You can't use that last point about the internet because that's what is being debated here. That's what we're talking about annoys the hell out of the RIAA. It annoys them because I'll never hear acts like Joanna Newsom at "any local pub or event." I depend on the internet for it because no radio station in my area has the balls to play it even at 2am.
This has got to be the first time I've been introduced to new music via/.
I'd argue that in this case, it is not his responsibility to determine the `ownership` of the server. He purchased it on eBay, and doing a quick search, there are almost 1000 items in the server category for sale, and many are priced below the $100 CDN mark. Am I to make the assumption that ALL are stolen goods?
The article didn't contain any system specifications on the server. It could have been a 10 year old machine and not really worth much except to a hobbyist or a IT manager looking for some spare servers for developers.
According to the article it was an eBay spokesperson who stated that it was expected he hand the computer back.
The company that was to be archiving the data for the back is claiming that the computer was `inappropriately sold on via a third party`. It could be that the stance that eBay is taking is that it was stolen property.
I'm not sure what the laws in the UK are regarding receiving stolen goods.
Of course, I don't actually believe the item was stolen. I think it is far more likely to be a clerical error.
If it was my division that was responsible for this kind of screw-up, I'd offer the guy a a finders fee (something in the neighbourhood of a grand or so). Make it worth his while, and the resulting PR would also encourage others who stumble across `wayward` bank property to turn it in for a reward.
Hrm... I recall the http://www.katie.com/ fiasco, and in that case, I think the right result was finally achieved. The publisher blinked.
This case though seems different.
You have an individual who disagrees with with Jerry Fallwell concerning homosexuality and gay rights. That's all good. If this were merely a parody or disenting view website I'd think that it should fall under free-speech guidelines. But the guy had links to Amazon for a book he published. The arguement then becomes that this was not an issue of free speech, but rather commericially motivated.
Is this the correct reasoning, I don't know. But based on what I read in the article, I don't think the judge erred in his decision. The arguements presented to the judge seemed to be that the use of falwell.com was a deliberate attempt to use the etablished name of Fallwell in an attempt to drive traffic to his site for the intent of selling more books. Asked to base a decision on that regard, and asked to consider this under trademark law, I don't think the judge really could have decided otherwise.
Was this an attempt by Jerry Fallwell and his ministry to silence criticism of his preachings? I'd say most certainly, and ethically, that sort of attack against falwell.com was wrong. Far better would have been to ask the owner of falwell.com to have a link saying something like `if you meant to go to blah blah blah`. But then again, from what I have seen of Jerry Fallwell, reasonable might have been too much to hope for.
I should have been more precise in stating my views originally.
gOOpie
And I should have remembered to add break-tags in my original message... darn lack of coffee!
While yes this was more about Trademarks than Copyrights, it does seem that the operator of the site chose the name specifically to take advantage of the name `falwell` and to counter the rhetoric that Jerry Falwell spews out.
Quoting from the article
Hilton said the site's operator, Christopher Lamparello, intended to divert people from the Jerry Falwell Ministries' Web site "with the direct intent to tarnish or disparage"
It seems that the ruling of the Judge was centered around that rational rather than simply viewing this as similar site names.
So while I may not approve of the tactics nor the message of the Falwell ministry, I would view this as a matter of established trademark law as I understand them.
Also, based on the site content of fallwell.com as described in the article, it does seem that he used the site to generate revenue (links to his books on Amazon, etc).
gOOpie
Hrm... I think if you read a bit more carefully, as you'd see that she is located in the UK... I don't think that USPTO searches will help in that case.
Lets be realistic about Microsoft's legal team for a second. Considering the EULA that users are required to accept when installing their products, do you really think that Microsoft wouldn't make sure that any license agreement they have for using someone else's technology wouldn't include clauses protecting them from lawsuits such as this?
This might impact future patches and Service Packs for Windows XP, but they will yank this from their products pretty quickly if it causes them potential legal troubles...
