In the usa there is a requirement also to report large cash in/out transactions - I don't see why this couldn't be applied to the online world.
However wholesale prohibition on banks providing any services to either the online casino or their customers is plain wrong.
I don't use online casinos I prefer the real thing if I'm going to bother but I don't see why it's necessary to destroy somebody's legitimate business to stop the possibility of money being laundered through online ones.
Having a trademark doesn't guarantee you rights to any domain name by default - this only works if the TLD in question allows trademark holders some special right to claim a name over another user.
The.name registry for example explicitly states that trademark holders will have no special rights over another user.
A trademark only grants you the rights to that name within a particular market sector so to suggest you have a god given right to a given domain name is folly, you have to play by whatever rules the registry adopts. Otherwise coke wouldn't be something you could burn.
You can only claim a domain name through legal action if the existing owner did not register it in good faith.
I'm sure you are aware that registering sucks.com has been found to be legitimate on more than one occasion.
Any judge faced with a line of argument like this is simply going to ask what was the purpose of the letter if it wasn't an attempt to threaten Felton - the specific language matters a lot less than their intent.
If they did not intend to intimidate him they wouldn't have sent the letter.
How many things will you let be taken away in the name of protecting the people ????
I can understand many of the measures proposed but clamping down on online gambling is just attempt to sneak some other agenda in to so called anti-terrorist legislation.
Why should all kinds of legitimate technology be thrown away because they *MIGHT* be used by terrorists. Encryption protects all kinds of things we take for granted ATMs, Credit card & bank transactions etc. do you want your accounts to be compromisable in order to prevent terrorism ??? The needs to be some calm logical thought here not just nee jerk reactions.
The intelligence services couldn't keep their eyes on a relatively small number of *KNOWN* terrorists so why is letting them monitor everybody going to help ?
yes but also consider that a major artist will usually have a production company which handles recording and production and then licenses the finished recording to the record company.
It gets very complicated last time I needed a public performance license- I had one from an organisation representing the airtists / songwriters etc. which permitted the playing of the songs. The other license was from the record companies themselves which covered playing music contained on a cd / tape rather than from the radio or someother source.
so yes in essence the record industry holds the copyright in the recording. but they don't own the performance itself or the composition or the lyrics - all of those are owned by the artist.
The fun part here is that the recording (copyright owned by riaa members) is of a performance (copyright owned by artist) of a composition (copyright owned by composer).
I think that the rationale behind the hate crimes law is an attempt to address the intent of the criminal - remember intent is what makes you a criminal not a physical act.
Most violent crimes are a heat of the moment thing - people get into a fight and somebody winds up dead or injured.
Very few people are killed / assaulted by complete strangers - however so called hate crimes are often the opposite - calculated cold blooded attacks on somebody because of a difference in race or whatever.
It's not the race or the religion or the sexual orientation of the victim that makes it a hate crime but the motivation in the head of the perpetrator.
Now go look at the copyright notice in a book - it shows the author as holding copyright doesn't it ?
In the same way the artist owns the music and the record industry licenses certain rights from the artist (unless they have an express agreement transferring the copyright to the record company - this may be the case with smaller newer artists but anybody who knows the business isn't going to assign their copyright to a corporation for life).
And don't tell me that the music is a "work made for hire" because neither the courts or congress believe in that fairy tale so the record companies can't claim ownership that way.
Oddly enough the RIAA don't even own the rights to publish the music that is owned by the music publishers. All the RIAA owns is the "mechanical rights" in the CD,tape or whatever. Or at least that's what the licenses I used to have for public performance of recordings say.
No it means the findings of fact have been appealed to the highest court in the land and upheld there will be no further appeal on the findings of fact.
There may be an appeal against the remedy ordered by the court but only an idiot would leave that in the judges hands right now - microsofts best hope is to start talking seriously about a settlement before the court imposes a remedy on them.
Fine - presumably you would then expect me to blame those mailing lists for your juvenile behaviour.
Why stop at double opt in ? maybe somebody else was using my computer that day - I know lets require all email addresses to be verified by telephone, USPS and Fedex before we add somebody to a list.
Well yes it is - but there you are shifting the blame from the abuser (the one who signed up the poor unsupecting soul) to the innocent third party who didn't know this had happened.
While I accept that double opt in measures should be encouraged to prevent this it is hardly rational to lump mailing list operators who don't confirm their subscriptions with spammers - accidental subsription to a mailing list is not spam.
