I actually have experienced nausea in non-VR FPS games. Descent and the old Duke Nukem used to give me headaches and nausea on and off.
Descent had that effect on a lot of people, even where other games at the time didn't. I think it was due to the full six degrees of freedom movement plus zero-g and "which way is up" effect. I don't think the sentence in the summary about cockpit games applies - unless you are in zero-g in real life.
Full blown Barbara Streisand indeed. They apparently wanted the blog changed because the restaurant name in the title was putting the negative review high in the search results.
So instead, you google it now (il giardino lege cap ferret) and the first search results (at least from UK) are google+ reviews and yelp reviews (mostly 1 star, all since court verdict), and tripadvisor reviews, again with a low score due to whole pile of 1-stars added since the court verdict. Oh, and links to news of the court verdict.
MS also represents its hosting as being compliant with regional legislation including EU data protection. The onus is on the customer to configure where the data goes to be in compliance, but MS will not break compliance. That includes handing over to law enforcement, where MS requires enough customer contact details to ensure that law enforcement requests are directed to the customer as the data controller, and that is what MS is contractually committed to do (in addition to their responsibilities under EU law). MS can't actually just change the policies because they are written into contracts and those contracts have in turn gone through an approval process from EU regulators. Or rather, they could, but it would open up a whole pile of legal problems this side of the Atlantic.
Someone else on this thread had a good analogy. Saying "the gun I used in the murder is in pants at my son's house so I can't answer the subpoena" is not going to cut it with the courts.
Trouble is it is not a good analogy. MS is not the one accused of the murder. Better analogy is:
- US DOJ suspect the gun is in a safety deposit box in a bank in London - US DOJ subpoena the US parent bank for "contents of safety deposit boxes 1 through 2000 from your London branch" - Bank says "our UK subsidiary is not permitted in law to do that just on our instruction"
US DOJ can serve the UK subsidiary in the correct jurisdiction, or request London police to go and open all the boxes (they have form on that), or use existing legal assistance treaties
In this case, with the e-mails, does it very much depend on what these are needed for. Their content, if provided, may or may not change the course of the trial. It all depends. Not following a judge's ruling is however always a bad idea. Maybe they have something to hide, maybe they do not and the companies' lawyers only want to stretch the trial to make more money, etc.. For the judge and jury will it make no difference if these e-mails are within the US or outside the US. Only their content will be of importance, not their location.
Whatever, when you are obligated by law to produce the information then it means you have to, or a refusal to do so will be used against you. For all it matters could the missing information have been lost. It will not make the judge or the jury happy, and you do want them to vote and rule in your favour, right?
It is not a case against MS for which the emails are needed. The emails are third-party emails, and any case is against that third party - they simply happen to (allegedly) be on servers controlled by MS-Ireland. So, if it is as you say, why don't they simply compel the third-party to hand over the emails or have the refusal used against them ?
Most likely because there is no case and this is a fishing expedition.
The US company can't access the data legally. Legally it can't be shipped out of the EU except under strict safe-harbour exceptions where it is subject to same protection in the foreign safe-harbour.
The data is held by an Irish company. The USA people almost certainly don't have direct access without going through EU people, for precisely this reason.
That or MS has been seriously mis-selling its Irish hosting operations...
Interesting that that argument didn't work for some of those extradited _to_ the US.
One lot were extradite for "wire fraud" in the US. They did nothing _in_ the US but US claimed jurisdiction because some of their communications went _through_ US ("wire fraud" - not a concept that exists over here I think).
They were also investigated in & by the UK law enforcement who did not prosecute because no crime was committed under UK law. Still got sent the the US.
No the US courts just don't care what the EU laws are. The US courts position is "I have ordered you produce documents. You will do so."
If producing those documents happens to break the law somewhere else you are what the lawyers called "fucked".
This is supposed to be what national subsidiaries are for. Its why there is a McDonalds, and a McDonalds Canada. Ordering McDonalds to surrender McDonalds Canada records doesn't work, its not the same company.
Then ordering MS (US) to surrender the records (of a customer of) MS Ireland doesn't work either. Except that now it does...
Someone pointed out that governments don't really matter anymore.
I don't know many corporations with standing armies, navies, air forces, space exploration programs, nuclear arsenals, etc.
Yet.
Corporations already have SWAT teams (some SWAT teams are corporations...). Shipborne mercenaries for piracy (the real type) protection. Private corporate space exploration is starting to take off. Already part way there...
