In that case, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. I might have sold it to some other people too, but none of you will find that out until later. Oh, so you do want government intervention in economic activity? What makes fraud so special? It's just another way of ripping one another off, after all.
Although she mistakenly says websites have RAM, she definitely knows what RAM is
Sorry, my cognitivance is dissonating. Could you repeat that, please?
So "turning over the RAM" actually means "hand over the documents that are temporarily stored in the RAM by simply turning on the logging function of the webserver."
The core of the problem is that 1G of RAM inside a computer changes, thousands of times per second. The only way to show a complete record of RAM state is to record an image of it, every single time. Unfortunately the very process of reading from RAM affects RAM state. The court is asking the impossible.
They may actually mean "keep logs of IPs involved in torrents", but that's not what they're asking. They're asking "record RAM", and that is impossible.
Remarkable. Not for the initiative itself, which is perfectly ordinary common sense, but from where it comes from. Reminds me of the time my grandad's pig played the violin. We all clapped and shouted hooray, not because the pig was any good, but because he could do it at all.
All copyrights and patents must be no longer than 20 years and can not be extended. The copyrighted materials automatically become public domain as soon as the author is declared dead. I think 20 years is already ridiculously long, given the pace of technology advancement. Setting the protection period to a shorter time can also help to accelerate progress as well, so it's good. Look at the current state of copyrights, a lot of authors are dead, but their materials are still copyrighted. The dead can't create anymore, so what is the copyright protection for anyways? You might say someone might have some dark intention, but that's not what copyright and patent laws should care about.
No. Putting bounties on author's heads isn't a good idea. Instead, 20 years from the registration of the copyright, regardless of the life/death status of the author.
Furthermore, sharing of some of any given copyrighted work is legal - for fair use purposes, such as study, parody, public criticism, etc. Regardless of what the copyright owner thinks. This is one of the main problems with DRM, in that it may deny you your fair use rights. Obviously, fair use rights don't extend to copying the whole thing; however, in order to exercise fair use rights and quote a portion of it, one may actually need to have access to the whole data file.
The "think of the CHILLDREENN!!!" idiots never realize this, probably because they are among them, but children need some negative role models. Children need to encounter the occasional adult who is a jerk, an asshole, selfish, or just plain stupid. Three reasons: (1) It shows, like nothing else, that it is a possibility that adults you encounter in your own adult life are going to be in the above category; (2) It gives you practice in thinking around them, circumventing them, going under their radar and over their heads, which will be immensely useful in adult life; (3) Much of a person's character is defined by what they are determined to not be. The assertion "I will not be like that guy" is a good, character-building assertion to make.
Fortunately, modern high schools provide such examples in vast numbers.
It can instead be a "little job" that must be done before you get to the pr0n.
However the Iron Internet Law of "lolz > human decency" applies... and we can look forward to books being translated as "chucknorrischucknorrischucknorrischurknorris..."
They have to pay 3 people full time to respond to DMCA complaints, the vast majority of which are caused by students doing something wrong.
Stanford chooses to pay 3 full-time employees to perform work that could be done by a well-programmed script, which would also have the massive advantage of not creating in the minds of the RIAA lawyers an expectation that their complaints will be taken seriously, responded to quickly, or that actual people will be attending to them.
Stanford gains nothing from cooperating with the RIAA in any way that exceeds the minimum set by individually issued court orders. In fact they only make a rod for their own backs: any concessions extended to the RIAA in a given case will be demanded again in the next case, and additional concessions will be asked for. In other words, if you give it a dollar, it will ask for two. If you give it a thousand dollars, it will ask for two thousand. The only viable option to deal with such a monster is to give it nothing.
Intellectual property is a good idea in principle and could help drive an economy. Unfortunately in the United States, this underlying good idea has become a thin justification, a mere figleaf, over a monstrous economic cancer. Make no mistake about it, the RIAA must be broken, declared a vexatious litigant, its charter revoked, its lawyers disbarred, and its pet lawmakers impeached and jailed for corruption.
