State law regulates the minimum odds of winning at a slot machine, which means there's a cap for the "tightest" PRNG chip they can use. They likely do keep some record of the transactions for accounting purposes, but that'll have no effect on the PRNG's decisions.
Yep--Google's complying with the law, and giving the "rights" holder the finger by providing a copy of the C&D letter that contains more than enough information to find the "content" on a P2P network.
I wonder if the rights holder can copyright their C&D letter...
The primary effect the DMCA has on Search Engines and other Internet sites that allow user posting is that it forces the site operator to make a decision for themselves over whether a work is infringing before the court case... and then puts its thumb on the scale. If they refuse to comply with a proper takedown notice they'll be liable to the copyright holder, while if the needlessly take take down the piece they will lose nothing or very little unless they're a major paying customer.
No wonder most companies, when confronted with a DMCA Takedown letter choose the path of least resistance.
It's an interesting workaround that Google has worked out. They comply with the DMCA Takedown request to not show the URLs that were requested, but they'll gladly instead link to Chilling Effects who publishes the entire notice Google got, including the URLs in that context.
If you really want the infringing content, you can get to it, but you at least have to scroll through the claim tha tit's infringing and move the URL to the address bar yourself rather than using a hyperlink. Seems like a fair enough deal to me....
The DMCA Takedown process is really just a way to scare users into backing down. Those familiar with the law would know that users can send a counter-notification swearing that they're not really infringing, and then the provider has to reinstate the work but still gets to enjoy the liability shield of having complied with the DMCA Takedown rules... and then the copyright holder has no choice but to go after the user directly if they want to keep going.
Of course, in a majority of the times, the copyright holder is correct and this actually prevents a needless cause from going into the overworked court systems. The makers of Kazaa Lite could send Google a counter-notification to get back into the system, and then Shawman Networks would be in the uncomfortable situation of having to file a US-based lawsuit, despite trying to otherwise stay out of US jurisdiction.
There isn't exactly a "law" that requires equal access to schools, but the FSF and CC could create a similar presentation of their views of copyright, and then complain to the media if schools aren't willing to give them equal time in front of the kids.
That was the main thing that kept this kind of group out of my high school, the fact that somebody would complain in front of the local school comittee at an otherwise quiet meeting, and therefore get a make-the-school-look-bad story in the local newspaper.
College campuses are the biggest hotbeds for illegal file sharing because students are presented with wide-open mega-fast Internet connection, and no parents hovering over their every move with it...
Actually, in Vegas, slot machines that look identical don't have to be. The key is in the PRNG (psuedo random number generator) chip installed in each. They don't have a "memory" of what they did last, but there are some PRNGs that are "looser" and "tigher" over time. Players can't exactly figure out where the looser machines are, however, because it'd take a large number of plays to notice a difference.
I'd also like to see what would happen if one night the computer room was rearraged quietly. Would people go looking for their "favorite" machine, or just use the one that had inherited the favorite's location?
Just be careful... I've seen some Macintoshes go into a state of suicidial depression. First they start being sad all of the time, and when they're sad they're demanding attention before they'll work again. Then they start pulling bombs out of nowhere...
In most college classrooms, professors don't particularly care to assign seats to anybody, yet students for the most part tend to seat themselves in more-or-less the same positions anyway. I wonder if this is related to want to have a favorite seat in the computer room.
In a college computer lab, all of the terminals in a group are supposed to be identical and interchangable. However, it seems like users are building up a trust relationship with the computer they've used sucessfully before rather than wanting to take the chance with a computer they haven't met yet. It's almost as if users are presuming that most unfamiliar computers will fail on them...
Of course, Linux has been able to do voice chat and video chat for a long time. I mean, there's speakfreely, rat, GnomeMeeting, ophone, etc, and you can serve streaming MPEGs or such, which is what I used to do.
Yes. However there's competiting formats for realtime video chat right now... and the so called "open standards" seem to be ignored. GAIM's point is to emulate the proprietary formats that haven't been released for Linux yet.
Gaim'UI sucks big time : it has tons of windows opening for no reason, taking the focus (and the keyboard input) from what you were previously doing. Way too much intrusive if you ask me.
They're just trying to emulate AIM... That description makes it sound like they're getting that part right.
The reason why they turn to the left in NASCAR is because that turn creates a downward force on the car. A right turn at such a high speed create an upward force, and could risk the cars loosing grip with the pavement which would send a car straight toward the wall at the curve.
That's true, but for most business transactions, like a loan or credit card agreement, they have to have a summary section that explains the key terms like the interest rate in a nice bold standardized way. I think having such standards for disclosing how an internet application wants to connect to the internet would be nice...
Having a "labeling requirement" like the way that "Nutritional Facts" have to be presented on food items would be a step in the right direction for software products that wish to phone home would help a lot.
The problem is that these spyware applications aren't delivered through exploits that the user is unaware that are running, they're installed by hitching a ride along with a program they want to install, or by a webpage that they did request ASKING FOR PERMISSION to run an ActiveX object.
