"You only have to look at the sagging arms of most Americans to see they're not eating too much protein!"
We call those "Bus driver arms" in the South...since it seems that a prequisite to be a school bus driver is to have a saggy tricep that flaps in the wind like a pancake sized vulva...
I think you misread what McCarthy v. Arndstein actually holds concerning the application of the 5th Amendment to Civil proceedings... or actually you should elaborate more...
What McCarthy actually holds is not that the 5th Amendment applies to civil proceedings per se... only that it applies to those proceedings, civl or criminal, formal or informal, in which a witness's answers may tend to incriminate her in a future criminal trial... therefore, unless there is some potential criminal prosecution, highly doubtful in this case, that could result from testimony in a civil trial, then no, the 5th would not apply... a witness could "incriminate" themselves civilally as opposed to criminally but the 5th would not apply...
McCarthy itself was a bankruptcy case where the debtor, Arndstein, sas compelled to turn over material, such as accounting books, etc, so that the scope of his estate could be ascertained. He refused, asserting that some of the material turned over may be construed as evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The Supreme Court agreed and allowed him to plead the 5th, because at that time, he was compelled by bankruptcy law to turn over such materials but there were no provisions in bankruptcy law at that time that granted a debtor immunity from criminal liability for information contained in said materials...I believe that was later changed
In the SCO/IBM case, Wilson cannot plead the 5th, because, as far as I know, there is nothing in the contracts in question that would reveal any potential criminal liability
You don't think the U.S. government is accountable? It is... the people can vote those in power out... granted, this has not really happen in six years... and yes, Bush and Congress has not paid any political price yet for their mistakes and questionable policies... but that is the fault of the people. Our government is not like Saddam's old government or the old USSR..the people there could never hold their governments accountable for any actions... so, maybe 2006 will be the year of change... of accountability... if not, look in the mirror and at those people in the street (metaphorically speaking)... they chose not change the government.
Jail the CEOs for what? What statute did they violate? None of the news articles seem to be able to point to any action criminal statues that the corporations violated. Also, so what to the civil lawsuits? Again, there is a dearth of information concerning what cause of action any individual would have that would result in monetary damages... even for those journalist and others that claim such a program harmed them because they could not do their work properly, can they even demonstrate monetary damages beyond mere speculation?
Regardless how far a civil case may progress, even if there was some class action lawsuit seeking damages... Congress could remove any cause of action for such a suit, i.e. grant the telecoms immunity, through legislation. I for one don't see, besides getting the government to stop their illegal actions, the telecoms being liable for billions of dollars in any judgment for cooperating with the government...it just will not happen.
Wait a minute... Corporations or People cannot violate the Constitution... only laws that Congress passes... only the government can "violate" the Constitution...
wait, you say that the Constitution, the 13th Amendment, forbids people from owning slaves so that this applies to people...? Not exactly, to be able to own something, i.e. slaves, the ownership of property would have to be backed by the legal system, which is the government... if the government does not give legal effect to ownership in slaves, then one cannot own slaves... so in essence, the Constitution forbids the government from giving legal effect to actions people that would be contrary to the Constitution...
In the Telecom case, they themselves are not violating any Constitutional right to privacy... it is the government that is... what they may be violating is either some sort of contract right of privacy between their customers or a specific statute dealing with this issue... or something like that... of course, there is little information, besides the recent court decision that lays out the whole picture
The customers that signed into 18 month contracts are not screwed... If Echostar is not providing the service as the contract requires, then they are in breach and the customer can get out of the contract... of course, it all depends on what the contract says and I am sure there is some terms that deal with what happens if the/a service cannot be provided by Echostar that the customer is not bound then... Read the contract first...
Ah, yes, I probably should have been more precise in my explanation. I am unsure of what your contract says concerning your rights with your dvr and the software, so you and other customers may own the hardware outright. However, the service that is provided by Echostar (and i am speculating), besides software and firmware upgrades, is also the scheduling that allows one to easily record a certain program or a whole season of a program, etc... which is probably the same as what Tivo provides... now, if this service is halted, then, sure, you can still record stuff by pushing the record button when something is on...but you will be unable to use the scheduling or guide or whatever it is on Echostar to highlight any program and record it from there... just like with Tivo, without the functionality of the guide/schedule and ability to highlight/select and record and/or set "get season pass" and similar functions that rely on updated information from Tivo, then all I have is a dumb digital recorder that loses those functions that make it... attractively functional and useable and that is what gives such a product value
The iPod analogy is not relevant here, because the iPod does not rely on updates from apple for those functions that make it a useful and give the iPod value... it will still play songs and transfer songs from iTunes... of course, there would not be any more software updates if there was such an injunction... but for all intents and purposes, the iPod would continue to function...
