The problem really has nothing to do with what information is on your page. I have little information other than my name, age, school and these ads will still show up simply by purchasing something on an outside website. I can't opt out until AFTER it happens.
I just checked my facebook privacy settings and it just gives a stupid message and has no options to opt out. I guess my privacy has to be violated first and only then am I able to tell them that I didn't like it.
Show your friends what you like and what you're up to outside of Facebook. When you take actions on the sites listed below, you can choose to have those actions sent to your profile.
Please note that these settings only affect notifications on Facebook. You will still be notified on affiliate websites when they send stories to Facebook. You will be able to decline individual stories at that time.
No sites have tried sending stories to your profile
Those users say they never noticed a small box that appears on a corner of their Web browsers following transactions at Fandango, Overstock and other online retailers. The box alerts users that information is about to be shared with Facebook unless they click on "No Thanks." It disappears after about 20 seconds, after which consent is assumed. How do Fandango and Overstock know that the buyer has an account on Facebook? How do the two get linked up? Cookies?
Don't you have to prove that you lost money when you are suing for damages? As long as certain formalities were followed, such as registering the work before the infringement took place, they could sue for statutory damages. Those don't require lost money due to the infringement. Remember the RIAA suit a couple months ago where they had no proof of copying or lost money and they were still able to get over 200k?? Statutory damages...
It's no big deal. It's been going on for years. All they've done is reduce the risk of killing someone (in the helicopter). and most likely at the cost of increasing the risk of killing people on the ground. These small unmanned planes like to crash. I know because I used to work for a defense company that builds them. That is my main argument against using these things for non-wartime surveillance. Until they have FAA approval and can maintain commercial type safety ratings, they should NOT be flown over highly populated areas.
Copyright is supposed to exist to promote creating stuff, so you can profit of what you created. "As long as you live" should be long enough for anybody. 1. Few authors would be able to get a corporation to license his/her work if the right did not extend after his/her death. Authors die all the time for random reasons and no corporation would be willing to invest millions of dollars in works if they didn't know how long the term of the license was going to last. Believe it or not, corporations don't like uncertainty. You'd see a huge drop in the number of works being licensed. A better option would be to make copyright last for a set term, whether the author is live or dead.
2. Yes, the point of copyright is to promote the creation of works which would then progress science and arts. This is done by giving incentives to people to create things. Knowing that one's children would be given rights to your work after you die is a pretty damn good incentive for one to make more works that will potentially make more money. Many people work with the intent of improving their families. This is no different when it comes to authors.
1. Prohibiting "work for hire" contracts, to ensure that the exclusive rights are secured for the author. According to the Holy Constitution, all authors should be freelance, not toiling on Massa Mickey's content plantation. There is no reason that the word author cannot be interpreted to mean corporation. It really wouldn't make a difference though because corporations would force full assignments to the corporation by the authors. Due to the termination of transfer right that authors have, the corporations would just pay the authors less money.
2. Setting up a body to make subjective value judgements about whether an artwork is "useful" or not, as the Constitution mandates, with an assumption that it is not (otherwise why would the Unquestionable Constitution specify "useful" at all?). Umm...these exist. They are called courts and useful works are NOT allowed copyright. The courts actually have several well defined tests to determine if a work is useful or not. "Useful arts" are given patent protection, not copyright protection.
Then sue the person who sold it to you, duh. If there is no clause in the contract between Apple and the guy who sold it to you on ebay that says he must notify subsequent users of the license, then there is nothing to sue that guy for. Second hand purchasers would not be a party to the contract that the first buyer agreed to. Thus, the second hand purchaser would be able to sue Apple for something they did illegal. I don't know if collecting this info is illegal though.
But the more that comes out before the Ninth, the harder it will be for Congress/SCOTUS to completely immunize the telcos and the White House.
Not really. If Congress doesn't like how courts are interpreting the law, it has every right and the power to change that law. Of course, Congress should be doing this because they believe the people want them to do so, and it must not violate the Constitution when doing so. Also, the SCOTUS has full power to overrule the Ninth. Of course, SCOTUS is supposed to rule in way that is consistent with the Constitution but that is also a different question/topic. So my point is, the Ninth Circuit's rulings don't have much weight when it comes to determining what Congress or SCOTUS may do.
FYI, top fair use attorneys, including the one in charge of Google's current Google Books infringement case, believe the Seinfeld case is probably not good law anymore.
Free use if for "...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research...", and this site meets none of those tests. It's a reference work and a summary, which are not protected. The statute says "including . .." those categories you listed. It is not limited to those.
