While you might not care for Murdoch's brand of politics or his business style, it is difficult to argue that he has done anything but increase diversity in the media marketplace. Before he launched Fox, there were 3 networks. He created a new one, with a distinctly different politic perspective.
He's been attacked mercilessly for this Dow Jones merger, owning "2 of the 5 biggest newspapers". Except of one those is the Post, which operates at a loss. Murdoch is subsidizing an unsuccessful conservative paper to keep in it production. More diversity, not less.
Consolidation has allowed Murdoch (and presumably others) to keep open additional channels and voices, even unprofitable ones, with the money made by successful ventures. It's a good thing, not bad.
That's precisely the appeal. I know I've been a lot less enthralled with facebook than I was when it was college students only. Back then I'd actually browse my friend's friends and consider meeting people, and it felt like a cool, tight-knit social club.
Plus the privacy thing - when it required a college email, I was much less worried about employers tracking me down. I could actually leave my profile open so people could view it and get to know me. I mean, it's college, the point is to meet new people. But now my profile is locked down tighter than NORAD, because I have to worry that some zombie in HR is going to freak out that I had a beer once.
It's really easy to reverse engineer a nail. The thing is that having a patent also prohibits the importation of infringing products. This is difficult to enforce in things like software and other media that can be transported over the internet, but you're going to have a hard time importing a million Chinese nails without someone noticing.
I'm not certain at all that this would work, because I know nothing about her thumb or hand condition. It's basically held like a gun, with your index finger pulling the "trigger" (left click) and your thumb moving the trackball. I only suggest it because it is fairly different from most other setups in how you hold your hand, and so it might work for her. Worst case scenario you only spent about 11$, and then you can play with it yourself. Yes, I own one, and actually rather like it. Biggest drawback is you have set it down and take your finger out to type, but you quickly get used to it.
Hmmm, I guess I'm thinking of it as pro bono, because before this ruling it would have been for free (assuming they were helping the defendant for public service reasons and not because they were hired). I don't know that allowing the collection of attorney's fees in certain circumstances really changes it.
I guess in the techinical sense of the word the fees are contingent upon winning and being awarded them, but it's pretty different from a typical contingency fee case. If the judge awards the attorney's fees, the entire amount, not a percentage, automatically goes to the lawyer, without ever touching the defendant's wallet.
One particularly good thing about this ruling is that is seems to be very solid. The linkage of "prevailing party" under the FRCP and the allowance of attorney fee recovery under the Copyrights Act looks difficult to challenge. While this ruling is not binding on much of anyone (yay Western District of Oklahoma), I have no reason to assume the Cantrell case is a drastic departure from most other circuit's opinions on the FRCP. Not to mention the SCOTUS case they cite, which I haven't read but is probably still good law.
While she has to specifically file for attorney's fees, I'm sure she will. Even though the bar is set fairly high in that the court shall not award fees "routinely or as a matter of course", the standard of review (almost certainly abuse of discretion) means that if the court awards them, it'll be almost impossible to overturn.
The issue is the precedent this sets. Now you might see more high profile attorneys that charge higher rates be willing to accept these kinds of cases on a pro bono basis, knowing that they have a good chance of recovering their fees from the other party. It is a ruling that is intended to send a message to the plaintiffs, and I think it might work.
The reason Napster wasn't protected is that the CDA specifically exempts certain federal laws from the protections it offers, many of which are IP related. So whether Napster could be considered a "provider or user of an interactive computer service" (the exact language used in 230) wasn't neccasarily relevant due to the exemptions for IP rights infringment allowed by the CDA.
Not sure if he's specifically thinking of this act, but the Communications Decency Act will almost certainly protect them. The Ninth Circuit already came down in a very similar case (Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.Com, LLC., 33 Media L. Rep. 1636 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2005)) that the online ads were protected. While this certainly isn't binding on the present case, it is persuasive, and there are various other rulings that suggest the CDA is a very broad and powerful statute.
Interestingly enough, most people who deal with explosive, pyrotechnics, etc, are registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. My uncle does fireworks shows for Disney, and he often gets flagged by immigration whenever he enters or leaves the country. It typically means a bit longer delay than the unflagged person, but I imagine it would also give some measure of protection were his luggage to be detected to contain traces of explosives.
One of the important things to note about this case is that under some of the acts she sued under, she is eligible to collect lawyer's fees. That's almost certainly why this suit was brought, and I can only imagine that the defense lawyers have stipulated that she won't pay them anything if they lose. RICO (and some other provisions) were implemented as such to help/encourage private citizens to report organized criminal behavior, knowing that people would be more likely to bring civil suit if they could collect rather than pay their lawyers out of the relief.
Ellison's point about how book piracy on the internet has nowhere near the publicy of the Napster case mirrors an trend I've noticed for a few years now. Books overall are starting to be ignored in favor of multi-sensory experiences. (eg movies). I wouldn't expect for this ever to be as widely known or as contentious an issue. Beyond that, books have always been slightly more open to copying under traditional copyright, so people are more apt to ignore this, since I'm guessing fewer people see something illegal in copying a book than in copying music.
