Seriously, We don't play American Football in Jamaica so I'm a little Hazy as to what 4,244 sq mi (10,991 sq km) translates to in more standard SlashDot measurements.
He said that encryption keys can be "testimonial," and even the prosecution's alternative of asking the defendant to type in the passphrase when nobody was looking would be insufficient.
Umm...If nobody was -really- looking dood, "Format C:"
"Because the question isn't whether the recipient's authorized to receive the copy, it's whether the distributor's authorized to make the copy."
But the "distributor" (in your parlance) isn't mak-ING the copy. MediaSentry is. MediaSentry initiated the request for transfer and the stream of information (otherwise known as packets, all of which are insignificant, unintelligible fragments of the work in question) that is recieved by MediaSentry, a party authorized to make copies, is THEN assembled into a "copy" at MediaSentry's end.
Once again, the question is "How is this 'authorized' copy 'evidence' of 'Unauthorized Distribution'?" when the alleged distributor did not make the copy?
"Making Available" is "Unauthorized Distribution", not "Unauthorized Duplication", under copyright law in the warped universe that the RIAA inhabits.
The question is...If MediaSentry is LICENSED to make duplicates of RIAA governed works, and MediaSentry's actions are the only explicit actions in these alleged acts of "Distribution", how can these transactionS be "unauthorized" if the only party initiating the file transfer is authorized to make the copies in the first place?
--Validity of Plaintiffs' Copyright Infringement Claim-- "Without actual distribution copies . . . there is no violation distribution right." --William F. Patry, Patry Copyright, 2007.25
I assume that MediaSentry has some sort of signed agreement or license that gives the copies that they make in the course of thier "investigations-ha-ha-ha" the status of "authorized duplications". Without such a license or assignment of duplication rights, MediaSentry would be guilty of infringement themselves, would they not?
If said licenses or assignments do in fact exist, why can the "evidence" of the download transaction (a copy being made) be termed an act of "Unauthorized Distribution" if the party actively making the copy is explicitly "authorized" to make said copies?
It also raises the spectre, on a pay per infringement basis, that all the RIAA then has to do is write a script that downloads each file 10,000 times and they now go for $1 x 3 x 10,000 proven copies you made available for $30,000. In some ways, a fixed $750 or whatever the number may be, saves us from an even more abusable system.
. .
I have wondered a few times now if the RIAA's home invasion arm, MediaSentry, has negotiated and has on paper, some form of license granted by the RIAA to prevent themselves from being guilty of infringement during the course of thier "investigations" (ha, ha, ha).
If MediaSentry does in fact fact posses such a license, would that not mean that anything downloaded by MediaSentry would, in fact, be an "Authorized Duplication" and not an instance of infringement?
Essentially, if MediaSentry can only make Authorized copies, where is the evidence of infringement? They can only see the authorized copies that they, themselves make. They can't see the unauthorized copies of others, even if such copies are, in fact, made.
I'd really like to see NewYorkCountryLawyer comment on this.
...um, any ideas out there on how to get the RIAA and Scientology to start filing lawsuits against each other??
If they're both going to pollute the planet with their litigious nonsense and racketeering, we should at least be getting some entertainment value out of it all.
Rank and file incompetence and/or mismanagement in any Governmental agency is unacceptable. Due to the inherent difficulties in managing large numbers of people, which helps creates this kind of misaction and waste, it is in everyone's interest to reduce the size of the Federal Government.
The Phone Companies are well within their legal rights and have (in this instance) done nothing unethical.
Establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility and providing for the common defence costs money which can only be collected via taxation. Citizens who dislike *HOW* they are taxed, are free to form associations and political parties and effect change via the legislative process.
...is execute according to the terms and conditions of his contract with AT&T.
Now there's a document that is just screaming to be leaked!
And yes, I own two iPhones operating on t-Mobile's network and AT&T can take their lying-n-spying asses and go straight to hell. ....Umm, did that sound too harsh?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, We don't play American Football in Jamaica so I'm a little Hazy as to what 4,244 sq mi (10,991 sq km) translates to in more standard SlashDot measurements.
A more "standard" SlashDot measurement???
What is the area of a typical parental basement?
The vacuum between that girl's ears must be vastly superior to the LHC's.
She must be studied.
Repeatedly.
Yet another bad idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.
Why not add in a DivX player too while you're at it?
Now...if the $300 bought me a built in open source DVR and the Netflix gateway was included, I'd be interested.
