First, you confound the courts with the legislature. The former interprets law. The latter makes it. Second, you make (probably deliberately) an error of logic. Nothing I wrote implies that that which is immoral is neccessarily legal.
Go back and read it again. Then read up on copyright law and on the legislative history of the DMCA. Takedown notices could and would be sent in the absence of the DMCA. The difference is that without the DMCA providers could and would be sued for copyright infringement even when they obeyed the notices, there would be no effective remedy for frivolous or malicous notices, and copyright owners would not be obligated to send notices at all before filing suit.
Wikileaks plans to use the profits for their legal defense fund, but they may run into
trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources.
Most "reputable" news outlets have policies against admitting that they pay sources.
> But honestly, is there any point in signing a contract when one party retains all rights > to completely change the contract without allowing you the ability to opt-out of the > contract? Is this even legal?
Not in the US. Look up "unconscionable" and "contract of adhesion". Also "false advertising". And note that Verizon lost.
>...can we change it?
You don't need to. You just need to stop agreeing to such contracts. But you won't. You'll keep on accepting the things without even reading them and then bitch later.
"You agree that, to maintain or improve the service, or for other business reasons, TELUS can in its sole discretion, suspend, restrict, modify or terminate all or any part of the service or make changes to the network and other facilities without notice to you."
If Guido & Co could "leverage" big business they would have done so a long time ago. They're up to setting fire to drycleaning shops but they know enough to stay out of the big leagues.
Much better would be for at least some of the judges with jurisdiction over some of the "settlements" extorted using MediaSentry's illegal investigations were to reopen the cases sua sponte, void the settlements on the basis of fraud and unclean hands, disallow all MediaSentry evidence, and invite the defendants to move for legal fees and malicious prosecution damages. Say, two or three thousand cases at perhaps $50,000 each, with the RIAA, its member publishers, MediaSentry, and the law firms jointly and severally liable.
> The thing to remember is that "Project managers generate revenue," while "(real) workers > are a cost." It's the goal of every company to maximize revenue while minimizing cost.
So promote everyone to project manager and make billions.
Slashdot Mirror
> Taking unpublished data without permission of the authors is theft, pure and simple.
No it isn't. One cannot steal data. It might be copyright infringement, and it might be unethical, but it is not theft.
> Submitting a paper on that data before the original authors do is unethical.
I agree.
> So basically, they just don't know?
The newsies, you mean? Correct. They just don't know. And not just about dark matter.
Oh. Wait. This is Slashdot.
(The patent is still crap, but it is not an attempt to patent PageUp and PageDown keys.)
With two z's.
"But my name really is ZZwyggle!"
Isn't it just a little bit naive to put your secrets in your phone and then permit untrusted people unmonitored physical access to it?
See it as a broken browser icon.
> Once of them has it, they probably all have it.
But they don't know that it is yours. They can spam you with it but they can't use it for anything else.
First, you confound the courts with the legislature. The former interprets law. The latter makes it. Second, you make (probably deliberately) an error of logic. Nothing I wrote implies that that which is immoral is neccessarily legal.
How about one through four? Don't you think they should be law as well? Is it not also "immoral" to make idols? To forget the Sabbath?
Courts are about law. They have nothing to do with morals, nor should they.
Go back and read it again. Then read up on copyright law and on the legislative history of the DMCA. Takedown notices could and would be sent in the absence of the DMCA. The difference is that without the DMCA providers could and would be sued for copyright infringement even when they obeyed the notices, there would be no effective remedy for frivolous or malicous notices, and copyright owners would not be obligated to send notices at all before filing suit.
> My only problem with the provision is that in practice, it has been widely abused.
Takedown notices could and would be sent in the absence of the DMCA.
> The law itself provides a remedy against abuse.
Which would not exist without the law.
Most "reputable" news outlets have policies against admitting that they pay sources.
> But honestly, is there any point in signing a contract when one party retains all rights
> to completely change the contract without allowing you the ability to opt-out of the
> contract? Is this even legal?
Not in the US. Look up "unconscionable" and "contract of adhesion". Also "false advertising". And note that Verizon lost.
> ...can we change it?
You don't need to. You just need to stop agreeing to such contracts. But you won't. You'll keep on accepting the things without even reading them and then bitch later.
"You agree that, to maintain or improve the service, or for other business reasons, TELUS can in its sole discretion, suspend, restrict, modify or terminate all or any part of the service or make changes to the network and other facilities without notice to you."
That looks pretty clear to me.
...and yet despite it's failure to protect us, we have not been attacked.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this is evidence that it is not necessary?
If Guido & Co could "leverage" big business they would have done so a long time ago. They're up to setting fire to drycleaning shops but they know enough to stay out of the big leagues.
Then it isn't a mitm attack, is it? They don't claim to defend against every conceivable attack.
Cycles.
Much better would be for at least some of the judges with jurisdiction over some of the "settlements" extorted using MediaSentry's illegal investigations were to reopen the cases sua sponte, void the settlements on the basis of fraud and unclean hands, disallow all MediaSentry evidence, and invite the defendants to move for legal fees and malicious prosecution damages. Say, two or three thousand cases at perhaps $50,000 each, with the RIAA, its member publishers, MediaSentry, and the law firms jointly and severally liable.
> The thing to remember is that "Project managers generate revenue," while "(real) workers
> are a cost." It's the goal of every company to maximize revenue while minimizing cost.
So promote everyone to project manager and make billions.
> Bad users often want the freedom to make a mess, but don't want to pay for the clean-up.
Patiently and cheerfully help him clean up his mess. Then send a memo to his boss explaining (calmly and objectively) exactly what you did.
Yes, as was standardizing on HTML. We should have used S-expressions, which would have led naturally to Lisp as the standard scripting language.
> With open source available, authors could work around the problem by removing the
> ability of flash scripts to write to the clipboard...
That would not be a workaround. That would be the addition of a feature. Nothing a script does should persist.
> But for an extra buck a month, you could download and burn all you want.
That would be none at all.
> so instead of 800 bucks, you would have spent 12 a year.
No. Instead of 0 bucks I would have spent $12/year. None of the RIAA's members have anything I want.