"As for your two scenarios, in both, there is infringement, but A was probably more along the lines of what I was talking about."
OK, back to my original scene. Instead of emailing te rich marks the offending documents, I place them on a web site with a disclaimer that only x,y, & z have a right to copy.
I send a link to them by email. A certain percentage of them click the link. Now the web server logs show infringement on their part?
When do statutory damages become collectable? I believe the material on the page would have to be "recorded" with the copyright office. Is that the rigt word? (My brain does not want to work well yet this morning.) Are there any other requirements for sueing statutory damages?
'I set up a situation where someone could download a copyrighted work without intent to violate copyright.'
I am not sure you really answered the question I was asking.
"Well, let's say you go to web site and read a web page that was put up unlawfully. In order to read it, you necessarily make a copy of it in your computer, and that's been held to be infringing."
Let me now respond to this.
So, if I tell you to visit this great link for info on vacations in Florida:
and when you get there, it is not about vacations in Florida at all but is instead a web page that was put up unlawfully (that link is not one such to my knowledge though) then you will have broken the law? That doesn't seem right.
Perhaps I can put two different situations and you can say which if any you were referring to and which if any result in you commiting a copyright violation.
A. You make a copy of X intending to copy X. You think that you have permission or a legal right to make the copy when in fact you don't.
B. You make a copy of Y intending to copy X. If you had indeed made a copy of X as you intended, you would be ok as you had the right to copy X. As it is, you copied Y and you had no permission or right to copy Y.
I knew I would be, that's why I put in the terminal illness bit. If I know I am dying in two months, what do I care. (This is hypothetical all around.)
It is just that the claim was that the intent/state of mind of the infringer/downloader is not relevant.
I set up a situation where someone could download a copyrighted work without intent to violate copyright.
Can you clear up a bit more what was meant and how the situation I set up differs.
"The elements of an infringement action are: 1) A copyrighted work 2) Where the plaintiff has the relevant copyright (or can bring the suit, at least) 3) And where the defendant did something that was unauthorized by the relevant rightsholder, and which is infringing....
What the defendant thought is not on the list!
If it were, it would say something like 'the defendant negligently did something,' etc. In copyright, doing it is enough."
I know I am beaing stupid with this, but here goes...
I find I have a terminal illness and want to pass some money to someone or some cause.
I take a file that I have know is copyrighted by them and is not authorised for copying. I email copies from an anonymous account to a bunch of rich people with receipt confirmations turned on. A certain percentage of their email clients automatically confirm.
I supply evidence of this to the person I want to benefit. Game over? If email will not work, I arrange for downloads from the same people by subterfuge. Game over?
It would seem to meet your requirements, but I can't believe they would actually be liable.
"It's a give and take: the state also acts as "collectivists" when they allows such things as incorporation: which allows individual investors to get off the hook for paying out for failed business ventures.
It also supports copyrights, patents, and other such interferances in the free market, in order to promote the collective good.
Why, when a corporation is being punished for knowingly violating anti-trust laws (laws made to protect the market, and the public good), are you suddenly upset?
Microsoft probably wouldn't even exist in the first place without government protections in the form of copyright monopolies and laws to support incorporation. Microsoft willfully breaks the law; but heartily sues anyone who does the same. How is that fair?"
Hear! Hear!
Mod this baby all the way up to 11. (Yes indeed, these go to 11, film at 11.)
"If anything the Government should not have any, and I mean ANY say in any of it, either way. They should not be allowed to give Microsoft anything special, nor should they hold them for being a crappy business. Let the free-market decide."
Well, considering that it was the government having a say in it in the first place that got them the copyrights to their code, your theory falls flat right from the start.
Now, if you really mean that the government should have no say in it, then you are calling for the end of copyrights. Is that indeed what you are doing?
In any event, the government will at least have a say in any event in that they are a customer or potential customer.
