I'm not defending their tactic of "sue everyone in existence who might have possibly used a computer ever." But if you were to also take note the second half of the sentence you quoted, I don't see how this case is an example of that. Or at least, how this case is a particularly *special* example. The reaction to this article sounds like "well, the RIAA sucks for suing everyone, but god dammit, they *really* suck for suing someone in the hospital." Since when did (or should!) being in the hospital make you immune from the law?
Maybe this girl is just another innocent victim of the RIAA's carpet-bomb strategy. Maybe not. But from the tiny amount of "evidence" so far (the linked articles seem merely to want to evoke sympathy solely based on the girl's poor health), no one really knows if the lawsuit could have merit or not.
Being in poor health doesn't get you an infringe-copyright-with-impunity card, and if you get caught, that sucks, but... that's the breaks. Maybe she's innocent, but ignoring this problem has only turned it into a bigger problem.
These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA's tactics, but how is this case an example of this? The RIAA hadn't even gotten to the point where they could start disregarding the law. They filed a lawsuit, the defendant was (presumably) served papers, the defendant didn't show up or say a word, and the plaintiff was granted a default judgment.
Personally, I hope the default is overturned and the girl is given the chance to properly defend herself, but legally, in *this particular case*, I don't see how the RIAA did anything wrong -- at least not with the meager information we've been given in the linked articles.
Except their are legally responsible for knowing who they are suing
No they aren't. They're legally responsible for providing evidence that the defendant did what they're accusing them of doing. They have no need to do research on the defendant's health, finances, or anything.
the default ruling is a result of failure on the RIAA's part to put forward a legitimate case.
No, the default judgment is a result of the defendant's failure to show up. The RIAA hadn't even gotten to the point where they had to prove their case (legitimate or otherwise).
Yeah, that's the thing that confuses me. If she wasn't able to respond to the original summons when the papers for the lawsuit were served, why is she now suddenly able to respond to the default judgment?
Not saying the girl is guilty, and she's clearly in pretty bad shape where her health is concerned, but, c'mon... classic case of "if I just ignore it, it will go away" coming back to bite you in the ass, maybe?
I wonder how many of the 25% are in similar situations to mine?
You're probably the only one.
No, seriously, think about it. The 25% figure includes people running Windows, Mac, and Linux. I'd bet Linux is the smallest bit of that, and I'd also assume (poosibly incorrectly) that Linux users are more apt to upgrade their software (when not prompted by an auto-update feature; the FF2 updater doesn't prompt you to update to FF3). Then take this likely-tiny fraction and reduce it further for people who are not just running LInux, but who are running RHEL WS 4. And a sibling poster notes that ES and CentOS 4 both have FF3, so yeah... could be just you.
Both consoles have games that would have been great had it not been for the required motion controls and no option to change them.
This I think is key. I recently played Mario Kart for the first time on the Wii, with the semi-ridiculous wiimote steering-wheel attachment. The game was actually very frustrating, with the karts very difficult to control. Fortunately, the game allows you to play in the more traditional non-motion-controlled manner.
(I did try the motion-controlled method again later, but this time without the steering-wheel attachment, and I had a much better time. Perhaps it's just something that takes some getting used to. But the point is that Nintendo at least gave the gamer a choice here.)
They're catering to a more casual audience, but also a less critical and demanding audience, which means they can afford to cut corners and let quality decline and innovation lapse.
I'm not sure I buy that. Just because someone is the kind of gamer who plays for 30 minutes 2 or 3 times per week before going to bed and not 2 hours a day every day, it doesn't mean they understand less about game quality. In some cases I'd argue just the opposite: the play controls and experience need to be much tighter to avoid frustrating people who aren't used to a 'normal' gaming experience.
Single anecdotal data point, but: I'm a former hardcore gamer who grew up with the NES and SNES. I'm now a casual gamer -- if anything, I'm even more critical and demanding than I used to be. Back then, I'd play just for the sake of playing, for wanting to complete a game. Now I play because I want to have fun. If a game throws stupid obstacles at me (whether it's a part of lazy storytelling or poor use of the controller or whatever), I'm not going to have fun, and I'm not going to keep plugging away at it simply because I "have to."