When you are obligated by law to produce the required information then this is how it is. If you have placed the information out of reach for you to get it, or only refuse to get it, then it has got a fair chance to turn into an obstruction of justice and you will find yourself in even more trouble.
The information has not been placed out of reach by MS, it never was in the US. Nor is it MS's information - it is information belonging to one of their customers that happens to be stored on MS servers (that "cloud" thing) - outside of the US.
MS have made a big selling point of their Irish data centre location being in-EU for projects (including government stuff) that have data subject to EU rules where, in law, it may not be sent outside the EU. If MS-Ireland (or whichever MS-co it is) suddenly starts sending data to MS (US) just because head office requested it, then I think a lot of big EU contracts become invalid and/or a lot of big EU projects suddenly become illegal under EU law.
Your problem with posturing about "it is you who will be judged and sentenced by the court" is that it also applies if they do ship their customer's personal data out of the EU in breach of EU laws, it is just that they will then be judged and sentenced by a different court.
Stupid thing is there is a perfectly easy and logical way to do this - simply get a court order (warrant) for the data where it is, in Ireland, from an Irish court. All the EU data protection etc. laws allow for data to be released by court order in the right jurisdiction. So why won't the DOJ do that ?
Couldn't possibly be that they are just on a fishing expedition that they couldn't possibly get past any court where the judge isn't already in their pocket ?
The UK high street shops are not all the same chain they are all the same charities. The reason for that is down to local council policies, not online competition.
They put high street business rates up to unsustainable levels, and shops go bust. Then they get less money from business rates so they put them up again so more shops go bust. Then charity shops move in - because, guess what, they don't pay business rates. Then the council gets less money from rates so they up the parking charges and remove free parking to get more money.
So the shoppers have all gone online ? Nope - they've gone to the big out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres where parking is free and the business rates for the shops are a fraction of the high street. The councils approve the out-of-town developments because they think they get additional business rates and jobs that way - but don't account for the fact that they lose the high street income and jobs.
Result - the high street dies. Populated only by charity shops and customers who don't drive.
Ah, now I see where the confusion is. The thing is that you're wrong, because *MANY* of the stories about false claims on/. are about claims made by companies who do not have any rights whatsoever in the allegedly infringing work, including this story. Going after perjury charges for companies that make claims on works in which they have no rights would be a damn good start.
I think you have just gone round in circles or are mixing up infringED and infringING. A DMCA notice makes no statement or claim whatsoever (let alone sworn) about any rights in the infringING work. It states merely that someone believes it is infringing another work - and even that is not under penalty of perjury. Remember that if a work infringes your work you may be able to stop its distribution but the infringement does not give you any rights to the work - a claim of infringement is simply not a claim "on" the work.
In the case of this story we do not know the identity of either the claimed infringED work or the claimed rights holder (only an agency who claims to have authority), so it is completely impossible to say whether any perjury has been committed.
Not to me it doesn't. The point that I was making is that it is useless going after false DMCA claims for perjury because the only tiny bit of the notice that is under penalty of perjury is not the bit that is wrong in false claims. This sentence:
What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work
Is in fact the whole point - this is the _only_ bit of the notice that is under penalty of perjury. I allege that your work infringes my work, and I swear that I have rights to my work. No perjury penalty for false allegation.
_Statement_ that the notification is accurate. _Sworn under penalty of perjury_ that the complaining party is authorized to act.
There is _no_ penalty in the law for inaccuracy in any part of the notification other than your authority to act, perjury does _not_ apply because the only bit it applies to is trivial to get right and is not the bit that is almost always wrong in false notices.
I have read it again and I can swear that it still makes perfect sense to me. YMMV of course.
Relevance of that line to the incident in TFA remains unknown, all we know is the allegedly infringing work. We do not know (at least from TFA) what work (call it Foo) that the movie was alleged to have infringed or who is behind the company making the DMCA claim and claiming to be authorized by copyright holder of Foo.
Correct. And since they're not authorized by the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work the statute should kick in.
What work did they claim was infringed, and what proof is there that they are not authorized by the owner of that work - since TFA doesn't state. Do you have a copy of the notice ?
Or, put another way:
- I _allege_ "Internet's Own Boy" infringes copyright of "A work I made up yesterday" - I _swear_ I act on behalf of copyright owner of "A work I made up yesterday"
Now, clearly we know that "Internet's Own Boy" cannot be derivative of "A work I made up yesterday", but that doesn't mean any perjury has been committed. That part of the statute only kicks in if I don't actually own the copyright of "A work I made up yesterday".
