So if you steal my candy bar, or I think it's my candy bar and I say "hey that's mind, stop eating it" you should get to keep on eating it for a week because the sound of you smacking your lips while eating is free speech? If I'm wrong and somebody else stole the candy bar, and you through happenstance had your own identical candy bar, then I've caused you damages and should have to pay for those damages, if on the other hand I'm correct and you did steal my candy bar, you've damaged me and should have to compensate me for the damages
Now here's the rub, and getting closer to the actual topic
To be considered effective, a notification of a claimed copyright infringement must be provided to Go Daddy and must include the following information:
An electronic signature of the copyright owner, or a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive copyright that has allegedly been infringed. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works on that site. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit Go Daddy to locate the material. Information reasonably sufficient to permit Go Daddy to contact the Complaining Party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the Complaining Party may be contacted. A statement that the Complaining Party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the Complaining Party is the owner, or is authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. GO DADDY TRADEMARK AND/OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT POLICY
under penalty of perjury that's scary stuff
... guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States. 18 USC 1621 - PERJURY GENERALLY
a five year felony, clearly false DMCA takedowns are not for the faint of heart.
I find it amusing that you think that the Persians living in Iran have any kind of ethnic kinship with Arabs; they are more likely to feel that the very presence of Jews in the Holy Land is an affront to Islam, resent the Arabs for losing Palestine, and see the Palestinians as the physical embodiment of the Arabs dereliction of their religious duty to wipe the Israel off the face of the Earth. I easily see Iran as capable of sending every Palestinian on the earth to paradise as Martyrs in order to destroy Israel.
The real purpose of a DMCA take-down notice is to take-down the alleged infringing material until the owner of the site where it is posted accepts responsibility for the material being there. At that point it's between the owner of the site and the owner of the material being infringed to either come to terms, forget it, or let the courts settle the matter.
I've come to the conclusion that when you first come into contact someone who runs a non-profit for the children, the environment, a hospital or whatever your first impression should most likely be that that person is a money grubbing narcissistic asshole waste of breathing air type until proven otherwise.
A surprising amount of time just asking before publishing and posting a photo credit is all it takes to get permission, especially if your an individual or a non-profit.
And she'a an attorney, how could she not know copyright infringement is illegal? What she did was as bad as when Micheal Moore put one of Micheal Yon's photos on his website without permission; At least Moore took the picture down without being a whiny suck about it.
Ah the good old days when hacking meant connecting stepper motor to an Etch-a-sketch to use with the computer they had just finished wire-wrapping last week.
I'm not a Pheaker, but as I understand it, there is a way to reverse the roles of the caller and the callee. It's useful for the 911 and the police as they can maintain the connection long enough to preform a trace.
. You don't get penis-privacy-but-not-face-privacy. At least, that's not how I understand things to work.
Yes you do,
‘Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism ‘(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ‘(b) In this section--
‘(1) the term ‘capture’, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
‘(2) the term ‘broadcast’ means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
‘(3) the term ‘a private area of the individual’ means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
‘(4) the term ‘female breast’ means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and
‘(5) the term ‘under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy’ means--
‘(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or
‘(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place. S. 1301 (108th): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004
Further more Rutger's is in New Jersey and
b. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection. 2C:14-9. Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges
When your alone with a sex-partner, in what is effectively your bedroom, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even with a non-present room-mate.
I would argue since the victim made arrangements to secure privacy with Ravi, he absolutely had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the statute also says broadcast as in " to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;" so since the images were transferred electronically to another computer for viewing; I just don't see the holes.
‘Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism ‘(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ‘(b) In this section--
‘(1) the term ‘capture’, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
‘(2) the term ‘broadcast’ means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
‘(3) the term ‘a private area of the individual’ means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
‘(4) the term ‘female breast’ means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and
‘(5) the term ‘under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy’ means--
‘(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or
‘(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
‘(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.’.
The verbage is pretty gender neutral, so Ravi's troubles may not be over, he could still face federal charges.
Since Homophobes are supposedly homophobic because they have latent homosexual urges that they are afraid of, wouldn't theophobics really be athests who practice atheism as a religion?