The problem is that users are signaling that they are making agreements without realizing just what they've gotten into. In order to properly cut these kinds of programs off, we need a higher standard for clickwrap agreements so that users have to at least read them before they can agree to them.
No, but it certainly sent the Spammers underground and out of the USA... while there are several US-based for-profit companies still pumping out spyware.
Sure, it won't elimiate them, but it'll put them in the proper class of scum.
It's the definition of "explicit approval" that needs to be worked on...
Gator's lastest tactic is to display a hyperlink in the ActiveX install box that the user has to click on in order to see the terms of service. If the user just clicks "Yes" without visiting that link, they've agreed to a long document worth of terms without having them transmitted.
That shouldn't be possible. That shouldn't be considered an acceptance of the license.
I think the biggest problem with EULA's is that they can be agreed to without being fully displayed to or read by the end user.
I think that it'd be useful for there to be a legal standard for how a EULA must be presented to a user to be binding. I don't think it should be possible for a user to be legally bound to an agreement that they might have missed by too quickly clicking a "Yes" button.
Data is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. If people don't want to pay, it's worthless.
People never want to pay for anything. People are willing to pay when they have no other choice and it's worth it to them to part with the money and have the data. The true value of something requires both a buyer and seller to exist at that price. When there's a gap between buyer and seller, then the transaction doesn't happen until either the seller lowers their price or the buyer raises theirs.
In order for anything to be worth something, there has to be the absense of that thing if it's not paid for. If all software could be had for free, then no software would be worth anything.
And in the article it says someone was arrested for BUYING software from Fairlight... Since when is buying pirated software an arrestable offence?
When you know for sure that's what you're doing. Most consumers on a New York City street corner have a "plausible deniablity" where they can claim that it might have looked a little funny, but how could be sure that it was really a pirate DVD until they took it home? However, when you know you're funding a pirate... then you're part of the operation by supplying the money.
They likely took cash from those who wanted to buy their way into the club.
By keeping the backbone network where the compromised versions were first being released closed to the public, and only letting a trusted few have access to it, it makes it harder for the law to figure out what is going on. When the cracks eventually get released to the public, they might be able to trace it back to the person who posted the first published copy, who would only be able to lead back to a "friend-of-a-friend" chain that's hard for the cops to figure out.
One program cracked cases often head over to the cold case bin, while the people who are cracking programs for a living are insulated several layers away from the investigation. For once the cops finally got close enough to find the hub it seems, but they likely were getting away with it for a pretty long time before being found.
This group was part of the commerical piracy market if the alligations are correct. They were reportedly charging for access to their compromised servers for leeching users.
Slashdot Mirror
State law regulates the minimum odds of winning at a slot machine, which means there's a cap for the "tightest" PRNG chip they can use. They likely do keep some record of the transactions for accounting purposes, but that'll have no effect on the PRNG's decisions.
Yep--Google's complying with the law, and giving the "rights" holder the finger by providing a copy of the C&D letter that contains more than enough information to find the "content" on a P2P network.
I wonder if the rights holder can copyright their C&D letter...
The primary effect the DMCA has on Search Engines and other Internet sites that allow user posting is that it forces the site operator to make a decision for themselves over whether a work is infringing before the court case... and then puts its thumb on the scale. If they refuse to comply with a proper takedown notice they'll be liable to the copyright holder, while if the needlessly take take down the piece they will lose nothing or very little unless they're a major paying customer.
No wonder most companies, when confronted with a DMCA Takedown letter choose the path of least resistance.
It's an interesting workaround that Google has worked out. They comply with the DMCA Takedown request to not show the URLs that were requested, but they'll gladly instead link to Chilling Effects who publishes the entire notice Google got, including the URLs in that context.
If you really want the infringing content, you can get to it, but you at least have to scroll through the claim tha tit's infringing and move the URL to the address bar yourself rather than using a hyperlink. Seems like a fair enough deal to me....
The DMCA Takedown process is really just a way to scare users into backing down. Those familiar with the law would know that users can send a counter-notification swearing that they're not really infringing, and then the provider has to reinstate the work but still gets to enjoy the liability shield of having complied with the DMCA Takedown rules... and then the copyright holder has no choice but to go after the user directly if they want to keep going.
Of course, in a majority of the times, the copyright holder is correct and this actually prevents a needless cause from going into the overworked court systems. The makers of Kazaa Lite could send Google a counter-notification to get back into the system, and then Shawman Networks would be in the uncomfortable situation of having to file a US-based lawsuit, despite trying to otherwise stay out of US jurisdiction.
There isn't exactly a "law" that requires equal access to schools, but the FSF and CC could create a similar presentation of their views of copyright, and then complain to the media if schools aren't willing to give them equal time in front of the kids.
That was the main thing that kept this kind of group out of my high school, the fact that somebody would complain in front of the local school comittee at an otherwise quiet meeting, and therefore get a make-the-school-look-bad story in the local newspaper.
College campuses are the biggest hotbeds for illegal file sharing because students are presented with wide-open mega-fast Internet connection, and no parents hovering over their every move with it...
