They're waiting for slashdot readers to enumerate the last two. They'll read all the "They forgot xxx virus" comments and by tomorrow, they'll wrap up #2 and #1.
Actually, in the preeminint case on the subject, the expert witness reported that 2.3% of the time, breathalyzers report blood alcohol levels higher than actual blood alcohol levels. Unfortunately, for the defendant, the expert witness had a problem with his math - higher than actual results according to his research happen 23% of the time.
97.7% is a far cry from 99%. 77% is a travesty. That's nearly 1 in 4 people failing breath tests that should pass them.
I'm not advocating drunk driving, but I firmly believe that breath tests are inaccurate to the point that you can't logically consider them when determining somebody's guilt.
A recent cigarette or mouthwash will cause a failure on many breath tests. That's just wrong.
I've done that myself - with several unusable downloads of DVD's (maybe it was my burner, who knows), then switching over to CDs.
Add on a few canned VMs, Solaris, and some big software downloads from technet and that's my first weekend of playing with VMWare server.
I don't do it all the time. But I have done it. Heck, this week I downloaded Adobe's Design Premium Suite at about 4GB and it took 3 or 4 tries to get it.
I have VOIP, but I don't talk on it much. I stream video occasionally - usually network TV as I don't use BT very often. We do typically upload 12GB or more a month in photos as well.
I pay for the high end service, but so did this guy. I don't see my usage as out of line. It's extreme at times, but so is most everybody's who is willing to pay to get the best service.
To support its proportionality argument, FSF contends that Plaintiffsâ(TM) lost profits in the case should be based on a per/download loss of âoeapproximately 35 cents.â Apart from the fact that the argument relies on âoefactsâ not in the record in this case, the contention ignores the nature of Defendantâ(TM)s infringement.
And then in the very next sentence:
Defendant has not only infringed Plaintiffsâ(TM) works through downloading, he has also distributed Plaintiffsâ(TM) works for years to potentially millions of other file sharers.
I mean... unless something has changed in their pattern, they only have documentation of one legal download and that being from an investigation team that may or may not be licensed.
Why has no attorney ever taken a look at the finances and circumstances associated with one particular song - how much revenue did this earn in the year prior, the year during, and the year after the alleged infringement. Most of the songs that I've noted have been out for at least a decade if not two, with little or no marketing, and zero spins on any of the radio stations I listen to.
Another argument I never see in any of these is the challenge the RIAAs ownership of the material. A 20 year old song may or may not have a clear ownership record, and with the history of the industry, you really should establish that the recording artists, the producers, and the songwriters all have given the RIAA authority willingly and contractually prior to the filing of any individual lawsuit.
$250,000 and 20-some years to rebuild the tape drives to get the images back with twice the dynamic range and none of the grain of the 35mm snaps that were taken of these images originally and what do we get?
a 35K jpeg.
hopefully NASA intends to release something a little more high-res.
"Except as specifically provided in these rules or by order of the court, no person shall take any photograph, make any recording, or make any broadcast..."
It looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless it's specifically mentioned in the rules (voice recordings by court reporters, etc.), you need a court order to record and broadcast a court proceeding.
In this case, the court heard arguments, provided a court order for the broadcast. These guys are arguing that the court had no right to make the order - and that right is given in the first sentence of the first subsection in rule 83.3 regarding Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting.
It's a waste of the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and the client's money - both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Think about it... the judge got paid, the court reporter got paid, the bailiffs got paid to be in the room. A transcript was made, people were tasked with scheduling this thing, putting the paperwork surrounding this hearing online, and so on and so forth. All for what amounts to a first year law student project to come up with an argument to push a court into restricting it's own power.
The RIAA attorneys should be fined for bringing this action.
I know several pros who shoot jpeg exclusively. They are pretty good at getting the picture right in the camera and do minimal if any post. They get images to clients faster and don't stay up all night worrying about post.