There simply isn't any real penalty in DMCA for saying that A infringes B even when it is blatantly obvious it doesn't - which is what the vast majority of false DMCA claims are - there is only penalty for falsely claiming that you are authorized by copyright owner of B.
And, yes, the DMCA was written like that for a reason - to confuse the unwashed masses into believing they had some protection from false claims by big business whilst in fact providing no such protection.
What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work, and that the other info in the notice is correct (which is I believe merely the location of infringed and allegedly infringing works, and your contact details). The notice is also an allegation of infringement hence you are swearing that you have made an allegation.
What you are not doing is swearing that the allegation of infringement is in any way correct - that can only properly be decided by a court anyway.
Or to put it another way:
1. I allege the moon is made of jelly 2. I swear under penalty of perjury that I have alleged that the moon is made of jelly
1 + 2 = No perjury committed - even though everyone _knows_ that the moon is in fact made of cheese...
Funny isn't it - the US doesn't allow compelled testimony, but resolves 97% of federal cases through plea-bargain, so that's >97% conviction rate.
I'm sure plea bargains are always always guilty people accepting a lesser charge to reduce their punishment, and never the innocent feeling compelled threatened or coerced into pleading guilty to a lesser charge, but in the UK where it's not used I think the prosecutors only get about 80% convictions - and you'd think they would be much _more_ careful to pick the strong cases because they have to have the expense of trial every time.
So, hats off to the US law enforcement and prosecutors or being so very very good at identifying the guilty, or at compelling the innocent to admit guilt (in the land of the fifth) whichever it is...
Certainly there are so vanishingly few legitimate reasons a persons phone would be discharged....
Yeah, would have to be one of those rare occasions where, say, hundreds of people get stuck together in the same space for 8hrs+ with no (or too few) charging facilities. Not the sort of thing that ever happens at an airport...
Slashdot Mirror
I actually have experienced nausea in non-VR FPS games. Descent and the old Duke Nukem used to give me headaches and nausea on and off.
Descent had that effect on a lot of people, even where other games at the time didn't. I think it was due to the full six degrees of freedom movement plus zero-g and "which way is up" effect. I don't think the sentence in the summary about cockpit games applies - unless you are in zero-g in real life.
But then on sites like tripadvisor, how many stars do you give it with your non-review ?
Full blown Barbara Streisand indeed. They apparently wanted the blog changed because the restaurant name in the title was putting the negative review high in the search results.
So instead, you google it now (il giardino lege cap ferret) and the first search results (at least from UK) are google+ reviews and yelp reviews (mostly 1 star, all since court verdict), and tripadvisor reviews, again with a low score due to whole pile of 1-stars added since the court verdict. Oh, and links to news of the court verdict.
Lawyer-up, load-up, point down, pull trigger.
MS also represents its hosting as being compliant with regional legislation including EU data protection. The onus is on the customer to configure where the data goes to be in compliance, but MS will not break compliance. That includes handing over to law enforcement, where MS requires enough customer contact details to ensure that law enforcement requests are directed to the customer as the data controller, and that is what MS is contractually committed to do (in addition to their responsibilities under EU law). MS can't actually just change the policies because they are written into contracts and those contracts have in turn gone through an approval process from EU regulators. Or rather, they could, but it would open up a whole pile of legal problems this side of the Atlantic.
Trouble is it is not a good analogy. MS is not the one accused of the murder. Better analogy is:
- US DOJ suspect the gun is in a safety deposit box in a bank in London
- US DOJ subpoena the US parent bank for "contents of safety deposit boxes 1 through 2000 from your London branch"
- Bank says "our UK subsidiary is not permitted in law to do that just on our instruction"
US DOJ can serve the UK subsidiary in the correct jurisdiction, or request London police to go and open all the boxes (they have form on that), or use existing legal assistance treaties
In this case, with the e-mails, does it very much depend on what these are needed for. Their content, if provided, may or may not change the course of the trial. It all depends. Not following a judge's ruling is however always a bad idea. Maybe they have something to hide, maybe they do not and the companies' lawyers only want to stretch the trial to make more money, etc.. For the judge and jury will it make no difference if these e-mails are within the US or outside the US. Only their content will be of importance, not their location.
Whatever, when you are obligated by law to produce the information then it means you have to, or a refusal to do so will be used against you. For all it matters could the missing information have been lost. It will not make the judge or the jury happy, and you do want them to vote and rule in your favour, right?
