Ok, I had a chance to read the article and 1) Google said they wouldn't develop a competing product. Did LimitNone have that in a contract? I'm guessing no. And, more importantly, 2) at $19 a pop for 50 million premier customers, that works out, in my basic math, to $100 million. A little short of the 1 BILLION the suit alleges in economic damages. Google may have been dickish in going back on their word, but Google was (presumably) under no contractual obligation to not develop a competing product and LimitNone is suing for an outrageously excessive amount of money, well beyond the actual financial damages they might possibly suffer (not all 50 million premier customers would necessarily buy their product). So, sorry, this still smacks of a company trying to get rich by suing the big kid on the block.
If you can't get rich by making a worthy product, then get rich by suing someone. (No, I didn't read the article, but we all know this is the new way of business for most companies - sue their way to wealth.)
I haven't read the article, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "Canadian companies" is used loosely since it's illegal to charge for a service and not provide it, even in the frozen, barbaric north. I suspect "Canadian companies" is being used rather than "illegal scammers that happen to operate out of Canada." Then again, I didn't read the article so...
A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on/.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?
Please write your MP and let them know you want no part of this bill. Please write a polite and informed message to them, encourage them to check out Michael Geist's page (link in article above). The world does not need another DMCA that empowers big media at the expenses of consumers' rights. Write your MP.
Lack the sophistication? Are you kidding me? Some of the best hackers turn out to be 14 year old kids futzing around in their parent's basement. Is this guy seriously trying to claim China lacks the "sophistication" of a 14 year old ADD brat?
Your honor, we know you're going to rule against us and set a precedent which will completely torpedo most of our other legal efforts so we'd like to respectfully withdraw our claim. Kthxbai.
sigh... Gamesmanship at its most disgusting...
I'm curious - can the judge deny their voluntary dismissal and still hand down judgment?
There is no other way besides the internet to make my views known to more than a few people.
Sorry, but if you believe that, then you are out of touch. Or, to put it more directly - how do you think people exercised those freedoms before the internet? Somehow, hundreds of people throughout history managed to make their views known to more than a few people without the internet. So, I say again, hyperbole.
In other words, you download a few songs and they'll come along and cut off the one wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
For those who are unclear on the definition of "hyperbole", please read the above quoted sentence.
I sense a major lawsuit coming. I can imagine more than a few laws being broken by this sort of manipulation (copyright violations, hacking violations, interference with business violations, etc.). I cannot imagine this will go on for too long. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer (but does that stop any of us form posting our opinions on legal matters?...) so I could well be wrong, but I can't imagine this not resulting in major lawsuits.
Ok, seriously, two posts about American politics on Slashdot on the same day? Come on! News for Nerds please. At least, if you're going to post about American politics, spread the wealth for those of us north of the border - post about Canadian politics as well.
Oh yeah. Canadian politics are boring. Uh. Never mind...
Well, as but one example, Carl Ichan is reported to own about 50 million shares in Yahoo ( http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080513/yahoo_icahn.html ) so a stock increase from $30 to $31 represents a profit of about $50 million. Now, call me wacky, but that sounds like a good reason to me...
I'm surprised that major content providers (Apple (iTunes), Google (so many), etc.) haven't stood up and raised a fuss. Sure, individual customers complaining is all well and good, but when "providers" are limiting other companies' abilities to conduct business, I'd think they'd step up and cry foul. I mean, if most of America is suddenly under the clamp of pretty hefty bandwidth restrictions, their ability to buy songs, browse movies, and _view advertising_ is dramatically limited.
Yeah. I know. I could have simplified that as "what a moronic move which is only going to stifle innovation in an era where we need more, not less advancement in ideas and technology..."
Here, let me summarize the article for those not willing to read it: "We know the new iPhone is coming and it will have new features but we don't know what they are beyond 3G but we'll speculate to expand our word count so this is an actual article rather than a short sentence."
Why do people make bold and moronic statements like that when history regularly proves them wrong. You know, that adage of "where there's a will, there's a way?" Uh, yeah. That saying came about for a reason - when people put their mind to something, they will always succeed in the end. It kinda goes along with the "never say never" adage...
I'm concerned about the future state of our planet. Certainly more concerned than a vast majority of people. But, really, does anyone really care what Greenpeace thinks any more? Does anyone really give any credence to their fear-mongering garbage? Do they really think they're doing any good with their ill-informed and often incorrect "information?" I mean, if I tell you something that is easy to prove as incorrect, are you more or less likely to believe me in the future? Yeah. Exactly.
There's no question that what this woman did was wrong and morally repugnant. But was it a crime?
Yes. It was. It's called harassment. She intentionally, willfully, and knowingly tormented a kid. If that isn't harassment, I don't know what is. I'm sure there are many other laws that she could be slapped with but, yes, what she did was a crime. Pure and simple.
Wait a second! You mean that for violation of distribution rights to actually happen, copies have to be distributed?? I wish somebody had said something sooner!!
sigh...
I guess the courts getting a clue later is better than not at all...
Slashdot Mirror
The Country's Best Yogurt yogurt?
Ignore my math. No coffee yet. Me stoopid. Jebus, I can be daft sometimes...
