There is no way for an ISP to evaulate the claims. Fortunately, the copyright laws have a built-in safeguard. The site owner can get the website back up by simply sending an email stating that they have the right to post the content.
> Skill plays a major factor in the long term.
I'm much of a gambler, online or otherwise, but how much skill is there really in ONLINE poker? Without body language, it's got to be tough to pick up on opponent's tells.
In general, one gets ownership rights to a trademark by using the mark in commerce. Registration only provides procedural advantages, such as nationwide constructive notice and incontestability. If the other parties have been using gmail in conjunction with an internet email serivce (I haven't read the articles), Google is probably going to have to crack open their checkbook.
The patent laws require that inventors provide enough detail so that a person skilled in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=35&sec=112 However, for many of the best inventions, the innovative part is conceiving the solution, not implementing it (or in other words, it's often a sign of a good invention if you ask yourself "why didn't I think of that"). For these inventions, a very skimpy disclosure would be enough to satisfy the law.
The notice-and-takedown process also includes a lovely counter-notice procedure. All you need to do is send a letter to your ISP stating you disagree with the original notice, and the content goes back up. The DMCA even gives the ISP a deadline.
The DMCA also provides a safe harbor for ISPs. Without this provision, no ISP in their right mind would let individuals post on the web - they'd be the deep-pockets defendant in an infringement/contributory infringement case. IMHO, the internet would be a vastly different place without this provision.
They also sell cartridges that you can refill, they just cost more. You can also buy printers from a different manufacturer that don't have chips, but they just cost more (all things being equal) because the manufacturer can't make up the difference selling cartridges.
My basic point is that the chips are not necessarily a bad thing. I print very few pages/month and would happily trade a lower up-front cost for higher per-print costs. Obviously, a heavy printer user would look at it differently. As long as their is some choice/competition, we can both pick the pricing model that's best for us.
I wouldn't go that far. . . if you buy a book or a patent-protected item, you "own" the physical piece of property and can do anything you want with it. IP law just limits those rights to the one particular physical copy that you bought.
Actually, the DMCA does not make it illegal to "possess" circumvention tools, just to traffic in them.
For what it's worth, it's also legal under the DMCA to circumvent copy control mechanisms on public domain works, and to copy/distribute any work so long as you don't circumvent a technological measure (thus, there is no DMCA risk from running the analog output of a DVD player into a VCR, though it may be a copyright violation).
The other 'classic' argument is that this is merely a time/place/mannor restriction. The gov'nt is not really saying that PBS can't say this, just not on prime time airwaves.
4) It's logistically difficult to distribute ballots in multiple languages, particularly when there will be a lawsuit whenever you underestimate number of people who will use one particular version.
5) Blind people cannot use pencil/paper systems without help. ADA/disenfranchisement isssues result.
6) If history is a guide, cities will use these machines for 30 years. Easy software updates is probably a big selling point.
Interestingly, this is the same court that upheld a law that making it illegal to criticize elected officials. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display. html?terms=free%20and%20(speech%20or%20expression) &url=/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html Who would have thought that porn gets more protection than core policial speech?
Then again, after enduring 2 years of negative campaign ads, maybe SCOTUS isn't so stupid.
You bring up my general concern with expensing options -- as I understand the things, assigning value to a nonmarketable option is a Nobel-prize-worthy problem and the result usually depends upon several hard-to-calculate factors. I suspect that this calculation will become yet another way for CFO's to manipulate the numbers.
If I were an influencial investor, I'd rather see options counted as outstanding shares for EPS quotes - not a perfect solution, but at least it's an objective number.
People miss the point on things like this. A patent in and of itself means nothing. It's only valuable if people would may money to practice the invention. Your patent (and the bank's) are worth $0.
The other problems I heard are that it's a lot of work to print/distribute paper ballots in dozens-to-hundreds of different languages and that blind people have trouble using paper ballots.
I'm as anti-tax as the next, but even I am not sure if it makes sense to heavily tax POTS and then make VoIP tax free. Taxes on equivalent services should be roughly the same. Otherwise, the government is picking winners in the market.
Definately agree, but another problem is that states need can only tax an entity if they have legal jurisdication over it. Jurisdiction, in turn, generally requires some physical presence in that state. This has been a difficult standard for to meet for internet and catalog-based commerce.
Ironically, the only reason the DMCA would come into play is to provide the newspaper with a defense to copyright infringement (which itself is a weak cause of action).
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way for an ISP to evaulate the claims. Fortunately, the copyright laws have a built-in safeguard. The site owner can get the website back up by simply sending an email stating that they have the right to post the content.
> Skill plays a major factor in the long term. I'm much of a gambler, online or otherwise, but how much skill is there really in ONLINE poker? Without body language, it's got to be tough to pick up on opponent's tells.
One of the more famous one is: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/kozinski. htm The judge supposedly worked in 200+ movie titles.
