Several commenters have made arguments based on the assumption that the recordings in question were made in a federal courtroom. That is not the case. If you RTFA, you will discover that what is at issue are recordings of depositions, which are normally taken in the offices of law or sometimes in a hotel room, and of telephone calls between the parties and the judge, where only the latter may have been in the courtroom. The argument that Massachusetts law governing recordings does not apply because the recordings were made in a federal courtroom is therefore wrong.
It's your reading comprehension that is problematic. There's a list of things that the poster thinks infringe copyright. Lending and giving away books is in this list. The next item raises the question of doing the same with e-books in the future. That doesn't change the status of lending books as an item in a list of infringing activities.
Neither lending nor giving away a book is copyright infringement. Period. This is not a matter of fair use or anything debatable, it is black letter law.
The ATM company and the voting machine company are effectively different companies. Diebold, which makes ATMs, bought a company called Global Election Systems in 2001. GES is the company that makes voting machines. Although GES is now owned by Diebold, it remains a separate division, with its own management and engineers. The technology is GES technology. It is true that if Diebold wanted to badly enough they could impose changes on the voting machine division, but it can be hard even for an honest company to bring itself to crack down on a sleazy subsidiary, very likely at the cost of damaging the market for the subsidiary and increasing the likelihood of lawsuits.
There's no problem here so nothing needs to be changed. The reason that turnout was low (by Canadian standards - still good by American standards) was that few people saw the election as likely to change anything. And it isn't as if it is hard to vote in Canada. There are lots of convenient polling places and there is no significant wait. You can be in and out in less than five minutes. If voting is that easy and people still don't bother, they don't care. Let the people who are paying attention to the candidates and the issues vote. What good does it do to make it even easier for apathetic voters to vote?
"da(e)mon" is a Greek word, which was spelled delta-alpha-iota-mu-omega-nu. It was borrowed into Latin with the spelling "daemon". Around 200 B.C.E. the diphthong spelled "ae" came to be pronounced as [e:], both in native Latin words and in loans from Greek. This change in pronunciation was only gradually reflected in Latin spelling, which was conservative (just like English still spells "knight" with the no-longer pronounced "k".) The result is that when borrowed into English you can get spellings both with and without the "a". The same is true of words like "arch(a)eology".
Not exactly. Japan claims only the "Southern Kuriles" that is, from Iturup (Japanese Etorofu) southward, as per the Japanese-Russian Treaty of 1855. The Soviet Union attacked Japan at the very end of WWII and occupied all of the Kuriles. Japan is clearly in the right in that the Soviet Union had no legal claim to the Southern Kuriles. Basically, the current Russian occupation was a gift of Japanese territory from Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin. The island on which the volcano is located, Matua, is in the Northern Kuriles and is not claimed by Japan.
Ha, you think you're joking, don't you? A friend of mine used to work for the Air Force in one of their less high-tech establishments, a place that did inventory. The software, all locally developed, was written in Fortran. However, changing the source and recompiling was extremely tedious since it meant punching new cards, running them through to compile, then running the result of the first run through to link, then running the linked code, then transferring the output to another machine that could print. So, instead of changing the source, they edited the machine code. (And you wonder why they lost the aliens at Area 51...)
Why should the SEC be interested? The stockholders are only entitled to know if, say, it is determined that he is going to die or be disabled. If he's getting treatment and it works, nothing has happened that they need to know about. If insider trading is the issue, there's only a problem if insiders use secret information, say by selling short, and then the secret gets out. But there's no evidence that any of the insiders at Apple did anything like that, is there?
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."
Your points are well taken, but don't we owe some support to the minority of Iranians who are oppressed by the majority? It's one thing for a society to make decisions that we think unwise but that don't violate fundamental rights. It is another thing when the majority choose to oppress women, Jews, Baha'is, Christians, atheists, homosexuals, and others. Of course, how to support them is not a trivial question, but we shouldn't simply write off sick societies like that of Iran and ignore them except when their actions affect others.
Transcripts are not free because they are not automatically produced as part of the trial process. The usual process is for a court reporter to type into a special device called a stenotype, like a typewriter but designed for greater speed. The output of this device is not normal text but a sort of mechanical equivalent of shorthand. To produce a transcript, the court reporter has to manually convert from the stenotype record to normal text. The upshot is that producing a transcript is a time-consuming and expensive process. Since most cases are not appealed, there is no reason in most cases to produce a transcript. Whoever wants a transcript, most commonly a loser wishing to appeal, has to pay (usually the court reporter - most are independent contractors, not employees of the court).
