So if a foreign company sells counterfeit designer clothing in the US, we can't seize the counterfeit goods until the foreign legal system says to?
Those goods are physically in the United States and are being sold by people in the United States. Big difference.
The companies in question are committing the crimes on US soil by sending their data to US users
By that logic China should be able to shut down American websites that contain material the Chinese government considers subversive.
There's absolutely no legal reason why the US government can't use their authority to prevent that, especially for domains ending in.com,.org, or.net whose registration is under US jurisdiction anyway.
Perhaps the US government shouldn't have control over.com,.org and.net domains?
Appears I missed the part about a "Court Order" - ha! Overreaction at its finest.
Sure there's a court order, but there's no trial. A domain can be shut down on the US Attorney General's say so, with only the need for a judge's rubberstamp to make it official. That is the problem with COICA, and the reason I oppose it.
MPAA loves this law because it does away with the need to prove by either the preponderance of the evidence (for civil claims) or beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal infringement claims) that a website is indeed infringing.
So is this blacklisting to be done without a proper copyright infringement trial?
That's exactly what what would happen. The Attorney General would decide a website is infringing, a judge would rubberstamp the AG's request, and finally the website's domain would be shut down and locked (or, for international websites, blocked by US ISPs).
"Oh, shut up! It's obvious to anyone with an IQ above single digits that the constant sniping at BP is nothing but a xenophobic witch-hunt, fomented by a faltering White House to distract attention from their own failings."
I thought you were kidding, but reading your other posts makes it clear you were being serious. I guess it's not just religious fundamentalists whose thoughts are indistinguishable from parody.
Considering the analysis took place before the drilling, it seems to me Captain Foresight would be more appropriate. Too bad BP decided his advice was too much bother.
Also, South Park's creators are being obtuse in their criticism of BP's critics. Hindsight is what allows us to learn from our mistakes. If Matt and Trey's naive political philosophy gets in the way of recognizing that, it's not really the critics' problem.
The quickest path towards resolving this is genuinely for all non-criminal young Middle Easterners to start ejecting the radical element from within their ranks.
Non-criminal young Middle Easterners should eject those they have nothing to do with in order to not be lumped together with those they have nothing to do with? Wow, man. That's fucking brilliant!
Consequentially, this is likewise why I believe we need a full evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Fewer than one percent of one percent of all passengers are perfectly, completely innocent.
The vast majority of passengers are completely innocent with respect to being terrorists, which is the issue at hand. Your statement above is just misdirection.
In fact, by the time you factor everyone who's ever been screened against the number of actual attackers, you're going to need scientific notation to express your percentage.
This is true whether you engage in racial profiling or not. Random screening is a far better choice as it doesn't create holes in your security from focusing too much on a bunch of people who are significantly no more guilty of being terrorists than the rest of the world's population.
Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?
Profiling passengers doesn't work, either: most of the passengers who fit broad profiles (like race) are perfectly innocent, and focusing on those passengers means focusing less on the rest, creating potential holes in your security.
I'm far more concerned about TSA's new pat-down procedure than I am about not being allowed to bring toner with me on a plane. Not that the ink/toner cartridge ban makes much sense, but how often do you bring printer supplies with you on a plane?
Google is under no obligation to serve ads to TV Tropes, but saying that "contracts are contracts" does nothing to address the issue of whether Google's policies, as expressed in their contract, are reasonable.
If Google's only problem with websites like TV Tropes is that advertisers might object, wouldn't it be better for Google to provide a mechanism for advertisers to exclude themselves from such websiteS?
This might be good if limited to the kinds of information sharing that takes place without the user's knowledge, but I can easily see how it would turn out not to be such a good thing if the law catered to those who aren't cautious enough to protect their own privacy.
One example of a feature I consider useful that others might not is Amazon's suggestion system. In my case I actually want Amazon to suggest new books to me, and the only way it can do that is to collect information about the books that I and other people buy. While much of that data could be kept in anonymized form, some of that data (e.g. a list of my own purchases) has to be tied to my username. So long as it's done transparently, I think that's perfectly OK.
Guess what with just that basic research I can tell you: according to that philosophy Wikileaks is an adversary, and Jullian Assange likely qualifies as an enemy of the state.
