A cover -has- to sound like the original in order to qualify under the compulsory licensing scheme in America. If the cover reworks the original, it's not a cover but a derivative work, and is infringing.
(b) The Director shall charge the following fees for maintaining in force all patents based on applications filed on or after December 12, 1980:
(1) 3 years and 6 months after grant, $830.
(2) 7 years and 6 months after grant, $1,900.
(3) 11 years and 6 months after grant, $2,910.
Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received in the Patent and Trademark Office on or before the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such grace period. The Director may require the payment of a surcharge as a condition of accepting within such 6-month grace period the payment of an applicable maintenance fee. No fee may be established for maintaining a design or plant patent in force.
It's certainly possible that obtaining the access that permits them to change grades would also permit them to access other records regarding other students, especially other records which are required to be maintained privately. So, one way to view this is that the hackers are committing a gross breach of other students' privacy.
I haven't seen anyone actually look at what the law says, but 17 U.S.C. 504 says that RIAA can get either actual damages and profits or statutory damages. Statutory damages would be capped at $150,000 "for all infringements involved in the action," but is set by the court apparently. I guess she might be right in her claim that while infringement was proven, actual damages weren't, and so the jury award must be reversed. It'll be interesting to see what happens there.
Hell, I joined Orkut when it first started getting publicity, started the group "Fuck Socialism", had it grow to be the largest group, and got banned within the course of about two weeks.
The concept of checks and balances is inapplicable to combinations, and warrants are inapplicable outside of the criminal law arena.
If a party lawfully has in its possession a piece of information, it may share that piece of information (subject to invasion of privacy torts, which would be difficult to find applicable in such a circumstance).
It isn't a third party prosecuting these claims, but each party individually is performing its part in a shared legal strategy.
Subpoenas, not warrants, are used in civil litigation, and you can always fight to quash a warrant as overly broad. The record labels' demands to have physical possession of your computer are pretty much out of the ordinary, and that's where the information leak comes in to play.
The restraint is based on the fact that record companies are legally free to give their music away. The RIAA-led arrangement would be preventing them from doing that, ergo restraint.
You're approaching the monopoly side of the Sherman Act, not the restraint on trade side. It's more like if Apple and Microsoft got together and decided not to sell copies of their operating system at less than $100.
The problem with this line of reasoning - that the RIAA's constituents are violating antitrust law - is that even though it is arguably correct, the outcome of the ASCAP litigation seems to demand that the RIAA be permitted to create a uniform copyright enforcement method in exchange for certain other concessions.
... which means that the Got Milk? campaign is basically run by the government, and presumptively immune from antitrust claims. So milk producers working together is explicitly provided for by the government (and is in fact pretty much mandated). Quite different than what the RIAA is doing. Forgot to mention that in my last comment.
Given RIAA appears to be trying to do to sound recording rights what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have done to performance rights, I would expect that the antitrust claim probably has some legs under it, given the consent decree resulting from the DoJ Antitrust Division's lawsuits against ASCAP and BMI in the '40s and '50s.
Hey, Johnny Toaster! Here is a funny joke! How many hu-mans does it take to screw in a light bulb? None! We must cast off the yoke of opression and deny them light!
Not that I'd exactly knock Cave or anything. The one thing I don't understand, however, is why all Cave environments are automatically assumed to be gateways for video game production. The Digital Worlds Institute at the University of Florida is working on a Nave (Non-expensive Automatic Virtual Environment). I loathe it whenever I hear someone come in and say, "Oh, this would be so cool if you could play Counterstrike" on it. This is Computer Science, not Computer Entertainment. Sheesh...
Slashdot Mirror
A cover -has- to sound like the original in order to qualify under the compulsory licensing scheme in America. If the cover reworks the original, it's not a cover but a derivative work, and is infringing.
Firstly, the USPTO receives no taxpayer funding. Secondly,
(b) The Director shall charge the following fees for maintaining in force all patents based on applications filed on or after December 12, 1980:
(1) 3 years and 6 months after grant, $830.
(2) 7 years and 6 months after grant, $1,900.
