This is what can happen if you don't monitor your employee's emails. Chevron had to pay $2.2 million to employees because it allowed its internal email system to be used to transmit sexually offensive jokes.
This page lists a few more lawsuits from company liability about email. To limit liability in such cases, they suggest:
I believe that Google wouldn't be found to be infringing unless they put something like this on their homepage:
If you're looking for the DeCSS program that's illegal (even if you're only going to use to to view DVD's in Linux), you can find it by starting here .
The difference is that one could argue that the above link was created with the intention to aid others in commiting a crime.
However, since my intent was simply to communicate an idea, I should be safe from the MPAA, right? right?
Microsoft has successfully pointed to a 1977 Supreme Court decision outlawing antitrust claims by indirect purchasers to persuade state judges in Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada, and Iowa to dismiss similar suits.
The CBS article explained that a bit more:
Microsoft attorney Charles B. Casper argued that the company markets its products to thousands of companies who resell them at different prices, adding that the judge would have to weigh each consumer's claim on a case-by-case basis.
The Illinois Supreme Court decision is here. These are the problems with indirect purchases:
It was really the initial purchaser who was screwed by the man, so in this case, Dell should be suing Microsoft for reimbursement.
The indirect purchaser was indirectly screwed by the man. Dell probably passed on the additional cost to Betty Q. Grandmother.
Indirect purchasers were screwed to varying degrees. Some direct purchasers were overcharged but others were not. The direct purchasers that were overcharged had to compete with the ones that weren't, so they had to absorb some of the overcharge instead of passing it on.
They've proved that Microsoft screwed people and that Microsoft should repay some people X dollars, but they don't how to split up the money. So they need to waste the time of many judges to figure out who gets paid what.
Apparently, this is the sort of defense that Microsoft will try to use.
Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them.
First off, PlayStation games were formatted bizarrely, but noone ever argued that this was "encryption",
So if Sony suddenly claimed that the Playstation hardware was intended as encryption, would they suddenly have a case?
Or what about Dreamcast's "GDROM"s? GDROMs were intentionally designed to prevent copying. Not by encryption at the bit level, but by hoping that someone wouldn't figure out a way to make compatible hardware. That seems to be exactly what Playstation's game plan was.
DMCA allows for devices which allow interoperability. But what happens when non-interoperability is intended as a form of copy-protection?
This thread is getting pretty close to offtopic, but what the heck.
Software EULAs: The consumer does not have a choice. Every one that I've read disclaim all liability for everything. They all say that their program may do absolutely nothing, but it'll still be your fault for buying it. I can't think of an instance where a court decision was made on because of a EULA that I didn't agree with. However, I believe that if most consumers knew all of the things they are agreeing to when they open a software package, that they'd think three times before opening it.
Software Patents: I'm not saying that companies are pure evil and should all be destroyed. I'm just saying that, given the chance to stomp over user's rights in return for money, they'll do it.
DoubleClick: If consumers (here I go speaking for them again, sorry) knew that a human could view their surfing habbits and what catalogs they order from, they'd be a bit frightened. Most people have an expectation of privacy that doubleclick violated without telling them. Guess why DoubleClick didn't warn the people that were affected by it? IMO it wasn't because they thought the public didn't care.
My.MP3.com: Revenue was not being taken away from the record labels. People had to buy the CD first before they could access it online. Mp3.com was allowing owners to access the music over the internet. Yes, they might have been making a profit from the extra feature, but ISP's also make a profit for providing access to someone else's content.
There should be a rule... that if a person sues 100 organizations immediately after getting a patent, then there was obvious prior art (unless the person can prove that the companies just started infringing).
AFAIK, new patents won't be issued for implementation details. (eg. using CMOS rather than TTL chips) So why isn't "over the internet between countries" considered an implementation detail?
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
After the limited time, they don't have exclusive rights, so it goes into the public commons.
Currently, most of the people involved with this thread are paying a monthly/yearly/whatever fee for access to information in the form of subscriptions. Subscriptions give you a form of limited access to certain types of information.
Are you refering to ISP's & the Internet? There are a lot of differences:
There doesn't exist one company that can make an arbitrary decision and stamp out almost all traces of a work within 12 months.
There doesn't exist one company who makes decisions on what content gets published. (even if multiple companies exist, from the standpoint of a student at a university, there's only one option).
If one access company makes some stupid restrictions about what you can access or what platforms you can access it from, you can pick another one.
