This seems particularily insidious. Whereas previously the TOS would allow an author to be identified as such, this TOS effectively dissolves that right. Yeah, I've got a knack for the obvious. I understand AOL's intent, but again we're seeing a company provide an overly broad licensing scheme. But then again, how else could they protect against things like getting sued for coincidentally making a movie about after I said " would be a cool movie"?
What happens if I post in a chat room the full source code to my very successful open source project (in reality it exists only in my mind) under the GPL? Or if I have my project's homepage on an AOL server? The AOL TOS and the GPL seem to really conflict here. Does this mean that providing GPL'd source on an AOL server is a violation of the GPL?
Did anyone else notice the congressman's bill's definition of the internet? Apparently if spam is sent only to recipients with fiber optic connections to the net and if the message originates from a computer with a fiber optic connection then it's not spam, because it's not on the internet...good news for spammers on Internet2. Perhaps this will lead spammers to lobby for HIGH SPEED internet infrastructure....that'd be irony, ay?
Um..how does this violate my privacy? It's actually quite simple. MY biometrics ARE MINE. You have no need to have any PRIVATE information about me. The government is (arguably) you AND me. Please tell me why YOU need my biometric information.
From the article: 'Katalov: "The DMCA is an unclear and vague law that may put legitimate businesses, technological innovations and innocent people in jeopardy."
'If the motion to dismiss is not granted, Katalov's lawyers intend to argue that the DMCA is "overly broad and vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Pending the results of Monday's ruling, that hearing is set for April 1. '
In reality the argument that the Net is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. Law is ridiculous, and will get stomped down. However, their backup argument may be the stronge one, and how much irony would be involved when a Russian (former USSR) argues that a U.S. law is unconstitutional and wins in U.S. court?
Slashdot Mirror
This seems particularily insidious. Whereas previously the TOS would allow an author to be identified as such, this TOS effectively dissolves that right. Yeah, I've got a knack for the obvious. I understand AOL's intent, but again we're seeing a company provide an overly broad licensing scheme. But then again, how else could they protect against things like getting sued for coincidentally making a movie about after I said " would be a cool movie"?
What happens if I post in a chat room the full source code to my very successful open source project (in reality it exists only in my mind) under the GPL? Or if I have my project's homepage on an AOL server? The AOL TOS and the GPL seem to really conflict here. Does this mean that providing GPL'd source on an AOL server is a violation of the GPL?
Did anyone else notice the congressman's bill's definition of the internet? Apparently if spam is sent only to recipients with fiber optic connections to the net and if the message originates from a computer with a fiber optic connection then it's not spam, because it's not on the internet...good news for spammers on Internet2. Perhaps this will lead spammers to lobby for HIGH SPEED internet infrastructure....that'd be irony, ay?
Um..how does this violate my privacy? It's actually quite simple. MY biometrics ARE MINE. You have no need to have any PRIVATE information about me. The government is (arguably) you AND me. Please tell me why YOU need my biometric information.
From the article:
'Katalov: "The DMCA is an unclear and vague law that may put legitimate businesses, technological innovations and innocent people in jeopardy."
'If the motion to dismiss is not granted, Katalov's lawyers intend to argue that the DMCA is "overly broad and vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Pending the results of Monday's ruling, that hearing is set for April 1. '
In reality the argument that the Net is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. Law is ridiculous, and will get stomped down. However, their backup argument may be the stronge one, and how much irony would be involved when a Russian (former USSR) argues that a U.S. law is unconstitutional and wins in U.S. court?