In contrast, I have a friend who grew up *never* playing video games, and today still doesn't like playing them. When she's coaxed/cajoled into playing, she usually ends up frustrated very quickly. After I get my Wii, I hope to see if she might find games on it that she actually could enjoy. I'm optimistic.
To fix this issue you would first need to get rid of the dependencies, but to do that you would need a large enough and stable enough core system on which applications could depend instead, but given how Linux development works its not clear if that is ever going to happen or even desirable.
No, you don't. All you need is a stable libc. For everything else, if you *really* want to support a wide range of distributions and versions, you bundle all the dependencies into your package, which is either just a simple.tar.gz that the user can unpack whereever they please (with a launcher script that sets up the lib path, etc.), or a self-bootstrapping GUI installer that can install the app wherever the user wants, plus can take care of the other background install tasks like setting up mime-type associations, etc. (The mime-type stuff can use the freedesktop.org standards, and that will work fine for the vast majority of end-users who use GNOME, KDE, or Xfce.)
Is this ugly and a redundant waste of space? Sure it is. But that's the de facto recommended practice on Windows, and it gets the job done. How many installers on Windows either expect you to have dependencies installed, or have some sort of dependency resolver built-in? Very few, possibly NONE. The only things that come close are gtk apps like Pidgin which offer to install a common copy of gtk for you, and apps like wireshark/ethereal that come bundled with a copy of libpcap that will get installed automatically if you need it.
None of this is rocket science, but the Linux crowd (myself included) is so hung up on code reuse, modularity, and shared libraries, that no one can target Linux because there's no such thing as "Linux the OS" from an ISV standpoint.
Apps targeting Linux should assume that libc is present, and bundle everything else.
But they potentially compensate for that by being more "loyal" employees. People who have dependents tend to be less likely to quit their job to go looking for something else on a whim. A single twenty-something with minimal expenses might not bat an eye at jumping between jobs every year or so.
They want more time off because they've been around longer (2 weeks for new hires don't cut it).
Wow. I wouldn't take a job fresh out of college that only gave 2 weeks of vacation. When I started, 3 weeks was standard, and I thought that was merely 'acceptable'.
My point was that I don't recall seeing either of them in their underwear in full-on grope on a bed.
Perhaps because that sort of thing was unheard of on a network TV show in the 60s? If Star Trek had never existed, and TOS just first aired today, I imagine it would be a lot more explicitly sexualised than it was back then. (I'll leave the answer to the question of whether it would be better, worse, or the same as an exercise for the reader.)
I didn't think QoS was good, exciting, tight film making, but I did find it enjoyable, and a decent way to tie up some loose ends from Casino Royale while leaving others open (and creating some new questions) to pave the way for a third film.
Yesterday's re-watch of Casino Royale reminded me how much better it was, though.
1. Yes, you're correct. I should choose my words more carefully. However, I still stand by what I said about acting in bad faith. It's fine to tell Toyota "sorry, your complaint is without merit," but firing back with a "you suck, but I'll let you have your way if you give me a sum of money that grossly over-values my copyrighted work" is unwise. Sure, you can choose to sell your picture "as you please" -- if you can find a buyer. Somehow I doubt anyone would buy a photo taken of a car by some random guy on the internet for $250k.
2. Under what grounds do *you* have to bring a DMCA complaint to *Toyota*. How has your copyright been infringed?
3. How does Toyota taking you to court imply they committed a "DMCA violation"? Especially since you're now claiming they'd take you to court to enforce their trademark; the DMCA does not apply to trademarks.
My lawyer specifically told me what to say in my letter.
Or so you say... I'm not convinced.
I'll trust his advice over your apparent bullshit.
Wow, a bit pissy today, hmm? Let's dial the "asshole" down a bit, shall we?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not defending their tactic of "sue everyone in existence who might have possibly used a computer ever." But if you were to also take note the second half of the sentence you quoted, I don't see how this case is an example of that. Or at least, how this case is a particularly *special* example. The reaction to this article sounds like "well, the RIAA sucks for suing everyone, but god dammit, they *really* suck for suing someone in the hospital." Since when did (or should!) being in the hospital make you immune from the law?
