You want to be paranoid then be paranoid about gps enabled cell phones. Those are far better at doing the job. Hell, it doesn't even have to be GPS enabled. Whenever your phone is on and in range it's communicating with a cell tower. Telcos keep this information - at least here in Australia. Hell, the tower in question shows up on my itemised bill. Add that to the number of towers in your average urban area, use a bit of basic mathematics and if the government wants to it sure as hell knows where you are every second of the day.
- IRC chatting with EPIC4 or Irssi
- I know IRC doesn't use a lot of bandwidth, but every little bit helps
- Instant messaging with TTY clients
- Centericq does some protocols
- Pork for AIM
- Cabber or Imcom for Jabber
- These are both crashy I'm afraid
- There might be a text version of Gaim or Pidgin Try Bitlbee.
If the goddamn NSA can't snoop on an encrypted conversation between a lawyer & client, then frankly, they're not doing their job
The NSA shouldn't be spying on US citizens in the US. And if they are, that can't be used in court. If you've already got a lawyer, you're protected by attorney-client.
Either that or Big Brother isn't quite as dumb as the guy on the show. The book 1984 presents an absolute dystopia. We don't need to live in that world to be controlled by the government. Any smart dictator would encourage everyone to read 1984 precisely so s/he can say "we're nowhere near that bad!".
Meanwhile we have detention without charge, acceptance of psychological torture (which is what broke Winston Smith, if you'll recall) and a failing fourth estate. People don't need to be criminals to be arrested any more. That's the horrible thing.
Just because 1984 was bad that doesn't mean that anything not that bad isn't bad. Just because we don't have absolute governmental control, bad shit is still going down and something needs to be done. Moving closer to the pervasive surveillance that characterised George Orwell's most dystopian of visions isn't that something.
Is the US the only country in the world that trades. The US is ONE country. Are you saying that the US is so powerful that if we don't trade with you, your economy has no chance to do well, even if ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD will trade with you?
Yes. The USA is the largest economy. It will have more impact than any other economy. Especially since most other economies do what the US says because they're much smaller and - if you'll allow an analogy - non-unionised.
Hell, they can even buy American goods through third party countries if they so desired.
Unless the third-party refuses to trade, because doing so would cause them to lose the benefit of US trade.
In other words, maybe, just maybe, it really is their ideological bullshit that causes them to fail because it sure as shit ain't the US embargo. Unless, of course, you buy into Castro's bullshit.
I'm happy enough buying into any twentieth (or even nineteenth) century economic theory which depends on free trade to have a free market.
First, the candidate that will claim to do it will piss off all those Cubans in Florida, causing that candidate to lose Florida. No candidate wants to do that. So if you want to blame anyone for the embargo, blame the CUBANS in Florida.
Would it be fair to say that if you have a non-emergency condition and no health insurance, that you are basically left to fight for yourself? Not exactly. I don't know about other states but in Massachusetts you can always go to the ER regardless of your problem and they always have to treat you whether or not you have insurance.
The trouble is that the ER isn't meant to be there to treat your arthritis. The ER is meant to treat emergency conditions. The result is you don't get to see your specialists, the ERs are overloaded, waiting times at ERs become extreme and the ER staff get shitty.
People used to have a lot of free time, and mechanics was a big hobby. Also, money was scarce and if something broke you had to fix it. In today's world of "disposable" income, however, it's just easier to buy a new car.
I have a 1986 K6 Chevy Blazer that I had a friend put a motor in. (I lack the equipment and knowledge to do it myself.) I'm sure anyone else would have sent it off to the scrap pile and pocketed $300. I prefer to keep my carburated, non-computerized, oversized gas hog running. It doesn't hurt that I live in a state (Iowa) with no vehicle inspections.
It may cost the proverbial arm and leg to fill the 40-gallon tank, but it beats buying a new vehicle. (FWIW, it's used for a five-block commute to work.)
Have you thought about the zero-emission, free-as-in-beer, free-as-in-speech, good ol' fashioned solution: walk the damn five blocks?
Just putting myself, a computer nerd/software engineer, in the place of the math nerds, I don't think I would want to go to a party that's math themed. Parties are like miniature breaks from what we do normally.
You see, when I read that it makes me think you're in the wrong field. Sure, I wouldn't go to a party to solve PDEs but I would love a maths themed party because I find it interesting. Little maths jokes, fractal cookies (suggested before), everyone in xkcd shirts... it'd be awesome!
They're just not providing them with a convenient way to play flash games and read blogs during class.
You know it turns out there are resources on the internet now. Like complete case law, or statute books, or journals, or hell even SCOTUSblog. Just because there is a bad use, don't ban the whole damn thing! It's the VCR argument all over again...
The Patriot Act is just another method to keep people safe. Until the average Joe decides he would rather be free than safe, the oppression will continue.
Sorry, but I'm fairly certain that English contract law doesn't apply to the USA...
I'm not saying it does. I'm not an American law student, I'm an Australian law student. I was referring to Australian authority (which in this case is actually inherited British authority). Contract law in the USA is actually quite similar to contract law in the Commonwealth, especially with regards to the formation of a contract. Partially this is because that's fundamental law that was developed in the early seventeenth century (and before) in England, partially this is because of international law.
From what I've seen of cases in USA, visiting a website that doesn't require a login or click-through agreement doesn't rise to the level of the legal technical definition of "genuine consent" or of "agreement" not to mention there is no "consideration" given. Therefore this "contract" doesn't pass three of the six "required" parts that make any contract legally binding.
Ok, there are three conditions required for a contract to exist which may be questioned here: agreement, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
On the topic of agreement there are two sub-questions: does the searcher's understanding of the terms of the contract correlate with Google's understanding; and does the searcher communicate their acceptance, as is required.
On the question of correspondence of acceptance with the offer, given the absence of any signed agreement, we must consider incorporation of terms by notice. Where reasonable steps have been taken to draw the attention of the searcher to the terms in question, those terms will be incorporated into the contract. Given its prevalence it would likely be considered reasonable to draw the attention of searchers to those terms by providing a link to Terms of Service at the base of a page. Furthermore, it is quite likely that through repeated use of the service in question, knowledge of the terms would be presumed (incorporation by course of dealing).
On the question of communication of acceptance, first consider that clicking the "Search" button is a clear indication of a desire to do business that could easily be described as the requisite communication. In the alternative, consider any case about rewards or competitions filed prior to statutory protection against false advertising. I'm not certain of the US cases, but in a Commonwealth country we'd look to the Carbolic Smoke Ball case. These clearly indicate that communication of acceptance may not be required in all cases, for example where it is unreasonable, or not required by the offeror.
Now let us look at consideration. I think it is safe to take the definition provided in the British case of Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 which, at 162, includes "... some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken..." by the acceptor. In this case mere acceptance of the terms - which restrict statutory rights, both in terms of tort claims and in copyright - is a forbearance. There seems no question to me that there is some consideration given.
Finally and most crucially there is intent to enter legal relations which must exist for both parties. This is perhaps the most difficult thing to demonstrate. An argument could be made that the searcher knows that their use of the service is governed by terms of service and that by accepting them they are accepting the contractual nature of the exchange. This argument is strengthened by repeated use, similar to the argument about incorporation of terms by a course of dealing.
Perhaps I am using the wrong phrases, not being a lawyer and all...
This juxtaposes well with your later saying I should get more training before commenting on legal matters.
Also, I think that if Google uses this patent, they may actually violate Child Protection laws and if I ever catch anyone tracking my child's internet activity I'll prosecute.
Well, as I understand it the technology has the capacity to guess a person's age based on their behaviour... not a breach of child protection law by any stretch of the imagination. And in any case, any contract between Google and the child would likely be void due to lack of capacity to enter into the contract.
And if the police won't do anything, I'll hire SCO's lawyers to go after them for 60% of anything they can squeeze out of them. Or some other equally sleazy and hungry litigator.
I'm glad I'm training to be a lawyer, I really am.
Uh, visiting a website DEFINITELY doesn't constitute forming a binding contract. My (completely unprofessional) understanding is that if I can use the services without having to verify my identity, then I probably haven't formed any contract, and if I'm not forced to even be aware that there IS a "contract" then I certainly haven't agreed to anything.
Merely looking at something does not bind you, generally speaking, but you could at least in theory be bound by looking (NDA anyone?) and you almost certainly do have a contract with Google.
The whole point about a contract is that a good or service is offered and you accept that offer with "consideration" (giving up some property, doing something or refraining from doing something) being exchange for that. In this case the service is obvious and you accept a contract when you click "Search Google" or even "I'm Feeling Lucky". Your consideration is agreeing to their Terms of Service (which is mostly about refraining from doing something).
As to being aware that the contract is being made, you are presumed to know that you are entering into a relationship with your service provider (Google). This makes quite a bit of sense really. If you pay a guy to clean your car and he doesn't, he's might be guilty of a crime but that won't give you your money back. You need to sue him because you had an understanding and he didn't hold up his end of the bargain. That's a contract and it doesn't matter if you don't know his name.
It is generally considered that if your attention is brought to the existence of terms (for example by a link to "Terms of Service", or by text on a bus ticket saying "Issued subject to terms and conditions") then your use of the service indicates your acceptance of those terms. This is particularly true where you use the service repeatedly - you have ample opportunity to discover and question those terms but you keep coming back. So you must be OK with them.
NB: IANAL but I am a law student, albeit from Australia.
I've always wondered why a tiny cell phone can transmit data to a cell tower miles away, when cordless phones and wi-fi cards have a range of only a few hundred meters. Is there a technical/cost reason, or just a legal one?
Technical. Check out wikipedia for details, but it's basically about how the waves propagate, with a secondary reason being absorption spectra of common materials. 802.11a/b/g/n is in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz spectra. Mobile phones operate on 850MHz, 900MHz, 1800MHz or 1900MHz, depending where you are in the world and what type of network you're using.
My biggest concern is false positive/false negative results. Let's say you have a false reading rate of 0.01% - that's 99.99% success. With 200M people each verifying their identity a conservative twice a day that's 20,000 false readings a day.
To provide the worst sort of evidence (anecdotal), I get about 5% false negative and unknown false positive rate with my (new) laptop fingerprint scanner. That error rate excludes "scan again" requests. Sure, it's an El Cheapo, but do you imagine a government splurging on decent tech for a national roll-out? Having seen public transport ticketing systems, driver licensing schemes, public sector building security and working in the civil service, I'm going with no.
FURTHERMORE, to say that 16% of a book, movie, song, or other work is "small enough" to be considered fair use is simply ludicrous. The percentage of material is irrelevant to the copyright. A film is made of over 100,000 still images, yet a single 35mm photograph doesn't have 1/100,000th the copyright protection of a film.
Ok, true... but a single frame of a film can be copied under fair use while the film in its entirety cannot.
Your description of fair use is also incomplete (it's not just study or criticism, it can also be time-shifting, transient copying for certain purposes, backups of software and a few other things). I'm tired though, so I'll let someone else explain all this.
The car analogy is used far too often on Slashdot. I first saw it when it was talking about needing a specific car to drive on specific roads back when it was a Mac-PC debate. Let's look at this more closely.
The car analogy cannot be used here, and this is why. You use MSO products to create works. The issue with interoperability is that, like with everything, you keep moving to later versions of software (later models of cars, newer fridges, comfier chairs, whatever). Under the non-interoperable model, you are unable to view the work you created without their software, which has an associated cost. That's lock-in.
There is no analogy because in traditional times when you created a work (artistic, literary, whatever) you wouldn't have any trouble viewing or modifying it, because it was on paper. By the nature of computers, everything is encoded (which is for most parallel to encrypted) and you need MSO to decode it. This is not true of most things - we have open standards for plain text (ASCII, UTF), images (JPEG, PNG, EPS, SVG), print layouts (PS, PDF), formatted text (RTF), audio (PCM, MP3, Vorbis), video (MPEG) and data generally (XML, [TC]SV).
The issue here is that if you want to preserve your work done in MSO products you must use a lossy format (RTF, ASCII) or use a Microsoft product. By the nature of how people use computers, keeping Word 6 isn't really an excuse either. That's a different argument about monopolies though; perhaps the fact that everyone is using the latest word is more about good marketing than anything else (e.g. the It's Not Cheating program).
The bigger problem is that Microsoft is trying to create a new standard (OOXML) that has exactly the same function as an existing one (ODF). And through the same organisation (ISO). Now while we all love having lots of standards to choose from, in reality this is A Bad Thing for people trying to send data to each other. While it's nice that Microsoft is letting others use their format, it would be nicer if they used the existing standard that offers the same functionality. Combine that with patent issues and you see why people complain about OOXML.
Does this decision in of itself have any real significance in terms of the RIAA's plethora of lawsuits? I'm not entirely sure how this works. Does this set precedent, or is the judge in question not high up enough in the hierarchy for this decision to become case law? I realize that every victory counts, but what I want to know is whether this will affect similar cases in the future.
Absolutely. It's not binding, but its reasoning is impeccable, so why not?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not binding because the decision wasn't that the defence is effective.
The defendant had not made submission to the court, the RIAA filed for a default, the judge rejected it on the grounds that a possible defence which another court may consider to have merit, if presented, which would not be inconsistent with the facts as assumed, is that the defendant was merely making available the recordings and therefore not liable for the infringement, if it did exist? And wasn't this based on the RIAA having belief and information as to infringement, rather than hard evidence?
It's a positive step, and it means the defence may apply - but it's a far cry from "Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory".
Disclaimers: just my opinion; not a legal opinion; IANAL.
Claimer: I am a law student in Tasmania, Australia.
It is easier to make fair use (i.e. <10% of aggregate pages) copies in a library than it is to make full (infringing) copies. Using file sharing software the automatic, expected and easiest behaviour is to download a complete copy. While is is possible to stop half-way through, to be more like a library you'd have to manually download ~300 pieces per song.
Libraries are either lending libraries, where a single copy (with associated single right to use) is distributed at a time, more cheaply than copying (or even buying a copy of) the book, or they are research institutions. Research institutions have a prima facie fair use defence under research/education/academia. Research libraries do not permit or encourage copies to be made of all their works. They are more like radio stations: you can read (listen to) anything, request something if they don't have it on the shelf, and make copies if you're really determined, but it's easier just to buy the damn thing.
There are two issues with read-and-transmit teleportation:
1. Data. There is a LOT of it. You need to read it all, then store it, then transport it. And even if there wasn't a lot of it we couldn't know all of it. Heisenberg has a problem with your device;).
2. Speed. You're limited to the speed of light even with unlimited bandwith. See [1] about just how much of that you'd need. Real teleportation uses quantum entanglement to have instantaneous transfer.
Time passes, and some third party files my name off what I right and starts doing something actionable copyright-wise with it.
Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?
That would be you. The copyright owner. They have a right to distribution but this does not give them any other rights. All moral rights remain vested in you and this third party has breached your moral rights.
This truly is much ado about nothing. This clause in the agreement is designed to pre-empt Google News cases a la Belgium for things like blogger search. Simple as that. Really, really not an issue. I guarantee it*.
* I actually don't make any guarantee, because doing so would be stupid, but that doesn't stop me being right.
As far as I can tell, this is why the GPL has a termination clause - to turn license violations into copyright infringements. Since the Artistic License has no such clause, it would seem to me that this case implies nothing about a similar case with the GPL.
This is a valid point. I'm not sure of the situation in the USA but in Australia there is an implicit termination upon breach of a condition (well, there's a right to termination that would probably be impliedly exercised by the nature of the license). The issue was that in this case breach of a condition did not cause the license to be terminated, it was only a breach. This is analogous to a waranty (entitiling the plaintiff to damages) as opposed to a condition (entitling the plaintiff to termination), despite the condition being specifically worded as such.
Even if it allows the GPL to continue unhindered this decision requires a termination clause, contrary to statements made in the Sun case (though they may indeed be obiter[1]). The implication of that case was that breach of any condition would be sufficient to place the infringment outside the license.
[1] Not relevant to the reason for the decision and therefore not binding but made in the judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA shouldn't be spying on US citizens in the US. And if they are, that can't be used in court. If you've already got a lawyer, you're protected by attorney-client.
Either that or Big Brother isn't quite as dumb as the guy on the show. The book 1984 presents an absolute dystopia. We don't need to live in that world to be controlled by the government. Any smart dictator would encourage everyone to read 1984 precisely so s/he can say "we're nowhere near that bad!".
Meanwhile we have detention without charge, acceptance of psychological torture (which is what broke Winston Smith, if you'll recall) and a failing fourth estate. People don't need to be criminals to be arrested any more. That's the horrible thing.
Just because 1984 was bad that doesn't mean that anything not that bad isn't bad. Just because we don't have absolute governmental control, bad shit is still going down and something needs to be done. Moving closer to the pervasive surveillance that characterised George Orwell's most dystopian of visions isn't that something.
You're assuming that they know. If they can't effectively track where they are, what makes you think they can effectively track what's on them?
Yes. The USA is the largest economy. It will have more impact than any other economy. Especially since most other economies do what the US says because they're much smaller and - if you'll allow an analogy - non-unionised.
Hell, they can even buy American goods through third party countries if they so desired.Unless the third-party refuses to trade, because doing so would cause them to lose the benefit of US trade.
In other words, maybe, just maybe, it really is their ideological bullshit that causes them to fail because it sure as shit ain't the US embargo. Unless, of course, you buy into Castro's bullshit.I'm happy enough buying into any twentieth (or even nineteenth) century economic theory which depends on free trade to have a free market.
First, the candidate that will claim to do it will piss off all those Cubans in Florida, causing that candidate to lose Florida. No candidate wants to do that. So if you want to blame anyone for the embargo, blame the CUBANS in Florida.We call these people Floridians.
The trouble is that the ER isn't meant to be there to treat your arthritis. The ER is meant to treat emergency conditions. The result is you don't get to see your specialists, the ERs are overloaded, waiting times at ERs become extreme and the ER staff get shitty.
People used to have a lot of free time, and mechanics was a big hobby. Also, money was scarce and if something broke you had to fix it. In today's world of "disposable" income, however, it's just easier to buy a new car.
I have a 1986 K6 Chevy Blazer that I had a friend put a motor in. (I lack the equipment and knowledge to do it myself.) I'm sure anyone else would have sent it off to the scrap pile and pocketed $300. I prefer to keep my carburated, non-computerized, oversized gas hog running. It doesn't hurt that I live in a state (Iowa) with no vehicle inspections.
It may cost the proverbial arm and leg to fill the 40-gallon tank, but it beats buying a new vehicle. (FWIW, it's used for a five-block commute to work.)
Have you thought about the zero-emission, free-as-in-beer, free-as-in-speech, good ol' fashioned solution: walk the damn five blocks?
You see, when I read that it makes me think you're in the wrong field. Sure, I wouldn't go to a party to solve PDEs but I would love a maths themed party because I find it interesting. Little maths jokes, fractal cookies (suggested before), everyone in xkcd shirts... it'd be awesome!
You know it turns out there are resources on the internet now. Like complete case law, or statute books, or journals, or hell even SCOTUSblog. Just because there is a bad use, don't ban the whole damn thing! It's the VCR argument all over again...
The Patriot Act is just another method to keep people safe. Until the average Joe decides he would rather be free than safe, the oppression will continue.
I would prefer terror to tyranny.
Detached signature FTW? It comes through as an attachment named .asc - no more irritating than the winmail.dat files you get from Outlook.
Sorry, but I'm fairly certain that English contract law doesn't apply to the USA...
I'm not saying it does. I'm not an American law student, I'm an Australian law student. I was referring to Australian authority (which in this case is actually inherited British authority). Contract law in the USA is actually quite similar to contract law in the Commonwealth, especially with regards to the formation of a contract. Partially this is because that's fundamental law that was developed in the early seventeenth century (and before) in England, partially this is because of international law.
From what I've seen of cases in USA, visiting a website that doesn't require a login or click-through agreement doesn't rise to the level of the legal technical definition of "genuine consent" or of "agreement" not to mention there is no "consideration" given. Therefore this "contract" doesn't pass three of the six "required" parts that make any contract legally binding.
Ok, there are three conditions required for a contract to exist which may be questioned here: agreement, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
On the topic of agreement there are two sub-questions: does the searcher's understanding of the terms of the contract correlate with Google's understanding; and does the searcher communicate their acceptance, as is required.
On the question of correspondence of acceptance with the offer, given the absence of any signed agreement, we must consider incorporation of terms by notice. Where reasonable steps have been taken to draw the attention of the searcher to the terms in question, those terms will be incorporated into the contract. Given its prevalence it would likely be considered reasonable to draw the attention of searchers to those terms by providing a link to Terms of Service at the base of a page. Furthermore, it is quite likely that through repeated use of the service in question, knowledge of the terms would be presumed (incorporation by course of dealing).
On the question of communication of acceptance, first consider that clicking the "Search" button is a clear indication of a desire to do business that could easily be described as the requisite communication. In the alternative, consider any case about rewards or competitions filed prior to statutory protection against false advertising. I'm not certain of the US cases, but in a Commonwealth country we'd look to the Carbolic Smoke Ball case. These clearly indicate that communication of acceptance may not be required in all cases, for example where it is unreasonable, or not required by the offeror.
Now let us look at consideration. I think it is safe to take the definition provided in the British case of Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 which, at 162, includes "... some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken ..." by the acceptor. In this case mere acceptance of the terms - which restrict statutory rights, both in terms of tort claims and in copyright - is a forbearance. There seems no question to me that there is some consideration given.
Finally and most crucially there is intent to enter legal relations which must exist for both parties. This is perhaps the most difficult thing to demonstrate. An argument could be made that the searcher knows that their use of the service is governed by terms of service and that by accepting them they are accepting the contractual nature of the exchange. This argument is strengthened by repeated use, similar to the argument about incorporation of terms by a course of dealing.
Perhaps I am using the wrong phrases, not being a lawyer and all...
This juxtaposes well with your later saying I should get more training before commenting on legal matters.
[W]hile there is curr
While EULAs have stood up in court, these have all been click-through or open a sealed envelope agreements.
Use of a service can be an action that constitutes acceptance - see, for example, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [1983] 1 QB 256. Not US authority, but regardless.
Also, I think that if Google uses this patent, they may actually violate Child Protection laws and if I ever catch anyone tracking my child's internet activity I'll prosecute.
Well, as I understand it the technology has the capacity to guess a person's age based on their behaviour... not a breach of child protection law by any stretch of the imagination. And in any case, any contract between Google and the child would likely be void due to lack of capacity to enter into the contract.
And if the police won't do anything, I'll hire SCO's lawyers to go after them for 60% of anything they can squeeze out of them. Or some other equally sleazy and hungry litigator.
I'm glad I'm training to be a lawyer, I really am.
Uh, visiting a website DEFINITELY doesn't constitute forming a binding contract. My (completely unprofessional) understanding is that if I can use the services without having to verify my identity, then I probably haven't formed any contract, and if I'm not forced to even be aware that there IS a "contract" then I certainly haven't agreed to anything.
Merely looking at something does not bind you, generally speaking, but you could at least in theory be bound by looking (NDA anyone?) and you almost certainly do have a contract with Google.
The whole point about a contract is that a good or service is offered and you accept that offer with "consideration" (giving up some property, doing something or refraining from doing something) being exchange for that. In this case the service is obvious and you accept a contract when you click "Search Google" or even "I'm Feeling Lucky". Your consideration is agreeing to their Terms of Service (which is mostly about refraining from doing something).
As to being aware that the contract is being made, you are presumed to know that you are entering into a relationship with your service provider (Google). This makes quite a bit of sense really. If you pay a guy to clean your car and he doesn't, he's might be guilty of a crime but that won't give you your money back. You need to sue him because you had an understanding and he didn't hold up his end of the bargain. That's a contract and it doesn't matter if you don't know his name.
It is generally considered that if your attention is brought to the existence of terms (for example by a link to "Terms of Service", or by text on a bus ticket saying "Issued subject to terms and conditions") then your use of the service indicates your acceptance of those terms. This is particularly true where you use the service repeatedly - you have ample opportunity to discover and question those terms but you keep coming back. So you must be OK with them.
NB: IANAL but I am a law student, albeit from Australia.
I've always wondered why a tiny cell phone can transmit data to a cell tower miles away, when cordless phones and wi-fi cards have a range of only a few hundred meters. Is there a technical/cost reason, or just a legal one?
Technical. Check out wikipedia for details, but it's basically about how the waves propagate, with a secondary reason being absorption spectra of common materials. 802.11a/b/g/n is in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz spectra. Mobile phones operate on 850MHz, 900MHz, 1800MHz or 1900MHz, depending where you are in the world and what type of network you're using.
My biggest concern is false positive/false negative results. Let's say you have a false reading rate of 0.01% - that's 99.99% success. With 200M people each verifying their identity a conservative twice a day that's 20,000 false readings a day.
To provide the worst sort of evidence (anecdotal), I get about 5% false negative and unknown false positive rate with my (new) laptop fingerprint scanner. That error rate excludes "scan again" requests. Sure, it's an El Cheapo, but do you imagine a government splurging on decent tech for a national roll-out? Having seen public transport ticketing systems, driver licensing schemes, public sector building security and working in the civil service, I'm going with no.
