Their argument: since the Russian company is based on the Internet, it is outside the jurisdiction of the DMCA. This is rather interesting if it holds up, because it would set a precedent which would allow other countries to tell the DMCA to just go away.
Not to mention that it would legalize cocaine trafficking for internet based companies. Give me a break. It isn't going to happen.
Certified makes no mention of a signature or correct delivery.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. Certified Mail requires a signature. If you get Certified Mail with Return Receipt, the USPS will return that signature to you. If you get Certified Mail without Return Receipt, the USPS will hold the receipt in the post office, and for a fee (greater than the cost of Return Receipt) you can request to get it.
It says it all in black and white (actually green and white) right here. "Certified mail provides...A signature upon delivery".
Huh? Appeals are what happens when the original court screws up. If the appeals process is supposed to take the constitution into consideration, so is the original court.
While a strict interpretation may see this as a congress-only, the First Amendment is legally upheld by several Supreme Court cases as applying to general state government as well (not just legislature since the Constitution does not require one).
This is due to the selective incorporation of the 14th ammendment. Before the 14th ammendment, the First Ammendment did only apply to congress.
With Stamps.com, you can pay for US Postal Service special services, including Certified Mail. Certified Mail requires the mail carrier to obtain a signature from the recipient of your package or flat. The recipient's signature is kept at the receiving Post Office and provides you with proof of delivery.
All certified mail means is that it was delivered. Not necessarily to you, just that it ended up in someone's mailbox.
Every time I have received certified mail I have had to sign for it. Yes, certified means it was delivered. Delivered means it was handed to someone, not that it was simply left in a mailbox. This is how my post office has always treated the delivery, anyway.
A letter can be sent certified mail and not be signed.
I'll bet you $100 you can't send to my address a certified letter and get confirmation of delivery without obtaining a signature. If you'd like to take the bet, send me an email and I'll respond with my home address.
Where is the vow that slashdot will not accept money from companies for having "news" stories written about them? How do we know that google didn't pay for this ad we're reading now?
Re:This brings up an interesting point
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 2
I bet that CompUSA would prosecute here as well.
Could CompUSA prosecute? Microsoft owns the copyright on the software, not CompUSA... And since the total value is less than $1000, in order to prosecute criminally you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was willful intent for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Of course, it's possible that CompUSA could press charges alledging computer trespass, or something like that.
That's a little different. Software bugs cost money to fix. Car bugs kill people.
Car bugs may kill people sometimes, but so do software bugs, sometimes. The question is what happens when the bug doesn't kill (or even injure) anyone. If my tire blows out due to a manufacturing defect, and that causes me to get into an accident with another car, who pays for my damage? Who pays for the damage for the other car?
Now, the big difference here is that there is no physical tort. While it's impossible to drive a car down a street without being subject to a possible car crash, it is possible to put a computer on the internet without being subject to a worm or virus. So in that sense it can (and I believe should) be argued that the person who gets the virus is at fault for the damage caused to his/her own machine. But then again, I'm one of those crazies who thinks that the world can do without silly computer trespassing laws.
Liability is based on making statements that are not true, or the deliberate cause of harm.
Harm need not be deliberate to be civilly liable for it. Perhaps for criminal liability, but not civil. Consider if I accidently throw a baseball through your window. Even if I'm not negligent, I'm still liable.
By connecting to the net, just like stepping outside your door, you are assuming risk.
By getting into a car, you are likewise assuming risk. But that doesn't mean I am not liable if I run into you, even if it is an accident. That's why people buy liability insurance.
That said, Microsoft should be liable if they represent their product as "safe" and it isn't.
Certainly for a refund of the cost of the product. In order to sue Microsoft for incidental damages, I think you'd need to show negligence (or possibly gross negligence, since you've signed away your right to sue for incidental damages).
Someone who gets wet because they weren't wearing a long coat when a truck splashed them doesn't expect to sue the truck driver, do they?
If that truck driver splashed them on their private property, they probably could.
Personally, I think a few false-advertizing claims against Microsoft would be great, and from a theoretical standpoint they certainly are misrepresenting their products when they call them "secure" or "safe". Who's got a million or two for the legal fees when we lose?
You don't have to spend a million in legal fees to take Microsoft to small claims court.
What we need is an easy to install NNTP server for Windows, with a built in client. Napster might be illegal, and gnutella might suck, but usenet is a tried and true method of distributing warez. And it's probably legal to run the server, to boot.
C'mon, do people here really think that you can be *tracked* by GPS?
I would assume the government eventually has to get that GPS data, otherwise it's kind of useless.
I guess I did imply to some extent that GPS was doing more it is. And I guess it's possible to have the device simply record costs, and only transmit total cost at the end of the month/year/quarter/whatever. But that would just make my point about hackability even more of a big deal.