As far as I know, there has not been an injunction that required a company to recall a product that was sold... they are put into place to stop an infringer from engaging in actions that continue to infringe, i.e. providing a service, manufacturing a produce, and/or selling a product... that is why the drug analogy is a poor comparison... now, if Echostar wants to and they probably should if they are not going to settle the case and get a license... they could offer refunds to their customers that bought the dvr boxes... else, there is nothing in law that would require them (or an infringing drug company) to recall their products...
Actually, the judgment is not so stupid but has a valid point. Echostar lost the trial and Tivo was awarded damages (we know this)... Echostar does not want to pay, for obvious reasons, and thinks it can either get the verdict overturned on appeal or perhaps get the patents invalidated, but in the meantime Echostar would like to still engage in patent infringement (remember, the jury found that Echostar was guilty)... As Patent law permits, Tivo filed an injuction to stop Echostar's patent infringement,which was reasonably granted... reasonably because Echostar could not convince the court to allow them to continue to infringe the patent while awaiting appeal, which could take years...
The injunction gives bite to the verdict... now Echostar has to either pay up what the verdict says...or work on a settlement agreement... of course, it still can and will appeal, but in the meantime, it cannot continue to infringe Tivo's patent... else, without an injuction option, a guilty verdict in any patent infringement trial would be meaningless if the infringer could continue to well, infringe...
neither the medicinal drug nor another poster's Wordperfect scenarios are pertinent analogies... medicine already ingested is obviously not the same as a service provided by a company... the drug company has no more rights in the sold drugs... if anything, an injunction would prohibit such an infringer from producing and selling any more drugs, but of course, whether a court would order an injunction against a drug company producing a drug, a court would consider other factors in that type of scenario, such as whether the drug is taken for life/health threatening reasons (a cancer drug vs. an erection drug)...and whether there are alternative sources for similar drugs (the actual patent holder produces the drug)...
remember, Echostar's dvr is a service...the customer does not own the dvr software, Echostar does... so the injuction prevents them from continuing their patent infringing service... customers may suffer (although, what do they really suffer? nothing life/health threatening, unless missing Laguna Beach or another retarded episode of The Hills would create mind crushing depression leading to a surge of bulemia among silly girls), but that is Echostar's fault, not Tivo's...
So, the judgment is not stupid...its a tool to enforce the verdict and stop a convicted infringer from continuing their illegal activity
enjoy! I think there is a similar l/p that works for the latimes.com but i am unsure about the nytimes.com. If anybody has any universal registration passwords for those "free" registration sites, please share.
Well, the Supreme Court actually did give guidelines in this case. The guidelines being essentially
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties"
The Court sent it back to the lower courts to settle issues of fact. The Supreme Court usually never settles issues of fact that is why some cases are sent back to lower courts. Usually with instructions/guidelines on the rule for the lower courts to apply to the facts...once those have been settled.
So in Grokster's case, for example, is its behavior falling within the stated guidelines? That is the question of fact that requires discovery and fact finding. That is the job of the lower courts.
Are just regurgitating what Bush loyalists and conservative pundits keep repeating? Just because they constantly repeat something does not mean it is true.
But really, when does changing one's mind later on indict one's trustworthiness.
Sure, if you are a Bush loyalist and hold to the mantra that Bush can do no wrong, then Clarke therefore must be untrustworthy and a liar. On the other hand, especially knowing what we know now about how the reasons for the Iraq war are a moving target of sound bites (its the WMDs, no, it is for Freedom!, no it is b/c Saddam helped with 9/11 and employs Bin Laden), and not to mention the 9/11 commission's report that did not paint a very pretty picture of the administration's handling of information leading up to 9/11...taking all that into consideration, Mr. Clarke is more than likely telling the truth in general
Granted, in a book hundreds of pages long, there will be some inconsistencies with some of the assertions made. But to completely label Mr. Clarke as untrustworthy is ridiculous, given that this man has been working for decades in DC and is no idiot.
Finally, given the Bush administations propensity for character assassination of anybody that disagrees with it, I would not be so quick to dismiss Mr. Clarke's assertions.
Bush and his underlings are not perfect. Contrary to what they may say, they have made mistakes. Just because they constantly repeat an untruth or half-truth does not make it necessarily true.
Just curious, you criticize CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC (and another person threw in the BBC for good measure) for reporting on the Iraq war, but you offer no cites or substantive reasons or backing as to why those media outlets are not reporting the truth.
Additionally, you left out Fox News and MSNBC. Are we to asusme that they are reporting only the "truth" and what is really happening over there, without bias?
Strange too how you leave out Sinclair broadcasting as well. They own many stations in many major markets, yet, they supposedly require or encourage the news reported on their outlets to be slanted in favor of all things Bush. Is this not an example of mis-leading reporting too?
