Just when you thought there was enough graffiti here on Earth... I assume, no, I hope that NASA does enough checking on names submitted to stop the AYBABTU crowd, not to mention the nascent Bart Simpson wannabees. (Last name Crotch, first name Mike.)
And the U.K. doesn't have import taxes and VAT? Okay, let's say those don't exist. Then nothing stops you from setting up with PayPal and using them to buy DVDs from a U.S. site and getting them delivered to you.
But wait, then you add overseas delivery charges. And you add import taxes if they automatically do such things. And even if you have such things as a world-wide standard based on gold, or NeoPoints, or floon beans, you still have to deal with fluctuations in that commodity. All of which you avoid by going down to the local store to buy the DVD (or whatever).
Now, I'm not saying that it can never work. I don't like making absolute statements. But I don't think that it stands much of a chance, at least right now, until and unless a substantial majority of the e-commerce sites jump on the 'standard' bandwagon. How many e-commerce sites are there? Okay, I don't know either. How many use PayPal? Beats me. Same with any of the other e-commerce. I know big ones that won't take a couple of what I considered major credit cards (but maybe they don't like American Express, what the hell).
So what's the hypothetical percentage, the magic number of sites that go on the gold standard before everyone else falls in line? Again, beats the hell out of me. Maybe, if all the major car companies, all the major computer companies, and all the major boat, motorcycle, and plane companies went on it, it would be enough of a start to get the rest. But don't bet on it. The current system, for all of its' flaws, works pretty damn well. Thus, there is little current need to change it.
But I've been wrong before. Statistically, it will happen again. But I'm betting that we won't see an e-commerce standard for years.
Well, how often do you buy things online where you pay in another currency? From personal experience, I tend to buy things online where I can get a list price in U.S. dollars, even if it might cost slightly more, rather then go to a bank to get pounds, deutschmarks, euros, what have you.
It all boils down to how often you do need it. Once a year? Not worth it. Once a month. Maybe. Every day? Would be really nice, but if you're buying things and paying in foreign currencies daily, you've probably already found a solution other then a "new" standard online currency.
Why? No offense, but e-shopping seems to be doing fairly well without a standard currency. In fact, the lack of a standard currency may be helping. E-sale sites in the U.K. use the pound, U.S. sites use the dollar, Japanese sites use the yen or the dollar (okay, the few I've been to use both). I imagine that European sites either use their local currency or the Euro.
Yes, a standard currency would make it easier for, say someone in France to buy stuff in the U.S, or Japan, and vice versa. But e-commerce seems to have that taken into account. I've bought things from U.K. sites and I could have paid in pounds or dollars. I decided to see the prices in dollars so I could better appreciate how much I was paying. Heck, I don't even think there was a fee for currency exchange.
Um, yes and no. A bank panic could still easily happen today, it's just more difficult. With electronic money transfers, a bank can electronically 'have' more money. But it doesn't give the bank any more actual greenbacks. So if the bank runs out of actual paper cash, it doesn't matter how much they have electronically.
And if more then one bank is getting rushed by customers who are withdrawing all their cash, it snowballs.
Kierthos
Re:And Star Trek derived it from...
on
Andromeda
·
· Score: 1
Minor correction: In Farscape, it's called a starburst, not a slipstream.
Now, having said that, and having seen episodes of Andromeda, Farscape, Stargate SG-1, etc., I have to say that my personal favorite is Farscape. I can't really explain why... but I really disliked the Stargate movie and the series, with the exception of RDA, didn't impress me. Andromeda is on a wierd time for me (I also work the graveyard shift, which doesn't help), so I rarely get to watch it, but it isn't bad. It could be much worse, say Voyager-class bad.
Earth: Final Conflict, which is the only other "Rodenberry" series besides the Star Trek ones that I've seen, impressed me a lot more then Andromeda though. I'm a big fan of conspiracies, and I love any sci-fi series that has connected episodes, of which E:FC had many. ST:NG, Voyager, and most of DS9 didn't. (Farscape, so far, does it pretty well too, although it has a number of stand-alone episodes.)
I suppose I really like Farscape because it's realistic. Okay, yes, it's sci-fi. But the crew actually doesn't get along. They fight each other even when they're not being mind-controlled. They have arguements, and there's actual emotion, as opposed to a crew of however-many on the Enterprise who never ever fight with each other (unless mentally controlled).