Assange has not been declared an enemy of the state, nor is he being sought by the US government. Right now he's just an annoying gnat to those in power, but it could be worse. It's really the "could be worse" part that really concerns the US government.
I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago.
Why bother with a tragic car accident when diplomatic pressure will do? There's no need to kill Assange if all you want is to better be able to prosecute him should the need arise.
If ACTA were law I suspect the court's decision would go the other way. Given the inaccuracy of DMCA accusations so far, any kind of three-strikes law that doesn't require three convictions would be disastrous. Heck, even a "three convictions" rule would be a problem given how important the Internet has become to our daily lives. Any law calling for a user's disconnection (except in cases of parole/probation) would doubtless constitute a curtailment of that person's freedom of speech and association (whether or not the law ends up recognizing it as such).
I don't think it's too much to ask for copyright holders to prove their case before penalizing users, and I don't think it's fair for such penalties to include disconnection once the term of conviction is up for those who are guilty.
People have tagged your post as "funny", but it's actually true. The Apple II was released in 1977, while the IBM PC was released in 1982. Other computers may also have contributed (Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines, per Wikipedia), but the Apple II was especially popular.
Open Source Mac OS X would be awesome, but I think it's even less likely than Mac OS X losing its ties to Apple hardware while remaining commercial.
Someone like Tiger Woods or Steve Jobbs could sue Yahoo!?
Perhaps they could, but hopefully it would depend on whether Yahoo itself was engaging in such practices, for otherwise it should be granted immunity (that is, it shouldn't be held responsible for what third-party websites do simply because they appear in Yahoo's search results). In any case, I don't think the court was implying the woman would have a valid case if not for her lack of commercial interest. Why bother exploring other issues when you've determined the plaintiff has no standing?
Hardly anyone ever upgrades a PC to the next major version of Windows. Instead, the upgrade happens automatically when people ditch their PC's and buy a new one.
Except that Windows 7 isn't the next major version of Windows relative to Windows XP, but the next one after that. Whether it means that the hardware is good enough or that Windows XP is good enough, people skipping two major versions of Windows is an interesting development.
Don't forget that the whole point of the thing is consumer protection - your average person being able to buy a thing with a reasonable sureness about its origins.
Ideally. Unfortunately, trademark holders too often ignore this and instead use trademarks as anti-competitive tools. Not too long ago "Victor's Little Secret" was ruled not to infringe upon the "Victoria's Secret" trademark, which prompted corporations to have the law changed in their favor and thus prevent such decisions in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Your honor, I move to imprison the witness on the grounds that her testimony has cost me my freedom.
Those goods are physically in the United States and are being sold by people in the United States. Big difference.
By that logic China should be able to shut down American websites that contain material the Chinese government considers subversive.
Perhaps the US government shouldn't have control over .com, .org and .net domains?
"I just gave PayPal access to my bank account, and all I have to show for it is a stupid piece of gum*."
Then, in small print:
"* I chose to pay cash for this T-shirt."
"The fix would distort the images captured on full-body scanners so they look like reflections in a fun-house mirror..."
We could also put clown shoes, red noses and makeup on serial rapists, but I doubt that would make the victims feel any better.
Sure there's a court order, but there's no trial. A domain can be shut down on the US Attorney General's say so, with only the need for a judge's rubberstamp to make it official. That is the problem with COICA, and the reason I oppose it.
MPAA loves this law because it does away with the need to prove by either the preponderance of the evidence (for civil claims) or beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal infringement claims) that a website is indeed infringing.
That's exactly what what would happen. The Attorney General would decide a website is infringing, a judge would rubberstamp the AG's request, and finally the website's domain would be shut down and locked (or, for international websites, blocked by US ISPs).
"Oh, shut up! It's obvious to anyone with an IQ above single digits that the constant sniping at BP is nothing but a xenophobic witch-hunt, fomented by a faltering White House to distract attention from their own failings."
I thought you were kidding, but reading your other posts makes it clear you were being serious. I guess it's not just religious fundamentalists whose thoughts are indistinguishable from parody.
Considering the analysis took place before the drilling, it seems to me Captain Foresight would be more appropriate. Too bad BP decided his advice was too much bother.
Also, South Park's creators are being obtuse in their criticism of BP's critics. Hindsight is what allows us to learn from our mistakes. If Matt and Trey's naive political philosophy gets in the way of recognizing that, it's not really the critics' problem.
