it means shit beacuse they do buisness in america, are incorperated in america, and that means they must play by american rules. sorry you lose, take you US bashing elsewhere, the jurisdiction is about as black and white as it will ever get.
actually i wouldn't worry about being a hundred yards from your bow. your bow has about an effective range of 30-40 yards only on a large (and more importantly, moving) target. and yes i do know you can shoot 100 yards with a bow (i am a target archer myself and we shoot 90 meters outdoors)but even top archers with arrows and bows designed for the job have a tough time hiting a heart and lung sized target that far away (call it the 10 and 9 rings on the FITA targets), let alone the thought of having to do it with a broadhead tip instead of a feild tip. just fyi.
beacuse logic and fact checking aren't very big round here. of ocurse they are sueing uploaders beacuse they can't use the simple and very effective defense of "i didn't know that file contained copywrite meterial. i would never have downloaded it if it had and only use kazaa for good faith downloads of meterial in the public domain." it is very hard to argue with that, no matter how rediculous. now if you are sharing copywriten meterial then the shoe is on the other foot. no longer is the claim of ignorance enough, and hence the best defense no longer applies. and no you can't say that you didn't know it was illigal, the law doesn't care on that one. anyways it makes sense for the RIAA, go after only cases that are clearly open and shut, taking any possibilty of losing away.
first off, no i haven't read the thing yet, just felt the need to say something on the whole privacy on the net thing. There will always be a balance between safety and freedom. in this case that freedom being our privacy. with absolute privacy any number of bad things can arise that we didn't intend. for example truly anonymous file servers could distribute kiddy porn or credit card and social security numbers at will, after all with perfect privacy there would be no way to trace them. and also having no privacy is also a very bad idea for reasons to obvious to state. so the balance is somewhere in the middle and, as i understand it from the article summary, it is simplu shifting in the direction of less privacy. what we really have to ask is if we want this greater safty at the cost of some of our privacy? which is most definately not a cut and dry problem in and of itself. so sorry about not having a factoid about some part of the article but i just wanted a balanced counterpoint to the inevitable bashing of the loss of privacy on the net.
sure that's the way to fight them. first spend all your money and credit rating on a long drawn out fight for which you cannot garentee the results you stated (a judge probably won't stand for alot in a open and shut case like copywrite infringment) since what they are doing is clearly illigal. note this does not mean wrong or evil or unjust or whatever it justmeans they broke a law and the evidence is clear. also declaring bankruptcy is not a simple as you say, first they would liquify all your assets to pay for the settlement awarded to the RIAA. good bye car house all meterial goods etc. all with the vague promiss of money in the future. you relise you just advised people to risk there entire lives on a case where they CAN'T win? are you sure this is really all that smart?
Yeah, if intel's new chip is a hit then the company will profit more. In other news if intell gains market shares then AMD will not have those same market shares.....i should be an econmic analyist.
it would seem that good old land lines with fiber optics and such would be an easier solution then satilites, but maybe in austraila it's not so easy to lay connected cable around for some reason? anyone care to enlighten me?
Harvard business school recently stated that marketing causes people to buy things! This startling discovery is said to revolutionize the way people do business. "no more hiding my merchandise for me!" said one excited store-owner.
Copyright laws will always be messy if only beacuse there is no cut and dry options. A law that says all works are free to anyone undermines the purpose of creating those works (open source software being somewhat of a exception to this) and one that never releases information into the public domain is also a less then perfect solution. and while this is a gross simplification it's applicable to almost every aspect of copyright laws (fair use and the like). for all the ranting about these laws on slashdot very rarely do i see a realistic purposed solution to the problem, which suggests that it probably won't be solved in the near future, or maybe ever.
Apple finds a company riping off it's name. The offending company changes it's name. this happens all the time in the buisness world, just look at all the name changes power companies with Edison in their name make to avoid copying someone elses name.
how soon do you think the Big Five would halt shipments of CDs?
that would be incredibly stupid of the record companies as well as incredibly illigal. You can't refuse to sell to someone who is willing to pay you. you have to refuse service for a reason, and selling an alternate product is not an acceptable one. the FTC would be all over this if they even thought about doing that. they may be able to bully individuals around but when you mess with other corperations, especially dening competition in such an open and obvious way would draw them into a potentialy fatal tangle with the goverment, a risk they wouldn't be willing to take to stop local bands being sold for cheap in Borders
Slashdot Mirror
i know they don't have one beacuse i looked it up. and as he was being hired by the parent company, it is entirely a USA matter. sorry you still lose.
list of google subsidiaries: http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.127t8.p.htm
it means shit beacuse they do buisness in america, are incorperated in america, and that means they must play by american rules. sorry you lose, take you US bashing elsewhere, the jurisdiction is about as black and white as it will ever get.