No offense, and Ogg Vorbis might be the shiznit and all, but how come I never hear of it anywhere else but here? I never hear any of my friends talking about the.ogg files they have, and Napster didn't allow for sharing of.ogg files. Neither, as far as I can tell, does LimeWire.
I'm not saying that it's a bad format. But.mp3 clearly has the edge in "market share" and recognition. That isn't likely to change soon.
But, broadly speaking, the class action suits only happen when there is a fault in the product. If software package X does what it is supposed to and doesn't randomly lose data or crash, then no one will be bringing suits against it.
But, if that same software package crashes regularly, loses data, and hoses customers, they should have the ability to sue the maker of the software.
Basically, if the software is reliable, secure, and usable, it shouldn't have a problem. If it isn't, it shouldn't be released.
Um, just to point out something... technically, the President can appoint a Supreme Court Justice without it being reviewed by the ABA. It's just that they (the ABA) have so much political clout that it's practically automatic. But, theoretically, that step could be bypassed without causing any legal problems. Yes, the ABA would not like it, but there is no formal requirement of review.
I mean, other then the fact that if you're talking on a cell phone, you're talking and not eating, I can see that. But I can't see Mr. Stomach shutting down digestion because you're yakking away on a Nokia or something.
How is it any different from talking on a normal phone? Or just talking? The radiation emitted by the cell phone? Sorry, don't buy it.
She sued because she burned herself.
She won because her attorney was able to prove that that coffee at that McDonald's was brewed 20-25 degrees hotter then at the other McDonald's in the area.
She won not because of the burn, but because of the "lack of standards". Now, if it had been brewed at the same temperature, would she have lost? Maybe. But the jury did cite the temperature difference as a major factor.
Actually, depending on what causative link exists between tumors/cancer and the radation produced by cell phones, they might not even be able to claim that it reduces the risk of those tumors or cancers.
It's like this: If all the cell phone makers insist that there is no link between the occurence of tumors/cancer and the use of cell phones, then any claim that the "brain shield" reduced that risk admits that there is a risk to begin with.
If they have already admitted that there is a risk, it's different. Then, if they want to state that the use of "brain shield" reduces such a risk, they have to back it up with scientific proof to be able to legally state such in any advertisement, guarentee or warranty.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. But then, I don't use a cell phone, so I don't care.
Excuse me? I thought the problem was that they were charging _more_ in areas outside the U.S. I mean, the article mentions that DVD prices are higher (25%?) in Europe for the same DVD that is sold in the U.S.
So why wouldn't everyone want to pay the U.S. price if it's lower?
Oh, and odds are, if DVDs are being sold in India (no doubt there's a few there, just not comparable numbers to the U.S.) then prices are higher then the U.S. because of import taxes, supply and demand, and scarcity of customers. And the "need" to make the almight buck. (or rupee or whatever they use in India)
Well, some movies pay for themselves. A lot don't. And even with the ones that you would think made vast amounts of profit, like "Titanic", the movie studio claims it 'barely broke even' in U.S. sales.
This of course leads to higher DVD prices as the studios are trying to recoup some of the money that they spent on the stars they needed for the aforementioned mega-flop (how much did Waterworld cost to produce, and how much did it make?) and some movies will be priced higher then other to make up for other movies.
Also, you get those wonderful first run DVDs and then a later "Director's Cut" DVD, yet another "Special Edition" DVD, and so on. Do they need to keep prices high? Doubtful. Do they want to keep prices high? Yes. Like all corps, they want to make money. And as long as the consumer is still shelling out the cash, the prices stay up there.
Now, the region coding is helping them out with this, but as we've already seen, Australia has challenged that. The Euros are next... how long before the U.S. gets behind this? Oh wait, we're probably paying the lowest costs for DVDs... we don't need to... (although it does keep us from buying all those bootlegs in China and running them on our local DVD players....)
And the cost on producing DVDs? Dunno... it does depend on the number being run... but given how many copies of "The Mummy" are out on DVD, less then a $1 production cost is probably dead on.
It all depends on whether you're using a "normal" dictionary (like Merriam Webster), a general law dictionary (like the American Standard Law Dictionary), or Black's Law Dictionary (generally considered to be the definitive book, at least for the U.S.)... depending on the source, slander is only verbal defamation, or it is verbal or written defamation. Regardless, it still must be false. If it is true, it is not slander.
