They claim that this other guy violated the license terms (From Term 1: Copyright notices must be preserved), but even if that is true there still isn't a copyright violation - just a violation of a license term.
And thus the essence of the case.
JRMI claimed that the preservation of the copyright notice was a condition of the license such that there would be no license unless the notice was preserved. This means that any copying without the notice was outside the license and therefore was unlicensed reproduction, therefore copyright infringement. The judge held that in fact the copying was within the license but in breach of it - a breach of contract. Although it seems as though "the bad guys" did something wrong in each case, there is a difference in remedy.
If you are in breach of a contract the court will generally only grant damages - that is, the person has to pay you for the breach. If you are a copyright violator then the court will grant an injunction (specifically there is a presumption that an injunction is an appropriate remedy for copyright violation, whereas the presumption for contract is that an injunction is inappropriate). An injunction means you can tell the violator to stop what they're doing (or otherwise impose a legal requirement to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way).
The reason this case is thought of as a bad thing is it seems to imply that any copying of anything released under a free software license (the distinctions between the GPL and the Artistic License are unimportant for this point) is ipso facto not copyright infringement though it may be a violation of the license. This ruling seems inconsistent with the Sun case where anything denoted as a "condition" it was considered would be sufficient to cause the behaviour to fall outside the license.
My plan: ensure my kids are well educated, leave them to do whatever they want and check the router logs occasionally to make sure they aren't getting into the dangerous/illegal shit.
No, we're not asking them for information, we're paying them for it.
Which comes under my statement about breach of contract.
Under American law, they may not lie
False. You can lie as much as you like under American law - as long as you don't lie in certain ways. For example, you're not allowed to lie to police about your identity, or to the IRS about your income. But if John Q Citizen comes up to me on the street and asks where a telephone box is, I can tell point him the wrong way and that's not illegal. Hell, you can lie about someone and that's slander/libel/defamation (depending on the circumstance). That's a civil matter. Your right to lie is guaranteed by the first amendment! Just ask anyone who's sought an injunction against libel.
Do you believe that other utilities may lie to you for their financial profit too?
And now we're back to obtaining property by deception/fraud. Which is illegal, yes. But they weren't obtaining property by deception. They weren't increasing profits. They weren't lying about the location of a competitor (which may constitute anti-competitive behaviour, illegal in its own right).
Just because you think something isn't right, that doesn't make it illegal. And don't talk to me about understanding the law, plskthx.
(b) Diversion of services.--A person is guilty of theft if, having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled...
(Emphasis added).
Yeah, they're entitled to do whatever they want with their DNS servers. You're the one asking them for information. Now, if they were obtaining a financial benefit then it may be obtaining money by deception, or fraud, because they're providing you with false information. It may be a breach of contract, though you'll find it hard to prove that they owe you anything at all. So yeah, there's really nothing wrong per se with what they're doing.
Old story, I know, but important point. The US electoral system is broken. First past the post means only two major parties are ever able to get elected. Who the two major parties are might change - but that takes a century or two to sink in with the electorate.
So, how do we ensure the 49% of people who didn't Vote 1 Elected Party get a say? Well, it's called a multi-member electorate with partial preferential voting and Robson rotation. Google is your friend if you don't know what this stuff is. All you really need to know is that by any metric it's fairer.
It's just too bad that neither party would ever elect to reduce its own power... kinda makes electoral reform tough.
The thing about Google buying Youtube was they paid $1.65B in stock. Thanks to rumours in the days before the sale, the value of the stock they owned went up by about $2.20B. So Youtube cost them nothing. Ahh, the brilliance of a market economy and publicly traded shares..
Ok, and I'd agree if myspace employees had actual knowledge or should have, or even could have known about these children and the risk they were at, or the paedophiles and the risk they posed. Yes, they were aware of the risk in general and they took action to mitigate. That means they're not liable - because they tried to do something and they can't reasonably be asked to do much more. Well, my thoughts anyway.
The real trouble with the slippery slope argument is that I'm OK with tracking cattle using machine-readable unique IDs and I'm not OK with the same technology being used on humans. Cattle tracking, I don't think it's a privacy issue. The moment someone suggests we put this on people, then I'll raise all hell.
Having said that, someone (albeit a nobody) did suggest it, so hell-raising is appropriate, for once.
As a side note, when I renewed all three of my passports in May 2006. The Australian and EU (British) both had RFID chips with the explanation that it was required by the US Government for all passports. My US passport came without one.
