Copyright reserves the rights to distribution for the copyright holder.
If you're distributing a copywritten work, you're breaking copyright law (barring any fair-use outs, which are going to be incredibly difficult to prove, if you're sharing an album to 10,000,000 kazaa users).
Downloader's are not the issue here, it's the act of distributing the protected works that's the issue.
If you're sharing them on Kazaa, you're infringing on the copyright of the rightful copyright holders.
I'll say that again for the slow folks in the class. If you are distributing songs to which you do not own the copyright, or you do not have the express consent of the copyright holder to distribute them, then you are breaking copyright law.
Fair Use does NOT, and has NEVER allowed you to distribute copyrighted works in their entirety. You can excerpt portions of a copywritten work for purposes of review or criticism, or for academic purposes (ie, used as part of classwork).
It doesn't allow you to distribute the songs to 100,000 of your closest friends.
That's contrary to the evidence of all of my friends, those who do download music, tend to have MP3 collections in the multi-gigabytes. I don't think they've ever deleted a song they've downloaded, and they haven't bought CD's in years.
Sure it's anecdotal evidence, but if people were deleting the crap they download, you'd think the crap would gradually disappear from the P2P, servers since no one would have it on their harddrives to share.
They looked at her publically available music/movie shares, and determined that she was distributing copyrighted works, which she did not have permissions to do.
Jesus, this isn't difficult. Copyright law reserves ALL rights of distribution for the copyright holder. Period. That's it.
If you are distributing copies of a copyright work, which you do not hold the copyright to, or have not recieved the express permission of the copyright holder, you are illegally distributing a copyrighted work.
It is COPYRIGHT law afterall. It reserves the rights of distribution to the copyright holder.
It doesn't matter if YOU have the CD and are downloading a copy of the song. What matters is that someone is distributing a copy of a song they do not own the Copyright to.
That's all there is to it. It really is THAT simple. If you do not own the copyright of a work, or if you do not have the express permission of the copyright holder, it is illegal for you to distribute copys of that work.
This is a feature some people want. It'd not on by default (how could it, be, since it requires a properly configured server to do the rights management).
It'll let businesses lock their documents down, for internal use. Nothing at all here gives any indication that all documents created will have DRM forced on. If a business or user doesn't want to use it, don't turn it on.
Almost without exception, every single high profile Windows exploit in recent memory has either had a patch available for it before there was an exploit active in the wild, or it exploited the user (getting people to activate an attachment).
Where are all these problems that are exploited for 6 months before Microsoft releases a stealth patch?
Once the driver is WHQL Certified.
Quite often, when drivers are first released by nVidia (or anyone else for that matter), they are not WHQL Certified, and you'll get the warning message about installing non-certified drivers.
So it's quite likely you installed the non-WHQL driver direct from nVidia, and then Windows Update had the WHQL Version available a month later.
Two space suits are always carried on board any shuttle mission in which the Cargo Bay doors are to be opened. They must be there should there be a problem latching/locking the cargo bay doors before re-entry, as re-entry would be impossible if the doors aren't sealed correctly.
MMU's (Manned Maneuvering Units) however are not carried, and have not been carried for a long time.
That Control Panel sets up and monitors automatic synchronization of data to removeable devices. You'll notice the other things listed there are a Pocket PC Device, an Portable Media Player, and the Offline File Store.
Also, in response to the grandparent poster, it doesn't say it's unavailable, it says it's "not connected".
They've contracted their massive load balancing requirements to Akami, and probably don't give a shit what Akami runs to do their work.
It's not like Billy G. called the Network guys into his office and told them to go stick their servers behind a linux proxy.
They're just contracting a service, like Apple and several other companies do for high bandwidth projects. (Apple distributes most of the Quicktime Movie Trailers via Akami)
Microsoft actually contacted us about one of our applications that was occasionally crashing, and talked to one of our developers about where the problem was (what api functions were being called incorrectly).