Why worry about potential invasion of privacy when it has already been invaded by a private company?
This is turned into a four figure electronic 'tag' on site - no number plate data is retained.
I assume they mean they only store a one-way hash of the plate data. That could in theory be used to track someone, but as there are only 36^4 unique "tags" the feasibility would be *somewhat* limited.
How does this affect PCI or AGP HDTV tuners, such as this one. I already have a UHF antenna on my roof, which picks up the major networks very well, so I was considering buying one. $350 for free NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and FOX until they change the standards again. Not a bad deal unless they change the standards in 6 months.
You want the government to put a gun to my head and take money from ME that I worked hard to earn, and give it to a poor person so that they can ride mass transit?
When you start getting paid by the barter system, then you can complain that you're paying taxes for nothing. Until then, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to work.
I'm all for the idea, that people should pay for the roads to the extent they use them. The only valid argument against that would be that of the roads becoming a tool for the rich, but I think that can be solved by simply having rebates for low income individuals, or even by having a "standard deduction", say 25 miles a day, before you start getting charged.
That being said, I don't think this is implementable in practice. GPS solutions pose two major problems. The first is that they are almost certainly easy to hack. Just find a way to jam the signal (after parking in an underground garage where there is no signal anyway). The second, and perhaps bigger problem, is that I don't want the government (or anyone) tracking my every move by GPS.
I'm all for pay-per-use, but the easiest way to do it is by taxing gasoline. Maybe when electric cars become commonplace we'll have to come up with a better solution, but that seems like a long way off, if ever.
you must realize that we can not have both viable copyright protections and individuals being the arbitors of their viability.
Also, individuals are not being the arbitors of copyright protections. Judges and juries are. And I assert without evidence that no one has ever gone to jail or even paid a fine solely for copying abandonware.
Do you at least support the reality of copyright creating a market (artifical scarcity) for off-the-shelf software.
No. There is a market for software developers. There is a market for media. There is a market for duplication devices and services. I see no reason to create an artificial market for 1s and 0s.
If so, when do you determine that you are justified in taking software for free?
I am always justified (morally) in taking software for free.
Certainly then, unless you would have us abandon software copyright entirely
Slashdot Mirror
Their argument: since the Russian company is based on the Internet, it is outside the jurisdiction of the DMCA. This is rather interesting if it holds up, because it would set a precedent which would allow other countries to tell the DMCA to just go away.
Not to mention that it would legalize cocaine trafficking for internet based companies. Give me a break. It isn't going to happen.
Certified makes no mention of a signature or correct delivery.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. Certified Mail requires a signature. If you get Certified Mail with Return Receipt, the USPS will return that signature to you. If you get Certified Mail without Return Receipt, the USPS will hold the receipt in the post office, and for a fee (greater than the cost of Return Receipt) you can request to get it.
It says it all in black and white (actually green and white) right here. "Certified mail provides...A signature upon delivery".
Huh? Appeals are what happens when the original court screws up. If the appeals process is supposed to take the constitution into consideration, so is the original court.
This was a civil judgement not a criminal conviction, the First Amendment does not apply AT ALL.
Wrong
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution; it has absolutely nothing to do with CIVIL suits.
How in the world did this get modded to a 5, and why didn't anyone correct this person yet? See Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell.
While a strict interpretation may see this as a congress-only, the First Amendment is legally upheld by several Supreme Court cases as applying to general state government as well (not just legislature since the Constitution does not require one).
This is due to the selective incorporation of the 14th ammendment. Before the 14th ammendment, the First Ammendment did only apply to congress.
All certified mail means is that it was delivered. Not necessarily to you, just that it ended up in someone's mailbox.
Every time I have received certified mail I have had to sign for it. Yes, certified means it was delivered. Delivered means it was handed to someone, not that it was simply left in a mailbox. This is how my post office has always treated the delivery, anyway.
A letter can be sent certified mail and not be signed.
I'll bet you $100 you can't send to my address a certified letter and get confirmation of delivery without obtaining a signature. If you'd like to take the bet, send me an email and I'll respond with my home address.
Where is the vow that slashdot will not accept money from companies for having "news" stories written about them? How do we know that google didn't pay for this ad we're reading now?
I bet that CompUSA would prosecute here as well.
Could CompUSA prosecute? Microsoft owns the copyright on the software, not CompUSA... And since the total value is less than $1000, in order to prosecute criminally you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was willful intent for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Of course, it's possible that CompUSA could press charges alledging computer trespass, or something like that.
Hmm, good points. I guess that's why not many ISPs are installing NNTP servers to begin with.
That's a little different. Software bugs cost money to fix. Car bugs kill people.
