It's always easier to sue where you are than have to send your lawyers to live in a hotel room in a distant state for a month. This is why any business you deal with online has a TOS that includes a choice of law clause that picks the state they're in, which means they get that home state advantage.
Nope, it's had this case been filed in a Federal Court his fat would have bene grim. DMCA is a federal law, it's up to the federal courts to enforce it.
The DVDCCA took a winning case to a wrong court and lost. However, it doesn't prevent them from learning from this mistake and trying again.
It's not that groundbreaking because this is not that new of a concept. State laws cannot control what is posted on the Internet on servers outside of their state, nor can they regulate what comes into the state over the Internet because that would be interstate commerce, which is purely a federal domain.
Porn operators can be reassured that they cannot be dragged into the Bible Belt for things they post from their home state, but I think they already knew that.
In addition, we are not confronted with a situation where the plaintiff has
no other forum to pursue its claims and therefore do not address that situation.
DVD CCA has the ability and resources to pursue Pavlovich in another forum
such as Indiana or Texas. Our decision today does not foreclose it from doing so.
Pavlovich may still face the music--just not in California.
1. Pick the right state
2. ??????
3. Profit!
What ruling did you read? The phrase "rouge software pirates" does not appear anywhere at all inside it. You better watch out, they may sue you for libel for making up that quote.
This case isn't about Open Source at all. All this ruling said is that CA was the wrong state to sue this defendant.
Nope not even that. The DMCA has nothing to do with this at all, it's a federal law and we're talking about a CA state case. The CA Supreme Court simply ruled that California will hold you accountable for posting DeCSS unless you or your server are in their state. It says nothing about the Feds.
Nope, if you actually read the ruling it says that the court refused to allow posting DeCSS from outside of California onto a server outside of California to be actionable in a California court simply because most of the movie industry and the company the oversees CSS is in California. Not that it is legal to do so, just that California state courts are the wrong place you if you aren't from California.
This has nothing to do with the DMCA. That's a federal law, so it doesn't apply here. If you want to chase somebody using the DMCA, you file a case in federal court. California state courts are the wrong jurisdiction altogether.
This is nothing but a lawyer's mistake, not a sign that courts are striking down the DMCA. Don't/. into more than it is.
Yes, the possible war is important. But we can't allow it to blind us.
Congress is going to remain in session no matter what happens, and even the most violent war possible still will not take up all of their time. Which is to say, non-war laws will be passed as well, and those laws will be just as legally valid as any other.
The Content Cartel isn't going to take a break from lobbying Congress during the war, and if we do, then their laws will get passed without resistance. When the war is over, their laws will be hard to get off the books.
It's a majority rules kind of thing... the strongest LO frequency it finds is converted back to the station it corresponds to, and that is what determines which of the four ads show. If there's no way to make any sense of the signals, then the board just remains in place showing whatever ad the last group of cars that it could make sense of indicated.
Actually, if you remember this thread from not too long ago you'll see that you can order digital cable pay per view simply if you rent the digital decoder, you don't need to pay for the "digital basic" channels unless you want them.
So no, you're not paying for the ability to get PPV when you're paying for the other channels.
The RIAA looked around for a role in the new Internet economy, and then realized it didn't have one.
There are now many new ways to distribute music to computers electronically for very little actual cost. Tapes, records, and CDs used to be the most effecient way to deliver music to consumers, but now that is simply not the case anymore. It is much easier and cheaper for the user to download music than to get it in any physical form.
What the RIAA hates to admit it's in the artists' best interest to get their music in front of consumers by any means possible, even if that means not getting paid for their initial recordings. Britney Spears isn't rich because she recorded albums, she's rich because she used the popularity those albums gave her to do large arena concerts, pose for multiple posters, license her name on all sorts of toys aimed at young girls including a form of Barbie doll, and sell tickets to an otherwise poorly-done movie simply because she was in it. She possibly could have more money than she does today if her music was distributed free to listeners, because being more popular leads to more profits in those other businesses!
The music industry is moving to a "widget frosting" model of business. The main item gets given away free, but that main item tempts the consumer into buying accessories which make the whole system profitable.
The reason why the RIAA is running so scared right now is because there is no place for them in the new model. The artists can simply place.mp3 files on their own website and then fill the site with sales pitches for upcoming concerts, posters, T-shirts, etc. without having share the profits from such transactions with any record label. The record labels become needless, and evaporate.
Re:potential solutions to the main problems
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 2
I think what would make this more acceptable is if those who donate get the source code immediately, with a very restictive license that prevents redistribution, until the goal is met, at which that license yields to the GPL.
When a contract contradicts a state law, the state law overrides.
Verizon is desperate to get this state law invalidated, otherwise they can't get people to sign away the privacy rights in question because it would nto be legal to do so.
The problem with that is that anybody can form their own company, and have that company survive their death. They just have to give their relatives the responsibility of retaining the copyright, something they would certainly have an interest in doing if that copyright returned anything more than the filing fee in income.
Because copyright cuts both ways. If The Wizard of Oz movie went public domain, Disney's cable networks would be able to air the movie without fee, rather than the current situation where the movie can now only be found on AOL Time Warner owned networks, namely The WB and TNT.
