Assuming youtube posted all the videos themselves you're right.
If not then viacom has to go through the DMCA notice process. Viacom says they did that but it remains to be seen whether the notices were proper or not.
Statements like this one : "YouTube's brazen disregard for intellectual property laws fundamentally threatens not just [Viacom], but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy." do nothing to improve their credibility.
I don't think there's any frustration, I think this is a case of "Oh look! A new and novel idea for an internet service" and TV/RADIO/MOVIE/RECORD companies pile on and try to get money for nothing.
Correct... the legal theory is that youtube is simply hosting content for its users rather than being the publisher of the content itself, therefore the DMCA takedown procedures apply and google is protected from liability by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.
I'm guessing Viacom might have simply demanded that youtube remove any clips containing their works from the system without specifying which files.
Yes funny how people forget - but the previous administration didn't show any signs of caring. In fact they seemed proud of the fact they didn't give a hoot what people thought because they figured they could keep people too scared of labor to vote for them.
Yes, when I lived in Britain everybody claimed that Murdochs papers were too pro tory. Indeed one night when the labor party was expected to win a general election, one of his papers early editions ran with a front page that was black and contained only a message asking the last person to leave the country to turn out the lights. Things must have changed.
Yeah and they have a really bad habit of using SWAT teams in the most innapropriate of circumstances. Nothing like watching a bunch of guys jump out of unmarked minivans in ski masks carrying automatic weapons to go kick in your neighbors door in the middle of the afternoon.
Now those cases do make me mad. If somebody kicks in your front door and yells (or doesn't) "POLICE!" how the heck are you supposed to know if they're telling the truth before it's to late to do anything about it. It's not like you can ask to see their badge.
Show me a case where somebody was defending themselves against a burgler and went to prison. Unless it was plainly silly like the burglar was shot in the back while running away two blocks from where the break in happened.
There's no logical progression from "I think there's an exhaust leak" to "I need to search the trunk". The exhaust system is on the outside of the car.
If we allow the evidence gained from an illegal search made with good intentions - we have to allow the evidence from illegal searches made with bad intentions too. What good is it having laws against illegal searches if the fruits of an illegal search can still be used against you ?
they have the worst customer support (Bob aka Habib in India),
Ah - you've never been a verizon customer then.
Constant overbilling, random shut offs of additional services, fees to reinstate the randomly shut off aditional services, $3000 cell phone bills because they accidentally deleted your voice plan from your cellphone account, $2000 data bills because they accidentally deleted the data plan from your blackberry.
VOIP protocols are all published standards. Telco connections are all done to published standards. Yet if you do the two as part of the same system, then you have to pay verizon ?
Speaking very generally here, my legal education was in English law, but googling for US cases reveals similar outcomes.
The clauses are presumed to be invalid unless they are reasonable in terms of the scope of work covered, geographical area and length of time. The burden will be on the employer to prove these three in any litigation. There may be specific state statutes limiting these, otherwise look for cases in your state to get an idea of what courts are finding to be reasonable. These tests may also be interpreted differently depending on circumstances, it should be harder to justify enforcing a non-compete where you are terminated without cause for example.
I'd say the real question is whether a legitimate interest of your employer is being protected or whether they just want to screw people.
Yes immigration laws work on rather negative presumptions :
Anyone who seeks entry as a visitor is presumed to be an intending immigrant and must prove otherwise. Anyone who files a valid immigration application is presumed to be a liar and must prove otherwise.
There is also the school of thought which says the west didn't oppose building of the wall (other than in terms of rhetoric) because it saved them the effort of building one to stem the flow of refugees from east germany.
I haven't noticed Mexico asserting any territorial claim over the US lately which is usually what an invasion is all about. Land borders are blatantly impossible to police well because there's a near infinite number of crossing points.
You don't get to stay in the country because you have a child that is a US citizen. It changes nothing legally. Only an immediate relative who is over 18 can get you a green card.
Slashdot Mirror
According to TFA the court dismissed the charges against Dunn - do the submitters not read the TFA either ?
I didn't think I was being funny either - people really should try it.
Not only that but the taste of soda made with HFCS is vastly inferior to that made with sugar.
I believe that is because maths is an abbreviation of mathematics and sport is well ... sport.
Assuming youtube posted all the videos themselves you're right.
If not then viacom has to go through the DMCA notice process. Viacom says they did that but it remains to be seen whether the notices were proper or not.
Statements like this one : "YouTube's brazen disregard for intellectual property laws fundamentally threatens not just [Viacom], but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy." do nothing to improve their credibility.