In general, one gets ownership rights to a trademark by using the mark in commerce. Registration only provides procedural advantages, such as nationwide constructive notice and incontestability. If the other parties have been using gmail in conjunction with an internet email serivce (I haven't read the articles), Google is probably going to have to crack open their checkbook.
The patent laws require that inventors provide enough detail so that a person skilled in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=35&sec=112
However, for many of the best inventions, the innovative part is conceiving the solution, not implementing it (or in other words, it's often a sign of a good invention if you ask yourself "why didn't I think of that"). For these inventions, a very skimpy disclosure would be enough to satisfy the law.
A couple sections come to mind . . .
The notice-and-takedown process also includes a lovely counter-notice procedure. All you need to do is send a letter to your ISP stating you disagree with the original notice, and the content goes back up. The DMCA even gives the ISP a deadline.
The DMCA also provides a safe harbor for ISPs. Without this provision, no ISP in their right mind would let individuals post on the web - they'd be the deep-pockets defendant in an infringement/contributory infringement case. IMHO, the internet would be a vastly different place without this provision.
They also sell cartridges that you can refill, they just cost more. You can also buy printers from a different manufacturer that don't have chips, but they just cost more (all things being equal) because the manufacturer can't make up the difference selling cartridges. My basic point is that the chips are not necessarily a bad thing. I print very few pages/month and would happily trade a lower up-front cost for higher per-print costs. Obviously, a heavy printer user would look at it differently. As long as their is some choice/competition, we can both pick the pricing model that's best for us.
I wouldn't go that far. . . if you buy a book or a patent-protected item, you "own" the physical piece of property and can do anything you want with it. IP law just limits those rights to the one particular physical copy that you bought.
Actually, the DMCA does not make it illegal to "possess" circumvention tools, just to traffic in them.
. pl ?title=17&sec=1201
For what it's worth, it's also legal under the DMCA to circumvent copy control mechanisms on public domain works, and to copy/distribute any work so long as you don't circumvent a technological measure (thus, there is no DMCA risk from running the analog output of a DVD player into a VCR, though it may be a copyright violation).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search
The other 'classic' argument is that this is merely a time/place/mannor restriction. The gov'nt is not really saying that PBS can't say this, just not on prime time airwaves.
4) It's logistically difficult to distribute ballots in multiple languages, particularly when there will be a lawsuit whenever you underestimate number of people who will use one particular version.
5) Blind people cannot use pencil/paper systems without help. ADA/disenfranchisement isssues result.
6) If history is a guide, cities will use these machines for 30 years. Easy software updates is probably a big selling point.
Interestingly, this is the same court that upheld a law that making it illegal to criticize elected officials. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display. html?terms=free%20and%20(speech%20or%20expression) &url=/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html
Who would have thought that porn gets more protection than core policial speech?
Then again, after enduring 2 years of negative campaign ads, maybe SCOTUS isn't so stupid.
I wonder how they test ethics?
Admittedly haven't seen the movie, but here is at least one prominent 'star' who says that Moore distorted what he said.
r /8 844533.htm
U J: www.startribune.com/stories/587/4810977.html+moore +minnesota+representative&hl=en
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperio
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Edvfh0AEQI
You bring up my general concern with expensing options -- as I understand the things, assigning value to a nonmarketable option is a Nobel-prize-worthy problem and the result usually depends upon several hard-to-calculate factors. I suspect that this calculation will become yet another way for CFO's to manipulate the numbers. If I were an influencial investor, I'd rather see options counted as outstanding shares for EPS quotes - not a perfect solution, but at least it's an objective number.
Incentive options usually have very different terms than those sold on the market.
People miss the point on things like this. A patent in and of itself means nothing. It's only valuable if people would may money to practice the invention. Your patent (and the bank's) are worth $0.
You forgot rest . . . "unless it's an ad advocating for a political canidate, or made on a college campus, or said by a telemarketer."
The other problems I heard are that it's a lot of work to print/distribute paper ballots in dozens-to-hundreds of different languages and that blind people have trouble using paper ballots.
I'm as anti-tax as the next, but even I am not sure if it makes sense to heavily tax POTS and then make VoIP tax free. Taxes on equivalent services should be roughly the same. Otherwise, the government is picking winners in the market.
Definately agree, but another problem is that states need can only tax an entity if they have legal jurisdication over it. Jurisdiction, in turn, generally requires some physical presence in that state. This has been a difficult standard for to meet for internet and catalog-based commerce.
That was my guess too. Another administratively simple alternetive is to slap a flat fee on ISP service for 'making VoIP serivce available.'
Actually, the DMCA does not make it illegal to bypass copy protection. It only makes it illgal to sell a 'black box' that bypasses copy protection.
Ironically, the only reason the DMCA would come into play is to provide the newspaper with a defense to copyright infringement (which itself is a weak cause of action).
Yea, but SCOTUS overturned the first amendment last year :-(
a y. html?terms=free%20and%20speech&url=/supct/html/02- 1674.ZS.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/displ