Re:I like gmail.
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nor can you do it yourself if you've already received a subpoena for your email. Destroying or tampering with evidence subject to court-ordered discovery constitutes contempt and can subject the party to criminal sanctions, including fines and jail time.
On what basis? I'm a law student researching copyright law, and it appears that under 17 U.S.C. s. 601(b)(4)(A) (personal importation exception), so long as the original copy is not made in violation of copyright (i.e., if AllOfMP3.com is operating legally in Russia), then a single copy of a work legally purchased in Russia may be legal to import into the United States.
There may be issues of international law - but to my knowledge there has never been a case answering this particular question.
In any civil matter such as this, a judge still has to approve the discovery request. However, such requests are liberally granted, particularly when the information requested is particularly relevant to the litigation. It's hard to argue that the relevant evidence in an Internet copyright infringement claim will be anywhere but on the computers alleged to be involved.
Uh, you mean other than the fact that the plaintiffs have an IP address associated with the upload of the movie that are associated with the defendant's use of his Internet service?
Any party involved in civil litigation has a legal right to obtain discovery regarding any manner that is relevant and not privileges and which may lend credence to a claim or defense. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
In this case, it would certainly cover examining computers for evidence of copyright infringement.
Except that the Active Protection support doesn't actually stop the disk from spinning and park the drive heads like it should. It merely makes the sensors available to userspace applications.
I'm sorry, but I cannot spend time arguing this back and forth. Google is making a copy of the entire work in digital format. How that copy is made is irrelevant for the purposes of the law. It is that act of reproduction, and that act alone, which is relevant for the purposes of the lawsuit.
1) It doesn't matter in what format the copy is made; the Copyright Act of 1976 is technology-neutral. (For example, there are more efficient ways to encode music than the CDDA format, e.g., MP3, but it is irrelevant for the purposes of whether a copy is made.) All that matters is whether the alleged copy is "substantially similar" as a matter of law or fact to constitute infringement.
2) Distribution is right entirely separate from duplication, and can be sued upon independently as an entirely different cause of action.
3) It doesn't matter whether the portion read by humans is small. Copyright is a strict liability theory.
You are correct that there are two copies going on here. The first is Google's copying of the books in order to index them, and the second is the reproduction of the fragments displayed to the end user.
The publishers are not suing on the second action of copying, which might constitute fair use.
The publishers are suing on the first action of copying (that is, taking each book from the library and converting it to ASCII text/images). To my knowledge (as a law student, not a practicing attorney), under the four-factor analysis (see above) used to determine fair use, Google's present practice would fail to be fair use.
Two factors are against Google: (1) They are making a copy of the entire work, as opposed to some small portion of it, and (2) they intend to use the work for commercial purposes (i.e., selling ads), as opposed to merely educational, political or charitable purposes.
They are, in fact, reproducing the entire book. They are taking books and scanning images of each page and storing them on disk, then using an OCR to convert the text of the entire book into ASCII format.
This is reproduction, pure and simple - the fact that they are not "mechanical" reproductions onto the identical media is irrelevant.
Wrong. Fair use is a defense to all "rights" bundled in the concept of copyright, including both reproduction and distribution.
Whether what Google is doing falls under the rubric of "fair use," however, is the very issue at heart. I very sincerely doubt that either the 2nd or the 9th Circuits, which are pretty hard-core defenders of intellectual property rights, will conclude that reproducing an entire book is "fair use."
This isn't just good news for unauthorized file sharers. It's also good news for spammers, who assuredly will race to use any ISP which does not log IP allocations. Untraceable senders are great both for direct spammers, who will benefit from their untouchability, as well as indirect spammers, who will benefit from having infected spam relays on the net for a much, much longer time.
It can compete with XM if the site wisely encodes in AAC+ (AKA AAC-HE) instead of MP3. At 48kbps AAC+ streams sound almost as good as MP3 streams at 96kbps.
You don't use your phone as the interface. You use it as a conduit. That's what Bluetooth is for.
Also, the $25/month is IP traffic, not just "music" traffic. You can use it for all number of things while mobile, including real-time traffic updates, directories, you name it.