Oddly enough, libel to follow the same pattern... according to Merriam-Webster it's spoken or written defamation, according to Duhaime it's only written...
hrm... definitely got to go look at Black's Law Dictionary again...
How about we chalk this up to too many "User Documents" and not enough verification? (And for all I know the Australian legal definitions and the U.S. ones don't even come close...)
It can and does extend to products. Companies can sue individuals or organizations for slander and libel. If a publication had an article stating that Brand X type of computer monitors had a 4000% higher chance of causing cancer (insert any other rubbish here), then the makers of Brand X monitors could sue the publication for slander, as long as it was false. (If it was true, a libel suit would probably fail because the article would probably be of public interest.)
Did you break the law in Iraq though? Potentially, yes, but you weren't physically there. Look at it this way, with a criminal case example: Painting grafitti on walls is a caning offense in Singapore. If I paint grafitti on a wall here in the States, Singapore can't demand my extradition because they suffered no harm. (Unless I started painting on a Thailand embassy.)
And since, at least in the U.S., you aren't actually required to be present in a civil case...
Now, during the Gulf War, all kinds of nasty things were said about Saddam by news anchors, politicians, soldiers in the field, etc. They weren't extradited to Iraq for saying those things. Heck, can you even be extradited for a civil crime? I don't think so....
Worst case (and remember, IANAL) is that you would be found guilty under some civil law, and be ordered to pay a fine. Unless you ever planned on going to Iraq, I doubt the UK would make you pay the fine. (Of course, in Iraq, saying nasty things about Mr. Mustache is likely to get you geeked, which would probably stop the UK from sending you over there for "civil" court anyway.)
Yup. Technically, that protects them from having to adhere to (for example) France's or Australia's policies on web pages. They can point to that, if sued by a non-U.S. interest and say "But it's not supposed to be viewed in East Paranoidmania!" and U.S. Courts will agree to it.
Now, it won't stop anyone from sueing, mind you, but it will curtail their chances of winning.
The thing is, slander, libel, defamation are all civil cases, not criminal ones. And in civil cases, one of the major points (at least with libel) is money.
How cost effective is it to go after every last person saying "Windows sucks!"? Not very. And lawyers are expensive.
Also, you have to keep in mind that a lot of civil courts take dim views of frivolous cases. Most civil judges would throw out this kind of case because there is no obvious loss of earnings or damages to M$.
It's the same with most of the stuff that tabloids publish. A great heaping amount of it is potentially libelous, but it's generally not worth the effort for the people being libeled to do anything about it because hardly anyone believes the things they read in there anyway. (Also, there's usually enough of a grain of truth anyway to avoid slander, which most people _will_ take to court...)
And yes, there are public figure clauses in libel law. But they, oddly enough, also have more rights of privacy and protection under some of those laws because they are public figures.
Yes, it's complicated. As far as I can tell, it's that way on purpose.
Freedom of speech is not omnipotent. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, you can't openly publish things limited by the FOIA or under National Security, and the 1st Amendment does not protect someone from publishing libelous, slanderous and/or defamatory statements.
The 1st Amendment was written to allow for the open passage of speech, criticism of government without fear of retribution by that government, and other reasons.
And given the number of things said in various business magazines about businessmen around the world, and the relatively few lawsuits that make the news about them, most businessmen seem not to mind, apparently. Movie stars, on the other hand...
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.
From this, it really doesn't matter whether it's true or not, it's defamation. Slander, is false defamation, while libel is defamation that must meet other qualifications (that the statement is about a person who is identifiable to one or more persons, and that the statement is distributed to one or more persons other then the injured party, i.e. published).
In other words, slander _must_ be a lie. If it's the truth, it's not slander. However, if it's true, it can still be defamation. It must meet the other above criteria to be libel. (If you say unflattering but true things to someone's face, it's not libel, but if you publish them it may be.)
No, I'm not. However, what it wrong with actually owning the software/CD/cassette/videotape/DVD legally instead of a pirated copy? In a lot of cases, the pirated copy is of lower quality, may contain Bad Things (like warez'd programs containing virii), etc.