Think about it a $250,000.00 per violation times a couple million downloads times hundreds of documents equals the entire GDP for the planet for a thousand years or so
Funny, but "no detectable DNA damage" is not the same as "no DNA damage or other side effects". This study would need to be much longer term and need to look for more than obvious DNA damage for me to trust it, personally. It was only 5 weeks!
Not that much longer, a mouse goes from infancy to maturity in about 6 to 10 weeks, a year can get you a generation or two. A mouse can have 5 - 10 litters in a year and their lifespan is 9 to 12 months; 5 weeks for a mouse is like 20 years for a human.
Your probably correct for news photography, but you might be surprised at other areas. My boss's Little Brother is a 3D artist and in a previous employment they were working on a project for an automotive company, he was literally editing out microscopic details of laser scans of car bodies to get the files down to a reasonable size. The project was to build a library of Production cars that included every part, so they could "fly" the camera through the car and you would see the engine, transmission or even the CD player from the inside. Marketing was loving this as they would no longer have multi-million photo shoots cancelled due to errant clouds when you could just CGI it. A surprising secondary benefit was the building a searchable database of car parts which is allowing the company to prune out redundancy and icreasing interchangeability amongst different lines (Volkswagon-Audi is the interchangeability King).
The Navy should be handing out research grants left and right (if it isn't doing so already) for research on climate management. If all the artic sea ice thawed, it would radically change the face of naval warfare for the US, and not for the better...
Too Late!
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Of course it's going to have to get warm pretty quick up there it's still -10 - -15 thought most of the arctic.
Actually it was more along the lines of most of the "Founding Fathers" were heavily invested in tea, and the Crown have just enacted a stamp tax on tea and was flooding the colonial markets with newly taxed tea, which had a devastating effect on the colonial tea prices and investors in tea.
I for one welcome this suit, imagine the result of Romney being president, and appointing defense council for the USG, Discovery is going to make Ken Cuccinelli Vs. University of Virginia look like the amateur hour.
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for regulating ozone and particulate matter was challenged by the American Trucking Association along with other private companies and the States of Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia.
We know that ozone and petro-Diesel particulates have unambiguous and demonstrable effects on public health; where CO2 at atmospheric levels does not.
Section 109(b)(1) of the CAA (Clean Air Act) instructed the EPA to set "ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on [the] criteria [documents of Section 108] and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health."
There just is no mandate for the EPA to regulate CO2 at this time.
Oh come on lost investment cast has been done for over 4,000 years, nothing is used that a junk-yard wars hardware hacker can't cobble together for next to nothing; you can actually buy everything to cast your own jewelry for a little over a $1,000.00 new, and a lot less if your ebay-fu is up to par.
Slashdot Mirror
That might have meant something if any of the countries that did ratify it, actually fulfilled their obligations under it.
So if you steal my candy bar, or I think it's my candy bar and I say "hey that's mind, stop eating it" you should get to keep on eating it for a week because the sound of you smacking your lips while eating is free speech? If I'm wrong and somebody else stole the candy bar, and you through happenstance had your own identical candy bar, then I've caused you damages and should have to pay for those damages, if on the other hand I'm correct and you did steal my candy bar, you've damaged me and should have to compensate me for the damages
Now here's the rub, and getting closer to the actual topic
under penalty of perjury that's scary stuff
a five year felony, clearly false DMCA takedowns are not for the faint of heart.
I find it amusing that you think that the Persians living in Iran have any kind of ethnic kinship with Arabs; they are more likely to feel that the very presence of Jews in the Holy Land is an affront to Islam, resent the Arabs for losing Palestine, and see the Palestinians as the physical embodiment of the Arabs dereliction of their religious duty to wipe the Israel off the face of the Earth. I easily see Iran as capable of sending every Palestinian on the earth to paradise as Martyrs in order to destroy Israel.
The real purpose of a DMCA take-down notice is to take-down the alleged infringing material until the owner of the site where it is posted accepts responsibility for the material being there. At that point it's between the owner of the site and the owner of the material being infringed to either come to terms, forget it, or let the courts settle the matter.
No the douche bag move would have been to sue them for copyright infringement after the DMCA take-down.
