What's new this time around is that he's in custody. I haven't read the article, but I got grapevine news from someone who reads more than I do that yesterday, PirateAt40 was taken into custody and caught with 700000 bitcoins in his wallet.
I told her I was honestly surprised he was in police custody and not the recipient of a brand new Colombian Necktie.
Like everywhere else, you (the consumer) are not Google's customer.
They would honestly rather sell the devices to third parties who will support them and review/push patches and updates. The person selling the device for $100 is not incentivized to provide any support beyond what's required by law. Google charges $200 because you have higher expectations of them, and they are more visible. Samsung, ASUS, HTC, Sony, and the other big-name competitors in the tablet and phone markets can get away with charging upwards of $300-500 because they actually provide the support that the mobile carriers should be responsible for, given that they're the ones collecting all of the recurring fees (bargaining chips).
I have a Transformer TF-101 and I was not happy with the lack of vendor upgrades to JellyBean. So, what did I do? I flashed the device to EOS4, voiding my (admittedly limited groupon 90-day warranty), I nullified the support requirement (early) for the vendor. Now TeamEOS seems to have evaporated, lucky for me they are still providing their sources on http://git.teameos.org/ but jenkins is down and the nightly builds have slowed to about once a month.
Guess whose device is unpatched according to the Bluebox Security Scanner? (who's got two thumbs and a transformer that's out of warranty?)
Ahh, the good old Toxic Dihydrogen Monoxide gag. Common household chemical, The True #1 leading cause of drowning deaths, it's even found naturally in our own bodies.
A little shorter, and based on what you stated, which is entirely valid...
You can make it easy and cost-effective to file a counter-claim, or you can make it likely that counter-claims contain valid information. The hollywood letterhead is easily authenticated, there are only a handful of major studios, if you contact them they will surely confirm, they did indeed send a DMCA notice, and you are obligated to follow up these claims.
But even if only a fraction of users file counter-claims, some (most?) will be invalid, some will even be filed as return-address Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and there will be penalties for the first company to honor one of these or similar invalid counter-claims by failing to validate the contact information and other details correctly. You can alternatively choose to ignore the counter-claims at no cost, there will be no penalty for honoring a false take-down notice and ignoring the counter-claim on content that is hosted for free (indeed a negative cost, if you are hosting media and you're obligated to delete it, you've just freed up some space), and by removing that step from your compliance, the cost of authenticating the contact information and associated details drops to zero. Plus you've insulated your users from any further harassment regarding the content/notice at hand. Most of these companies are not in the habit of obtaining contact details and validating them.
Nor do they want to be, they just want to be in compliance with the (draconian) DMCA law. It's likely to push independent producers to use paid hosting, where there is at least an incentive and a clear path to validate counter-claims (otherwise, lose my business), or simply incite more people to use BitTorrent, where your posting cannot easily be removed by any party.
And as soon as the first court decides that Big Media was in their rights, and Joe Bob Uploader really infringed, and is now liable for $150,000 x 2 million downloads, that safe harbor is going to be sad that it fed one of its' loyal users to the dogs.
I know, you shouldn't file the counter-notice if you're not really the owner. Yeah, we want to see those judges outed who are in the pocket of ConglomeraCorp, and then the users will hopefully win on appeal, or we're all moving to New Zealand. I'm just being cynical, but I guess my point is, nobody ever was drowned in lawyer fees by remaining anonymous. Just how much trouble did you have in reality finding a copy of that censored Pirate Bay documentary?
If you want to provide safe-harbor, the most bullet-proof way to do it is to facilitate DMCA take-down requests and ignore counter-claims, and let your users go elsewhere if they don't like it, and I don't know if this is the host companies' thought process, but it seems we're seeing it now again and again. Companies that provide free media hosting (say, Google) usually seem to believe these days that legal compliance is more important than having any direct communication with their users at all, it's cheaper and the cost of "users going somewhere else" must be precisely nothing compared to the price of validating counter-claims, which they're not required to do at all, in order for them to behave as they do.