Maybe this girl is just another innocent victim of the RIAA's carpet-bomb strategy. Maybe not. But from the tiny amount of "evidence" so far (the linked articles seem merely to want to evoke sympathy solely based on the girl's poor health), no one really knows if the lawsuit could have merit or not.
Being in poor health doesn't get you an infringe-copyright-with-impunity card, and if you get caught, that sucks, but... that's the breaks. Maybe she's innocent, but ignoring this problem has only turned it into a bigger problem.
Deactivate your SIM.
These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA's tactics, but how is this case an example of this? The RIAA hadn't even gotten to the point where they could start disregarding the law. They filed a lawsuit, the defendant was (presumably) served papers, the defendant didn't show up or say a word, and the plaintiff was granted a default judgment.
Personally, I hope the default is overturned and the girl is given the chance to properly defend herself, but legally, in *this particular case*, I don't see how the RIAA did anything wrong -- at least not with the meager information we've been given in the linked articles.
Except their are legally responsible for knowing who they are suing
No they aren't. They're legally responsible for providing evidence that the defendant did what they're accusing them of doing. They have no need to do research on the defendant's health, finances, or anything.
the default ruling is a result of failure on the RIAA's part to put forward a legitimate case.
No, the default judgment is a result of the defendant's failure to show up. The RIAA hadn't even gotten to the point where they had to prove their case (legitimate or otherwise).
Were they not able to respond?
Yeah, that's the thing that confuses me. If she wasn't able to respond to the original summons when the papers for the lawsuit were served, why is she now suddenly able to respond to the default judgment?
Not saying the girl is guilty, and she's clearly in pretty bad shape where her health is concerned, but, c'mon... classic case of "if I just ignore it, it will go away" coming back to bite you in the ass, maybe?
Do you have any sources to back up your assertion that Fedex-without-signature is a valid form of service? I'm a bit skeptical about that...
Yes, and that includes making fun of people when they say something stupid.
GTK is only up to version 2.14.x now. Sorry, troll.
I wonder how many of the 25% are in similar situations to mine?
You're probably the only one.
No, seriously, think about it. The 25% figure includes people running Windows, Mac, and Linux. I'd bet Linux is the smallest bit of that, and I'd also assume (poosibly incorrectly) that Linux users are more apt to upgrade their software (when not prompted by an auto-update feature; the FF2 updater doesn't prompt you to update to FF3). Then take this likely-tiny fraction and reduce it further for people who are not just running LInux, but who are running RHEL WS 4. And a sibling poster notes that ES and CentOS 4 both have FF3, so yeah... could be just you.
Both consoles have games that would have been great had it not been for the required motion controls and no option to change them.
This I think is key. I recently played Mario Kart for the first time on the Wii, with the semi-ridiculous wiimote steering-wheel attachment. The game was actually very frustrating, with the karts very difficult to control. Fortunately, the game allows you to play in the more traditional non-motion-controlled manner.
(I did try the motion-controlled method again later, but this time without the steering-wheel attachment, and I had a much better time. Perhaps it's just something that takes some getting used to. But the point is that Nintendo at least gave the gamer a choice here.)
They're catering to a more casual audience, but also a less critical and demanding audience, which means they can afford to cut corners and let quality decline and innovation lapse.
I'm not sure I buy that. Just because someone is the kind of gamer who plays for 30 minutes 2 or 3 times per week before going to bed and not 2 hours a day every day, it doesn't mean they understand less about game quality. In some cases I'd argue just the opposite: the play controls and experience need to be much tighter to avoid frustrating people who aren't used to a 'normal' gaming experience.
Single anecdotal data point, but: I'm a former hardcore gamer who grew up with the NES and SNES. I'm now a casual gamer -- if anything, I'm even more critical and demanding than I used to be. Back then, I'd play just for the sake of playing, for wanting to complete a game. Now I play because I want to have fun. If a game throws stupid obstacles at me (whether it's a part of lazy storytelling or poor use of the controller or whatever), I'm not going to have fun, and I'm not going to keep plugging away at it simply because I "have to."