And on another topic, as a Marine, do you think the US Military should be the World's Police force?
Umm, how about pointing out specific lies that Kerry has told? Please do not regurgitate what you hear on Fox news...and while you are at it, please explain how Bush has not "mislead" or better yet, make the argument that Bush has been completely honest with the american people.
Your sense of Kerry as a used car salesman is exactly the effect that Bush's Spin wants you to have...YOU, have been influenced without even knowing it.
You are probably right, there is not 10,000 pre-recorded songs out that any person could fill an iPod with...but, with my iPod, Half of the 30GBs is filled with Recorded music from the BBC's shows such as the Essential Selection, Judge Jules, etc...and 5 hour Hed Kandi sets from JazzFM 102...and lots of other live band or DJ sets, i.e. Essential Mixs...not to mention, recording large blocks of BBC radio 1 during the week to listen to in the car when I am on the road for long trips...so, I guess my point is that there probably are many, many people out there who do use 20GBs or more of their iPod or other MP3 players for music other than pre-recorded music and most of those people probably at most own a few hundred CDs...
So there is a huge market for people who will use the space for a variety of reasons other than just CDs
I am curious, what do most people put on their iPods or MP3s? What do they listen to the most?
Actually, I see the market for this as the Wal-Mart class. Blockbuster and other movie rental places better beware. This is perfect for Walmart in keeping with selling cheap shit that is not meant to last. Now, with these type DVD's Walmart can chip away at the Movie Rental market without ever needing to setup the infrastructure for movie returns, late fees, etc.
Walmart with its power will probably cut a deal with the studios to perhaps get a nice cut of the $3 fee. The Walmart class will gladly buy say 10 movies a week for 30 bucks when they are making their weekly Walmart visit to purchase that 5lb bag of Cheetohs and other household sundries in large volumes.
This way those customers will not have to visit Blockbuster to get the latest Olsen twin movie or Left Behind Series Movie...the Walmart class will only have to make one stop.
Walmart itself will be buying such huge volumes of these disposable DVD's that it will only be a matter of time before many of the pure Rental Stores go to the retail graveyard so many other businesses have gone when being crushed by the Walmart Juggernaut
So do not write these horrible throwaway DVDs quite yet. Unfortunately, the world is moving to a "pay-per-view" model where all content has an expiration date...the sad part of this inevitable travesty is that most people are too stupid to realize it. I even forsee some jackass VP with an MBA somewhere even suggesting that audio books be put on some similar expirable media that expires in say two weeks...so that then books will even be pay-per-view content as well
Finally, playing devil's advocate (or pessimist) to another poster who said that he Tivo's PPV movies, soon, with the Broadcast Copy flag (or whatever the hell it is called) Even recording of stuff off of the TV will be prevented...
Uh, what you say is not true and bad legal advice.
First, if directTV sued you in Federal Court and the Federal Court decided that you met the requirements for personal jurisdiction in that forum, then any judgment against you is automatically valid in any state and enforceable in any state.
Second, by the Full Faith and Credit Credit clause of our Constitution (see Art. IV) a state has to recognize a judgment reached in another state (this is for cases in state court, not federal). So again, if a state has jurisdiction over you and a judgment is entered against you in a civil case (or any case) then even if you move (hence, flee) to another state, that state has to recognize and enforce the judgment against you.
So, what you say is not entirely true and misleading. IF you choose to ignore a civil case against you that is in another state, you better make sure that state does not have jurisdiction over you. Once a default judgment is declared against you, then the only issue you can contest later on is jurisdiction, not the merits of the case.
For legal issues, always seek a attorney...better safe than sorry
You don't even have to publish it in a Journal...you could publish it in your Online Church newsletter and it would still be counted as published....
i.e. Our Lord Christ the Savior Virgin Mary Church of Obedience Newsletter,
May 5th, Wednesday night service at 6:30 pm May 9th, Bible Vacation school starts May 14th, sunrise breakfast
Please congratulate Brother Jeb for coming up with a process that uses a database that uses cookies on a congregate's website to make tithings through a remote payment system that remembers the congregate's information so future tithing can be done via a one-click process
May 21st, Movie night, Passion of the Christ May 28th, Friday night bookclub discussion, "The Da Vacini Code" fact or fiction?