I've come to the conclusion that when you first come into contact someone who runs a non-profit for the children, the environment, a hospital or whatever your first impression should most likely be that that person is a money grubbing narcissistic asshole waste of breathing air type until proven otherwise.
A surprising amount of time just asking before publishing and posting a photo credit is all it takes to get permission, especially if your an individual or a non-profit.
And she'a an attorney, how could she not know copyright infringement is illegal? What she did was as bad as when Micheal Moore put one of Micheal Yon's photos on his website without permission; At least Moore took the picture down without being a whiny suck about it.
Ah the good old days when hacking meant connecting stepper motor to an Etch-a-sketch to use with the computer they had just finished wire-wrapping last week.
I'm not a Pheaker, but as I understand it, there is a way to reverse the roles of the caller and the callee. It's useful for the 911 and the police as they can maintain the connection long enough to preform a trace.
. You don't get penis-privacy-but-not-face-privacy. At least, that's not how I understand things to work.
Yes you do,
Further more Rutger's is in New Jersey and
When your alone with a sex-partner, in what is effectively your bedroom, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even with a non-present room-mate.
I would argue since the victim made arrangements to secure privacy with Ravi, he absolutely had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the statute also says broadcast as in " to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;" so since the images were transferred electronically to another computer for viewing; I just don't see the holes.
It is?
The verbage is pretty gender neutral, so Ravi's troubles may not be over, he could still face federal charges.
Who said anything about dagos and cathedrals? That's a bazaar inference!
Well played Sir, well played indeed!
Since Homophobes are supposedly homophobic because they have latent homosexual urges that they are afraid of, wouldn't theophobics really be athests who practice atheism as a religion?
Think about it a $250,000.00 per violation times a couple million downloads times hundreds of documents equals the entire GDP for the planet for a thousand years or so
My belief is that copyright is automatic, you seem to be thinking about whether it is registered or not
That always gets me laughing every time I hear it, because you can't copyright facts, only creative works, so you know what that says about CoS.
Funny, but "no detectable DNA damage" is not the same as "no DNA damage or other side effects". This study would need to be much longer term and need to look for more than obvious DNA damage for me to trust it, personally. It was only 5 weeks!
Not that much longer, a mouse goes from infancy to maturity in about 6 to 10 weeks, a year can get you a generation or two. A mouse can have 5 - 10 litters in a year and their lifespan is 9 to 12 months; 5 weeks for a mouse is like 20 years for a human.
Your probably correct for news photography, but you might be surprised at other areas. My boss's Little Brother is a 3D artist and in a previous employment they were working on a project for an automotive company, he was literally editing out microscopic details of laser scans of car bodies to get the files down to a reasonable size. The project was to build a library of Production cars that included every part, so they could "fly" the camera through the car and you would see the engine, transmission or even the CD player from the inside. Marketing was loving this as they would no longer have multi-million photo shoots cancelled due to errant clouds when you could just CGI it. A surprising secondary benefit was the building a searchable database of car parts which is allowing the company to prune out redundancy and icreasing interchangeability amongst different lines (Volkswagon-Audi is the interchangeability King).
The Navy should be handing out research grants left and right (if it isn't doing so already) for research on climate management. If all the artic sea ice thawed, it would radically change the face of naval warfare for the US, and not for the better...
Too Late!
Of course it's going to have to get warm pretty quick up there it's still -10 - -15 thought most of the arctic.
Actually it was more along the lines of most of the "Founding Fathers" were heavily invested in tea, and the Crown have just enacted a stamp tax on tea and was flooding the colonial markets with newly taxed tea, which had a devastating effect on the colonial tea prices and investors in tea.
I for one welcome this suit, imagine the result of Romney being president, and appointing defense council for the USG, Discovery is going to make Ken Cuccinelli Vs. University of Virginia look like the amateur hour.
Following your link yielded the following
We know that ozone and petro-Diesel particulates have unambiguous and demonstrable effects on public health; where CO2 at atmospheric levels does not .
There just is no mandate for the EPA to regulate CO2 at this time.
Oh come on lost investment cast has been done for over 4,000 years, nothing is used that a junk-yard wars hardware hacker can't cobble together for next to nothing; you can actually buy everything to cast your own jewelry for a little over a $1,000.00 new, and a lot less if your ebay-fu is up to par.