"the advent of a new staff position, Apple Creative Pro" - sounds more like a software title. I'm sure they'll be as "creative" as the Apple Geniuses at the genius bars are "geniuses."
To distribute, you need a license. Copyrighted material requires the license be in writing. So sad, too bad. Can't find the license to your copy of Windows when the BSA comes around? Awwwww.
95% of the world is not governed by the DMCA. American exceptionalism? No thanks. I've had people try to take material that they falsely claimed copyright to try to use a DMCA takedown notice, and my hosting provider laughed at them.
If you don't have a contract with the uploader whereby they are giving you a consideration for your service, you are free to delete anything you want, or close down the service completely. That's one of the problems with using free services - they can do whatever they want in terms of deleting anything and everything, so you better have backups. Or don't use a free service.
The same applies to using a paid service where the contract includes the right to remove material deemed unacceptable. Your uploaded copy of a cracked version of Word will be deleted and there's nothing you can do about it under the contract. Tough.
Nobody says you have to go through the ISP. Go directly at the person who uploaded. This has been done plenty of times, and the courts allow it. No need to use the DMCA.
No, but I happen to agree that if you like something so much, pay for the damn thing!
Funny how many software developers whose jobs depend on making copyrighted stuff for a living think it's okay as long as it's not their stuff that gets ripped off. Hypocrites.
As the prophet George Carlin would say "You're full of sh*t!" Someone uploads a cracked copy of Word to your server, you don't need Microsoft's permission to delete it. Same with any other material, copyright or not.
They were doing it before the split. Google still makes infringing material available on youtube searches. Google bought youtube knowing that there was a huge copyright problem that the original owners were running into all the time.
"Gee, I don't know who I got it from - some guy said it fell off the back of the truck." Do you really think that's going to save your ass from possession of stolen goods in court? Same as any retailer who has stock that he doesn't have an invoice for that matches the description of stuff taken in a heist.
And who says that all copyright violations HAVE to go through the DMCA? Nobody. You have the option to use ordinary copyright law, which also works on electronic copyrighted materials. If I register a work and someone violates my copyright, I'm not going to go through the DMCA. I'm going to sue both the distributor and the uploader for statutory damages (which don't have to be proven in court - $150,000 per violation). Why use a stick when you can use a cannon, and make money doing it?
Your information is also posted on OTHER web sites. No need to log into OKCupid. That makes it public data. And YOU agreed to it in advance. Also, unless there is something creative and non-mundane, there's no claim to copyright.
First, so what if it's not free? Is your computer free? Your clothes? Your TV? Your living quarters? They're all free - if you're in a federal pen. Otherwise...
You can always use a non-free email service.
As for your whereabouts, unless you put your phone in a faraday cage, they already know that. Even more so if you turn on location services for such things as step-by-step directions. You are the product. Or you can stop using a phone, and use a different email server.
The users were informed in advance that their data would be posted on other web sites, available in search results, and that people would be able to collect them. You voluntarily make it public knowing that, you can't then complain that someone else is collecting it.
Have you changed since you went to college? I sure have. A LOT. Nobody stays the same. And really, who cares? Nobody's making you buy anything. I know that there are marketers who claim that their hyper-targeted marketing works, but (1) they're marketers, so they lie, and (2) we've been so over-exposed to marketing that we are not very susceptible to it any more.
I don't feel my life is any less complete because I don't own the latest iGadget. Or take cruises around the world. Or visit Disney World (How do you tell a kid in hospital that he's dying? "Hey, we're all going to Disney World!"). Or not drinking any particular brand of beer, or pop, or coffee (I don't drink any of them, so ads just aren't doing the job, I guess),
So the only advantage of them having a profile on me would be that I would no longer be bombarded with ads for stuff, and I'm okay with that..
The problem is that OKCupid gave out the information with the user's prior knowledge and agreement. See in particular the terms of the privacy policy, which make it clear that the data will appear on other web sites, in internet searches, and my be collected by others.
They didn't waive their statutory rights. The purpose of OKCupid is to make this info available to other users; one of the consequences is that it will also be available to others, and it's right there in the terms. People are stupid if they think that anything on the internet is private when you make it available to users of unknown/false identity, and users who are not logged in.
Read the Privacy Statement. YOU have already agreed to your information being displayed on other websites, made available in search results, and also are aware that it can be collected by others.
