My understanding of the DMCA is that it charts a course of action for ISPs to take when they're accused of hosting copyrighted material without proper consent. First, the ISP takes down the content. Next, they send a note to the account holder who uploaded the content informing them of the DMCA action.
Right. Which points out one of the myriad problems with this particular notice; namely, that the registrar is not hosting any of the material.
At this point, the account holder (in this case IMSLP) can A) accept the takedown and move on or B) formally tell the ISP that the DMCA claim is without merit. Once the latter is done, the ISP has to restore the content and is relieved of any legal liability.
The "formally tell the ISP that the DMCA claim is without merit" is an invitation to sue. Literally; part of the counternotice is a statement that you accept jurisdiction in a particular US Federal Court. Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.
The person/company that sent the DMCA notice then has to file suit with the person/company who uploaded the content and prove (in a court of law) that the DMCA notice *was* valid. If they don't (either losing the suit or not filing one), the content stays online. If they do (proving that a copyright violation occurred), the content is taken down again.
Which means that at best, the material stays down for the duration of the suit. Which can take years. It's like an automatic preliminary injunction in favor of the claimant. At worst, the copyright holder could notify the ISP that they are suing, and then not do so. The material remains restrained forever.
Yes, this often leads to big companies suing individuals, but the alternative is big companies threatening ISPs with lawsuits if content they don't like isn't removed.
They do that anyway. In fact, that's exactly what a DMCA notice is.
On the flip side, without the DMCA, being an ISP (or a message board operator or running any service where users post content) would be extremely risky legally as any individual could post a copyrighted item leading to a fine against your company. The larger a service got, the greater the risk that one rogue (or copyright-lax) user would post something that earned the company a fine. And, of course, the larger a service got and the more money it made, the more likely big companies would try to find that copyrighted content to either A) stop the service from growing or B) tap into the service's revenue stream. In the face of a legal landscape like this, many online services would fold rather than risk legal action and fines.
This was being litigated when the DMCA came around and made it all moot. And the decisions were not all in favor of copyright claimaints. See, for instance "Religious Technology Center v. Netcom"
They stopped milking everything they own dry. Makes you wonder how long they can stay in business like that!
It's as with any mine; as long as the value of the material is greater than the cost of extraction, you can stay in business indefinitely like that. The only reason not to proceed to that point is if they have something which will pay off better for the same cost.
by taking ordinary people, and asking them do extraordinary things
Somehow I don't think writing software and advancing into machine gun fire have much to do with each other. If they do where you are, I suggest you find somewhere else to work; perhaps the Army, as at least they'll let you shoot back.
Probably you went on a bender on September 10th, 2001. And no, the Taliban never offered to turn bin Laden over. After the US attacked, they offered to discuss turning him over to someone else if the US stopped bombing them.
When did Korea attack us?
North Korea invaded our ally South Korea.
And the Gulf War? Really? We told Hussein that the US would stay out of the situation
We told Hussein we took no position on his border dispute with Kuwait. Invading and annexing the entire country went a bit beyond that. In any case, Saddam was the aggressor. Or, if you feel Saddam had a legitimate casus belli, perhaps Kuwait was. In neither case was the aggressor the US.
It expands the distance from stoichiometric that you can go (on the lean side, at least) while still being able to get it to catch on fire correctly while having a good lifespan of your igniter.
One of the benefits and drawbacks of running lean is the mixture burns hotter. This produces more NOx, not less. I'm not sure what the article is going on about.
In a sensible economic system, if all the work could be done by machines, we'd live in abundance. Alan Watts had an interesting idea about how each citizen ought to get a share in the wealth created the machines.
In the real economic system prevailing in the US, those bastards who invented the machines, who built them, who serviced and installed them, and (above all) who financed them always seem to get the lion's share of the wealth created.
Though i'm not sure how, in this "sensible economic system", you get anybody to do the machine building.