No where in the article does it say that these are crashes that result in a computer reboot.
Winzip chokes on a corrupted.zip file and crashes; Windows keeps running just fine, but that's still a crash. Under XP that will generate an app crash message to be sent to Microsoft to be analyzed and included in statistics like these.
It is consistent with Fair Use Doctrine to allow YOU to Timeshift a program, for yourself.
As soon as someone is DISTRIBUTING a program, they are breaking copyright law. It doesn't matter if it's being done for the purposes of "Time-Shifting" or "Format Shifting".
The act of distributing, is copyright infringement, as copyright retains all distribution rights for the copyright holder.
That's great that if the power is out, the interference would be gone, but why would the HAM operators all over the country still be operating, if 99.999% of the time, they were drowned out by interference, they'd all be gone.
If it's a lack of availability of different types of music, why they fuck are all the top forty artists the ones being downloaded on P2P apps?
People say this all the time, "I hate the music the RIAA is making now, artists these days suck, the songs suck, I hate buying CD's with 1 or 2 good songs and 12 tracks of filler crap", while happily downloading every Top40 hit from a P2P App. Which is it? Does the music suck, or do they just want it for free? Because if it REALLY sucked, I imagine they wouldn't be downloading the same artists they keep saying suck.
Civil Lawsuits are governed by the concept of "preponderance of proof". Whichever side can produce more proof than the other than X occured or didn't occur, must win the lawsuit.
The burden of proof isn't on the defendant, the burden of proof is on both parties equally, who ever proves more, wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright reserves the rights to distribution for the copyright holder.
If you're distributing a copywritten work, you're breaking copyright law (barring any fair-use outs, which are going to be incredibly difficult to prove, if you're sharing an album to 10,000,000 kazaa users).
Downloader's are not the issue here, it's the act of distributing the protected works that's the issue.
exclusively reserved for the copyright holder.
Only the copyright holder has the right to authorize the distribution of their copywritten works.
It's that simple. If you're distributing songs you don't own the copyright to, you are breaking copyright law.
If you're sharing them on Kazaa, you're infringing on the copyright of the rightful copyright holders.
I'll say that again for the slow folks in the class. If you are distributing songs to which you do not own the copyright, or you do not have the express consent of the copyright holder to distribute them, then you are breaking copyright law.
Fair Use does NOT, and has NEVER allowed you to distribute copyrighted works in their entirety. You can excerpt portions of a copywritten work for purposes of review or criticism, or for academic purposes (ie, used as part of classwork).
It doesn't allow you to distribute the songs to 100,000 of your closest friends.
That's contrary to the evidence of all of my friends, those who do download music, tend to have MP3 collections in the multi-gigabytes. I don't think they've ever deleted a song they've downloaded, and they haven't bought CD's in years.
Sure it's anecdotal evidence, but if people were deleting the crap they download, you'd think the crap would gradually disappear from the P2P, servers since no one would have it on their harddrives to share.
If it's crappy music, why are people downloading it?
claim of unreasonable search is "shallow".
They looked at her publically available music/movie shares, and determined that she was distributing copyrighted works, which she did not have permissions to do.
Jesus, this isn't difficult. Copyright law reserves ALL rights of distribution for the copyright holder. Period. That's it.
If you are distributing copies of a copyright work, which you do not hold the copyright to, or have not recieved the express permission of the copyright holder, you are illegally distributing a copyrighted work.
It is COPYRIGHT law afterall. It reserves the rights of distribution to the copyright holder.
It doesn't matter if YOU have the CD and are downloading a copy of the song. What matters is that someone is distributing a copy of a song they do not own the Copyright to.
That's all there is to it. It really is THAT simple. If you do not own the copyright of a work, or if you do not have the express permission of the copyright holder, it is illegal for you to distribute copys of that work.
It requires a properly configured server to administer the rights management in order to function.