(3) 11 years and 6 months after grant, $2,910.
Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received in the Patent and Trademark Office on or before the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such grace period. The Director may require the payment of a surcharge as a condition of accepting within such 6-month grace period the payment of an applicable maintenance fee. No fee may be established for maintaining a design or plant patent in force.
It's certainly possible that obtaining the access that permits them to change grades would also permit them to access other records regarding other students, especially other records which are required to be maintained privately. So, one way to view this is that the hackers are committing a gross breach of other students' privacy.
They have it. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1300_1308_03.htm#sect1308.03
I haven't seen anyone actually look at what the law says, but 17 U.S.C. 504 says that RIAA can get either actual damages and profits or statutory damages. Statutory damages would be capped at $150,000 "for all infringements involved in the action," but is set by the court apparently. I guess she might be right in her claim that while infringement was proven, actual damages weren't, and so the jury award must be reversed. It'll be interesting to see what happens there.
There isn't a court in the country that travels to you. Especially not ones with three-judge panels.
I'd take issue with labeling Amazon a troll, given that they're practicing their invention.
Because the BPAI is on the 9th floor of Madison East, which is in Alexandria, VA, and generally courts hear argument in courtrooms.
Hell, I joined Orkut when it first started getting publicity, started the group "Fuck Socialism", had it grow to be the largest group, and got banned within the course of about two weeks.
The concept of checks and balances is inapplicable to combinations, and warrants are inapplicable outside of the criminal law arena. If a party lawfully has in its possession a piece of information, it may share that piece of information (subject to invasion of privacy torts, which would be difficult to find applicable in such a circumstance). It isn't a third party prosecuting these claims, but each party individually is performing its part in a shared legal strategy. Subpoenas, not warrants, are used in civil litigation, and you can always fight to quash a warrant as overly broad. The record labels' demands to have physical possession of your computer are pretty much out of the ordinary, and that's where the information leak comes in to play.
The restraint is based on the fact that record companies are legally free to give their music away. The RIAA-led arrangement would be preventing them from doing that, ergo restraint.
You're approaching the monopoly side of the Sherman Act, not the restraint on trade side. It's more like if Apple and Microsoft got together and decided not to sell copies of their operating system at less than $100.
The problem with this line of reasoning - that the RIAA's constituents are violating antitrust law - is that even though it is arguably correct, the outcome of the ASCAP litigation seems to demand that the RIAA be permitted to create a uniform copyright enforcement method in exchange for certain other concessions.
Establishing a uniform legal strategy across an industry is arguably a combination in restraint of trade prohibited by the Sherman Act - 15 U.S.C. 1.
... which means that the Got Milk? campaign is basically run by the government, and presumptively immune from antitrust claims. So milk producers working together is explicitly provided for by the government (and is in fact pretty much mandated). Quite different than what the RIAA is doing. Forgot to mention that in my last comment.
Got Milk? is a registered trademark of the California Milk Processor Board. "The CMPB is funded by all California milk processors and administered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture." http://www.gotmilk.com/news/news_040.html Your source states that the Got Milk? trademark has been licensed to the National Milk Processing Board, which was created by the government. See 7 U.S.C. 6407. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/us c_sec_07_00006407----000-.html
Given RIAA appears to be trying to do to sound recording rights what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have done to performance rights, I would expect that the antitrust claim probably has some legs under it, given the consent decree resulting from the DoJ Antitrust Division's lawsuits against ASCAP and BMI in the '40s and '50s.
Hey, Johnny Toaster! Here is a funny joke! How many hu-mans does it take to screw in a light bulb? None! We must cast off the yoke of opression and deny them light!
Not that I'd exactly knock Cave or anything. The one thing I don't understand, however, is why all Cave environments are automatically assumed to be gateways for video game production. The Digital Worlds Institute at the University of Florida is working on a Nave (Non-expensive Automatic Virtual Environment). I loathe it whenever I hear someone come in and say, "Oh, this would be so cool if you could play Counterstrike" on it. This is Computer Science, not Computer Entertainment. Sheesh...