I don't see why running a mailing list should qualify you for any of MAPS's lists let alone the RBL.
The probable reasoning behind settling the suit is that maps where stating by listing these sites in the RBL that they were confirmed spammers (UNTRUE) - the supreme court has already ruled that the 1st ammendment does not cover commercial speech intended to destroy anothers business. so no protection = slander, defamation etc.
MAPS' tactics appear no better than those sending the spam - All kinds of innocent sites have fallen off the internet for daring to be on the same IP block as somebody who sent spam.
Requiring a double opt in for mailing lists isn't exactly spam related now is it ? the subscription policy for an email list should be a matter for it's owner not for some third party to decide.
That may be store policy but it doesn't mean they don't have to give you a refund if you choose to excercise your right to reject goods that were sold to you in a sealed package (and therefore couldn't be inspected before purchase)
I'd have to check the fine print but as I understand it SCMS compliance for CDs, CD Players & CD Recorders is mandatory under copyright statutes.
I wonder if there's any merit to arguing that a copy protected disc is not SCMS compliant (it doesn't allow your legally mandated copy from original only). of course I expect the RIAA had an opt out for their benefit written into the law.
It is clearly stated in the documentation for cd players dvd players, cd-rom drives etc. that they are compatible with any disc bearing the cd digital audio logo.
It would be easy to argue in court that that it is a reasonable expectation for a disc displaying that logo to play in all equipment displaying the same logo.
IMHO Philips and sony have a case for trademark infrigement against any company that displays the logo on an incompatible product - unfortunately philips and sony also own the major record companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey I guess that cd that my friend gave me of his band playing must be a fake then - but who'd fake a cd from a band nobody has heard of :-)
In the usa there is a requirement also to report large cash in/out transactions - I don't see why this couldn't be applied to the online world.
However wholesale prohibition on banks providing any services to either the online casino or their customers is plain wrong.
I don't use online casinos I prefer the real thing if I'm going to bother but I don't see why it's necessary to destroy somebody's legitimate business to stop the possibility of money being laundered through online ones.
Having a trademark doesn't guarantee you rights to any domain name by default - this only works if the TLD in question allows trademark holders some special right to claim a name over another user.
.name registry for example explicitly states that trademark holders will have no special rights over another user.
The
A trademark only grants you the rights to that name within a particular market sector so to suggest you have a god given right to a given domain name is folly, you have to play by whatever rules the registry adopts. Otherwise coke wouldn't be something you could burn.
You can only claim a domain name through legal action if the existing owner did not register it in good faith.
I'm sure you are aware that registering sucks.com has been found to be legitimate on more than one occasion.
see the movie "awakenings"
It's probably illegal to run a lottery where the entrants are not told the odds of winning (nor are the odds fixed for that matter).
Most gambling laws require fixed odds and for the odds to be available to all players.
Not to mention this probably constitutes and unlicensed lottery too.
Any judge faced with a line of argument like this is simply going to ask what was the purpose of the letter if it wasn't an attempt to threaten Felton - the specific language matters a lot less than their intent.
If they did not intend to intimidate him they wouldn't have sent the letter.
The talk a while back was that government back doors would be required in all encryption that means everthing mastercard, your bank .. the works.
If the government can use a back door then so can a hacker.
Bullshit !!!
How many things will you let be taken away in the name of protecting the people ????
I can understand many of the measures proposed but clamping down on online gambling is just attempt to sneak some other agenda in to so called anti-terrorist legislation.
Why should all kinds of legitimate technology be thrown away because they *MIGHT* be used by terrorists. Encryption protects all kinds of things we take for granted ATMs, Credit card & bank transactions etc. do you want your accounts to be compromisable in order to prevent terrorism ??? The needs to be some calm logical thought here not just nee jerk reactions.
The intelligence services couldn't keep their eyes on a relatively small number of *KNOWN* terrorists so why is letting them monitor everybody going to help ?
oh sure reject my story then post it as your own
yes but also consider that a major artist will usually have a production company which handles recording and production and then licenses the finished recording to the record company.
It gets very complicated last time I needed a public performance license- I had one from an organisation representing the airtists / songwriters etc. which permitted the playing of the songs. The other license was from the record companies themselves which covered playing music contained on a cd / tape rather than from the radio or someother source.
so yes in essence the record industry holds the copyright in the recording. but they don't own the performance itself or the composition or the lyrics - all of those are owned by the artist.