As much as the DMCA irritates me, here is a few tidbits on it:
First, the DMCA is part of copyright law, section 512 to be exact
Second, the DMCA does not interfere with your fair use rights, you can still copy the song, theoretically. What the DMCA does prohibit is circumvention of a technological measure that controls access to the song...hence, the DRM. You may own the song (or DVD), but you are still prohibited from circumventing that measure. (there is that nasty other part of the DMCA that prevents trafficking in of any technology, device, etc...that would circumvent said technological measure)
Technically, if by contract, the seller of the song, whats to prevent you from reselling it, they could, if they show you assented to some licensing contract (Federal Copyright Law does not necessary pre-empt state contract law in the area of copyrights, as long as there is some extra element involved in the contract beyond what copyright covers, i.e. breach of contract)...as long as the seller can show you consented to a contract, you are bound...this is where nasty shrinkwrap or clickwrap contracts come into play
The DMCA does not take away your fair use "rights" but merely makes them a hell of a lot harder to exercise...you can still copy that song by say, putting a tape recorder by the speaker...but you cannot break or strip the DRM away, as that would count as circumvention and hence is prohibited
All of the court cases involving the DMCA do not put forth the proposition that it overrides fair use rights, they are still there. It just makes it harder to exercise them
The DMCA is a nefarious piece of work...very frustrating in that it is well written to make it extremely hard for consumers to do things that were a lot easier before the DMCA and DRM
It cost the radio 8 Cents everytime they play the song...would you rather pay 8 Cents yourself to listen to each song on your CD everytime you want to listen to it instead of just paying one price of the CD and then get unlimited listens?
Actually, I disagree on the "no competent advisors" remark. Bush has very many "competent" advisors, it is just that Bush only sees issues in Black & White...good or evil......
His current advisors are all highly intelligent people that give him their side of their ideology...it is up to Bush to process this advice and come out with a sensible policy...it is his "processing" that fails, b/c he cannot grasp that there is nuance or subtlety involved in making policy
taking on the Taliban and Bin Laden was an easy decision in that it was a black & white decision...after 9/11, Bush had a mandate for action that no other president, besides maybe FDR, ever had. It was so to speak, an "easy" decision to make
Iraq was a different story...he thought he had a mandate and here is where he put the advice of some advisors (Read: Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfitz) over others (Powell...his father) and created a black & white situation where none existed...and hence, put himself and the US in a situation that belies his lack of understanding of the nuance of foreign policy
And this thought process of Bush translates into everything else the administration touches...hence, this current cybercrime treaty...where he probably has competent advisors telling him that it is bad, but in his, "good v. evil" world, he only sees one side and therefore, ignores what he does not what to hear and does not understand
You make an unsubstantiated claim that the PTO "seems" to grant a lot of patents that it probably should not (to be fair, there seems to be a lot of slashdotters preaching the same thing, so you are not alone) But just because you and others do not agree with a patent does not make the patent invalid
But what you claim is more anecdotal that the norm. Barring business method patents, which is something new to the PTO and sure, there will be some kinks to be worked out...there are relatively very, very few "bad" patents that are actually granted percentage wise.
The only reason it may appear that there are a lot of patents granted that should not be is because there is a lot of noise made on slashdot everytime there is a patent issue...but in reality, how many allegedly bad patents have been discussed on the site for say all of last year? 5 maybe? 10?
Granted, there probably are patents which should not be granted...or maybe there is actually some validity for such patents being granted, i.e. the technology behind 1-click shopping perhaps..regardless, the patent examiners are human and statistically will make mistakes. That is a given. Especially when there are new technological areas that patents are being sought.
But ultimately, I do not buy into this "going to hell in a hand basket" attitude so persvasive on slashdot in regard to the PTO and patents in general. For whatever allegedly bad patents that have been granted, they have not retarded or hampered the advance of technology, the internet, or related businesses.
The last thing needed is any Congressional tinkering. The PTO and patents in general are not broken...granted, it may need some improvements. So let's not indict the whole PTO for a few patents that "seem" to be "bad"
Why not take the waste and send it hurling toward the sun? I understand that there are probably issues with a possible shuttle or whatever type of space vehicle we have crashing before getting out of the earth's atmoshpere...but, if sending waste into space was safe, would other issues would there be? Let's get the waste off of Earth...if it is feasible
So it would be ok to make a copy of the CD and give it away with the copied cover?
If you are downloading music that is copyrighted off the internet for "free" and without permission of the copyright owner, you are making an illegal copy, getting something you did not pay for, and reducing the market for legitimate copies of said music...
so in essence, there is no difference from using the IP from a source for your own benefit and selling it to make money for yourself....YOU are still benefiting in both instances
What is even more absurd in this lawyer v Doctor discussion, is that when a complaint is filed against a lawyer for malpractice or a lawyer is reprimanded, this is public information available from the state bar association of the state the lawyer is licensed to practice in...
And, ever notice that when you need a doctor, you say "get me a doctor"...but when you are up shit creek with the legal system, you say " I need a good lawyer"...hmmm...nobody ever says get me a good doctor
Slashdot Mirror
"You only have to look at the sagging arms of most Americans to see they're not eating too much protein!"