I shoot raw when I shoot digital, and I understand the advantages, but its not for everyone. Frankly, I was a much better photographer before I started clouding my mind with all the technical details.
Regardless, a 1950's era Leica and a good scanner will turn out better pictures, be more reliable, and will be more portable than the best of the best.
There's something to be said for the convenience of digital, but chasing the top end camera at $8K with another $10K in lenses and other equipment to get a picture that would easily be turned out by an investment in film and an old body is a decision that should be made consciously. If you really want high quality images, go large format film.
Agreed. You can't make cultural preception exceptions with a large audience.
My wife runs a mothering website. A few months back, someone posted a facebook "flair" with a nipple on it - this particular person is very pro-breastfeeding.
I personally didn't like it. I didn't like it because if the site were to eventually take off, we'd be forced into a position of either making breasts acceptable at all times, individually reviewing each posted picture, or changing our policy to prohibit such pictures as soon as we started getting the inevitable complaints from the larger audience.
As it turns out, within two days, we started receiving complaints from the 60-70 regulars already visiting the site. Not everybody, but enough that we had to make a decision about what to do.
I made a public statement asking that those kinds of pictures not be posted on the site, and explained why.
There was an uproar. We had to deal with it. But in the end, the community as a whole understood the position we were in and the decision we had to make.
Boobs aren't OK in the U.S. Forcing facebook or any webmaster to change their policy isn't going to make them OK. I don't know who I'd recommend going after, but it certainly wouldn't be webmasters. Make it OK on TV. Make it OK at church. Make it OK in a restaurant where everyone else is eating. Then maybe you can talk to the webmasters. For now, our hands are tied by the people we serve, and the potential audience we'd like to serve. If you really want to put pictures of your boobies up on the web, there are plenty of places that allow that kind of a thing already.
1) The end user had to accept EULA every time the software was run. 2) The EULA contained no terms that would be considered unconsionable. 3) The court noted that the ability to return the software can be important according to the underlying law that they relied upon.
It's certainly very arguable in this case. Better for the industry as a whole if this one doesn't reach a courtroom.
I caught that too. Since that was in the commentary and not part of the actual ruling, I don't think that's binding at all for the next trial. It certainly isn't binding on any other case.
Several other courts have addressed the issue and IIRC the vast majority ruled that Media Sentry downloads don't count since they were authorized by the copyright holder.
As far as the next trial goes, I imagine this will get settled. The jury members' post-trial comments were very much in favor of the RIAA, and Jammie's Lawyer wasn't very effective as a trial attorney from what I read in the coverage.
A new trial would mean that she has to pay her attorney for more work, and she had to cancel her expert witness because of financial difficulty the last go round.
For the RIAA, they have the statement in favor of using MediaSentry downloads as evidence. They have a big jury verdict in their favor in the minds of most (assuming this doesn't get the same kind of media coverage as the big award). They aren't going to get much money out of Jammie (blood from a turnip). It seems like it's in their interests to settle this one as well. The potential for losing the next trial should be enough to scare them into being reasonable.
I bet this turns into a settlement, and that Jammie has a non-disclosure clause for the amount. I'm kind of surprised that didn't happen before this ruling anyhow.
The Court hereby VACATES the verdict rendered in this case by the jury and grants Defendant a new trial to commence on a date to be set by the Court after consultation with the parties. 2. The Judgment entered on October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 106] is VACATED.
It'll be interesting to see if the verdict reversal gets the same amount of mainstream media coverage. It's one thing to see this in the tech media. It's another thing when it's in Time, Newsweek, and all the major newspapers.
Rather than a class action, isn't there an existing law in place regarding abandon-ware?
Maybe it has to be abandoned for quite some time, but the gist of it (from what I remember) is that it's perfectly legal to circumvent security measures if the company no longer supports the software.
Now that I think about it... isn't that in the DMCA?
Slashdot Mirror
They're waiting for slashdot readers to enumerate the last two. They'll read all the "They forgot xxx virus" comments and by tomorrow, they'll wrap up #2 and #1.
