As I have posted and read about the subject of the DMCA lawsuit, I have noticed that a lot of people are posting and speculating about the FatWallet suit based solely on the article -- but the article did provide a link for the FatWallet complaint. If you read the FatWallet complaint then the implication and what it means will make sense. The real discussion should be about the legal brief and what it says. The article is so condensed and does not contain any analsys, and thus we are left to comment and guess. It reminds me so much of the telephone game we all played in kindergarden.
If you read the legal brief, the Supreme Court does not consider sale prices copyrighted material, it is factual. The only thing that you can copyright for sale circulars is the formating, pictures, etc., but not the actual data. Complaint found here, look at article 28 Further, the legal brief link, if you read it, says that sale price data, again according to the Supreme Court, IF protected at all by copyrights is so loose that it does not merit strong protection.
Trade secrets is another thing. And FatWallet addresses the concerns, but says that if they violated trade secrets that is a state, not federal violation. The only issue here is that a trade secret was stolen, not any copyrighted material.
Further, the freedom of speech issue here is the right to annoymous speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that annoymous speech is a protected form of speech, and that unless an actual violation of law has occured then you can not compel annoymous speech to have a name attached to it.
When commenting about a legal proceeding, read the legal briefs if they are available. I know that 19 pages can be rather boring, but if you want to comment and sound intellegent, then read it. All these issues have been addressed in the brief.
If you read the legal brief you would understand where the implications come from. Quoting from the FatWallet website the complaint states: "Consequently, a service provider that recieves a takedown notice under the DMCA must, to avoid potential ligiation and liability, remove ore edit speech without being provided with even the minimal information necessary to determine whether the notifying entity's material actually falls within the scope of the works protected by copyright law and/or whether the challenged posts are infringing." Further, "In this and other ways the DCMA unconstittionally shifts the burden to service providers, such as FatWallet...or face a substantial risk of litigation without sufficient information to assess the true nature of that risk." Again, about the DCMA and subpoenas violating the Constitution, "The DMCA provision allowing for the issuance of subpoenas seeking information identifying the customers of an online service provider, such as FatWallet, in the absence of a underlying and pending case or controversy arising under federal law violates Article III of the Constitution...And actual, present and justiciable controvery has arisen between FatWallet and Defendants concerning the constituionality of the provisions of the DMCA regarding the issuance and enforcement of judicial subpoenas outside the context of a pending case of controversy within the jurisdiction of the federal courts...FatWallet asks the Court to declare that subpoena power contained in 17 U.S.C 512(h) is limited to judicial process issued and enforced in aid of a pending lawsuit under the Copyright Act."
Now, I will give you room and assume that you did not read the legal brief, because my comments where on the affects of what the court case could do. Where it could impact RIAA and the MPAA is that they would actually have to have pending litigation in order to file the subpoenas. That is the impact. RIAA and the MPAA might think twice before going after a file trader if they actually had to have a case prepared or where willing to go to court over twenty music files. That is the implications of this suit.
Further reading of the brief, and I will save you the quotes, states that it is also a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to issue and demand response in a court other than the defendants court. It is article number 55.
With out being rude, I must say, RTFB [Read...Brief] before commenting on it.
No, not really. Because the way that the TOS and AUP are written, it means that you can not have and IAS because that would mean that you have a server. The problem is not being an ISP or an IAS -- either is a violation of the TOS or AUP. Read the documents before you go around being a troll. The AUP that I quoted says, "You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type." From the bill, " Internet access service -- The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers." If you can implement an IAS with out using a server, and P2P is technically a server, then it is still a violation of the TOS and AUP. So in response, MOD PARENT DOWN is off topic.
I read the article, before I posted. You did not read the comment or think about what I was saying before you posted. Also, I was commenting not only on the article, but on the comments given by people who did not read the article. And I quote from my prior comment, "As I have been reading the above comments people have said, "HEY! I am an ISP!" But there are certian legal problems with that statment." So once again, RTFP before you comment on it. Or at least read some of the comments.
Best Bye lost me a long time ago. I showed up with $1300 burning a hole in my pocket (normally I build my own system, but I just got back from a long project and did not have anything to start with and needed software, etc., and the cheapest way was to buy a complete system to bounce from -- I now have two, a Dell 4500 and a custom running FBSD) and tried to spend it there. After looking, I found what I wanted but, BB did not want to sell it because no one would help. Last time I checked, it is nearly impossiable to get a computer there with out someone helping you. So after going to the customer service desk and taking out a wad of cash and waiving it I got a response. When the computer guy saw it was me, he said, "We don't have it," and walked away. Well, a rather perceptive employee figured out that when I started to make a beeline for the door with an incrediably pissed off look on my face that there was a "guest service" issue, and inquired. I don't remember what I said, but I know that if I had not been on my way out, that I would have been thrown out. Later, I happened to be picking up some CD-R, and lo and behold I got the Store Manager checking me out. When I expressed my concern, I was blown off. Now I don't shop there, even if I have to pay more at CompUSA.
If you read the legal brief (and for a pre-law student like me, it is interesting reading) the implications are far-reaching
One of the arguments made that will impact RIAA and the MPAA is that the DCMA shifts the burden of proof of the copyright from the person claiming copyright to the person accused of violation. FatWallet claims that this violates the Due process clause gaurenteed in the Fifth Amendment -- in other words, you have to go to court to prove that you did not violate a copyright; whereas with Due Process, they would prove that you did violate the copyright Same concept as guilty until proven innocent. FatWallet is arguing for innocent until proven guilty. FatWallet also is arguing that they should be given adiquate time to notify the poster.
The implications would be chilling for the RIAA. Why? Because instead of firing off a couple hundred law suits, they would be forced to prove to the ISP that the subject of the supeonia had in fact violated copyrights. Then your ISP would have to notify the alleged offender of copyright infringment so that they can defend themselves.
The whole message of the legal brief is to take out the DCMA one leg at a time. First they attack the copyright that Best Buy, et al., has and then they go for Fifth Amendment issues. It is a great thing. It is just interesting that the people who used the DCMA in the wrong way to provoke a law suit is retailers trying to prevent Black-Friday prices from being let out.
It is a FELONY in the United States to send an incorrect or fraudlent invoice in the mail knowningly. If SCO so much as mails a notice requesting ONE PENNY from Google, et al, then the United States Postal Inspectors can get involved. And since SCO has the burden of proof, then SCO will have to prove to the Postal Inspectors in court that there is copyright infringment and Google owes SCO. Further, if SCO is killed in the law suit and found to have violated the GPL knowingly it is further proof for felony convictions.
Now wouldn't that be a great reputation for the Post Office -- the FBI could not get Al Copone, but the IRS could, the FBI did not go after SCO, but the Post Office did....
If you have recieved an invoice or a letter from SCO via snail mail you can report it to the USPS HERE. Then you can scroll down to subject of complain and select "False bill or invoice."
Rember, sometimes unorthidox means need to be used to take out the bad guys. What does the Postal Service have to loose by taking out SCO?
TOS problems folks...
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As I have been reading the above comments people have said, "HEY! I am an ISP!" But there are certian legal problems with that statment. If you happen to be under a Terms of Service, like I am, they prohibt such things. So even if you do happen to get yourself declared an ISP then you are opening up yourself for a law suit from your ISP or being disconnected from the internet.
From Cox Communications acceptable use policy: "Servers. You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing server-like functionality in connection with the Service, unless expressly authorized by Cox. "
Further invesitagtion revelled simular acceptable use policies. So thus the problem remains -- you claim your an ISP, your connection provider says you must not be, and then your in a quandry.
And why would any sane Free/Open/Net-BSD user want to switch? I thought that the idea behind OpenBSD is that nothing is enabled by default and that if you want it, you enable it yourself. Besides, I don't know if I like the idea of one man directing development -- when one man answers the FAQ in first person, that is mildly disturbing. Further, how it is any different from DragonflyBSD? And trying to make BSD cooler, and more like Linux I think is a mistake.
I think that this is the first time that BSD users and Linux zealots are appearing for the first time to get along in a major forum. This is truely a historic moment. Will it last? Probably not. But nonetheless, now the two camps have a common threat...
Thank you. The Daemons are working on a draft plan now. We'll have you a copy soon. Our main request is that we want the soul of McBride.
Sincerly,
Beastie,
BDS Daemon and Spokesman
the guy who starts the fight is the one that gets the biggest punishment. Did you ever hear of the guy that did not pick the fight getting expelled. Nope, just the guy that started it, no matter how right or wrong he was. So if SCO expects to go with out a blow, they need to look back at the years when the SCO execs were getting pounded in the school yard -- because it is goign to blow up again.
The only problem with your idealist and realist political assesments is that your ass|u|me(ing) that Slashdotters actually have the political science background to follow what you have just said...
However, I must say that I agree -- you have to have some balance between the two extremes.
When I voted I just about died when I read the words on the screen, "WINvote." Honestly, the first thought was, "This is going to be reliable." And go figure, 9 machines failed. I bet my write-in vote for one "Linus Torvald" for State Representative did one of the "WINvote" machines in.
Ironically, one of the old and reliable machines was totted down to the Smithsoian. These are the same machines that Flordia is too cheep to get. And now we are having problems.
Re:110 comments and no .torrent file?!?!?!?!?!
on
FreeBSD 4.9 Released
·
· Score: 1
Why use a bit torrent when there are 12 FBSD US mirrors, and about thirty more around the world. With that many servers it is easy to get a ISO, even on the day of release, in no time.
It is called the "nessasary and proper" clause stating that the Congress can pass any law that is nessasary and proper for the function of the United States. 95% of all laws are based on this.
The tactic is to get everything thrown in the public domain. I guess we figured out the new strategy---
1. File law suits
2. Get the licensing declared illegal
3. Profits
The only thing is getting everything released under the GPL in the last three years turned over to public domain would trampel the very concept of a copyright. It is a nice idea for SCO, but in reality they have to be smoking crack to think that this one will work. I honestly can not see it happening.
I must confess that I actually thought about migrating away from FreeBSD towards Linux. It was a short lived endevour. I tried Mandrake, SuSE, and Redhat only to be disappointed. And it was not the learning curve either. The most disappointing was the speed at which Linux systems run compared to FreeBSD. I was a prodigal FreeBSD user that has now returned to the true Daemon...
The piont of the appeal is not to protect M$ but to protect the functionality of the web. The W3C never mentions Microsoft, but mentions that the current compatability of the Web could be affected. Also the article states that the patented capabilities have been included in HTML since the early days of HTML -- before the patent.
that the difference between a *BSD release and a Linux distro release is a night and day difference. When a linux distro is released everyone comes out of the wood-work, says it is the best thing since the 386 was released, praises Allah, and there would be few if any comments to the contrary. Yet, when a *BSD release comes out it becomes a religious war over which is better, and all the trolls come out of the wood-work?
The real issue is intellectual property, ie, the whole SCO thing, not whether or not you can do what you please with the product. The master jig is a form of intellectual property and is like a piece of software.
The reason you can get away with an EULA is becuase the person buys the media that the software comes in and a license to use what is on the CD. Because you buy the CD does not mean that you own the program. When you go into Best Buy and buy a computer, that Computer's hardware is yours, but you don't own the software and the designs which run the comptuer. The EULA that comes in software is just stating an agreement that you agree to not do certain things. But to grant you ownership over the program would grant you power to do certain things like copy and give it away. When you own a license to the program that limits what you can do with the program. Ownership implies control over the destiny of the product. If I were to own the copy of WinXP on my computer, then that would mean that I could COPY and GIVE IT AWAY. Since I have a license I can not. THE GPL IS AN EULA! The problems with the First Sale Doctrine are a non-issue, because the EULA provides provisions for getting out of the First Sale -- returning the product. In fact, I think that I will go over to Best Buy tonight and see what happens when I refuse an EULA after opening the product. That seems like an interesting project for the night.
With the master jig, which if I understand it correctly, it replicates itself -- it makes other jigs. Now, since the design constitutes intellectual property then an EULA makes some sense, albeit not a lot. I doubt that you will ever see such a restriction on a DeWelt saw. But the point is that if they allowed everyone to loan out their master jig then they would have no money real fast -- there would be no incentive for people to buy.
We got it all wrong --- avoid TEXAS at all costs. I lived in that "place" for two years, and frankly, I don't know if you could pay me enough to melt there again. I mean, the place has an ego bigger than its borders, and the people don't seem to get the idea that Texas is not all that great.
Slashdot Mirror
As I have posted and read about the subject of the DMCA lawsuit, I have noticed that a lot of people are posting and speculating about the FatWallet suit based solely on the article -- but the article did provide a link for the FatWallet complaint. If you read the FatWallet complaint then the implication and what it means will make sense. The real discussion should be about the legal brief and what it says. The article is so condensed and does not contain any analsys, and thus we are left to comment and guess. It reminds me so much of the telephone game we all played in kindergarden.
I will get off my soup box now.
Trade secrets is another thing. And FatWallet addresses the concerns, but says that if they violated trade secrets that is a state, not federal violation. The only issue here is that a trade secret was stolen, not any copyrighted material.
Further, the freedom of speech issue here is the right to annoymous speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that annoymous speech is a protected form of speech, and that unless an actual violation of law has occured then you can not compel annoymous speech to have a name attached to it.
When commenting about a legal proceeding, read the legal briefs if they are available. I know that 19 pages can be rather boring, but if you want to comment and sound intellegent, then read it. All these issues have been addressed in the brief.
Now, I will give you room and assume that you did not read the legal brief, because my comments where on the affects of what the court case could do. Where it could impact RIAA and the MPAA is that they would actually have to have pending litigation in order to file the subpoenas. That is the impact. RIAA and the MPAA might think twice before going after a file trader if they actually had to have a case prepared or where willing to go to court over twenty music files. That is the implications of this suit.
Further reading of the brief, and I will save you the quotes, states that it is also a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to issue and demand response in a court other than the defendants court. It is article number 55.
With out being rude, I must say, RTFB [Read...Brief] before commenting on it.
I read the article, before I posted. You did not read the comment or think about what I was saying before you posted. Also, I was commenting not only on the article, but on the comments given by people who did not read the article. And I quote from my prior comment, "As I have been reading the above comments people have said, "HEY! I am an ISP!" But there are certian legal problems with that statment." So once again, RTFP before you comment on it. Or at least read some of the comments.
Go get back under your bridge...
One of the arguments made that will impact RIAA and the MPAA is that the DCMA shifts the burden of proof of the copyright from the person claiming copyright to the person accused of violation. FatWallet claims that this violates the Due process clause gaurenteed in the Fifth Amendment -- in other words, you have to go to court to prove that you did not violate a copyright; whereas with Due Process, they would prove that you did violate the copyright Same concept as guilty until proven innocent. FatWallet is arguing for innocent until proven guilty. FatWallet also is arguing that they should be given adiquate time to notify the poster.
The implications would be chilling for the RIAA. Why? Because instead of firing off a couple hundred law suits, they would be forced to prove to the ISP that the subject of the supeonia had in fact violated copyrights. Then your ISP would have to notify the alleged offender of copyright infringment so that they can defend themselves.
The whole message of the legal brief is to take out the DCMA one leg at a time. First they attack the copyright that Best Buy, et al., has and then they go for Fifth Amendment issues. It is a great thing. It is just interesting that the people who used the DCMA in the wrong way to provoke a law suit is retailers trying to prevent Black-Friday prices from being let out.
It is a FELONY in the United States to send an incorrect or fraudlent invoice in the mail knowningly. If SCO so much as mails a notice requesting ONE PENNY from Google, et al, then the United States Postal Inspectors can get involved. And since SCO has the burden of proof, then SCO will have to prove to the Postal Inspectors in court that there is copyright infringment and Google owes SCO. Further, if SCO is killed in the law suit and found to have violated the GPL knowingly it is further proof for felony convictions.
Now wouldn't that be a great reputation for the Post Office -- the FBI could not get Al Copone, but the IRS could, the FBI did not go after SCO, but the Post Office did....
If you have recieved an invoice or a letter from SCO via snail mail you can report it to the USPS HERE. Then you can scroll down to subject of complain and select "False bill or invoice."
Rember, sometimes unorthidox means need to be used to take out the bad guys. What does the Postal Service have to loose by taking out SCO?
As I have been reading the above comments people have said, "HEY! I am an ISP!" But there are certian legal problems with that statment. If you happen to be under a Terms of Service, like I am, they prohibt such things. So even if you do happen to get yourself declared an ISP then you are opening up yourself for a law suit from your ISP or being disconnected from the internet.
From Cox Communications acceptable use policy: "Servers. You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing server-like functionality in connection with the Service, unless expressly authorized by Cox. "
Further invesitagtion revelled simular acceptable use policies. So thus the problem remains -- you claim your an ISP, your connection provider says you must not be, and then your in a quandry.
Some things to think about...
And why would any sane Free/Open/Net-BSD user want to switch? I thought that the idea behind OpenBSD is that nothing is enabled by default and that if you want it, you enable it yourself. Besides, I don't know if I like the idea of one man directing development -- when one man answers the FAQ in first person, that is mildly disturbing. Further, how it is any different from DragonflyBSD? And trying to make BSD cooler, and more like Linux I think is a mistake.