This is a feature some people want. It'd not on by default (how could it, be, since it requires a properly configured server to do the rights management).
It'll let businesses lock their documents down, for internal use. Nothing at all here gives any indication that all documents created will have DRM forced on. If a business or user doesn't want to use it, don't turn it on.
Name some.
Almost without exception, every single high profile Windows exploit in recent memory has either had a patch available for it before there was an exploit active in the wild, or it exploited the user (getting people to activate an attachment).
Where are all these problems that are exploited for 6 months before Microsoft releases a stealth patch?
Once the driver is WHQL Certified. Quite often, when drivers are first released by nVidia (or anyone else for that matter), they are not WHQL Certified, and you'll get the warning message about installing non-certified drivers. So it's quite likely you installed the non-WHQL driver direct from nVidia, and then Windows Update had the WHQL Version available a month later.
Two space suits are always carried on board any shuttle mission in which the Cargo Bay doors are to be opened. They must be there should there be a problem latching/locking the cargo bay doors before re-entry, as re-entry would be impossible if the doors aren't sealed correctly.
MMU's (Manned Maneuvering Units) however are not carried, and have not been carried for a long time.
That Control Panel sets up and monitors automatic synchronization of data to removeable devices. You'll notice the other things listed there are a Pocket PC Device, an Portable Media Player, and the Offline File Store. Also, in response to the grandparent poster, it doesn't say it's unavailable, it says it's "not connected".
That's a pretty strange definition of impeccable timing if you ask me.
They've contracted their massive load balancing requirements to Akami, and probably don't give a shit what Akami runs to do their work.
It's not like Billy G. called the Network guys into his office and told them to go stick their servers behind a linux proxy.
They're just contracting a service, like Apple and several other companies do for high bandwidth projects. (Apple distributes most of the Quicktime Movie Trailers via Akami)
Microsoft actually contacted us about one of our applications that was occasionally crashing, and talked to one of our developers about where the problem was (what api functions were being called incorrectly).
No where in the article does it say that these are crashes that result in a computer reboot.
.zip file and crashes; Windows keeps running just fine, but that's still a crash. Under XP that will generate an app crash message to be sent to Microsoft to be analyzed and included in statistics like these.
Winzip chokes on a corrupted
It is consistent with Fair Use Doctrine to allow YOU to Timeshift a program, for yourself.
As soon as someone is DISTRIBUTING a program, they are breaking copyright law. It doesn't matter if it's being done for the purposes of "Time-Shifting" or "Format Shifting".
The act of distributing, is copyright infringement, as copyright retains all distribution rights for the copyright holder.
Magic elves?
The people recieving their transmissions are goign to be right smack in the middle of BPL interference, and unable to hear a fucking thing.
Use your head.
That's great that if the power is out, the interference would be gone, but why would the HAM operators all over the country still be operating, if 99.999% of the time, they were drowned out by interference, they'd all be gone.
Because the FAA also makes sure that planes aren't falling out of the sky on a regular basis and crashing into your house.
So the FAA benefits you, even if you don't fly.
why are people downloading it?
If the music sucks that bad, why do people download it. If they go to the trouble to download the tracks, they must have some value to the downloader.
If it's a lack of availability of different types of music, why they fuck are all the top forty artists the ones being downloaded on P2P apps?
People say this all the time, "I hate the music the RIAA is making now, artists these days suck, the songs suck, I hate buying CD's with 1 or 2 good songs and 12 tracks of filler crap", while happily downloading every Top40 hit from a P2P App. Which is it? Does the music suck, or do they just want it for free? Because if it REALLY sucked, I imagine they wouldn't be downloading the same artists they keep saying suck.
Civil Lawsuits are governed by the concept of "preponderance of proof". Whichever side can produce more proof than the other than X occured or didn't occur, must win the lawsuit.
The burden of proof isn't on the defendant, the burden of proof is on both parties equally, who ever proves more, wins.