In contrast, I have a friend who grew up *never* playing video games, and today still doesn't like playing them. When she's coaxed/cajoled into playing, she usually ends up frustrated very quickly. After I get my Wii, I hope to see if she might find games on it that she actually could enjoy. I'm optimistic.
Being (or not being) a linguist isn't particularly indicative of one's ability to spell.
To fix this issue you would first need to get rid of the dependencies, but to do that you would need a large enough and stable enough core system on which applications could depend instead, but given how Linux development works its not clear if that is ever going to happen or even desirable.
No, you don't. All you need is a stable libc. For everything else, if you *really* want to support a wide range of distributions and versions, you bundle all the dependencies into your package, which is either just a simple .tar.gz that the user can unpack whereever they please (with a launcher script that sets up the lib path, etc.), or a self-bootstrapping GUI installer that can install the app wherever the user wants, plus can take care of the other background install tasks like setting up mime-type associations, etc. (The mime-type stuff can use the freedesktop.org standards, and that will work fine for the vast majority of end-users who use GNOME, KDE, or Xfce.)
Is this ugly and a redundant waste of space? Sure it is. But that's the de facto recommended practice on Windows, and it gets the job done. How many installers on Windows either expect you to have dependencies installed, or have some sort of dependency resolver built-in? Very few, possibly NONE. The only things that come close are gtk apps like Pidgin which offer to install a common copy of gtk for you, and apps like wireshark/ethereal that come bundled with a copy of libpcap that will get installed automatically if you need it.
None of this is rocket science, but the Linux crowd (myself included) is so hung up on code reuse, modularity, and shared libraries, that no one can target Linux because there's no such thing as "Linux the OS" from an ISV standpoint.
Apps targeting Linux should assume that libc is present, and bundle everything else.
True, all they need to do is convert themselves into a bank holding company...
Crap, I shouldn't give them ideas.
I'd avoid using "DJB" and "viable solution" in the same sentence.
But that's just personal bias.
I'd be perfectly ok with the IETF "blackmailing" everyone into implementing DNSSEC.
They want time off to be with their families.
But they potentially compensate for that by being more "loyal" employees. People who have dependents tend to be less likely to quit their job to go looking for something else on a whim. A single twenty-something with minimal expenses might not bat an eye at jumping between jobs every year or so.
They want more time off because they've been around longer (2 weeks for new hires don't cut it).
Wow. I wouldn't take a job fresh out of college that only gave 2 weeks of vacation. When I started, 3 weeks was standard, and I thought that was merely 'acceptable'.
If you truly believe we're most already beyond racism these days, you're blind and oblivious, or at best a bit sheltered.
-1, Annoyingly Pedantic.
My idea of American 'culture' is fast food, celebrities, gas guzzling cars, and guns. Have I missed anything?
Funny, and Europeans always complain that Americans don't know anything about other countries...
My point was that I don't recall seeing either of them in their underwear in full-on grope on a bed.
Perhaps because that sort of thing was unheard of on a network TV show in the 60s? If Star Trek had never existed, and TOS just first aired today, I imagine it would be a lot more explicitly sexualised than it was back then. (I'll leave the answer to the question of whether it would be better, worse, or the same as an exercise for the reader.)
I'm guessing you didn't watch the trailer, then. It's not about the academy (or, at least, it's not *only* about the academy).
I didn't think QoS was good, exciting, tight film making, but I did find it enjoyable, and a decent way to tie up some loose ends from Casino Royale while leaving others open (and creating some new questions) to pave the way for a third film.
Yesterday's re-watch of Casino Royale reminded me how much better it was, though.
2. Under what grounds do *you* have to bring a DMCA complaint to *Toyota*. How has your copyright been infringed?
3. How does Toyota taking you to court imply they committed a "DMCA violation"? Especially since you're now claiming they'd take you to court to enforce their trademark; the DMCA does not apply to trademarks.
My lawyer specifically told me what to say in my letter.
Or so you say... I'm not convinced.
I'll trust his advice over your apparent bullshit.
Wow, a bit pissy today, hmm? Let's dial the "asshole" down a bit, shall we?
It's turtles, all the way down.