We call those "Bus driver arms" in the South...since it seems that a prequisite to be a school bus driver is to have a saggy tricep that flaps in the wind like a pancake sized vulva...
I think you misread what McCarthy v. Arndstein actually holds concerning the application of the 5th Amendment to Civil proceedings... or actually you should elaborate more...
What McCarthy actually holds is not that the 5th Amendment applies to civil proceedings per se... only that it applies to those proceedings, civl or criminal, formal or informal, in which a witness's answers may tend to incriminate her in a future criminal trial... therefore, unless there is some potential criminal prosecution, highly doubtful in this case, that could result from testimony in a civil trial, then no, the 5th would not apply... a witness could "incriminate" themselves civilally as opposed to criminally but the 5th would not apply...
McCarthy itself was a bankruptcy case where the debtor, Arndstein, sas compelled to turn over material, such as accounting books, etc, so that the scope of his estate could be ascertained. He refused, asserting that some of the material turned over may be construed as evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The Supreme Court agreed and allowed him to plead the 5th, because at that time, he was compelled by bankruptcy law to turn over such materials but there were no provisions in bankruptcy law at that time that granted a debtor immunity from criminal liability for information contained in said materials...I believe that was later changed
In the SCO/IBM case, Wilson cannot plead the 5th, because, as far as I know, there is nothing in the contracts in question that would reveal any potential criminal liability
You don't think the U.S. government is accountable? It is... the people can vote those in power out... granted, this has not really happen in six years... and yes, Bush and Congress has not paid any political price yet for their mistakes and questionable policies... but that is the fault of the people. Our government is not like Saddam's old government or the old USSR..the people there could never hold their governments accountable for any actions... so, maybe 2006 will be the year of change... of accountability... if not, look in the mirror and at those people in the street (metaphorically speaking)... they chose not change the government.
Jail the CEOs for what? What statute did they violate? None of the news articles seem to be able to point to any action criminal statues that the corporations violated. Also, so what to the civil lawsuits? Again, there is a dearth of information concerning what cause of action any individual would have that would result in monetary damages... even for those journalist and others that claim such a program harmed them because they could not do their work properly, can they even demonstrate monetary damages beyond mere speculation?
Regardless how far a civil case may progress, even if there was some class action lawsuit seeking damages... Congress could remove any cause of action for such a suit, i.e. grant the telecoms immunity, through legislation. I for one don't see, besides getting the government to stop their illegal actions, the telecoms being liable for billions of dollars in any judgment for cooperating with the government...it just will not happen.
Wait a minute... Corporations or People cannot violate the Constitution... only laws that Congress passes... only the government can "violate" the Constitution...
wait, you say that the Constitution, the 13th Amendment, forbids people from owning slaves so that this applies to people...? Not exactly, to be able to own something, i.e. slaves, the ownership of property would have to be backed by the legal system, which is the government... if the government does not give legal effect to ownership in slaves, then one cannot own slaves... so in essence, the Constitution forbids the government from giving legal effect to actions people that would be contrary to the Constitution...
In the Telecom case, they themselves are not violating any Constitutional right to privacy... it is the government that is... what they may be violating is either some sort of contract right of privacy between their customers or a specific statute dealing with this issue... or something like that... of course, there is little information, besides the recent court decision that lays out the whole picture
The customers that signed into 18 month contracts are not screwed... If Echostar is not providing the service as the contract requires, then they are in breach and the customer can get out of the contract... of course, it all depends on what the contract says and I am sure there is some terms that deal with what happens if the/a service cannot be provided by Echostar that the customer is not bound then... Read the contract first...
Ah, yes, I probably should have been more precise in my explanation. I am unsure of what your contract says concerning your rights with your dvr and the software, so you and other customers may own the hardware outright. However, the service that is provided by Echostar (and i am speculating), besides software and firmware upgrades, is also the scheduling that allows one to easily record a certain program or a whole season of a program, etc... which is probably the same as what Tivo provides... now, if this service is halted, then, sure, you can still record stuff by pushing the record button when something is on...but you will be unable to use the scheduling or guide or whatever it is on Echostar to highlight any program and record it from there... just like with Tivo, without the functionality of the guide/schedule and ability to highlight/select and record and/or set "get season pass" and similar functions that rely on updated information from Tivo, then all I have is a dumb digital recorder that loses those functions that make it ... attractively functional and useable and that is what gives such a product value
The iPod analogy is not relevant here, because the iPod does not rely on updates from apple for those functions that make it a useful and give the iPod value... it will still play songs and transfer songs from iTunes... of course, there would not be any more software updates if there was such an injunction... but for all intents and purposes, the iPod would continue to function...
As far as I know, there has not been an injunction that required a company to recall a product that was sold... they are put into place to stop an infringer from engaging in actions that continue to infringe, i.e. providing a service, manufacturing a produce, and/or selling a product... that is why the drug analogy is a poor comparison... now, if Echostar wants to and they probably should if they are not going to settle the case and get a license... they could offer refunds to their customers that bought the dvr boxes... else, there is nothing in law that would require them (or an infringing drug company) to recall their products...
Actually, the judgment is not so stupid but has a valid point. Echostar lost the trial and Tivo was awarded damages (we know this)... Echostar does not want to pay, for obvious reasons, and thinks it can either get the verdict overturned on appeal or perhaps get the patents invalidated, but in the meantime Echostar would like to still engage in patent infringement (remember, the jury found that Echostar was guilty)... As Patent law permits, Tivo filed an injuction to stop Echostar's patent infringement,which was reasonably granted... reasonably because Echostar could not convince the court to allow them to continue to infringe the patent while awaiting appeal, which could take years...
The injunction gives bite to the verdict... now Echostar has to either pay up what the verdict says...or work on a settlement agreement... of course, it still can and will appeal, but in the meantime, it cannot continue to infringe Tivo's patent... else, without an injuction option, a guilty verdict in any patent infringement trial would be meaningless if the infringer could continue to well, infringe...
neither the medicinal drug nor another poster's Wordperfect scenarios are pertinent analogies... medicine already ingested is obviously not the same as a service provided by a company... the drug company has no more rights in the sold drugs... if anything, an injunction would prohibit such an infringer from producing and selling any more drugs, but of course, whether a court would order an injunction against a drug company producing a drug, a court would consider other factors in that type of scenario, such as whether the drug is taken for life/health threatening reasons (a cancer drug vs. an erection drug)...and whether there are alternative sources for similar drugs (the actual patent holder produces the drug)...
remember, Echostar's dvr is a service...the customer does not own the dvr software, Echostar does... so the injuction prevents them from continuing their patent infringing service... customers may suffer (although, what do they really suffer? nothing life/health threatening, unless missing Laguna Beach or another retarded episode of The Hills would create mind crushing depression leading to a surge of bulemia among silly girls), but that is Echostar's fault, not Tivo's...
So, the judgment is not stupid...its a tool to enforce the verdict and stop a convicted infringer from continuing their illegal activity
Washington Post registration for all to use
l/p freethepresses@hotmail.com/freethepresses
enjoy! I think there is a similar l/p that works for the latimes.com but i am unsure about the nytimes.com. If anybody has any universal registration passwords for those "free" registration sites, please share.
cheers
Well, the Supreme Court actually did give guidelines in this case. The guidelines being essentially
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties"
The Court sent it back to the lower courts to settle issues of fact. The Supreme Court usually never settles issues of fact that is why some cases are sent back to lower courts. Usually with instructions/guidelines on the rule for the lower courts to apply to the facts...once those have been settled.
So in Grokster's case, for example, is its behavior falling within the stated guidelines? That is the question of fact that requires discovery and fact finding. That is the job of the lower courts.
Are just regurgitating what Bush loyalists and conservative pundits keep repeating? Just because they constantly repeat something does not mean it is true.
But really, when does changing one's mind later on indict one's trustworthiness.
Sure, if you are a Bush loyalist and hold to the mantra that Bush can do no wrong, then Clarke therefore must be untrustworthy and a liar. On the other hand, especially knowing what we know now about how the reasons for the Iraq war are a moving target of sound bites (its the WMDs, no, it is for Freedom!, no it is b/c Saddam helped with 9/11 and employs Bin Laden), and not to mention the 9/11 commission's report that did not paint a very pretty picture of the administration's handling of information leading up to 9/11...taking all that into consideration, Mr. Clarke is more than likely telling the truth in general
Granted, in a book hundreds of pages long, there will be some inconsistencies with some of the assertions made. But to completely label Mr. Clarke as untrustworthy is ridiculous, given that this man has been working for decades in DC and is no idiot.
Finally, given the Bush administations propensity for character assassination of anybody that disagrees with it, I would not be so quick to dismiss Mr. Clarke's assertions.
Bush and his underlings are not perfect. Contrary to what they may say, they have made mistakes. Just because they constantly repeat an untruth or half-truth does not make it necessarily true.
Just curious, you criticize CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC (and another person threw in the BBC for good measure) for reporting on the Iraq war, but you offer no cites or substantive reasons or backing as to why those media outlets are not reporting the truth.
Additionally, you left out Fox News and MSNBC. Are we to asusme that they are reporting only the "truth" and what is really happening over there, without bias?
Strange too how you leave out Sinclair broadcasting as well. They own many stations in many major markets, yet, they supposedly require or encourage the news reported on their outlets to be slanted in favor of all things Bush. Is this not an example of mis-leading reporting too?
And on another topic, as a Marine, do you think the US Military should be the World's Police force?
Umm, how about pointing out specific lies that Kerry has told? Please do not regurgitate what you hear on Fox news...and while you are at it, please explain how Bush has not "mislead" or better yet, make the argument that Bush has been completely honest with the american people.
Your sense of Kerry as a used car salesman is exactly the effect that Bush's Spin wants you to have...YOU, have been influenced without even knowing it.
You are probably right, there is not 10,000 pre-recorded songs out that any person could fill an iPod with...but, with my iPod, Half of the 30GBs is filled with Recorded music from the BBC's shows such as the Essential Selection, Judge Jules, etc...and 5 hour Hed Kandi sets from JazzFM 102...and lots of other live band or DJ sets, i.e. Essential Mixs...not to mention, recording large blocks of BBC radio 1 during the week to listen to in the car when I am on the road for long trips...so, I guess my point is that there probably are many, many people out there who do use 20GBs or more of their iPod or other MP3 players for music other than pre-recorded music and most of those people probably at most own a few hundred CDs...
So there is a huge market for people who will use the space for a variety of reasons other than just CDs
I am curious, what do most people put on their iPods or MP3s? What do they listen to the most?
Actually, I see the market for this as the Wal-Mart class. Blockbuster and other movie rental places better beware. This is perfect for Walmart in keeping with selling cheap shit that is not meant to last. Now, with these type DVD's Walmart can chip away at the Movie Rental market without ever needing to setup the infrastructure for movie returns, late fees, etc.
Walmart with its power will probably cut a deal with the studios to perhaps get a nice cut of the $3 fee. The Walmart class will gladly buy say 10 movies a week for 30 bucks when they are making their weekly Walmart visit to purchase that 5lb bag of Cheetohs and other household sundries in large volumes.
This way those customers will not have to visit Blockbuster to get the latest Olsen twin movie or Left Behind Series Movie...the Walmart class will only have to make one stop.
Walmart itself will be buying such huge volumes of these disposable DVD's that it will only be a matter of time before many of the pure Rental Stores go to the retail graveyard so many other businesses have gone when being crushed by the Walmart Juggernaut
So do not write these horrible throwaway DVDs quite yet. Unfortunately, the world is moving to a "pay-per-view" model where all content has an expiration date...the sad part of this inevitable travesty is that most people are too stupid to realize it. I even forsee some jackass VP with an MBA somewhere even suggesting that audio books be put on some similar expirable media that expires in say two weeks...so that then books will even be pay-per-view content as well
Finally, playing devil's advocate (or pessimist) to another poster who said that he Tivo's PPV movies, soon, with the Broadcast Copy flag (or whatever the hell it is called) Even recording of stuff off of the TV will be prevented...
Uh, what you say is not true and bad legal advice.
First, if directTV sued you in Federal Court and the Federal Court decided that you met the requirements for personal jurisdiction in that forum, then any judgment against you is automatically valid in any state and enforceable in any state.
Second, by the Full Faith and Credit Credit clause of our Constitution (see Art. IV) a state has to recognize a judgment reached in another state (this is for cases in state court, not federal). So again, if a state has jurisdiction over you and a judgment is entered against you in a civil case (or any case) then even if you move (hence, flee) to another state, that state has to recognize and enforce the judgment against you.
So, what you say is not entirely true and misleading. IF you choose to ignore a civil case against you that is in another state, you better make sure that state does not have jurisdiction over you. Once a default judgment is declared against you, then the only issue you can contest later on is jurisdiction, not the merits of the case.
For legal issues, always seek a attorney...better safe than sorry
You don't even have to publish it in a Journal...you could publish it in your Online Church newsletter and it would still be counted as published....
i.e.
Our Lord Christ the Savior Virgin Mary Church of Obedience Newsletter,
May 5th, Wednesday night service at 6:30 pm
May 9th, Bible Vacation school starts
May 14th, sunrise breakfast
Please congratulate Brother Jeb for coming up with a process that uses a database that uses cookies on a congregate's website to make tithings through a remote payment system that remembers the congregate's information so future tithing can be done via a one-click process
May 21st, Movie night, Passion of the Christ
May 28th, Friday night bookclub discussion, "The Da Vacini Code" fact or fiction?
