Closest you can come is, having any particular action overturned. If that alone resulted in an immediate monetary penalty it would bring most of this abuse to a very quick stop.
We can argue about the monetary amount. We can make it ascending, costing more an more for each overturned take down.
But I don't think you can void a companies patents or copyrights because one overzealous lawyer overreached. You can make it painful enough that management will demand to personally approve any such action.
Set a penalty level that gets management's attention, but still allows them to take down entire songs, tv shows, or what ever. Just make them be sure they are following the law.
Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this...
You've hit the nail directly on the head.
There is no teeth in 512(f). It aught to be a mandatory quarter million dollar penalty for filing a take down notice that was proven false or unjustified, or over-ruled by a court.
Fair use of short clips is protected. But without any consequence of ignoring this fact, the practice of take-down first and apologize later, or never, will continue.
But I'm glad to see this happening to politicians. Now maybe they will listen when citizens complain about this practice.
Cell phone opponents try to blame cell phones for everything.
The study you link to studied exactly TWO hives. The put the phones DIRECTLY in the hive for pete sake. Heat, vibration, magnetic fields, or noise (inaudible to humans) could have caused the results they observed.
Or it could have been caused by the fungus.
The point is, bees don't have cell phones. They certainly don't have them in their hive. And the Control hive was getting cell phone exposure as well. Just not the noise, heat, vibration, or magnetic fields, of a phone inside the hive.
Give that the study was from Chandigarh's Punjab University,?? and never repeated anywhere, and glibly attributed to magnetite in the bee's bodies, (which is not affected by radio waves) should give you reason to question it. Especially when no believable causal mechanism is cited.
At least the biological studies were able to determine precisely a combinations of fungus + virus that affected bees and control for either and thereby eliminate bee death.
Why not publish rates for data extractions and stick to them.
Even in the EU, Subpoenas must allow charging reasonable rates to cover costs, right? If not BT becomes mere staff members for the lawyers of the rights holders.
They could charge reasonable fees for rendering the requested information. They could probably charge enough to make a small profit.
I think in the present case they are actually just sick and tired of being forced to provide evidence against their own customer and to handle all of the fishing expeditions launched rights holders.
Sure the moratorium man save the some money. But I suspect they are just fed up with it.
For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".
True, but still the point remains that this device is quite poorly conceived, and the target audience is even less understood.
We all know there is not enough bandwidth for every person to be pulling TV across the internet. All of these have to stream on discrete IPs and you can't take advantage of multicast and still provide people with on-demand start times for every program in your video vault.
There is even less demand to browse the web while watching TV unless you live alone in your parents basement. Can you imagine trying to follow a football game with you S.O. surfing lol-cats and getting tweets every few seconds.
The concept of Google TV is foisting much of what is personal and private activities best destined for that device in your pocket to the Family TV set.
As such, it seems destined for singles or dorm rooms, and useless for families.
It seems like a failure to understand the lesson of the huge stereo systems we all abandoned as soon as we could don high quality earbuds, and have our collection in our pocket.
When everyone in the house has a personal iPad or Android Tablet, Google TV might make sense, but it will also be irrelevant, as the tablets themselves will do all of this.
AT&T is now loading their Android phones with sneaky-pay services that never clearly state you will see additional charges. AT&T Navigator can't hold a candle to Google Maps, but they want 9 bucks a month for it, and the words free trial pop up, but the price is never mentioned, and you can't delete the app.
Except that Street "name" signs are probably managed by the street department (maintenance) rather than Traffic (operations/enforcement), so I'm still betting you got the wrong budget. Nothing you list specifically talks to Street signs. Traffic control devices include stop/yield/speed signs. Not street names.
Signals, lighting, painting, parking meters would chew up that 69 million all by itself.
I would wager that any neighborhood street sign would have a life of 30 years. More in residential neighborhoods.
The city replaces street the average signs just about NEVER.