I think that this is the first time that BSD users and Linux zealots are appearing for the first time to get along in a major forum. This is truely a historic moment. Will it last? Probably not. But nonetheless, now the two camps have a common threat...
Thank you. The Daemons are working on a draft plan now. We'll have you a copy soon. Our main request is that we want the soul of McBride. Sincerly, Beastie, BDS Daemon and Spokesman
the guy who starts the fight is the one that gets the biggest punishment. Did you ever hear of the guy that did not pick the fight getting expelled. Nope, just the guy that started it, no matter how right or wrong he was. So if SCO expects to go with out a blow, they need to look back at the years when the SCO execs were getting pounded in the school yard -- because it is goign to blow up again.
Did it verify that Windows is mal-ware?
What about Windows-update?
These are hard questions that we need to know...
The only problem with your idealist and realist political assesments is that your ass|u|me(ing) that Slashdotters actually have the political science background to follow what you have just said...
However, I must say that I agree -- you have to have some balance between the two extremes.
When I voted I just about died when I read the words on the screen, "WINvote." Honestly, the first thought was, "This is going to be reliable." And go figure, 9 machines failed. I bet my write-in vote for one "Linus Torvald" for State Representative did one of the "WINvote" machines in.
Ironically, one of the old and reliable machines was totted down to the Smithsoian. These are the same machines that Flordia is too cheep to get. And now we are having problems.
Why use a bit torrent when there are 12 FBSD US mirrors, and about thirty more around the world. With that many servers it is easy to get a ISO, even on the day of release, in no time.
It will cure prostate, breast, et al, but will it cure the cancer of Government?
Think about it -- if M$ owns Google then they will try to make Google run 2000 or worse XP. It is survival...
It is called the "nessasary and proper" clause stating that the Congress can pass any law that is nessasary and proper for the function of the United States. 95% of all laws are based on this.
1. File law suits
2. Get the licensing declared illegal
3. Profits
The only thing is getting everything released under the GPL in the last three years turned over to public domain would trampel the very concept of a copyright. It is a nice idea for SCO, but in reality they have to be smoking crack to think that this one will work. I honestly can not see it happening.
I must confess that I actually thought about migrating away from FreeBSD towards Linux. It was a short lived endevour. I tried Mandrake, SuSE, and Redhat only to be disappointed. And it was not the learning curve either. The most disappointing was the speed at which Linux systems run compared to FreeBSD. I was a prodigal FreeBSD user that has now returned to the true Daemon...
The piont of the appeal is not to protect M$ but to protect the functionality of the web. The W3C never mentions Microsoft, but mentions that the current compatability of the Web could be affected. Also the article states that the patented capabilities have been included in HTML since the early days of HTML -- before the patent.
that the difference between a *BSD release and a Linux distro release is a night and day difference. When a linux distro is released everyone comes out of the wood-work, says it is the best thing since the 386 was released, praises Allah, and there would be few if any comments to the contrary. Yet, when a *BSD release comes out it becomes a religious war over which is better, and all the trolls come out of the wood-work?
The reason you can get away with an EULA is becuase the person buys the media that the software comes in and a license to use what is on the CD. Because you buy the CD does not mean that you own the program. When you go into Best Buy and buy a computer, that Computer's hardware is yours, but you don't own the software and the designs which run the comptuer. The EULA that comes in software is just stating an agreement that you agree to not do certain things. But to grant you ownership over the program would grant you power to do certain things like copy and give it away. When you own a license to the program that limits what you can do with the program. Ownership implies control over the destiny of the product. If I were to own the copy of WinXP on my computer, then that would mean that I could COPY and GIVE IT AWAY. Since I have a license I can not. THE GPL IS AN EULA! The problems with the First Sale Doctrine are a non-issue, because the EULA provides provisions for getting out of the First Sale -- returning the product. In fact, I think that I will go over to Best Buy tonight and see what happens when I refuse an EULA after opening the product. That seems like an interesting project for the night.
With the master jig, which if I understand it correctly, it replicates itself -- it makes other jigs. Now, since the design constitutes intellectual property then an EULA makes some sense, albeit not a lot. I doubt that you will ever see such a restriction on a DeWelt saw. But the point is that if they allowed everyone to loan out their master jig then they would have no money real fast -- there would be no incentive for people to buy.
We got it all wrong --- avoid TEXAS at all costs. I lived in that "place" for two years, and frankly, I don't know if you could pay me enough to melt there again. I mean, the place has an ego bigger than its borders, and the people don't seem to get the idea that Texas is not all that great.