I am not so sure about the part where you are legally protected under safe-harbor, or entirely sure of what makes a counter-notice valid, but I would suggest that if the legality of re-posting the link depends on your pointing the finger at the uploader and allowing them to be ruined by lawyers with deep-pocketed big media clients, your users as a whole are better off if you have a blanket policy of honoring DMCA take-down and ignoring valid, or any other, counter-notices.
They'd (users) better find somewhere suitably protected and anonymous, and re-post it there, instead.
but their targeting of a Creative Commons Pirate Bay documentary is something new.
That's misleading. The only thing that's new about it is that Pirate Bay has never released this documentary before, I guess. I've heard this story before; author releases original content for free, big media censors by DMCA take-down notice. Sorry no penalty is available for them by law... but if you ignore their request, or if you read and allow someone's appeal to result in bringing the link back up, you subject yourself to expensive legal fees and big penalties if it turns out that it was indeed a valid take-down request.
Simple. The more they spend on advertising, the more you will pay for their products.
Haven't you ever taken any marketing classes in school?
I'm not sure the animated money-vacuum really has any basis in reality, but it made me think of the ridiculous voice-overs and videos produced by Aperture Company. Here's another one:
I think it's somewhere between after when you decided to use even go want to do look more like, and the part that make you more the even wanted to because I couldn't even has been.
Hey, I was upfront about that. I only finished my BS degree in 2010 and it took me over 7 years, I'm in a lot of debt as a result and also not in a hurry to take any more courses, online or otherwise.
I would really rather have someone else take the course, and come to me with questions for help. That's why I do that, I think I enjoyed my time as a lab assistant more than I actually enjoyed taking classes in college. I was renowned for my C and C++ expertise, solving pointer problems for folks who couldn't find any help and whose teachers honestly can't debug everyone's pointer problems. Those are two languages I don't actually practice on my own, have barely practiced outside of a classroom setting, and don't foresee practicing at any time in the near future.
I still recommend that people get out and learn C. I'm rarely surprised when they have problems, and I almost always invite them to seek help from me.
Have you looked at the courses at Udacity? They are more advanced topics than the ones discussed at my undergraduate computer science program, which admittedly can no longer be found in any of the Top Computer Science Ranking lists (wtf? last time I checked, Rochester Institute of Technology was ranked next to Carnegie Mellon for computer science undergrad); but back to Udacity, I have not taken their courses, but browsing the course catalog I got a strong impression that if they are anything like they appear on the surface, the coursework is rich and engaging.
Take a look at the coursework before you make that judgement, especially if you are in a hiring position. I would consider this option for my MS in Comp Sci, you can't beat the price.
I was intending tongue-in-cheek. I can see that folks need to get paid, where I have a hard time is imagining a scalable response to copyright infringement that looks like anything other than what Prenda^2 is cited as doing here in this article.
If you tell them what copyrights you own, that they're accused of copying, they could delete it (or hide it better and continue sharing against your wishes.) They could cease only that infringement, contact all of the parties who received illegal copies and force them to delete, and now you've accomplished your goal, but at what cost? You probably won't win in court. It's hard to prove. Moneybags clearly win occasionally because they have moneybags and can buy the verdict.
If you accuse them directly on substantive evidence, without considering it could have been a neighbor, a passer-by, a result of having an insecurely configured network, you're guilty of not knowing how the internet works.
If you sell the rights to the lawyer so they can pursue the infringers however they see fit (something I've read that you actually have to do to make the interaction with the lawyer repeatably economically viable and legal at the same time, since only the owner of the copyright can pursue infringers), you've also sold your exclusive monopoly protection and now you don't own the copyright anymore, can't sell copies, can't sub-license.
I believe in free sharing but I'm convinced every time this comes up on Slashdot, there is just no winning for the copyright holders in this particular court of public opinion. Don't create anything. It's the only way to satisfy everyone here.
