You won't change the system that way. All you'll do is give them someone to make an example of.
So what do you suggest, just bend over and take it? Don't bother with the standard answer of complying then but working through the legal system later. You've already lost at that point; your efforts in recovering your property will no doubt exceed the cost of the property, you might lose, and you STILL won't change the system.
In fact, you can't change the system. Best you can do is gum it up.
Small anti-social groups who only call each other? Great, they've found tens of thousands of high school cliques. Also large numbers of groups of co-workers using business phones.
It doesn't say that copyright infringement hasn't taken place, it says that infringement has taken place but that society has decided to permit this specific case.
It does not say that. It says that the act would have been copyright infringement if it weren't for the fair use defense. An "affirmative defense" can still be a complete defense.
I've seen people complain here that their material was removed and act like they have no recourse. Not only do you have recourse, you don't even really need an attorney to protest a take-down notice.
You don't need one, but in fact, you'd better have one. Sending a DMCA counter-notification is the equivalent of telling an Old West (movie version) gunfighter that you'll meet him on the main street at high noon. You have to swear under penalty of perjury (and this one counts, unlike the one in the takedown) that the material is non-infringing, and you have to specify a court which you agree to be sued in. Do you really want to say "go ahead, assholes, sue me" to a bunch of lawyers without a lawyer of your own?
However, YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not
No, they are not. There is nothing in the law which requires you to heed a takedown notice. If they ignore it, they lose their DMCA safe harbor with respect to the item which they refused to take down, but that is all.
I don't think so. With regular ripped DVDs, I suspect you're at risk of having your laptop seized at the U.S. border. With the files produced by this tool, since it's supposedly fully licensed, you may be ok.
Right. Like the customs people will actually know the difference. Do you really expect them to distinguish between a legal copy of a DVD produced by this tool, and an equally legal copy of a DVD produced by another (illegal, according to the DMCA) tool?
According to the article, the guy came up with a digital music player in 1979. Everyone on Slashdot should know that Apple's wasn't the first digital music player, nor even the first commercially successful one, not by a long shot. So no news here, except that Apple hired this guy to help defend themselves against a patent troll.
Indians don't go around chanting "Death to America" for starters, nor do they have a crazy self-indulging senseless control freak for the head of their government.
By those standards, the US shouldn't be allowed nuclear fuel. (I don't know if Russia has people who chant "Death to America", but if so, them neither).
It's an urban legend. You can't recover erased bits. If you could it would imply that you can store at least two bits in the space of one. Disk companies have a pretty good idea what their heads and surfaces can do.
I'm kinda looking forward to what happens when our foreign debt holders decide to call in thier markers and the economic size of our government is forced to cut in half.
It doesn't work that way; the debt is not callable at will. The only thing the foreign debt holders can do is stop buying new debt. That would force the rates on treasury securities to go up, until the point those securities became attractive to buyers again.
I bet Apple daily ships boards back to Foxconn by the truckload as they show up dead on arrival and fail QA, but you've got to know that a lot of those 1-3 months of life boards are getting through. Have fun with Apple products!
Except, well, they aren't. Lots of complaining about Apple products (iMac LCDs, for instance), but 1-3 month main board lifespans aren't among them. So either Foxconn has a higher-quality line for Apple products, Apple supervises Foxconn better than they supervise themselves, or the Foxconn problems are design issues and Apple designs are better. Or some combination of the above.
I'd assume it's very simple - you must pay the sales tax on everything you buy. If they're in your state, the vendor will deal with it for you, otherwise it's your job.
It's not that simple. State governments cannot tax sales outside their state. They cannot tax imports into their state (in general). So they made up this dodge called a "use tax"; they're supposedly not taxing the import of the item, but the fact of it being used or stored within the state. This use tax is "coincidentally" the same as the state sales tax, and you're allowed to deduct any sales tax paid (either in your state or in another state) from the use tax.
Some of us see this as an obvious end run around the constitutional prohibition against taxing imports, but the courts are willing to allow it.
