Gee, I just came back to criticize that statement too. Who is the moron that wrote that "history"?!
First, the Voodoo 5 6000 was NEVER sold at retail or OEM. Accordingly, how could anyone buy and install it into a server?! Second, why would anyone put a 3d card in a sever?! Heck, do server boards even have AGP slots?!
The "history" is not worth the code it was written in.
An agent of Microsoft lies when they make up a person who switched from Mac to Windows. That person does not get fired. But when Microsoft actually does switch, the person who points it out gets fired. Very funny!
Imagine if California set up road blocks and searched vehicles for products bought ourside the state. then after finding such products, it taxed them. Everyone would admit that that would be illegal.
If so, why is it any different when I pay FedEx to deliver it for me?
The US constitution states: Section. 9. Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
If I buy a computer in Michigan and have it sent to my home in California, how is California's attempt to tax my computer not violative of the US Constitution?!
You're right, states do have so called "use taxes" but they are unconstitutional.
If anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, SCO's claims were valid, you can stop that nonsense. SCO's refusal to take money proves beyond a doubt that they have no case.
If SCO's claim is valid, then it has every right to either stop the use of its IP or to obtain money from its use. But SCO is claiming that while it has the right to obtain such relief, it chooses not to take it.
Imagine this press release from Wal-Mart: "The Wal-Mart corporation has decided not prosecute or to impede shoplifters in its stores. Because we are satisfied with those few people who do pay, we see no need to make everyone pay."
That's EXACTLY what SCO is arguing. That because some people pay for using its IP, the vast majority of users can have a free ride. If SCO's IP claims are valid, than the basis for not taking money is ludicrous!
The real reason for the change is because SCO knows it has absolutely no proof to back up its claims against individual users. If SCO followed through with its threats, no one would pay, they'd be exposed as frauds, and they'd become the laughingstock of the tech world.
Terrorists are zealots. Linux users are zealots. Terrorists murder and destroy property to advance their beliefs. Thus, Linux users will eventually murder and destroy to advance their beliefs.
I sure hope that the pair-a-noyd is wrong, because my wife is REALLY into stamping, card making, and scrapbooking.
I love how SunnComm essentially argues that you risk a lawsuit if you point out flaws in its products:
SunnComm CEO Peter Jacobs "said the company was also exploring a civil suit based on damage to the company's reputation, since Halderman concluded that the technology was ineffective without knowing about future enhancements." http://www.msnbc.com/news/978433.a sp?0cv=CB20
If SunnComm is correct, certainly Consumer Reports couldn't criticize the latest Ford if Ford intended to fix any problems. And of course SunnComm would never tell us about their problems, because that would defeat the purpose of security through obscurity. Thus, all products reviewers will have to assume than any negative aspect of a product will be fixed and to simply keep their mouths shut.
In addition to using p2p to try out new music before I buy (since Napster I buy a LOT more music beacuse I'm exposed to a LOT more music), I also use it for downloading game demos and patches that I can find elsewhere.
Would the university have banned the VCR before the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the device in Universal v Sony?
Heck, it's even worse than that. A Federal court HAS ALREADY determined that p2p programs have legitmate non-infringing uses and are not illegal. What right does the university have to ban a legal device?!
What's ingenious about an over-priced and inefficient means of transport?! The fact that it only travels 15 miles per hour. The fact that you can only travel for an hour and a half before the batter dies. The fact that you cannot use it for shopping. The fact that you're utterly unprotected from the elements which essentially makes it only useful in-doors?! Please let me know what makes it ingenious!
Are the days of the mass subpoenas over? The article summarizes the RIAA's position that the lawsuits "had succeeded in communicating that file sharing is illegal..."
Mitch Bainwol was then paraphrased as saying that "shifting attitudes would be the next battle in what he conceded was more an effort to contain file swapping than to wipe it out."
First, why use past tense if you're planning on filing more lawsuits. And second, if the "next battle" is to shift attitude, where does that leave the current battle, i.e., sending subpoenas? It sure sounds to me like the RIAA has given up on the current battle. And third, it's quite obvious that even the RIAA admits that p2p will not simply disappear.