Try passing that as a basis for extortion suit in court. "They didn't say they weren't going to extort me."
You will get laughed out. You might be right, but until they start defaming you, nothing in that letter suggests anything other than "we are currently engaged in a mailing campaign, we are sending out these letters, you've got one... be afraid, we're coming for your neighbors too."
Yes. I could see how you'd read it that way. I think that is the part that makes it the difference between extortion and blackmail or simply fishing.
You would likely have to find yourself in the courtroom first before arguing that they threatened you or defamed your character to others by name, and that would only work if they actually named you personally, which is totally moot since they will obviously avoid going to court at all costs just like the last Prenda Law. They would most likely argue in that court: they were going to send the same confidential fishing letter to everyone who might be involved until they were satisfied that they had found the right target (evident that they have found him now since they have brought that person to court... ha)
And when they did exactly that, nobody's letter would name anybody else, that everyone's letter would look exactly the same, sparse on details, veiled accusations with no substance (since everyone is someone else's neighbor, right?) and anyone claiming they threatened to defame them was guilty of some other criminal act we haven't even yet considered.
They didn't say they were going to give your name out. They just told you they'd be contacting your friends, family, and neighbors. Some percent of those people will have pirated porn, and some percent of those people will confess. I get form letters all the time. Most of them are offering pre-approved low interest, high limit credit cards. I'm sure they put about as much research into both forms of letter before mailing.
No, I believe you inferred that. They are suggesting that "piracy" or copyright theft or whatever you want to call it is illegal, and that they found one that just happened near you, and now they want to bring the perpetrators to justice.
They just want to be paid! I'm trying to imagine the content that you could produce, and see pirated, i order to sue over it that would make this case more defensible, but I can't. We should just do away with copyright already. From now on, the only way to get paid for porno is by the cameraman who offers you 500 euro while he's giving you a ride to your friend's house. He'll have no way to recoup, other than taking money from investors who convinced him to release the footage on Bittorrent.
AC sibling comment is right, but I think he's neglected to point out exactly what you've already mentioned that explains the difference between payments that must be accepted and payments that can be refused.
Valid and legal offer for debts when tendered to a creditor -- in other words, you do not need to accept my money for goods or services, and provide them, in that order. If you are operating a restaurant for example, and you've provided the service (or goods) first, on honor as many restaurants do, in order to put a price tag on it and settle the bill all at once... now you've brought the check to the table, I'm obligated to pay that debt, since your prices were clearly marked and I accepted the service. You are required to accept my legal tender (even if it's pennies) at this point, or you can take any other form of payment that you're willing to accept, if it's a credit card or bitcoin or some other "non-tender". If I offer pennies and you refuse, I can always argue that I offered to pay the bill, and you can't say I didn't try to discharge the debt. That is what's intended by the treasury statute you quote, in USA at least.
If you are operating a Chinese Buffet or take-out (for example) and you are demanding payment before services are rendered, you are free to refuse the service to anyone who can't pay in only nickels, if that's your wish, or anyone for any reason. It's not a debt incurred for me until you've allowed me through the door, when I sit down and accept the food, to start eating it. If you refuse the service for any reason, then no debt means no tender. If you bring me food and I'm not happy with it, I can refuse the delivery and again, I don't owe you anything. No tender required.
They are a community providing support (arguably separate from Debian), the Debian distro is well supported (so making a destructive fork that you can't provide support for is discouraged), and it may be that the difference is in the defaults.
90% of the complainers I hear about Ubuntu can't stand Unity, and an equal number complain about Gnome 3. (180%!)
So, it sounds like Crunchbang capitalizes on that, to me.
Slashdot Mirror
What's new this time around is that he's in custody. I haven't read the article, but I got grapevine news from someone who reads more than I do that yesterday, PirateAt40 was taken into custody and caught with 700000 bitcoins in his wallet.
I told her I was honestly surprised he was in police custody and not the recipient of a brand new Colombian Necktie.
Like everywhere else, you (the consumer) are not Google's customer.
