He doesn't sue the hosting company because the hosting company is just following the law. The DMCA makes it the site owner's responsibility to respond to these complaints, not the hosting company. The hosting company is specifically allowed to honor them if the site owner doesn't counter-notice.
Some people think the host is required to honor the takedown notices. They are not. They just run the risk of being sued themselves if they don't honor the takedown notice. So it is fair to blame the hosting company for not refusing to honor the notices at their own legal risk. But he can't sue them -- they are permitted to honor the takedowns.
> No. The rights are unconditional, they can not be denied to people who aren't rich enough to "buy" them.
I agree. And they aren't.
> "Opportunity" and "possibility" are not rights. If society really protected the right to public speech, it would have to provide a way to exercise it that would be accessible to every member of society.
That's incoherent nonsense. If a person has no vocal chords, they still have the right to speak. The ability to exercise a right is not the same thing as possessing the right.
> What is, of course, impossible in the current American society centered around for-profit entertainment and advertisement.
As it's impossible in any society, since it makes no sense. The reason freedom of speech works is because it places no obligations on anyone else to help you speak or to listen to you. There is no "freedom to enslave". There is no "freedom to make people listen".
What's funny is that Wu states this argument, and the re-states it as arguing that the computers inherit the programmer's rights. No, it's arguing that the question of whether the computers have rights or not is irrelevant because the computers are not speaking any more than the books or radio stations are speaking when *people* use them to communicate.
A person who can't pay to distribute his speech to the public still has the right to do so and that right is still fully protected. He simply doesn't have the ability to do it. A person born with no vocal chords still has the right to speak even though he lacks the ability to do it.
Now, if the government had fined him for speech they didn't like, thus leaving him without the funds to speak, that would be different. Similarly, if the State removed your vocal chords, thus depriving you of the ability to speak, that would deprive you of the right to speak.
Except that's not how the net worth is calculated for tax purposes. Otherwise, nothing would be taxable. Even ordinary employees labor for dollars of equal value.
When you trade A for B (whether A is labor, or B is labor, or A is dollars, or B is Bitcoins, or B is beer, or whatever) your change in net worth is calculated by what you got minus what you gave. But the value of what you gave is not the fair market value. It's the *lower* of the fair market value or what it cost you to get it. (Called your "basis".)
This means if you buy some stock, or Bitcoins, or wine for $50 and its value goes up to $500, that's not taxable. But if you sell it for $500, your profit is $500 minus the lower of $500 or $50, hence $500 - $50, and thus $450.
So if you barter, say, a paint job for a trailer, your profit for tax purposes is the fair market value of the trailer less what it cost you to provide the paint job. Sadly, if you bought a car for $35,000 and then traded it something after its value dropped to $8,000, $35,000 is not your basis. (Too bad, because that would be a great tax evasion strategy) $8,000 is, because that's lower.
It's not distributed proportionally to CPU resources. It's distributed as a payment for a service it requires in order to operate. In order for the Bitcoin system to operate, transactions have to be secured with computing power. It's the nature of the way the system operates -- it takes computing power to secure the transactions. New currency is paid out proportionally to those who provide the computing power needed to make the system work. When the block rewards stop, computing power will still be needed. At that time, people who provide the computing power needed to make the system work will be paid out of fees for each transaction they securely add to the block chain.
The early adopters didn't get anywhere near half the total wealth to ever be available. As of mid-November last year, the total value held by early adopters was around $12 million. The current value of all Bitcoins is already around $50 million. (Actually, this is measuring the value using the market cap method, which is not actually realistic. In truth, both values are much less, but the proportions are roughly the same.)
The miners are engaged in the voluntary exchange of products and services. The service they provide is securing the block chain and preventing double spending and 51% attacks in the Bitcoin system. In exchange, they get the block mining reward and transaction fees.
Bitcoins mined is just one source of new currency. There are others. For example, new dollars are created by dollars being printed and coins being minted, but they're also created by fractional reserve banking, mortgages, and many other mechanisms. Bitcoin just has one fewer mechanism -- coincidentally the one missing is the one that makes the government richer and everyone else poorer.
No, this is not correct. There is a limit on the total number of Bitcoins that can be mined in the block chain, but this won't cause deflation of other things act as the equivalent of Bitcoins and increase the total effective number of Bitcoins. For example, the total number of effective dollars is much greater than the total face value of all bills and coins in circulation because other things (such as bank balances) act just like printed dollars. If Bitcoin deflation ever became an actual economic problem, it would be trivially solved by allowing other things to act as Bitcoins, increasing the effective supply. (These other things could include other crypto-currencies, IOU, web-based wallets using fractional reserves, and so on.)
