Trademark only applies if you're confusing your product for theirs, and trademark dilution only applies if you're infringing for commercial purposes (in interstate commerce).
The point of napster is to trade legal files for which you have gotten permission of the copyright holder... But the point of cell phones in movie theatres is to disturb the person next to you by not using vibrate mode?
I said it wasn't mentioned in the law... But, whatever. My point is, it isn't mentioned in the definition of the infraction.
If you steal an additional channel, you steal a service you didnt subscribe to. I dont think the quantity of bandwidth you consume is quite the same thing, but that's a thin line I suppose.
Yes, I don't think a judge is going to buy that. You subscribed for a specific service, with specific restrictions.
Their authorization is not revoked until the cable company removes their service. If the cable company had not yet removed the service, they were simply operating outside the realm of the contract while still being authorized to receive the service.
I guess now we're just two non-lawyers arguing over a legal issue. So, I'll let this argument drop. In other words, I disagree, but my opinion is no better or worse than yours in this particular case.
Another way to think about this is if a friend came over to your house, and you told him "I'll let you in, but only if you are nice to me." So you let him in, and then the friend says something mean to you. You cant instantly charge him for tresspassing.
This is more like saying "I'll let you come over my house any time as long as you don't say the word 'asparagus'". Then your friend walks in, says "asparagus", and leaves. Then she comes back two days later and you charge her with trespassing.
I didn't mean to attack, it was just annoying becuase you kept saying the same false thing without backing it up. Nowhere does your link say that cable modem service is not a "communications service".
Besides, even IF this law applied, they aren't getting an unauthorized reception. They were authorized to receive it, but were using it beyond the terms of their contract.
First of all, the precedent is clearly that using it beyond the terms of your specific authorization is illegal. This is why using descramblers which receive extra channels is illegal. Secondly, when they breached the contract, their authorization was revoked.
Maybe so... but remember the cable modem service was recently reclassified as an "information" service. Explicitly NOT as a communications service, so that they wouldn't have to share their lines with competitors.
This would seem to indicate that the referenced statute would not apply.
I doubt that matters. Cable television is not a communications service which has to share their lines with competitors. So what would that statute be covering? Telephone conversations over cable lines?
You seem unaware of the fact that it is not the job of the police or FBI to impose penalties for breaking the law. That is the job of a court.
I'm sorry I implied that. All I meant was that these people have been through enough. Further punishment would be unnecessary.
With no charges filed and no arrests made, this reeks of arbitrary (and thus unconstitutional) siezure without due process.
Apparently a judge disagreed with you and issued a subpeona, stating that there was sufficient reason to believe that there was evidence of a federal crime on those computers. Without seeing the subpeona, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the judge.
This is unauthorized interception of a communications service offered over a cable system without specific authorization to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. In other words, it is cable theft.
I don't see where the term "cable service" is mentioned in the law. The only question is whether or not internet access is a "communications service". It probably hasn't been decided by the courts yet, this could be a precedent setting case. Of course, there are probably other laws which this fits into as well.
how are you going to prove who has what right to whatever media they have on their computer?
Huh? How do they have a right to distribute copies of that media?
whats to stop someone who has been tapped for investigation from purchasing liscenses for said media?
Licenses to distrubute copies?
how much money can you REALLY get out of someone for that? couple thousand bucks? there arent any real provable damages, the only lost revenue is from the CD sale itself, and since those are all under 20$ these days, the legal fees are going to hurt the RIAA/whoever more than the actual settlement.
$750-30,000 per work, first offense. More importantly, you'll get that person and all of his/her friends to stop breaking the law.
OK, the bugs cost 60 billion in whatever kind of disruption. What would it cost to produce software without bugs?
You can't produce software without bugs. But how much would it cost to fix say one third of the bugs?
If we have a free market
We don't have a free market. The copyright holder has a government granted monopoly on fixing bugs in the software.
Put another way, spelling and grammer errors in Slashdot postings are bugs, but there is a tradeof between time spent checking everything and reading the postings of wisenheimers complaining about one's syntax.
I said "Go figure, the government has granted a 95 year monopoly on software." to which you responded "This is a problem, but doesn't explain why people buy crappy software."
Monopoly power is exactly the reason that people "buy crappy software". If it were not illegal to charge people to fix the bugs in Windows, then people would fix the bugs in Windows, thereby making money for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Trademark only applies if you're confusing your product for theirs, and trademark dilution only applies if you're infringing for commercial purposes (in interstate commerce).
Slashdot Sucks :) Damn them for not suing me and making me famous!
The point of napster is to trade legal files for which you have gotten permission of the copyright holder... But the point of cell phones in movie theatres is to disturb the person next to you by not using vibrate mode?
The idiocy of slashdotters amazes me.
If you steal an additional channel, you steal a service you didnt subscribe to. I dont think the quantity of bandwidth you consume is quite the same thing, but that's a thin line I suppose.
Yes, I don't think a judge is going to buy that. You subscribed for a specific service, with specific restrictions.
