They're just skipping the legislative branch and going to the executive... and they're going to the people who actually enforce the laws, instead of the people who delegate enforcement of the laws... and they're paying them after services rendered instead of "donating" beforehand.
I'd say they've chosen a much more efficient method of getting their policies enforced.
Where does Indy's music come from?
All music on Indy has been made freely available on the web by artists. When Indy downloads music, it comes directly from the artist's website, and you can visit that website by clicking on the title of the track in Indy's user interface.
The only p2p sharing that's going on here is the sharing of users' ratings and the urls that link to mp3s on the web. It is not possible to inject illegal mp3s into the network because there are no mp3s on the network. The mp3s are on a separate network.
I am curious whether there could be potential liability to users if links to illegal mp3s are placed on the network. Although one can be liable for copyright infringement without knowing that a work violates someone's copyright (the reason SCO could sue AutoZone), I question whether a person could be liable when they don't even choose to download the particular file. It is the program that chooses what files to download, not the user.
This is probably an unsettled question under the law, and it would be interesting to read the opinion of some copyright experts on this.
Oh yeah, I've never personally been able to understand the whole hooplah over the Ipod shuffle, or even the Ipod mini? 1 gigabyte? 5 gigabytes? Do you have ANY idea how old the songs get on your mp3 player if you keep hearing stuff over and over again like a radio station?
I just want something simple where I can plug in an external harddrive and it will play in my car, or on my home stereo system.
If you separate the player from the hard drive, you can have all the storage you want. And if you aren't running around with the thing it doesn't matter that it can't fit on the tip of your fingernail.
It may be based on jurisdictional grounds, since he is not a Virginia resident.
For a state to exercise personal jurisdiction against an out of state defendant, the constitution requires "Purposeful Availment" of that state's laws.
I don't see how he could have purposefully availed himself of Virginia law when he was sending emails to people who could be living anywhere in the world.
The article mentions the manufacturer will avoid giving a price, citing "an agreement with Microsoft." However, it goes on to explain that if the manufacturer cannot specify a price, the Judge will likely use the retail price (i.e. $199 USD).
This is because Microsoft will probably not show up in court to rebut your evidence of value.
Without any contrary evidence, the judge is going to accept whatever amount you put in your complaint as long as you submit some competent evidence to support the finding.
he adds that it imposes on developing nations "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world"
Weren't they arguing that Java would be the great equalizer of the classes back in the mid 90s?
This is just more of the same. They're using BS arguments to pretend that they care about the less fortunate, while obviously advancing their own interests.
Do they honestly believe that anyone falls for this?
and yes, it is BAD. No, the slashdot summary is not misleading, it is dead on.
The ordinance defines "electioneering communication" as mentioning a specific candidate for city office within 90 days of the election.
It requires ANYONE engaging in "electioneering communication" to include in the communication "Paid for by...".
It also requires anyone who spends more than $1000 a year on such communications to file a report with the city UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
There are exemptions for person to person conversation and for major media outlets, such as newspapers and tv news organizations. It is very clear that the ordinance covers bloggers.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have distinguished spending from speech. It seemed like a logical distinction at the time, but we now are seeing the results of that sort of thinking... There is no a HUGE loophole in the First Amendment. Any form of speech other than direct person to person communication requires spending at least a little money.
Oh well, 200 years of (mostly) Free Speech is better than anyone else has pulled off yet.
Just because you like the decisions a particular set of judges make, doesn't make it right or constitutional.
True. But the reason many of us view use of the phrase "judicial activism" as arrogant and asinine is that it is commonly used as an epithet against judicial decisions that one doesn't like... regardless of whether they are right or constitutional.
While it is true that the judiciary is not entrusted with "amending" the Constitution, it is entrusted with "filling in the blanks" where there is intentional or unintentional ambiguity.
Judges are not meant to act as mere mathematicians.
OK, just what is the point of having Free Speech and a Free Society when it is taken over by specialized interest groups that mold our points of view on everything from abortion to defense spending?
If we let the large specialized interest groups and the multinational corporations control the flow of information in our society, then we will think and speak whatever they want us to.
It's already happened.
Free Speech was great in the 1700s, before we had companies controlling all the speech that enters our homes. These days, I'd prefer to focus on Free Thought.
Feel free to flame. Turn off the television and the computer first though.
Not necessarily... and not necessarily relevant. The only differences between libel and slander are the potential for damages and the standard of proof required.
