is presumably of interest to statisticians. For an individual it's a little low detailed since I can affect my chances of being involved in a car accident by not travelling by car, and can affect the probability of being involved in a terror incident by not using public transport or visiting important buildings.
We could give a few actions a equivalent driving distance risk. For example travelling on a plane has equivalent risk from terror attacks as dying from driving 5 miles. That's assuming we take data for 10 years including 9/11.
Okay, but the statement was about educated people being aware. So there's a qualifier as well as the requirement being only that they should be aware. If education is so terrible can we really say they're educated?
Interesting. So does Righthaven simply purchase a swathe of articles and hope that someone infringes, or do they wait for someone to infringe and then buy the article?
Either way, this does change things. If the former then their net profit from a typical article is negligible and the net loss is also extremely small considering the value they place on an article (this business model will not be viable if they pay a reasonable amount per article). If the latter then it seems bizarre to buy a property known to be damaged and then sue the person who damaged it, and this is essentially what they are doing.
The comment was 'No educated person on the planet looks at the swastika symbol (...) and says "oh, that symbol has nothing at all in any way to do with global genocide of an entire race"'.
The point being that everybody is at least aware that the symbol is associated with the Nazis. It's not that they don't have the right to use it, simply that they can't make the argument that they are not aware of the association. Most will avoid using it out of the context of their religion becuase they are aware that sme people will make this association.
Do you really think that Buddhists and hindus aren't aware that a variant of that symbol was used as the symbol for the Nazi party, and that the Nazis were responsible for attempted genocide?
How about the CO2 emissions?
The shops should certainly be cleaned up. No question there. Please don't use this as an excuse to drive a gas guzzler.
Surely if you're doing something simple and very parallelisable though, it's useful.
Depends on the level of fine. If they charge retail cost of game + 50% or so then - well that's the risk you take when pirating. I'll have a hard time feeling sympathy.
I do have issues with it being called a "fine" though. Private companies do not have the right to levy a fine.
Actually it wouldn't. The statutory damages for sharing a single song is at least $200, typically a minimum of $750. The statutory damages for "sharing" a single piece of top secret company information is a maximum of $150,000. More than that and you have to prove damages.
the SRA is just another bunch of solicitors.
This is true. They o have an incentive toact if the entire profession is being brought into disrepute though, and threatening hundreds of people for filesharing is such a small part of the overal profession's income (which is presumably mostly property, wills and small business contracts) that there's not a lot of harm to putting a stop to it.
In fact one of the regular concerns in British civil law seems to be being too American. The heavy litigation culture in the US is generally seen as a warning.
As mentioned in the article, a law firm is required to act in the best interests of its client. I'm sure this is the case in the US as well, but in Britain it's taken very seriously. But there are other factors to consider.
There are no statutory damages in English copyright law (as far as I'm aware. IANAL). The damages that can be claimed are the ones that can be demonstrated on court. Litigation should in general be avoided. After a settlement letter, it would be quite reasonable for the recipient to request a justification of the charge. Since legal fees can not be claimed for small claims, this would have to be based on actual losses. Now, assuming you want to accept responsibility (perhaps you actually did share the file) presumably offering to pay the actual retail cost of the infringing file would be a reasonable counter offer. If they reject that they'll need to justify the amount they're charging. £500 for writing a letter does not look like a reasonable cost.
You know - you can get this on DVD. Works in a normal DVD player.
Seek times are a bit of an issue - I believe the original machine used multiple laserdiscs. Can rip it to hard disk of course.
It makes perfect sense for a company to operate in the country where taxes re lowest. Why do you think MS and Google have European HQs in Ireland in the first place? It's not exactly central is it?
It does look similar to a Tomahawk but that doesn't prove it was copied. Aircraft that serve similar functions will have similar designs. Even if it was - the outward appearance of a Tomahawk is public knowledge.
I know that I can request cinema times or stock tickers or formula conversions and Google will do that for me. It's pretty cool that it gives health information as well.
I never assumed this was a search. Just Google deciding it was an information provider where search is one of the processes it uses.
By "stolen", do you mean "Based on"? Technology progresses by other people taking existing designs and adapting them.
I think this is Microsoft's reason. I think that "That wouldn't be good for Microsoft." is simply wrong.
Microsoft is sued a lot for patent infringement in suits with various levels of merit. Even if they win, they lose since it costs money to defend these cases.
Microsoft will occasionally licence their patents and will occasionally sue for patent infringement bt this is a very small part of their business. It's also something that is largely avoided. Microsoft has big enough PR problems withut being accused of being a patent troll as well. They lose a lot more in patents litigation than they gain. Even being used to support their monopoloy only has limited success. TomTom's settlement didn't require TomTom to switch to Windows CE, and it would not have made sense for them to do so since that would involve porting to a very different architecture. The easiest solution for most violators is simply to stop using the patented technology.
Mostly they cross-licence. The effect of a eliminating patents would be that they could still use their partners' technology but wouldn't need to waste time on formal agreements.
So the result of patents being abolished for software would be that Microsoft would lose a little in litigation, gain a lot in reduced defensive legal costs, and still have access to a lot of technology.
A statistical approach will give false negatives and false positives. This method will have much better accuracy. So much so in fact that the statistical analysis isn't even needed. He could just claim that he knows how many have cheated, threaten those who don't confess and see if they cal his bluff.
Are you feeling lucky?
She really seemed to not have a clue about copyright law, and continues to be oblivious. She started off assuming the web was public domain. Now she seems to be assuming that's unless there's a copyright notice attached. I don't believe her when she claims to have failed to check. Otherwise she would have been a little more apologetic.
Actually I think we might have forgiven her for this if she didn't then add rudeness. If she'd have said "I'm sorry, and while I'd love to give money to the universtiy we're a tiny business barely scraping by. Is there anything else we could do?" she might, just, have been forgiven. she didn't take this route. Probably because at the time she genuinely believed she hadn't done anything wrong.