Their authorization is not revoked until the cable company removes their service. If the cable company had not yet removed the service, they were simply operating outside the realm of the contract while still being authorized to receive the service.
I guess now we're just two non-lawyers arguing over a legal issue. So, I'll let this argument drop. In other words, I disagree, but my opinion is no better or worse than yours in this particular case.
Another way to think about this is if a friend came over to your house, and you told him "I'll let you in, but only if you are nice to me." So you let him in, and then the friend says something mean to you. You cant instantly charge him for tresspassing.
This is more like saying "I'll let you come over my house any time as long as you don't say the word 'asparagus'". Then your friend walks in, says "asparagus", and leaves. Then she comes back two days later and you charge her with trespassing.
But, umm, whatever :).
but the law doesn't mention "cable service" except in the title, which is non-binding.
I didn't mean to attack, it was just annoying becuase you kept saying the same false thing without backing it up. Nowhere does your link say that cable modem service is not a "communications service".
I think you're confusing the term "telecommunications service" with "communications service".
The title is irrelevant.
Besides, even IF this law applied, they aren't getting an unauthorized reception. They were authorized to receive it, but were using it beyond the terms of their contract.
First of all, the precedent is clearly that using it beyond the terms of your specific authorization is illegal. This is why using descramblers which receive extra channels is illegal. Secondly, when they breached the contract, their authorization was revoked.
How about instead of repeating yourself over and over again you show me something to back up your assertion. I've showed you the law to back up mine.
Maybe so... but remember the cable modem service was recently reclassified as an "information" service. Explicitly NOT as a communications service, so that they wouldn't have to share their lines with competitors. This would seem to indicate that the referenced statute would not apply.
I doubt that matters. Cable television is not a communications service which has to share their lines with competitors. So what would that statute be covering? Telephone conversations over cable lines?
You seem unaware of the fact that it is not the job of the police or FBI to impose penalties for breaking the law. That is the job of a court.
I'm sorry I implied that. All I meant was that these people have been through enough. Further punishment would be unnecessary.
With no charges filed and no arrests made, this reeks of arbitrary (and thus unconstitutional) siezure without due process.
Apparently a judge disagreed with you and issued a subpeona, stating that there was sufficient reason to believe that there was evidence of a federal crime on those computers. Without seeing the subpeona, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the judge.
This is unauthorized interception of a communications service offered over a cable system without specific authorization to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. In other words, it is cable theft.
This isn't Cable Theft, this is breach of contract.
Why?
I don't see where the term "cable service" is mentioned in the law. The only question is whether or not internet access is a "communications service". It probably hasn't been decided by the courts yet, this could be a precedent setting case. Of course, there are probably other laws which this fits into as well.
Shoplifting *IS* a crime, which will land you in CRIMINAL COURT.
So is cable theft.
Some people may be wondering why the FBI was involved with this. The answer is simple. This constitutes fraud.
Are you sure it's not 47 U.S.C. 553?
ANd the article says that no arrests were made..... sounds like some enforcing to me.
They had their computers taken away... Sounds like enough punishment to me.
No, the RIAA vs. John Doe... Until the subpeona is served upon the ISP.
how are you going to prove who has what right to whatever media they have on their computer?
Huh? How do they have a right to distribute copies of that media?
whats to stop someone who has been tapped for investigation from purchasing liscenses for said media?
Licenses to distrubute copies?
how much money can you REALLY get out of someone for that? couple thousand bucks? there arent any real provable damages, the only lost revenue is from the CD sale itself, and since those are all under 20$ these days, the legal fees are going to hurt the RIAA/whoever more than the actual settlement.
$750-30,000 per work, first offense. More importantly, you'll get that person and all of his/her friends to stop breaking the law.
OK, the bugs cost 60 billion in whatever kind of disruption. What would it cost to produce software without bugs?
You can't produce software without bugs. But how much would it cost to fix say one third of the bugs?
If we have a free market
We don't have a free market. The copyright holder has a government granted monopoly on fixing bugs in the software.
Put another way, spelling and grammer errors in Slashdot postings are bugs, but there is a tradeof between time spent checking everything and reading the postings of wisenheimers complaining about one's syntax.
Actually, according to Taco, that's a feature.
What is this the Wild West? You have the pirates' IP addresses. SUE THEM!
LNUX vs. WCOM
I said "Go figure, the government has granted a 95 year monopoly on software." to which you responded "This is a problem, but doesn't explain why people buy crappy software."
Monopoly power is exactly the reason that people "buy crappy software". If it were not illegal to charge people to fix the bugs in Windows, then people would fix the bugs in Windows, thereby making money for themselves.
Of course, except that we all know there are no monopolies left in the software world.
Except the 95 year one granted by congress.
This is not going to change until software companies become liable for damages when their software fails.
At which point there will be no more software bugs, because there will be no more software.
Otherwise there is simply no economic incentive to hire competent programmers and do rigourous testing.
What about competitive advantage?