"When society goes back to a patron of the arts model, piracy won't be an issue. We gotta get there first. The problem is that the masses won't want to fund it, they'll want someone else to do it. So we go from one large company investing to... someone else rich investing."
Nope, unless the boys with money get laws passed to prevent it, I think we are going to see the same thing in the arts as we are seeing in software. When I can get 10,000 songs under a CC BY-SA license that I like listening to, soneone is going to have to do a lot to convince me to give them money for DRM protected all rights reserved music.
This is what the big boys are afraid of. The competition from those who create for love and hopefully living money, not for the love of money.
Like I said, tis is not my area of interest these days. Was just trying to point out some more links for those interessted.
I liked the idea of growing apples in the cool soil myself. I live in the Bahamas and am back living in a house I grew up in as a child. We planted two apple trees here when I was young. Both struggled to survive, I seem to remember a small runt of an apple on the tree in the front yard once but that is all. Neither tree survives today.
Other fruit trees that were here before they were planted are still going strong.
I think the "infinity - 1" was a quote from a politician when talking of copyright term limits. It could have been a judge though. (It could even have been an urban legend, it was quite a while back now and memory fades...)
Am I in some sort of conspiracy with all the people on my block becasue we all have locks on our doors and windows. (Actually, I think the conspiracy goes a bit further than just my block, but I am not going into full details here on slashdot.)
So, the existance of encryption software is evidence of criminal intent? Do we finally have a big weapon to use against the MPAA and their ilk? I mean, if they did not have criminl intent, (if they have nothing to hide) then why would they need encryption?
Hmmmm.
OK, so no more ssh, ssl, pgp, gpg, rot13, oh well, back to telnet. No WEP or their ilk allowed either... back to all open access points.
"We're not being grammar nazis by insisting that they use less-neutral terms."
Agreed. Or...
Once again on the charged language issue...
As long as they insist on calling copyright infringers pirates and thieves, should we insist on calling price fixers rapists? Is that a suitably charged word?
"...when that term was first coined (centuries ago), people actually feared pirates. Nowadays pirates are characters in cartoons and adventure films for the family with very little resemblance to actual pirates."
Could you just be living in the wrong (right) part of the world?
"It means the animal didn't go and eat your children like you're going to do to it. I would think such a concept would be straightforward enough for anyone to understand."
This would make that animal innocent of crimes against you. Perhaps even of crimes against other humans, but what about crimes against other animals? Against plants? Against bacteria? Against rocks? Are they only innocent because we have chosen not to write laws making what they do illegal? So, if we pass laws tomorrow making it illegal for all animals to kill and eat other animal or plant life and make the punishment be that they can be hunted, would we no longer be hunting innocent animals? (I am not a hunter by the way, but I do fish for food on occasion.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Now that they've said it isn't in there"
I didn't read this as them saying it isn't there, just that there is nothing unannounced there. They didn't say announced where.
Reminds me of AD and FP and 42 and towels. And the bypass.
all the best,
drew
First, than you for your kind answers.
"As for your two scenarios, in both, there is infringement, but A was probably more along the lines of what I was talking about."
OK, back to my original scene. Instead of emailing te rich marks the offending documents, I place them on a web site with a disclaimer that only x,y, & z have a right to copy.
I send a link to them by email. A certain percentage of them click the link. Now the web server logs show infringement on their part?
When do statutory damages become collectable? I believe the material on the page would have to be "recorded" with the copyright office. Is that the rigt word? (My brain does not want to work well yet this morning.) Are there any other requirements for sueing statutory damages?
all the best,
drew
'I set up a situation where someone could download a copyrighted work without intent to violate copyright.'
I am not sure you really answered the question I was asking.
"Well, let's say you go to web site and read a web page that was put up unlawfully. In order to read it, you necessarily make a copy of it in your computer, and that's been held to be infringing."
Let me now respond to this.