Slashdot Mirror
While you might not care for Murdoch's brand of politics or his business style, it is difficult to argue that he has done anything but increase diversity in the media marketplace. Before he launched Fox, there were 3 networks. He created a new one, with a distinctly different politic perspective.
He's been attacked mercilessly for this Dow Jones merger, owning "2 of the 5 biggest newspapers". Except of one those is the Post, which operates at a loss. Murdoch is subsidizing an unsuccessful conservative paper to keep in it production. More diversity, not less.
Consolidation has allowed Murdoch (and presumably others) to keep open additional channels and voices, even unprofitable ones, with the money made by successful ventures. It's a good thing, not bad.
That's precisely the appeal. I know I've been a lot less enthralled with facebook than I was when it was college students only. Back then I'd actually browse my friend's friends and consider meeting people, and it felt like a cool, tight-knit social club.
Plus the privacy thing - when it required a college email, I was much less worried about employers tracking me down. I could actually leave my profile open so people could view it and get to know me. I mean, it's college, the point is to meet new people. But now my profile is locked down tighter than NORAD, because I have to worry that some zombie in HR is going to freak out that I had a beer once.
It's really easy to reverse engineer a nail. The thing is that having a patent also prohibits the importation of infringing products. This is difficult to enforce in things like software and other media that can be transported over the internet, but you're going to have a hard time importing a million Chinese nails without someone noticing.
Haha, fair enough then :)
Left out something important ^^ Finger Mouse
I'm not certain at all that this would work, because I know nothing about her thumb or hand condition. It's basically held like a gun, with your index finger pulling the "trigger" (left click) and your thumb moving the trackball. I only suggest it because it is fairly different from most other setups in how you hold your hand, and so it might work for her. Worst case scenario you only spent about 11$, and then you can play with it yourself. Yes, I own one, and actually rather like it. Biggest drawback is you have set it down and take your finger out to type, but you quickly get used to it.
Finger Mouse
The first post got marked redundant?
Hmmm, I guess I'm thinking of it as pro bono, because before this ruling it would have been for free (assuming they were helping the defendant for public service reasons and not because they were hired). I don't know that allowing the collection of attorney's fees in certain circumstances really changes it.
I guess in the techinical sense of the word the fees are contingent upon winning and being awarded them, but it's pretty different from a typical contingency fee case. If the judge awards the attorney's fees, the entire amount, not a percentage, automatically goes to the lawyer, without ever touching the defendant's wallet.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
One particularly good thing about this ruling is that is seems to be very solid. The linkage of "prevailing party" under the FRCP and the allowance of attorney fee recovery under the Copyrights Act looks difficult to challenge. While this ruling is not binding on much of anyone (yay Western District of Oklahoma), I have no reason to assume the Cantrell case is a drastic departure from most other circuit's opinions on the FRCP. Not to mention the SCOTUS case they cite, which I haven't read but is probably still good law.
While she has to specifically file for attorney's fees, I'm sure she will. Even though the bar is set fairly high in that the court shall not award fees "routinely or as a matter of course", the standard of review (almost certainly abuse of discretion) means that if the court awards them, it'll be almost impossible to overturn.
The issue is the precedent this sets. Now you might see more high profile attorneys that charge higher rates be willing to accept these kinds of cases on a pro bono basis, knowing that they have a good chance of recovering their fees from the other party. It is a ruling that is intended to send a message to the plaintiffs, and I think it might work.
The reason Napster wasn't protected is that the CDA specifically exempts certain federal laws from the protections it offers, many of which are IP related. So whether Napster could be considered a "provider or user of an interactive computer service" (the exact language used in 230) wasn't neccasarily relevant due to the exemptions for IP rights infringment allowed by the CDA.
Not sure if he's specifically thinking of this act, but the Communications Decency Act will almost certainly protect them. The Ninth Circuit already came down in a very similar case (Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.Com, LLC., 33 Media L. Rep. 1636 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2005)) that the online ads were protected. While this certainly isn't binding on the present case, it is persuasive, and there are various other rulings that suggest the CDA is a very broad and powerful statute.
Interestingly enough, most people who deal with explosive, pyrotechnics, etc, are registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. My uncle does fireworks shows for Disney, and he often gets flagged by immigration whenever he enters or leaves the country. It typically means a bit longer delay than the unflagged person, but I imagine it would also give some measure of protection were his luggage to be detected to contain traces of explosives.
One of the important things to note about this case is that under some of the acts she sued under, she is eligible to collect lawyer's fees. That's almost certainly why this suit was brought, and I can only imagine that the defense lawyers have stipulated that she won't pay them anything if they lose. RICO (and some other provisions) were implemented as such to help/encourage private citizens to report organized criminal behavior, knowing that people would be more likely to bring civil suit if they could collect rather than pay their lawyers out of the relief.
Ellison's point about how book piracy on the internet has nowhere near the publicy of the Napster case mirrors an trend I've noticed for a few years now. Books overall are starting to be ignored in favor of multi-sensory experiences. (eg movies). I wouldn't expect for this ever to be as widely known or as contentious an issue. Beyond that, books have always been slightly more open to copying under traditional copyright, so people are more apt to ignore this, since I'm guessing fewer people see something illegal in copying a book than in copying music.