Typical/. response. Your premise is equally false. Official mechanisms do work, most of the time. They may take more time than some would wish, and the outcome may not be one hundred percent what one desires, but by and large they do work.
Sure they do. If by "they may take more time than some would wish", you mean "you'll be dead by the time you see any results" and by "the outcome may not be one hundred percent what one desires" you mean "the outcome may be the opposite of one desires", then they "work"
Of course, effort has to be put into changing things. Are you working within the system to effect changes, or just wringing your hands and ripping your clothes on./?
Again, the cry of one who supports the status quo.
Oh, sure, I could have been a dick, refused to answer any questions, and made remarks about Gestapo, but it would not have changed any laws, policies, or procedures.
Maybe not. Or maybe the policy is to tighten the screws until enough people scream, in which every case of polite acquiescence results in further erosion of liberty.
You wouldn't collect SS if you were a committed Randian because your principles would stop you. Like every one of her fictional characters would refuse to collect.
Even Atlas Shrugged's Ragnar Danneskjold? Taking money from the government at least up to the amount the government took from you in taxes would not violate his principles.
Yeah, Japan attacked in the 1940s, after several years of financial aggression on our part, but can you name a single other instance in the last century and a half where the US was **NOT** the aggressor?
Afghanistan (both the proxy war with the USSR and the current one), Korea, Gulf War I.
The US is certainly not an example to follow - its economy stinks, they're not world leaders in anything (except perhaps waste produced per capita), its empty promises of freedom and democracy have been raped and usurped by its own self serving politicians, its human rights record is appalling, its warmongering is not tolerable. What's to like about the US? You can keep it.
By the 1990 definition of CPI, we're at 6% (a 10% change over last year). shadowstats.com to see unemployment and inflation by older measures, before the government decided to sugar coat.
Shadowstats doesn't give stats according to the 1990 definition of CPI (though they try to make you think so). They just take the government numbers and "correct" them based on a figure pulled out of their ass.
I'm not advocating giving the government anything. If you wouldn't mouth off to the cop who pulls you over, why would you mouth off to some TSA agent who has similar power to detain you?
Your premise is false, therefore your rhetorical question without meaning.
That's not the place to try and change the system.
That's the cry of someone who wants the system kept as it is. The "official" mechanisms for changing the system don't work; they exist because they don't work. The system is stable, and one of the means by which it achieves that stability is by diverting those who would change it into ineffective paths. One of the other means, of course, is the cruder method of imprisoning or killing those who would change it.
Long before 9/11 happened I was called back to the ticket counter to open a bag on occasion, and once even stopped and questioned by a US Marshal and a DEA agent. Each time I stayed calm, answered their questions, and each time I got an apology for taking up my time, and I went on my way.
And what did all this politeness and tolerance get you? Right... more onerous searches and greater restrictions.
"Stop moderation" is simply not an option on a private platform. No private platform is obligated to provide - or interested in providing - for its members a platform which allows them to disseminate consequence-free speech.
If energy costs accurately reflected the long-term harm of energy extraction, consumers wouldn't have to worry about anything but saving money.
If energy costs "accurately" (by environmentalist calculation, which always includes at least a 100000x factor for "stuff we haven't thought of yet" and one for "stuff we can blue-sky but not quantify") reflected the long-term harm of energy extraction, we'd not only have never gotten out of the stone age, we'd never have built the first fire.
Hint: in general, energy recapture time (amount of time before the energy the device produces is greater than the energy used to produce the device) is shorter than payback time (amount of time before the value of the energy it produces is greater than the cost of the device).
Generally? That should be strictly true, unless energy values are going up very fast.
Don't bother. Science fiction has rarely made for great literature (notwithstanding a few works that are IMHO true contributions to the literary canon), but Baen was like the dregs of the genre.