It is not a case against MS for which the emails are needed. The emails are third-party emails, and any case is against that third party - they simply happen to (allegedly) be on servers controlled by MS-Ireland. So, if it is as you say, why don't they simply compel the third-party to hand over the emails or have the refusal used against them ?
Most likely because there is no case and this is a fishing expedition.
The US company can't access the data legally. Legally it can't be shipped out of the EU except under strict safe-harbour exceptions where it is subject to same protection in the foreign safe-harbour.
The data is held by an Irish company. The USA people almost certainly don't have direct access without going through EU people, for precisely this reason.
That or MS has been seriously mis-selling its Irish hosting operations...
Interesting that that argument didn't work for some of those extradited _to_ the US.
One lot were extradite for "wire fraud" in the US. They did nothing _in_ the US but US claimed jurisdiction because some of their communications went _through_ US ("wire fraud" - not a concept that exists over here I think).
They were also investigated in & by the UK law enforcement who did not prosecute because no crime was committed under UK law. Still got sent the the US.
No the US courts just don't care what the EU laws are. The US courts position is "I have ordered you produce documents. You will do so."
If producing those documents happens to break the law somewhere else you are what the lawyers called "fucked".
This is supposed to be what national subsidiaries are for. Its why there is a McDonalds, and a McDonalds Canada. Ordering McDonalds to surrender McDonalds Canada records doesn't work, its not the same company.
Then ordering MS (US) to surrender the records (of a customer of) MS Ireland doesn't work either. Except that now it does...
But ultimately yes: the USA government has the right to tell a USA corporation to violate the laws of another country.
... and presumably the USA government (or agents thereof) can thus be held on conspiracy charges in those other countries.
Yep, could be. Or maybe we'd get to see how "two-way" our extradition treaties with the US really are...
Someone pointed out that governments don't really matter anymore.
I don't know many corporations with standing armies, navies, air forces, space exploration programs, nuclear arsenals, etc.
Yet.
Corporations already have SWAT teams (some SWAT teams are corporations...). Shipborne mercenaries for piracy (the real type) protection. Private corporate space exploration is starting to take off. Already part way there...
Yes, just get a court order in Ireland, job done. For some reason in this case the DOJ is afraid of that...
When you are obligated by law to produce the required information then this is how it is. If you have placed the information out of reach for you to get it, or only refuse to get it, then it has got a fair chance to turn into an obstruction of justice and you will find yourself in even more trouble.
The information has not been placed out of reach by MS, it never was in the US. Nor is it MS's information - it is information belonging to one of their customers that happens to be stored on MS servers (that "cloud" thing) - outside of the US.
MS have made a big selling point of their Irish data centre location being in-EU for projects (including government stuff) that have data subject to EU rules where, in law, it may not be sent outside the EU. If MS-Ireland (or whichever MS-co it is) suddenly starts sending data to MS (US) just because head office requested it, then I think a lot of big EU contracts become invalid and/or a lot of big EU projects suddenly become illegal under EU law.
Your problem with posturing about "it is you who will be judged and sentenced by the court" is that it also applies if they do ship their customer's personal data out of the EU in breach of EU laws, it is just that they will then be judged and sentenced by a different court.
Stupid thing is there is a perfectly easy and logical way to do this - simply get a court order (warrant) for the data where it is, in Ireland, from an Irish court. All the EU data protection etc. laws allow for data to be released by court order in the right jurisdiction. So why won't the DOJ do that ?
Couldn't possibly be that they are just on a fishing expedition that they couldn't possibly get past any court where the judge isn't already in their pocket ?
The UK high street shops are not all the same chain they are all the same charities. The reason for that is down to local council policies, not online competition.
They put high street business rates up to unsustainable levels, and shops go bust.
Then they get less money from business rates so they put them up again so more shops go bust.
Then charity shops move in - because, guess what, they don't pay business rates.
Then the council gets less money from rates so they up the parking charges and remove free parking to get more money.
So the shoppers have all gone online ? Nope - they've gone to the big out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres where parking is free and the business rates for the shops are a fraction of the high street. The councils approve the out-of-town developments because they think they get additional business rates and jobs that way - but don't account for the fact that they lose the high street income and jobs.
Result - the high street dies. Populated only by charity shops and customers who don't drive.
Ah, now I see where the confusion is. The thing is that you're wrong, because *MANY* of the stories about false claims on /. are about claims made by companies who do not have any rights whatsoever in the allegedly infringing work, including this story. Going after perjury charges for companies that make claims on works in which they have no rights would be a damn good start.
