"The electronic regifting patent, which cites a Seinfeld episode and Bezos' pending patent application as prior art"
So now citing prior art in your patent application actually helps you GET the patent? Or did they just cite to all this prior art and then say "we're doing that, but just add the word 'internet' to it." I'd think citing prior art to your own idea in a patent application would be the one way to actually get them to stamp 'denied' on the application. That, of course, presumes that they actually still do have the 'denied' stamp. Chances are they lost it sometime in the early 1990's and never bothered to order a new one (would be a waste of taxpayers money to do so).
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson
Anyway this is not aobut DoSing their sites but rather supplying them with false order information. Not to knock them off the net, but rather to increase their transaction costs and make their operations less profitable.
Well, let's see here. A criminal 'lawsuit' (i.e. criminal charges filed against you by the state) where prison is a possibility means if found guilty, you will be raped up the ass (multiple times by multiple parties). A civil suit against you by huge corporations for millions of dollars is more of a metaphorical assrape, but I stand by my comments. And a civil suit for copyright "infringement" nearly always has the potential to turn into a criminal prosecution. So, lube up.
hacking this makes an unauthorized derivative work. We've seen cases like this with Aibo dog and Teddy Ruxpin hacking. KY the asshole now and prepare to be sued.
wait till ROTK opens up Dec. 17th, go to the midnight showing, and shine all 120 at the screen. Geeks won't beat you up, and it's quite rare that the theater ever has the balls/intelligence to kick laser-pointer jackfucks out of the theater for annoying everyone.
The essense of Diebold's memo 'dropping' the suit (sorta) is this:
"hey, ok, we give up because it's futile and we so respect free discourse blah blah... but since we're doing so, we really don't want the EFF to make a test case out of this (because that would be bad for us next time this happens, and for anyone else who wants to abuse the DMCA in the future). So, if the EFF would like to continue this, even though we've so kindly given up, we recommend a court-ordered mediation as the next step to resolve this once and for all without future court action."
So in that sense, yes, the ball is now in EFF's court. Frankly, I hope they do take the case forward and make a test case out of this, because this case, more than any other i've seen thus far, shows how horrible the DMCA (and draconian copyright law in general) is for free speech and democracy.
And yes, even though Diebold's "we give up" memo sounds sorta nice and fluffy, there are still many ways the case can be taken forward as a test case, and trust me, Diebold knows it. Copyright misuse (which they mention in the memo) is something that really needs to be revived judicially as a doctrine which should be able to trump the DMCA. Although that's more along the lines of the garage-door opener cases rather than a mere notice-and-takedown DMCA procedure re: infringing material on a website. But I think this is a great occasion to expand (judicially of course) the copyright misuse doctrine.
To be frank, I think Diebold made a very smart legal move here. Hopefully the EFF will plod on with this one. Usually they do. But don't think for a second that this somehow "blocks" any EFF future action on this case. It sure makes it sound like the EFF would be the bad guy for doing so, but that's just Diebold's (smart) spin.
"piracy" is a loaded term, as 'wrongful' and 'illegal' are built in to its definition. Listening to music without being extorted money is the way I interpret what you call "piracy."
Advertising is per se not interesting. If it were interesting it WOULD be news and thus no advertising would be necessary. The two are mutually exclusive.
Because terrorist organizations such as the Direct Marketing Association give lots of money to lawmakers. Opt-in would destroy them and end advertising terrorism as we know it.
Of course, Opt-in is the proper solution. People who own hungry man-eating lions should be required to keep them fenced in, rather than make everyone else put fences around their property to keep the lions out.
add "sending of unsolicited commercial email" to the already insanely loose definition of "terrorism" in the Patriot Act and let ashcroft lock up all the spammers with no due process.
If you think it should be "There are a large amount of precious minerals on the Moon and Mars" instead of the way they wrote it ("There is...") then you are wrong. The word "is" refers to "amount" which is singular, even though textually divided among two different places (the moon and mars).
Answer: they're all dangerous. It is easily conceived how someone will hurt themselves/get killed with any of these great futuristic technologies. Flying cars? Would you trust the average driver with a flying car? People haven't mastered the left-right blinkers, so you think if you add two more 'up-down' blinkers people will be able to figure that out and use it properly in addition to the blinkers they already can't figure out? Flying hoverboards? Kids would fall off of those even moreso than wheeled skateboards. Supersonic travel? We had the concorde and it crashed and it is no longer in service. Too dangerous. So what do all these technologies have in common? The liability for huge lawsuits is far greater than the social need. Thus, we do not have these technologies, and as long as compensation for wrongful death, pain, and suffering exist, we will never have these technologies. No, i'm not saying we should never have such lawsuits, but as long as we do have them, don't expect flying cars or hoverboards. It's a social tradeoff.