actually i wouldn't worry about being a hundred yards from your bow. your bow has about an effective range of 30-40 yards only on a large (and more importantly, moving) target. and yes i do know you can shoot 100 yards with a bow (i am a target archer myself and we shoot 90 meters outdoors)but even top archers with arrows and bows designed for the job have a tough time hiting a heart and lung sized target that far away (call it the 10 and 9 rings on the FITA targets), let alone the thought of having to do it with a broadhead tip instead of a feild tip. just fyi.
beacuse logic and fact checking aren't very big round here. of ocurse they are sueing uploaders beacuse they can't use the simple and very effective defense of "i didn't know that file contained copywrite meterial. i would never have downloaded it if it had and only use kazaa for good faith downloads of meterial in the public domain." it is very hard to argue with that, no matter how rediculous. now if you are sharing copywriten meterial then the shoe is on the other foot. no longer is the claim of ignorance enough, and hence the best defense no longer applies. and no you can't say that you didn't know it was illigal, the law doesn't care on that one. anyways it makes sense for the RIAA, go after only cases that are clearly open and shut, taking any possibilty of losing away.
since it's a disk we can get a full two dimensions from that messure. still a 2d storage device would be something to see...
first off, no i haven't read the thing yet, just felt the need to say something on the whole privacy on the net thing. There will always be a balance between safety and freedom. in this case that freedom being our privacy. with absolute privacy any number of bad things can arise that we didn't intend. for example truly anonymous file servers could distribute kiddy porn or credit card and social security numbers at will, after all with perfect privacy there would be no way to trace them. and also having no privacy is also a very bad idea for reasons to obvious to state. so the balance is somewhere in the middle and, as i understand it from the article summary, it is simplu shifting in the direction of less privacy. what we really have to ask is if we want this greater safty at the cost of some of our privacy? which is most definately not a cut and dry problem in and of itself. so sorry about not having a factoid about some part of the article but i just wanted a balanced counterpoint to the inevitable bashing of the loss of privacy on the net.
sure that's the way to fight them. first spend all your money and credit rating on a long drawn out fight for which you cannot garentee the results you stated (a judge probably won't stand for alot in a open and shut case like copywrite infringment) since what they are doing is clearly illigal. note this does not mean wrong or evil or unjust or whatever it justmeans they broke a law and the evidence is clear. also declaring bankruptcy is not a simple as you say, first they would liquify all your assets to pay for the settlement awarded to the RIAA. good bye car house all meterial goods etc. all with the vague promiss of money in the future. you relise you just advised people to risk there entire lives on a case where they CAN'T win? are you sure this is really all that smart?
if your in a contry where file sharing is legal, then they CAN'T sue them.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07 -22
you'll be glad to know i only teach in public schools thus limiting the damage. i mean, how much more can i possibly do to those kids?
Yeah, if intel's new chip is a hit then the company will profit more. In other news if intell gains market shares then AMD will not have those same market shares.....i should be an econmic analyist.
" Lisa in this house we obey the law of thermodynamics!"
yeah that would do it i guess.
it would seem that good old land lines with fiber optics and such would be an easier solution then satilites, but maybe in austraila it's not so easy to lay connected cable around for some reason? anyone care to enlighten me?
Bah, so many spelling errors and so little time. :p
how can a free news source indirectly end up taking all my free cash?
now if they did a vocaliztion of the slashdot crowd....
err wait...i don't know how many times i can hear "M$ sucks" over and over without cracking.
"using a cell phone is no excu....did you say Pac Man? sweet!..."
China makes a sub-par chip and this is big news? now the shredder moding that was actually usefull!
Harvard business school recently stated that marketing causes people to buy things! This startling discovery is said to revolutionize the way people do business. "no more hiding my merchandise for me!" said one excited store-owner.
maybe if they confuse people enough they'll think they are guilty of something....even if they don't exactly know what
Copyright laws will always be messy if only beacuse there is no cut and dry options. A law that says all works are free to anyone undermines the purpose of creating those works (open source software being somewhat of a exception to this) and one that never releases information into the public domain is also a less then perfect solution. and while this is a gross simplification it's applicable to almost every aspect of copyright laws (fair use and the like). for all the ranting about these laws on slashdot very rarely do i see a realistic purposed solution to the problem, which suggests that it probably won't be solved in the near future, or maybe ever.
Apple finds a company riping off it's name. The offending company changes it's name. this happens all the time in the buisness world, just look at all the name changes power companies with Edison in their name make to avoid copying someone elses name.
Maybe we'll get some of the more creative spamers to run a "best of spam" series. coming to a mailbox near you this holiday season.