Let's face it, as the article shows, the lawsuits did not stop p2p nor did they increase sales. And not even including the bad press, the suits were utter failures.
I'm not saying that the RIAA will never sue sharers again, they'll likely go after egregious sharers on an individual basis, but I'm predicating that the days of mass RIAA subpoenas are over.
This is not a free speech issue. Under US laws the radio frequencies are owned by the people. Thus, not even ClearChannel as a right to transmit without permission from the people.
If the people have decided that they'd rather have a lot of little broadcasters versus a few large broadcasters, that's the right the people have.
And who's stopping ClearChannel from speaking? The law only limits how many channels a company can own in any particular market. Thus ClearChannel is free to express its opinion in any market it so desires.
But even if ClearChannel was denied access to a particular market, it would not impede ClearChannel's ability to exercise its right to free speech. The company could pay people to stand on street corners to express opinions. In the US we have a right to speak, but no one has any duty to listen.
Re:i've been waiting for this to happen
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
Are you saying that I could market an automobile called Saturn and could avoid being sued?! No, I couldn't.
It's a simple fact that Apple music as a valid trademark on the term "Apple" in relation to the music business. It's also a simple fact that Apple computer has entered the music business. It's lastly a simple fact that Apple computers will lose their suit because of the likelihood of confusion.
Also, studies would not be done to show confusion or the lack of confusion. Because the names and markets are identical the judge would presume consumer confusion. It's not something Apple music would have to prove.
Write about things you know, shut up the rest of the time.
Everyone here is so utterly ignorant about IP law. Apple music has an utterly valid trademark in the word "Apple" as applied to the music business. You might not like trademark law, but the validity of Apple music's trademark is indisputable.
Secondly, feeling sorry for Apple computer is ridiculous and utterly shows your ignorance.
Apple computer is very litigious to protect its "Apple" trademark even in areas outside the computer industry. You may remember way back (way way back) when Apple computers sold nearly everything with their Apple logo printed on it, clothes, skiing equipment , etc. They wanted to have their trademark as broad as possible to keep anyone else from using the generic term Apple. And just recently they made a telephone company in China change its name from Apple.
Re:The whole article is suspect
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The lawsuits occured in the US. You can't find them in lexis because no opinions were ever released. The parties settled the cases out of court.
The first time Apple music sued Apple computers agreed to stay out of the music business and paid Apple music some money.
The second time Apple music sued was when Apple computer started including sound cards, i.e., had the ability to play music. Apple computer paid Apple music about 50 million for the right to include sound cards.
There is a HUGE difference between Apple music and SCO. Apple music has a valid, legal, and utterly legitimate claim over the "Apple" trademark in relation to music.
Re:i've been waiting for this to happen
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
That's not the standard, moron. If that was the standard the bigger companies would ALWAYS win trademark disputes against smaller companies.
"Judge, we're just more successful than our competitor, so we should win." "I agree, case dismissed."
Copyright law is not absolute, and come to think about it, no law is absolute. There are even defenses to murder.
If we assume that your narrow view of copyright is correct, that any unauthorized copy is an infringement and actionable, sure you'd be right.
But, the world does not take your view of the law. There are exceptions. The major one is radio. Did you know that radio is not obligated to pay for the music it plays. (And actually, it gets paid to play the music it plays!).
Did you know you that's it's perfectly legal to make music complications to share with friends and family? Obviously not. You think that every copy demands a lawsuit.
Did you know you borrow CDs from friends and family and listen to them before you buy a copy of your own?
The original post (of this thread) stated that the RIAA is finally going after individual users and wondered why people are still complaining. I gave a reason.
I totally agree that people who use peer-to-peer to avoid buying music SHOULD be fined and charged criminally. However, the issue is not that simple. Merely because some people use peer-to-peer to avoid paying is no reason to hammer me because I use peer-to-peer to find more music to buy.
And I'll say it once more, if current copyright law cannot distinguish between those who use peer-to-peer to avoid paying and those who use peer-to-peer to buy more, the law should be changed.