You site no source for your 27 million being the normal sign replacement budget, but what ever the sign replacement budget is, it surely includes ALL signs, and is not broken down by street, vs, parking, vs traffic control.
They replace theft losses of about 8000 a year, and that seems unlikely to cost anywhere near your strawman figure of 27 million.
These 8000 theft replacements will continue over the 8 years of this project, for an additional 64000 signs.
So 250000 replacements, over 8 years is 31000 signs VS 8000 normally, or nearly four times the normal number of replacements.
Point is, maybe like.00001% of street signs need replacing in any normal year.
Yet now they want to replace ALL 250,000 of them over 8 years, and that does not include the of 8000 replacements done for theft reasons EACH year. So it works out to something like 39 times the normal replacement rate.
Personally, it seems unlikely to me that there are ONLY 250,000 street signs in NYC.
Wait, you got all that from statement that it is tidally locked?
Why would the crust have to be locked? Volcanism can't occur in the dark? A molten core can't exist without non-locked rotation? Are the measurements to date even capable of determining for certain it is tidally locked over large spans of time (they just recently found the planet).
Why would CO2 recycling be absent? Because you can't imagine the mechanism? (What precisely IS CO2 recycling anyway)?
You make a lot of assertions with very little evidence. Such a planet would still have weather, winds (rather strong and stead ones I suspect), and perhaps oceans, some of which may span the terminator.
The difference is both sides are armed in Afghanistan.
There are a lot of other differences as well but it would seem you are not likely to be predisposed to pay them any heed in your rush to establish moral equivalence.
Mexico is a state in the process of failing. The Mexican Navy is about the only trustworthy branch of the government, and Leon is nowhere near the coast.
The people running the iris scanners will likely be in the employment of the drug lords, or dead shortly.
This is akin to locking yourself in your cabin on the Titanic.
If you are talking about an encrypted block of storage in an otherwise intelligible file it will be patently obvious that there is something there that is not like the rest of the file.
However if you had an encrypted block of storage in an file that was itself stored encrypted you might be able to plausibly deny the existence of the secret block.
Lets assume you had an encrypted item, movie, book, etc. Call this the innocuous payload.
Embedded in that you add a secret payload encrypted with a totally different key.
You might be able to develop an encryption system that simply ignored these blocks, and decrypted the innocuous payload when the provided the key. Pass it off as your DRM mechanism. Provide the key to the innocuous payload when pressed to do so.
If the secret payload was small relative to the innocuous payload, and perhaps scattered, most investigators would simply assume its encryption padding and ignore it once they decrypted the innocuous payload.
The secret portion would look largely similar to the innocuous portion in its encrypted form.
40 years is long enough to see at least 50% of the 50% reduction you claim. Yet its not there.
The carrying capacity of China's land mass seem to keep up, as there has been no huge famine and standards of living have raised significantly. That rise in SOL and education alone will account for a more significant population reduction than will a policy of forced abortions.
The coolaid isn't as sweet as you make ot out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, you can't define "Blatant".
Closest you can come is, having any particular action overturned. If that alone resulted in an immediate monetary penalty it would bring most of this abuse to a very quick stop.
We can argue about the monetary amount. We can make it ascending, costing more an more for each overturned take down.
But I don't think you can void a companies patents or copyrights because one overzealous lawyer overreached. You can make it painful enough that management will demand to personally approve any such action.
Set a penalty level that gets management's attention, but still allows them to take down entire songs, tv shows, or what ever. Just make them be sure they are following the law.
Disbarment sounds pretty reasonable too.
Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this...
You've hit the nail directly on the head.
There is no teeth in 512(f). It aught to be a mandatory quarter million dollar penalty for filing a take down notice that was proven false or unjustified, or over-ruled by a court.
Fair use of short clips is protected. But without any consequence of ignoring this fact, the practice of take-down first and apologize later, or never, will continue.
