They don't want to raise the price because people will buy less and the might very well lose money. What they want is to use the government to force somebody else to pay. What for? Beats the fuck out of me. Artists work real real hard he says. I'm sure. Any guarantee the money will actually get to them?
The insertion force of a power adapter, magsafe or no, is not much compared to that of an ethernet jack, which they forcibly yanked out of place for each portable.
Why would the Apple store use ethernet when each mac has built in wireless? I've visited quite a few apple stores and I can't recall Ethernet cables sticking out of the sides of their laptops. It would be unsightly and Apple is very concerned about appearances. Heck. If they were going to use ethernet they might as well have plugged in a Kingston lock (on the right side close to the ethernet on my MBP).
The damage from the power connector comes when the portable falls to the ground, and impacts on the jack, forcing the DC input to come apart from the DC-in circuitry of the power stage. When you are pulling, the likelyhood of damage is minimal, since this is not really different from removing the power adapter the normal way, that is, pulling on the cord end.
Sure. If you pull the cables straight out, regardless of connector, there is little likelihood of damage. But if you pull at an angle, I can see the power connector on either the adapter or the laptop getting bent out of shape. You might not like Apple as a brand, but due to the number of times a relative, friend, or pet has yanked my power cord out of my MBP in all sorts of directions I am very thankful for the maglock feature. My previous laptop (a dell running linux) died and early death because of a bent power connector on the motherboard due to that sort of thing.
Huh? You blame censorship for hitler but you're still saying some speech shouldn't be allowed. I see. So who gets to decide what constitutes "hate speech"?
Hitler was elected in a democratic way. He used hate speech to turn the country from a democracy to a dictatorship.
You could just as easily blame censorship he used to control the information people had access to. The problem there was that anything other than "hate speech" was not tolerated. That is how you control people: by controlling the marketplace of ideas. Nobody should have access to that power regardless of however benevolent their intentions are. All censorship of "hate speech" does is drive it underground, make it appealing to the rejected, and give it legitimacy.
Except that the government is a monopoly with the power to jail competitors and to block any companies that would choose to compete against it.
And it's the role of a constitution to prevent that. If that fails, such a government should be overthrown.
Again: 'm not arguing, at least at this juncture, that the government should become an ISP. What I am arguing is that in order to preserve a vital communications resource (similar to mail or roads), the government should restrict corporations so they cannot abuse the power they already have.
You sure? 512 (g)(3) makes it sound like that's not possible:
(3) Contents of counter notification.â" To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent that includes substantially the following:
(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriberâ(TM)s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberâ(TM)s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
How can all those things, such as the sworn statement, be done through a legal proxy? Even if what you're saying is possible, how many people know that. A Google for anonymous DMCA "put back" reveals almost nothing about the subject. And as far as I know 512 only lists civil penalties for a false DMCA, not jail time... and if you can't prove any damages, you're S.O.L.
Oh. I agree. But they can simply claim that they were unaware of copyright concerns about those images. Maybe nobody notified them and they didn't bother to inspect each ones individually. You wrote elsewhere:
Obviously this isn't what is happening right now because they were supposed to give notice to the user of who filed and what was claimed to be infringing.
That's what makes me think they might not have gotten an official notice. They might have gotten a simple email saying: this infringes Time/whoever's copyright and were then required under Section 512 (c)(1)(a)(i) to take it down in order to maintain safe harbor. Otherwise, as I understand it, if Time or whoever did eventually decide to at some point send a take-down and it came to legal action Flikr could be held responsible considering they were notified of the content's copyrighted status and didn't comply with what 512 requires for safe harbor.
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material
So even if the notification isn't valid, they're still required to take it down if they believe the content to be infringing.
See the actual text at (c)(1)(a)(i-iii). If they don't comply, they lose safe harbor status and it's open season on them. The law, not Flikr, is the one to blame here. Websites either have to comply with the DMCA or open themselves up to be held liable for the actions of each and every asshole user.
There are provisions in the DMCA to deal with that:
(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
* (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
* (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
There's a problem with this, though. When you respond with a put-back notice you're required to give your name and address. If you're trying to remain anonymous you're effectively silenced. Effectively this means that if I see something I don't like, it's posted anonymously, and I know the poster wants to remain anonymous and will never file a put back, I can simply send a false DMCA claim and make the information go poof. Cults love the DMCA.
Should be modded informative. Service providers wanting to maintain safe harbor immunity have to take something down if they recieve a DMCA. Section 512 of the DMCA. It has some cool caveats, though such as:
(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
* (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
* (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
If nothing else this proves how easily it can be abused to stifle people's legitimate first amendment rights. With such a high profile case, I can see Joe Public starting to become concerned about this issue.