So, if I tell you to visit this great link for info on vacations in Florida:
http://www.bahamasvacationguide.com/
and when you get there, it is not about vacations in Florida at all but is instead a web page that was put up unlawfully (that link is not one such to my knowledge though) then you will have broken the law? That doesn't seem right.
Perhaps I can put two different situations and you can say which if any you were referring to and which if any result in you commiting a copyright violation.
A. You make a copy of X intending to copy X. You think that you have permission or a legal right to make the copy when in fact you don't.
B. You make a copy of Y intending to copy X. If you had indeed made a copy of X as you intended, you would be ok as you had the right to copy X. As it is, you copied Y and you had no permission or right to copy Y.
Were you talking A or B or some other option?
all the best,
drew
I knew I would be, that's why I put in the terminal illness bit. If I know I am dying in two months, what do I care. (This is hypothetical all around.)
It is just that the claim was that the intent/state of mind of the infringer/downloader is not relevant.
I set up a situation where someone could download a copyrighted work without intent to violate copyright.
Can you clear up a bit more what was meant and how the situation I set up differs.
all the best,
drew
Well let's see...
If the FBI wrote it and government publications are in the public domain...???
Anyone know the real details?
all the best,
drew
"The elements of an infringement action are: ...
1) A copyrighted work
2) Where the plaintiff has the relevant copyright (or can bring the suit, at least)
3) And where the defendant did something that was unauthorized by the relevant rightsholder, and which is infringing.
What the defendant thought is not on the list!
If it were, it would say something like 'the defendant negligently did something,' etc. In copyright, doing it is enough."
I know I am beaing stupid with this, but here goes...
I find I have a terminal illness and want to pass some money to someone or some cause.
I take a file that I have know is copyrighted by them and is not authorised for copying. I email copies from an anonymous account to a bunch of rich people with receipt confirmations turned on. A certain percentage of their email clients automatically confirm.
I supply evidence of this to the person I want to benefit. Game over? If email will not work, I arrange for downloads from the same people by subterfuge. Game over?
It would seem to meet your requirements, but I can't believe they would actually be liable.
Can you clarify?
all the best,
drew
"I doubt very much that MS will take their ball and go home and right off a market of 400 million people."
If only they would.
all the best,
drew
"It's a give and take: the state also acts as "collectivists" when they allows such things as incorporation: which allows individual investors to get off the hook for paying out for failed business ventures.
It also supports copyrights, patents, and other such interferances in the free market, in order to promote the collective good.
Why, when a corporation is being punished for knowingly violating anti-trust laws (laws made to protect the market, and the public good), are you suddenly upset?
Microsoft probably wouldn't even exist in the first place without government protections in the form of copyright monopolies and laws to support incorporation. Microsoft willfully breaks the law; but heartily sues anyone who does the same. How is that fair?"
Hear! Hear!
Mod this baby all the way up to 11. (Yes indeed, these go to 11, film at 11.)
all the best,
drew
"If anything the Government should not have any, and I mean ANY say in any of it, either way. They should not be allowed to give Microsoft anything special, nor should they hold them for being a crappy business. Let the free-market decide."
Well, considering that it was the government having a say in it in the first place that got them the copyrights to their code, your theory falls flat right from the start.
Now, if you really mean that the government should have no say in it, then you are calling for the end of copyrights. Is that indeed what you are doing?
In any event, the government will at least have a say in any event in that they are a customer or potential customer.
all the best,
drew
"When society goes back to a patron of the arts model, piracy won't be an issue. We gotta get there first. The problem is that the masses won't want to fund it, they'll want someone else to do it. So we go from one large company investing to... someone else rich investing."
Nope, unless the boys with money get laws passed to prevent it, I think we are going to see the same thing in the arts as we are seeing in software. When I can get 10,000 songs under a CC BY-SA license that I like listening to, soneone is going to have to do a lot to convince me to give them money for DRM protected all rights reserved music.
This is what the big boys are afraid of. The competition from those who create for love and hopefully living money, not for the love of money.
all the best,
drew
http://zotz.openphoto.net/
"I've read lots about the OTEC stuff."