It looks like BS, guys. According to the company LDAP DB this person is still here:-) Sounds like a typical case of FUD, which works as you can see from the comments..
Yeah, in the US, the ISPs are free to hand over that data without bothering the court.
And if the FISA debacle has taught us anything, it's that they're more than happy to hand over data without worrying about minor little details like "due process."
The Verizon case -- where Verizon refused to hand over the data without a court order -- teaches us the opposite. Or perhaps just that Uncle Sam is a bit more persuasive than **AA.
Al Capone was prosecuted and imprisoned because he failed to pay his taxes. Use the same tactic on spammers. Subpoena the customer list of these registrars under conspiracy to avoid taxation. Then audit the taxes of all the domain owners.
Well, there are a few issues here. First of all, you need a bit of evidence to get such a subpoena. Second, it's quite possible the spammers themselves are out of US jurisdiction. Third, it's also possible (though not likely) they are paying taxes.
Well, if you can create anti-spam laws, why not create a law prohiting credit card companies to make payments on products / companies which have used spam to addvertise their products or services.
There are any number of problems with this (where's that standard form), but susceptibility to joe jobs is probably #1. The day after this law passed, the Microsoft dirty tricks division would spam for Apple, Coke and Pepsi would spam for each other, and a good number of Linux fans would spam for Microsoft.
It was worse. They used to be up, down, strange, charmed, truth, and beauty. But then someone decided that was over the top and truth and beauty were renamed to top and bottom.
To be fair, BTVS ended with the creation of thousands of mini Slayers. And, as a bonus, it would finally give dudes a good excuse to play a hot chick in an MMO.
Nope, they're verifying age and nationality. If you're an American guy, you only get to play the buttmonkey. (on the plus side, some of the women will be playing Faith...)
When you start with false premises, your conclusions tend to be unreliable.
We just had the Katzen decision, which explicitly stated that open source licenses are not only binding agreements, but are not merely contracts. One is built on the other. If there was no contractual obligation to do anything in order to maintain the use granted by the license, there would not have been a case.
If you mean Katzer, it was decided just the other way; the obligation was imposed by copyright law, and the conditions to obtaining the license were just that. If you didn't fulfill the conditions, you didn't get a license and could be sued under copyright rather than contract law.
However, regardless of whether the GPL is a contract or not, it isn't an EULA because it makes no claim to bind the End User. It's a software distribution license, not a use license. Calling it an EULA is as wrong as calling a tail a leg.
Re:Well, you are wrong in so many ways.
on
Should IT Unionize?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you want to make real change, and not remain insignificant, you need to be part of a group that has influence.
If you want to make real change and not remain insignificant, you need to be HEAD of a group that has influence. Otherwise, you're just working your tail off making someone else's changes.
If you can physically get your hands on it, you win. All the developers who come up with new and innovative ways of crashing my boxes are outsourced, but it keeps me employed.
You can't transfer your copyright (in the USA) without an explicit written agreement, but that only applies to a complete transfer. Nothing states that a blanket EULA can't give Facebook a non-exclusive right to sell your photos.
Slashdot Mirror
So what do you suggest, just bend over and take it? Don't bother with the standard answer of complying then but working through the legal system later. You've already lost at that point; your efforts in recovering your property will no doubt exceed the cost of the property, you might lose, and you STILL won't change the system.
In fact, you can't change the system. Best you can do is gum it up.
Small anti-social groups who only call each other? Great, they've found tens of thousands of high school cliques. Also large numbers of groups of co-workers using business phones.
It does not say that. It says that the act would have been copyright infringement if it weren't for the fair use defense. An "affirmative defense" can still be a complete defense.
You don't need one, but in fact, you'd better have one. Sending a DMCA counter-notification is the equivalent of telling an Old West (movie version) gunfighter that you'll meet him on the main street at high noon. You have to swear under penalty of perjury (and this one counts, unlike the one in the takedown) that the material is non-infringing, and you have to specify a court which you agree to be sued in. Do you really want to say "go ahead, assholes, sue me" to a bunch of lawyers without a lawyer of your own?