Some say "kickbacks and corruption", some say "rewarding loyalty and encouraging capitalist innovation". Tomayto, tomahto. It depends if you're honest, or a Republican.
I expect Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic could have made up Constitutions of their own and pointed to it as a "high authority" somehow exempting them from external influence, too. In the end power is what matters; but there are forms of power other than military and economic. International goodwill is one of these forms.
Yes, it does. That would be an ideal solution actually - have the RIAA's lawyers disbarred, as is the disciplinary measure for vexatious litigation, and the RIAA board of directors declared personally to be vexatious litigants, who must seek the permission of the court to engage in litigation. I think we could call that the best possible win.:)
Has anyone come up with an algorithm with which to determine whether a given video clip breaches copyright law (taking account of fair use defenses)? How about one to determine if a given picture is porn or not?
Thought not. Viacom is essentially asking Google to do something that is impossible.
Because the email system only allows 4MB files to be emailed. Because most of the computers in the department have a CD-ROM drive, not even a CD-RW, let alone a DVD-RW. Because the print company requires PDFs and the company won't pay for a site licence for Acrobat and won't let me download executables, so I need to bring in a freeware PDF distiller program. Because my job requires me to hop from my desk upstairs down to the counter for half a day, and I'm still expected to work on my files when I get time.
And any number of other legitimate reasons, all of which come down to this: The IT resources supplied by the IT department are inadequate to do my job, and the process for getting new resources is a complete pain in the ass, and I'd rather the job I do for the company not fail because then I'd have to get another job, so with my $40 USB disk, I'm going to plug the gap.
Try this: get an audio cable with two male ends. Connect one end to the device. Connect the other end to the computer's (stereo) microphone input. Set up a recording program on the computer. Press 'play' on the device.
Suck it up. Your country's controlled at the moment by people who are pretty much insane; inability to properly conduct business overseas is one of the less annoying consequences of that. If behaviour of this nature becomes expected, other nations will refuse to do business with Americans. Which, since you're net debtors at an unprecedented level, will be much worse for you than losing a couple thousand bucks in an online poker account.
In the meantime, perhaps you could find someone you actually know and trust who's overseas, contrive to lose the poker money to them, and then have them "buy" from you some innocuous item which you will ship to them. Shady, but not illegal. At worst, a terms of service violation for the poker site (assuming there's a term of service that requires you to play honestly for your own benefit, rather than for the benefit of another player).
You're forgetting something. Enforcement, bad or good, of traffic laws generates something that stands squarely in the way of alteration of the law: MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.
Slashdot Mirror
That assertion was put to rest under the administration of the last good Republican president. That guy with the top hat and beard.
In that case, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. I might have sold it to some other people too, but none of you will find that out until later. Oh, so you do want government intervention in economic activity? What makes fraud so special? It's just another way of ripping one another off, after all.
Yeah, that thought crossed my mind too, but it works if the paladin is an alt.
Sorry, my cognitivance is dissonating. Could you repeat that, please?
So "turning over the RAM" actually means "hand over the documents that are temporarily stored in the RAM by simply turning on the logging function of the webserver."
The core of the problem is that 1G of RAM inside a computer changes, thousands of times per second. The only way to show a complete record of RAM state is to record an image of it, every single time. Unfortunately the very process of reading from RAM affects RAM state. The court is asking the impossible.
They may actually mean "keep logs of IPs involved in torrents", but that's not what they're asking. They're asking "record RAM", and that is impossible.
That would still be useful. Zero ping FTW!
This is because from the point of view of the RIAA, criminal prosecution rather than civil suit is free.
Remarkable. Not for the initiative itself, which is perfectly ordinary common sense, but from where it comes from. Reminds me of the time my grandad's pig played the violin. We all clapped and shouted hooray, not because the pig was any good, but because he could do it at all.
No. Putting bounties on author's heads isn't a good idea. Instead, 20 years from the registration of the copyright, regardless of the life/death status of the author.