Ok, true... but a single frame of a film can be copied under fair use while the film in its entirety cannot.
Your description of fair use is also incomplete (it's not just study or criticism, it can also be time-shifting, transient copying for certain purposes, backups of software and a few other things). I'm tired though, so I'll let someone else explain all this.
The car analogy is used far too often on Slashdot. I first saw it when it was talking about needing a specific car to drive on specific roads back when it was a Mac-PC debate. Let's look at this more closely.
The car analogy cannot be used here, and this is why. You use MSO products to create works. The issue with interoperability is that, like with everything, you keep moving to later versions of software (later models of cars, newer fridges, comfier chairs, whatever). Under the non-interoperable model, you are unable to view the work you created without their software, which has an associated cost. That's lock-in.
There is no analogy because in traditional times when you created a work (artistic, literary, whatever) you wouldn't have any trouble viewing or modifying it, because it was on paper. By the nature of computers, everything is encoded (which is for most parallel to encrypted) and you need MSO to decode it. This is not true of most things - we have open standards for plain text (ASCII, UTF), images (JPEG, PNG, EPS, SVG), print layouts (PS, PDF), formatted text (RTF), audio (PCM, MP3, Vorbis), video (MPEG) and data generally (XML, [TC]SV).
The issue here is that if you want to preserve your work done in MSO products you must use a lossy format (RTF, ASCII) or use a Microsoft product. By the nature of how people use computers, keeping Word 6 isn't really an excuse either. That's a different argument about monopolies though; perhaps the fact that everyone is using the latest word is more about good marketing than anything else (e.g. the It's Not Cheating program).
The bigger problem is that Microsoft is trying to create a new standard (OOXML) that has exactly the same function as an existing one (ODF). And through the same organisation (ISO). Now while we all love having lots of standards to choose from, in reality this is A Bad Thing for people trying to send data to each other. While it's nice that Microsoft is letting others use their format, it would be nicer if they used the existing standard that offers the same functionality. Combine that with patent issues and you see why people complain about OOXML.
> BTW, what was decided on the appeal and cross-appeal in the case you cited?
High Court case, no further appeals possible, precedent binding on all Australian courts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not binding because the decision wasn't that the defence is effective.
The defendant had not made submission to the court, the RIAA filed for a default, the judge rejected it on the grounds that a possible defence which another court may consider to have merit, if presented, which would not be inconsistent with the facts as assumed, is that the defendant was merely making available the recordings and therefore not liable for the infringement, if it did exist? And wasn't this based on the RIAA having belief and information as to infringement, rather than hard evidence?
It's a positive step, and it means the defence may apply - but it's a far cry from "Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory".
Disclaimers: just my opinion; not a legal opinion; IANAL.
Claimer: I am a law student in Tasmania, Australia.
The library analogy fails:
IANAL; I am a law student in Australia.
There are two issues with read-and-transmit teleportation:
;).
1. Data. There is a LOT of it. You need to read it all, then store it, then transport it. And even if there wasn't a lot of it we couldn't know all of it. Heisenberg has a problem with your device
2. Speed. You're limited to the speed of light even with unlimited bandwith. See [1] about just how much of that you'd need. Real teleportation uses quantum entanglement to have instantaneous transfer.
Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?
That would be you. The copyright owner. They have a right to distribution but this does not give them any other rights. All moral rights remain vested in you and this third party has breached your moral rights.
This truly is much ado about nothing. This clause in the agreement is designed to pre-empt Google News cases a la Belgium for things like blogger search. Simple as that. Really, really not an issue. I guarantee it*.
* I actually don't make any guarantee, because doing so would be stupid, but that doesn't stop me being right.
This is a valid point. I'm not sure of the situation in the USA but in Australia there is an implicit termination upon breach of a condition (well, there's a right to termination that would probably be impliedly exercised by the nature of the license). The issue was that in this case breach of a condition did not cause the license to be terminated, it was only a breach. This is analogous to a waranty (entitiling the plaintiff to damages) as opposed to a condition (entitling the plaintiff to termination), despite the condition being specifically worded as such.
Even if it allows the GPL to continue unhindered this decision requires a termination clause, contrary to statements made in the Sun case (though they may indeed be obiter[1]). The implication of that case was that breach of any condition would be sufficient to place the infringment outside the license.
[1] Not relevant to the reason for the decision and therefore not binding but made in the judgement.