But libel doesn't necessarily have to be written. Nor does it being written automatically make it libel. It was in a letter personally sent to the plaintiff. So, it's not disseminated in such a way that it would have a potential to be particularly damaging to the plaintiff. So I don't see a libel claim here.
Second, it was not published, only sent to the student, so it wouldn't even be libel.
All publication requires is that it be shown to one other person... that whoever wrote the letter showed it to someone else.
And third, it's their network so they can disallow whatever they want.
If it is a state-run school, the First Amendment applies and they cannot make content-based restrictions on speech. Whether that applies to this situation is arguable. But it is certainly not as clear as you make it out to be.
Hmmm... let's see, they accuse you of illegal activity... so that would be slander.
Second, they penalize you for taking part in a perfectly legal exchange of data. It could be a First Amendment issue. But that's only if your university is state-run.
Give your local chapter of the ACLU a call and see what they think. You never know, they may be interested in representing you.
It is reasonable for a subscription model where you do not actually purchase the music, but pay for the right to listen to it for a set period of time.
I pay $15 a month for a Napster To Go subscription. It allows myself and my wife to put songs on our computers and our mp3 players... and the songs play for as long as we are subscribers. We like the kind of music they provide.
Without DRM, we would have to buy all that music, and we would not have the option of merely subscribing to it.
OTOH, if I am buying (as opposed to subscribing), DRM is unreasonable to me. If I buy something, it should work forever. With DRM, the songs you buy will not last forever... they will last as long as you have a computer "licensed" to play them.
Sure, you can burn to CD. But the songs are compressed lossy... if you want to listen to them on an mp3 player again, you will have to reencode them and deal with quality loss.
DRM makes NO sense for something you buy. It is a fraud and is likely to piss off a LOT of uninformed people when they realize that their entire music library must be burned to CD to avoid losing it. Noone is going to keep the same computer forever.
But we're talking about the GPL here; doesn't "stop violating the author's copyright" == "compelled to release code and acknowledge authors"?
No. That is more than would be required of the defendant to stop violating the copyright. To stop violating the copyright, he can simply stop distributing the material. Releasing his own code (which he has based on GPLed code) might be an option the defendant would have, but it is not something he can be forced to do.
AFAIK, copyright law does not provide for compelling someone to do anything... other than to pay damages and stop violating the author's copyright.
Besides that, why shouldn't the author's seek monetary damages??? It costs them money to go to court and to force the violator to quit infringing on their rights.
What is in the community spirit of the GPL is something that will help ensure that future violations do not occur. Playing hardball will help that happen. Being "nice" about it will not.
This ruling does not say that you can be sued in Canada for posting something on your website in New York. It says that the Washington Post can be sued in Canada... because they do business there!
If your company does business in a country, it should be suable in that country. Freedom of the Press should provide protection under the substantive law of a country... but it just goes way too far to give complete protection from any jurisdiction.
Basically, the Washington Post wants a sort of diplomatic immunity for the press... which is absurd.
"Censorship" and "Free Speech" do not automatically mean there's a First Amendment issue.
It is true that the Bill of Rights protects us from government action only... it does not follow that the government is the only entity that can restrict your rights, and thus the only one that should be controlled.
Mr. Citron is saying that Congress (or some other part of the government) should act to protect our rights... not that the Constitution already does.
Online music stores sell a lower quality format, they put DRM restrictions on it, and then they want to charge MORE than the price of a used CD?!?!?
The minor inconvenience of ripping the music to put it on your mp3 player counterbalances the inconvenience that you would have later on, when you are trying to get all of your DRMed iTunes songs to play on a new computer.
And with used CDs you don't even have to bother backing up your music because it already comes to you in physical form.
The Surgeon General's Warning is a limitation on commercial speech (i.e. advertising something for sale). Commercial speech, while protected under the First Amendment, does not get as much protection as other types of speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.
Not to mention that the tobacco warnings are for a very serious and real threat. Tobacco is proven to cause death in a high percentage of the people who use it. No such statistical link is known to exist between online dating and death... nor is there any reason to believe there would be such a link.
This isn't commercial speech, because it's a limitation on communication between individuals who are communicating for a romantic purpose... not a commercial purpose.
I don't think these statutes would last more than five minutes in a Federal District Court.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say they've chosen a much more efficient method of getting their policies enforced.
From the indy.tv FAQ
Where does Indy's music come from?
All music on Indy has been made freely available on the web by artists. When Indy downloads music, it comes directly from the artist's website, and you can visit that website by clicking on the title of the track in Indy's user interface.
