This is about Justice Department doing criminal prosecutions against P2P filesharers -- that means the RIAA/MPAA no longer have to foot the bill for lawyers to sue Joe Shmoe (x10000). Instead, as a criminal matter, the cost is born by the Justice Department, hence the US taxpayer winds up having to pay the bill, no matter how many lawyers it will take.
Winners and losers:
Justice Department gets more funding, more cases, can claim to be "tough on crime". Winners.
RIAA/MPAA no longer have to shell out bucks to sue people, they just report them to the Justice Department. Winners.
Court system, clogged already, gets further clogged with 1000s of P2P cases. Losers.
US Taxpayer has to pay for procsecuting P2P file shares. Losers.
P2P file sharers now get criminal records. Think about all the losses that brings in US society. In some states, that includes the right to vote. Big losers.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: the move of copyright infringment from civil law to criminal law is one of the most nasty and dangerous changes in recent copyright laws.
10,000 "page changes" per set of batterys divided by 60 frames per second...
Hey, I can play Quake for 2 3/4 minutes on this thing before having to change batteries!
More seriously, I'd love to see this tech in a subnotebook pc.
Hmm. According to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html (not the law itself, I know)
NOTE: Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all other relevant statutory conditions.[...]Federal copyright could also be secured before 1978 by the act of registration in the case of certain unpublished works and works eligible for ad interim copyright.
and
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured.
So only publication with a notice was needed to secure copyright (registration wasn't a requirement). As for the damages, I'll have to look further.
Incorect. Under the old system, if you had a notice but didn't register, it limitted the damages you could sue for, but it was valid, and could be used to stop someone from infringing.
You wouldn't expect to use a book based on 1700's english even though latin hasn't changed since then.
Funny, I had no problems reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, even though it was written in the late 1700s. English hasn't changed that much. I think a Latin textbook from 1800-1922 would be perfectly acceptable, assuming it was a decent textbook to start with.
If you're making $500 a month car payments and $1,500 a month mortgage payments and are reporting $20,000 a year in income, something's probably up,
Sez who?
The year I quit my job and went back to grad school I was paying about $600/month rent and $3000 for classes, and I made $6000 that year.
It's call savings. I saved money from my three years of post-college work, allowing to me to live off savings that year. It's none of the government's business if I saved the money in a bank (on the books) or a mattress (off the books). I shouldn't have to prove anything to any investigator.
At what point does financial globalization lead to the homogenization of national laws, even horrible ones?
It's been happening for a while. The US had some perfectly reasonable copyright laws up until 1976, when we changed our laws so we could join the Berne convention. We changed our laws to "harmonize" with Europe. And then in 1995, Europe extended their laws from life+50 to life+70, and shortly thereafter [1996], the US extended its laws to match.
It's a crap trick that political and corporations play. Pass a law in one area, and then force other areas to pass similar laws to "harmonize". It's why other contries are getting their own versions of the DMCA
Do I even have to ask why instead of Australia extending their copyrights (they were/are a life+50 nation), the US doesn't scale back US laws to match Australia's?
Outside the USA, a Yankee is someone from the USA.
In the USA, a Yankee is someone from the Northern USA.
In the Northern USA, a Yankee is someone from New England (the northeast part of the country, from Maine to Massachussets).
In New England, a Yankee is someone from Vermont.
In Vermont, a Yankee is a local who still has an outhouse, instead of indoor plumbing.
Isn't that the thing where you type in your PIN number?
Yes, after you put in your MAC card.
I think there's a slight typo in the article
on
A.I. Helicopter?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
tiny helicopter drones will monitor traffic, inspect buildings for maintenance problems, map bushfires, look for faults in powerlines, and join search-and-rescue missions
ITYM:
tiny helicopter drones will monitor public unrest, inspect building windows for cute girls, map ex-girlfriends' activities, look for faults in polictical opponents, and join search-and-blackmail missions.
BTW, is the old 1981 IBM BIOS code in public domain yet?
No. While patents last 20 years, so any patents involved have expired, corporate copyright lasts 95 years, so the 1981 BIOS won't enter the public domain until 2076.
Unless, of course, someone convinces Congress to extend copyright again.
Historically, this is not true; the Supreme Court has held on a number of occasions, that the US Constitution applies to all persons on US soil, citizen or not.
However, it is the position that the current administration has been pushing. Even so, they've been careful with things like taking the captured Afghanistans to Guantanamo Bay, which they can claim is not US soil. If they were to have shipped them to Texas, they would have even more trouble in attempting to hold them without trial.
Slashdot Mirror
...any chocolate bars.
Another useage of snarf was introduced to me by a former coworker, who referred to "cut & paste" as "snarf & barf".
Winners and losers:
Justice Department gets more funding, more cases, can claim to be "tough on crime". Winners.
RIAA/MPAA no longer have to shell out bucks to sue people, they just report them to the Justice Department. Winners.
Court system, clogged already, gets further clogged with 1000s of P2P cases. Losers.
US Taxpayer has to pay for procsecuting P2P file shares. Losers.
P2P file sharers now get criminal records. Think about all the losses that brings in US society. In some states, that includes the right to vote. Big losers.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: the move of copyright infringment from civil law to criminal law is one of the most nasty and dangerous changes in recent copyright laws.
10,000 "page changes" per set of batterys divided by 60 frames per second... Hey, I can play Quake for 2 3/4 minutes on this thing before having to change batteries! More seriously, I'd love to see this tech in a subnotebook pc.
Incorect. Under the old system, if you had a notice but didn't register, it limitted the damages you could sue for, but it was valid, and could be used to stop someone from infringing.
Funny, I had no problems reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, even though it was written in the late 1700s. English hasn't changed that much. I think a Latin textbook from 1800-1922 would be perfectly acceptable, assuming it was a decent textbook to start with.
But what good does having a way around it do you, when they can have you thrown in jail for using it?
*Buzz*
Wrong answer. Copyrights do not lapse due to lack of defense. You are thinking of Trademarks.
Sez who?
The year I quit my job and went back to grad school I was paying about $600/month rent and $3000 for classes, and I made $6000 that year.
It's call savings. I saved money from my three years of post-college work, allowing to me to live off savings that year. It's none of the government's business if I saved the money in a bank (on the books) or a mattress (off the books). I shouldn't have to prove anything to any investigator.
It's seven years later. He'd be about 20. It would be interesting to find out if he made it to becoming a programmer.
It's been happening for a while. The US had some perfectly reasonable copyright laws up until 1976, when we changed our laws so we could join the Berne convention. We changed our laws to "harmonize" with Europe. And then in 1995, Europe extended their laws from life+50 to life+70, and shortly thereafter [1996], the US extended its laws to match.
It's a crap trick that political and corporations play. Pass a law in one area, and then force other areas to pass similar laws to "harmonize". It's why other contries are getting their own versions of the DMCA
Do I even have to ask why instead of Australia extending their copyrights (they were/are a life+50 nation), the US doesn't scale back US laws to match Australia's?
Yup. The 6'1" gray-eyed poster.
Outside the USA, a Yankee is someone from the USA.
In the USA, a Yankee is someone from the Northern USA.
In the Northern USA, a Yankee is someone from New England (the northeast part of the country, from Maine to Massachussets).
In New England, a Yankee is someone from Vermont.
In Vermont, a Yankee is a local who still has an outhouse, instead of indoor plumbing.
But that means I'd have to give up all my T-shirts!
What copyright infringement? Was he illegally copying Microsoft software? Trademark != copyright.
Yes, after you put in your MAC card.
ITYM:
tiny helicopter drones will monitor public unrest, inspect building windows for cute girls, map ex-girlfriends' activities, look for faults in polictical opponents, and join search-and-blackmail missions.
If you are interested, you can take a look at a paper I wrote (back in 1997) on the power of cracking with ten 200MHz Pentium Pro machines.
Perineum. Look it up.
I have wondered how the DVDCCA can get away with Mexico being Region 4, while Canada and the US are R1. Doesn't that fly in the face of NAFTA?
No. While patents last 20 years, so any patents involved have expired, corporate copyright lasts 95 years, so the 1981 BIOS won't enter the public domain until 2076.
Unless, of course, someone convinces Congress to extend copyright again.
Singular 'they' is perfectly acceptable English, in use since at least the 14th century A.D.
It was only in the 19th century that some grammarians attempted to rid us of that usage, based on the fact that it didn't match up with Latin.
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
http://www.vocabula.com/2003/VRSept03Altieri.htm
So now the composer has first publication rights. Once the song has been released for sale in some form, then anyone can cover it.
However, it is the position that the current administration has been pushing. Even so, they've been careful with things like taking the captured Afghanistans to Guantanamo Bay, which they can claim is not US soil. If they were to have shipped them to Texas, they would have even more trouble in attempting to hold them without trial.