Like I said, tis is not my area of interest these days. Was just trying to point out some more links for those interessted.
I liked the idea of growing apples in the cool soil myself. I live in the Bahamas and am back living in a house I grew up in as a child. We planted two apple trees here when I was young. Both struggled to survive, I seem to remember a small runt of an apple on the tree in the front yard once but that is all. Neither tree survives today.
Other fruit trees that were here before they were planted are still going strong.
all the best,
drew
I think the "infinity - 1" was a quote from a politician when talking of copyright term limits. It could have been a judge though. (It could even have been an urban legend, it was quite a while back now and memory fades...)
all the best,
drew
I don't claim any expertise here.
+ cooling+deep+&btnG=Google+Search
9 10_040910_deeplake.html
1 234.shtml?tid=134
I did get a BS in ocean engineering, but never practiced and it was a long time ago.
Here are a few links though:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hawaii+ocean
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0
http://www.aloha.com/~craven/coolair.html
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec_hi.html
and finally:
http://science.slashdot.org/articles/03/03/24/235
all the best,
drew
"It is quite certainly possible if you consider sufficiently small values of infinity."
This is just a guess, but I would think that all sufficiently small values of infinity would, in fact, be imaginary numbers.
all the best,
drew
You are not a lawyer or elected official by any chance are you?
Do the math:
Infinity - 1 = ???
Here is a hint. The answer is not 42.
all the best,
drew
That too, is beautiful.
Is the Canadian version for lumberjacks?
all the best,
drew
That's beautiful.
all the best,
drew
"[Jury member takes note: "Linux newby. Doesn't know just what the vast majority of the software that came with his distro is or does, yet."]"
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Linux - plausible deny-ability comes standard.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
OK, so what's next?
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Am I in some sort of conspiracy with all the people on my block becasue we all have locks on our doors and windows. (Actually, I think the conspiracy goes a bit further than just my block, but I am not going into full details here on slashdot.)
So, the existance of encryption software is evidence of criminal intent? Do we finally have a big weapon to use against the MPAA and their ilk? I mean, if they did not have criminl intent, (if they have nothing to hide) then why would they need encryption?
Hmmmm.
OK, so no more ssh, ssl, pgp, gpg, rot13, oh well, back to telnet. No WEP or their ilk allowed either... back to all open access points.
Interesting times...
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"I'd rather talk about what Nathalie Portman is doing to make ends meet! :)"
Funny thing, I was just talking with a friend today who is planning to see the movie tonight. I asked him if he was taking any hot grits to the show.
all the best,
drew
Yo Legend... ~;-)
"We're not being grammar nazis by insisting that they use less-neutral terms."
Agreed. Or...
Once again on the charged language issue...
As long as they insist on calling copyright infringers pirates and thieves, should we insist on calling price fixers rapists? Is that a suitably charged word?
all the best,
drew
"...when that term was first coined (centuries ago), people actually feared pirates. Nowadays pirates are characters in cartoons and adventure films for the family with very little resemblance to actual pirates."
Could you just be living in the wrong (right) part of the world?
all the best,
drew
Possibly, but wouldn't some of that possibly be spam as well? Or would that be company emails that the company sent?
all the best,
drew
"email archiving requirements"
Do the requirements include archiving spam?
all the best,
drew
"It means the animal didn't go and eat your children like you're going to do to it. I would think such a concept would be straightforward enough for anyone to understand."
This would make that animal innocent of crimes against you. Perhaps even of crimes against other humans, but what about crimes against other animals? Against plants? Against bacteria? Against rocks? Are they only innocent because we have chosen not to write laws making what they do illegal? So, if we pass laws tomorrow making it illegal for all animals to kill and eat other animal or plant life and make the punishment be that they can be hunted, would we no longer be hunting innocent animals? (I am not a hunter by the way, but I do fish for food on occasion.)
all the best,
drew