Those claims are correct. While an SSL BIO could be a network socket, the ASN1 code never talks directly to the SSL BIO code. The SSL protocol has to be parsed first to find the ASN1 structures, and by that time, they're not in the SSL BIO any more.
Because what he wants to protect is not the dance performance, but the trick. The trick is a way of accomplishing a particular functional result. Consider two possibilities:
1) This same "trick" can be done with dozens of possible dance performances. In that case, Teller gets his performance but anyone can use the trick.
2) This "trick" can only be done this one way. In that case, Teller loses his copyright. You can't copyright the only way to get a particular job done or accomplish a particular result. You can only patent the one expression you chose among millions of equally good expressions of the same idea or result.
We tried that, and the evidence suggests the risks are greater. What happens if you do that is that crew members just say they're fine when they're not. Studies show that giving crew members the option to nap at their stations makes it more likely that they actually *will* nap when they need to and consequently are more alert during critical stages of flight (like approach and landing) where maximum performance of all crew members can make a major life and death difference.
I assume you're being sarcastic, but you're actually correct. When we finally have the technology to do something about the problem, if there is one, we'll need to be rich enough to deploy it on a grand scale.
Which means your money can verify good today but bad tomorrow, when someone else deposits the same serial number. The security then becomes a matter of who gets to the bank first, which may or may not be the innocent party.
If you break one chip, you can spend the money that chip holds thousands of times. Presumably, at some point they'll have to invalidate that chip remotely, but because the system is a primarily offline system (just like cash) you can't propagate that invalidation to devices in the field. The first time a transaction is invalidated indirectly (while a non-compromised chip holds it), confidence in the system will collapse.
Jack breaks his chip. He immediately spends the same money to Abel, Baker, Cain, and Eddie. Eddie pays Fred. Baker pays Gerry. Abel pays Harry. The duplication is detected and.. whose money is invalidated? Gerry and Fred innocently accepted the same money -- does their money get remotely removed from their wallet?
As soon as that happens, everyone will have no way to know whether their money is legitimate or not because there will be no way to know whether or not some other chip that has not reported to the network is holding the very same money you have.
Sure, but the project creator doesn't guarantee his project will be successful. So failure to provide the offered rewards wouldn't breach the contract. However, if you could show fraud, that would -- for example, if he never intended to actually pursue the project. It's pretty clear that it's the backers that are taking the financial risk associated with the project.
How do you meet deadlines without funding? The whole point of kickstarter is to provide funding to projects that can't finance themselves any other way.
That's the nature of "at will" employment. You can quit because you don't like your the color of your stapler and they can fire you because you don't have a Facebook page. If you don't like it, you are free to negotiate an employment contract. But most people really do prefer at will employment arrangements -- that's why they're so popular.
You know what's an invasion of privacy? Passing a law that tells one person that they can't ask another person a question. That's an invasion of privacy in my book. We need these laws because some people are too dumb to say "no", and smart people are afraid that if they do say "no", they won't be able to compete with the dumb people willing to say "yes". It's idiocy all around.
There's no practical way they can stop repeat infringers. It's not content that's infringing, it's use. With what automated method can you determine that two uses are the same for infringement purposes? For example, a person could upload the same video file twice to Megaupload, once to view it and once to use as a decryption key for a file he previously encrypted with that video file as the one-time pad. One use is legal, the other is illegal. How does Megaupload know which is which?
You need a DMCA notice because that certifies that someone has determined that the *use* is infringing, not just the content.
You can't fire an employee for refusing to help you break the law. 18 USC 1030 makes it illegal for he district to access Facebook's computers without Facebook's permission or in excess of the authorization Facebook has granted them. Facebook has not granted them permission to access her account information through their computers, and she cannot grant such access because the computers aren't hers.
It would be criminal for the district to use her password to access Facebook:
18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C) says: "Whoever... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains.. information from any protected computer... shall be punished[.]"
The district has no authorization from Facebook to access the teacher's account through Facebook's front end web servers, so they are exceeding their authorized access to those computers. Facebook's back end database servers that they obtain the information from are "protected computer"s as that is defined in the act per 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B) because they are affecting interstate commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
He doesn't sue the hosting company because the hosting company is just following the law. The DMCA makes it the site owner's responsibility to respond to these complaints, not the hosting company. The hosting company is specifically allowed to honor them if the site owner doesn't counter-notice.