The only p2p sharing that's going on here is the sharing of users' ratings and the urls that link to mp3s on the web. It is not possible to inject illegal mp3s into the network because there are no mp3s on the network. The mp3s are on a separate network.
I am curious whether there could be potential liability to users if links to illegal mp3s are placed on the network. Although one can be liable for copyright infringement without knowing that a work violates someone's copyright (the reason SCO could sue AutoZone), I question whether a person could be liable when they don't even choose to download the particular file. It is the program that chooses what files to download, not the user.
This is probably an unsettled question under the law, and it would be interesting to read the opinion of some copyright experts on this.
Simple negligence
Public Disclosure of private facts
Slander (if they can't prove that she really was using that ip address)
There's probably a hundred different legal theories you could come up with for this, depending on the specific details.
The article is pretty scant on details.
I just want something simple where I can plug in an external harddrive and it will play in my car, or on my home stereo system.
If you separate the player from the hard drive, you can have all the storage you want. And if you aren't running around with the thing it doesn't matter that it can't fit on the tip of your fingernail.
It may be based on jurisdictional grounds, since he is not a Virginia resident.
For a state to exercise personal jurisdiction against an out of state defendant, the constitution requires "Purposeful Availment" of that state's laws.
I don't see how he could have purposefully availed himself of Virginia law when he was sending emails to people who could be living anywhere in the world.
This is because Microsoft will probably not show up in court to rebut your evidence of value.
Without any contrary evidence, the judge is going to accept whatever amount you put in your complaint as long as you submit some competent evidence to support the finding.
From the GNU website:
We would like to thank Aurelio A. Heckert for donating this graphic to us under the Free Art License.
The artist has licensed it to GNU under the FAL. So Mr. Heckert still has the copyright and GNU just has a license to distribute it.
Weren't they arguing that Java would be the great equalizer of the classes back in the mid 90s?
This is just more of the same. They're using BS arguments to pretend that they care about the less fortunate, while obviously advancing their own interests.
Do they honestly believe that anyone falls for this?
and yes, it is BAD. No, the slashdot summary is not misleading, it is dead on.
...".
The ordinance defines "electioneering communication" as mentioning a specific candidate for city office within 90 days of the election.
It requires ANYONE engaging in "electioneering communication" to include in the communication "Paid for by
It also requires anyone who spends more than $1000 a year on such communications to file a report with the city UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
There are exemptions for person to person conversation and for major media outlets, such as newspapers and tv news organizations. It is very clear that the ordinance covers bloggers.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have distinguished spending from speech. It seemed like a logical distinction at the time, but we now are seeing the results of that sort of thinking... There is no a HUGE loophole in the First Amendment. Any form of speech other than direct person to person communication requires spending at least a little money.
Oh well, 200 years of (mostly) Free Speech is better than anyone else has pulled off yet.
True. But the reason many of us view use of the phrase "judicial activism" as arrogant and asinine is that it is commonly used as an epithet against judicial decisions that one doesn't like... regardless of whether they are right or constitutional.
While it is true that the judiciary is not entrusted with "amending" the Constitution, it is entrusted with "filling in the blanks" where there is intentional or unintentional ambiguity.
Judges are not meant to act as mere mathematicians.
If we let the large specialized interest groups and the multinational corporations control the flow of information in our society, then we will think and speak whatever they want us to.
It's already happened.
Free Speech was great in the 1700s, before we had companies controlling all the speech that enters our homes. These days, I'd prefer to focus on Free Thought.
Feel free to flame. Turn off the television and the computer first though.
People always argue the value of the data involved and whether it deserves First Amendment protection.
But any time that you have data exchange, there is at least the potential for a First Amendment issue.
IAAL, so...
First, it was written so it would be libel.
Not necessarily... and not necessarily relevant. The only differences between libel and slander are the potential for damages and the standard of proof required.
But libel doesn't necessarily have to be written. Nor does it being written automatically make it libel. It was in a letter personally sent to the plaintiff. So, it's not disseminated in such a way that it would have a potential to be particularly damaging to the plaintiff. So I don't see a libel claim here.
Second, it was not published, only sent to the student, so it wouldn't even be libel.
All publication requires is that it be shown to one other person... that whoever wrote the letter showed it to someone else.
And third, it's their network so they can disallow whatever they want.
If it is a state-run school, the First Amendment applies and they cannot make content-based restrictions on speech. Whether that applies to this situation is arguable. But it is certainly not as clear as you make it out to be.
Hmmm... let's see, they accuse you of illegal activity... so that would be slander.
Second, they penalize you for taking part in a perfectly legal exchange of data. It could be a First Amendment issue. But that's only if your university is state-run.
Give your local chapter of the ACLU a call and see what they think. You never know, they may be interested in representing you.
It is reasonable for a subscription model where you do not actually purchase the music, but pay for the right to listen to it for a set period of time.
I pay $15 a month for a Napster To Go subscription. It allows myself and my wife to put songs on our computers and our mp3 players... and the songs play for as long as we are subscribers. We like the kind of music they provide.
Without DRM, we would have to buy all that music, and we would not have the option of merely subscribing to it.
OTOH, if I am buying (as opposed to subscribing), DRM is unreasonable to me. If I buy something, it should work forever. With DRM, the songs you buy will not last forever... they will last as long as you have a computer "licensed" to play them.
Sure, you can burn to CD. But the songs are compressed lossy... if you want to listen to them on an mp3 player again, you will have to reencode them and deal with quality loss.
DRM makes NO sense for something you buy. It is a fraud and is likely to piss off a LOT of uninformed people when they realize that their entire music library must be burned to CD to avoid losing it. Noone is going to keep the same computer forever.
It's more reliable, more useful, more efficent... and people believe in it.
People are afraid because they think that all it will take is some lab person to testify that the dna matched and they will be convicted.
Of course we've never had a problem with that before.
No. That is more than would be required of the defendant to stop violating the copyright. To stop violating the copyright, he can simply stop distributing the material. Releasing his own code (which he has based on GPLed code) might be an option the defendant would have, but it is not something he can be forced to do.
AFAIK, copyright law does not provide for compelling someone to do anything... other than to pay damages and stop violating the author's copyright.
Besides that, why shouldn't the author's seek monetary damages??? It costs them money to go to court and to force the violator to quit infringing on their rights.
What is in the community spirit of the GPL is something that will help ensure that future violations do not occur. Playing hardball will help that happen. Being "nice" about it will not.
If you don't believe me, ask the RIAA.
That doesn't make it invalid. Especially since the case is a california case.
I didn't say it was invalid.
Furthermore if it's appealed it will just end up getting appealed in a federal court which will rule the same way.
The decision is based on California law. Federal law does not protect reporters from revealing sources. California law does.
This is not going to go to a Federal court, because there is no Federal issue at stake. Federal courts do not pass on issues of state law.
The only place to appeal this is to a higher court in California.
No.
This is a California state court ruling. It carries no weight in a Federal court.
This ruling does not say that you can be sued in Canada for posting something on your website in New York. It says that the Washington Post can be sued in Canada... because they do business there!
If your company does business in a country, it should be suable in that country. Freedom of the Press should provide protection under the substantive law of a country... but it just goes way too far to give complete protection from any jurisdiction.
Basically, the Washington Post wants a sort of diplomatic immunity for the press... which is absurd.
Not if you agreed to the TOS that you wouldn't run any servers while connected to their service...
Yes, normally you have to follow your contracts (even unwritten contracts).
However, if the FCC says it has to be done one way, then contract be damned, you do it the way the FCC says it.
"Censorship" and "Free Speech" do not automatically mean there's a First Amendment issue.
It is true that the Bill of Rights protects us from government action only... it does not follow that the government is the only entity that can restrict your rights, and thus the only one that should be controlled.
Mr. Citron is saying that Congress (or some other part of the government) should act to protect our rights... not that the Constitution already does.
Buy used CDs.
Online music stores sell a lower quality format, they put DRM restrictions on it, and then they want to charge MORE than the price of a used CD?!?!?
The minor inconvenience of ripping the music to put it on your mp3 player counterbalances the inconvenience that you would have later on, when you are trying to get all of your DRMed iTunes songs to play on a new computer.
And with used CDs you don't even have to bother backing up your music because it already comes to you in physical form.
The Surgeon General's Warning is a limitation on commercial speech (i.e. advertising something for sale). Commercial speech, while protected under the First Amendment, does not get as much protection as other types of speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.
Not to mention that the tobacco warnings are for a very serious and real threat. Tobacco is proven to cause death in a high percentage of the people who use it. No such statistical link is known to exist between online dating and death... nor is there any reason to believe there would be such a link.
This isn't commercial speech, because it's a limitation on communication between individuals who are communicating for a romantic purpose... not a commercial purpose.
I don't think these statutes would last more than five minutes in a Federal District Court.