Car bugs may kill people sometimes, but so do software bugs, sometimes. The question is what happens when the bug doesn't kill (or even injure) anyone. If my tire blows out due to a manufacturing defect, and that causes me to get into an accident with another car, who pays for my damage? Who pays for the damage for the other car?
Now, the big difference here is that there is no physical tort. While it's impossible to drive a car down a street without being subject to a possible car crash, it is possible to put a computer on the internet without being subject to a worm or virus. So in that sense it can (and I believe should) be argued that the person who gets the virus is at fault for the damage caused to his/her own machine. But then again, I'm one of those crazies who thinks that the world can do without silly computer trespassing laws.
Liability is based on making statements that are not true, or the deliberate cause of harm.
Harm need not be deliberate to be civilly liable for it. Perhaps for criminal liability, but not civil. Consider if I accidently throw a baseball through your window. Even if I'm not negligent, I'm still liable.
By connecting to the net, just like stepping outside your door, you are assuming risk.
By getting into a car, you are likewise assuming risk. But that doesn't mean I am not liable if I run into you, even if it is an accident. That's why people buy liability insurance.
That said, Microsoft should be liable if they represent their product as "safe" and it isn't.
Certainly for a refund of the cost of the product. In order to sue Microsoft for incidental damages, I think you'd need to show negligence (or possibly gross negligence, since you've signed away your right to sue for incidental damages).
Someone who gets wet because they weren't wearing a long coat when a truck splashed them doesn't expect to sue the truck driver, do they?
If that truck driver splashed them on their private property, they probably could.
Personally, I think a few false-advertizing claims against Microsoft would be great, and from a theoretical standpoint they certainly are misrepresenting their products when they call them "secure" or "safe". Who's got a million or two for the legal fees when we lose?
You don't have to spend a million in legal fees to take Microsoft to small claims court.
Just like a car: Windows - Unsafe at Any Speed
What we need is an easy to install NNTP server for Windows, with a built in client. Napster might be illegal, and gnutella might suck, but usenet is a tried and true method of distributing warez. And it's probably legal to run the server, to boot.
If only Slashdot readers had the courage of their convictions. Fact is most are hypocrites.
AOL is evil, but LOTR was good. What is hypocritical about that?
C'mon, do people here really think that you can be *tracked* by GPS?
I would assume the government eventually has to get that GPS data, otherwise it's kind of useless.
I guess I did imply to some extent that GPS was doing more it is. And I guess it's possible to have the device simply record costs, and only transmit total cost at the end of the month/year/quarter/whatever. But that would just make my point about hackability even more of a big deal.
Why worry about potential invasion of privacy when it has already been invaded by a private company?
I assume they mean they only store a one-way hash of the plate data. That could in theory be used to track someone, but as there are only 36^4 unique "tags" the feasibility would be *somewhat* limited.
HDTV is primarily broadcast over UHF, not VHF.
How does this affect PCI or AGP HDTV tuners, such as this one. I already have a UHF antenna on my roof, which picks up the major networks very well, so I was considering buying one. $350 for free NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and FOX until they change the standards again. Not a bad deal unless they change the standards in 6 months.
You want the government to put a gun to my head and take money from ME that I worked hard to earn, and give it to a poor person so that they can ride mass transit?
When you start getting paid by the barter system, then you can complain that you're paying taxes for nothing. Until then, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to work.
I'm all for the idea, that people should pay for the roads to the extent they use them. The only valid argument against that would be that of the roads becoming a tool for the rich, but I think that can be solved by simply having rebates for low income individuals, or even by having a "standard deduction", say 25 miles a day, before you start getting charged.
That being said, I don't think this is implementable in practice. GPS solutions pose two major problems. The first is that they are almost certainly easy to hack. Just find a way to jam the signal (after parking in an underground garage where there is no signal anyway). The second, and perhaps bigger problem, is that I don't want the government (or anyone) tracking my every move by GPS.
I'm all for pay-per-use, but the easiest way to do it is by taxing gasoline. Maybe when electric cars become commonplace we'll have to come up with a better solution, but that seems like a long way off, if ever.
you must realize that we can not have both viable copyright protections and individuals being the arbitors of their viability.
Also, individuals are not being the arbitors of copyright protections. Judges and juries are. And I assert without evidence that no one has ever gone to jail or even paid a fine solely for copying abandonware.
Do you at least support the reality of copyright creating a market (artifical scarcity) for off-the-shelf software.
No. There is a market for software developers. There is a market for media. There is a market for duplication devices and services. I see no reason to create an artificial market for 1s and 0s.
If so, when do you determine that you are justified in taking software for free?
I am always justified (morally) in taking software for free.
Certainly then, unless you would have us abandon software copyright entirely
I would.