You have a right to privacy, but when you post something on the internet after being told that it will be public, it's the same as running around naked in the street and then claiming the police violated your privacy by seeing you as they arrested you, or posting your tax return on a public billboard.
"two sources that are independent and have no correlations between them"
I TOLD you mot to look. Now thanks to the observer effect,.there IS something they both have in common! Co-relationships are now inevitable unless we can find a recipient that has nothing in common with you - anyone got a spare alien around to read the message?
Google is the one actively enabling the distribution of copyrighted material without a license, for profit. They are the ones who have to get a license, on their nickel, and pay damages for infringement. They can go after the person who uploaded it. They have a system for detecting infringement, they should use it for all uploads and most of the problems go away. Of course that will mean uploaders supplying real contact info, but this is the same as any other commercial contract.
Google certainly doesn't need an agreement with the copyright owner to ban copyrighted material any more than megaupload did.
You operation a site, you are responsible for any copyright violations going on.
The U.S. government has spent $175,587 to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior
A: Not for long. The cats were NOT pleased and made their displeasure known.
The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk
A: Because they're drunk. Because living in Argentina is itself risky behavior, so that's why they're drunk in the first place.
The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
A: $442,340 buys a lot of prostitutes.
The NIH once spent $800,000 in stimulus funds to study the impact of a genital-washing program on men in South Africa.
A: Men in Africa have better things to do than watch people from the NIH wash their balls.
The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft
A: We still haven't heard from them - they may have been wiped out in a raid or had a spell cast on them.
The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that can't sit still in a kindergarten classroom.
A: Duct tape. Lot's of duct tape.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
A: Smells the same as farts from non-dairy cows or after eating a bad burrito.
A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
A: The Grateful Dead thank you for informing them of massive government-subsidized trademark and copyright infringement.
The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
A: They now offer some to the customers as well.
One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
A: There are no results available, because he went blind fapping after discovering internet pr0n.
The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions
A: It depends...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it was Al Gore's house? The one that is an energy gobbler and has a huge greenhouse gas footprint?
"the advent of a new staff position, Apple Creative Pro" - sounds more like a software title. I'm sure they'll be as "creative" as the Apple Geniuses at the genius bars are "geniuses."
To distribute, you need a license. Copyrighted material requires the license be in writing. So sad, too bad. Can't find the license to your copy of Windows when the BSA comes around? Awwwww.
95% of the world is not governed by the DMCA. American exceptionalism? No thanks. I've had people try to take material that they falsely claimed copyright to try to use a DMCA takedown notice, and my hosting provider laughed at them.
Read what I wrote - it's an argument against self-serving hypocrisy.
Personal private date means just that. You make it available to the public at large, it is no longer personal PRIVATE data, due to YOUR actions.
If you don't have a contract with the uploader whereby they are giving you a consideration for your service, you are free to delete anything you want, or close down the service completely. That's one of the problems with using free services - they can do whatever they want in terms of deleting anything and everything, so you better have backups. Or don't use a free service.
The same applies to using a paid service where the contract includes the right to remove material deemed unacceptable. Your uploaded copy of a cracked version of Word will be deleted and there's nothing you can do about it under the contract. Tough.
Nobody says you have to go through the ISP. Go directly at the person who uploaded. This has been done plenty of times, and the courts allow it. No need to use the DMCA.
How long until they abandon it? 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi ...
No, but I happen to agree that if you like something so much, pay for the damn thing!
Funny how many software developers whose jobs depend on making copyrighted stuff for a living think it's okay as long as it's not their stuff that gets ripped off. Hypocrites.
As the prophet George Carlin would say "You're full of sh*t!" Someone uploads a cracked copy of Word to your server, you don't need Microsoft's permission to delete it. Same with any other material, copyright or not.
They were doing it before the split. Google still makes infringing material available on youtube searches. Google bought youtube knowing that there was a huge copyright problem that the original owners were running into all the time.
"Gee, I don't know who I got it from - some guy said it fell off the back of the truck." Do you really think that's going to save your ass from possession of stolen goods in court? Same as any retailer who has stock that he doesn't have an invoice for that matches the description of stuff taken in a heist.
And who says that all copyright violations HAVE to go through the DMCA? Nobody. You have the option to use ordinary copyright law, which also works on electronic copyrighted materials. If I register a work and someone violates my copyright, I'm not going to go through the DMCA. I'm going to sue both the distributor and the uploader for statutory damages (which don't have to be proven in court - $150,000 per violation). Why use a stick when you can use a cannon, and make money doing it?