Take a look at the history of reporting that MSNBC has done regarding the Microsoft Anti-trust lawsuits... and other `Microsoft` related stories... as much as I am not inclined to trust anything coming from MSNBC, they have been pretty even-handed in their coverage. Sure they tend to lapse towards the party line, but for the most part the reporting is informative.
This also should be taken in context of the type of reporting that John W. Schoen normally does for MSNBC... he seems to primarily report on the business side of things... and lets be brutally honest here, from a purely business perspective, Linux has not lived up to a fraction of its potential.
And if you read the article, it isn't as critical as the brief post describing it mentions...
But adopters of Linux still face hurdles living in a Microsoft world. High on the list of headaches is incompatibilities with files created with Microsoft products like Word. Small software makers like Lindows are trying to help desktop users bridge that divide.
How is that "pro" Microsoft... it seems to me to merely be a description of the way things are. These are things that/.ers tend to bitch and whine about all the time... and when taken from our little geekish world to the business world, they tend to be far more important then simply "I don't wanna use it"... the bottom line is the driving force. And re-educating your users with Open-Source or even simply non-Microsoft products is a huge investment of time and money...
So from a purely business perspective, Linux does appear to be losing... sure it is gaining, but not fastly enough to be a real threat.
Not yet. But soon.
No much on specifics? It lists a few problems? The FAA say it's okay? Did you read the same article I did??
71 specific software problems that could prevent the system from operating as designed, or could threaten safety or security
71 is hardly a few problems. And that sentence does not imply user errors, but rather faults of the program itself.
And if FAA technicians refuse to certify the program for use, does it really matter what the executives do (ie forcing the implementation of the software even though it hasn't been certified).
Blanche Necessary, a spokeswoman for the equipment builder, Raytheon Co., said the system was working well in El Paso and Syracuse.
Brantley disagreed. While technicians certified the Syracuse system, he said they had no choice after the FAA invoked the emergency clause.
"It was against their professional judgment. They don't feel it's safe," Brantley said. "The emergency clause was never intended for something like this. That was intended if there were an actual emergency."
I learned typing skills in high school... and for some reason developed some rather poor habits it seems... I've tried using the ergo keyboards and they do more to annoy me and cause me massive amounts of stress then I'd care to comment on. Of course, I've got co-workers that swear by them.
I would also agree that having the keyboard in the right position goes a long way towards reducing the chances of RSI and CTS. I tend to use the keyboard and mouse for 8-10 hrs a day, and haven't had many problems that changing my desk layout couldn't fix.
The issue is that the RIAA, thru the US Government is targeting industries other then their own for a country that didn't immediately buckle to what are actually outragous demands.
How you you feel if after decades of extreme communist governments suppressing your freedoms, the one nation that claimed to be for freedom now dictates to you how you will run your country.
How would you feel if after decades of free speech being suppresed through the use of coding technology on devices such as typewriters someone came along and told you that now you had to endure it again, but with optical media.
The actions would seem reasonable if the industry being targeted was the same industry that was being affected by piracy. Look again at the list of affected items, and do a quick bit of math to try to figure out just how many thousands of indivuals will be seriously affected by this.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't use that last point about the internet because that's what is being debated here. That's what we're talking about annoys the hell out of the RIAA. It annoys them because I'll never hear acts like Joanna Newsom at "any local pub or event." I depend on the internet for it because no radio station in my area has the balls to play it even at 2am.
This has got to be the first time I've been introduced to new music via /.
Thanks.
I'd argue that in this case, it is not his responsibility to determine the `ownership` of the server. He purchased it on eBay, and doing a quick search, there are almost 1000 items in the server category for sale, and many are priced below the $100 CDN mark. Am I to make the assumption that ALL are stolen goods?
The article didn't contain any system specifications on the server. It could have been a 10 year old machine and not really worth much except to a hobbyist or a IT manager looking for some spare servers for developers.