Your case is full of holes anyway. While your hypothetical SO might die from not getting to the hospital in time necessitating the theft of a transport vehicle, there is no clear indicator that doing without a legitimate copy of a Britney Spears album will cause death. (Although listening to it might cause brain death.) People can, will, and have done without pirated digital media for years. A number of companies seeking to protect their own interests does not necessarily mean that they are violating your interests in doing so.
How does Fair Use apply? Does it let you copy one track from a CD for a friend? No. Let the friend borrow the CD and if they like it enough, they can buy their own. Does it apply to software? Most software agreements allow you one archive copy. If you're making multiple copies for your friends, then it's not Fair Use.
As for the CSS line, sorry, it doesn't wash. Most people, the vast majority in fact, don't have the equipment necessary to carry out the duplication of DVDs anyway. Yes, I hate the DVD country codes too, but pirating DVDs is not the answer.
And back to SDMI. Currently there's so many problems with it that it's more of a joke then anything else. Is it a problem? Not unless you feel the need to have umpteen backup copies of your favorite game (just in case your hard drive formats itself umpteen-1 times, I'm sure).
And as for the professional/amateur piracy dichotonomy, professional pirates are going to always find ways around things because that's how they make their money. But there are probably many more amatuer pirates dl'ing from warez sites or making custom CDs then counts for many of the professional's output. (Also, hardly a day goes by where a metric shitload of pirated stuff doesn't get grabbed by the police.)
So what if they're aimed at me and you.... am I supposed to be automatically paranoid because the "man" is somehow out to get me through SDMI, CSS, KFC, or whatever TLA/FLA comes along? Is it automatically a strike against the myth that information wants to be free? They're trying to make money and protect their interests. I'm not surprised by it, and what a shock, I'm not hurt by it either. IMAO, a large portion of the/. community needs to grow up and realize that it isn't personal. They are not doing this to put the screws to Anonymous Coward #816573 or anyone else. They are trying to solve what they perceive as a legitimate problem with their business model.
Slashdot Mirror
Just when you thought there was enough graffiti here on Earth... I assume, no, I hope that NASA does enough checking on names submitted to stop the AYBABTU crowd, not to mention the nascent Bart Simpson wannabees. (Last name Crotch, first name Mike.)
Kierthos
And the U.K. doesn't have import taxes and VAT? Okay, let's say those don't exist. Then nothing stops you from setting up with PayPal and using them to buy DVDs from a U.S. site and getting them delivered to you.
But wait, then you add overseas delivery charges. And you add import taxes if they automatically do such things. And even if you have such things as a world-wide standard based on gold, or NeoPoints, or floon beans, you still have to deal with fluctuations in that commodity. All of which you avoid by going down to the local store to buy the DVD (or whatever).
Now, I'm not saying that it can never work. I don't like making absolute statements. But I don't think that it stands much of a chance, at least right now, until and unless a substantial majority of the e-commerce sites jump on the 'standard' bandwagon. How many e-commerce sites are there? Okay, I don't know either. How many use PayPal? Beats me. Same with any of the other e-commerce. I know big ones that won't take a couple of what I considered major credit cards (but maybe they don't like American Express, what the hell).
So what's the hypothetical percentage, the magic number of sites that go on the gold standard before everyone else falls in line? Again, beats the hell out of me. Maybe, if all the major car companies, all the major computer companies, and all the major boat, motorcycle, and plane companies went on it, it would be enough of a start to get the rest. But don't bet on it. The current system, for all of its' flaws, works pretty damn well. Thus, there is little current need to change it.
But I've been wrong before. Statistically, it will happen again. But I'm betting that we won't see an e-commerce standard for years.
Kierthos
Well, how often do you buy things online where you pay in another currency? From personal experience, I tend to buy things online where I can get a list price in U.S. dollars, even if it might cost slightly more, rather then go to a bank to get pounds, deutschmarks, euros, what have you.
It all boils down to how often you do need it. Once a year? Not worth it. Once a month. Maybe. Every day? Would be really nice, but if you're buying things and paying in foreign currencies daily, you've probably already found a solution other then a "new" standard online currency.
Kierthos
Why? No offense, but e-shopping seems to be doing fairly well without a standard currency. In fact, the lack of a standard currency may be helping. E-sale sites in the U.K. use the pound, U.S. sites use the dollar, Japanese sites use the yen or the dollar (okay, the few I've been to use both). I imagine that European sites either use their local currency or the Euro.