Grey Innovation has a keen idea, but the implementation is not quite right. WiFi is great for bounded areas, like a house or a college campus, but it's not really well-suited to situations in which you need truly mobile IP access. For that, I think the new high-speed mobile IP protocols, such as EDGE, WCDMA/UMTS and EVDO are much better. Right now you can get unlimited EDGE IP traffic from Cingular for $15/month if you know what you are doing.
Internet radio is also a very good application when done well (check the radio stations in iTunes if you haven't already), but you can do a lot more than just radio if you have Internet access. With Internet access you can also have music on demand. Rhapsody, Napster or the new Yahoo! Music Unlimited all provide this for a small subscription fee of $5-$10 US per month - much less than XM or Sirius charges. Their catalogues are pretty sizable, over 1 million tracks each.
The key is to link this all together with a reasonable user interface. It would manifest itself in the form of a device (either standalone or built into an automobile) capable of tuning into these radio streams, or connecting to one of the music-on-demand services, with a Bluetooth interface using the Dial-Up Networking profile. Tether that to your Bluetooth-capable mobile phone, and voila. Instant kick-ass.
Burying cable seems less objectionable only with the shortest of foresight. Underground cables can break or wear out (especially in earthquake prone areas), and they can't be easily upgraded to accommodate new technology. Every time maintenance needs to be done, the street needs to be dug up.
Ever priced out a trench to bring new cable to your house? As soon as you do, you'll be smacking yourself upside the head for railing against "those eyesore utility poles." Everything artificial is an eyesore for the first hour or so; after that you barely even notice anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor can you do it yourself if you've already received a subpoena for your email. Destroying or tampering with evidence subject to court-ordered discovery constitutes contempt and can subject the party to criminal sanctions, including fines and jail time.
On what basis? I'm a law student researching copyright law, and it appears that under 17 U.S.C. s. 601(b)(4)(A) (personal importation exception), so long as the original copy is not made in violation of copyright (i.e., if AllOfMP3.com is operating legally in Russia), then a single copy of a work legally purchased in Russia may be legal to import into the United States.
There may be issues of international law - but to my knowledge there has never been a case answering this particular question.
Please to be not giving out legal advice on Slashdot. What attorney has told you this?
In any civil matter such as this, a judge still has to approve the discovery request. However, such requests are liberally granted, particularly when the information requested is particularly relevant to the litigation. It's hard to argue that the relevant evidence in an Internet copyright infringement claim will be anywhere but on the computers alleged to be involved.
Uh, you mean other than the fact that the plaintiffs have an IP address associated with the upload of the movie that are associated with the defendant's use of his Internet service?
Any party involved in civil litigation has a legal right to obtain discovery regarding any manner that is relevant and not privileges and which may lend credence to a claim or defense. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
In this case, it would certainly cover examining computers for evidence of copyright infringement.
Its (sic) like "Google for Usenet," says this report.
We already have a Google for Usenet. It was called DejaNews, which was bought by--you guessed it--Google.
What makes you think they don't already know about it?
Except that the Active Protection support doesn't actually stop the disk from spinning and park the drive heads like it should. It merely makes the sensors available to userspace applications.
Truth in advertising, kids!
I'm sorry, but I cannot spend time arguing this back and forth. Google is making a copy of the entire work in digital format. How that copy is made is irrelevant for the purposes of the law. It is that act of reproduction, and that act alone, which is relevant for the purposes of the lawsuit.
1) It doesn't matter in what format the copy is made; the Copyright Act of 1976 is technology-neutral. (For example, there are more efficient ways to encode music than the CDDA format, e.g., MP3, but it is irrelevant for the purposes of whether a copy is made.) All that matters is whether the alleged copy is "substantially similar" as a matter of law or fact to constitute infringement.
2) Distribution is right entirely separate from duplication, and can be sued upon independently as an entirely different cause of action.
3) It doesn't matter whether the portion read by humans is small. Copyright is a strict liability theory.
You are correct that there are two copies going on here. The first is Google's copying of the books in order to index them, and the second is the reproduction of the fragments displayed to the end user.
