> What kind of monster would will such evil upon this defenseless man
I'm not convinced he's the emotionally and mentally crippled guy the article is painting him to be, but the answer to the question "What kind of monster" is an easy one...
the American Justice System. It's been pretty monstrous for years.
Just to be pedantic, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War does not require that all combatants wear military uniform, or even that they carry their weapons only. Article 4, which identifies those who fall under the POW category, is more nuanced than that.
"Nice ad-hom, I bet you get invited to all the conversations amongst your friends who have more than a middle-school education for your brilliant insights and clairvoyance."
Oh, well played. An ad hom in a post complaining about ad hom. Bravo!
You could do what Viacom have clearly done : don't perform any due diligence.
Step 1 : Find a video on their site. Say, wxv6ghuuo.wmv. Step 2 : Put a video of you going fishing on your website. Give it a random name, like, for example, Oh, I don't know... wxv6ghuuo.wmv Step 3 : Wait a few weeks. Step 4 : To your horror, you're browsing the HTML of viacom's site (purely out of interest, you understand) when you stumble across a link to a file called wxv6ghuuo.wmv Step 5 : WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FILE (that's important!) send in a DMCA Take-down stating that you've got a "good faith" belief that viacom are infringing your copyright, listing the file.
There. Isn't that basically what Viacom must have done? No perjury involved: you've honestly stated you've got a "good faith" belief. After all, they COULD have swiped your file. Without looking you can't really be certain, but it's got the same file name... !
Unhandled Error Error Details File Error Could not allocate space for object 'DNN1_EventLog' in database 'DNN_chrisckemp' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is full.
Huh. Well, that was kinda anticlimactic. I don't see a lawyer being a potential dick over timeframes as evidence of chicanery. I was hoping for something juicier, like - oh, I dunno, - hard drive serial numbers mysteriously changing or something:)
The chicanery and gamesmanship that is going on behind the scenes with the hard drive report in the UMG v. Lindor case, which my office is handling, demonstrates that it is not safe to permit the RIAA to conduct its own, behind the scenes hard drive analysis by its own so called expert.
Come on, don't leave us hanging. We want to hear more...:)
The New Scientist is a weekly publication. This article is from the Sept. 9th edition. In what way does this make it 'the latest', given that two subsequent editions (16th, 23rd) have been published?
"We are providing unequivocal evidence of copyright infringement via their services"
I'd like to see that evidence. The article suggests it's IP addresses associated with uploads. At worst it's simply the IP address and at best surely it could only be a list of IP addresses and what they uploaded - i.e, IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx uploaded (file) on (date and time) to (server).
Is that enough to be 'unequivocal'? And if so, since the article also suggests they're only after those who upload a lot ('It was unacceptable for ISPs to turn a "blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement", said BPI chairman Peter Jamieson.') why aren't they going after these guys for damages in court instead of going the easy route of simply shutting them off? After all, it's likely they'll simply go to another ISP...
New Delhi, June. 6 (PTI): Reserve Bank employees, who observed a token sit-in protest today, threatened to strike work if their demands for putting an end to outsourcing of jobs and continuation of revised pension scheme were not met.
Actually, the pictures have never been in his possession. The pictures were not taken when the device was in his possession, they now reside on a server that does not belong to him, nor is the server in his possession.
All the copyright law I've read (not huge lots, just the usual stuff. IANAL) is very clear - the owner is the person who originated the work, not the person who owns the medium... unless, of course, it's a work for hire.
That's why I was wondering what the situation is... is there case law? Precedent? Is there a section I've not read that covers copyrightable works created using a stolen medium? You'd think it'd be something of a rarity, but I'm sure it must have happened before.
As to EULAs and agreements... well, the thieves probably didn't agree to anything when they started snapping away, so an EULA wouldn't apply to them. This means they're probably in violation of the TOS so the service provider probably has a case against them, but I don't see that this in anyway gives the original sidekick owner copyright.
Isn't posting these pictures without permission strictly speaking a copyright violation? I mean, they're not his photos...
Although fair use, I guess, could be argued, and damages (if any) would be minimal. Plus, of course, the guy could cross-sue with all sorts of neat stuff...
But even so, technically... isn't this arguably a violation?
"You don't have to work - but if you want to work for a company you have to have a Social Security card," he said.
You see, to a Republican, working is purely optional.
Well, he's absolutely right.
