Re:you won't be seeing any popular authors there!
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
hadn't thought of that, I admit. Publishing online some older works, to generate interest in newer ones, would be a good idea even for the most popular authors.
Re:you won't be seeing any popular authors there!
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
but do you think many of the people that downloaded it purchased it? Or that "word of mouth" from those people persuaded others to buy it?
Re:you won't be seeing any popular authors there!
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
I did read the story, and I did think, so don't be such an insulting prick. Drake and Weber may be good, but they won't be posting anything new. And I wasn't clear, but I realize some people buy cds after downloading mp3s. But I don't really see a lot of people going out and buying a copy of book that they downloaded and printed.
you won't be seeing any popular authors there!
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
As noted on the site, a lot of sales are generated by "word of mouth," which can be stimulated by circulating the work in any way possible - - mailing out free copies, on the internet, etc. For this same reason, a lot of musical artists that no one has ever heard of supported mp3.com. But the simple fact is popular, established artists, like Metallica and Stephen King, don't need to generate word of mouth, and probably wouldn't willingly make their commercially available works accessible for free online. And the two media - - mp3 music files and online texts - - really aren't so different. They both suffer from degradation, in a fashion. With an online book, you don't get the glossy cover, the hard spine, the crisp pages, all assembled into a nice package. But realistically, no one can say with a straight face that someone who downloaded a copy of a commercially available work would be likely to go out and purchase a copy. That said, it doesn't mean that established artists couldn't use online publication to release other works that aren't commercially available, to establish and maintain good will among their fan base.
The implication that Egghead admitted that 7,500 cases of credit card fraud were tied to the recent hack of its servers is misleading. As the full text of the email makes clear, 7,500 of the credit cards in Egghead's database showed possible signs of fraudulent use when the accounts were examined by the credit card companies. There is no indication that any of those fraudulent uses resulted from access to Egghead's credit card info. Also, the credit card companies tend to take a very liberal view of what constitutes possible fraudulent use, since they often are left with a loss from fraud (unless they can pass off the "charge back" to a merchant). I had an order for a Playstation 2 through mediaplay.com denied by the credit card company because they thought the transaction looked fraudulent for some reason. They notified me by postcard....
One side note: The first notice from Egghead wasn't particularly helpful. It didn't tell you what credit card may have been compromised. If you had more than one, I guess the expected you to either cancel them all or call and get some details.
I am. In order to actually file claims against you, and recover on them, Sprint would need to prove not only that you breached the agreement (i.e., violated the terms of service), but also that your breach damaged Sprint in some way. In most instances, it wouldn't be worth it to file suit, because it would cost far more to litigate the claims than Sprint could ever hope to recover. Basically, the TOS is there to cover their ass if they terminate service - - if you challenge the termination, they can just point to the contract and say you violated it.
The disputed ballots were requested by voters, not Republican party officials as you stated. The party officials wrote the voter numbers on the ballots, because the ballots incorrectly had phone numbers, rather than voter numbers, on them.
You should take your own advice. "THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS THEREFORE VACATED, AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. . .."
Vacated = annulled, set aside, cancelled or rescinded....
Basically, the US Supreme Court is allowing the state Supreme Court to save face. The grounds cited by the state court were rejected by the Supreme Court. . . . The USSC ruled unequivocally that the Florida Constitution is irrelevant, that there is no individual right to vote, and warned the state court "against any construction of the [state] Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law." (by changing the legislatively-imposed deadline for certification, for example).
IAAL, but more importantly, I can read. 95% of the slashdotters who have posted on this subject have obviously not even bothered to read the short order issued by the Supreme Court (7 pages). (Of course, based on the teaser for this story, it doesn't look like Hemos read it either.)
1. The order was issued "PER CURIAM" which means "by the court." Black's Law Dictionary defines "PER CURIAM" further:
A phrase used to distinguish an opinion of the whole court from an opinion written by any one judge. Sometimes it denotes an opinion written by the chief justice or presiding judge, or to a brief announcement of the disposition of a case by court not accompanied by a written opinion.
2. Although the Supreme Court remanded (sent back) the decision to the Florida Supreme Court, it made clear that the Florida Supreme Court could NOT rely upon some of the grounds cited in the opinion - - like the right of suffrage the Florida Supreme Court found in the Flordia Constitution. But it remains possible that the Florida Supreme Court could write (although it probably couldn't do it with a straight face), that it was merely interpreting conflicting state statutory provisions, and that as a matter of statutory interpretation it determined that the deadline was flexible, etc.
Why hasn't anyone in the media bothered to point out how ridiculous some of the logic in the Florida Supreme Court decision was? The court found a conflict in two provisions: one that said the Secretary of State SHALL disregard late ballots, and another saying the she MAY disregard such ballots. How can anyone rationally say that the way to resolve this supposed conflict is to combine "MAY" and "SHALL" into "CANNOT!??"