The publishers are not suing on the second action of copying, which might constitute fair use.
The publishers are suing on the first action of copying (that is, taking each book from the library and converting it to ASCII text/images). To my knowledge (as a law student, not a practicing attorney), under the four-factor analysis (see above) used to determine fair use, Google's present practice would fail to be fair use.
Two factors are against Google: (1) They are making a copy of the entire work, as opposed to some small portion of it, and (2) they intend to use the work for commercial purposes (i.e., selling ads), as opposed to merely educational, political or charitable purposes.
Sorry, but you are wrong, according to all the case law. See, e.g., UMG Recordings Inc. v. MP3.com Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
They are, in fact, reproducing the entire book. They are taking books and scanning images of each page and storing them on disk, then using an OCR to convert the text of the entire book into ASCII format.
This is reproduction, pure and simple - the fact that they are not "mechanical" reproductions onto the identical media is irrelevant.
Wrong. Fair use is a defense to all "rights" bundled in the concept of copyright, including both reproduction and distribution.
Whether what Google is doing falls under the rubric of "fair use," however, is the very issue at heart. I very sincerely doubt that either the 2nd or the 9th Circuits, which are pretty hard-core defenders of intellectual property rights, will conclude that reproducing an entire book is "fair use."
Laptops generally don't have built-in echo cancellation.
The article incorrectly states that PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules) came out of Project Athena.
However, it was actually invented by Sun, and was eventually adopted as RFC 86.0 by the Open Software Foundation in 1995.
What? A company whose mission is to provide content and research services to academia gives a poor review to one of its up-and-coming competitors' offerings? Say it isn't so!
It's all relative. I remember not long ago (early 1990s) when 21" CRTs capable of XGA resolution cost over $2100.
This isn't just good news for unauthorized file sharers. It's also good news for spammers, who assuredly will race to use any ISP which does not log IP allocations. Untraceable senders are great both for direct spammers, who will benefit from their untouchability, as well as indirect spammers, who will benefit from having infected spam relays on the net for a much, much longer time.
Sorry, $25 a month. My mistake.
It can compete with XM if the site wisely encodes in AAC+ (AKA AAC-HE) instead of MP3. At 48kbps AAC+ streams sound almost as good as MP3 streams at 96kbps.
You don't use your phone as the interface. You use it as a conduit. That's what Bluetooth is for.
Also, the $25/month is IP traffic, not just "music" traffic. You can use it for all number of things while mobile, including real-time traffic updates, directories, you name it.
Grey Innovation has a keen idea, but the implementation is not quite right. WiFi is great for bounded areas, like a house or a college campus, but it's not really well-suited to situations in which you need truly mobile IP access. For that, I think the new high-speed mobile IP protocols, such as EDGE, WCDMA/UMTS and EVDO are much better. Right now you can get unlimited EDGE IP traffic from Cingular for $15/month if you know what you are doing.
Internet radio is also a very good application when done well (check the radio stations in iTunes if you haven't already), but you can do a lot more than just radio if you have Internet access. With Internet access you can also have music on demand. Rhapsody, Napster or the new Yahoo! Music Unlimited all provide this for a small subscription fee of $5-$10 US per month - much less than XM or Sirius charges. Their catalogues are pretty sizable, over 1 million tracks each.
The key is to link this all together with a reasonable user interface. It would manifest itself in the form of a device (either standalone or built into an automobile) capable of tuning into these radio streams, or connecting to one of the music-on-demand services, with a Bluetooth interface using the Dial-Up Networking profile. Tether that to your Bluetooth-capable mobile phone, and voila. Instant kick-ass.
Burying cable seems less objectionable only with the shortest of foresight. Underground cables can break or wear out (especially in earthquake prone areas), and they can't be easily upgraded to accommodate new technology. Every time maintenance needs to be done, the street needs to be dug up.
Ever priced out a trench to bring new cable to your house? As soon as you do, you'll be smacking yourself upside the head for railing against "those eyesore utility poles." Everything artificial is an eyesore for the first hour or so; after that you barely even notice anymore.