They would honestly rather sell the devices to third parties who will support them and review/push patches and updates. The person selling the device for $100 is not incentivized to provide any support beyond what's required by law. Google charges $200 because you have higher expectations of them, and they are more visible. Samsung, ASUS, HTC, Sony, and the other big-name competitors in the tablet and phone markets can get away with charging upwards of $300-500 because they actually provide the support that the mobile carriers should be responsible for, given that they're the ones collecting all of the recurring fees (bargaining chips).
I have a Transformer TF-101 and I was not happy with the lack of vendor upgrades to JellyBean. So, what did I do? I flashed the device to EOS4, voiding my (admittedly limited groupon 90-day warranty), I nullified the support requirement (early) for the vendor. Now TeamEOS seems to have evaporated, lucky for me they are still providing their sources on http://git.teameos.org/ but jenkins is down and the nightly builds have slowed to about once a month.
Guess whose device is unpatched according to the Bluebox Security Scanner? (who's got two thumbs and a transformer that's out of warranty?)
Ahh, the good old Toxic Dihydrogen Monoxide gag. Common household chemical, The True #1 leading cause of drowning deaths, it's even found naturally in our own bodies.
A little shorter, and based on what you stated, which is entirely valid...
You can make it easy and cost-effective to file a counter-claim, or you can make it likely that counter-claims contain valid information. The hollywood letterhead is easily authenticated, there are only a handful of major studios, if you contact them they will surely confirm, they did indeed send a DMCA notice, and you are obligated to follow up these claims.
But even if only a fraction of users file counter-claims, some (most?) will be invalid, some will even be filed as return-address Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and there will be penalties for the first company to honor one of these or similar invalid counter-claims by failing to validate the contact information and other details correctly. You can alternatively choose to ignore the counter-claims at no cost, there will be no penalty for honoring a false take-down notice and ignoring the counter-claim on content that is hosted for free (indeed a negative cost, if you are hosting media and you're obligated to delete it, you've just freed up some space), and by removing that step from your compliance, the cost of authenticating the contact information and associated details drops to zero. Plus you've insulated your users from any further harassment regarding the content/notice at hand. Most of these companies are not in the habit of obtaining contact details and validating them.
Nor do they want to be, they just want to be in compliance with the (draconian) DMCA law. It's likely to push independent producers to use paid hosting, where there is at least an incentive and a clear path to validate counter-claims (otherwise, lose my business), or simply incite more people to use BitTorrent, where your posting cannot easily be removed by any party.
And as soon as the first court decides that Big Media was in their rights, and Joe Bob Uploader really infringed, and is now liable for $150,000 x 2 million downloads, that safe harbor is going to be sad that it fed one of its' loyal users to the dogs.
I know, you shouldn't file the counter-notice if you're not really the owner. Yeah, we want to see those judges outed who are in the pocket of ConglomeraCorp, and then the users will hopefully win on appeal, or we're all moving to New Zealand. I'm just being cynical, but I guess my point is, nobody ever was drowned in lawyer fees by remaining anonymous. Just how much trouble did you have in reality finding a copy of that censored Pirate Bay documentary?
If you want to provide safe-harbor, the most bullet-proof way to do it is to facilitate DMCA take-down requests and ignore counter-claims, and let your users go elsewhere if they don't like it, and I don't know if this is the host companies' thought process, but it seems we're seeing it now again and again. Companies that provide free media hosting (say, Google) usually seem to believe these days that legal compliance is more important than having any direct communication with their users at all, it's cheaper and the cost of "users going somewhere else" must be precisely nothing compared to the price of validating counter-claims, which they're not required to do at all, in order for them to behave as they do.
* Which of course only works in the slightest degree, if either anonymous Bitcoins, or if free Creative Commons.