Imagine the old, computer-illiterate judge that issued the search warrant. Now picture how many judges there are like that all over the place. Like it or not, the FBI and other enforcement agencies are getting more tech-savvy. The extent to which they exploit that knowledge remains to be seen. Unless and until judges get up to speed, however, it should come as no surprise that the enforcement agencies will be able to get search warrants for "fishing trips" on pretty flimsy bases -- like, for example, evidence of web site activity that occurred after an apparent hack.
Amazon's one-click shopping is protected by patent, not copyright, so there is no issue of fair use. As part of the patent, Amazon detailed how to implement one-click shopping, so there would really be no point in trying to reverse engineer it anyway....
The Associated Press went after the guys that created the Shockwave "Stormtroopers" parody even though the piece in question was pretty clearly a parody. The bottom line is that even if its not legally justified, corporations often react when they feel threatened, especially if they think they can get away with it. Read this: fair use in parody context article. If you are threatened with legal action, sometimes a simple cordial letter may do the trick....
No, really.
1. If you want to cover yourself, one way of doing it is to subscribe to a legal plan. Frankly, I think that a lot of the lawyers that participate in those plans are not the best quality lawyers, but it will definitely keep your costs reasonable and predictable.
2. If you do get sued or threatened with legal action, and the case against you is truly bogus, try to publicize it as much as possible. Believe it or not, there is a substantial chance that someone interested in your case will be willing to represent you for free. As you know, a lot of people, including lawyers, take the First Amendment pretty seriously and are willing to defend it.
If the interface is truly original, web designs can be protected by business method patents. (Like Amazon's "one-click" shopping.) The USPTO seems willing to grant anyone a business method patent for just about anything, so it wouldn't be as hard to acquire as one might think....
Copyleft was not added as a defendant in this case - - the MPAA v 2600 case has no bearing on them. Copyleft has been subpoenaed in a different (similar) case in California.
And therein lies the difference.... RADIO STATIONS PAY ROYALTIES. Napster doesn't. And although Napster may in fact open the door for a handful of bands that don't get airplay, we all know that VAST majority of traffic at Napster is there to download commercial music. The judge didn't buy Napster's argument to the contrary, and I don't really think anyone believes it. The RIAA has some strange views - - like, for example, its position that ANY music recorded onto a CDR on a computer, rather than a stand-alone CD-recorder that you hook up to a stereo, is illegal. In this case, though, the RIAA (and yes, even Lars Ulrich) is right.
I think there are constitutional implications, but not because people under the age of 18 won't be allowed to play so-called "violent" games. The First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees protect the speaker, not the audience. Here, the speaker is not the 15-year old that wants to play some zombie-killing game, but the arcade owner and the maker of the game. I think the questions will likely be whether the restriction is overbroad - - does it make clear what is considered "violent" for purposes of the law - - and whether it is a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
hadn't thought of that, I admit. Publishing online some older works, to generate interest in newer ones, would be a good idea even for the most popular authors.
but do you think many of the people that downloaded it purchased it? Or that "word of mouth" from those people persuaded others to buy it?
I did read the story, and I did think, so don't be such an insulting prick. Drake and Weber may be good, but they won't be posting anything new. And I wasn't clear, but I realize some people buy cds after downloading mp3s. But I don't really see a lot of people going out and buying a copy of book that they downloaded and printed.
As noted on the site, a lot of sales are generated by "word of mouth," which can be stimulated by circulating the work in any way possible - - mailing out free copies, on the internet, etc. For this same reason, a lot of musical artists that no one has ever heard of supported mp3.com. But the simple fact is popular, established artists, like Metallica and Stephen King, don't need to generate word of mouth, and probably wouldn't willingly make their commercially available works accessible for free online. And the two media - - mp3 music files and online texts - - really aren't so different. They both suffer from degradation, in a fashion. With an online book, you don't get the glossy cover, the hard spine, the crisp pages, all assembled into a nice package. But realistically, no one can say with a straight face that someone who downloaded a copy of a commercially available work would be likely to go out and purchase a copy. That said, it doesn't mean that established artists couldn't use online publication to release other works that aren't commercially available, to establish and maintain good will among their fan base.
The implication that Egghead admitted that 7,500 cases of credit card fraud were tied to the recent hack of its servers is misleading. As the full text of the email makes clear, 7,500 of the credit cards in Egghead's database showed possible signs of fraudulent use when the accounts were examined by the credit card companies. There is no indication that any of those fraudulent uses resulted from access to Egghead's credit card info. Also, the credit card companies tend to take a very liberal view of what constitutes possible fraudulent use, since they often are left with a loss from fraud (unless they can pass off the "charge back" to a merchant). I had an order for a Playstation 2 through mediaplay.com denied by the credit card company because they thought the transaction looked fraudulent for some reason. They notified me by postcard.... One side note: The first notice from Egghead wasn't particularly helpful. It didn't tell you what credit card may have been compromised. If you had more than one, I guess the expected you to either cancel them all or call and get some details.
I am. In order to actually file claims against you, and recover on them, Sprint would need to prove not only that you breached the agreement (i.e., violated the terms of service), but also that your breach damaged Sprint in some way. In most instances, it wouldn't be worth it to file suit, because it would cost far more to litigate the claims than Sprint could ever hope to recover. Basically, the TOS is there to cover their ass if they terminate service - - if you challenge the termination, they can just point to the contract and say you violated it.