Actually, in the preeminint case on the subject, the expert witness reported that 2.3% of the time, breathalyzers report blood alcohol levels higher than actual blood alcohol levels. Unfortunately, for the defendant, the expert witness had a problem with his math - higher than actual results according to his research happen 23% of the time.
97.7% is a far cry from 99%. 77% is a travesty. That's nearly 1 in 4 people failing breath tests that should pass them.
I'm not advocating drunk driving, but I firmly believe that breath tests are inaccurate to the point that you can't logically consider them when determining somebody's guilt.
A recent cigarette or mouthwash will cause a failure on many breath tests. That's just wrong.
I've done that myself - with several unusable downloads of DVD's (maybe it was my burner, who knows), then switching over to CDs.
Add on a few canned VMs, Solaris, and some big software downloads from technet and that's my first weekend of playing with VMWare server.
I don't do it all the time. But I have done it. Heck, this week I downloaded Adobe's Design Premium Suite at about 4GB and it took 3 or 4 tries to get it.
I have VOIP, but I don't talk on it much. I stream video occasionally - usually network TV as I don't use BT very often. We do typically upload 12GB or more a month in photos as well.
I pay for the high end service, but so did this guy. I don't see my usage as out of line. It's extreme at times, but so is most everybody's who is willing to pay to get the best service.
And then in the very next sentence:
I mean... unless something has changed in their pattern, they only have documentation of one legal download and that being from an investigation team that may or may not be licensed.
Why has no attorney ever taken a look at the finances and circumstances associated with one particular song - how much revenue did this earn in the year prior, the year during, and the year after the alleged infringement. Most of the songs that I've noted have been out for at least a decade if not two, with little or no marketing, and zero spins on any of the radio stations I listen to.
Another argument I never see in any of these is the challenge the RIAAs ownership of the material. A 20 year old song may or may not have a clear ownership record, and with the history of the industry, you really should establish that the recording artists, the producers, and the songwriters all have given the RIAA authority willingly and contractually prior to the filing of any individual lawsuit.
$250,000 and 20-some years to rebuild the tape drives to get the images back with twice the dynamic range and none of the grain of the 35mm snaps that were taken of these images originally and what do we get?
a 35K jpeg.
hopefully NASA intends to release something a little more high-res.
It looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless it's specifically mentioned in the rules (voice recordings by court reporters, etc.), you need a court order to record and broadcast a court proceeding.
In this case, the court heard arguments, provided a court order for the broadcast. These guys are arguing that the court had no right to make the order - and that right is given in the first sentence of the first subsection in rule 83.3 regarding Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting.
It's a waste of the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and the client's money - both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Think about it... the judge got paid, the court reporter got paid, the bailiffs got paid to be in the room. A transcript was made, people were tasked with scheduling this thing, putting the paperwork surrounding this hearing online, and so on and so forth. All for what amounts to a first year law student project to come up with an argument to push a court into restricting it's own power.
The RIAA attorneys should be fined for bringing this action.
I know several pros who shoot jpeg exclusively. They are pretty good at getting the picture right in the camera and do minimal if any post. They get images to clients faster and don't stay up all night worrying about post.
I shoot raw when I shoot digital, and I understand the advantages, but its not for everyone. Frankly, I was a much better photographer before I started clouding my mind with all the technical details.
Don't forget Nikon's D3x at 24.5 Megapixels.
Regardless, a 1950's era Leica and a good scanner will turn out better pictures, be more reliable, and will be more portable than the best of the best.
There's something to be said for the convenience of digital, but chasing the top end camera at $8K with another $10K in lenses and other equipment to get a picture that would easily be turned out by an investment in film and an old body is a decision that should be made consciously. If you really want high quality images, go large format film.
If selling is legal, and fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?
Where are you getting your books printed? A ~$400 run sounds like a pretty decent price to me.