I guess my fear is that corporations, not restricted by the first amendment, could censor the Internet far more than the government could (it already can but is restricted by that amendment). What if all competitors each, indivually, decide that it's in their interest to restrict communication to certain cites and prioritize others. They could make quite a pretty penny taxing websites this way. What if every corporation decides it's simply more profitable to operate like that and it becomes commonplace. I'm not convinced consumers as a whole would demand anything different, especially if they were "weaned" into it. Even if they did, the ones who wanted change would probably be a small educated minority. Most people don't know what "net neutrality" means. The end result is restriction of the population to communicate effectively, and that's bad no matter who does it. What's worse is they might not even know how or to what extent they're censored.
Plus. I'm not arguing, at least at this juncture, that the government should become an ISP. What I am arguing is that in order to preserve a vital communications resource (similar to mail or roads), the government should restrict corporations so they cannot abuse the power they already have.
Roads are mentioned in the constitution as is the post office. I figure if the founders were alive today and rewrote the thing they would probably include the internet given that it's the modern equivalent. Normally i'm against regulation and would say "let the market decide" but there are some areas that only have one provider with no competition. Since the internet is such a necessary thing at this stage I think it's necessary to ensure people have open roads and that their mail is not opened or given preferential treatment based on a commercial sender/reciever. Net Neutrality makes sense constitutionally.
But MegaGlobal, Inc wouldn't have power without government enforcing it's will. So in a sense the far left and far right are correct when they blame big govt and big businesses (respectively). They've both become one in the same. There needs to be a firm separation between corporation and state and a serious review of campaign finance law before any progress is made, but fat chance on the people in power who are benefiting from things they way they are doing anything to change it. I'd say revolution is the answer but that requires public support which is nonexistant as long as people bicker between (R) and (D). I also think the rulign establishment is also smart enough not to push it to that point. Boil the frog. People won't notice as long as it's gradual enough.
As a libertarian, I agree. Neocons and Democrats have very little difference apart from window dressing. They have different masters, sure, but no real ideology of their own.
Funny or not, that's the basic idea behind the fairness doctrine for radio which the dems are trying to resurrect. It's not inconceivable this could somehow be applied to the internet but I can't imagine it going through without a lot of backlash.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't want to raise the price because people will buy less and the might very well lose money. What they want is to use the government to force somebody else to pay. What for? Beats the fuck out of me. Artists work real real hard he says. I'm sure. Any guarantee the money will actually get to them?
The insertion force of a power adapter, magsafe or no, is not much compared to that of an ethernet jack, which they forcibly yanked out of place for each portable.
Why would the Apple store use ethernet when each mac has built in wireless? I've visited quite a few apple stores and I can't recall Ethernet cables sticking out of the sides of their laptops. It would be unsightly and Apple is very concerned about appearances. Heck. If they were going to use ethernet they might as well have plugged in a Kingston lock (on the right side close to the ethernet on my MBP).
The damage from the power connector comes when the portable falls to the ground, and impacts on the jack, forcing the DC input to come apart from the DC-in circuitry of the power stage. When you are pulling, the likelyhood of damage is minimal, since this is not really different from removing the power adapter the normal way, that is, pulling on the cord end.
Sure. If you pull the cables straight out, regardless of connector, there is little likelihood of damage. But if you pull at an angle, I can see the power connector on either the adapter or the laptop getting bent out of shape. You might not like Apple as a brand, but due to the number of times a relative, friend, or pet has yanked my power cord out of my MBP in all sorts of directions I am very thankful for the maglock feature. My previous laptop (a dell running linux) died and early death because of a bent power connector on the motherboard due to that sort of thing.
Interestingly enough, the maglock connections probably made them a lot easier to steal without damage.
I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned. Anybody who's ever had a video card fail or tried to start a desktop without it should know that.
Simple.
It has a keypad. Check the picture.
Huh? You blame censorship for hitler but you're still saying some speech shouldn't be allowed. I see. So who gets to decide what constitutes "hate speech"?
Hitler was elected in a democratic way. He used hate speech to turn the country from a democracy to a dictatorship.
You could just as easily blame censorship he used to control the information people had access to. The problem there was that anything other than "hate speech" was not tolerated. That is how you control people: by controlling the marketplace of ideas. Nobody should have access to that power regardless of however benevolent their intentions are. All censorship of "hate speech" does is drive it underground, make it appealing to the rejected, and give it legitimacy.
Except that the government is a monopoly with the power to jail competitors and to block any companies that would choose to compete against it.