Image a world where ALL textbooks are free. How do the author(s) and editor(s) get reimbursed for their efforts? How do students get new textbooks?
And if no one were paid to write programs, no programs would be written, right?
In this particular situation, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that books will become any less accessible or affordable on the aggregate.
While this application does have "substantial noninfringing uses", it gives companies more power over the user. Based on past behavior, it seems reasonable to assume that companies will use this power to squeeze as much money from the consumer as possible without regard to their rights. And while monopolies can be dealt with as they come, it worries me when a new opportunity comes along for companies to gain more power.
In particular, the Constitution intends a published work to become part of the public commons after a certain time. Even if the time has becomed dramatically lengthened lately, the works would still go into the public commons. These e-books wouldn't ever go into the public commons.
And what happens when companies stop producing paper books because they're not as profitable? And consumers don't demand paper books very much because they're lazy and ideals get pushed aside when they don't have to spend as much per semester?
The fingerprint shouldn't change even if the music is made louder or softer, re-equalized slightly, passed through a mp3 encoder, speeded up or slowed down a little, and so on. Anything that doesn't change way the music sounds shouldn't change the fingerprint, and it should be impossible for even a smart, well-funded human being to make the fingerprint change without distorting the music.
That was also true of the Betamax case that this case is using as a precident. Sony made the recorders and were sued for contributing to copyright infringement.
I beleive 3G is going to be WCDMA (by NTT DoCoMo) or CDMA2000 (by Europe somebody) which are their own things. In the meantime, each separate protocols have their 2.5G equivalent so the cell towers don't have to be completely redone.
Why several different standards? I don't know. It's always happened though. GIF/PNG... AIM/ICQ... POP3/IMAP... Serial/Parallel/USB... WAP/Internet.
On June 23rd, Ericsson demonstrated a speed of 384kbps on an EDGE/GPS network (here).
The fastest mobile wireless speed I've seen announced on more than a test basis was in Turkey at 26kbps (here).
Though if you don't mind not being able to surf when in motion, Richochet has 28kbps now, becoming 128kbps soon, in several US cities (here). Ricochet claims they can go 70mph, but some people on Epinions.com disagree.
Okay, you're right. In my example, the link-giver was interacting with one person. Normally, a link-giver just puts up a link and many people with different intents can come by can and use the link, so it's harder to show what the intent of the link-giver was.
I guess my point is still that... if the link-giver had bad intent and you can prove it, then maybe the link-giver should be put away for a little bit.
There are 22 other satellite systems in operation or being planned. I think that shows a fair bit of demand.
Don't you want to be able to set up a data connection anywhere in the world? Sure, sometimes you want to be alone, but for people that are working on projects in rugged terrain, it probably comes in handy.
Slashdot Mirror
Free ISP's result in less people paying for service provided by AOL. So?
This page lists a few more lawsuits from company liability about email. To limit liability in such cases, they suggest:
Well, it's not very similar to the MPAA case in at least one respect: the emulators don't facilitate "stealing" of copyrighted data.
- If you're looking for the DeCSS program that's illegal (even if you're only going to use to to view DVD's in Linux), you can find it by starting here .
The difference is that one could argue that the above link was created with the intention to aid others in commiting a crime.However, since my intent was simply to communicate an idea, I should be safe from the MPAA, right? right?
The Boston Globe says:
- Microsoft has successfully pointed to a 1977 Supreme Court decision outlawing antitrust claims by indirect purchasers to persuade state judges in Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada, and Iowa to dismiss similar suits.
The CBS article explained that a bit more:- Microsoft attorney Charles B. Casper argued that the company markets its products to thousands of companies who resell them at different prices, adding that the judge would have to weigh each consumer's claim on a case-by-case basis.
The Illinois Supreme Court decision is here. These are the problems with indirect purchases:They've proved that Microsoft screwed people and that Microsoft should repay some people X dollars, but they don't how to split up the money. So they need to waste the time of many judges to figure out who gets paid what.
Apparently, this is the sort of defense that Microsoft will try to use.
An excerpt:
What about the DVD players that don't pay attention to the region code that were produced by Sony and the like?
So if Sony suddenly claimed that the Playstation hardware was intended as encryption, would they suddenly have a case?
Or what about Dreamcast's "GDROM"s? GDROMs were intentionally designed to prevent copying. Not by encryption at the bit level, but by hoping that someone wouldn't figure out a way to make compatible hardware. That seems to be exactly what Playstation's game plan was.