Several publishers of copyrighted works, knowing that they face an uphill battle at best in a lawsuit on copyright grounds, turn to trademark claims on the names of the characters, especially the trademark on "Harry Potter" for books [uspto.gov]. Or would nominative use [wikipedia.org] be a valid defense here?
This is because characters generally have very thin copyright protection. Only the most distinctive characters will get protection under copyright law. For example, only the main characters of the potter series would be protectable. To find infringement of one would still require someone to copy them almost exactly. Rowling cannot claim copyright in "a wizard boy who's parents were murdered and went to a wizard school and does some magic stuff." She has no protection in that idea.
Also, the transformation was given significantly less weight in Kelly than the fourth factor
I'm suggesting that the analysis of the last 3 factors is determined by how the 1st factor is decided. Thus, I disagree that the 4th was given less weight because the 4th was decided entirely on the fact that the court said the use was transformative.
which suggested that the thumbnails drove traffic to Kelly's site, which did not decrease the market for his pictures but may have actually increased the market.
I would suggest that this lexicon book "drives traffic" to the harry potter books.
And yes, I do understand that it is only one factor of four but most cases that find a transformative use in the first factor put very little weight on the other 3. I suggest reading Kelly v. Arriba Soft.
Hmm...I think the site has a strong case that it is a transformative fair use. Transformative uses are usually cleared as fair. As long as this book isn't cutting into Rowling's market, then I think they've got a strong case. I don't really see how it would cut into her market. If anything, it'll be helping her.
Hmmm...I believe the rule, at least in federal cases, is that once you have a reasonable belief that you are going to be sued, you have to stop deleting or trashing anything that may have something to do with the case. This continues throughout the suit. The main problem though is how does someone else prove that you deleted stuff? I think most discovery is done voluntarily also so you can never be 100% sure that everyone is turning over everything.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem really has nothing to do with what information is on your page. I have little information other than my name, age, school and these ads will still show up simply by purchasing something on an outside website. I can't opt out until AFTER it happens.
make all encrypted traffic low priority?
Not really. If Congress doesn't like how courts are interpreting the law, it has every right and the power to change that law. Of course, Congress should be doing this because they believe the people want them to do so, and it must not violate the Constitution when doing so. Also, the SCOTUS has full power to overrule the Ninth. Of course, SCOTUS is supposed to rule in way that is consistent with the Constitution but that is also a different question/topic. So my point is, the Ninth Circuit's rulings don't have much weight when it comes to determining what Congress or SCOTUS may do.
Precedence, no. Influence, yes...or we hope so at least.
Criminals were never considered to be the brightest of the bunch...
GPG + the Thunderbird GPG plugin works perfectly.
that post must taken you at least 10 minutes
www.eff.org
FYI, top fair use attorneys, including the one in charge of Google's current Google Books infringement case, believe the Seinfeld case is probably not good law anymore.
This is because characters generally have very thin copyright protection. Only the most distinctive characters will get protection under copyright law. For example, only the main characters of the potter series would be protectable. To find infringement of one would still require someone to copy them almost exactly. Rowling cannot claim copyright in "a wizard boy who's parents were murdered and went to a wizard school and does some magic stuff." She has no protection in that idea.
Also, the transformation was given significantly less weight in Kelly than the fourth factor
I'm suggesting that the analysis of the last 3 factors is determined by how the 1st factor is decided. Thus, I disagree that the 4th was given less weight because the 4th was decided entirely on the fact that the court said the use was transformative.
which suggested that the thumbnails drove traffic to Kelly's site, which did not decrease the market for his pictures but may have actually increased the market.
I would suggest that this lexicon book "drives traffic" to the harry potter books.
And yes, I do understand that it is only one factor of four but most cases that find a transformative use in the first factor put very little weight on the other 3. I suggest reading Kelly v. Arriba Soft.
Well, like you, i don't have all the facts and I have not even looked at that website, so therefore, I cannot say if it is a derivative work.
Hmm...I think the site has a strong case that it is a transformative fair use. Transformative uses are usually cleared as fair. As long as this book isn't cutting into Rowling's market, then I think they've got a strong case. I don't really see how it would cut into her market. If anything, it'll be helping her.
Hmmm...I believe the rule, at least in federal cases, is that once you have a reasonable belief that you are going to be sued, you have to stop deleting or trashing anything that may have something to do with the case. This continues throughout the suit. The main problem though is how does someone else prove that you deleted stuff? I think most discovery is done voluntarily also so you can never be 100% sure that everyone is turning over everything.
The only way to tell what the patent covers is to read the claims and I have not done that.