It's so sad we've come to calling an idea "stupid" simply because it is easily conceivable as to how someone could hurt themselves with it. Whatever happened to assumption of risk? Those hoverboards in back to the future 2 (and 3) could really hurt someone if they're not careful, that doesn't mean it is something mankind should never get to voluntarily experience. Products liability is a good thing, but there has to be limitations. Wear a fucking helmet and don't cry when you get hurt. Products liability is holding us back... it's like intellectual property in that respect. It hinders innovation. Will we get sued for infringement? Will we get sued because people will hurt themselves? The bottom line is unavoidably unsafe products are too risky to develop nowadays, and that's a shame because they're quite often the coolest, most innovative, interesting things man ever makes.
the pentagon papers were not copyrighted, as they were gov't documents (which cannot be CR'd). so, it's not similar at all, other than the fact that the public has an interest in the contents of both.
yep, in fact it's actually happened several times before. One time names of undercover agents were revealed. Now we just need to get some improperly redacted FOIA responses about area51, roswell, and all the stuff out there that makes me wear this tinfoil hat all the time.
If you read the article, it's not that clear that the entire thing was Matt Groening making a joke.
Fox News, however, denies reports that they ever threatened to sue. "We were all scratching our heads and thought it was hysterical," [Fox News] spokesman Rob Zimmerman told us yesterday. "It's not the first time we've been spoofed, you know."
Maybe not, but Groening told Gross during the interview that ". . . Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news."
Nonetheless "The Simpsons" (the show, not the characters) issued an apology yesterday: "Matt was being satirical and certainly there was never any issue between the show and Fox News. We regret any confusion."
Matt G. never quite came out and said he made the whole story up. it sounds like fox told him to say there was no issue since they decided not to sue.
Fox: We won't sue, but you gotta come out and say there was never any dispute between us.
MG: Oh, fine, whatever.
So Matt says "I was being satirical." Whatever that means. I don't take it to mean that fox news never got pissed/threatened to sue over that episode of the simpsons.
Slashdot Mirror
"The electronic regifting patent, which cites a Seinfeld episode and Bezos' pending patent application as prior art"
So now citing prior art in your patent application actually helps you GET the patent? Or did they just cite to all this prior art and then say "we're doing that, but just add the word 'internet' to it." I'd think citing prior art to your own idea in a patent application would be the one way to actually get them to stamp 'denied' on the application. That, of course, presumes that they actually still do have the 'denied' stamp. Chances are they lost it sometime in the early 1990's and never bothered to order a new one (would be a waste of taxpayers money to do so).
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson Anyway this is not aobut DoSing their sites but rather supplying them with false order information. Not to knock them off the net, but rather to increase their transaction costs and make their operations less profitable.
you're the one who seems to find anal rape fascinating, even when merely mentioned as an afterthought.
anal rape. I meant the same in both posts.
Well, let's see here. A criminal 'lawsuit' (i.e. criminal charges filed against you by the state) where prison is a possibility means if found guilty, you will be raped up the ass (multiple times by multiple parties). A civil suit against you by huge corporations for millions of dollars is more of a metaphorical assrape, but I stand by my comments. And a civil suit for copyright "infringement" nearly always has the potential to turn into a criminal prosecution. So, lube up.
hacking this makes an unauthorized derivative work. We've seen cases like this with Aibo dog and Teddy Ruxpin hacking. KY the asshole now and prepare to be sued.
wait till ROTK opens up Dec. 17th, go to the midnight showing, and shine all 120 at the screen. Geeks won't beat you up, and it's quite rare that the theater ever has the balls/intelligence to kick laser-pointer jackfucks out of the theater for annoying everyone.
The essense of Diebold's memo 'dropping' the suit (sorta) is this:
"hey, ok, we give up because it's futile and we so respect free discourse blah blah... but since we're doing so, we really don't want the EFF to make a test case out of this (because that would be bad for us next time this happens, and for anyone else who wants to abuse the DMCA in the future). So, if the EFF would like to continue this, even though we've so kindly given up, we recommend a court-ordered mediation as the next step to resolve this once and for all without future court action."
So in that sense, yes, the ball is now in EFF's court. Frankly, I hope they do take the case forward and make a test case out of this, because this case, more than any other i've seen thus far, shows how horrible the DMCA (and draconian copyright law in general) is for free speech and democracy.
And yes, even though Diebold's "we give up" memo sounds sorta nice and fluffy, there are still many ways the case can be taken forward as a test case, and trust me, Diebold knows it. Copyright misuse (which they mention in the memo) is something that really needs to be revived judicially as a doctrine which should be able to trump the DMCA. Although that's more along the lines of the garage-door opener cases rather than a mere notice-and-takedown DMCA procedure re: infringing material on a website. But I think this is a great occasion to expand (judicially of course) the copyright misuse doctrine.