You don't HAVE to work, you could always sponge off the system instead. I'm sure the Republicans would have no problems if you were to do that...
Oh, wait, nevermind, I think I'm seeing a problem here.
Oh, no, wait... just had to get myself into the proper Republican mindset for the solution: become a wandering destitute homeless person. Or, even better, just DIE already. Yep, work completely optional, QED.;)
Yes, that's great. But that's NOT what was being discussed.
The poster I replied to suggested that this had nothing to do with copyright, and that 'leaking' this manual was somehow a criminal act. I asked - other than copyright infringement, where a fair use claim can plainly be made - what law was being broken?
Apple did NOT claim any form of trade secret protection for this manual, you'll note.
So what? You'll note that I explicitly mentioned trade secrets in my original post, acknowledging there's some degree of legal protection involved. Just because something is "confidential" does not/should not render it a trade-secret, however. Your company can make you sign a contract explicitly stating you'll never divulge your salary to anyone, that it is "confidential", yet I think the same company would be hard-pressed to claim your salary as a trade secret if you were to then recklessly use a bull-horn in the company car park to tell everyone your salary.
They could sue you for breaking your contract, though.
Typically, when someone says a person is 'breaking the law' they are referring to criminal law.
If I sign a contract with company A and then break it, you don't typically get company A claiming I've broken the law. You get company A claiming I've broken a contract, and they'll sue me.
SA don't have a contract with Apple. They didn't 'assist' anyone in breaking a contract. Apple can claim copyright infringement if they want, but - it seems to me - SA has a legitimate 'fair use' claim. One page of a manual hundreds of pages long? Please.
Slashdot Mirror
> What kind of monster would will such evil upon this defenseless man I'm not convinced he's the emotionally and mentally crippled guy the article is painting him to be, but the answer to the question "What kind of monster" is an easy one ...
the American Justice System. It's been pretty monstrous for years.
Just to be pedantic, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War does not require that all combatants wear military uniform, or even that they carry their weapons only. Article 4, which identifies those who fall under the POW category, is more nuanced than that.
"Nice ad-hom, I bet you get invited to all the conversations amongst your friends who have more than a middle-school education for your brilliant insights and clairvoyance."
Oh, well played. An ad hom in a post complaining about ad hom. Bravo!
That seems to be a review of the rules of the game. Thanks.
:)
Where's the review of (what there is of) the setting info? Please just don't say 'Who needs it? It's Starwars!'
How about mentioning the index is godawful?
You could do what Viacom have clearly done : don't perform any due diligence.
... wxv6ghuuo.wmv
... !
:)
Step 1 : Find a video on their site. Say, wxv6ghuuo.wmv.
Step 2 : Put a video of you going fishing on your website. Give it a random name, like, for example, Oh, I don't know
Step 3 : Wait a few weeks.
Step 4 : To your horror, you're browsing the HTML of viacom's site (purely out of interest, you understand) when you stumble across a link to a file called wxv6ghuuo.wmv
Step 5 : WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FILE (that's important!) send in a DMCA Take-down stating that you've got a "good faith" belief that viacom are infringing your copyright, listing the file.
There. Isn't that basically what Viacom must have done? No perjury involved: you've honestly stated you've got a "good faith" belief. After all, they COULD have swiped your file. Without looking you can't really be certain, but it's got the same file name
IANAL, so don't try this at home
Well, that certainly explains why it took 40+ minutes to download an album, whereas normally it's 90 seconds tops.
Oooh, I got a different error. Collect the lot? :)
Unhandled Error
Error Details
File
Error Could not allocate space for object 'DNN1_EventLog' in database 'DNN_chrisckemp' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is full.
Cite, please?
This, however, is a new development in that case and not a dupe.
Huh. Well, that was kinda anticlimactic. I don't see a lawyer being a potential dick over timeframes as evidence of chicanery. I was hoping for something juicier, like - oh, I dunno, - hard drive serial numbers mysteriously changing or something :)
From the article:
The chicanery and gamesmanship that is going on behind the scenes with the hard drive report in the UMG v. Lindor case, which my office is handling, demonstrates that it is not safe to permit the RIAA to conduct its own, behind the scenes hard drive analysis by its own so called expert.
Come on, don't leave us hanging. We want to hear more ... :)
The latest New Scientist has an article about...
The New Scientist is a weekly publication. This article is from the Sept. 9th edition. In what way does this make it 'the latest', given that two subsequent editions (16th, 23rd) have been published?