Yes, a standard currency would make it easier for, say someone in France to buy stuff in the U.S, or Japan, and vice versa. But e-commerce seems to have that taken into account. I've bought things from U.K. sites and I could have paid in pounds or dollars. I decided to see the prices in dollars so I could better appreciate how much I was paying. Heck, I don't even think there was a fee for currency exchange.
Kierthos
Um, yes and no. A bank panic could still easily happen today, it's just more difficult. With electronic money transfers, a bank can electronically 'have' more money. But it doesn't give the bank any more actual greenbacks. So if the bank runs out of actual paper cash, it doesn't matter how much they have electronically.
And if more then one bank is getting rushed by customers who are withdrawing all their cash, it snowballs.
Kierthos
Minor correction: In Farscape, it's called a starburst, not a slipstream.
Now, having said that, and having seen episodes of Andromeda, Farscape, Stargate SG-1, etc., I have to say that my personal favorite is Farscape. I can't really explain why... but I really disliked the Stargate movie and the series, with the exception of RDA, didn't impress me. Andromeda is on a wierd time for me (I also work the graveyard shift, which doesn't help), so I rarely get to watch it, but it isn't bad. It could be much worse, say Voyager-class bad.
Earth: Final Conflict, which is the only other "Rodenberry" series besides the Star Trek ones that I've seen, impressed me a lot more then Andromeda though. I'm a big fan of conspiracies, and I love any sci-fi series that has connected episodes, of which E:FC had many. ST:NG, Voyager, and most of DS9 didn't. (Farscape, so far, does it pretty well too, although it has a number of stand-alone episodes.)
I suppose I really like Farscape because it's realistic. Okay, yes, it's sci-fi. But the crew actually doesn't get along. They fight each other even when they're not being mind-controlled. They have arguements, and there's actual emotion, as opposed to a crew of however-many on the Enterprise who never ever fight with each other (unless mentally controlled).
Kierthos
No offense, and Ogg Vorbis might be the shiznit and all, but how come I never hear of it anywhere else but here? I never hear any of my friends talking about the .ogg files they have, and Napster didn't allow for sharing of .ogg files. Neither, as far as I can tell, does LimeWire.
.mp3 clearly has the edge in "market share" and recognition. That isn't likely to change soon.
I'm not saying that it's a bad format. But
Kierthos
But, broadly speaking, the class action suits only happen when there is a fault in the product. If software package X does what it is supposed to and doesn't randomly lose data or crash, then no one will be bringing suits against it.
But, if that same software package crashes regularly, loses data, and hoses customers, they should have the ability to sue the maker of the software.
Basically, if the software is reliable, secure, and usable, it shouldn't have a problem. If it isn't, it shouldn't be released.
Kierthos
Um, just to point out something... technically, the President can appoint a Supreme Court Justice without it being reviewed by the ABA. It's just that they (the ABA) have so much political clout that it's practically automatic. But, theoretically, that step could be bypassed without causing any legal problems. Yes, the ABA would not like it, but there is no formal requirement of review.
Kierthos
Snu?
I mean, other then the fact that if you're talking on a cell phone, you're talking and not eating, I can see that. But I can't see Mr. Stomach shutting down digestion because you're yakking away on a Nokia or something.
How is it any different from talking on a normal phone? Or just talking? The radiation emitted by the cell phone? Sorry, don't buy it.
Kierthos
Okay, this case gets brought up all the time....
She sued because she burned herself.
She won because her attorney was able to prove that that coffee at that McDonald's was brewed 20-25 degrees hotter then at the other McDonald's in the area.
She won not because of the burn, but because of the "lack of standards". Now, if it had been brewed at the same temperature, would she have lost? Maybe. But the jury did cite the temperature difference as a major factor.
Kierthos
You trust scare-mongers? Fine by me...
/. causes cancer, right?
btw, you did hear that posting on
Kierthos
But Windows doesn't cause cancer, just frustration. And maybe ulcers.
Kierthos
Actually, depending on what causative link exists between tumors/cancer and the radation produced by cell phones, they might not even be able to claim that it reduces the risk of those tumors or cancers.
It's like this: If all the cell phone makers insist that there is no link between the occurence of tumors/cancer and the use of cell phones, then any claim that the "brain shield" reduced that risk admits that there is a risk to begin with.
