Well, surely the counter argument is that the person being sued cannot be held responsible for what the subsequent uploaders did, unless the RIAA wishes to decide not to sue anyone else over that song (since they've already been compensated for that loss).
Sigh. I'm sure I could have explained this better but I hope you get the general idea.
That's be one of six categories that can be taken as POWs. Others include people working for the armed forces (e.g civilian technicians), and "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
I'm not quite sure which part of the law allows them to be held in legal limbo. I really don't see what part of basic humanity allows them to be held in legal limbo either. Article 5 makes it clear that their status should be determined by a tribunal. It's a violation of their human rights to hold them without trial andnot as prisoners of war. And the "security reasons" sounds like a some cynical lawyering to me.
Wearing a distinct uniform is not a requirement under the Geneva convention!
But aside from that, under what authority is the US detaining these "illegal combatants"? What justification do they have for not telling them what they're accused of and for not giving them a fair trial? If it's so certain that they have broken the terms of the geneva convention then try them as war criminals. It's about basic human rights.
These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.
Yes it does. The Bill of Rights applies to the government of the US. Any mention of people is "The People". Not "citizens of the US".
These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply.
Read the Geneva convention. Find out who the rules actually apply to. It's not limitted to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state.
And you're assuming that these people have actually done anything wrong in the first place. Sicne we're not allowed to see any evdence (and neither are they) we're taking this as on faith.
If I subsequently receive permission from you to redistribute, I have the right to do so. Downloading comes with permission. It's also not clear whether this particular clause applies to future downloads or not Furthermore, the GPL allows other people to grant you the right under the licence. But most importantly, almost all GPL authors have always been okay with people once they are in compliance, and the ones that can't really can't be bothered suing someone who is in compliance over a subtle piece of legalese.
Seems to be a lot of people slightly upset over this. But I think this is a good thing. They already have the ability to stop search engines from indexing at all. Now they have much more fine grain control. They can also make their results more useful by setting expiry dates. Presumably they'll also be able to be more specific about what he summary says, and might actually be more useful.
Now some sites will probably want to over control, but they'll lose out.
The GPL isn't binding. The argument is that you don't have to accept it. If you reject it, you are entitled to do anything that copyright allows you to do with the software. It's a licence rather than a contract. It grants permissions. So if you're entitled to reverse engineer code under copyright law then there was no need to accept the agreement.
You only need to release the code to people who you give the executable to. i.e. yourself by the sound of it. Companies use custom modified GPL tools in-house all the time without releasing the code.
Not sure exactly where the line is, but since there's a gulf between these sitations, I reckon we can get a pretty good consensus that it's somewhere between them.
Even if you assume that the EULA is binding (and there's no act of acceptance here), there is a difference between breaking a contract and breaking a law. And also a difference between a petty law violation and a breach of human rights.
Other code is covered by other licences. These licences most likely explicitely restrict them from releasing the code. The GPL doesn't superscede these other licences.
This is a simple case of copyright infringement. Sony will be obliged to pay damages, and possibly withdraw the game from sale.
But the games industry doesn't have to rely on hacks at the moment. They can get the best talent for a song because there's an abundance of talent.
And while some games don't need a scriptwriter, there are a lot that would have benefitted from a bit of talent. Not all games are shooters or strategy games. RPGs are actually pretty popular, and require a lot of material.
The RIAA might then argue that any uploading by the defendant was done with the expectation that the recipient would further upload the song to other people, and therefore uploads done by those people should factor in.
Really hope that if they do try this the court points out that in that case they should be suing the people next people in the chain.
The last I read, the RIAA's argument was that the cost for a licence to distribute a song would be way more than $750. Not sure if that will work...
But do you consider multi-million dollar lawsuits to be remotely appropriate for the damage they've done? Yes, NYCL was overstating this a little but the harm they've done is shared a few songs.
Re:Perhaps it is because it is a Jew mecca?
on
RIAA Afraid of Harvard
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Linux is an unpopular operating system developed mostly by amateurs in an ad-hoc semi-organised fashion.
Speak for yourself. I, personally, am delighted that Christians have attacked The Golden Compass. For the first time I can remember, they've actually a picked a film that's anti-religion to attack as anti-religious.
Okay... It was funny when they did the iPod one. But GMail? It's an adequate web page. Not fundamentally different from any other webmail provider out there. A bit like Hotmail really except uglier.
Quite true. I possess 2 copied DVDs. One I couldn't find anywhere in the shops but if I do I shall buy it immediately. The other I went to the effort to copy because I find the anti-piracy message that annoying. And editting DVDs with basic free software tools requires a fair bit of fiddling with settings.
Few people really care about DRM on DVDs. All DVD players will play the things. It's easily circumvented. It's more or less invisible to most people. DVD recorders are still quite rare amongst non-techies.
I think they're mostly talking about DRM for downloads. This is more of a problem. People expect their music to be portable, and don't want any complexity or compatibility problems transferring music to their mp3 players.
It's kinda big and clunky, the screen doesn't fill the whole face, and it's pretty expensive. Also seems tnot to be all that open. The E-paper is nice and the wireless sounds like it should work well, but I'm really looking forward to the third generation of these things.
Slashdot Mirror
She deserves a fine perhaps.
But are you suggesting she should be punished for wanting the courts to make a judgement rather than the record industry?
Well, surely the counter argument is that the person being sued cannot be held responsible for what the subsequent uploaders did, unless the RIAA wishes to decide not to sue anyone else over that song (since they've already been compensated for that loss).