But I'm glad to see this happening to politicians. Now maybe they will listen when citizens complain about this practice.
Cell phone opponents try to blame cell phones for everything.
The study you link to studied exactly TWO hives. The put the phones DIRECTLY in the hive for pete sake. Heat, vibration, magnetic fields, or noise (inaudible to humans) could have caused the results they observed.
Or it could have been caused by the fungus.
The point is, bees don't have cell phones. They certainly don't have them in their hive. And the Control hive was getting cell phone exposure as well. Just not the noise, heat, vibration, or magnetic fields, of a phone inside the hive.
Give that the study was from Chandigarh's Punjab University,?? and never repeated anywhere, and glibly attributed to magnetite in the bee's bodies, (which is not affected by radio waves) should give you reason to question it. Especially when no believable causal mechanism is cited.
At least the biological studies were able to determine precisely a combinations of fungus + virus that affected bees and control for either and thereby eliminate bee death.
Hey, don't tell that to me, tell it to the the others replying to this thread saying how impossible that would be.
Google, Yahoo, and AT&T have published rates for these searches.
All cost an no merit?
Why not publish rates for data extractions and stick to them.
Even in the EU, Subpoenas must allow charging reasonable rates to cover costs, right? If not BT becomes mere staff members for the lawyers of the rights holders.
They could charge reasonable fees for rendering the requested information. They could probably charge enough to make a small profit.
I think in the present case they are actually just sick and tired of being forced to provide evidence against their own customer and to handle all of the fishing expeditions launched rights holders.
Sure the moratorium man save the some money. But I suspect they are just fed up with it.
For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".
True, but still the point remains that this device is quite poorly conceived, and the target audience is even less understood.
We all know there is not enough bandwidth for every person to be pulling TV across the internet. All of these have to stream on discrete IPs and you can't take advantage of multicast and still provide people with on-demand start times for every program in your video vault.
There is even less demand to browse the web while watching TV unless you live alone in your parents basement. Can you imagine trying to follow a football game with you S.O. surfing lol-cats and getting tweets every few seconds.
The concept of Google TV is foisting much of what is personal and private activities best destined for that device in your pocket to the Family TV set.
As such, it seems destined for singles or dorm rooms, and useless for families.
It seems like a failure to understand the lesson of the huge stereo systems we all abandoned as soon as we could don high quality earbuds, and have our collection in our pocket.
When everyone in the house has a personal iPad or Android Tablet, Google TV might make sense, but it will also be irrelevant, as the tablets themselves will do all of this.
These charges were systemic, not accidental.
Read David Pogue's article on how this happens:
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/verizon-how-much-do-you-charge-now/
Exactly.
This has been going on for years. Why wasn't the problem rectified long before they raked in a several hundred million.
Anybody who believes this is only a 90 million dollar issue is delusional. Do some web research.
David Pogue made a compelling case a year ago that Verizon could rake in as much as 300 million per month due to mistake keystrokes.
But Verizon is not alone.
AT&T is now loading their Android phones with sneaky-pay services that never clearly state you will see additional charges. AT&T Navigator can't hold a candle to Google Maps, but they want 9 bucks a month for it, and the words free trial pop up, but the price is never mentioned, and you can't delete the app.
Except that Street "name" signs are probably managed by the street department (maintenance) rather than Traffic (operations/enforcement), so I'm still betting you got the wrong budget. Nothing you list specifically talks to Street signs. Traffic control devices include stop/yield/speed signs. Not street names.
Signals, lighting, painting, parking meters would chew up that 69 million all by itself.
I would wager that any neighborhood street sign would have a life of 30 years. More in residential neighborhoods.
The city replaces street the average signs just about NEVER.
You site no source for your 27 million being the normal sign replacement budget, but what ever the sign replacement budget is, it surely includes ALL signs, and is not broken down by street, vs, parking, vs traffic control.
They replace theft losses of about 8000 a year, and that seems unlikely to cost anywhere near your strawman figure of 27 million.