DMCA allows for devices which allow interoperability. But what happens when non-interoperability is intended as a form of copy-protection?
Software EULAs: The consumer does not have a choice. Every one that I've read disclaim all liability for everything. They all say that their program may do absolutely nothing, but it'll still be your fault for buying it. I can't think of an instance where a court decision was made on because of a EULA that I didn't agree with. However, I believe that if most consumers knew all of the things they are agreeing to when they open a software package, that they'd think three times before opening it.
Software Patents: I'm not saying that companies are pure evil and should all be destroyed. I'm just saying that, given the chance to stomp over user's rights in return for money, they'll do it.
DoubleClick: If consumers (here I go speaking for them again, sorry) knew that a human could view their surfing habbits and what catalogs they order from, they'd be a bit frightened. Most people have an expectation of privacy that doubleclick violated without telling them. Guess why DoubleClick didn't warn the people that were affected by it? IMO it wasn't because they thought the public didn't care.
My.MP3.com: Revenue was not being taken away from the record labels. People had to buy the CD first before they could access it online. Mp3.com was allowing owners to access the music over the internet. Yes, they might have been making a profit from the extra feature, but ISP's also make a profit for providing access to someone else's content.
There should be a rule... that if a person sues 100 organizations immediately after getting a patent, then there was obvious prior art (unless the person can prove that the companies just started infringing).
AFAIK, new patents won't be issued for implementation details. (eg. using CMOS rather than TTL chips) So why isn't "over the internet between countries" considered an implementation detail?
- Software EULAs
- Stupid Patents that have slowed down progress
- DoubleClick invading privacy
- My.MP3.com getting sued for space shifting
I don't mean to sound like a- The Congress shall have power
... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
After the limited time, they don't have exclusive rights, so it goes into the public commons.- Currently, most of the people involved with this thread are paying a monthly/yearly/whatever fee for access to information in the form of subscriptions. Subscriptions give you a form of limited access to certain types of information.
Are you refering to ISP's & the Internet? There are a lot of differences:- Image a world where ALL textbooks are free. How do the author(s) and editor(s) get reimbursed for their efforts? How do students get new textbooks?
And if no one were paid to write programs, no programs would be written, right?While this application does have "substantial noninfringing uses", it gives companies more power over the user. Based on past behavior, it seems reasonable to assume that companies will use this power to squeeze as much money from the consumer as possible without regard to their rights. And while monopolies can be dealt with as they come, it worries me when a new opportunity comes along for companies to gain more power.
- what does this do to future access of a work?
In particular, the Constitution intends a published work to become part of the public commons after a certain time. Even if the time has becomed dramatically lengthened lately, the works would still go into the public commons. These e-books wouldn't ever go into the public commons.But in that case, you're legally allowed to make a copy to preserve your information.
It's still useful to go back and analyze printed word in a historical context.
And what happens when companies stop producing paper books because they're not as profitable? And consumers don't demand paper books very much because they're lazy and ideals get pushed aside when they don't have to spend as much per semester?
- The fingerprint shouldn't change even if the music is made louder or softer, re-equalized slightly, passed through a mp3 encoder, speeded up or slowed down a little, and so on. Anything that doesn't change way the music sounds shouldn't change the fingerprint, and it should be impossible for even a smart, well-funded human being to make the fingerprint change without distorting the music.
(emphasis mine)That sounds pretty reasonable and possible to me.
That was also true of the Betamax case that this case is using as a precident. Sony made the recorders and were sued for contributing to copyright infringement.
Heck, I'd even go for a reliable & cheap 9600 wireless modem to get traffic updates and send short emails over.
Why several different standards? I don't know. It's always happened though. GIF/PNG... AIM/ICQ... POP3/IMAP... Serial/Parallel/USB... WAP/Internet.
The fastest mobile wireless speed I've seen announced on more than a test basis was in Turkey at 26kbps (here).
Though if you don't mind not being able to surf when in motion, Richochet has 28kbps now, becoming 128kbps soon, in several US cities (here). Ricochet claims they can go 70mph, but some people on Epinions.com disagree.
I guess my point is still that... if the link-giver had bad intent and you can prove it, then maybe the link-giver should be put away for a little bit.
Don't you want to be able to set up a data connection anywhere in the world? Sure, sometimes you want to be alone, but for people that are working on projects in rugged terrain, it probably comes in handy.
Not that I don't want high-speed too. :)