SF diverged from "literature" around the time of Wells, and despite a few misguided attempts by a few authors (such as Vonnegut), it's remained separate. Literature has largely come to mean self-important, vacuously self-referential drek, whose quality is determined by how unreadable it is; the more unreadable, the better. Whereas SF is still SF. Baen certainly avoids any pretension at "literary SF", and they've got their share of crap. They've also got a lot of good stuff, and even some of their crap is at least a fun read.
They also publish in eBook form some classic SF, which today's literati might grudgingly accept -- but the literati at the time would (and did) dismiss out of hand, as you do today.
Yeah, that's a distinct possibility, when you're dealing with modern media conglomerates, like the major labels or movie studios. While that does end up clouding the issue of whom to ask, it doesn't remove responsibility to do so. If the author doesn't have distribution rights, then I'm sure he/she/they can forward your request to the appropriate party.
Who will say "no", ignore you, or send you a prohibitive price list. Asking permission for everything you might use already puts a serious damper on doing anything; actually obtaining it makes it not worth doing unless your purpose IS commercial.
What really gets me is that all you have to do is ask permission. Write to your favorite band, ask them for permission to use a song that you love, and, chances are, they'll give you permission.
Chances are they don't even own the rights, and so can't give you permission.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
(stolen from someone who stole it from someone on Usenet)
I haven't found the order itself, but the request is here
If that's what they were granted, it looks remarkably restrained. It actually specifies the servers in question (it's not just a blanket "We get to grab anything we claim is a C&C server, now or in the future").
The part the article seems to be going on about is "A permanent injunction that requires the Defendants to uninstall Coreflood on any computers not owned by the Defendants and authorizes the operation of a substitute command and control server to give effect to the Court's orders;" This is pretty radical, in that it lets the FBI operate the botnet at least in so far as to shut it down. But it doesn't give them any authority over computers which aren't already infected.
GE has developed the highest efficiency, full-sized CdTe thin film solar panel ever reported; is building what its say will be the largest solar panel factory in the US; has made two considerable business acquisitions that support its solar endeavors and has taken 100 megawatts worth of orders for its thin-film solar panel products.... When at capacity, the new plant is supposed to produce enough panels per year to power 80,000 homes annually. GE currently estimates the facility will employ about 400 people.
Seriously? 100MW worth of orders? Enough panels to produce 80,000 homes? These potatoes, they are quite small.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Which points out one of the myriad problems with this particular notice; namely, that the registrar is not hosting any of the material.
The "formally tell the ISP that the DMCA claim is without merit" is an invitation to sue. Literally; part of the counternotice is a statement that you accept jurisdiction in a particular US Federal Court. Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.
Which means that at best, the material stays down for the duration of the suit. Which can take years. It's like an automatic preliminary injunction in favor of the claimant. At worst, the copyright holder could notify the ISP that they are suing, and then not do so. The material remains restrained forever.
They do that anyway. In fact, that's exactly what a DMCA notice is.
This was being litigated when the DMCA came around and made it all moot. And the decisions were not all in favor of copyright claimaints. See, for instance "Religious Technology Center v. Netcom"
It's as with any mine; as long as the value of the material is greater than the cost of extraction, you can stay in business indefinitely like that. The only reason not to proceed to that point is if they have something which will pay off better for the same cost.
Somehow I don't think writing software and advancing into machine gun fire have much to do with each other. If they do where you are, I suggest you find somewhere else to work; perhaps the Army, as at least they'll let you shoot back.
Probably you went on a bender on September 10th, 2001. And no, the Taliban never offered to turn bin Laden over. After the US attacked, they offered to discuss turning him over to someone else if the US stopped bombing them.
North Korea invaded our ally South Korea.
We told Hussein we took no position on his border dispute with Kuwait. Invading and annexing the entire country went a bit beyond that. In any case, Saddam was the aggressor. Or, if you feel Saddam had a legitimate casus belli, perhaps Kuwait was. In neither case was the aggressor the US.
