DivX was a risky scheme, no sane person would buy such a product. All their customers were apparently lunatics.
They failed in the market. I guess the lunatic market just isn't that strong.
Since they want to maintain control they ought not sell them anyway.
Maybe they are going to give away the PS3s! Ya think that's their plan?
Nah. I doubt it.
That article finally shut my wife up! She: "You drink way too much coffee".
Me: "Yes, dear"
I figured it was likely the only thing that was keeping me alive. Now there's evidence.
Yeah, I agree. Filters are a big part of the problem. Here's why:
Used to be a spammer could send out 50,000 messages and get three orders of penis enlargment pills.
Then we all started filtering, and the spam wasn't getting through.
To compensate the spammer has to send out 10,000,000 messages to get the same three orders of penis enlargement pills.
Unfortunately they have been able to do it.
For those that are interested here is the reference: 200 Known Spam Operations responsible for 80% of your spam. 80% of spam received by Internet users in North America and Europe can be traced via aliases and addresses, redirects, hosting locations of sites and domains, to a hard-core group of around 200 known spam operations ("spam gangs"), almost all of whom are listed in the ROKSO database. These spam operations consist of an estimated 500-600 professional spammers with ever-changing aliases and domains.http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso
"One spammer down, several million to go?"
According to spamhaus only about 200 individuals are responsible for nearly all the spam in the world. I know that seems incredible but they are in a position to know.
On the flip side, red-light cameras themselves are controversial simply because people don't like them. Here in san diego there was a huge row over them because some of the fines gathered went to Lockheed Martin (camera maker).
They were not only the maker but they operated the system and got paid commission based on the fines that were levied. Conflict of interest.
I think they got caught lowering the yellow light time below the amount required by state law in order to make more money. LOTS of those tickets were dismissed. Refunds given. It was just ILLEGAL
It came out in the case of a redlight camera system in Beverly Hills that the system would only photograph you if you were going a certain speed, as well as having driven throught he light while it was red. So it was alleged to thus be a speedtrap as well as a red light camera, and that was illegal.
FWIW, I have been to city hall and checked out the whole deal with the redlight camera vendors and the government. I determined that of the $328 fine the city got about $35. The court kept about $160. The vendor kept the rest. I can't see what possible justification there could be to giving a private company access to the government legal system and have the city get what amounts to a pittance in the guise of "safety". The city also had to pay a minimum amount to the vendor for the system even if there were no violations at all, or even no traffic. The financial arrangements seemed bizarre.
That sounds like a loophole. However I am not in favor of automated law enforcement, I like to face my accuser.
Many of those red light tickets were dismissed in the US for various reasons, some technical, some through loopholes, and some through plain old dishonesty in the ticket system operator. They had lowered the yellow light timing below legal standards to make more money. Outrageous if you ask me.
Law enforcement is supposed to be run by government employees, who have no axe to grind and nothing to gain by dishonesty. I like it like that.
Yeah, forced to lay down fiber. Your company has the right of way, you are the only one who *can* put in that fiber. You got utility easements from us *free*.
I hope you put in lots of fiber and provide great service, in that case you might survive. ILECs have screwed us around for years.
First there was ISDN which we would have all subscribed to except for that the telcos insisted on metering it. We didn't want any metered data, so is there much ISDN now? Nope.
Then DSL and they dragged their feet getting it installed for *years* so they wouldn't interfere with their lucrative ISDN and T1 service.
Now, all that is over and the ILECs are full speed ahead installing DSL, and lobbying the FCC to get rid of their pesky competitors, the ones who wanted to rent their copper plant at inflated prices to provide DSL service we actually wanted, in competition to the crappy DSL service the telcos wanted to sell us. The one with a stinking PPPOE dialer to connect to an always on connection. Ridiculous.
BTW, that copper plant? WE (ratepayers) PAID THEM TO INSTALL and MAINTAIN it. It should be *OURS*. They were regulated public utilities and they got paid handsomely for all that, and we had no alternative.
Now they can see the handwriting on the wall. We are all avoiding any long distance on the landline phone, since who wants to pay for that? So they make no money on LD. We have VOIP, cellphones, satellite TV.
The ILECs should be nice to us. We just don't need them anymore.
I understand that current science cannot get the H2 separated efficiently from the O. Hopefully that will not always be the case, and there will be a breakthrough, a new technology like an RO type membrane that will result in efficient hydrogen separation from water. It would be a beautiful day. one can hope!.
Wasn't there a/. post in the last week about something like that, a non-electrolysis method of separating water?
(that first comment was supposed to be semi humorous)
You apparently don't understand the underlying purpose of patents. They are not there to protect your invention. Not at all.
The whole purpose of patents is to encourage the discosure of new art. Without patents people would have to keep their discoveries secret, like in trade secrets.
Since new disoveries kept secret is not in the best interest of the country patents are issued to inventors. In order to obtain a patent the inventor has to disclose their discovery in their patent application, the disclosure is supposed to be comprehensive enough to allow someone who is an expert in the field to duplicate it.
Patent applications are confidential until granted, which is why there can be no community review of patent applications. Once granted the discovery is public knowledge.
Thus the patent. It protects the inventor from competition by those that would steal his new invention for 17 years (or less). This is in exchange for his disclosure of his invention in his patent application.
So the purpose of patents are not to protect the inventor, they are to protect society by forcing the new discoveries to be disclosed, so when they expire everyone can use them. They become public domain.
It would be better in many ways for new technology to be public knowledge, but no one is going to spend money and time developing a new invention only to have it stolen by competitors immediately. There would be no investment in new innovations.
Most of this patent theory obviously doesn't apply to the goofy software patents the USPTO has been issuing. Most of that stuff is just ridiculous.
I was going to impliment zero click ordering, but Dogbert invented it first! "Better click something or I will have to ship you some books" Heh.
"It was determined that, during the ascent, the foam separation from the external tank was carried by the aerodynamic flow and pelted the nose of the orbiter and cascaded aft from that point," Katnik wrote. "Once again, this foam was carried in a relative airstream between Mach 2 and Mach 4!"
Katnik speculated that the problem with the foam was caused by a new formula, which eliminated Freon from the mix in an effort to be "environmentally friendly." He said an earlier 1997 shuttle flight -- the first to use the new-formula foam -- had experienced similar, though less-dramatic problems.
So there you go. The foam without the Freon just doesn't work as well. Why do you think the chemical engineers who made that foam put the Freon in there? They must have thought they needed it. Then they were told Freon was too much of an environmental problem. Not as much a problem as burning up spaceships, I think.
There were always foam pieces that fell off, sure. But not like THIS.
The better question is this: The space shuttle fleet has been flying for 25 years, and nothing like this happened until about 2-3 years ago.
What has changed? The foam never fell off and damaged the orbiter until the last few years!
Here's what changed, and they are not talking about this: Obviously what happened is they changed the formula of the foam insulation.
Now why would they do that? It worked OK before, right?
The foam must have contained something that was *harmful* to the environment. It contained solvents, VOCs, some sort of toxic adhesive, something like that. They must have switched to new "environmentally friendly" foam. And it just doesn't stick like the old stuff did.
Now with 3 or 4 space shuttles in the whole world how much environmental harm could all that foam cause? None.
Internet Archive's Web Page Snapshots Held Admissible as Evidence
The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit effort to preserve Internet sites and other digital media and make them available online.
IA's spiders regularly crawl the World Wide Web, making copies of web pages and storing them permanently in an enormous digital archive. Using the "Wayback Machine", one of the Archive's popular services, users can input the address of a web page and call up a series of dated copies, allowing them to see what the page contained at the times it was accessed by the IA spider.
Polska is the American provider of TV Polonia, a Polish-language television channel. According to its pleadings in the case, it had reached a deal with EchoStar, which operates the Dish Network satellite TV service, to provide TV Polonia to Dish Network. The contract included marketing rights, giving EchoStar the right to use Polska's trademarks to sell subscriptions to its television service. The deal was scheduled to expire in stages: absent a renewal, EchoStar's marketing rights would expire in April of 2001, and programming would stop a year afterwards. The deal was not renewed, and Polska alleges that EchoStar continued to use the "TV Polonia" name to market its satellite service after its rights to exploit that trademark had expired. EchoStar pointed out that Polska seemed to have no problem with advertisements stating that TV Polonia could be found on the Dish Network, since Polska had one on its own website after the expiration of marketing rights. EchoStar offered IA snapshots dated to various times in 2001 as proof of the past content of Polska's website. As part of a series of motions in limine, Polska attempted to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source.
Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Polska's assertion of hearsay, holding that the archived copies were not themselves statements susceptible to hearsay exclusion, since they merely showed what Polska had previously posted on its site. He also noted that, since Polska was seeking to suppress evidence of its own previous statements, the snapshots would not be barred even if they were hearsay. Over Polska's objection, Judge Keys accepted an affidavit from an Internet Archive employee as sufficient to authenticate the snapshots for admissibility.
The bluefrog "service" tries to unsubscribe you. If the spam doesn't stop they send a message through the web form on the spammed site asking that they stop spamming you.
The guy is giving the spammer fair warning.
All the spammer has to do to avoid problems is READ HIS EMAIL and STOP SPAMMING THOSE THAT REQUEST IT.
Face it: Spamming is a high speed automated process.
It's not going to be stopped (or even slowed) by lamenting that "this might qualify as a DDOS".
It's gonna take at LEAST another high speed automated process.
Some people need such a warning, like when I larted a Paypal phishing site hosted on Comcast.net's servers and they Left the site up for 17 days, regardless of my emailing their abuse address (and receiving an auto ack) and their whois and admin addresses. They are just not reading their mail.
If I had the ability and time to bitchlist Comcast.net in a loud manner that they could not ignore I would have. That would be completely reasonable.
Or when I bought something online from a large multistore retailer, and they thought that meant they should spam me every couple days, and the unsubscribe links in their emails didn't work. I couldn't get them to stop! I emailed their whois address and their RFC-required abuse address. Nothing. Finally I found the president of the company's email. I finally got action. But that should not have been necessary.
"Excuse me, Mr. Spammer? Are you listening? STOP SPAMMING ME. Louder and louder until they notice you. Read your email and you won't have any problems.
Heh.
Forget the "copy of the webpage" issue. That is a bogus argument. The litigant wants to take back what their webpage said.
The wayback machine is telling us all what the webpage said on that date. As long as it is true, too bad!
If you don't want something documented, don't publish it.
I have printed a copy of webpages many times. In case things should change, well, "this is what is said on this date". And I have the proof.
Napster is a distributed collection of music that is not owned by the people who posted them, in most cases. Music isn't necessarily facts, but that they were posted to Napster and who posted them IS a fact. This is like someone arguing that the record of who posted a particular file to Napster should be kept secret since it is not public. But people have logs. There are archives. If you don't want someone to know something don't do it.
If you were to sing a song yourself and someone were to document that you sang it that day, you would have a hard time denying it.
That's what the lawsuit is about. The company doesn't want anyone to know what they actually said on their old website. But they DID say it and that is not in dispute. They can't take it back.
It just does to show you: Anything you don't want anyone to know you said or did, don't post it to/. under your name, don't post it on a website, don't post it to usenet. Just keep it to yourself.
No, because short stories are not public and viewable. Now if you wrote a story yourself and posted it on the internet, or on a billboard, or on a wall by the freeway and someone were to see it and document that it was actually there that day, I can't see why you would have the right to complain.
The internet archive documents what existed at that time. Facts. They don't allege they are anyone's issue except their owners.
Anyway, the plaintiff who is complaining about their old website being seen and used against them has another problem: The doctrine of "unclean hands". They don't want their own writings to be used against them in court. But they are truly their own writings. I just don't see where they have to go. Truth is a powerful tool.
That's a ridiculous distinction.
Those pages were accessable on the internet when the archive crawler archived them. They existed at that time for anyone to view. You can't take it back.
From the nytimes article: Mr. Patry also noted that despite Healthcare Advocates' desire to prevent people from seeing its old pages now, the archived pages were once posted openly by the company. He asserted that gathering them as part of fending off a lawsuit fell well within the bounds of fair use.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit against the other company with the similar name and against the internet archive wants to keep secret the appearance and content of their purportedly infringing website in history.
They can't do that. The truth is a powerful tool. They will lose.
If the billboard were installed and viewable by the public, on a city street for example, and you take a picture of it to document that it is actually there and viewable, you should not be able to be successfully sued.
Your picture documents a fact accessable to anyone with nothing more than their eyes.
If you published it in a textbook as an example of a billboard that was in existence that should be protected speech.
If you don't want someone to be able to read something don't make it accessable, either in public like your billboard example or on the web. Just keep it private. Don't whine if someone documents something you put out there.
Seriously, we have this discussion every time Google or the Wayback Machine or whatever comes up. Putting material on the Internet does not give up your copyright on it, place it in the public domain, grant others the right to reproduce it any way they see fit, or otherwise work differently to copyright laws as they apply to all other media. There are necessarily certain implied rights, but arguing that actually ripping someone else's material and then making it publicly available after they've withdrawn it from their own site is a pretty big stretch to anyone without a vested interest.
Actually there is a simple principle here.
The supreme court has ruled that directories cannot be copyrighted if the information they contain is purely factual in FEIST v. RURAL TELEPHONE, 1991
An example is the telephone book, those are all facts and that was what the case was about.
The wayback machine could be called a directory of old web pages, cached as they existed at the time. Facts. Thus protected from copyright claims.
Well, there's their defense. It would be kind of fun to argue!
In any case it looks like the wayback machine needs a couple hundred mirrors. Heh.
You have a choice when you install a wireless access point.
You can leave it open and accessable by all. You can turn on the encryption and leave it mostly closed to casual passersby. Bringing it home, plugging it in and not configuring it-leaving it insecure, and then crying out when you find out it is insecure? That is NOT a reasonable choice.
Take responsibility.
I just don't see the problem with that.
Slashdot Mirror
DivX was a risky scheme, no sane person would buy such a product. All their customers were apparently lunatics.
They failed in the market. I guess the lunatic market just isn't that strong.
Since they want to maintain control they ought not sell them anyway.
Maybe they are going to give away the PS3s! Ya think that's their plan?
Nah. I doubt it.
That article finally shut my wife up!
She: "You drink way too much coffee".
Me: "Yes, dear"
I figured it was likely the only thing that was keeping me alive. Now there's evidence.
Yeah, I agree. Filters are a big part of the problem.
Here's why:
Used to be a spammer could send out 50,000 messages and get three orders of penis enlargment pills.
Then we all started filtering, and the spam wasn't getting through.
To compensate the spammer has to send out 10,000,000 messages to get the same three orders of penis enlargement pills.
Unfortunately they have been able to do it.
For those that are interested here is the reference:
200 Known Spam Operations responsible for 80% of your spam.
80% of spam received by Internet users in North America and Europe can be traced via aliases and addresses, redirects, hosting locations of sites and domains, to a hard-core group of around 200 known spam operations ("spam gangs"), almost all of whom are listed in the ROKSO database. These spam operations consist of an estimated 500-600 professional spammers with ever-changing aliases and domains. http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso
"One spammer down, several million to go?"
According to spamhaus only about 200 individuals are responsible for nearly all the spam in the world. I know that seems incredible but they are in a position to know.
On the flip side, red-light cameras themselves are controversial simply because people don't like them. Here in san diego there was a huge row over them because some of the fines gathered went to Lockheed Martin (camera maker).
They were not only the maker but they operated the system and got paid commission based on the fines that were levied. Conflict of interest.
I think they got caught lowering the yellow light time below the amount required by state law in order to make more money. LOTS of those tickets were dismissed. Refunds given. It was just ILLEGAL
It came out in the case of a redlight camera system in Beverly Hills that the system would only photograph you if you were going a certain speed, as well as having driven throught he light while it was red. So it was alleged to thus be a speedtrap as well as a red light camera, and that was illegal.
FWIW, I have been to city hall and checked out the whole deal with the redlight camera vendors and the government.
I determined that of the $328 fine the city got about $35. The court kept about $160. The vendor kept the rest.
I can't see what possible justification there could be to giving a private company access to the government legal system and have the city get what amounts to a pittance in the guise of "safety".
The city also had to pay a minimum amount to the vendor for the system even if there were no violations at all, or even no traffic. The financial arrangements seemed bizarre.
That sounds like a loophole. However I am not in favor of automated law enforcement, I like to face my accuser.
Many of those red light tickets were dismissed in the US for various reasons, some technical, some through loopholes, and some through plain old dishonesty in the ticket system operator. They had lowered the yellow light timing below legal standards to make more money. Outrageous if you ask me.
Law enforcement is supposed to be run by government employees, who have no axe to grind and nothing to gain by dishonesty. I like it like that.
Yeah, forced to lay down fiber. Your company has the right of way, you are the only one who *can* put in that fiber. You got utility easements from us *free*.
I hope you put in lots of fiber and provide great service, in that case you might survive. ILECs have screwed us around for years.
First there was ISDN which we would have all subscribed to except for that the telcos insisted on metering it. We didn't want any metered data, so is there much ISDN now? Nope.
Then DSL and they dragged their feet getting it installed for *years* so they wouldn't interfere with their lucrative ISDN and T1 service.
Now, all that is over and the ILECs are full speed ahead installing DSL, and lobbying the FCC to get rid of their pesky competitors, the ones who wanted to rent their copper plant at inflated prices to provide DSL service we actually wanted, in competition to the crappy DSL service the telcos wanted to sell us. The one with a stinking PPPOE dialer to connect to an always on connection. Ridiculous.
BTW, that copper plant? WE (ratepayers) PAID THEM TO INSTALL and MAINTAIN it. It should be *OURS*. They were regulated public utilities and they got paid handsomely for all that, and we had no alternative.
Now they can see the handwriting on the wall. We are all avoiding any long distance on the landline phone, since who wants to pay for that? So they make no money on LD. We have VOIP, cellphones, satellite TV.
The ILECs should be nice to us. We just don't need them anymore.
I understand that current science cannot get the H2 separated efficiently from the O.
/. post in the last week about something like that, a non-electrolysis method of separating water?
Hopefully that will not always be the case, and there will be a breakthrough, a new technology like an RO type membrane that will result in efficient hydrogen separation from water. It would be a beautiful day.
one can hope!.
Wasn't there a
(that first comment was supposed to be semi humorous)
I wanna run my car on that!
You apparently don't understand the underlying purpose of patents. They are not there to protect your invention. Not at all.
The whole purpose of patents is to encourage the discosure of new art. Without patents people would have to keep their discoveries secret, like in trade secrets.
Since new disoveries kept secret is not in the best interest of the country patents are issued to inventors. In order to obtain a patent the inventor has to disclose their discovery in their patent application, the disclosure is supposed to be comprehensive enough to allow someone who is an expert in the field to duplicate it.
Patent applications are confidential until granted, which is why there can be no community review of patent applications. Once granted the discovery is public knowledge.
Thus the patent. It protects the inventor from competition by those that would steal his new invention for 17 years (or less). This is in exchange for his disclosure of his invention in his patent application.
So the purpose of patents are not to protect the inventor, they are to protect society by forcing the new discoveries to be disclosed, so when they expire everyone can use them. They become public domain.
It would be better in many ways for new technology to be public knowledge, but no one is going to spend money and time developing a new invention only to have it stolen by competitors immediately. There would be no investment in new innovations.
Most of this patent theory obviously doesn't apply to the goofy software patents the USPTO has been issuing. Most of that stuff is just ridiculous.
I was going to impliment zero click ordering, but Dogbert invented it first! "Better click something or I will have to ship you some books" Heh.
Compared to the pollution caused by crashing space shuttles it's nothing. Not to mention the dead astronauts.
Well, here's the reference. They took the FREON out of the formula.
o rl-asecssfoam03020303feb03,0,3465452.story
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/
According to Katnik, Columbia's onboard cameras "revealed massive material loss" on the side of the tank that is attached to the orbiter. Once in space, the tank falls away from the orbiter and burns up on re-entry.
"It was determined that, during the ascent, the foam separation from the external tank was carried by the aerodynamic flow and pelted the nose of the orbiter and cascaded aft from that point," Katnik wrote. "Once again, this foam was carried in a relative airstream between Mach 2 and Mach 4!"
Katnik speculated that the problem with the foam was caused by a new formula, which eliminated Freon from the mix in an effort to be "environmentally friendly." He said an earlier 1997 shuttle flight -- the first to use the new-formula foam -- had experienced similar, though less-dramatic problems.
So there you go. The foam without the Freon just doesn't work as well. Why do you think the chemical engineers who made that foam put the Freon in there? They must have thought they needed it. Then they were told Freon was too much of an environmental problem. Not as much a problem as burning up spaceships, I think.
There were always foam pieces that fell off, sure. But not like THIS.
Ok, a better question....WHY IS IT MADE OF FOAM?
The better question is this: The space shuttle fleet has been flying for 25 years, and nothing like this happened until about 2-3 years ago.
What has changed? The foam never fell off and damaged the orbiter until the last few years!
Here's what changed, and they are not talking about this:
Obviously what happened is they changed the formula of the foam insulation.
Now why would they do that? It worked OK before, right?
The foam must have contained something that was *harmful* to the environment. It contained solvents, VOCs, some sort of toxic adhesive, something like that. They must have switched to new "environmentally friendly" foam. And it just doesn't stick like the old stuff did.
Now with 3 or 4 space shuttles in the whole world how much environmental harm could all that foam cause? None.
Ridiculous.
Yeah, they use that fake freon.
If I'm gonna die from ozone depletion I want to at least be cool while I'm doing it.
Give me freon or give me death!
Admittedly this is a little late, but I just came across caselaw that exactly on point.
0 2728.shtml
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/vol_2_no_3/0
Internet Archive's Web Page Snapshots Held Admissible as Evidence The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit effort to preserve Internet sites and other digital media and make them available online.
IA's spiders regularly crawl the World Wide Web, making copies of web pages and storing them permanently in an enormous digital archive. Using the "Wayback Machine", one of the Archive's popular services, users can input the address of a web page and call up a series of dated copies, allowing them to see what the page contained at the times it was accessed by the IA spider.
Polska is the American provider of TV Polonia, a Polish-language television channel. According to its pleadings in the case, it had reached a deal with EchoStar, which operates the Dish Network satellite TV service, to provide TV Polonia to Dish Network. The contract included marketing rights, giving EchoStar the right to use Polska's trademarks to sell subscriptions to its television service. The deal was scheduled to expire in stages: absent a renewal, EchoStar's marketing rights would expire in April of 2001, and programming would stop a year afterwards. The deal was not renewed, and Polska alleges that EchoStar continued to use the "TV Polonia" name to market its satellite service after its rights to exploit that trademark had expired. EchoStar pointed out that Polska seemed to have no problem with advertisements stating that TV Polonia could be found on the Dish Network, since Polska had one on its own website after the expiration of marketing rights. EchoStar offered IA snapshots dated to various times in 2001 as proof of the past content of Polska's website. As part of a series of motions in limine, Polska attempted to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source.
Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Polska's assertion of hearsay, holding that the archived copies were not themselves statements susceptible to hearsay exclusion, since they merely showed what Polska had previously posted on its site. He also noted that, since Polska was seeking to suppress evidence of its own previous statements, the snapshots would not be barred even if they were hearsay. Over Polska's objection, Judge Keys accepted an affidavit from an Internet Archive employee as sufficient to authenticate the snapshots for admissibility.
It's hardly a DDOS.
The bluefrog "service" tries to unsubscribe you. If the spam doesn't stop they send a message through the web form on the spammed site asking that they stop spamming you.
The guy is giving the spammer fair warning. All the spammer has to do to avoid problems is READ HIS EMAIL and STOP SPAMMING THOSE THAT REQUEST IT. Face it: Spamming is a high speed automated process.
It's not going to be stopped (or even slowed) by lamenting that "this might qualify as a DDOS".
It's gonna take at LEAST another high speed automated process.
Some people need such a warning, like when I larted a Paypal phishing site hosted on Comcast.net's servers and they Left the site up for 17 days, regardless of my emailing their abuse address (and receiving an auto ack) and their whois and admin addresses. They are just not reading their mail. If I had the ability and time to bitchlist Comcast.net in a loud manner that they could not ignore I would have. That would be completely reasonable.
Or when I bought something online from a large multistore retailer, and they thought that meant they should spam me every couple days, and the unsubscribe links in their emails didn't work. I couldn't get them to stop! I emailed their whois address and their RFC-required abuse address. Nothing. Finally I found the president of the company's email. I finally got action. But that should not have been necessary.
"Excuse me, Mr. Spammer? Are you listening? STOP SPAMMING ME.
Louder and louder until they notice you.
Read your email and you won't have any problems.
Heh.
Forget the "copy of the webpage" issue. That is a bogus argument.
The litigant wants to take back what their webpage said.
The wayback machine is telling us all what the webpage said on that date. As long as it is true, too bad!
If you don't want something documented, don't publish it.
I have printed a copy of webpages many times. In case things should change, well, "this is what is said on this date".
And I have the proof.
No argument about that, but if you had heard him give that speech in person you would be able to say so. That is what the lawsuit is about.
Napster is a distributed collection of music that is not owned by the people who posted them, in most cases. Music isn't necessarily facts, but that they were posted to Napster and who posted them IS a fact. This is like someone arguing that the record of who posted a particular file to Napster should be kept secret since it is not public. But people have logs. There are archives. If you don't want someone to know something don't do it.
/. under your name, don't post it on a website, don't post it to usenet. Just keep it to yourself.
If you were to sing a song yourself and someone were to document that you sang it that day, you would have a hard time denying it.
That's what the lawsuit is about. The company doesn't want anyone to know what they actually said on their old website. But they DID say it and that is not in dispute. They can't take it back.
It just does to show you: Anything you don't want anyone to know you said or did, don't post it to
No, because short stories are not public and viewable.
Now if you wrote a story yourself and posted it on the internet, or on a billboard, or on a wall by the freeway and someone were to see it and document that it was actually there that day, I can't see why you would have the right to complain.
The internet archive documents what existed at that time. Facts. They don't allege they are anyone's issue except their owners.
Anyway, the plaintiff who is complaining about their old website being seen and used against them has another problem: The doctrine of "unclean hands". They don't want their own writings to be used against them in court. But they are truly their own writings. I just don't see where they have to go. Truth is a powerful tool.
That's a ridiculous distinction. Those pages were accessable on the internet when the archive crawler archived them. They existed at that time for anyone to view. You can't take it back.
From the nytimes article:
Mr. Patry also noted that despite Healthcare Advocates' desire to prevent people from seeing its old pages now, the archived pages were once posted openly by the company. He asserted that gathering them as part of fending off a lawsuit fell well within the bounds of fair use.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit against the other company with the similar name and against the internet archive wants to keep secret the appearance and content of their purportedly infringing website in history.
They can't do that. The truth is a powerful tool. They will lose.
No, that's not the same.
If the billboard were installed and viewable by the public, on a city street for example, and you take a picture of it to document that it is actually there and viewable, you should not be able to be successfully sued.
Your picture documents a fact accessable to anyone with nothing more than their eyes.
If you published it in a textbook as an example of a billboard that was in existence that should be protected speech.
If you don't want someone to be able to read something don't make it accessable, either in public like your billboard example or on the web. Just keep it private. Don't whine if someone documents something you put out there.
Seriously, we have this discussion every time Google or the Wayback Machine or whatever comes up. Putting material on the Internet does not give up your copyright on it, place it in the public domain, grant others the right to reproduce it any way they see fit, or otherwise work differently to copyright laws as they apply to all other media. There are necessarily certain implied rights, but arguing that actually ripping someone else's material and then making it publicly available after they've withdrawn it from their own site is a pretty big stretch to anyone without a vested interest.
Actually there is a simple principle here.
The supreme court has ruled that directories cannot be copyrighted if the information they contain is purely factual in FEIST v. RURAL TELEPHONE, 1991
An example is the telephone book, those are all facts and that was what the case was about.
The wayback machine could be called a directory of old web pages, cached as they existed at the time. Facts.
Thus protected from copyright claims.
Well, there's their defense. It would be kind of fun to argue!
In any case it looks like the wayback machine needs a couple hundred mirrors. Heh.
My opinion too.
You have a choice when you install a wireless access point.
You can leave it open and accessable by all. You can turn on the encryption and leave it mostly closed to casual passersby.
Bringing it home, plugging it in and not configuring it-leaving it insecure, and then crying out when you find out it is insecure?
That is NOT a reasonable choice.
Take responsibility.
I just don't see the problem with that.