"moreover" implies that the statement preceding it is true on it's own merits, and that additionally, the statement following it is also true. Nobody here has asserted that the Defendant did nothing wrong, just that the Plaintiffs' assertion that converting to mp3 and sticking them in a particular folder is itself infringement.
I don't think anybody (sane) would claim that actually sharing them is not infringement. Offering to share them is not the same as actually sharing them, however. Quite possibly, offering to share is evidence enough that sharing has taken place, but that's quite another question.
...but for most of that time, it didn't have any EAN support, making it pretty well useless for much of the population of the planet. Even in the US, the UPC is being phased out in favor of the EAN.
There's no purticular reason that they should/store/ all of them, only the ones that haven't been examined yet. However, storing even that many might be a problem, and moving them to the examiners (or vice-versa). How do you store a working model of a neuclear reactor?
"TM" means that they claim it's trademarked. It doesn't mean that it neccessarly is a valid trademark, that anyone in authority has looked at it and said "this is trademarkable", or even that they filled out a form to trademark it. That's the difference between TM and ®.
I would hardly say that Doctor Who is the world's longest-running TV series. Indeed, I'd say that it's currently just about to start it's second season. Even the BBC seperates the classic series from this one.
(Yes, you did catch my lingo changing from American to British series/season -- I'm an American newly moved to England, and I'm looking forward to being able to see the Doctor on broadcast television instead of via bittorrent.)
The argument is pretty specious. The problem is not the GPL, but how the GPL is applied. The GPL advises those trying to apply it to a piece of software to make a clear statement of who the owner is. The FSF advises people accepting patches to get clear statements giving copyright over to the person listed as owning copyright to the software. I advise people to get clear contact details so that they can be contacted if a relicense is called for.
However, many projects don't do that. There's no clear statement on the Linux kernel saying who has the copyright.
The problem comes about because suit over copyright violations has to come from somebody who owns a copyright that is being infringed upon. If John Bobson sues foocorp, foocorp could claim that they didn't know John Bobson was an owner, and would John Bobson please prove it... however, that shouldn't be a difficult matter... esp. as it only needs to be done to a preponderince of the evidence, this being a civil matter.
(I am not a lawer, and can't even spell it. This is not legal advice.)
It seems social problems beg for social solutions, and most of the solutions I've seen in the replies are different varities of how to make sure only paying customers get the wifi. That's not a bad idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of atmopshere. (BTW: rolls of tickets like fairs use come cheap. Don't let numbers be used twice, and lock out a MAC after a few wrong guesses.)
Anyway, my solution: On the first hit to any page from a new MAC, or on a new token, go to a site for the coffee shop. Have a web-based chat there. Encourage your patrons to use it, post news there, etc. The idea is to get the geeks to come out of their shells for a bit. Try to get the "missed connections" stuff on there, and perhaps the cute girl on the iBook will see it in time.
And if that doesn't work, well, perhaps turning off the wifi is a good idea.
Eric Grimm, lawyer for DrewTech: "..the only real ruling that has been made in the case is a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Paul Komives, permitting DrewTech to take the deposition of a third-party witness."
It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement, and the settlement clearly showed that they were afraid of the GPL.
But it is not a judge ruling "yes, this license is valid and binding". Indeed, it's not a judge ruling anything.
Slashdot Mirror
"moreover" implies that the statement preceding it is true on it's own merits, and that additionally, the statement following it is also true. Nobody here has asserted that the Defendant did nothing wrong, just that the Plaintiffs' assertion that converting to mp3 and sticking them in a particular folder is itself infringement.
I don't think anybody (sane) would claim that actually sharing them is not infringement. Offering to share them is not the same as actually sharing them, however. Quite possibly, offering to share is evidence enough that sharing has taken place, but that's quite another question.
Re 5, please read the definition of "protected computer". That only applies to computers owned by the federal government and banks.
...but for most of that time, it didn't have any EAN support, making it pretty well useless for much of the population of the planet. Even in the US, the UPC is being phased out in favor of the EAN.
There's no purticular reason that they should /store/ all of them, only the ones that haven't been examined yet. However, storing even that many might be a problem, and moving them to the examiners (or vice-versa). How do you store a working model of a neuclear reactor?
"TM" means that they claim it's trademarked. It doesn't mean that it neccessarly is a valid trademark, that anyone in authority has looked at it and said "this is trademarkable", or even that they filled out a form to trademark it. That's the difference between TM and ®.
I would hardly say that Doctor Who is the world's longest-running TV series. Indeed, I'd say that it's currently just about to start it's second season. Even the BBC seperates the classic series from this one.
(Yes, you did catch my lingo changing from American to British series/season -- I'm an American newly moved to England, and I'm looking forward to being able to see the Doctor on broadcast television instead of via bittorrent.)
The argument is pretty specious. The problem is not the GPL, but how the GPL is applied. The GPL advises those trying to apply it to a piece of software to make a clear statement of who the owner is. The FSF advises people accepting patches to get clear statements giving copyright over to the person listed as owning copyright to the software. I advise people to get clear contact details so that they can be contacted if a relicense is called for.
However, many projects don't do that. There's no clear statement on the Linux kernel saying who has the copyright.
The problem comes about because suit over copyright violations has to come from somebody who owns a copyright that is being infringed upon. If John Bobson sues foocorp, foocorp could claim that they didn't know John Bobson was an owner, and would John Bobson please prove it... however, that shouldn't be a difficult matter... esp. as it only needs to be done to a preponderince of the evidence, this being a civil matter.
(I am not a lawer, and can't even spell it. This is not legal advice.)
It seems social problems beg for social solutions, and most of the solutions I've seen in the replies are different varities of how to make sure only paying customers get the wifi. That's not a bad idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of atmopshere. (BTW: rolls of tickets like fairs use come cheap. Don't let numbers be used twice, and lock out a MAC after a few wrong guesses.)
Anyway, my solution: On the first hit to any page from a new MAC, or on a new token, go to a site for the coffee shop. Have a web-based chat there. Encourage your patrons to use it, post news there, etc. The idea is to get the geeks to come out of their shells for a bit. Try to get the "missed connections" stuff on there, and perhaps the cute girl on the iBook will see it in time.
And if that doesn't work, well, perhaps turning off the wifi is a good idea.
It's off to the right, underneath the search results (meaning that you have to search to see it).
I think they actually get the data from the UK government directly: Map data ©Crown copyright. Licence number 100026920
Eric Grimm, lawyer for DrewTech: "..the only real ruling that has been made in the case is a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Paul Komives, permitting DrewTech to take the deposition of a third-party witness."
It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement, and the settlement clearly showed that they were afraid of the GPL.
But it is not a judge ruling "yes, this license is valid and binding". Indeed, it's not a judge ruling anything.