I am not so sure about the part where you are legally protected under safe-harbor, or entirely sure of what makes a counter-notice valid, but I would suggest that if the legality of re-posting the link depends on your pointing the finger at the uploader and allowing them to be ruined by lawyers with deep-pocketed big media clients, your users as a whole are better off if you have a blanket policy of honoring DMCA take-down and ignoring valid, or any other, counter-notices.
They'd (users) better find somewhere suitably protected and anonymous, and re-post it there, instead.
Yes.
That's misleading. The only thing that's new about it is that Pirate Bay has never released this documentary before, I guess. I've heard this story before; author releases original content for free, big media censors by DMCA take-down notice. Sorry no penalty is available for them by law... but if you ignore their request, or if you read and allow someone's appeal to result in bringing the link back up, you subject yourself to expensive legal fees and big penalties if it turns out that it was indeed a valid take-down request.
Better to just let Big Media do what they want.
Simple. The more they spend on advertising, the more you will pay for their products.
Haven't you ever taken any marketing classes in school?
I'm not sure the animated money-vacuum really has any basis in reality, but it made me think of the ridiculous voice-overs and videos produced by Aperture Company. Here's another one:
http://www.woot.com/blog/post/vitamouts-a-million-dollar-idea
The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.
It doesn't make me want to use Internet Explorer, but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.
Which is more than I can say for these comments!
I think it's somewhere between after when you decided to use even go want to do look more like, and the part that make you more the even wanted to because I couldn't even has been.
Hey, I was upfront about that. I only finished my BS degree in 2010 and it took me over 7 years, I'm in a lot of debt as a result and also not in a hurry to take any more courses, online or otherwise.
I would really rather have someone else take the course, and come to me with questions for help. That's why I do that, I think I enjoyed my time as a lab assistant more than I actually enjoyed taking classes in college. I was renowned for my C and C++ expertise, solving pointer problems for folks who couldn't find any help and whose teachers honestly can't debug everyone's pointer problems. Those are two languages I don't actually practice on my own, have barely practiced outside of a classroom setting, and don't foresee practicing at any time in the near future.
I still recommend that people get out and learn C. I'm rarely surprised when they have problems, and I almost always invite them to seek help from me.
Thanks! That's really very helpful.
Have you looked at the courses at Udacity? They are more advanced topics than the ones discussed at my undergraduate computer science program, which admittedly can no longer be found in any of the Top Computer Science Ranking lists (wtf? last time I checked, Rochester Institute of Technology was ranked next to Carnegie Mellon for computer science undergrad); but back to Udacity, I have not taken their courses, but browsing the course catalog I got a strong impression that if they are anything like they appear on the surface, the coursework is rich and engaging.
Take a look at the coursework before you make that judgement, especially if you are in a hiring position. I would consider this option for my MS in Comp Sci, you can't beat the price.
You tricked me. I actually clicked the link expecting to see Clown College ranked among computer science institutes.
I got my degree at Slashdot University. Why don't you tell me what part I've got wrong instead of trolling?
I was intending tongue-in-cheek. I can see that folks need to get paid, where I have a hard time is imagining a scalable response to copyright infringement that looks like anything other than what Prenda^2 is cited as doing here in this article.
If you tell them what copyrights you own, that they're accused of copying, they could delete it (or hide it better and continue sharing against your wishes.) They could cease only that infringement, contact all of the parties who received illegal copies and force them to delete, and now you've accomplished your goal, but at what cost? You probably won't win in court. It's hard to prove. Moneybags clearly win occasionally because they have moneybags and can buy the verdict.
If you accuse them directly on substantive evidence, without considering it could have been a neighbor, a passer-by, a result of having an insecurely configured network, you're guilty of not knowing how the internet works.
If you sell the rights to the lawyer so they can pursue the infringers however they see fit (something I've read that you actually have to do to make the interaction with the lawyer repeatably economically viable and legal at the same time, since only the owner of the copyright can pursue infringers), you've also sold your exclusive monopoly protection and now you don't own the copyright anymore, can't sell copies, can't sub-license.