I think you have just gone round in circles or are mixing up infringED and infringING. A DMCA notice makes no statement or claim whatsoever (let alone sworn) about any rights in the infringING work. It states merely that someone believes it is infringing another work - and even that is not under penalty of perjury. Remember that if a work infringes your work you may be able to stop its distribution but the infringement does not give you any rights to the work - a claim of infringement is simply not a claim "on" the work.
In the case of this story we do not know the identity of either the claimed infringED work or the claimed rights holder (only an agency who claims to have authority), so it is completely impossible to say whether any perjury has been committed.
Yes you did - sorry, somehow I read "never been applied (enforced)" instead of "never applied".
Good job I am only a lawyer in my nightmares...
Not to me it doesn't. The point that I was making is that it is useless going after false DMCA claims for perjury because the only tiny bit of the notice that is under penalty of perjury is not the bit that is wrong in false claims. This sentence:
What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work
Is in fact the whole point - this is the _only_ bit of the notice that is under penalty of perjury. I allege that your work infringes my work, and I swear that I have rights to my work. No perjury penalty for false allegation.
Read the parent post.
_Statement_ that the notification is accurate.
_Sworn under penalty of perjury_ that the complaining party is authorized to act.
There is _no_ penalty in the law for inaccuracy in any part of the notification other than your authority to act, perjury does _not_ apply because the only bit it applies to is trivial to get right and is not the bit that is almost always wrong in false notices.
I have read it again and I can swear that it still makes perfect sense to me. YMMV of course.
Relevance of that line to the incident in TFA remains unknown, all we know is the allegedly infringing work. We do not know (at least from TFA) what work (call it Foo) that the movie was alleged to have infringed or who is behind the company making the DMCA claim and claiming to be authorized by copyright holder of Foo.
Correct. And since they're not authorized by the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work the statute should kick in.
What work did they claim was infringed, and what proof is there that they are not authorized by the owner of that work - since TFA doesn't state.
Do you have a copy of the notice ?
Or, put another way:
- I _allege_ "Internet's Own Boy" infringes copyright of "A work I made up yesterday"
- I _swear_ I act on behalf of copyright owner of "A work I made up yesterday"
Now, clearly we know that "Internet's Own Boy" cannot be derivative of "A work I made up yesterday", but that doesn't mean any perjury has been committed. That part of the statute only kicks in if I don't actually own the copyright of "A work I made up yesterday".
There simply isn't any real penalty in DMCA for saying that A infringes B even when it is blatantly obvious it doesn't - which is what the vast majority of false DMCA claims are - there is only penalty for falsely claiming that you are authorized by copyright owner of B.
And, yes, the DMCA was written like that for a reason - to confuse the unwashed masses into believing they had some protection from false claims by big business whilst in fact providing no such protection.
Read a DMCA claim wording _carefully_.
What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work, and that the other info in the notice is correct (which is I believe merely the location of infringed and allegedly infringing works, and your contact details). The notice is also an allegation of infringement hence you are swearing that you have made an allegation.
What you are not doing is swearing that the allegation of infringement is in any way correct - that can only properly be decided by a court anyway.
Or to put it another way:
1. I allege the moon is made of jelly
2. I swear under penalty of perjury that I have alleged that the moon is made of jelly
1 + 2 = No perjury committed - even though everyone _knows_ that the moon is in fact made of cheese...
Don't have "no contest" in English law either (Scotland might, but I don't think so).
An additional safeguard against punishing the innocent - if they admit something they didn't do then they were guilty of perjury anyway...
Funny isn't it - the US doesn't allow compelled testimony, but resolves 97% of federal cases through plea-bargain, so that's >97% conviction rate.
I'm sure plea bargains are always always guilty people accepting a lesser charge to reduce their punishment, and never the innocent feeling compelled threatened or coerced into pleading guilty to a lesser charge, but in the UK where it's not used I think the prosecutors only get about 80% convictions - and you'd think they would be much _more_ careful to pick the strong cases because they have to have the expense of trial every time.
So, hats off to the US law enforcement and prosecutors or being so very very good at identifying the guilty, or at compelling the innocent to admit guilt (in the land of the fifth) whichever it is...
And it still says "results not available for your location. Check back soon".
Bit of transparency on where it is available and when it might be elsewhere would be nice - how many years is "soon" ?
Certainly there are so vanishingly few legitimate reasons a persons phone would be discharged....
Yeah, would have to be one of those rare occasions where, say, hundreds of people get stuck together in the same space for 8hrs+ with no (or too few) charging facilities. Not the sort of thing that ever happens at an airport...