As a side side note, the entire Guantanamo Bay situation is the single thing that horrifies and offends me more than anything else. Help me do something, please.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, so, here you have a right granted by the constitution of the United States which was designed to ensure the independence of the states. Sure. A little bit outdated, probably not intended to allow automatic weapons (and you won't see the ACLU being for a total gun ban). We'll also ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and the (now untrue) implication that such a militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. We have something called the army now.
But seriously, ignore my rant. I will just go ahead and accept that the previous paragraph is crap. What is undeniably true, however, is that the right to bear arms is not a civil right. It is a constitutional right in the United States, undeniably. But let's have a look at what civil rights are. Probably a fair, unbiased starting point would be the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Have a bit of a read. It lists freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, the freedom to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination. It even lists a need for guaranteeing due process of law and a fair trial. The one which we'll focus on, however, is the right of self determination (Art 1).
Article 1 is really what the second amendment was about: maintaining the rights of the people and ensuring that the government doesn't raise an army against its own people. This isn't about the right to bear arms generally. This is about the right to bear arms in resistance against a despot. Nobody denies anyone that right. These days it's called the right to self determination and it means that you get to vote and if you don't get to vote then you get to rebel. So quit all the crap about how "being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties." If we're talking about civil liberties (rather than civil rights) then the ULTIMATE in civil liberties is actually being able to do whatever you want - kill, rape, pillage, burn etc. But we don't do that. We restrict the behaviour of individuals for the betterment of society. If these restrictions become too much we have means to reduce them. These means can include, if necessary, bearing arms against an oppressor. Once again, this does not mean you have a right to keep an assault rifle on the back of your pickup for those really aggressive deer.
My apologies for the rant. But the second amendment is a poorly framed outmoded and unnecessary provision. People who claim that it is their right to bear any arms in any situation have no basis for that in the principles that underpin the constitution and the law.
On the contrary, there is plenty of law establishing and plenty of case law confirming the right to use deadly force in self defense (in the US).
And everywhere else in fact. There is, however, no law confirming the right to use deadly force to prevent trespass.
(This isn't strictly true, but the law is caselaw from the 19th century authorising the use of non-deadly force and only with substantial notification; such law has not been recently confirmed.)
In Australia there is no copyright exemption for look-and-feel or parody. Even so, this parody was clearly not copyright infringement. More ridiculousness from the Australian government. Somehow I'm not surprised.
The guy is (most likely) in a marginal seat and is trying to buy some credit with the local religious conservatives.
Not quite. Our senate is based on having six people elected from a whole-state electorate every three years, but rotating so there are twelve senators each with a six year term. Guy Barnett was 3rd (of 6 elected) in the most recent election. He's just an idiot.
A few other things to clarify: it wouldn't be a conscience vote - Howard hates these and won't even let one through on abortion. Oh, and Tasmania doesn't have religious conservatives, just plain old uneducated apathetic fools. Trust me, I live here. We're not all stupid down here.
Well, more importantly, eight qbits is a new record, the last one (being seven bits) set in late 2001. Quantum computing advances very slowly. The reference to "qbyte" is meaningless.
Quantum computers won't be used the same way as conventional computers because you won't have any need for them. They're good at specialised problems - things like prime factorisation. So, in the VERY distant future, you might have a qfactorising board IN your computer, designed specifically to do that, but it won't be like a normal computer is used. QByte is just a convenient term. Media frenzy, as it were. Meaningless.
I think we can be sure that if somebody had unlocked the secret of quantum computing there's a chance they'd say so at some point.
Ummm... not quite. There's lots of quantum computing currently being done - 4 qbit computers exist in several places (or can be brought into existance on demand, anyway). Quantum computation requires entanglement and manipulation of entangled bits. Well, the former is the hard part - that's what's been managed here. A major step forward - I recall 6 qbits was the record about a 18 months ago. Entangled bits are quite delicate - so that's the next challange. Now that they can entangle this many bits, they just need to manipulate them. That'll come with time.
I'm a Windows user, so don't experience the URL bar bug, nor the keyboard shortcut bug, but your other concerns make a fair amount of sense. I do have a bit of advice though...
Add n Edit Cookies Extension rocks. It allows you to do anything you want with cookies. There are various others for blocking site-based, those sorts of things. I personally feel that integrating too many cookie features into the main build is not what's required, because it's not widely used.