Actually, in Vegas, slot machines that look identical don't have to be. The key is in the PRNG (psuedo random number generator) chip installed in each. They don't have a "memory" of what they did last, but there are some PRNGs that are "looser" and "tigher" over time. Players can't exactly figure out where the looser machines are, however, because it'd take a large number of plays to notice a difference.
I'd also like to see what would happen if one night the computer room was rearraged quietly. Would people go looking for their "favorite" machine, or just use the one that had inherited the favorite's location?
Just be careful... I've seen some Macintoshes go into a state of suicidial depression. First they start being sad all of the time, and when they're sad they're demanding attention before they'll work again. Then they start pulling bombs out of nowhere...
In most college classrooms, professors don't particularly care to assign seats to anybody, yet students for the most part tend to seat themselves in more-or-less the same positions anyway. I wonder if this is related to want to have a favorite seat in the computer room.
In a college computer lab, all of the terminals in a group are supposed to be identical and interchangable. However, it seems like users are building up a trust relationship with the computer they've used sucessfully before rather than wanting to take the chance with a computer they haven't met yet. It's almost as if users are presuming that most unfamiliar computers will fail on them...
Of course, Linux has been able to do voice chat and video chat for a long time. I mean, there's speakfreely, rat, GnomeMeeting, ophone, etc, and you can serve streaming MPEGs or such, which is what I used to do.
Yes. However there's competiting formats for realtime video chat right now... and the so called "open standards" seem to be ignored. GAIM's point is to emulate the proprietary formats that haven't been released for Linux yet.
Gaim'UI sucks big time : it has tons of windows opening for no reason, taking the focus (and the keyboard input) from what you were previously doing. Way too much intrusive if you ask me.
They're just trying to emulate AIM... That description makes it sound like they're getting that part right.
The reason why they turn to the left in NASCAR is because that turn creates a downward force on the car. A right turn at such a high speed create an upward force, and could risk the cars loosing grip with the pavement which would send a car straight toward the wall at the curve.
That's true, but for most business transactions, like a loan or credit card agreement, they have to have a summary section that explains the key terms like the interest rate in a nice bold standardized way. I think having such standards for disclosing how an internet application wants to connect to the internet would be nice...
Having a "labeling requirement" like the way that "Nutritional Facts" have to be presented on food items would be a step in the right direction for software products that wish to phone home would help a lot.
The problem is that these spyware applications aren't delivered through exploits that the user is unaware that are running, they're installed by hitching a ride along with a program they want to install, or by a webpage that they did request ASKING FOR PERMISSION to run an ActiveX object.
The problem is that users are signaling that they are making agreements without realizing just what they've gotten into. In order to properly cut these kinds of programs off, we need a higher standard for clickwrap agreements so that users have to at least read them before they can agree to them.
No, but it certainly sent the Spammers underground and out of the USA... while there are several US-based for-profit companies still pumping out spyware.
Sure, it won't elimiate them, but it'll put them in the proper class of scum.
It's the definition of "explicit approval" that needs to be worked on...
Gator's lastest tactic is to display a hyperlink in the ActiveX install box that the user has to click on in order to see the terms of service. If the user just clicks "Yes" without visiting that link, they've agreed to a long document worth of terms without having them transmitted.
That shouldn't be possible. That shouldn't be considered an acceptance of the license.
I think the biggest problem with EULA's is that they can be agreed to without being fully displayed to or read by the end user.
I think that it'd be useful for there to be a legal standard for how a EULA must be presented to a user to be binding. I don't think it should be possible for a user to be legally bound to an agreement that they might have missed by too quickly clicking a "Yes" button.
Data is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. If people don't want to pay, it's worthless.
People never want to pay for anything. People are willing to pay when they have no other choice and it's worth it to them to part with the money and have the data. The true value of something requires both a buyer and seller to exist at that price. When there's a gap between buyer and seller, then the transaction doesn't happen until either the seller lowers their price or the buyer raises theirs.
In order for anything to be worth something, there has to be the absense of that thing if it's not paid for. If all software could be had for free, then no software would be worth anything.
And in the article it says someone was arrested for BUYING software from Fairlight... Since when is buying pirated software an arrestable offence?
When you know for sure that's what you're doing. Most consumers on a New York City street corner have a "plausible deniablity" where they can claim that it might have looked a little funny, but how could be sure that it was really a pirate DVD until they took it home? However, when you know you're funding a pirate... then you're part of the operation by supplying the money.
They likely took cash from those who wanted to buy their way into the club.
By keeping the backbone network where the compromised versions were first being released closed to the public, and only letting a trusted few have access to it, it makes it harder for the law to figure out what is going on. When the cracks eventually get released to the public, they might be able to trace it back to the person who posted the first published copy, who would only be able to lead back to a "friend-of-a-friend" chain that's hard for the cops to figure out.
One program cracked cases often head over to the cold case bin, while the people who are cracking programs for a living are insulated several layers away from the investigation. For once the cops finally got close enough to find the hub it seems, but they likely were getting away with it for a pretty long time before being found.
This group was part of the commerical piracy market if the alligations are correct. They were reportedly charging for access to their compromised servers for leeching users.