Sigh. I'm sure I could have explained this better but I hope you get the general idea.
That's be one of six categories that can be taken as POWs. Others include people working for the armed forces (e.g civilian technicians), and "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
I'm not quite sure which part of the law allows them to be held in legal limbo. I really don't see what part of basic humanity allows them to be held in legal limbo either. Article 5 makes it clear that their status should be determined by a tribunal. It's a violation of their human rights to hold them without trial andnot as prisoners of war. And the "security reasons" sounds like a some cynical lawyering to me.
Wearing a distinct uniform is not a requirement under the Geneva convention!
But aside from that, under what authority is the US detaining these "illegal combatants"? What justification do they have for not telling them what they're accused of and for not giving them a fair trial? If it's so certain that they have broken the terms of the geneva convention then try them as war criminals. It's about basic human rights.
These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.
Yes it does. The Bill of Rights applies to the government of the US. Any mention of people is "The People". Not "citizens of the US".
These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply.
Read the Geneva convention. Find out who the rules actually apply to. It's not limitted to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state.
And you're assuming that these people have actually done anything wrong in the first place. Sicne we're not allowed to see any evdence (and neither are they) we're taking this as on faith.
If I subsequently receive permission from you to redistribute, I have the right to do so. Downloading comes with permission. It's also not clear whether this particular clause applies to future downloads or not Furthermore, the GPL allows other people to grant you the right under the licence. But most importantly, almost all GPL authors have always been okay with people once they are in compliance, and the ones that can't really can't be bothered suing someone who is in compliance over a subtle piece of legalese.
Seems to be a lot of people slightly upset over this. But I think this is a good thing. They already have the ability to stop search engines from indexing at all. Now they have much more fine grain control. They can also make their results more useful by setting expiry dates. Presumably they'll also be able to be more specific about what he summary says, and might actually be more useful.
Now some sites will probably want to over control, but they'll lose out.
The GPL isn't binding. The argument is that you don't have to accept it. If you reject it, you are entitled to do anything that copyright allows you to do with the software. It's a licence rather than a contract. It grants permissions. So if you're entitled to reverse engineer code under copyright law then there was no need to accept the agreement.
You only need to release the code to people who you give the executable to. i.e. yourself by the sound of it. Companies use custom modified GPL tools in-house all the time without releasing the code.
Not sure exactly where the line is, but since there's a gulf between these sitations, I reckon we can get a pretty good consensus that it's somewhere between them.
So, you want to use some libraries, but don't want to pay for them?
Fair enough, but why stick to the GPL? There are a lot of high quality commercial licences you can pirate as well.
Even if you assume that the EULA is binding (and there's no act of acceptance here), there is a difference between breaking a contract and breaking a law. And also a difference between a petty law violation and a breach of human rights.
Other code is covered by other licences. These licences most likely explicitely restrict them from releasing the code. The GPL doesn't superscede these other licences.
This is a simple case of copyright infringement. Sony will be obliged to pay damages, and possibly withdraw the game from sale.
But the games industry doesn't have to rely on hacks at the moment. They can get the best talent for a song because there's an abundance of talent.
And while some games don't need a scriptwriter, there are a lot that would have benefitted from a bit of talent. Not all games are shooters or strategy games. RPGs are actually pretty popular, and require a lot of material.
The RIAA might then argue that any uploading by the defendant was done with the expectation that the recipient would further upload the song to other people, and therefore uploads done by those people should factor in.
Really hope that if they do try this the court points out that in that case they should be suing the people next people in the chain.
The last I read, the RIAA's argument was that the cost for a licence to distribute a song would be way more than $750. Not sure if that will work...
Of course they will. But their opponents will come up with a way to demonstrate the costs are insane.
It's the way the adversarial system works. It's pretty hostile but it's working as per design in this case.
But do you consider multi-million dollar lawsuits to be remotely appropriate for the damage they've done? Yes, NYCL was overstating this a little but the harm they've done is shared a few songs.
Linux is an unpopular operating system developed mostly by amateurs in an ad-hoc semi-organised fashion.
100% true. 100% troll.
What sort of bad things happening in the word affect me personally and directly?
No I don't see the world this this way, but a lot of people do.
Speak for yourself. I, personally, am delighted that Christians have attacked The Golden Compass. For the first time I can remember, they've actually a picked a film that's anti-religion to attack as anti-religious.
Okay... It was funny when they did the iPod one. But GMail? It's an adequate web page. Not fundamentally different from any other webmail provider out there. A bit like Hotmail really except uglier.
Quite. As far as punishments go it seems proportionate.
Quite true. I possess 2 copied DVDs. One I couldn't find anywhere in the shops but if I do I shall buy it immediately. The other I went to the effort to copy because I find the anti-piracy message that annoying. And editting DVDs with basic free software tools requires a fair bit of fiddling with settings.
Few people really care about DRM on DVDs. All DVD players will play the things. It's easily circumvented. It's more or less invisible to most people. DVD recorders are still quite rare amongst non-techies.
I think they're mostly talking about DRM for downloads. This is more of a problem. People expect their music to be portable, and don't want any complexity or compatibility problems transferring music to their mp3 players.
It's kinda big and clunky, the screen doesn't fill the whole face, and it's pretty expensive. Also seems tnot to be all that open. The E-paper is nice and the wireless sounds like it should work well, but I'm really looking forward to the third generation of these things.