As to plugin security: yes, an "allow once" is a great idea. Have you submitted something to bugzilla? I'd suggest you do - I'll vote for it. As to downloading... well, that's because it's being sent as application/octet-stream. Fx - correctly - doesn't judge by file extension, rather by content type. It - also correctly - won't let you automate the use of application/octet-stream. The solution? Fx should allow for automated use of application/octet-stream depending on extension (ONLY relying on extension for that content type) and that automation should be ONLY running it through another program, or saving it - we'd hate to automatically run things. Again, submit something to bugzilla.
As was pointed out above, Microsoft owns a registered trademark on "Windows" in Australia. They fall under the following TM numbers (possibly there are others too):
576996
Class 9 (Computer systems software, computer systems software and programmers reference and users manuals sold as a unit)
576997
Class 16 (Books; computer documentation, namely, reference books, user and instructional manuals, data sheets, reference cards and templates; periodical and newsletters; all the foregoing featuring information about computer hardware and software and information about computer operating systems and environments)
837785
Classes 35, 41, 42 (35: Mail order and on-line distribution services in the fields of computer systems software and publications on computer system software; on-line retail store distributing computer systems software and publications on computer systems software; licensing computer systems software; arranging and conducting trade shows featuring information about computer systems software; 41: Providing information over computer networks and global communication networks in the fields of entertainment, music and interactive games; education services, namely on-line tutorials in the field of computers and computer software; publishing an on-line magazine in the field of computer systems software; 42: Computer services, namely providing technical support, information and consultation services in the field of computer systems software, all offered via computer networks and global communications networks; computer systems software testing services; providing computer systems software updates via computer networks and global communications networks; computerised search and retrieval services based on computer systems software)
For more information, please visit the IP Australia trademarks area or do a search in the trademarks database.
Ok, and don't oversimplify my position. I am of the strong opinion that the far greater danger than violence in video games or on television is the mental and social instability. The continuous torture (yes, strong word, yes, justified) these kids put up with at school. My guess? If there weren't violent video games this would've happened minus the trench coats. Or perhaps they would've only gotten as far as stabbing. The point stands: different, more serious problem exists in the form of irresponsible parents and schools where bullies are able to run free.
And as far as ratings go, the system of slapping a warning on a box seems to have worked quite well here in Australia - no school shootings. No school violence. In fact, I don't recall ever seing anything in this country blamed on violence in video games. <flamebait, racist, untrue, insensitive, tasteless joke>Perhaps you Americans are just more violent from birth - than us Aussies anyway</that>. The further restriction will have almost zero practical effect and - even if it did effect what it aimed - would serve no good.
(Yes, I'm bored and it's midnight here, but that won't stop me from making an arse of myself in pointless argument)
Yeah, but mine was shorter;). Incidentally, that website appears to have several different types of horrible coding, from SQL-injectability to poor variable handling. Yum! </offtopic>
Ok, yes, record companies should make profit if someone sells their product. Perfectly valid. No argument.
Consider this: your favorite Big Chain Records puts an ad on TV saying they have the latest Madona hit in. As a result people go into the shop and buy a Madona CD. BCR makes money. Madona-in-council (i.e. record companies, producers etc) make some money from that sale that BCR makes. Just because the word "Madona" was used doesn't mean Madona has to make money from it.
This is the same. They're proposing making money from advertisers who use their product names as part of their advertising. Specifically Google ads were mentioned. Google ads are generally text only - no copyrighted material. And if they use pictures, you know who owns the copyright? The person who made the picture - the photographer if it's a photo. Not the pictured, the photographer. Totally inappropriate.
The issue is that I've been playing violent computer games since I was 12 (I'm now 18) and I'm not violent. Ridiculously pacifist in fact - I literally won't kill mosquitos. The issue is that I have a great deal of fun playing violent computer games and my ability to enjoy myself would (if I lived in the US) be restricted by this law. What's more, it's me enjoying myself without hurting anyone else and indeed helping the economy. Arguably this will cause minors to turn to piracy;).
Most importantly, video games do not cause violence. You know what causes school masacares? Mentally unstable kids being bullied and abused in school. That and the ready availability of guns and amunition in the united states... Nothing to do with Doom though.
If I recall correctly, entrapment is only where a reasonable person would break the law in the given circumstance - so even your first case is not entrapment. Entrapment is designed to protect you in case you're coerced into comitting a crime. Then again, IANAL - I'm a law student. And in Australia too.
I know the UA string is non-unique. My point was that a UA string may be used to ensure that downloads of fx from existing users are not counted. Try to use some common sense before mouthing off at me.
Slashdot Mirror
And thus the essence of the case.
JRMI claimed that the preservation of the copyright notice was a condition of the license such that there would be no license unless the notice was preserved. This means that any copying without the notice was outside the license and therefore was unlicensed reproduction, therefore copyright infringement. The judge held that in fact the copying was within the license but in breach of it - a breach of contract. Although it seems as though "the bad guys" did something wrong in each case, there is a difference in remedy.
If you are in breach of a contract the court will generally only grant damages - that is, the person has to pay you for the breach. If you are a copyright violator then the court will grant an injunction (specifically there is a presumption that an injunction is an appropriate remedy for copyright violation, whereas the presumption for contract is that an injunction is inappropriate). An injunction means you can tell the violator to stop what they're doing (or otherwise impose a legal requirement to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way).
The reason this case is thought of as a bad thing is it seems to imply that any copying of anything released under a free software license (the distinctions between the GPL and the Artistic License are unimportant for this point) is ipso facto not copyright infringement though it may be a violation of the license. This ruling seems inconsistent with the Sun case where anything denoted as a "condition" it was considered would be sufficient to cause the behaviour to fall outside the license.
IANAL; I'm an Australian law student. The summary at Law & Life: Silicon Valley is excellent.
My plan: ensure my kids are well educated, leave them to do whatever they want and check the router logs occasionally to make sure they aren't getting into the dangerous/illegal shit.
Which comes under my statement about breach of contract.
False. You can lie as much as you like under American law - as long as you don't lie in certain ways. For example, you're not allowed to lie to police about your identity, or to the IRS about your income. But if John Q Citizen comes up to me on the street and asks where a telephone box is, I can tell point him the wrong way and that's not illegal. Hell, you can lie about someone and that's slander/libel/defamation (depending on the circumstance). That's a civil matter. Your right to lie is guaranteed by the first amendment! Just ask anyone who's sought an injunction against libel.
And now we're back to obtaining property by deception/fraud. Which is illegal, yes. But they weren't obtaining property by deception. They weren't increasing profits. They weren't lying about the location of a competitor (which may constitute anti-competitive behaviour, illegal in its own right).
Just because you think something isn't right, that doesn't make it illegal. And don't talk to me about understanding the law, plskthx.
(Emphasis added).
Yeah, they're entitled to do whatever they want with their DNS servers. You're the one asking them for information. Now, if they were obtaining a financial benefit then it may be obtaining money by deception, or fraud, because they're providing you with false information. It may be a breach of contract, though you'll find it hard to prove that they owe you anything at all. So yeah, there's really nothing wrong per se with what they're doing.
Old story, I know, but important point. The US electoral system is broken. First past the post means only two major parties are ever able to get elected. Who the two major parties are might change - but that takes a century or two to sink in with the electorate.
So, how do we ensure the 49% of people who didn't Vote 1 Elected Party get a say? Well, it's called a multi-member electorate with partial preferential voting and Robson rotation. Google is your friend if you don't know what this stuff is. All you really need to know is that by any metric it's fairer.
It's just too bad that neither party would ever elect to reduce its own power... kinda makes electoral reform tough.
The thing about Google buying Youtube was they paid $1.65B in stock. Thanks to rumours in the days before the sale, the value of the stock they owned went up by about $2.20B. So Youtube cost them nothing. Ahh, the brilliance of a market economy and publicly traded shares..
Ok, and I'd agree if myspace employees had actual knowledge or should have, or even could have known about these children and the risk they were at, or the paedophiles and the risk they posed. Yes, they were aware of the risk in general and they took action to mitigate. That means they're not liable - because they tried to do something and they can't reasonably be asked to do much more. Well, my thoughts anyway.
The real trouble with the slippery slope argument is that I'm OK with tracking cattle using machine-readable unique IDs and I'm not OK with the same technology being used on humans. Cattle tracking, I don't think it's a privacy issue. The moment someone suggests we put this on people, then I'll raise all hell.
Having said that, someone (albeit a nobody) did suggest it, so hell-raising is appropriate, for once.
As a side note, when I renewed all three of my passports in May 2006. The Australian and EU (British) both had RFID chips with the explanation that it was required by the US Government for all passports. My US passport came without one.
As a side side note, the entire Guantanamo Bay situation is the single thing that horrifies and offends me more than anything else. Help me do something, please.
I know I shouldn't but I just have to...