And it's the role of a constitution to prevent that. If that fails, such a government should be overthrown. Again: 'm not arguing, at least at this juncture, that the government should become an ISP. What I am arguing is that in order to preserve a vital communications resource (similar to mail or roads), the government should restrict corporations so they cannot abuse the power they already have.
Insightful and funny.
You people play that pussy sport SOCCER. You don't have big well protected men slamming into one another.
LOL. Why is this flamebait. It's friggin hilarious.
(3) Contents of counter notification.â" To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent that includes substantially the following:
(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriberâ(TM)s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberâ(TM)s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
How can all those things, such as the sworn statement, be done through a legal proxy? Even if what you're saying is possible, how many people know that. A Google for anonymous DMCA "put back" reveals almost nothing about the subject. And as far as I know 512 only lists civil penalties for a false DMCA, not jail time... and if you can't prove any damages, you're S.O.L.
Obviously this isn't what is happening right now because they were supposed to give notice to the user of who filed and what was claimed to be infringing.
That's what makes me think they might not have gotten an official notice. They might have gotten a simple email saying: this infringes Time/whoever's copyright and were then required under Section 512 (c)(1)(a)(i) to take it down in order to maintain safe harbor. Otherwise, as I understand it, if Time or whoever did eventually decide to at some point send a take-down and it came to legal action Flikr could be held responsible considering they were notified of the content's copyrighted status and didn't comply with what 512 requires for safe harbor.
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material
So even if the notification isn't valid, they're still required to take it down if they believe the content to be infringing. See the actual text at (c)(1)(a)(i-iii). If they don't comply, they lose safe harbor status and it's open season on them. The law, not Flikr, is the one to blame here. Websites either have to comply with the DMCA or open themselves up to be held liable for the actions of each and every asshole user.
(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section - * (1) that material or activity is infringing, or * (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
There's a problem with this, though. When you respond with a put-back notice you're required to give your name and address. If you're trying to remain anonymous you're effectively silenced. Effectively this means that if I see something I don't like, it's posted anonymously, and I know the poster wants to remain anonymous and will never file a put back, I can simply send a false DMCA claim and make the information go poof. Cults love the DMCA.
(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section - * (1) that material or activity is infringing, or * (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
If nothing else this proves how easily it can be abused to stifle people's legitimate first amendment rights. With such a high profile case, I can see Joe Public starting to become concerned about this issue.
I guess my fear is that corporations, not restricted by the first amendment, could censor the Internet far more than the government could (it already can but is restricted by that amendment). What if all competitors each, indivually, decide that it's in their interest to restrict communication to certain cites and prioritize others. They could make quite a pretty penny taxing websites this way. What if every corporation decides it's simply more profitable to operate like that and it becomes commonplace. I'm not convinced consumers as a whole would demand anything different, especially if they were "weaned" into it. Even if they did, the ones who wanted change would probably be a small educated minority. Most people don't know what "net neutrality" means. The end result is restriction of the population to communicate effectively, and that's bad no matter who does it. What's worse is they might not even know how or to what extent they're censored.
Plus. I'm not arguing, at least at this juncture, that the government should become an ISP. What I am arguing is that in order to preserve a vital communications resource (similar to mail or roads), the government should restrict corporations so they cannot abuse the power they already have.
That's a very good point.
That's not true. Libertarians, who you could consider the "far right" most definitely do not want big government.
Roads are mentioned in the constitution as is the post office. I figure if the founders were alive today and rewrote the thing they would probably include the internet given that it's the modern equivalent. Normally i'm against regulation and would say "let the market decide" but there are some areas that only have one provider with no competition. Since the internet is such a necessary thing at this stage I think it's necessary to ensure people have open roads and that their mail is not opened or given preferential treatment based on a commercial sender/reciever. Net Neutrality makes sense constitutionally.
But MegaGlobal, Inc wouldn't have power without government enforcing it's will. So in a sense the far left and far right are correct when they blame big govt and big businesses (respectively). They've both become one in the same. There needs to be a firm separation between corporation and state and a serious review of campaign finance law before any progress is made, but fat chance on the people in power who are benefiting from things they way they are doing anything to change it. I'd say revolution is the answer but that requires public support which is nonexistant as long as people bicker between (R) and (D). I also think the rulign establishment is also smart enough not to push it to that point. Boil the frog. People won't notice as long as it's gradual enough.
As a libertarian, I agree. Neocons and Democrats have very little difference apart from window dressing. They have different masters, sure, but no real ideology of their own.
Funny or not, that's the basic idea behind the fairness doctrine for radio which the dems are trying to resurrect. It's not inconceivable this could somehow be applied to the internet but I can't imagine it going through without a lot of backlash.