The Old Burke wrote: (quote edited for accuracy but not spelling) > Several analysts have ponted out that this coud > mean milions of lost jobs in an... industry.
Good. I have no sympathy for those people who will be put out of work by the DNC list. They should have paid attention in high school so they could have gone on the college and obtained worthwhile jobs. I have no obligation to support the mentally weak and lazy.
I realise that in a civil case you don't have to prove "guilt" beyond a reasonable doubt. But it seems to me that the only evidence that RIAA can hold up in court is a piece of paper with your Kazaa nickname, your IP address and a list of files that you supposedly made available.
How admissible is this kind of evidence? Could you successfully argue that while you acknowledge that the nick and IP belong to you, you've never seen that list of files before? It would be different if they had your hard drive. Any legal types care to comment?
I subscribe to my phone company's anti-telemarketer plan (yes, I know they are the ones that sold the bastards my number in the first place). The plan works by intercepting calls with an unknown caller-id. If the new regulations force telemarketers to provide a valid caller id, how do we block them? I don't have much faith in the national "do not call list". There seem to be too many loop holes. If they made all telemarketer id's begin with a set prefix, say "TM" or "Rude Bastard" then it would easy to set up a filter to block them.
Slashdot Mirror
That was cruel.
The Old Burke wrote: ... industry.
(quote edited for accuracy but not spelling)
> Several analysts have ponted out that this coud
> mean milions of lost jobs in an
Good. I have no sympathy for those people who will be put out of work by the DNC list. They should have paid attention in high school so they could have gone on the college and obtained worthwhile jobs. I have no obligation to support the mentally weak and lazy.
Spigi
I realise that in a civil case you don't have to prove "guilt" beyond a reasonable doubt. But it seems to me that the only evidence that RIAA can hold up in court is a piece of paper with your Kazaa nickname, your IP address and a list of files that you supposedly made available.
How admissible is this kind of evidence? Could you successfully argue that while you acknowledge that the nick and IP belong to you, you've never seen that list of files before? It would be different if they had your hard drive. Any legal types care to comment?
I subscribe to my phone company's anti-telemarketer plan (yes, I know they are the ones that sold the bastards my number in the first place). The plan works by intercepting calls with an unknown caller-id. If the new regulations force telemarketers to provide a valid caller id, how do we block them? I don't have much faith in the national "do not call list". There seem to be too many loop holes. If they made all telemarketer id's begin with a set prefix, say "TM" or "Rude Bastard" then it would easy to set up a filter to block them.