No, they are not. There is nothing in the law which requires you to heed a takedown notice. If they ignore it, they lose their DMCA safe harbor with respect to the item which they refused to take down, but that is all.
Right. Like the customs people will actually know the difference. Do you really expect them to distinguish between a legal copy of a DVD produced by this tool, and an equally legal copy of a DVD produced by another (illegal, according to the DMCA) tool?
According to the article, the guy came up with a digital music player in 1979. Everyone on Slashdot should know that Apple's wasn't the first digital music player, nor even the first commercially successful one, not by a long shot. So no news here, except that Apple hired this guy to help defend themselves against a patent troll.
By those standards, the US shouldn't be allowed nuclear fuel. (I don't know if Russia has people who chant "Death to America", but if so, them neither).
The idea is you wouldn't use standard heads.
It doesn't work that way; the debt is not callable at will. The only thing the foreign debt holders can do is stop buying new debt. That would force the rates on treasury securities to go up, until the point those securities became attractive to buyers again.
Except, well, they aren't. Lots of complaining about Apple products (iMac LCDs, for instance), but 1-3 month main board lifespans aren't among them. So either Foxconn has a higher-quality line for Apple products, Apple supervises Foxconn better than they supervise themselves, or the Foxconn problems are design issues and Apple designs are better. Or some combination of the above.
It's not that simple. State governments cannot tax sales outside their state. They cannot tax imports into their state (in general). So they made up this dodge called a "use tax"; they're supposedly not taxing the import of the item, but the fact of it being used or stored within the state. This use tax is "coincidentally" the same as the state sales tax, and you're allowed to deduct any sales tax paid (either in your state or in another state) from the use tax.
Some of us see this as an obvious end run around the constitutional prohibition against taxing imports, but the courts are willing to allow it.
Did you refresh your cache?
"Delicious" is a variety of apple. So Gates is trying to say that Vista is pretty much the same as Apple :-)
Which simply leaves them in a better position to understand the weaknesses of the new activists, and crush them to prevent a repeat of history.
That's why most forms of activism are no longer a viable means to change things -- the government has adapted to the tactics.
The Verizon case -- where Verizon refused to hand over the data without a court order -- teaches us the opposite. Or perhaps just that Uncle Sam is a bit more persuasive than **AA.
Well, there are a few issues here. First of all, you need a bit of evidence to get such a subpoena. Second, it's quite possible the spammers themselves are out of US jurisdiction. Third, it's also possible (though not likely) they are paying taxes.
Then you are an anti-spam fanatic, and have probably had an anti-spam filter blocking /0 on your email for some time.
There are any number of problems with this (where's that standard form), but susceptibility to joe jobs is probably #1. The day after this law passed, the Microsoft dirty tricks division would spam for Apple, Coke and Pepsi would spam for each other, and a good number of Linux fans would spam for Microsoft.
It was worse. They used to be up, down, strange, charmed, truth, and beauty. But then someone decided that was over the top and truth and beauty were renamed to top and bottom.
Nope, they're verifying age and nationality. If you're an American guy, you only get to play the buttmonkey. (on the plus side, some of the women will be playing Faith...)
When you start with false premises, your conclusions tend to be unreliable.
If you mean Katzer, it was decided just the other way; the obligation was imposed by copyright law, and the conditions to obtaining the license were just that. If you didn't fulfill the conditions, you didn't get a license and could be sued under copyright rather than contract law.
However, regardless of whether the GPL is a contract or not, it isn't an EULA because it makes no claim to bind the End User. It's a software distribution license, not a use license. Calling it an EULA is as wrong as calling a tail a leg.
If you want to make real change and not remain insignificant, you need to be HEAD of a group that has influence. Otherwise, you're just working your tail off making someone else's changes.
Until they move the boxes to India.
You can't transfer your copyright (in the USA) without an explicit written agreement, but that only applies to a complete transfer. Nothing states that a blanket EULA can't give Facebook a non-exclusive right to sell your photos.