If they have already admitted that there is a risk, it's different. Then, if they want to state that the use of "brain shield" reduces such a risk, they have to back it up with scientific proof to be able to legally state such in any advertisement, guarentee or warranty.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. But then, I don't use a cell phone, so I don't care.
Kierthos
Excuse me? I thought the problem was that they were charging _more_ in areas outside the U.S. I mean, the article mentions that DVD prices are higher (25%?) in Europe for the same DVD that is sold in the U.S.
So why wouldn't everyone want to pay the U.S. price if it's lower?
Oh, and odds are, if DVDs are being sold in India (no doubt there's a few there, just not comparable numbers to the U.S.) then prices are higher then the U.S. because of import taxes, supply and demand, and scarcity of customers. And the "need" to make the almight buck. (or rupee or whatever they use in India)
Kierthos
Well, some movies pay for themselves. A lot don't. And even with the ones that you would think made vast amounts of profit, like "Titanic", the movie studio claims it 'barely broke even' in U.S. sales.
This of course leads to higher DVD prices as the studios are trying to recoup some of the money that they spent on the stars they needed for the aforementioned mega-flop (how much did Waterworld cost to produce, and how much did it make?) and some movies will be priced higher then other to make up for other movies.
Also, you get those wonderful first run DVDs and then a later "Director's Cut" DVD, yet another "Special Edition" DVD, and so on. Do they need to keep prices high? Doubtful. Do they want to keep prices high? Yes. Like all corps, they want to make money. And as long as the consumer is still shelling out the cash, the prices stay up there.
Now, the region coding is helping them out with this, but as we've already seen, Australia has challenged that. The Euros are next... how long before the U.S. gets behind this? Oh wait, we're probably paying the lowest costs for DVDs... we don't need to... (although it does keep us from buying all those bootlegs in China and running them on our local DVD players....)
And the cost on producing DVDs? Dunno... it does depend on the number being run... but given how many copies of "The Mummy" are out on DVD, less then a $1 production cost is probably dead on.
Kierthos
It all depends on whether you're using a "normal" dictionary (like Merriam Webster), a general law dictionary (like the American Standard Law Dictionary), or Black's Law Dictionary (generally considered to be the definitive book, at least for the U.S.)... depending on the source, slander is only verbal defamation, or it is verbal or written defamation. Regardless, it still must be false. If it is true, it is not slander.
Oddly enough, libel to follow the same pattern... according to Merriam-Webster it's spoken or written defamation, according to Duhaime it's only written...
hrm... definitely got to go look at Black's Law Dictionary again...
How about we chalk this up to too many "User Documents" and not enough verification? (And for all I know the Australian legal definitions and the U.S. ones don't even come close...)
Kierthos
It can and does extend to products. Companies can sue individuals or organizations for slander and libel. If a publication had an article stating that Brand X type of computer monitors had a 4000% higher chance of causing cancer (insert any other rubbish here), then the makers of Brand X monitors could sue the publication for slander, as long as it was false. (If it was true, a libel suit would probably fail because the article would probably be of public interest.)
Kierthos
Did you break the law in Iraq though? Potentially, yes, but you weren't physically there. Look at it this way, with a criminal case example: Painting grafitti on walls is a caning offense in Singapore. If I paint grafitti on a wall here in the States, Singapore can't demand my extradition because they suffered no harm. (Unless I started painting on a Thailand embassy.)
And since, at least in the U.S., you aren't actually required to be present in a civil case...
Now, during the Gulf War, all kinds of nasty things were said about Saddam by news anchors, politicians, soldiers in the field, etc. They weren't extradited to Iraq for saying those things. Heck, can you even be extradited for a civil crime? I don't think so....
Worst case (and remember, IANAL) is that you would be found guilty under some civil law, and be ordered to pay a fine. Unless you ever planned on going to Iraq, I doubt the UK would make you pay the fine. (Of course, in Iraq, saying nasty things about Mr. Mustache is likely to get you geeked, which would probably stop the UK from sending you over there for "civil" court anyway.)
Kierthos
Yup. Technically, that protects them from having to adhere to (for example) France's or Australia's policies on web pages. They can point to that, if sued by a non-U.S. interest and say "But it's not supposed to be viewed in East Paranoidmania!" and U.S. Courts will agree to it.