Some people think the host is required to honor the takedown notices. They are not. They just run the risk of being sued themselves if they don't honor the takedown notice. So it is fair to blame the hosting company for not refusing to honor the notices at their own legal risk. But he can't sue them -- they are permitted to honor the takedowns.
> No. The rights are unconditional, they can not be denied to people who aren't rich enough to "buy" them.
I agree. And they aren't.
> "Opportunity" and "possibility" are not rights. If society really protected the right to public speech, it would have to provide a way to exercise it that would be accessible to every member of society.
That's incoherent nonsense. If a person has no vocal chords, they still have the right to speak. The ability to exercise a right is not the same thing as possessing the right.
> What is, of course, impossible in the current American society centered around for-profit entertainment and advertisement.
As it's impossible in any society, since it makes no sense. The reason freedom of speech works is because it places no obligations on anyone else to help you speak or to listen to you. There is no "freedom to enslave". There is no "freedom to make people listen".
What's funny is that Wu states this argument, and the re-states it as arguing that the computers inherit the programmer's rights. No, it's arguing that the question of whether the computers have rights or not is irrelevant because the computers are not speaking any more than the books or radio stations are speaking when *people* use them to communicate.
A person who can't pay to distribute his speech to the public still has the right to do so and that right is still fully protected. He simply doesn't have the ability to do it. A person born with no vocal chords still has the right to speak even though he lacks the ability to do it.
Now, if the government had fined him for speech they didn't like, thus leaving him without the funds to speak, that would be different. Similarly, if the State removed your vocal chords, thus depriving you of the ability to speak, that would deprive you of the right to speak.
Except that's not how the net worth is calculated for tax purposes. Otherwise, nothing would be taxable. Even ordinary employees labor for dollars of equal value.
When you trade A for B (whether A is labor, or B is labor, or A is dollars, or B is Bitcoins, or B is beer, or whatever) your change in net worth is calculated by what you got minus what you gave. But the value of what you gave is not the fair market value. It's the *lower* of the fair market value or what it cost you to get it. (Called your "basis".)
This means if you buy some stock, or Bitcoins, or wine for $50 and its value goes up to $500, that's not taxable. But if you sell it for $500, your profit is $500 minus the lower of $500 or $50, hence $500 - $50, and thus $450.
So if you barter, say, a paint job for a trailer, your profit for tax purposes is the fair market value of the trailer less what it cost you to provide the paint job. Sadly, if you bought a car for $35,000 and then traded it something after its value dropped to $8,000, $35,000 is not your basis. (Too bad, because that would be a great tax evasion strategy) $8,000 is, because that's lower.
It's not distributed proportionally to CPU resources. It's distributed as a payment for a service it requires in order to operate. In order for the Bitcoin system to operate, transactions have to be secured with computing power. It's the nature of the way the system operates -- it takes computing power to secure the transactions. New currency is paid out proportionally to those who provide the computing power needed to make the system work. When the block rewards stop, computing power will still be needed. At that time, people who provide the computing power needed to make the system work will be paid out of fees for each transaction they securely add to the block chain.
The early adopters didn't get anywhere near half the total wealth to ever be available. As of mid-November last year, the total value held by early adopters was around $12 million. The current value of all Bitcoins is already around $50 million. (Actually, this is measuring the value using the market cap method, which is not actually realistic. In truth, both values are much less, but the proportions are roughly the same.)
The miners are engaged in the voluntary exchange of products and services. The service they provide is securing the block chain and preventing double spending and 51% attacks in the Bitcoin system. In exchange, they get the block mining reward and transaction fees.
Bitcoins mined is just one source of new currency. There are others. For example, new dollars are created by dollars being printed and coins being minted, but they're also created by fractional reserve banking, mortgages, and many other mechanisms. Bitcoin just has one fewer mechanism -- coincidentally the one missing is the one that makes the government richer and everyone else poorer.
No, this is not correct. There is a limit on the total number of Bitcoins that can be mined in the block chain, but this won't cause deflation of other things act as the equivalent of Bitcoins and increase the total effective number of Bitcoins. For example, the total number of effective dollars is much greater than the total face value of all bills and coins in circulation because other things (such as bank balances) act just like printed dollars. If Bitcoin deflation ever became an actual economic problem, it would be trivially solved by allowing other things to act as Bitcoins, increasing the effective supply. (These other things could include other crypto-currencies, IOU, web-based wallets using fractional reserves, and so on.)