You do know that there is no such thing, right?
The disputed ballots were requested by voters, not Republican party officials as you stated. The party officials wrote the voter numbers on the ballots, because the ballots incorrectly had phone numbers, rather than voter numbers, on them.
You should take your own advice. "THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS THEREFORE VACATED, AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. . . ."
Vacated = annulled, set aside, cancelled or rescinded....
Basically, the US Supreme Court is allowing the state Supreme Court to save face. The grounds cited by the state court were rejected by the Supreme Court. . . . The USSC ruled unequivocally that the Florida Constitution is irrelevant, that there is no individual right to vote, and warned the state court "against any construction of the [state] Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law." (by changing the legislatively-imposed deadline for certification, for example).
IAAL, but more importantly, I can read. 95% of the slashdotters who have posted on this subject have obviously not even bothered to read the short order issued by the Supreme Court (7 pages). (Of course, based on the teaser for this story, it doesn't look like Hemos read it either.) 1. The order was issued "PER CURIAM" which means "by the court." Black's Law Dictionary defines "PER CURIAM" further: A phrase used to distinguish an opinion of the whole court from an opinion written by any one judge. Sometimes it denotes an opinion written by the chief justice or presiding judge, or to a brief announcement of the disposition of a case by court not accompanied by a written opinion. 2. Although the Supreme Court remanded (sent back) the decision to the Florida Supreme Court, it made clear that the Florida Supreme Court could NOT rely upon some of the grounds cited in the opinion - - like the right of suffrage the Florida Supreme Court found in the Flordia Constitution. But it remains possible that the Florida Supreme Court could write (although it probably couldn't do it with a straight face), that it was merely interpreting conflicting state statutory provisions, and that as a matter of statutory interpretation it determined that the deadline was flexible, etc. Why hasn't anyone in the media bothered to point out how ridiculous some of the logic in the Florida Supreme Court decision was? The court found a conflict in two provisions: one that said the Secretary of State SHALL disregard late ballots, and another saying the she MAY disregard such ballots. How can anyone rationally say that the way to resolve this supposed conflict is to combine "MAY" and "SHALL" into "CANNOT!??"
Imagine the old, computer-illiterate judge that issued the search warrant. Now picture how many judges there are like that all over the place. Like it or not, the FBI and other enforcement agencies are getting more tech-savvy. The extent to which they exploit that knowledge remains to be seen. Unless and until judges get up to speed, however, it should come as no surprise that the enforcement agencies will be able to get search warrants for "fishing trips" on pretty flimsy bases -- like, for example, evidence of web site activity that occurred after an apparent hack.
Amazon's one-click shopping is protected by patent, not copyright, so there is no issue of fair use. As part of the patent, Amazon detailed how to implement one-click shopping, so there would really be no point in trying to reverse engineer it anyway....
The Associated Press went after the guys that created the Shockwave "Stormtroopers" parody even though the piece in question was pretty clearly a parody. The bottom line is that even if its not legally justified, corporations often react when they feel threatened, especially if they think they can get away with it. Read this: fair use in parody context article. If you are threatened with legal action, sometimes a simple cordial letter may do the trick....
No, really. 1. If you want to cover yourself, one way of doing it is to subscribe to a legal plan. Frankly, I think that a lot of the lawyers that participate in those plans are not the best quality lawyers, but it will definitely keep your costs reasonable and predictable. 2. If you do get sued or threatened with legal action, and the case against you is truly bogus, try to publicize it as much as possible. Believe it or not, there is a substantial chance that someone interested in your case will be willing to represent you for free. As you know, a lot of people, including lawyers, take the First Amendment pretty seriously and are willing to defend it.
If the interface is truly original, web designs can be protected by business method patents. (Like Amazon's "one-click" shopping.) The USPTO seems willing to grant anyone a business method patent for just about anything, so it wouldn't be as hard to acquire as one might think....
Copyleft was not added as a defendant in this case - - the MPAA v 2600 case has no bearing on them. Copyleft has been subpoenaed in a different (similar) case in California.
And therein lies the difference.... RADIO STATIONS PAY ROYALTIES. Napster doesn't. And although Napster may in fact open the door for a handful of bands that don't get airplay, we all know that VAST majority of traffic at Napster is there to download commercial music. The judge didn't buy Napster's argument to the contrary, and I don't really think anyone believes it. The RIAA has some strange views - - like, for example, its position that ANY music recorded onto a CDR on a computer, rather than a stand-alone CD-recorder that you hook up to a stereo, is illegal. In this case, though, the RIAA (and yes, even Lars Ulrich) is right.
I think there are constitutional implications, but not because people under the age of 18 won't be allowed to play so-called "violent" games. The First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees protect the speaker, not the audience. Here, the speaker is not the 15-year old that wants to play some zombie-killing game, but the arcade owner and the maker of the game. I think the questions will likely be whether the restriction is overbroad - - does it make clear what is considered "violent" for purposes of the law - - and whether it is a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction.