That's a straw man. I would only find it hard to argue with people who think that murder is OK because such people cannot be found.
Let's refrain from such flimsy arguments.
My position that no person should be compelled by law to have anything in his or her body if she doesn't want it there, even if that thing is another human being.
But does their suggestion imply anything other than they were paid for the endorsement? Are they liable under Google's ToS for any damages if the app turns out to be nothing but a fraud scheme?
That's not necessarily true. Let's say you created an account just to hold your infringing copies of movies. You might (if you're not smart) give person X your account name and password so he can share your files. Now he may think he has nothing to lose by sharing your login info with the world and letting hundreds or thousands of people download it. The government doesn't want that to happen, clearly. The government is probably going to be blaming all this on the account holder and charging you with making all those unauthorized copies.
But if I can think of this, you bet the MPAA has already suggested this possibility to the DoJ and is ready to sue everybody in sight the minute there's a hint that it might happen.
The fact that suspect data is intermixed with legal data is not the DoJ's doing. What would you propose? Should they just monitor who downloads what and prosecute those who downloaded the data that they allege is infringing copyrights?
The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it.
The DoJ can't legally delete the non-infringing files. As long as the servers are in their possession, they really can't do anything with them except copy them or return them to their owners, and I don't know if copies of the files on the servers would be admissible in court. If they want to use the data on the servers as evidence in their trial, they may have to hold on to the servers they originally seized. But nothing prevents them from copying the files on the servers and returning those files to Carpathia.
But that's not what Carpathia would want. To them, a lot of the value is in the hardware. They would want the original hardware back with files intact and that's not going to happen anytime soon unless either DoJ dismisses the case or MegaUpload pleads guilty. And the value of the hardware and stored files could decay to near nothing by the time a criminal case could make it through the courts. And should they get a conviction and MegaUpload appeals you can cut that almost nothing to actually nothing.
I don't see how they are going to work this out in a way that doesn't maximally screw over non-infringing users.
But why does a US court think it has jurisdiction to order Motorola to do or not do anything in Germany? I don't understand the legal basis for their claiming to have any jurisdiction over what Motorola does or doesn't do in Germany.
I know you made a joke, but this right here is why believing in intelligent design and evolution etc are not necessarily incompatible with each other.
They're not necessarily incompatible, but here's the thing: We know evolution is happening right now and has been happening since the first living thing existed because random mutation and natural selection of advantageous variants is an unavoidable consequence of living things reproducing or in fact anything reproducing.
We have no evidence that intelligent design is happening or ever happened.
The theory that explains everything by random mutation and natural selection is elegant and sufficient. Occam's Razor says we shouldn't elaborate it with extraneous entities like gods or super-intelligent beings interfering in the process.
Would you rather the lawyers use private authority to stop what you already agree is a bad acting company? How would you have the situation resolved? Wait till people are actively harmed? How much restitution do you expected from that?
Nice try accusing the judge though. Without evidence that's less credible on your part.
I'd rather have a lawyer who was more concerned with my best interest than in dragging a case out for 5 years and milking it for every billable dime possible.
In other words, how much they milked this case for, with the plaintiffs getting mostly delay.
I bet the defendants offered to settle the case and pay the plaintiffs a lot more than $175 each just to stop the bloodletting that the plaintiffs' lawyers were giving them, and the plaintiffs' lawyers ignored their clients' best interest because if they dragged the case out another few months they could bill another hundred thousand.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a straw man. I would only find it hard to argue with people who think that murder is OK because such people cannot be found.
Let's refrain from such flimsy arguments.
My position that no person should be compelled by law to have anything in his or her body if she doesn't want it there, even if that thing is another human being.
Not even for a little while.
Where is their incentive?
But does their suggestion imply anything other than they were paid for the endorsement? Are they liable under Google's ToS for any damages if the app turns out to be nothing but a fraud scheme?
Are all of the files on the servers MegaUpload's?
That's not necessarily true. Let's say you created an account just to hold your infringing copies of movies. You might (if you're not smart) give person X your account name and password so he can share your files. Now he may think he has nothing to lose by sharing your login info with the world and letting hundreds or thousands of people download it. The government doesn't want that to happen, clearly. The government is probably going to be blaming all this on the account holder and charging you with making all those unauthorized copies.
But if I can think of this, you bet the MPAA has already suggested this possibility to the DoJ and is ready to sue everybody in sight the minute there's a hint that it might happen.
The fact that suspect data is intermixed with legal data is not the DoJ's doing. What would you propose? Should they just monitor who downloads what and prosecute those who downloaded the data that they allege is infringing copyrights?
Weapons have never been necessary to take control of an airliner. They just make it a little easier.
The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it.
The DoJ can't legally delete the non-infringing files. As long as the servers are in their possession, they really can't do anything with them except copy them or return them to their owners, and I don't know if copies of the files on the servers would be admissible in court. If they want to use the data on the servers as evidence in their trial, they may have to hold on to the servers they originally seized. But nothing prevents them from copying the files on the servers and returning those files to Carpathia.
But that's not what Carpathia would want. To them, a lot of the value is in the hardware. They would want the original hardware back with files intact and that's not going to happen anytime soon unless either DoJ dismisses the case or MegaUpload pleads guilty. And the value of the hardware and stored files could decay to near nothing by the time a criminal case could make it through the courts. And should they get a conviction and MegaUpload appeals you can cut that almost nothing to actually nothing.
I don't see how they are going to work this out in a way that doesn't maximally screw over non-infringing users.
But why does a US court think it has jurisdiction to order Motorola to do or not do anything in Germany? I don't understand the legal basis for their claiming to have any jurisdiction over what Motorola does or doesn't do in Germany.
For attempting to enforce German law in Germany? I don't see why any court would go along with such a thing.
AT&T has your serial number, IMEI and SIM number on record for every phone they sell.
How does a US court expect to enforce its decision in Germany?
Are we going to invade Germany on Microsoft's behalf and make them buy Windows at gunpoint? And is that business model patented?
I know you made a joke, but this right here is why believing in intelligent design and evolution etc are not necessarily incompatible with each other.
They're not necessarily incompatible, but here's the thing: We know evolution is happening right now and has been happening since the first living thing existed because random mutation and natural selection of advantageous variants is an unavoidable consequence of living things reproducing or in fact anything reproducing.
We have no evidence that intelligent design is happening or ever happened.
The theory that explains everything by random mutation and natural selection is elegant and sufficient. Occam's Razor says we shouldn't elaborate it with extraneous entities like gods or super-intelligent beings interfering in the process.
Would you rather the lawyers use private authority to stop what you already agree is a bad acting company? How would you have the situation resolved? Wait till people are actively harmed? How much restitution do you expected from that?
Nice try accusing the judge though. Without evidence that's less credible on your part.
I'd rather have a lawyer who was more concerned with my best interest than in dragging a case out for 5 years and milking it for every billable dime possible.
You should always turn off virus checking when installing software from a trusted source.
You should never install software from a non-trusted source.
No, the plaintiffs got $2k TOTAL. That was divided 11 ways.
Maybe. But here's something to consider. The payout per plaintiff was $175. Would you hire a lawyer to spend $54000 to recover $175?
I didn't think so.
But it also allows them to bring creationism into the classroom only to mercilessly crush it.
Everything sounds like that to the paranoid.
Because the government and companies that work with the intelligence community develop and use IP to gather manage and protect intelligence.
violating TOS can only be seen as breach-of-contract. That makes it a civil offense.
Stay out of Best Buy stores for the next 90 days. If they won't stand behind their products, they're no good to you.
... they're figuring out how to kill people.
Isn't THAT wonderful news?
In other words, how much they milked this case for, with the plaintiffs getting mostly delay.
I bet the defendants offered to settle the case and pay the plaintiffs a lot more than $175 each just to stop the bloodletting that the plaintiffs' lawyers were giving them, and the plaintiffs' lawyers ignored their clients' best interest because if they dragged the case out another few months they could bill another hundred thousand.