Wonder which ones she couldn't stand to watch?
:)
I'd wager 500 quatloos one of them was Spock's Brain
I think you mean Goa'uld sympathizers'
:)
(No, not really)
"We are providing unequivocal evidence of copyright infringement via their services"
I'd like to see that evidence. The article suggests it's IP addresses associated with uploads. At worst it's simply the IP address and at best surely it could only be a list of IP addresses and what they uploaded - i.e, IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx uploaded (file) on (date and time) to (server).
Is that enough to be 'unequivocal'? And if so, since the article also suggests they're only after those who upload a lot ('It was unacceptable for ISPs to turn a "blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement", said BPI chairman Peter Jamieson.') why aren't they going after these guys for damages in court instead of going the easy route of simply shutting them off? After all, it's likely they'll simply go to another ISP ...
It's legal for kids to possess guns?
Wouldn't that make teachers who give eight-year olds low scores very nervous?
Fancy some irony?
RBI staff threaten to strike work
New Delhi, June. 6 (PTI): Reserve Bank employees, who observed a token sit-in protest today, threatened to strike work if their demands for putting an end to outsourcing of jobs and continuation of revised pension scheme were not met.
Read the rest...
Looks like it's not just US workers who feel threatened ... :)
Actually, the pictures have never been in his possession. The pictures were not taken when the device was in his possession, they now reside on a server that does not belong to him, nor is the server in his possession.
... unless, of course, it's a work for hire.
... is there case law? Precedent? Is there a section I've not read that covers copyrightable works created using a stolen medium? You'd think it'd be something of a rarity, but I'm sure it must have happened before.
... well, the thieves probably didn't agree to anything when they started snapping away, so an EULA wouldn't apply to them. This means they're probably in violation of the TOS so the service provider probably has a case against them, but I don't see that this in anyway gives the original sidekick owner copyright.
All the copyright law I've read (not huge lots, just the usual stuff. IANAL) is very clear - the owner is the person who originated the work, not the person who owns the medium
That's why I was wondering what the situation is
As to EULAs and agreements
Um ... I see an offtopic mod on this comment. WTH? Offtopic?
A question about the legality of pictures on a revenge site is offtopic ... how exactly?
Isn't posting these pictures without permission strictly speaking a copyright violation? I mean, they're not his photos ...
Although fair use, I guess, could be argued, and damages (if any) would be minimal. Plus, of course, the guy could cross-sue with all sorts of neat stuff ...
But even so, technically ... isn't this arguably a violation?
"You don't have to work - but if you want to work for a company you have to have a Social Security card," he said.
You see, to a Republican, working is purely optional.
Well, he's absolutely right.
You don't HAVE to work, you could always sponge off the system instead. I'm sure the Republicans would have no problems if you were to do that ...
Oh, wait, nevermind, I think I'm seeing a problem here.
Oh, no, wait ... just had to get myself into the proper Republican mindset for the solution: become a wandering destitute homeless person. Or, even better, just DIE already. Yep, work completely optional, QED. ;)
You're in luck. They're flogging off one from ST:V, estimated price $6000-$8000.
Yes, that's great. But that's NOT what was being discussed.
The poster I replied to suggested that this had nothing to do with copyright, and that 'leaking' this manual was somehow a criminal act. I asked - other than copyright infringement, where a fair use claim can plainly be made - what law was being broken?
Apple did NOT claim any form of trade secret protection for this manual, you'll note.
So what? You'll note that I explicitly mentioned trade secrets in my original post, acknowledging there's some degree of legal protection involved. Just because something is "confidential" does not/should not render it a trade-secret, however. Your company can make you sign a contract explicitly stating you'll never divulge your salary to anyone, that it is "confidential", yet I think the same company would be hard-pressed to claim your salary as a trade secret if you were to then recklessly use a bull-horn in the company car park to tell everyone your salary.
They could sue you for breaking your contract, though.
Typically, when someone says a person is 'breaking the law' they are referring to criminal law.
If I sign a contract with company A and then break it, you don't typically get company A claiming I've broken the law. You get company A claiming I've broken a contract, and they'll sue me.
SA don't have a contract with Apple. They didn't 'assist' anyone in breaking a contract.
Apple can claim copyright infringement if they want, but - it seems to me - SA has a legitimate 'fair use' claim. One page of a manual hundreds of pages long? Please.