And one last thing: Of course I share copies of the music I buy. My exposure to the music caused me to buy it, why would I deny someone else the ability to hear it? And besides, if no one shared, peer-to-peer would come to an end. And like I said, if peer-to-peer comes to an end, I stop buying music.
Your analogy is not even remotely correct. When I steal money from a bank, the bank is denied its right to use and profit from the money. However, when I sample music via the radio or via peer-to-peer, the original copyright holder can still continue selling their copies.
It boils down to this: The RIAA claims that peer-to-peer is destroying the music industry. However, in my case, peer-to-peer has helped me to buy MORE music.
I'll admit that there are people who are abusing peer-to-peer and use it to avoid paying for music, however, the RIAA refuses to admit the full truth: That there are people like me who use peer-to-peer to the benefit of the RIAA. That peer-to-peer is like radio on demand that allows me to sample any piece of music I want, and then buy accordingly.
I know one thing for certain. If the RIAA stops peer-to-peer, I'll stop hearing new music, and thus, I'll stop buying new music again.
You're oversimplifying the situation. I'm about 40 and stopped buying music in about 1993. Ironically once alternative music broke into the mainstream, it became impossible to hear new good music.
However, I started buying music again after Napster came out. Suddenly, I was exposed to tons of music that never made its way to radio.
Whenever I hear about new music, I download a few samples, and buy what I like. I went from buying no music to about three CDs a month. Here's a great example, someone at/. mentioned the Japanese duo Puffy in their signature. I downloaded some songs, fell in love, and bought one of their CDs that night. Here's another example, I hear some Junior Brown in a Spongebob episode, download some of his stuff, and buy his first CD about a week later.
Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, I just came back to criticize that statement too. Who is the moron that wrote that "history"?!
First, the Voodoo 5 6000 was NEVER sold at retail or OEM. Accordingly, how could anyone buy and install it into a server?! Second, why would anyone put a 3d card in a sever?! Heck, do server boards even have AGP slots?!
The "history" is not worth the code it was written in.
Read before you post moron! I said an "agent" of Microsoft lied when they made up a person. The "agent" was not fired. You get it, it was the AGENT!
An agent of Microsoft lies when they make up a person who switched from Mac to Windows. That person does not get fired. But when Microsoft actually does switch, the person who points it out gets fired. Very funny!
Just to clarify my clarification:
Imagine if California set up road blocks and searched vehicles for products bought ourside the state. then after finding such products, it taxed them. Everyone would admit that that would be illegal.
If so, why is it any different when I pay FedEx to deliver it for me?
The US constitution states:
Section. 9. Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
If I buy a computer in Michigan and have it sent to my home in California, how is California's attempt to tax my computer not violative of the US Constitution?!
You're right, states do have so called "use taxes" but they are unconstitutional.
I knew someone would point that error out. That's what I get for not reading before I click "Submit"!
If anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, SCO's claims were valid, you can stop that nonsense. SCO's refusal to take money proves beyond a doubt that they have no case.
If SCO's claim is valid, then it has every right to either stop the use of its IP or to obtain money from its use. But SCO is claiming that while it has the right to obtain such relief, it chooses not to take it.
Imagine this press release from Wal-Mart: "The Wal-Mart corporation has decided not prosecute or to impede shoplifters in its stores. Because we are satisfied with those few people who do pay, we see no need to make everyone pay."
That's EXACTLY what SCO is arguing. That because some people pay for using its IP, the vast majority of users can have a free ride. If SCO's IP claims are valid, than the basis for not taking money is ludicrous!
The real reason for the change is because SCO knows it has absolutely no proof to back up its claims against individual users. If SCO followed through with its threats, no one would pay, they'd be exposed as frauds, and they'd become the laughingstock of the tech world.
Terrorists are zealots.
Linux users are zealots.
Terrorists murder and destroy property to advance their beliefs.
Thus, Linux users will eventually murder and destroy to advance their beliefs.
I sure hope that the pair-a-noyd is wrong, because my wife is REALLY into stamping, card making, and scrapbooking.
I love how SunnComm essentially argues that you risk a lawsuit if you point out flaws in its products:
a sp?0cv=CB20
SunnComm CEO Peter Jacobs "said the company was also exploring a civil suit based on damage to the company's reputation, since Halderman concluded that the technology was ineffective without knowing about future enhancements."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/978433.
If SunnComm is correct, certainly Consumer Reports couldn't criticize the latest Ford if Ford intended to fix any problems. And of course SunnComm would never tell us about their problems, because that would defeat the purpose of security through obscurity. Thus, all products reviewers will have to assume than any negative aspect of a product will be fixed and to simply keep their mouths shut.
Giving up servitude to Microsoft for servitude to Sun makes no sense at all.
Well, according to Microsoft its software is secure, stable, and cost effective. If all of those can be true, then sure, it can be cool too!
In addition to using p2p to try out new music before I buy (since Napster I buy a LOT more music beacuse I'm exposed to a LOT more music), I also use it for downloading game demos and patches that I can find elsewhere.
Would the university have banned the VCR before the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the device in Universal v Sony?
Heck, it's even worse than that. A Federal court HAS ALREADY determined that p2p programs have legitmate non-infringing uses and are not illegal. What right does the university have to ban a legal device?!
What's ingenious about an over-priced and inefficient means of transport?! The fact that it only travels 15 miles per hour. The fact that you can only travel for an hour and a half before the batter dies. The fact that you cannot use it for shopping. The fact that you're utterly unprotected from the elements which essentially makes it only useful in-doors?! Please let me know what makes it ingenious!
Are the days of the mass subpoenas over? The article summarizes the RIAA's position that the lawsuits "had succeeded in communicating that file sharing is illegal..."
Mitch Bainwol was then paraphrased as saying that "shifting attitudes would be the next battle in what he conceded was more an effort to contain file swapping than to wipe it out."
First, why use past tense if you're planning on filing more lawsuits. And second, if the "next battle" is to shift attitude, where does that leave the current battle, i.e., sending subpoenas? It sure sounds to me like the RIAA has given up on the current battle. And third, it's quite obvious that even the RIAA admits that p2p will not simply disappear.
Let's face it, as the article shows, the lawsuits did not stop p2p nor did they increase sales. And not even including the bad press, the suits were utter failures.
I'm not saying that the RIAA will never sue sharers again, they'll likely go after egregious sharers on an individual basis, but I'm predicating that the days of mass RIAA subpoenas are over.
This is not a free speech issue. Under US laws the radio frequencies are owned by the people. Thus, not even ClearChannel as a right to transmit without permission from the people.
If the people have decided that they'd rather have a lot of little broadcasters versus a few large broadcasters, that's the right the people have.
And who's stopping ClearChannel from speaking? The law only limits how many channels a company can own in any particular market. Thus ClearChannel is free to express its opinion in any market it so desires.
But even if ClearChannel was denied access to a particular market, it would not impede ClearChannel's ability to exercise its right to free speech. The company could pay people to stand on street corners to express opinions. In the US we have a right to speak, but no one has any duty to listen.
Are you saying that I could market an automobile called Saturn and could avoid being sued?! No, I couldn't.
It's a simple fact that Apple music as a valid trademark on the term "Apple" in relation to the music business. It's also a simple fact that Apple computer has entered the music business. It's lastly a simple fact that Apple computers will lose their suit because of the likelihood of confusion.
Also, studies would not be done to show confusion or the lack of confusion. Because the names and markets are identical the judge would presume consumer confusion. It's not something Apple music would have to prove.
Write about things you know, shut up the rest of the time.
Everyone here is so utterly ignorant about IP law. Apple music has an utterly valid trademark in the word "Apple" as applied to the music business. You might not like trademark law, but the validity of Apple music's trademark is indisputable.
Secondly, feeling sorry for Apple computer is ridiculous and utterly shows your ignorance.
Apple computer is very litigious to protect its "Apple" trademark even in areas outside the computer industry. You may remember way back (way way back) when Apple computers sold nearly everything with their Apple logo printed on it, clothes, skiing equipment , etc. They wanted to have their trademark as broad as possible to keep anyone else from using the generic term Apple. And just recently they made a telephone company in China change its name from Apple.
The lawsuits occured in the US. You can't find them in lexis because no opinions were ever released. The parties settled the cases out of court.
The first time Apple music sued Apple computers agreed to stay out of the music business and paid Apple music some money.
The second time Apple music sued was when Apple computer started including sound cards, i.e., had the ability to play music. Apple computer paid Apple music about 50 million for the right to include sound cards.
There is a HUGE difference between Apple music and SCO. Apple music has a valid, legal, and utterly legitimate claim over the "Apple" trademark in relation to music.
That's not the standard, moron. If that was the standard the bigger companies would ALWAYS win trademark disputes against smaller companies.
"Judge, we're just more successful than our competitor, so we should win." "I agree, case dismissed."
Yeah, that's a valid point. But what I'm looking for is a legal basis to only go after sharers as opposed to downloaders. I don't think there is one.
I have no idea how that makes my view "narrow." Please elaborate.
Also, whether I share or download, strictly speaking I'm making a copy. Why the RIAA is only going atter those who share makes no sense.
Copyright law is not absolute, and come to think about it, no law is absolute. There are even defenses to murder.
If we assume that your narrow view of copyright is correct, that any unauthorized copy is an infringement and actionable, sure you'd be right.
But, the world does not take your view of the law. There are exceptions. The major one is radio. Did you know that radio is not obligated to pay for the music it plays. (And actually, it gets paid to play the music it plays!).
Did you know you that's it's perfectly legal to make music complications to share with friends and family? Obviously not. You think that every copy demands a lawsuit.
Did you know you borrow CDs from friends and family and listen to them before you buy a copy of your own?
The original post (of this thread) stated that the RIAA is finally going after individual users and wondered why people are still complaining. I gave a reason.
I totally agree that people who use peer-to-peer to avoid buying music SHOULD be fined and charged criminally. However, the issue is not that simple. Merely because some people use peer-to-peer to avoid paying is no reason to hammer me because I use peer-to-peer to find more music to buy.
And I'll say it once more, if current copyright law cannot distinguish between those who use peer-to-peer to avoid paying and those who use peer-to-peer to buy more, the law should be changed.
And one last thing: Of course I share copies of the music I buy. My exposure to the music caused me to buy it, why would I deny someone else the ability to hear it? And besides, if no one shared, peer-to-peer would come to an end. And like I said, if peer-to-peer comes to an end, I stop buying music.
Your analogy is not even remotely correct. When I steal money from a bank, the bank is denied its right to use and profit from the money. However, when I sample music via the radio or via peer-to-peer, the original copyright holder can still continue selling their copies.
It boils down to this: The RIAA claims that peer-to-peer is destroying the music industry. However, in my case, peer-to-peer has helped me to buy MORE music.
I'll admit that there are people who are abusing peer-to-peer and use it to avoid paying for music, however, the RIAA refuses to admit the full truth: That there are people like me who use peer-to-peer to the benefit of the RIAA. That peer-to-peer is like radio on demand that allows me to sample any piece of music I want, and then buy accordingly.
I know one thing for certain. If the RIAA stops peer-to-peer, I'll stop hearing new music, and thus, I'll stop buying new music again.
You're oversimplifying the situation. I'm about 40 and stopped buying music in about 1993. Ironically once alternative music broke into the mainstream, it became impossible to hear new good music.
/. mentioned the Japanese duo Puffy in their signature. I downloaded some songs, fell in love, and bought one of their CDs that night. Here's another example, I hear some Junior Brown in a Spongebob episode, download some of his stuff, and buy his first CD about a week later.
However, I started buying music again after Napster came out. Suddenly, I was exposed to tons of music that never made its way to radio.
Whenever I hear about new music, I download a few samples, and buy what I like. I went from buying no music to about three CDs a month. Here's a great example, someone at
Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.