I think the most significant act of the Polish cryptographers was proving that the code could be broken. Without that, it's possible that the British government would have directed the resources elsewhere.
Possibly manslaughter, and several other crimes. I'll agree that she killed the girl, but for it to be murder (morally speaking), you'd really need a clear intent to cause her to commit suicide.
That's a bargaining chip. iTunes sales are a small part of their revenue, but will potentially grow in the future. Any losses now can potentially be covered by future sales.
Most people don't get fired for a single mistake. This isn't The Apprentice. In the real world people need to be replaced and that's a costly process. The person who made the mistake will know not to do it again.
While Evolution requires that a lot of the Bible is considered metaphorical, The Vatican must have been delighted when the Big Bang theory was accepted. A single point of creation fits pretty nicely with the concept of a creator God. All you need to do is accept that hundreds of millions of years is pretty much a "day" to an all powerful eternal deity.
Wikileaks is pretty decentralised. Exactly what would happen if they were taken to court remains to be seen. Anyone who was remotely likely to sue has chickened out after receiving far more bad publicity than the leaked documents give.
However, the organisation does have a number of Pro-bono lawyers to call on. It appears that they would defend their right to publish quite aggressively. If they lost they would either concede graciously or simply cease operating in a specific country.
I think a lot of organisations do learn from this. It's just there will always be an occasional few who don't. We don't hear about Sony, or Monsanto or Catholic church or whoever not suing wikileaks and we don't know whether this is because Wikileaks has nothing they want to suppress or that they have learned not to draw attention to themselves.
Okay. I'm convinced that there is a small market for a plane that you can drive from the airport to your destination. Seems it would make as much sense to have removable wings as foldable wings, and be a lot simpler.
Then again, a taxi is probably kinda convenient as well.
Really, I don't give a damn either way. Pirate Bay is cocky and arrogant and makes money from other peoples work, and the movie industry is a cynical money grabbing cartel. I tolerate the Pirate bay because I like to get free stuff, and movie industry for the few decent films they actually do produce.
Well, one does get a little jaded seeing a concept that's simply a variation on a concept that's been tried dozens of times before, and never succeeded.
Option 3 - the clause that requires them to release code is invalid/only applies to the unmodified version of the code. Option 4 - Chewbacca is a Wookie and therefore the copyright belongs to Skype. Both of these are unlikely but there's not a dichotomy here.
This is one of the reasons corporations exist in the first place. Who would be willing to start a business if they could be personally liable for debts for the rest of their lives?
There are already dozens of devices that work with all the stuff I download from the internet. I gather that even the iPod will (although I think it's fairly fussy about formats), and will play purchased videos from iTunes.
So there's good reason for content providers to support it, but what reason is there to buy the thing? Why are Microsoft going the screw-the-customer route? It never worked for Sony, but at least they had an understandable concern that their chunk of the media cartel would lose out if they didn't restrict everyone.
I've read Gulliver's Travels! It all depends on whether the motion 8 months earlier referred to a cow of a different colour. A case involving a more similarly coloured cow had arguments that bear some vague resemblance to the arguments the lawyer just made and therefore the judge must make a completely illogical decision consistent with the second case.
Funny, I don't ever remember seeing a EULA written on paper?
That's the point. The paper they're written on is worth nothing.
Anyway, contract law is generally a civil matter. As such, it's based on preponderance of evidence. It is very likely that you did click yes on the EULA. If you can prove (or at least demonstrate that it's likely) that you didn't then that will be considered to be the case.
But explicit acceptance isn't required to form a contract. I tell you that you can have my car for $500. You drive my car away. You owe me $500. Also there are cases where explicit acceptance doesn't make a contract valid. In this case, the contract may well be invalid because they coerced you into agreeing by barring you access to software that you had a legitimate right to use.
Seriously, give it a rest. Nobody is going to prosecute. There's a perfectly reasonable case that the software is a copyright circumvention device (which is not to say it is a circumvention device. Just that it's a matter that would need to be decided by the courts). Even if there wasn't, it's quite possible that those involved believed it was. The oath is that the statement is true to the best of their belief. Even if they didn't believe it's true, it's extremely unlikely that you would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is the case. And even if you did, what would there be to gain from it? Go after someone who actually is abusing the DMCA, rather than someone who was.
I really don't like the idea that a copy of software in memory could be considered a copy for purposes of copyright law. Given that the copy only lasts as long as the software is in use, and cannot be readily separated from the copy on disk, and also that it is absolutely necessary to create to actually use the software, this should be considered purely part of the technological process of viewing the software.
Surely copyright law should only deal with those aspects of copying that affect distribution. Not use.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the most significant act of the Polish cryptographers was proving that the code could be broken. Without that, it's possible that the British government would have directed the resources elsewhere.
Possibly manslaughter, and several other crimes. I'll agree that she killed the girl, but for it to be murder (morally speaking), you'd really need a clear intent to cause her to commit suicide.
That's a bargaining chip. iTunes sales are a small part of their revenue, but will potentially grow in the future. Any losses now can potentially be covered by future sales.