He said that encryption keys can be "testimonial," and even the prosecution's alternative of asking the defendant to type in the passphrase when nobody was looking would be insufficient.
Umm...If nobody was -really- looking dood, "Format C:"
Too bad there's no data wipe param.
Wake me when this happens.
[Snoring Begins]
Whew!
I was really sweating that Idiot choice.
Thanks. Keep up the good fight.
1) I, GeneralEmergency, am a complete idiot and am not worth responding to.
2) I, GeneralEmergency, am a genius.
3) NewYorkCountyLawyer is a very slow typist.
4) NewYorkCountyLawyer has court in the morning and it's beddie-bye time in New York.
"Because the question isn't whether the recipient's authorized to receive the copy, it's whether the distributor's authorized to make the copy."
But the "distributor" (in your parlance) isn't mak-ING the copy. MediaSentry is. MediaSentry initiated the request for transfer and the stream of information (otherwise known as packets, all of which are insignificant, unintelligible fragments of the work in question) that is recieved by MediaSentry, a party authorized to make copies, is THEN assembled into a "copy" at MediaSentry's end.
Once again, the question is "How is this 'authorized' copy 'evidence' of 'Unauthorized Distribution'?" when the alleged distributor did not make the copy?
Yes. I know.
"Making Available" is "Unauthorized Distribution", not "Unauthorized Duplication", under copyright law in the warped universe that the RIAA inhabits.
The question is...If MediaSentry is LICENSED to make duplicates of RIAA governed works, and MediaSentry's actions are the only explicit actions in these alleged acts of "Distribution", how can these transactionS be "unauthorized" if the only party initiating the file transfer is authorized to make the copies in the first place?
--Validity of Plaintiffs' Copyright Infringement Claim--
"Without actual distribution copies . . . there is no violation distribution right."
--William F. Patry, Patry Copyright, 2007.25
I assume that MediaSentry has some sort of signed agreement or license that gives the copies that they make in the course of thier "investigations-ha-ha-ha" the status of "authorized duplications". Without such a license or assignment of duplication rights, MediaSentry would be guilty of infringement themselves, would they not?
If said licenses or assignments do in fact exist, why can the "evidence" of the download transaction (a copy being made) be termed an act of "Unauthorized Distribution" if the party actively making the copy is explicitly "authorized" to make said copies?
I have wondered a few times now if the RIAA's home invasion arm, MediaSentry, has negotiated and has on paper, some form of license granted by the RIAA to prevent themselves from being guilty of infringement during the course of thier "investigations" (ha, ha, ha).
If MediaSentry does in fact fact posses such a license, would that not mean that anything downloaded by MediaSentry would, in fact, be an "Authorized Duplication" and not an instance of infringement?
Essentially, if MediaSentry can only make Authorized copies, where is the evidence of infringement? They can only see the authorized copies that they, themselves make. They can't see the unauthorized copies of others, even if such copies are, in fact, made.
I'd really like to see NewYorkCountryLawyer comment on this.
You win.
Yours was longer.
Uhhhh, on second thought...nevermind.
I heard a rumor that oil speculators were moving money into XP Home retail box.
Too late. I got mine on Saturday.
And two years from now, if they wont activate, boy 'o boy is Balmer going to get a good chair-throwing!
But I bet it was suggested repeatedly.
"Lighten up, Francis."
If they're both going to pollute the planet with their litigious nonsense and racketeering, we should at least be getting some entertainment value out of it all.
Not too many folks could pen such an offer with out tossing in the phrase "tail between your legs" somewhere.
As a secular conservative...
Rank and file incompetence and/or mismanagement in any Governmental agency is unacceptable. Due to the inherent difficulties in managing large numbers of people, which helps creates this kind of misaction and waste, it is in everyone's interest to reduce the size of the Federal Government.
The Phone Companies are well within their legal rights and have (in this instance) done nothing unethical.
Establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility and providing for the common defence costs money which can only be collected via taxation. Citizens who dislike *HOW* they are taxed, are free to form associations and political parties and effect change via the legislative process.
Not what you wanted to hear??
OK. Feel free to keep whining like a teenager.
...I can read one of these stories and think,
"Microsoft?? Are they *still* in business?"
Oh well. One can dream.
Babies with three heads and killer diaper rash.
I learned this on the Discovery Channel.
 :
One Word:
Crapflood.
Now there's a document that is just screaming to be leaked!
And yes, I own two iPhones operating on t-Mobile's network and AT&T can take their lying-n-spying asses and go straight to hell.