Wrong. In the USA only creative expression is protected by copyright.
Just try writing a story about a basketball game for your newspaper without a letter in the paper's files from the NBA saying you can publish Just try writing a story about a basketball game for your newspaper without a letter in the paper's files from the NBA saying you can publish
These are lower limits: consider the large but unknown number of users who are not and never will be aware that their accounts have been cracked. Then there are the billions of abandoned accounts...
These guys probably believe that if they win they will collect royalties for every copy of tzdata distributed for the next 150 years. Instead, a cleanroom version would be rapidly produced based on primary sources. The initial version may be short on historical data but it would eventually be filled out: all the data has been published by governments. This may be done anyway.
The IETF has no pockets at all. Some their backers, on the other hand, hve extremely deep pockets and a reputation for reaching into them to pay lawyers for cases of this sort.
That sometimes works in patent law because defending against allegations of patent infringement can be extremely expensive. Defending against copyright infringement allegations is much cheaper as there is usually no need for expensive discovery proceedings and expert testimony. This case, if it goes to trial, will depend entirely on the judge's interpretation of the law. The facts will consist of little more than the tzdata document, the Astrolabe document, the contract between Astrolabe and the author of the document, and the copyright registration.
ROFL. In much of Europe databases are protected by copyright and so this would be a sure win for Astrolabe. In the USA only creative expression is protected (see Feist v. Rural ) and so Astrolabe will almost certainly lose (and there is a chance that they will be ordered to pay legal costs and expenses). Then there are the parts of Europe where the case would not be heard at all for at least ten years due to the ludicrous backlogs...
BTW the other two nations in North America have different IP laws from those in the USA.
> It is also why we need "Loser Pays", at least to some extent
We have "loser pays" to some extent. Judges can and sometimes do order the plaintiffs in egregrious lawsuits to pay all of the defendants costs and legal fees.
No you don't. In the next phase of the operation (it won't be publicized) they will work with a different, less well-known Russian "security" organization. In that phase it won't be the botnet that gets "taken down".
The major distributions are safe but some doofus at somewhere like Cisco or Belkin (or more likely their Chinese contractor) may have obliviously downloaded a compromised tarball and shipped it on a million routers.
Because in git, everything has got a hash checksum that is not forgeable...
And every commit is signed. When the Debian kernel maintainers fetch a new kernel (from Git, not a tarball) they verify the signature on every new commit. The integrity of the Linux kernel does not depend on anything as brittle as a sacred master copy.
...what the hell all this stuff was doing in US diplomatic cables? A lot of it sounds like ordinary internal discussion that occurs while forming policy, but why was the US embassy in on it? Makes Canada look like the US puppet that the Bolsheviks always said it was.
Slashdot Mirror
> You can't copy the book verbatim...
That depends on the book. If it is a simple compilation of facts lacking sufficient creative expression to qualify for copyright protection, you can.
Wrong. In the USA only creative expression is protected by copyright.
Citation?
These are lower limits: consider the large but unknown number of users who are not and never will be aware that their accounts have been cracked. Then there are the billions of abandoned accounts...
These guys probably believe that if they win they will collect royalties for every copy of tzdata distributed for the next 150 years. Instead, a cleanroom version would be rapidly produced based on primary sources. The initial version may be short on historical data but it would eventually be filled out: all the data has been published by governments. This may be done anyway.
The IETF has no pockets at all. Some their backers, on the other hand, hve extremely deep pockets and a reputation for reaching into them to pay lawyers for cases of this sort.
That sometimes works in patent law because defending against allegations of patent infringement can be extremely expensive. Defending against copyright infringement allegations is much cheaper as there is usually no need for expensive discovery proceedings and expert testimony. This case, if it goes to trial, will depend entirely on the judge's interpretation of the law. The facts will consist of little more than the tzdata document, the Astrolabe document, the contract between Astrolabe and the author of the document, and the copyright registration.
> It's Astrolabe's lawyers v. the Astrolabe bank account.
And thus is a self-limiting problem.
ROFL. In much of Europe databases are protected by copyright and so this would be a sure win for Astrolabe. In the USA only creative expression is protected (see Feist v. Rural ) and so Astrolabe will almost certainly lose (and there is a chance that they will be ordered to pay legal costs and expenses). Then there are the parts of Europe where the case would not be heard at all for at least ten years due to the ludicrous backlogs...
BTW the other two nations in North America have different IP laws from those in the USA.
> It is also why we need "Loser Pays", at least to some extent
We have "loser pays" to some extent. Judges can and sometimes do order the plaintiffs in egregrious lawsuits to pay all of the defendants costs and legal fees.
Under USA law all information and data is in the public domain. Only creative expression is protected by copyright.
Not in the USA: we have the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions.
Surely you want your city in the cloud.
...you should gargle with Mazolla.
> now i gotta start all over.
No you don't. In the next phase of the operation (it won't be publicized) they will work with a different, less well-known Russian "security" organization. In that phase it won't be the botnet that gets "taken down".
I already have somethibg that actually works: Free software.
And I'm sure the malware authors are studying them intently.
That lack is a feature, not a bug.
Because it's obviously so much better when the job goes to the highest bidder. Whenever you buy anything you always as much for it as you can, right?
And of what possible use is anything that does not lead to an increase in test scores?
The major distributions are safe but some doofus at somewhere like Cisco or Belkin (or more likely their Chinese contractor) may have obliviously downloaded a compromised tarball and shipped it on a million routers.
It's been replaced, of course.
I shout at the damn thing until it does as it's told.
And every commit is signed. When the Debian kernel maintainers fetch a new kernel (from Git, not a tarball) they verify the signature on every new commit. The integrity of the Linux kernel does not depend on anything as brittle as a sacred master copy.
No, just a way to generate thrust. Which they have. No fuel involved.
Or slow. Which it is.
...what the hell all this stuff was doing in US diplomatic cables? A lot of it sounds like ordinary internal discussion that occurs while forming policy, but why was the US embassy in on it? Makes Canada look like the US puppet that the Bolsheviks always said it was.