But you're using an ASCII representation of a binary representation of an ASCII string!
You're using ASCII twice so you're twice the wimp!
Speak for yourself. My mistakes must have cumulatively cost the company thousands. Still seem to be pretty much employed.
If I made the same mistake twice, that would be another matter.
Most people don't get fired for a single mistake. This isn't The Apprentice. In the real world people need to be replaced and that's a costly process. The person who made the mistake will know not to do it again.
While Evolution requires that a lot of the Bible is considered metaphorical, The Vatican must have been delighted when the Big Bang theory was accepted. A single point of creation fits pretty nicely with the concept of a creator God. All you need to do is accept that hundreds of millions of years is pretty much a "day" to an all powerful eternal deity.
Wikileaks is pretty decentralised. Exactly what would happen if they were taken to court remains to be seen. Anyone who was remotely likely to sue has chickened out after receiving far more bad publicity than the leaked documents give.
However, the organisation does have a number of Pro-bono lawyers to call on. It appears that they would defend their right to publish quite aggressively. If they lost they would either concede graciously or simply cease operating in a specific country.
I think a lot of organisations do learn from this. It's just there will always be an occasional few who don't. We don't hear about Sony, or Monsanto or Catholic church or whoever not suing wikileaks and we don't know whether this is because Wikileaks has nothing they want to suppress or that they have learned not to draw attention to themselves.
It's useless. It's incapable of space flight.
Incidentally - you have an amusingly appropriate username for that comment.
Okay. I'm convinced that there is a small market for a plane that you can drive from the airport to your destination. Seems it would make as much sense to have removable wings as foldable wings, and be a lot simpler.
Then again, a taxi is probably kinda convenient as well.
Really, I don't give a damn either way. Pirate Bay is cocky and arrogant and makes money from other peoples work, and the movie industry is a cynical money grabbing cartel. I tolerate the Pirate bay because I like to get free stuff, and movie industry for the few decent films they actually do produce.
Well, one does get a little jaded seeing a concept that's simply a variation on a concept that's been tried dozens of times before, and never succeeded.
Option 3 - the clause that requires them to release code is invalid/only applies to the unmodified version of the code. Option 4 - Chewbacca is a Wookie and therefore the copyright belongs to Skype. Both of these are unlikely but there's not a dichotomy here.
No. They don't work at all. Proximity to Hogwarts, you see.
This is one of the reasons corporations exist in the first place. Who would be willing to start a business if they could be personally liable for debts for the rest of their lives?
Does Google exist for the primary purpose of indexing illegally distributed files?
I was under the impression that the main purpose was indexing original content.
There are already dozens of devices that work with all the stuff I download from the internet. I gather that even the iPod will (although I think it's fairly fussy about formats), and will play purchased videos from iTunes.
So there's good reason for content providers to support it, but what reason is there to buy the thing? Why are Microsoft going the screw-the-customer route? It never worked for Sony, but at least they had an understandable concern that their chunk of the media cartel would lose out if they didn't restrict everyone.
Only if you pour hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants.
I've read Gulliver's Travels! It all depends on whether the motion 8 months earlier referred to a cow of a different colour. A case involving a more similarly coloured cow had arguments that bear some vague resemblance to the arguments the lawyer just made and therefore the judge must make a completely illogical decision consistent with the second case.
Okay RIAA! There's your case. Now pay me!
It seems like an automated system. I think the RIAA's legal team has been replaced by a server farm.
Funny, I don't ever remember seeing a EULA written on paper?
That's the point. The paper they're written on is worth nothing.
Anyway, contract law is generally a civil matter. As such, it's based on preponderance of evidence. It is very likely that you did click yes on the EULA. If you can prove (or at least demonstrate that it's likely) that you didn't then that will be considered to be the case.
But explicit acceptance isn't required to form a contract. I tell you that you can have my car for $500. You drive my car away. You owe me $500. Also there are cases where explicit acceptance doesn't make a contract valid. In this case, the contract may well be invalid because they coerced you into agreeing by barring you access to software that you had a legitimate right to use.
Seriously, give it a rest. Nobody is going to prosecute. There's a perfectly reasonable case that the software is a copyright circumvention device (which is not to say it is a circumvention device. Just that it's a matter that would need to be decided by the courts). Even if there wasn't, it's quite possible that those involved believed it was. The oath is that the statement is true to the best of their belief. Even if they didn't believe it's true, it's extremely unlikely that you would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is the case. And even if you did, what would there be to gain from it? Go after someone who actually is abusing the DMCA, rather than someone who was.
I really don't like the idea that a copy of software in memory could be considered a copy for purposes of copyright law. Given that the copy only lasts as long as the software is in use, and cannot be readily separated from the copy on disk, and also that it is absolutely necessary to create to actually use the software, this should be considered purely part of the technological process of viewing the software.
Surely copyright law should only deal with those aspects of copying that affect distribution. Not use.
Mistakes aren't perjury. The lawyer believed the information was accurate.