This would count as publication
As much as the DMCA irritates me, here is a few tidbits on it:
First, the DMCA is part of copyright law, section 512 to be exact
Second, the DMCA does not interfere with your fair use rights, you can still copy the song, theoretically. What the DMCA does prohibit is circumvention of a technological measure that controls access to the song...hence, the DRM. You may own the song (or DVD), but you are still prohibited from circumventing that measure. (there is that nasty other part of the DMCA that prevents trafficking in of any technology, device, etc...that would circumvent said technological measure)
Technically, if by contract, the seller of the song, whats to prevent you from reselling it, they could, if they show you assented to some licensing contract (Federal Copyright Law does not necessary pre-empt state contract law in the area of copyrights, as long as there is some extra element involved in the contract beyond what copyright covers, i.e. breach of contract)...as long as the seller can show you consented to a contract, you are bound...this is where nasty shrinkwrap or clickwrap contracts come into play
The DMCA does not take away your fair use "rights" but merely makes them a hell of a lot harder to exercise...you can still copy that song by say, putting a tape recorder by the speaker...but you cannot break or strip the DRM away, as that would count as circumvention and hence is prohibited
All of the court cases involving the DMCA do not put forth the proposition that it overrides fair use rights, they are still there. It just makes it harder to exercise them
The DMCA is a nefarious piece of work...very frustrating in that it is well written to make it extremely hard for consumers to do things that were a lot easier before the DMCA and DRM
It cost the radio 8 Cents everytime they play the song...would you rather pay 8 Cents yourself to listen to each song on your CD everytime you want to listen to it instead of just paying one price of the CD and then get unlimited listens?
Actually, I disagree on the "no competent advisors" remark. Bush has very many "competent" advisors, it is just that Bush only sees issues in Black & White...good or evil......
His current advisors are all highly intelligent people that give him their side of their ideology...it is up to Bush to process this advice and come out with a sensible policy...it is his "processing" that fails, b/c he cannot grasp that there is nuance or subtlety involved in making policy
taking on the Taliban and Bin Laden was an easy decision in that it was a black & white decision...after 9/11, Bush had a mandate for action that no other president, besides maybe FDR, ever had. It was so to speak, an "easy" decision to make
Iraq was a different story...he thought he had a mandate and here is where he put the advice of some advisors (Read: Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfitz) over others (Powell...his father) and created a black & white situation where none existed...and hence, put himself and the US in a situation that belies his lack of understanding of the nuance of foreign policy
And this thought process of Bush translates into everything else the administration touches...hence, this current cybercrime treaty...where he probably has competent advisors telling him that it is bad, but in his, "good v. evil" world, he only sees one side and therefore, ignores what he does not what to hear and does not understand
You make an unsubstantiated claim that the PTO "seems" to grant a lot of patents that it probably should not (to be fair, there seems to be a lot of slashdotters preaching the same thing, so you are not alone) But just because you and others do not agree with a patent does not make the patent invalid
But what you claim is more anecdotal that the norm. Barring business method patents, which is something new to the PTO and sure, there will be some kinks to be worked out...there are relatively very, very few "bad" patents that are actually granted percentage wise.
The only reason it may appear that there are a lot of patents granted that should not be is because there is a lot of noise made on slashdot everytime there is a patent issue...but in reality, how many allegedly bad patents have been discussed on the site for say all of last year? 5 maybe? 10?
Granted, there probably are patents which should not be granted...or maybe there is actually some validity for such patents being granted, i.e. the technology behind 1-click shopping perhaps..regardless, the patent examiners are human and statistically will make mistakes. That is a given. Especially when there are new technological areas that patents are being sought.
But ultimately, I do not buy into this "going to hell in a hand basket" attitude so persvasive on slashdot in regard to the PTO and patents in general. For whatever allegedly bad patents that have been granted, they have not retarded or hampered the advance of technology, the internet, or related businesses.
The last thing needed is any Congressional tinkering. The PTO and patents in general are not broken...granted, it may need some improvements. So let's not indict the whole PTO for a few patents that "seem" to be "bad"
Why not take the waste and send it hurling toward the sun? I understand that there are probably issues with a possible shuttle or whatever type of space vehicle we have crashing before getting out of the earth's atmoshpere...but, if sending waste into space was safe, would other issues would there be? Let's get the waste off of Earth...if it is feasible
So it would be ok to make a copy of the CD and give it away with the copied cover?
If you are downloading music that is copyrighted off the internet for "free" and without permission of the copyright owner, you are making an illegal copy, getting something you did not pay for, and reducing the market for legitimate copies of said music...
so in essence, there is no difference from using the IP from a source for your own benefit and selling it to make money for yourself....YOU are still benefiting in both instances
What is even more absurd in this lawyer v Doctor discussion, is that when a complaint is filed against a lawyer for malpractice or a lawyer is reprimanded, this is public information available from the state bar association of the state the lawyer is licensed to practice in...
And, ever notice that when you need a doctor, you say "get me a doctor"...but when you are up shit creek with the legal system, you say " I need a good lawyer"...hmmm...nobody ever says get me a good doctor
When do the Macrovision, CSS, and Dolby Digital audio patents run out? What are the implications once they do? Any thoughts on this?