> You grow, shrink, and twist in 4 spatial dimensions, X/Y/Z/T.
That statement implies the existence of a second kind of time. If only x,y,z,t exist then you don't "do" anything in that four-dimensional space. You simply exist as a static four-dimensional object in a static four-dimensional universe.
He (or his attorney) was supposed to be served with a copy of every motion filed with the court. I don't think you can get away with accepting service once and then moving without giving the court and the opposition your new address, though.
Doing $1 damamge to each of 5000 computers owned by 5000 different people doesn't count. It has to be $5000 in a single "incident". A good prosecutor might be able to convince a Federal judge that sending 100,000,000 identical spams to 100,000,000 different addresses qualifies as a single incident, but it appears that the DOJ is not interested in attempting that.
It is also amazing what a swarm of lawyers, private detectives, and accountants can accomplish in the way of finding and seizing "hidden" assets when $230M is dangled in front of them.
> The entire concept of the DMCA safe harbor clause was founded on the > understanding that it would be virtually impossible for providers to monitor > and filter illegal or unlawful activities and data.
No. The "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA is founded on the understanding that it would be virtually impossible for providers to reliably identify material that infringes copyrights. It has no relevance to any other activity.
> You could also ask the university to finance a developer for this specific > issue, or maybe put a professor with a clue on the job.
Universities don't work that way. If you want one of the profs to assist you, you must engage his interest (Which may be very possible. You might also get a prof to assign you a grad student).
Oh, it is unauthorized. However, all unauthorized copies are not illegal. There are a number of circumstances under which you may legally make a copy of a copyright-protected work without the copyright owner's authorization.
Pay people? It's a Web site! Like everyone else running a commercial Web site they see no need to pay anyone but the hosting company and one geek to run the thing.
> It's the rule of internet forums, without some party moderating the debate, > the troll wins and the comments suck.
I participate in a number of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups and have done so for more than twenty years. The trolls haven't won and the comments mostly don't suck.
I don't have a cellphone either, but it is not because I am a "Luddite". I don't need one and it's a luxury I can't justify the expense of (not that I have tried very hard).
> But the people who come in and show everything you mentioned, they would be > allowed to moderate...
They probably wouldn't like the pay.
To drive the point home, his problem isn't that there are no solutions to his problem. It's that he doesn't want to spend any of his company's money on a solution.
He can simply require anyone who wants an account on his site to present themselves at his office with three pieces of photo ID and a completed application form. He can then interview them, check their references, and decide whether or not they are acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
> You grow, shrink, and twist in 4 spatial dimensions, X/Y/Z/T.
That statement implies the existence of a second kind of time. If only x,y,z,t exist then you don't "do" anything in that four-dimensional space. You simply exist as a static four-dimensional object in a static four-dimensional universe.
> The Air Force has already announced their desire to manage an offensive BotNet, comprised
> of unwitting participatory computers.
The article makes it quite clear that they contemplate using only their own computers.
He (or his attorney) was supposed to be served with a copy of every motion filed with the court. I don't think you can get away with accepting service once and then moving without giving the court and the opposition your new address, though.
Doing $1 damamge to each of 5000 computers owned by 5000 different people doesn't count. It has to be $5000 in a single "incident". A good prosecutor might be able to convince a Federal judge that sending 100,000,000 identical spams to 100,000,000 different addresses qualifies as a single incident, but it appears that the DOJ is not interested in attempting that.
> He's surfaced a few times only to piss people off all over again only to then disappear
> yet again.
Sounds like a pleasant life, doesn't it?
They can spend up to $229M and still be $1M ahead.
> Any money he has gotten through all this is probably in swiss bank accounts and
> untouchable by the US.
This has not been true for many years.
It is also amazing what a swarm of lawyers, private detectives, and accountants can accomplish in the way of finding and seizing "hidden" assets when $230M is dangled in front of them.
They would have to show that at least one single action resulted in at least $5000 in damage.
They don't have to find him. They just have to find his assets. $230M can hire a lot of private detectives, lawyers, and accountants.
> The entire concept of the DMCA safe harbor clause was founded on the
> understanding that it would be virtually impossible for providers to monitor
> and filter illegal or unlawful activities and data.
No. The "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA is founded on the understanding that it would be virtually impossible for providers to reliably identify material that infringes copyrights. It has no relevance to any other activity.
> You could also ask the university to finance a developer for this specific
> issue, or maybe put a professor with a clue on the job.
Universities don't work that way. If you want one of the profs to assist you, you must engage his interest (Which may be very possible. You might also get a prof to assign you a grad student).
Correct. A "watermark" is merely an identifier. It's only legal significance is as evidence of copying (not of infringement, just copying).
That's nonsense.
> an "unauthorized" copy, in RIAA parlance
Oh, it is unauthorized. However, all unauthorized copies are not illegal. There are a number of circumstances under which you may legally make a copy of a copyright-protected work without the copyright owner's authorization.
To the publishers these are features, not bugs.
What was the application process like? Did you have to come in for an interview and submit references?
Which are you?
Pay people? It's a Web site! Like everyone else running a commercial Web site they see no need to pay anyone but the hosting company and one geek to run the thing.
> It's the rule of internet forums, without some party moderating the debate,
> the troll wins and the comments suck.
I participate in a number of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups and have done so for more than twenty years. The trolls haven't won and the comments mostly don't suck.
I don't have a cellphone either, but it is not because I am a "Luddite". I don't need one and it's a luxury I can't justify the expense of (not that I have tried very hard).
I have no cellphone. (Yes! I have no cellphone and I am alive! It is actually possible to live without a cellphone!)
> But the people who come in and show everything you mentioned, they would be
> allowed to moderate...
They probably wouldn't like the pay.
To drive the point home, his problem isn't that there are no solutions to his problem. It's that he doesn't want to spend any of his company's money on a solution.
And it eliminates everyone who does not have a cellphone.
He can simply require anyone who wants an account on his site to present themselves at his office with three pieces of photo ID and a completed application form. He can then interview them, check their references, and decide whether or not they are acceptable.