Shortening copyrights would redistribute the entertainment-money pie in favor of those who are making new content, rather than those who retain the rights to things done years ago.
Unless the message spends its entire life within your state's boundries, state laws about spam are unconsitutional and therefore a waste of time for everybody involved.
If at any point the message touches a server or even a wire outside of the state, it becomes an issue of interstate commerce which can only be regulated by the federal government.
State spam laws are a good way for local legislators to say "We care about Cyberspace!" while having no effect at all on reality.
If you kept doing that, I'd call the police but I'd still need to secure my windows better anyway.
You see, every time you're caught all the police are going to do is give you a fine, maybe a week or two in jail at most, and then let you go. You then would be able to break my windows again.
The police would continue to punish you, but I would have the bills for broken windows mounting up and the police certainly aren't going to give me the money to fix my windows. My insurance company will eventually drop my coverage or raise my rates because my windows appear to be too big a target for rock thowers. My only way to recover the costs of the broken windows is to use you personally, but you'd likely not have the money to make good on the judgement anyway. I'm still out the money.
So, complain to your work's system admin to fix the problem. If you are said admin, get your boss to allocate your time so you can find the approprate solution and install it accross the system.
If this causes your company's IT department to become too busy need more employees than it presently has, that I think is a good thing.
This kind of "stealth spam" he's talking about sounds a lot like the Microsoft Messenger Service spam that we've already seen, and dealt with by closing those ports off to outside traffic.
Think of all the legit system admins who spend hours cleaning out overloaded systems, and programmers who develop anti-spam solutions for both networks and users, and additonal bandwith that needs to be purchased so that legit traffic can move past all the spam.
The fact is, the more spam annoys people, the more they're willing to pay us to make it go away.
The problem is, it's hard to create a 2nd cable system. Especially if what this article says is true, and that the owner of the current system can use the legal system to make life hard on the incoming operator.
Yes, but the FBI should be the network admins of last resort.
Stealling bandwidth should be prevented more by the laws of physics than the laws of the land. The cable company should have a duty to design their network in a way such that the bandwidth cap is enforced by a mechanism outside of the control of the user, not a piece of equipment that the user has in their house.
But, no, it's easier for the company to call in the FBI at taxpayer expense than the hire network admins at that own expense...
Slashdot Mirror
It's always easier to sue where you are than have to send your lawyers to live in a hotel room in a distant state for a month. This is why any business you deal with online has a TOS that includes a choice of law clause that picks the state they're in, which means they get that home state advantage.
Nope, it's had this case been filed in a Federal Court his fat would have bene grim. DMCA is a federal law, it's up to the federal courts to enforce it.
The DVDCCA took a winning case to a wrong court and lost. However, it doesn't prevent them from learning from this mistake and trying again.
It's not that groundbreaking because this is not that new of a concept. State laws cannot control what is posted on the Internet on servers outside of their state, nor can they regulate what comes into the state over the Internet because that would be interstate commerce, which is purely a federal domain. Porn operators can be reassured that they cannot be dragged into the Bible Belt for things they post from their home state, but I think they already knew that.
Nope. It just said creating/distributing such software outside of California doesn't violate Calfifornia law.
DVD CCA stood in the wrong line. They got California, they need to go see Indiana or Texas.
In addition, we are not confronted with a situation where the plaintiff has no other forum to pursue its claims and therefore do not address that situation. DVD CCA has the ability and resources to pursue Pavlovich in another forum such as Indiana or Texas. Our decision today does not foreclose it from doing so. Pavlovich may still face the music--just not in California. 1. Pick the right state 2. ?????? 3. Profit!
What ruling did you read? The phrase "rouge software pirates" does not appear anywhere at all inside it. You better watch out, they may sue you for libel for making up that quote.
This case isn't about Open Source at all. All this ruling said is that CA was the wrong state to sue this defendant.
Nope not even that. The DMCA has nothing to do with this at all, it's a federal law and we're talking about a CA state case. The CA Supreme Court simply ruled that California will hold you accountable for posting DeCSS unless you or your server are in their state. It says nothing about the Feds.
Nope, if you actually read the ruling it says that the court refused to allow posting DeCSS from outside of California onto a server outside of California to be actionable in a California court simply because most of the movie industry and the company the oversees CSS is in California. Not that it is legal to do so, just that California state courts are the wrong place you if you aren't from California.
/. into more than it is.
This has nothing to do with the DMCA. That's a federal law, so it doesn't apply here. If you want to chase somebody using the DMCA, you file a case in federal court. California state courts are the wrong jurisdiction altogether.
This is nothing but a lawyer's mistake, not a sign that courts are striking down the DMCA. Don't
Yes, the possible war is important. But we can't allow it to blind us.
Congress is going to remain in session no matter what happens, and even the most violent war possible still will not take up all of their time. Which is to say, non-war laws will be passed as well, and those laws will be just as legally valid as any other.
The Content Cartel isn't going to take a break from lobbying Congress during the war, and if we do, then their laws will get passed without resistance. When the war is over, their laws will be hard to get off the books.