Ok, I had a chance to read the article and 1) Google said they wouldn't develop a competing product. Did LimitNone have that in a contract? I'm guessing no. And, more importantly, 2) at $19 a pop for 50 million premier customers, that works out, in my basic math, to $100 million. A little short of the 1 BILLION the suit alleges in economic damages. Google may have been dickish in going back on their word, but Google was (presumably) under no contractual obligation to not develop a competing product and LimitNone is suing for an outrageously excessive amount of money, well beyond the actual financial damages they might possibly suffer (not all 50 million premier customers would necessarily buy their product). So, sorry, this still smacks of a company trying to get rich by suing the big kid on the block.
If you can't get rich by making a worthy product, then get rich by suing someone. (No, I didn't read the article, but we all know this is the new way of business for most companies - sue their way to wealth.)
Welcome to The Police State. Population: You.
I haven't read the article, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "Canadian companies" is used loosely since it's illegal to charge for a service and not provide it, even in the frozen, barbaric north. I suspect "Canadian companies" is being used rather than "illegal scammers that happen to operate out of Canada." Then again, I didn't read the article so...
A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?
Please write your MP and let them know you want no part of this bill. Please write a polite and informed message to them, encourage them to check out Michael Geist's page (link in article above). The world does not need another DMCA that empowers big media at the expenses of consumers' rights. Write your MP.
Lack the sophistication? Are you kidding me? Some of the best hackers turn out to be 14 year old kids futzing around in their parent's basement. Is this guy seriously trying to claim China lacks the "sophistication" of a 14 year old ADD brat?
Your honor, we know you're going to rule against us and set a precedent which will completely torpedo most of our other legal efforts so we'd like to respectfully withdraw our claim. Kthxbai.
sigh... Gamesmanship at its most disgusting...
I'm curious - can the judge deny their voluntary dismissal and still hand down judgment?
There is no other way besides the internet to make my views known to more than a few people.
Sorry, but if you believe that, then you are out of touch. Or, to put it more directly - how do you think people exercised those freedoms before the internet? Somehow, hundreds of people throughout history managed to make their views known to more than a few people without the internet. So, I say again, hyperbole.
In other words, you download a few songs and they'll come along and cut off the one wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
For those who are unclear on the definition of "hyperbole", please read the above quoted sentence.
I sense a major lawsuit coming. I can imagine more than a few laws being broken by this sort of manipulation (copyright violations, hacking violations, interference with business violations, etc.). I cannot imagine this will go on for too long. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer (but does that stop any of us form posting our opinions on legal matters?...) so I could well be wrong, but I can't imagine this not resulting in major lawsuits.
Ok, seriously, two posts about American politics on Slashdot on the same day? Come on! News for Nerds please. At least, if you're going to post about American politics, spread the wealth for those of us north of the border - post about Canadian politics as well.
Oh yeah. Canadian politics are boring. Uh. Never mind...
Why on earth would you hold out for $31?
Well, as but one example, Carl Ichan is reported to own about 50 million shares in Yahoo ( http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080513/yahoo_icahn.html ) so a stock increase from $30 to $31 represents a profit of about $50 million. Now, call me wacky, but that sounds like a good reason to me...
I'm surprised that major content providers (Apple (iTunes), Google (so many), etc.) haven't stood up and raised a fuss. Sure, individual customers complaining is all well and good, but when "providers" are limiting other companies' abilities to conduct business, I'd think they'd step up and cry foul. I mean, if most of America is suddenly under the clamp of pretty hefty bandwidth restrictions, their ability to buy songs, browse movies, and _view advertising_ is dramatically limited.
Yeah. I know. I could have simplified that as "what a moronic move which is only going to stifle innovation in an era where we need more, not less advancement in ideas and technology..."
...assuming no BT throttling, etc shenanigans.
That's a bold assumption to make...
...but there's not a lot of details.
Which, of course, means it's a perfect candidate for a Slashdot article...
Let's go Apple, what are you waiting for?
I could be mistaken, but I believe the answer is "June 9th, 2008."
Here, let me summarize the article for those not willing to read it: "We know the new iPhone is coming and it will have new features but we don't know what they are beyond 3G but we'll speculate to expand our word count so this is an actual article rather than a short sentence."
Shit happens, but I think you are being overly sensitive.
One can be overly sensitive and correct at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Why do people make bold and moronic statements like that when history regularly proves them wrong. You know, that adage of "where there's a will, there's a way?" Uh, yeah. That saying came about for a reason - when people put their mind to something, they will always succeed in the end. It kinda goes along with the "never say never" adage...
I'm concerned about the future state of our planet. Certainly more concerned than a vast majority of people. But, really, does anyone really care what Greenpeace thinks any more? Does anyone really give any credence to their fear-mongering garbage? Do they really think they're doing any good with their ill-informed and often incorrect "information?" I mean, if I tell you something that is easy to prove as incorrect, are you more or less likely to believe me in the future? Yeah. Exactly.
There's no question that what this woman did was wrong and morally repugnant. But was it a crime?
Yes. It was. It's called harassment. She intentionally, willfully, and knowingly tormented a kid. If that isn't harassment, I don't know what is. I'm sure there are many other laws that she could be slapped with but, yes, what she did was a crime. Pure and simple.
Wait a second! You mean that for violation of distribution rights to actually happen, copies have to be distributed?? I wish somebody had said something sooner!!
sigh...
I guess the courts getting a clue later is better than not at all...