Ok, so, here you have a right granted by the constitution of the United States which was designed to ensure the independence of the states. Sure. A little bit outdated, probably not intended to allow automatic weapons (and you won't see the ACLU being for a total gun ban). We'll also ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and the (now untrue) implication that such a militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. We have something called the army now.
But seriously, ignore my rant. I will just go ahead and accept that the previous paragraph is crap. What is undeniably true, however, is that the right to bear arms is not a civil right. It is a constitutional right in the United States, undeniably. But let's have a look at what civil rights are. Probably a fair, unbiased starting point would be the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Have a bit of a read. It lists freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, the freedom to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination. It even lists a need for guaranteeing due process of law and a fair trial. The one which we'll focus on, however, is the right of self determination (Art 1).
Article 1 is really what the second amendment was about: maintaining the rights of the people and ensuring that the government doesn't raise an army against its own people. This isn't about the right to bear arms generally. This is about the right to bear arms in resistance against a despot. Nobody denies anyone that right. These days it's called the right to self determination and it means that you get to vote and if you don't get to vote then you get to rebel. So quit all the crap about how "being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties." If we're talking about civil liberties (rather than civil rights) then the ULTIMATE in civil liberties is actually being able to do whatever you want - kill, rape, pillage, burn etc. But we don't do that. We restrict the behaviour of individuals for the betterment of society. If these restrictions become too much we have means to reduce them. These means can include, if necessary, bearing arms against an oppressor. Once again, this does not mean you have a right to keep an assault rifle on the back of your pickup for those really aggressive deer.
My apologies for the rant. But the second amendment is a poorly framed outmoded and unnecessary provision. People who claim that it is their right to bear any arms in any situation have no basis for that in the principles that underpin the constitution and the law.
And everywhere else in fact. There is, however, no law confirming the right to use deadly force to prevent trespass.
(This isn't strictly true, but the law is caselaw from the 19th century authorising the use of non-deadly force and only with substantial notification; such law has not been recently confirmed.)
In Australia there is no copyright exemption for look-and-feel or parody. Even so, this parody was clearly not copyright infringement. More ridiculousness from the Australian government. Somehow I'm not surprised.
What do you mean by 'He's just and idiot'?
Typo for "he's just an idiot". Not exactly nPOV, I know ;).
The guy is (most likely) in a marginal seat and is trying to buy some credit with the local religious conservatives.
Not quite. Our senate is based on having six people elected from a whole-state electorate every three years, but rotating so there are twelve senators each with a six year term. Guy Barnett was 3rd (of 6 elected) in the most recent election. He's just an idiot.
A few other things to clarify: it wouldn't be a conscience vote - Howard hates these and won't even let one through on abortion. Oh, and Tasmania doesn't have religious conservatives, just plain old uneducated apathetic fools. Trust me, I live here. We're not all stupid down here.
Well, more importantly, eight qbits is a new record, the last one (being seven bits) set in late 2001. Quantum computing advances very slowly. The reference to "qbyte" is meaningless.
Quantum computers won't be used the same way as conventional computers because you won't have any need for them. They're good at specialised problems - things like prime factorisation. So, in the VERY distant future, you might have a qfactorising board IN your computer, designed specifically to do that, but it won't be like a normal computer is used. QByte is just a convenient term. Media frenzy, as it were. Meaningless.
I think we can be sure that if somebody had unlocked the secret of quantum computing there's a chance they'd say so at some point.
Ummm... not quite. There's lots of quantum computing currently being done - 4 qbit computers exist in several places (or can be brought into existance on demand, anyway). Quantum computation requires entanglement and manipulation of entangled bits. Well, the former is the hard part - that's what's been managed here. A major step forward - I recall 6 qbits was the record about a 18 months ago. Entangled bits are quite delicate - so that's the next challange. Now that they can entangle this many bits, they just need to manipulate them. That'll come with time.
I'm a Windows user, so don't experience the URL bar bug, nor the keyboard shortcut bug, but your other concerns make a fair amount of sense. I do have a bit of advice though...
Add n Edit Cookies Extension rocks. It allows you to do anything you want with cookies. There are various others for blocking site-based, those sorts of things. I personally feel that integrating too many cookie features into the main build is not what's required, because it's not widely used.