WARNING: Do not leave Congress unattended.
It's a majority rules kind of thing... the strongest LO frequency it finds is converted back to the station it corresponds to, and that is what determines which of the four ads show. If there's no way to make any sense of the signals, then the board just remains in place showing whatever ad the last group of cars that it could make sense of indicated.
Actually, if you remember this thread from not too long ago you'll see that you can order digital cable pay per view simply if you rent the digital decoder, you don't need to pay for the "digital basic" channels unless you want them.
So no, you're not paying for the ability to get PPV when you're paying for the other channels.
The RIAA looked around for a role in the new Internet economy, and then realized it didn't have one.
.mp3 files on their own website and then fill the site with sales pitches for upcoming concerts, posters, T-shirts, etc. without having share the profits from such transactions with any record label. The record labels become needless, and evaporate.
There are now many new ways to distribute music to computers electronically for very little actual cost. Tapes, records, and CDs used to be the most effecient way to deliver music to consumers, but now that is simply not the case anymore. It is much easier and cheaper for the user to download music than to get it in any physical form.
What the RIAA hates to admit it's in the artists' best interest to get their music in front of consumers by any means possible, even if that means not getting paid for their initial recordings. Britney Spears isn't rich because she recorded albums, she's rich because she used the popularity those albums gave her to do large arena concerts, pose for multiple posters, license her name on all sorts of toys aimed at young girls including a form of Barbie doll, and sell tickets to an otherwise poorly-done movie simply because she was in it. She possibly could have more money than she does today if her music was distributed free to listeners, because being more popular leads to more profits in those other businesses!
The music industry is moving to a "widget frosting" model of business. The main item gets given away free, but that main item tempts the consumer into buying accessories which make the whole system profitable.
The reason why the RIAA is running so scared right now is because there is no place for them in the new model. The artists can simply place
I think what would make this more acceptable is if those who donate get the source code immediately, with a very restictive license that prevents redistribution, until the goal is met, at which that license yields to the GPL.
When a contract contradicts a state law, the state law overrides.
Verizon is desperate to get this state law invalidated, otherwise they can't get people to sign away the privacy rights in question because it would nto be legal to do so.
The problem with that is that anybody can form their own company, and have that company survive their death. They just have to give their relatives the responsibility of retaining the copyright, something they would certainly have an interest in doing if that copyright returned anything more than the filing fee in income.
Because copyright cuts both ways. If The Wizard of Oz movie went public domain, Disney's cable networks would be able to air the movie without fee, rather than the current situation where the movie can now only be found on AOL Time Warner owned networks, namely The WB and TNT.
Shortening copyrights would redistribute the entertainment-money pie in favor of those who are making new content, rather than those who retain the rights to things done years ago.
All I have to say is: Go Eldred, beat Ashcroft...
Unless the message spends its entire life within your state's boundries, state laws about spam are unconsitutional and therefore a waste of time for everybody involved. If at any point the message touches a server or even a wire outside of the state, it becomes an issue of interstate commerce which can only be regulated by the federal government. State spam laws are a good way for local legislators to say "We care about Cyberspace!" while having no effect at all on reality.
If you kept doing that, I'd call the police but I'd still need to secure my windows better anyway. You see, every time you're caught all the police are going to do is give you a fine, maybe a week or two in jail at most, and then let you go. You then would be able to break my windows again. The police would continue to punish you, but I would have the bills for broken windows mounting up and the police certainly aren't going to give me the money to fix my windows. My insurance company will eventually drop my coverage or raise my rates because my windows appear to be too big a target for rock thowers. My only way to recover the costs of the broken windows is to use you personally, but you'd likely not have the money to make good on the judgement anyway. I'm still out the money.
So, complain to your work's system admin to fix the problem. If you are said admin, get your boss to allocate your time so you can find the approprate solution and install it accross the system.
If this causes your company's IT department to become too busy need more employees than it presently has, that I think is a good thing.
This kind of "stealth spam" he's talking about sounds a lot like the Microsoft Messenger Service spam that we've already seen, and dealt with by closing those ports off to outside traffic.
Nah, spammers actually spur Internet growth.
Think of all the legit system admins who spend hours cleaning out overloaded systems, and programmers who develop anti-spam solutions for both networks and users, and additonal bandwith that needs to be purchased so that legit traffic can move past all the spam.
The fact is, the more spam annoys people, the more they're willing to pay us to make it go away.
The problem is, it's hard to create a 2nd cable system. Especially if what this article says is true, and that the owner of the current system can use the legal system to make life hard on the incoming operator.
if they were estimated to have stolen $11k each I think that they should have gotten what they did.
I estimate your post just cased $250,000 in emotional distress to the people you're talking about. What? Estimates can be wrong?
Yes, but the FBI should be the network admins of last resort.
Stealling bandwidth should be prevented more by the laws of physics than the laws of the land. The cable company should have a duty to design their network in a way such that the bandwidth cap is enforced by a mechanism outside of the control of the user, not a piece of equipment that the user has in their house.
But, no, it's easier for the company to call in the FBI at taxpayer expense than the hire network admins at that own expense...