Captcha: dollar. How appropriate.
Furthermore, sharing of some of any given copyrighted work is legal - for fair use purposes, such as study, parody, public criticism, etc. Regardless of what the copyright owner thinks. This is one of the main problems with DRM, in that it may deny you your fair use rights. Obviously, fair use rights don't extend to copying the whole thing; however, in order to exercise fair use rights and quote a portion of it, one may actually need to have access to the whole data file.
Fortunately, modern high schools provide such examples in vast numbers.
Seems to be working pretty well for the Iraqi insurgents.
However the Iron Internet Law of "lolz > human decency" applies ... and we can look forward to books being translated as "chucknorrischucknorrischucknorrischurknorris..."
Stanford chooses to pay 3 full-time employees to perform work that could be done by a well-programmed script, which would also have the massive advantage of not creating in the minds of the RIAA lawyers an expectation that their complaints will be taken seriously, responded to quickly, or that actual people will be attending to them.
Stanford gains nothing from cooperating with the RIAA in any way that exceeds the minimum set by individually issued court orders. In fact they only make a rod for their own backs: any concessions extended to the RIAA in a given case will be demanded again in the next case, and additional concessions will be asked for. In other words, if you give it a dollar, it will ask for two. If you give it a thousand dollars, it will ask for two thousand. The only viable option to deal with such a monster is to give it nothing.
Intellectual property is a good idea in principle and could help drive an economy. Unfortunately in the United States, this underlying good idea has become a thin justification, a mere figleaf, over a monstrous economic cancer. Make no mistake about it, the RIAA must be broken, declared a vexatious litigant, its charter revoked, its lawyers disbarred, and its pet lawmakers impeached and jailed for corruption.
Some say "kickbacks and corruption", some say "rewarding loyalty and encouraging capitalist innovation". Tomayto, tomahto. It depends if you're honest, or a Republican.
I expect Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic could have made up Constitutions of their own and pointed to it as a "high authority" somehow exempting them from external influence, too. In the end power is what matters; but there are forms of power other than military and economic. International goodwill is one of these forms.
... into which can be plugged a standard USB flash disk, to serve as the MP3 player's drive?
Yes, it does. That would be an ideal solution actually - have the RIAA's lawyers disbarred, as is the disciplinary measure for vexatious litigation, and the RIAA board of directors declared personally to be vexatious litigants, who must seek the permission of the court to engage in litigation. I think we could call that the best possible win. :)
Digital? Check. Rights? Check. Management? Sure looks like it to me.
Over what?
Thought not. Viacom is essentially asking Google to do something that is impossible.
Because the email system only allows 4MB files to be emailed. Because most of the computers in the department have a CD-ROM drive, not even a CD-RW, let alone a DVD-RW. Because the print company requires PDFs and the company won't pay for a site licence for Acrobat and won't let me download executables, so I need to bring in a freeware PDF distiller program. Because my job requires me to hop from my desk upstairs down to the counter for half a day, and I'm still expected to work on my files when I get time.
And any number of other legitimate reasons, all of which come down to this: The IT resources supplied by the IT department are inadequate to do my job, and the process for getting new resources is a complete pain in the ass, and I'd rather the job I do for the company not fail because then I'd have to get another job, so with my $40 USB disk, I'm going to plug the gap.
Try this: get an audio cable with two male ends. Connect one end to the device. Connect the other end to the computer's (stereo) microphone input. Set up a recording program on the computer. Press 'play' on the device.
In the meantime, perhaps you could find someone you actually know and trust who's overseas, contrive to lose the poker money to them, and then have them "buy" from you some innocuous item which you will ship to them. Shady, but not illegal. At worst, a terms of service violation for the poker site (assuming there's a term of service that requires you to play honestly for your own benefit, rather than for the benefit of another player).
You're forgetting something. Enforcement, bad or good, of traffic laws generates something that stands squarely in the way of alteration of the law: MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.