Getting around that security problem is easy. Just don't show your driver's license to people with eyeballs.
Agreed. There's always at least one article in 2600 that makes me happy I picked it up.
PC Magazine turned into a big ad years ago. At least Computer Shopper is straight forward about it.
The Ghandi quote is perfect.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
It takes a strong belief in yourself and your own idea - followed by a lot of hard work - to turn it into something that would be stolen.
Woohoo! I can start writing in LOGO again!!!
Green/Amber Turtle rules!
Agreed. You can't make cultural preception exceptions with a large audience.
My wife runs a mothering website. A few months back, someone posted a facebook "flair" with a nipple on it - this particular person is very pro-breastfeeding.
I personally didn't like it. I didn't like it because if the site were to eventually take off, we'd be forced into a position of either making breasts acceptable at all times, individually reviewing each posted picture, or changing our policy to prohibit such pictures as soon as we started getting the inevitable complaints from the larger audience.
As it turns out, within two days, we started receiving complaints from the 60-70 regulars already visiting the site. Not everybody, but enough that we had to make a decision about what to do.
I made a public statement asking that those kinds of pictures not be posted on the site, and explained why.
There was an uproar. We had to deal with it. But in the end, the community as a whole understood the position we were in and the decision we had to make.
Boobs aren't OK in the U.S. Forcing facebook or any webmaster to change their policy isn't going to make them OK. I don't know who I'd recommend going after, but it certainly wouldn't be webmasters. Make it OK on TV. Make it OK at church. Make it OK in a restaurant where everyone else is eating. Then maybe you can talk to the webmasters. For now, our hands are tied by the people we serve, and the potential audience we'd like to serve. If you really want to put pictures of your boobies up on the web, there are plenty of places that allow that kind of a thing already.
You can't measure anything larger than 467 with this thing.
That case and precedent is very restrictive.
1) The end user had to accept EULA every time the software was run.
2) The EULA contained no terms that would be considered unconsionable.
3) The court noted that the ability to return the software can be important according to the underlying law that they relied upon.
It's certainly very arguable in this case. Better for the industry as a whole if this one doesn't reach a courtroom.
I caught that too. Since that was in the commentary and not part of the actual ruling, I don't think that's binding at all for the next trial. It certainly isn't binding on any other case.
Several other courts have addressed the issue and IIRC the vast majority ruled that Media Sentry downloads don't count since they were authorized by the copyright holder.
As far as the next trial goes, I imagine this will get settled. The jury members' post-trial comments were very much in favor of the RIAA, and Jammie's Lawyer wasn't very effective as a trial attorney from what I read in the coverage.
A new trial would mean that she has to pay her attorney for more work, and she had to cancel her expert witness because of financial difficulty the last go round.
For the RIAA, they have the statement in favor of using MediaSentry downloads as evidence. They have a big jury verdict in their favor in the minds of most (assuming this doesn't get the same kind of media coverage as the big award). They aren't going to get much money out of Jammie (blood from a turnip). It seems like it's in their interests to settle this one as well. The potential for losing the next trial should be enough to scare them into being reasonable.
I bet this turns into a settlement, and that Jammie has a non-disclosure clause for the amount. I'm kind of surprised that didn't happen before this ruling anyhow.
A whole new trial is what I get from RTFA.
From the judgement:
It'll be interesting to see if the verdict reversal gets the same amount of mainstream media coverage. It's one thing to see this in the tech media. It's another thing when it's in Time, Newsweek, and all the major newspapers.
Were there other judgements? I thought this was the first.
Is anybody still out there? Or is it just me now?
130 US is only worth 78 EU.
LOL. The bar is higher than that, buddy!
Rather than a class action, isn't there an existing law in place regarding abandon-ware?
Maybe it has to be abandoned for quite some time, but the gist of it (from what I remember) is that it's perfectly legal to circumvent security measures if the company no longer supports the software.
Now that I think about it... isn't that in the DMCA?