To be frank, I think Diebold made a very smart legal move here. Hopefully the EFF will plod on with this one. Usually they do. But don't think for a second that this somehow "blocks" any EFF future action on this case. It sure makes it sound like the EFF would be the bad guy for doing so, but that's just Diebold's (smart) spin.
"piracy" is a loaded term, as 'wrongful' and 'illegal' are built in to its definition. Listening to music without being extorted money is the way I interpret what you call "piracy."
No, it cannot be.
Advertising is per se not interesting. If it were interesting it WOULD be news and thus no advertising would be necessary. The two are mutually exclusive.
Because terrorist organizations such as the Direct Marketing Association give lots of money to lawmakers. Opt-in would destroy them and end advertising terrorism as we know it.
Of course, Opt-in is the proper solution. People who own hungry man-eating lions should be required to keep them fenced in, rather than make everyone else put fences around their property to keep the lions out.
add "sending of unsolicited commercial email" to the already insanely loose definition of "terrorism" in the Patriot Act and let ashcroft lock up all the spammers with no due process.
Futurama was smarter, funnier, and provided lots of could-be "prior art" for future patent lawsuit defenses.
If you think it should be "There are a large amount of precious minerals on the Moon and Mars" instead of the way they wrote it ("There is...") then you are wrong. The word "is" refers to "amount" which is singular, even though textually divided among two different places (the moon and mars).
Yah... shit, you could pawn that phone for fifty bucks. Quick dope money.
Answer: they're all dangerous. It is easily conceived how someone will hurt themselves/get killed with any of these great futuristic technologies. Flying cars? Would you trust the average driver with a flying car? People haven't mastered the left-right blinkers, so you think if you add two more 'up-down' blinkers people will be able to figure that out and use it properly in addition to the blinkers they already can't figure out? Flying hoverboards? Kids would fall off of those even moreso than wheeled skateboards. Supersonic travel? We had the concorde and it crashed and it is no longer in service. Too dangerous. So what do all these technologies have in common? The liability for huge lawsuits is far greater than the social need. Thus, we do not have these technologies, and as long as compensation for wrongful death, pain, and suffering exist, we will never have these technologies. No, i'm not saying we should never have such lawsuits, but as long as we do have them, don't expect flying cars or hoverboards. It's a social tradeoff.
It's so sad we've come to calling an idea "stupid" simply because it is easily conceivable as to how someone could hurt themselves with it. Whatever happened to assumption of risk? Those hoverboards in back to the future 2 (and 3) could really hurt someone if they're not careful, that doesn't mean it is something mankind should never get to voluntarily experience. Products liability is a good thing, but there has to be limitations. Wear a fucking helmet and don't cry when you get hurt. Products liability is holding us back... it's like intellectual property in that respect. It hinders innovation. Will we get sued for infringement? Will we get sued because people will hurt themselves? The bottom line is unavoidably unsafe products are too risky to develop nowadays, and that's a shame because they're quite often the coolest, most innovative, interesting things man ever makes.
Indeed, pausing the movie creates an unauthorized derivative work. You infringe each time you do it. Fair what?
because the negative is often quite interesting ("interesting" is not to be confused with "woulda been great had it happened.")
been at least a decade or so. unless you count the videos shown during beavis and butthead.
the pentagon papers were not copyrighted, as they were gov't documents (which cannot be CR'd). so, it's not similar at all, other than the fact that the public has an interest in the contents of both.
yep, in fact it's actually happened several times before. One time names of undercover agents were revealed. Now we just need to get some improperly redacted FOIA responses about area51, roswell, and all the stuff out there that makes me wear this tinfoil hat all the time.
If you read the article, it's not that clear that the entire thing was Matt Groening making a joke.
Fox News, however, denies reports that they ever threatened to sue. "We were all scratching our heads and thought it was hysterical," [Fox News] spokesman Rob Zimmerman told us yesterday. "It's not the first time we've been spoofed, you know."
Maybe not, but Groening told Gross during the interview that ". . . Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news."
Nonetheless "The Simpsons" (the show, not the characters) issued an apology yesterday: "Matt was being satirical and certainly there was never any issue between the show and Fox News. We regret any confusion."
Matt G. never quite came out and said he made the whole story up. it sounds like fox told him to say there was no issue since they decided not to sue.
Fox: We won't sue, but you gotta come out and say there was never any dispute between us.
MG: Oh, fine, whatever.
So Matt says "I was being satirical." Whatever that means. I don't take it to mean that fox news never got pissed/threatened to sue over that episode of the simpsons.
you're saying nobody would work in a job with some personal responsibility? Well, some people will.