Now, it won't stop anyone from sueing, mind you, but it will curtail their chances of winning.
Kierthos
The thing is, slander, libel, defamation are all civil cases, not criminal ones. And in civil cases, one of the major points (at least with libel) is money.
How cost effective is it to go after every last person saying "Windows sucks!"? Not very. And lawyers are expensive.
Also, you have to keep in mind that a lot of civil courts take dim views of frivolous cases. Most civil judges would throw out this kind of case because there is no obvious loss of earnings or damages to M$.
It's the same with most of the stuff that tabloids publish. A great heaping amount of it is potentially libelous, but it's generally not worth the effort for the people being libeled to do anything about it because hardly anyone believes the things they read in there anyway. (Also, there's usually enough of a grain of truth anyway to avoid slander, which most people _will_ take to court...)
And yes, there are public figure clauses in libel law. But they, oddly enough, also have more rights of privacy and protection under some of those laws because they are public figures.
Yes, it's complicated. As far as I can tell, it's that way on purpose.
Kierthos
Umm... no...
Freedom of speech is not omnipotent. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, you can't openly publish things limited by the FOIA or under National Security, and the 1st Amendment does not protect someone from publishing libelous, slanderous and/or defamatory statements.
The 1st Amendment was written to allow for the open passage of speech, criticism of government without fear of retribution by that government, and other reasons.
And given the number of things said in various business magazines about businessmen around the world, and the relatively few lawsuits that make the news about them, most businessmen seem not to mind, apparently. Movie stars, on the other hand...
Kierthos
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.
From this, it really doesn't matter whether it's true or not, it's defamation. Slander, is false defamation, while libel is defamation that must meet other qualifications (that the statement is about a person who is identifiable to one or more persons, and that the statement is distributed to one or more persons other then the injured party, i.e. published).
In other words, slander _must_ be a lie. If it's the truth, it's not slander. However, if it's true, it can still be defamation. It must meet the other above criteria to be libel. (If you say unflattering but true things to someone's face, it's not libel, but if you publish them it may be.)
IANAL, but I got these definitions here.
Kierthos
No, I'm not. However, what it wrong with actually owning the software/CD/cassette/videotape/DVD legally instead of a pirated copy? In a lot of cases, the pirated copy is of lower quality, may contain Bad Things (like warez'd programs containing virii), etc.
Your case is full of holes anyway. While your hypothetical SO might die from not getting to the hospital in time necessitating the theft of a transport vehicle, there is no clear indicator that doing without a legitimate copy of a Britney Spears album will cause death. (Although listening to it might cause brain death.) People can, will, and have done without pirated digital media for years. A number of companies seeking to protect their own interests does not necessarily mean that they are violating your interests in doing so.
Kierthos
How does Fair Use apply? Does it let you copy one track from a CD for a friend? No. Let the friend borrow the CD and if they like it enough, they can buy their own. Does it apply to software? Most software agreements allow you one archive copy. If you're making multiple copies for your friends, then it's not Fair Use.
/. community needs to grow up and realize that it isn't personal. They are not doing this to put the screws to Anonymous Coward #816573 or anyone else. They are trying to solve what they perceive as a legitimate problem with their business model.
As for the CSS line, sorry, it doesn't wash. Most people, the vast majority in fact, don't have the equipment necessary to carry out the duplication of DVDs anyway. Yes, I hate the DVD country codes too, but pirating DVDs is not the answer.
And back to SDMI. Currently there's so many problems with it that it's more of a joke then anything else. Is it a problem? Not unless you feel the need to have umpteen backup copies of your favorite game (just in case your hard drive formats itself umpteen-1 times, I'm sure).
And as for the professional/amateur piracy dichotonomy, professional pirates are going to always find ways around things because that's how they make their money. But there are probably many more amatuer pirates dl'ing from warez sites or making custom CDs then counts for many of the professional's output. (Also, hardly a day goes by where a metric shitload of pirated stuff doesn't get grabbed by the police.)
So what if they're aimed at me and you.... am I supposed to be automatically paranoid because the "man" is somehow out to get me through SDMI, CSS, KFC, or whatever TLA/FLA comes along? Is it automatically a strike against the myth that information wants to be free? They're trying to make money and protect their interests. I'm not surprised by it, and what a shock, I'm not hurt by it either. IMAO, a large portion of the
Kierthos