Those claims are correct. While an SSL BIO could be a network socket, the ASN1 code never talks directly to the SSL BIO code. The SSL protocol has to be parsed first to find the ASN1 structures, and by that time, they're not in the SSL BIO any more.
Because what he wants to protect is not the dance performance, but the trick. The trick is a way of accomplishing a particular functional result. Consider two possibilities:
1) This same "trick" can be done with dozens of possible dance performances. In that case, Teller gets his performance but anyone can use the trick.
2) This "trick" can only be done this one way. In that case, Teller loses his copyright. You can't copyright the only way to get a particular job done or accomplish a particular result. You can only patent the one expression you chose among millions of equally good expressions of the same idea or result.
We tried that, and the evidence suggests the risks are greater. What happens if you do that is that crew members just say they're fine when they're not. Studies show that giving crew members the option to nap at their stations makes it more likely that they actually *will* nap when they need to and consequently are more alert during critical stages of flight (like approach and landing) where maximum performance of all crew members can make a major life and death difference.
I assume you're being sarcastic, but you're actually correct. When we finally have the technology to do something about the problem, if there is one, we'll need to be rich enough to deploy it on a grand scale.
Which means your money can verify good today but bad tomorrow, when someone else deposits the same serial number. The security then becomes a matter of who gets to the bank first, which may or may not be the innocent party.
If you break one chip, you can spend the money that chip holds thousands of times. Presumably, at some point they'll have to invalidate that chip remotely, but because the system is a primarily offline system (just like cash) you can't propagate that invalidation to devices in the field. The first time a transaction is invalidated indirectly (while a non-compromised chip holds it), confidence in the system will collapse.
Jack breaks his chip. He immediately spends the same money to Abel, Baker, Cain, and Eddie. Eddie pays Fred. Baker pays Gerry. Abel pays Harry. The duplication is detected and .. whose money is invalidated? Gerry and Fred innocently accepted the same money -- does their money get remotely removed from their wallet?
As soon as that happens, everyone will have no way to know whether their money is legitimate or not because there will be no way to know whether or not some other chip that has not reported to the network is holding the very same money you have.
Sure, but the project creator doesn't guarantee his project will be successful. So failure to provide the offered rewards wouldn't breach the contract. However, if you could show fraud, that would -- for example, if he never intended to actually pursue the project. It's pretty clear that it's the backers that are taking the financial risk associated with the project.
How do you meet deadlines without funding? The whole point of kickstarter is to provide funding to projects that can't finance themselves any other way.
You simply stop following the project. They're called "donations" for a reason.
That's the nature of "at will" employment. You can quit because you don't like your the color of your stapler and they can fire you because you don't have a Facebook page. If you don't like it, you are free to negotiate an employment contract. But most people really do prefer at will employment arrangements -- that's why they're so popular.
You know what's an invasion of privacy? Passing a law that tells one person that they can't ask another person a question. That's an invasion of privacy in my book. We need these laws because some people are too dumb to say "no", and smart people are afraid that if they do say "no", they won't be able to compete with the dumb people willing to say "yes". It's idiocy all around.
There's no practical way they can stop repeat infringers. It's not content that's infringing, it's use. With what automated method can you determine that two uses are the same for infringement purposes? For example, a person could upload the same video file twice to Megaupload, once to view it and once to use as a decryption key for a file he previously encrypted with that video file as the one-time pad. One use is legal, the other is illegal. How does Megaupload know which is which?
You need a DMCA notice because that certifies that someone has determined that the *use* is infringing, not just the content.
You can't fire an employee for refusing to help you break the law. 18 USC 1030 makes it illegal for he district to access Facebook's computers without Facebook's permission or in excess of the authorization Facebook has granted them. Facebook has not granted them permission to access her account information through their computers, and she cannot grant such access because the computers aren't hers.
The user can't authorize the district to access Facebook's computers. Only Facebook can do that.
It would be criminal for the district to use her password to access Facebook:
18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C) says: "Whoever ... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains .. information from any protected computer ... shall be punished[.]"
The district has no authorization from Facebook to access the teacher's account through Facebook's front end web servers, so they are exceeding their authorized access to those computers. Facebook's back end database servers that they obtain the information from are "protected computer"s as that is defined in the act per 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B) because they are affecting interstate commerce.