The fun part here is that the recording (copyright owned by riaa members) is of a performance (copyright owned by artist) of a composition (copyright owned by composer).
I think that the rationale behind the hate crimes law is an attempt to address the intent of the criminal - remember intent is what makes you a criminal not a physical act.
Most violent crimes are a heat of the moment thing - people get into a fight and somebody winds up dead or injured.
Very few people are killed / assaulted by complete strangers - however so called hate crimes are often the opposite - calculated cold blooded attacks on somebody because of a difference in race or whatever.
It's not the race or the religion or the sexual orientation of the victim that makes it a hate crime but the motivation in the head of the perpetrator.
another one i like :
Jurisprudence
often because technical books are written by technical writers who are employed by the publishing house.
This was perfect timing - suddenly point out that the RIAA are in fact not the copyright owners and that they are a monopoly.
The same thing happened in the MP3.com case I believe.
The RIAA's members have been misrepresenting copyright ownership for years --- look at a cd does it say "© 2001 insert band name here"? - no it says "© 2001 insert really big record company name here".
Now go look at the copyright notice in a book - it shows the author as holding copyright doesn't it ?
In the same way the artist owns the music and the record industry licenses certain rights from the artist (unless they have an express agreement transferring the copyright to the record company - this may be the case with smaller newer artists but anybody who knows the business isn't going to assign their copyright to a corporation for life).
And don't tell me that the music is a "work made for hire" because neither the courts or congress believe in that fairy tale so the record companies can't claim ownership that way.
Oddly enough the RIAA don't even own the rights to publish the music that is owned by the music publishers. All the RIAA owns is the "mechanical rights" in the CD,tape or whatever. Or at least that's what the licenses I used to have for public performance of recordings say.
BTW IANAL
No it means the findings of fact have been appealed to the highest court in the land and upheld there will be no further appeal on the findings of fact.
There may be an appeal against the remedy ordered by the court but only an idiot would leave that in the judges hands right now - microsofts best hope is to start talking seriously about a settlement before the court imposes a remedy on them.
Fine - presumably you would then expect me to blame those mailing lists for your juvenile behaviour.
Why stop at double opt in ? maybe somebody else was using my computer that day - I know lets require all email addresses to be verified by telephone, USPS and Fedex before we add somebody to a list.
Well yes it is - but there you are shifting the blame from the abuser (the one who signed up the poor unsupecting soul) to the innocent third party who didn't know this had happened.
While I accept that double opt in measures should be encouraged to prevent this it is hardly rational to lump mailing list operators who don't confirm their subscriptions with spammers - accidental subsription to a mailing list is not spam.
I don't see why running a mailing list should qualify you for any of MAPS's lists let alone the RBL.
The probable reasoning behind settling the suit is that maps where stating by listing these sites in the RBL that they were confirmed spammers (UNTRUE) - the supreme court has already ruled that the 1st ammendment does not cover commercial speech intended to destroy anothers business. so no protection = slander, defamation etc.
MAPS' tactics appear no better than those sending the spam - All kinds of innocent sites have fallen off the internet for daring to be on the same IP block as somebody who sent spam.
Requiring a double opt in for mailing lists isn't exactly spam related now is it ? the subscription policy for an email list should be a matter for it's owner not for some third party to decide.
Another myth - blood is not blue inside your veins it's red - oxygenated blood is however a brighter shade of red.
That may be store policy but it doesn't mean they don't have to give you a refund if you choose to excercise your right to reject goods that were sold to you in a sealed package (and therefore couldn't be inspected before purchase)
This patent basically describes any kind of variable digital delay circuit. Does this make it a new invention ?
If this kind of thing were legal microsoft would have patents on word processors and everything else by now.
I'd have to check the fine print but as I understand it SCMS compliance for CDs, CD Players & CD Recorders is mandatory under copyright statutes.
I wonder if there's any merit to arguing that a copy protected disc is not SCMS compliant (it doesn't allow your legally mandated copy from original only). of course I expect the RIAA had an opt out for their benefit written into the law.
It is clearly stated in the documentation for cd players dvd players, cd-rom drives etc. that they are compatible with any disc bearing the cd digital audio logo.
It would be easy to argue in court that that it is a reasonable expectation for a disc displaying that logo to play in all equipment displaying the same logo.
IMHO Philips and sony have a case for trademark infrigement against any company that displays the logo on an incompatible product - unfortunately philips and sony also own the major record companies.
no but you can sue them for deceptive labeling - if it displays the logo it should play on any player displaying the logo.