Non-criminal young Middle Easterners should eject those they have nothing to do with in order to not be lumped together with those they have nothing to do with? Wow, man. That's fucking brilliant!
You're a practical bloke, aren't ya?
The vast majority of passengers are completely innocent with respect to being terrorists, which is the issue at hand. Your statement above is just misdirection.
This is true whether you engage in racial profiling or not. Random screening is a far better choice as it doesn't create holes in your security from focusing too much on a bunch of people who are significantly no more guilty of being terrorists than the rest of the world's population.
That's ridiculous. We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals. </sarcasm>
Profiling passengers doesn't work, either: most of the passengers who fit broad profiles (like race) are perfectly innocent, and focusing on those passengers means focusing less on the rest, creating potential holes in your security.
I'm far more concerned about TSA's new pat-down procedure than I am about not being allowed to bring toner with me on a plane. Not that the ink/toner cartridge ban makes much sense, but how often do you bring printer supplies with you on a plane?
Google is under no obligation to serve ads to TV Tropes, but saying that "contracts are contracts" does nothing to address the issue of whether Google's policies, as expressed in their contract, are reasonable.
If Google's only problem with websites like TV Tropes is that advertisers might object, wouldn't it be better for Google to provide a mechanism for advertisers to exclude themselves from such websiteS?
How long would a file sharing service such as this last under COICA?
This might be good if limited to the kinds of information sharing that takes place without the user's knowledge, but I can easily see how it would turn out not to be such a good thing if the law catered to those who aren't cautious enough to protect their own privacy.
One example of a feature I consider useful that others might not is Amazon's suggestion system. In my case I actually want Amazon to suggest new books to me, and the only way it can do that is to collect information about the books that I and other people buy. While much of that data could be kept in anonymized form, some of that data (e.g. a list of my own purchases) has to be tied to my username. So long as it's done transparently, I think that's perfectly OK.
Assange has not been declared an enemy of the state, nor is he being sought by the US government. Right now he's just an annoying gnat to those in power, but it could be worse. It's really the "could be worse" part that really concerns the US government.
Why bother with a tragic car accident when diplomatic pressure will do? There's no need to kill Assange if all you want is to better be able to prosecute him should the need arise.
Countries tend to care when others give asylum to their enemies. That's not quite the case here, but it's close.
I suspect it may have something to do with the United States.
If ACTA were law I suspect the court's decision would go the other way. Given the inaccuracy of DMCA accusations so far, any kind of three-strikes law that doesn't require three convictions would be disastrous. Heck, even a "three convictions" rule would be a problem given how important the Internet has become to our daily lives. Any law calling for a user's disconnection (except in cases of parole/probation) would doubtless constitute a curtailment of that person's freedom of speech and association (whether or not the law ends up recognizing it as such).
I don't think it's too much to ask for copyright holders to prove their case before penalizing users, and I don't think it's fair for such penalties to include disconnection once the term of conviction is up for those who are guilty.
People have tagged your post as "funny", but it's actually true. The Apple II was released in 1977, while the IBM PC was released in 1982. Other computers may also have contributed (Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines, per Wikipedia), but the Apple II was especially popular.
Open Source Mac OS X would be awesome, but I think it's even less likely than Mac OS X losing its ties to Apple hardware while remaining commercial.
Perhaps they could, but hopefully it would depend on whether Yahoo itself was engaging in such practices, for otherwise it should be granted immunity (that is, it shouldn't be held responsible for what third-party websites do simply because they appear in Yahoo's search results). In any case, I don't think the court was implying the woman would have a valid case if not for her lack of commercial interest. Why bother exploring other issues when you've determined the plaintiff has no standing?
Except that Windows 7 isn't the next major version of Windows relative to Windows XP, but the next one after that. Whether it means that the hardware is good enough or that Windows XP is good enough, people skipping two major versions of Windows is an interesting development.
Ideally. Unfortunately, trademark holders too often ignore this and instead use trademarks as anti-competitive tools. Not too long ago "Victor's Little Secret" was ruled not to infringe upon the "Victoria's Secret" trademark, which prompted corporations to have the law changed in their favor and thus prevent such decisions in the future.