Your information is also posted on OTHER web sites. No need to log into OKCupid. That makes it public data. And YOU agreed to it in advance. Also, unless there is something creative and non-mundane, there's no claim to copyright.
No, the product is the web service. To google, the students are users.
Oh, that is SO last-century :-)
First, so what if it's not free? Is your computer free? Your clothes? Your TV? Your living quarters? They're all free - if you're in a federal pen. Otherwise ...
You can always use a non-free email service.
As for your whereabouts, unless you put your phone in a faraday cage, they already know that. Even more so if you turn on location services for such things as step-by-step directions. You are the product. Or you can stop using a phone, and use a different email server.
The users were informed in advance that their data would be posted on other web sites, available in search results, and that people would be able to collect them. You voluntarily make it public knowing that, you can't then complain that someone else is collecting it.
Have you changed since you went to college? I sure have. A LOT. Nobody stays the same. And really, who cares? Nobody's making you buy anything. I know that there are marketers who claim that their hyper-targeted marketing works, but (1) they're marketers, so they lie, and (2) we've been so over-exposed to marketing that we are not very susceptible to it any more.
I don't feel my life is any less complete because I don't own the latest iGadget. Or take cruises around the world. Or visit Disney World (How do you tell a kid in hospital that he's dying? "Hey, we're all going to Disney World!"). Or not drinking any particular brand of beer, or pop, or coffee (I don't drink any of them, so ads just aren't doing the job, I guess),
So the only advantage of them having a profile on me would be that I would no longer be bombarded with ads for stuff, and I'm okay with that..
The problem is that OKCupid gave out the information with the user's prior knowledge and agreement. See in particular the terms of the privacy policy, which make it clear that the data will appear on other web sites, in internet searches, and my be collected by others.
They didn't waive their statutory rights. The purpose of OKCupid is to make this info available to other users; one of the consequences is that it will also be available to others, and it's right there in the terms. People are stupid if they think that anything on the internet is private when you make it available to users of unknown/false identity, and users who are not logged in.
It is part of their primary offering. They take your data and make it available on the internet. How do you think anyone else can see it?
Read the Privacy Statement. YOU have already agreed to your information being displayed on other websites, made available in search results, and also are aware that it can be collected by others.
You have a right to privacy, but when you post something on the internet after being told that it will be public, it's the same as running around naked in the street and then claiming the police violated your privacy by seeing you as they arrested you, or posting your tax return on a public billboard.
Don't like it, don't use the service.
"two sources that are independent and have no correlations between them"
I TOLD you mot to look. Now thanks to the observer effect,.there IS something they both have in common! Co-relationships are now inevitable unless we can find a recipient that has nothing in common with you - anyone got a spare alien around to read the message?
Google is the one actively enabling the distribution of copyrighted material without a license, for profit. They are the ones who have to get a license, on their nickel, and pay damages for infringement. They can go after the person who uploaded it. They have a system for detecting infringement, they should use it for all uploads and most of the problems go away. Of course that will mean uploaders supplying real contact info, but this is the same as any other commercial contract.
Google certainly doesn't need an agreement with the copyright owner to ban copyrighted material any more than megaupload did. You operation a site, you are responsible for any copyright violations going on.
The U.S. government has spent $175,587 to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior
A: Not for long. The cats were NOT pleased and made their displeasure known.
The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk
A: Because they're drunk. Because living in Argentina is itself risky behavior, so that's why they're drunk in the first place.
The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
A: $442,340 buys a lot of prostitutes.
The NIH once spent $800,000 in stimulus funds to study the impact of a genital-washing program on men in South Africa.
A: Men in Africa have better things to do than watch people from the NIH wash their balls.
The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft
A: We still haven't heard from them - they may have been wiped out in a raid or had a spell cast on them.
The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that can't sit still in a kindergarten classroom.
A: Duct tape. Lot's of duct tape.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
A: Smells the same as farts from non-dairy cows or after eating a bad burrito.
A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
A: The Grateful Dead thank you for informing them of massive government-subsidized trademark and copyright infringement.
The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
A: They now offer some to the customers as well.
One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
A: There are no results available, because he went blind fapping after discovering internet pr0n.
The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions ...
A: It depends