I believe in free sharing but I'm convinced every time this comes up on Slashdot, there is just no winning for the copyright holders in this particular court of public opinion. Don't create anything. It's the only way to satisfy everyone here.
Try passing that as a basis for extortion suit in court. "They didn't say they weren't going to extort me."
You will get laughed out. You might be right, but until they start defaming you, nothing in that letter suggests anything other than "we are currently engaged in a mailing campaign, we are sending out these letters, you've got one... be afraid, we're coming for your neighbors too."
Hide your kids, hide your wife.
Yes. I could see how you'd read it that way. I think that is the part that makes it the difference between extortion and blackmail or simply fishing.
You would likely have to find yourself in the courtroom first before arguing that they threatened you or defamed your character to others by name, and that would only work if they actually named you personally, which is totally moot since they will obviously avoid going to court at all costs just like the last Prenda Law. They would most likely argue in that court: they were going to send the same confidential fishing letter to everyone who might be involved until they were satisfied that they had found the right target (evident that they have found him now since they have brought that person to court... ha)
And when they did exactly that, nobody's letter would name anybody else, that everyone's letter would look exactly the same, sparse on details, veiled accusations with no substance (since everyone is someone else's neighbor, right?) and anyone claiming they threatened to defame them was guilty of some other criminal act we haven't even yet considered.
They didn't say they were going to give your name out. They just told you they'd be contacting your friends, family, and neighbors. Some percent of those people will have pirated porn, and some percent of those people will confess. I get form letters all the time. Most of them are offering pre-approved low interest, high limit credit cards. I'm sure they put about as much research into both forms of letter before mailing.
No, I believe you inferred that. They are suggesting that "piracy" or copyright theft or whatever you want to call it is illegal, and that they found one that just happened near you, and now they want to bring the perpetrators to justice.
They just want to be paid! I'm trying to imagine the content that you could produce, and see pirated, i order to sue over it that would make this case more defensible, but I can't. We should just do away with copyright already. From now on, the only way to get paid for porno is by the cameraman who offers you 500 euro while he's giving you a ride to your friend's house. He'll have no way to recoup, other than taking money from investors who convinced him to release the footage on Bittorrent.
AC sibling comment is right, but I think he's neglected to point out exactly what you've already mentioned that explains the difference between payments that must be accepted and payments that can be refused.
Valid and legal offer for debts when tendered to a creditor -- in other words, you do not need to accept my money for goods or services, and provide them, in that order. If you are operating a restaurant for example, and you've provided the service (or goods) first, on honor as many restaurants do, in order to put a price tag on it and settle the bill all at once... now you've brought the check to the table, I'm obligated to pay that debt, since your prices were clearly marked and I accepted the service. You are required to accept my legal tender (even if it's pennies) at this point, or you can take any other form of payment that you're willing to accept, if it's a credit card or bitcoin or some other "non-tender". If I offer pennies and you refuse, I can always argue that I offered to pay the bill, and you can't say I didn't try to discharge the debt. That is what's intended by the treasury statute you quote, in USA at least.
If you are operating a Chinese Buffet or take-out (for example) and you are demanding payment before services are rendered, you are free to refuse the service to anyone who can't pay in only nickels, if that's your wish, or anyone for any reason. It's not a debt incurred for me until you've allowed me through the door, when I sit down and accept the food, to start eating it. If you refuse the service for any reason, then no debt means no tender. If you bring me food and I'm not happy with it, I can refuse the delivery and again, I don't owe you anything. No tender required.
So tasksel --list-tasks doesn't have any mention of an option for a full desktop environment?
My things have changed!
Yes. Why didn't you buy the domain before them??? ^_^
Why does it have to be different?
They are a community providing support (arguably separate from Debian), the Debian distro is well supported (so making a destructive fork that you can't provide support for is discouraged), and it may be that the difference is in the defaults.
90% of the complainers I hear about Ubuntu can't stand Unity, and an equal number complain about Gnome 3. (180%!)
So, it sounds like Crunchbang capitalizes on that, to me.