Unfortunately, as philosophers and scientists have been pointing out for millenia, perception is all we have; reality is not directly accessible.
One of the benefits and drawbacks of running lean is the mixture burns hotter. This produces more NOx, not less. I'm not sure what the article is going on about.
In the real economic system prevailing in the US, those bastards who invented the machines, who built them, who serviced and installed them, and (above all) who financed them always seem to get the lion's share of the wealth created.
Though i'm not sure how, in this "sensible economic system", you get anybody to do the machine building.
Sure they do. If by "they may take more time than some would wish", you mean "you'll be dead by the time you see any results" and by "the outcome may not be one hundred percent what one desires" you mean "the outcome may be the opposite of one desires", then they "work"
Again, the cry of one who supports the status quo.
Maybe not. Or maybe the policy is to tighten the screws until enough people scream, in which every case of polite acquiescence results in further erosion of liberty.
Even Atlas Shrugged's Ragnar Danneskjold? Taking money from the government at least up to the amount the government took from you in taxes would not violate his principles.
Afghanistan (both the proxy war with the USSR and the current one), Korea, Gulf War I.
Hope you enjoy Chinese hegemony, then.
Shadowstats doesn't give stats according to the 1990 definition of CPI (though they try to make you think so). They just take the government numbers and "correct" them based on a figure pulled out of their ass.
Less fundamental value than pets.com and drkoop.com? That's quite a bar to meet.
Your premise is false, therefore your rhetorical question without meaning.
That's the cry of someone who wants the system kept as it is. The "official" mechanisms for changing the system don't work; they exist because they don't work. The system is stable, and one of the means by which it achieves that stability is by diverting those who would change it into ineffective paths. One of the other means, of course, is the cruder method of imprisoning or killing those who would change it.
And what did all this politeness and tolerance get you? Right... more onerous searches and greater restrictions.
Well, there's the one we don't talk about.
If energy costs "accurately" (by environmentalist calculation, which always includes at least a 100000x factor for "stuff we haven't thought of yet" and one for "stuff we can blue-sky but not quantify") reflected the long-term harm of energy extraction, we'd not only have never gotten out of the stone age, we'd never have built the first fire.
Generally? That should be strictly true, unless energy values are going up very fast.
SF diverged from "literature" around the time of Wells, and despite a few misguided attempts by a few authors (such as Vonnegut), it's remained separate. Literature has largely come to mean self-important, vacuously self-referential drek, whose quality is determined by how unreadable it is; the more unreadable, the better. Whereas SF is still SF. Baen certainly avoids any pretension at "literary SF", and they've got their share of crap. They've also got a lot of good stuff, and even some of their crap is at least a fun read.
They also publish in eBook form some classic SF, which today's literati might grudgingly accept -- but the literati at the time would (and did) dismiss out of hand, as you do today.
Who will say "no", ignore you, or send you a prohibitive price list. Asking permission for everything you might use already puts a serious damper on doing anything; actually obtaining it makes it not worth doing unless your purpose IS commercial.
Chances are they don't even own the rights, and so can't give you permission.
(stolen from someone who stole it from someone on Usenet)
I haven't found the order itself, but the request is here
If that's what they were granted, it looks remarkably restrained. It actually specifies the servers in question (it's not just a blanket "We get to grab anything we claim is a C&C server, now or in the future").
The part the article seems to be going on about is "A permanent injunction that requires the Defendants to uninstall Coreflood on any computers not owned by the Defendants and authorizes the operation of a substitute command and control server to give effect to the Court's orders;" This is pretty radical, in that it lets the FBI operate the botnet at least in so far as to shut it down. But it doesn't give them any authority over computers which aren't already infected.
Seriously? 100MW worth of orders? Enough panels to produce 80,000 homes? These potatoes, they are quite small.
There's been a "breakthrough" in thin film efficiency twice a year for a long time now, and nothing ever comes of it.
From www.m-w.com compromise 2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>