As to plugin security: yes, an "allow once" is a great idea. Have you submitted something to bugzilla? I'd suggest you do - I'll vote for it. As to downloading... well, that's because it's being sent as application/octet-stream. Fx - correctly - doesn't judge by file extension, rather by content type. It - also correctly - won't let you automate the use of application/octet-stream. The solution? Fx should allow for automated use of application/octet-stream depending on extension (ONLY relying on extension for that content type) and that automation should be ONLY running it through another program, or saving it - we'd hate to automatically run things. Again, submit something to bugzilla.
As was pointed out above, Microsoft owns a registered trademark on "Windows" in Australia. They fall under the following TM numbers (possibly there are others too):
576996 Class 9 (Computer systems software, computer systems software and programmers reference and users manuals sold as a unit) 576997 Class 16 (Books; computer documentation, namely, reference books, user and instructional manuals, data sheets, reference cards and templates; periodical and newsletters; all the foregoing featuring information about computer hardware and software and information about computer operating systems and environments) 837785 Classes 35, 41, 42 (35: Mail order and on-line distribution services in the fields of computer systems software and publications on computer system software; on-line retail store distributing computer systems software and publications on computer systems software; licensing computer systems software; arranging and conducting trade shows featuring information about computer systems software; 41: Providing information over computer networks and global communication networks in the fields of entertainment, music and interactive games; education services, namely on-line tutorials in the field of computers and computer software; publishing an on-line magazine in the field of computer systems software; 42: Computer services, namely providing technical support, information and consultation services in the field of computer systems software, all offered via computer networks and global communications networks; computer systems software testing services; providing computer systems software updates via computer networks and global communications networks; computerised search and retrieval services based on computer systems software)For more information, please visit the IP Australia trademarks area or do a search in the trademarks database.
*sigh*
Sadly, not all gamers are like you.
Ok, and don't oversimplify my position. I am of the strong opinion that the far greater danger than violence in video games or on television is the mental and social instability. The continuous torture (yes, strong word, yes, justified) these kids put up with at school. My guess? If there weren't violent video games this would've happened minus the trench coats. Or perhaps they would've only gotten as far as stabbing. The point stands: different, more serious problem exists in the form of irresponsible parents and schools where bullies are able to run free.
And as far as ratings go, the system of slapping a warning on a box seems to have worked quite well here in Australia - no school shootings. No school violence. In fact, I don't recall ever seing anything in this country blamed on violence in video games. <flamebait, racist, untrue, insensitive, tasteless joke>Perhaps you Americans are just more violent from birth - than us Aussies anyway</that>. The further restriction will have almost zero practical effect and - even if it did effect what it aimed - would serve no good.
(Yes, I'm bored and it's midnight here, but that won't stop me from making an arse of myself in pointless argument)
Yeah, but mine was shorter
</offtopic>
Once OpenDocument takes off
Ha! Optimist...
Ok, yes, record companies should make profit if someone sells their product. Perfectly valid. No argument.
Consider this: your favorite Big Chain Records puts an ad on TV saying they have the latest Madona hit in. As a result people go into the shop and buy a Madona CD. BCR makes money. Madona-in-council (i.e. record companies, producers etc) make some money from that sale that BCR makes. Just because the word "Madona" was used doesn't mean Madona has to make money from it.
This is the same. They're proposing making money from advertisers who use their product names as part of their advertising. Specifically Google ads were mentioned. Google ads are generally text only - no copyrighted material. And if they use pictures, you know who owns the copyright? The person who made the picture - the photographer if it's a photo. Not the pictured, the photographer. Totally inappropriate.
The issue is that I've been playing violent computer games since I was 12 (I'm now 18) and I'm not violent. Ridiculously pacifist in fact - I literally won't kill mosquitos. The issue is that I have a great deal of fun playing violent computer games and my ability to enjoy myself would (if I lived in the US) be restricted by this law. What's more, it's me enjoying myself without hurting anyone else and indeed helping the economy. Arguably this will cause minors to turn to piracy ;).
Most importantly, video games do not cause violence. You know what causes school masacares? Mentally unstable kids being bullied and abused in school. That and the ready availability of guns and amunition in the united states... Nothing to do with Doom though.
That's fucked. And it's true - ASCAP title code 380008955. Do a search by T-Code. http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?mode=search
If I recall correctly, entrapment is only where a reasonable person would break the law in the given circumstance - so even your first case is not entrapment. Entrapment is designed to protect you in case you're coerced into comitting a crime. Then again, IANAL - I'm a law student. And in Australia too.
I know the UA string is non-unique. My point was that a UA string may be used to ensure that downloads of fx from existing users are not counted. Try to use some common sense before mouthing off at me.