According to the article it was an eBay spokesperson who stated that it was expected he hand the computer back.
The company that was to be archiving the data for the back is claiming that the computer was `inappropriately sold on via a third party`. It could be that the stance that eBay is taking is that it was stolen property.
I'm not sure what the laws in the UK are regarding receiving stolen goods.
Of course, I don't actually believe the item was stolen. I think it is far more likely to be a clerical error.
If it was my division that was responsible for this kind of screw-up, I'd offer the guy a a finders fee (something in the neighbourhood of a grand or so). Make it worth his while, and the resulting PR would also encourage others who stumble across `wayward` bank property to turn it in for a reward.
Hrm... I recall the http://www.katie.com/ fiasco, and in that case, I think the right result was finally achieved. The publisher blinked.
This case though seems different.
You have an individual who disagrees with with Jerry Fallwell concerning homosexuality and gay rights. That's all good. If this were merely a parody or disenting view website I'd think that it should fall under free-speech guidelines. But the guy had links to Amazon for a book he published. The arguement then becomes that this was not an issue of free speech, but rather commericially motivated.
Is this the correct reasoning, I don't know. But based on what I read in the article, I don't think the judge erred in his decision. The arguements presented to the judge seemed to be that the use of falwell.com was a deliberate attempt to use the etablished name of Fallwell in an attempt to drive traffic to his site for the intent of selling more books. Asked to base a decision on that regard, and asked to consider this under trademark law, I don't think the judge really could have decided otherwise.
Was this an attempt by Jerry Fallwell and his ministry to silence criticism of his preachings? I'd say most certainly, and ethically, that sort of attack against falwell.com was wrong. Far better would have been to ask the owner of falwell.com to have a link saying something like `if you meant to go to blah blah blah`. But then again, from what I have seen of Jerry Fallwell, reasonable might have been too much to hope for.
I should have been more precise in stating my views originally.
gOOpie
And I should have remembered to add break-tags in my original message... darn lack of coffee!
Hrm... I think if you read a bit more carefully, as you'd see that she is located in the UK... I don't think that USPTO searches will help in that case.
Lets be realistic about Microsoft's legal team for a second. Considering the EULA that users are required to accept when installing their products, do you really think that Microsoft wouldn't make sure that any license agreement they have for using someone else's technology wouldn't include clauses protecting them from lawsuits such as this?
This might impact future patches and Service Packs for Windows XP, but they will yank this from their products pretty quickly if it causes them potential legal troubles...
goopie
Hmmm.... have you ever tried getting those rebates? And how many people actually try? I've heard horror stories about the `free with mail-in rebates`.
71 is hardly a few problems. And that sentence does not imply user errors, but rather faults of the program itself.
And if FAA technicians refuse to certify the program for use, does it really matter what the executives do (ie forcing the implementation of the software even though it hasn't been certified).
Hardly a winning endorcement.
I learned typing skills in high school... and for some reason developed some rather poor habits it seems... I've tried using the ergo keyboards and they do more to annoy me and cause me massive amounts of stress then I'd care to comment on. Of course, I've got co-workers that swear by them. I would also agree that having the keyboard in the right position goes a long way towards reducing the chances of RSI and CTS. I tend to use the keyboard and mouse for 8-10 hrs a day, and haven't had many problems that changing my desk layout couldn't fix.
The issue is that the RIAA, thru the US Government is targeting industries other then their own for a country that didn't immediately buckle to what are actually outragous demands.
How you you feel if after decades of extreme communist governments suppressing your freedoms, the one nation that claimed to be for freedom now dictates to you how you will run your country.
How would you feel if after decades of free speech being suppresed through the use of coding technology on devices such as typewriters someone came along and told you that now you had to endure it again, but with optical media.
The actions would seem reasonable if the industry being targeted was the same industry that was being affected by piracy. Look again at the list of affected items, and do a quick bit of math to try to figure out just how many thousands of indivuals will be seriously affected by this.