Though I can see why a jury would be led to think that they should probably do what the judge says.
She did it. She was culpable. The fine is excessive but that's how copyright infringement goes. Expect it to go down on appeal.
Speaking of the appeal, unlike most appeals the defense does have a valid point - the jury was instructed told they didn't need to consider that there was no evidence that people had actually downloaded the files from her. That may be true to the letter of the law, but those instructions may have been inappropriate to give. We'll see.
The most obvious of which being that it's often impossible to prove you wrote/produced something before someone else did unless you've publicly performed said art. There's a reason any reputable firm in America would bother registering their copyrights.
An unrelated question: Is there anything analogous to the prior art caveat in copyrights? If it's a standard cease and desist, is that even something you can copyright?
If not, can you copyright business correspondence? I'm doubtful because it would make it unlawful then to profit from the correspondence if it came from another entity, no? That seems a bit off.
After being a regular commenter for four or five months, I started getting mod points once every two weeks. At one point I didn't go any longer than maybe five days without points.
Then I debunked a low-ID-number poster's BS, and after that I didn't have mod points for probably a year and a half. I started getting them again five or six months ago, and get them again once every three weeks probably.
My theory is that they're doled out based on an extremely complicated formula, peppered with arbitrary "I don't like him/her" or "I like him!/her!"ness.
Hell, I didn't even know you had to go through this crap.
I want the DVD player that plays the movies. Oh. Wait. I have one, and it cost $40. I'll buy into HD when they can do that.
Huh? Mine played mp3s. Like, the kind that people get sued for. I don't care about DRM because it's irrelevant to me and I've never had to use anything that contains DRM, whether it's Microsoft selling it or Apple. I don't even know how Microsoft's music store works.
Apple doesn't let you share its files at all. Yeah, there's streaming, which isn't the same thing.
I liked my Zune, then someone stole it from my office. (I had no idea there was a second person out there that wanted a Zune!)
I'd even go so far as to say that hardware is the one thing that Microsoft generally does a pretty good job of. It had a bigger screen, good sound, and a radio with decent reception. The UI was even pretty nice, which was a surprise to me.
I don't see how Microsoft is responsible for shady OEMs screwing people.
If the users can say "hey, well, I bought my copy of Vista from SuperHappyWindowsSalesForYou.com" and it's a known fraudster then Microsoft would earn a fair amount of goodwill by giving these users legit copies.
You can bash this program for a few reasons but "someone might screw up" isn't a good reason. You can say that about anything.
Yeah but that's exactly what that sentence means. You appear to be alleging that the patent system was originally meant for the "greater good". I suppose in a global sense that could be true but patents were always meant to provide for a reward for people who came up with something new.
Eh, it was on the front page of USA today (distributed to the mass market) and on the front page of the Wall Street Journal (distributed to the affluent jackasses who actually bought this thing for $600). I'd say this news outshadowed the new iPod, which probably wasn't their intent.
The way I see it, the price drop isn't the story, it's the previous high price. That just feels like they just wanted some free revenue.
The Reform party was a holding tank, not a party. A party isn't a party without a platform, unless it's a revolutionary party, in which case you really have a one-point platform ("freedom" or something).
Well, common sense and survivalism are two separate things within modern Western society, and rightly so. If you were stranded in the desert, starving, and you came across an empty house with a pie cooling on the window (or whatever) then you'd be right to steal it. However, common sense in modern society would generally prevent you from doing this because it's not right to do.
Common sense depends on context more than most people are willing to admit - it's not a universal, which makes it tricky for some people. But it exists.
Not very. But what do you expect anyone to do about that? Personally, I was a big fan of the "do something about it" approach taken by some people on Flight 93. Unfortunately it was too late for them but if my suggestion had been taken then maybe all that would have happened was there'd be a paramedic on the ground at the destination airport to treat some lacerations...
Airline travel is completely voluntary. You're coming to them. If you voluntarily submit to inspection, then they might as well do an okay job of it for once. Hell, check your luggage if it's that awful.
It's not even that. The entire article is about improving an ALREADY EXISTING security structure. There is no infringement here. They already do random searching - anything that's going to increase their probability of actually finding something without doing some sort of background check on each passenger (imagine THAT!) is fine by me.
I often wonder if these ads are useful to the advertiser even if they get the intended effect (The user is confused, interacts with the ad, launching the hyperlink).
As much as I hate the "end users are dumb" thing, most people who are going to think the "shoot the puppy" ads are there for their own amusement are going to be the types of people who get scared when their computer does something unexpected, like launch a website out of nowhere. My guess is, they'll just freak out and try to exit because their computer is acting weird.
Seriously, I did not know local.google.com existed until just now. I just went to it and I don't really get the point. Is it just a redirect to Google Maps?
Huh? The customers didn't pay anything. Therefore, they get nothing. The reason people in general don't mind ad-supported services when they're free is because the cost of having seen something is zero. Your eyeballs don't go away when an ad appears (ringtone ads notwithstanding). Your reasoning died along with AllAdvantage.
You could apply that logic to any type of insurance. Yeah, on average, you're better off having no insurance.
The reason we buy insurance is that so many of us have other-than-average things happen (example: Getting sued for tens of thousands of dollars for that 128 kpbs copy of "Fergielicious" you just had to have).
Slashdot Mirror
Good evening,
Patents expire.
Thanks.
Though I can see why a jury would be led to think that they should probably do what the judge says.
She did it. She was culpable. The fine is excessive but that's how copyright infringement goes. Expect it to go down on appeal.
Speaking of the appeal, unlike most appeals the defense does have a valid point - the jury was instructed told they didn't need to consider that there was no evidence that people had actually downloaded the files from her. That may be true to the letter of the law, but those instructions may have been inappropriate to give. We'll see.
The most obvious of which being that it's often impossible to prove you wrote/produced something before someone else did unless you've publicly performed said art. There's a reason any reputable firm in America would bother registering their copyrights.
An unrelated question: Is there anything analogous to the prior art caveat in copyrights? If it's a standard cease and desist, is that even something you can copyright?
If not, can you copyright business correspondence? I'm doubtful because it would make it unlawful then to profit from the correspondence if it came from another entity, no? That seems a bit off.
After being a regular commenter for four or five months, I started getting mod points once every two weeks. At one point I didn't go any longer than maybe five days without points.
Then I debunked a low-ID-number poster's BS, and after that I didn't have mod points for probably a year and a half. I started getting them again five or six months ago, and get them again once every three weeks probably.
My theory is that they're doled out based on an extremely complicated formula, peppered with arbitrary "I don't like him/her" or "I like him!/her!"ness.
Hell, I didn't even know you had to go through this crap. I want the DVD player that plays the movies. Oh. Wait. I have one, and it cost $40. I'll buy into HD when they can do that.
So:
They identified a problem. Then they addressed it. Then the problem became less severe. Yeah, they must have been making it up.
Huh? Mine played mp3s. Like, the kind that people get sued for. I don't care about DRM because it's irrelevant to me and I've never had to use anything that contains DRM, whether it's Microsoft selling it or Apple. I don't even know how Microsoft's music store works.
Apple doesn't let you share its files at all. Yeah, there's streaming, which isn't the same thing.
I liked my Zune, then someone stole it from my office. (I had no idea there was a second person out there that wanted a Zune!)
I'd even go so far as to say that hardware is the one thing that Microsoft generally does a pretty good job of. It had a bigger screen, good sound, and a radio with decent reception. The UI was even pretty nice, which was a surprise to me.
I don't see how Microsoft is responsible for shady OEMs screwing people.
If the users can say "hey, well, I bought my copy of Vista from SuperHappyWindowsSalesForYou.com" and it's a known fraudster then Microsoft would earn a fair amount of goodwill by giving these users legit copies.
You can bash this program for a few reasons but "someone might screw up" isn't a good reason. You can say that about anything.
Yeah but that's exactly what that sentence means. You appear to be alleging that the patent system was originally meant for the "greater good". I suppose in a global sense that could be true but patents were always meant to provide for a reward for people who came up with something new.
Reversed on appeal? It was a not guilty verdict in a criminal court.
Eh, it was on the front page of USA today (distributed to the mass market) and on the front page of the Wall Street Journal (distributed to the affluent jackasses who actually bought this thing for $600). I'd say this news outshadowed the new iPod, which probably wasn't their intent.
The way I see it, the price drop isn't the story, it's the previous high price. That just feels like they just wanted some free revenue.
The Reform party was a holding tank, not a party. A party isn't a party without a platform, unless it's a revolutionary party, in which case you really have a one-point platform ("freedom" or something).
Well, common sense and survivalism are two separate things within modern Western society, and rightly so. If you were stranded in the desert, starving, and you came across an empty house with a pie cooling on the window (or whatever) then you'd be right to steal it. However, common sense in modern society would generally prevent you from doing this because it's not right to do.
Common sense depends on context more than most people are willing to admit - it's not a universal, which makes it tricky for some people. But it exists.
True. They'd have to probably have some sort of co-pilot arrangement made or something. Perhaps a second or third seat in the cockpit.
Not very. But what do you expect anyone to do about that? Personally, I was a big fan of the "do something about it" approach taken by some people on Flight 93. Unfortunately it was too late for them but if my suggestion had been taken then maybe all that would have happened was there'd be a paramedic on the ground at the destination airport to treat some lacerations...
Well, in any case that's the legal argument.
Airline travel is completely voluntary. You're coming to them. If you voluntarily submit to inspection, then they might as well do an okay job of it for once. Hell, check your luggage if it's that awful.
You want to hear the BEST SECURITY MEASURE EVAR? A separate fucking door for the flight deck. Fancy that.
It's not even that. The entire article is about improving an ALREADY EXISTING security structure. There is no infringement here. They already do random searching - anything that's going to increase their probability of actually finding something without doing some sort of background check on each passenger (imagine THAT!) is fine by me.
He might be considering the way that Debian counts and transmits how often you use the software as spyware.
Depending on what information exactly is sent, he may have a point.
I often wonder if these ads are useful to the advertiser even if they get the intended effect (The user is confused, interacts with the ad, launching the hyperlink).
As much as I hate the "end users are dumb" thing, most people who are going to think the "shoot the puppy" ads are there for their own amusement are going to be the types of people who get scared when their computer does something unexpected, like launch a website out of nowhere. My guess is, they'll just freak out and try to exit because their computer is acting weird.
Me Too!!
Seriously, I did not know local.google.com existed until just now. I just went to it and I don't really get the point. Is it just a redirect to Google Maps?
He's got a point, you know.
Somewhere in there...
Huh? The customers didn't pay anything. Therefore, they get nothing. The reason people in general don't mind ad-supported services when they're free is because the cost of having seen something is zero. Your eyeballs don't go away when an ad appears (ringtone ads notwithstanding). Your reasoning died along with AllAdvantage.
You could apply that logic to any type of insurance. Yeah, on average, you're better off having no insurance.
The reason we buy insurance is that so many of us have other-than-average things happen (example: Getting sued for tens of thousands of dollars for that 128 kpbs copy of "Fergielicious" you just had to have).