I don't think there's any frustration, I think this is a case of "Oh look! A new and novel idea for an internet service" and TV/RADIO/MOVIE/RECORD companies pile on and try to get money for nothing.
Correct ... the legal theory is that youtube is simply hosting content for its users rather than being the publisher of the content itself, therefore the DMCA takedown procedures apply and google is protected from liability by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.
I'm guessing Viacom might have simply demanded that youtube remove any clips containing their works from the system without specifying which files.
Yes funny how people forget - but the previous administration didn't show any signs of caring. In fact they seemed proud of the fact they didn't give a hoot what people thought because they figured they could keep people too scared of labor to vote for them.
Yes, when I lived in Britain everybody claimed that Murdochs papers were too pro tory. Indeed one night when the labor party was expected to win a general election, one of his papers early editions ran with a front page that was black and contained only a message asking the last person to leave the country to turn out the lights. Things must have changed.
Yeah and they have a really bad habit of using SWAT teams in the most innapropriate of circumstances. Nothing like watching a bunch of guys jump out of unmarked minivans in ski masks carrying automatic weapons to go kick in your neighbors door in the middle of the afternoon.
Now those cases do make me mad. If somebody kicks in your front door and yells (or doesn't) "POLICE!" how the heck are you supposed to know if they're telling the truth before it's to late to do anything about it. It's not like you can ask to see their badge.
OMG The urban legend that won't die.
Show me a case where somebody was defending themselves against a burgler and went to prison. Unless it was plainly silly like the burglar was shot in the back while running away two blocks from where the break in happened.
There's no logical progression from "I think there's an exhaust leak" to "I need to search the trunk". The exhaust system is on the outside of the car.
If we allow the evidence gained from an illegal search made with good intentions - we have to allow the evidence from illegal searches made with bad intentions too. What good is it having laws against illegal searches if the fruits of an illegal search can still be used against you ?
they have the worst customer support (Bob aka Habib in India),
Ah - you've never been a verizon customer then.
Constant overbilling, random shut offs of additional services, fees to reinstate the randomly shut off aditional services, $3000 cell phone bills because they accidentally deleted your voice plan from your cellphone account, $2000 data bills because they accidentally deleted the data plan from your blackberry.
Great ! they patented the gateway ????
This is stoooooooooopid.
VOIP protocols are all published standards. Telco connections are all done to published standards. Yet if you do the two as part of the same system, then you have to pay verizon ?
I meant verizon not vonage .... I think slashdot randomly changes words if you don't use preview.
How can vonage claim patents on connecting things to the phone network ? Of course the TFA might be oversimplifying a bit.
Speaking very generally here, my legal education was in English law, but googling for US cases reveals similar outcomes.
The clauses are presumed to be invalid unless they are reasonable in terms of the scope of work covered, geographical area and length of time. The burden will be on the employer to prove these three in any litigation. There may be specific state statutes limiting these, otherwise look for cases in your state to get an idea of what courts are finding to be reasonable. These tests may also be interpreted differently depending on circumstances, it should be harder to justify enforcing a non-compete where you are terminated without cause for example.
I'd say the real question is whether a legitimate interest of your employer is being protected or whether they just want to screw people.
I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
really :
r s/stories/2006/08/17/BC_IMMIG_CHILDREN_COX17.htmld a/sfl-cdetained25feb25,0,5180003.storye ws/epaper/2006/10/14/m1a_lizdeport14.html
http://democraciausa.org/en/headlines/120706en3/
http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporte
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflori
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_n
This is just a handful of the results a google search turned up.
Yes immigration laws work on rather negative presumptions :
Anyone who seeks entry as a visitor is presumed to be an intending immigrant and must prove otherwise.
Anyone who files a valid immigration application is presumed to be a liar and must prove otherwise.
There is also the school of thought which says the west didn't oppose building of the wall (other than in terms of rhetoric) because it saved them the effort of building one to stem the flow of refugees from east germany.
I haven't noticed Mexico asserting any territorial claim over the US lately which is usually what an invasion is all about. Land borders are blatantly impossible to police well because there's a near infinite number of crossing points.
Immigration myth #3743741 Anchor Baby
You don't get to stay in the country because you have a child that is a US citizen. It changes nothing legally. Only an immediate relative who is over 18 can get you a green card.
What do you want ? The Berlin wall ?
Who knows what the long wait on the launchpad followed by sudden acceleration does to somebody.