These 8000 theft replacements will continue over the 8 years of this project, for an additional 64000 signs.
So 250000 replacements, over 8 years is 31000 signs VS 8000 normally, or nearly four times the normal number of replacements.
Well that was a nice focused rant now wasn't it.
Point is, maybe like .00001% of street signs need replacing in any normal year.
Yet now they want to replace ALL 250,000 of them over 8 years, and that does not include the of 8000 replacements done for theft reasons EACH year. So it works out to something like 39 times the normal replacement rate.
Personally, it seems unlikely to me that there are ONLY 250,000 street signs in NYC.
Wait, you got all that from statement that it is tidally locked?
Why would the crust have to be locked? Volcanism can't occur in the dark? A molten core can't exist without non-locked rotation? Are the measurements to date even capable of determining for certain it is tidally locked over large spans of time (they just recently found the planet).
Why would CO2 recycling be absent? Because you can't imagine the mechanism? (What precisely IS CO2 recycling anyway)?
You make a lot of assertions with very little evidence. Such a planet would still have weather, winds (rather strong and stead ones I suspect), and perhaps oceans, some of which may span the terminator.
Too many assumptions.
Rebuilding?
What do drug gangs build?
I think that stretches the common definition of a civil war beyond anything I've seen before.
Drug Cartels are trying to take over the entire country. I doubt this fits into the mold of north vs south, or Tamils vs Government.
In Mexico nearly 90% of the dead are civilians. The police are on the take. Those who aren't don't last long.
Have you had your head in the sand for the last three years?
The difference is both sides are armed in Afghanistan.
There are a lot of other differences as well but it would seem you are not likely to be predisposed to pay them any heed in your rush to establish moral equivalence.
Have you been to mexico?
Fat chance of them finding anything.
Besides, Iris != face.
ATM Menu -> add new allowed user. Scan his/her face. Shoot account owner in head, empty account. Done.
FIFY.
Or whether your eyeball is actually in your head or not?
After all, this is mexicio.
Wait, its Mexico for crist sake!
An AK47 beats an iris scanner any day.
Mexico is a state in the process of failing. The Mexican Navy is about the only trustworthy branch of the government, and Leon is nowhere near the coast.
The people running the iris scanners will likely be in the employment of the drug lords, or dead shortly.
This is akin to locking yourself in your cabin on the Titanic.
Open the pod bay doors Hal.
I'm sorry Dave, YOU can't do that.
I think this is the software version of the ADE 651 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_65.
Your link seems only weakly encrypted to me.
Did you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 ??
If you are talking about an encrypted block of storage in an otherwise intelligible file it will be patently obvious that there is something there that is not like the rest of the file.
However if you had an encrypted block of storage in an file that was itself stored encrypted you might be able to plausibly deny the existence of the secret block.
Lets assume you had an encrypted item, movie, book, etc. Call this the innocuous payload.
Embedded in that you add a secret payload encrypted with a totally different key.
You might be able to develop an encryption system that simply ignored these blocks, and decrypted the innocuous payload when the provided the key. Pass it off as your DRM mechanism. Provide the key to the innocuous payload when pressed to do so.
If the secret payload was small relative to the innocuous payload, and perhaps scattered, most investigators would simply assume its encryption padding and ignore it once they decrypted the innocuous payload.
The secret portion would look largely similar to the innocuous portion in its encrypted form.
And how has that worked for China?
Their population continues to RISE, with a slight increase over what was seen at the beginning of the 60s.
One Child became the law in 1979, and is already being reconsidered (yet again).
40 years is long enough to see at least 50% of the 50% reduction you claim. Yet its not there.
The carrying capacity of China's land mass seem to keep up, as there has been no huge famine and standards of living have raised significantly. That rise in SOL and education alone will account for a more significant population reduction than will a policy of forced abortions.
The coolaid isn't as sweet as you make ot out to be.