There are some alternative systems, including "voicewriting", in which the court reporter speaks into a microphone (within a mask so that she will not interfere with the proceedings) and the resulting audio is run through a speech recognition system.
What is missing from the current system is posting of transcripts once made. If, say, the loser at trial pays for a transcript, that gets her a transcript but doesn't necessarily make it available to anyone else. If you are a third party interested in the case and would also like a transcript, you may have to purchase it, at full cost, from the court reporter, unless you can get a copy from the losing party. It would be good if there was a system such that, once somebody paid to have a transcript made, it was posted for everyone to use, as well, perhaps, as a system whereby people could subscribe to a transcript, that is, where interested parties could say: "I'd like a transcript and am willing to put up to so many dollars into the kitty."
I don't believe this. What "course agreement"s are you talking about? In general, there are no "agreements" associated with taking individual courses. If you mean a form that students sign on registering or entering a university, none of the universities with which I am familiar have anything like that.
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Why weren't they able to obtain competent representation? With all due respect to lawyers, there certainly seem to be competent lawyers who will take on very dubious cases if paid enough, e.g. David Boies representing SCO.
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Their motion opposing the defense expert seemed to me to be incompetant. They don't seem to understand Daubert and to be able to distinguish between "speculation" and presentation of scientifically plausible alternative scenarios.
Slashdot Mirror
Several commenters have made arguments based on the assumption that the recordings in question were made in a federal courtroom. That is not the case. If you RTFA, you will discover that what is at issue are recordings of depositions, which are normally taken in the offices of law or sometimes in a hotel room, and of telephone calls between the parties and the judge, where only the latter may have been in the courtroom. The argument that Massachusetts law governing recordings does not apply because the recordings were made in a federal courtroom is therefore wrong.
It's your reading comprehension that is problematic. There's a list of things that the poster thinks infringe copyright. Lending and giving away books is in this list. The next item raises the question of doing the same with e-books in the future. That doesn't change the status of lending books as an item in a list of infringing activities.
Neither lending nor giving away a book is copyright infringement. Period. This is not a matter of fair use or anything debatable, it is black letter law.
The ATM company and the voting machine company are effectively different companies. Diebold, which makes ATMs, bought a company called Global Election Systems in 2001. GES is the company that makes voting machines. Although GES is now owned by Diebold, it remains a separate division, with its own management and engineers. The technology is GES technology. It is true that if Diebold wanted to badly enough they could impose changes on the voting machine division, but it can be hard even for an honest company to bring itself to crack down on a sleazy subsidiary, very likely at the cost of damaging the market for the subsidiary and increasing the likelihood of lawsuits.
There's no problem here so nothing needs to be changed. The reason that turnout was low (by Canadian standards - still good by American standards) was that few people saw the election as likely to change anything. And it isn't as if it is hard to vote in Canada. There are lots of convenient polling places and there is no significant wait. You can be in and out in less than five minutes. If voting is that easy and people still don't bother, they don't care. Let the people who are paying attention to the candidates and the issues vote. What good does it do to make it even easier for apathetic voters to vote?
"da(e)mon" is a Greek word, which was spelled delta-alpha-iota-mu-omega-nu. It was borrowed into Latin with the spelling "daemon". Around 200 B.C.E. the diphthong spelled "ae" came to be pronounced as [e:], both in native Latin words and in loans from Greek. This change in pronunciation was only gradually reflected in Latin spelling, which was conservative (just like English still spells "knight" with the no-longer pronounced "k".) The result is that when borrowed into English you can get spellings both with and without the "a". The same is true of words like "arch(a)eology".
Not exactly. Japan claims only the "Southern Kuriles" that is, from Iturup (Japanese Etorofu) southward, as per the Japanese-Russian Treaty of 1855. The Soviet Union attacked Japan at the very end of WWII and occupied all of the Kuriles. Japan is clearly in the right in that the Soviet Union had no legal claim to the Southern Kuriles. Basically, the current Russian occupation was a gift of Japanese territory from Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin. The island on which the volcano is located, Matua, is in the Northern Kuriles and is not claimed by Japan.
Ha, you think you're joking, don't you? A friend of mine used to work for the Air Force in one of their less high-tech establishments, a place that did inventory. The software, all locally developed, was written in Fortran. However, changing the source and recompiling was extremely tedious since it meant punching new cards, running them through to compile, then running the result of the first run through to link, then running the linked code, then transferring the output to another machine that could print. So, instead of changing the source, they edited the machine code. (And you wonder why they lost the aliens at Area 51...)
Ah, thanks! I've wondered for years what the excuse for that was. I make a point of not buying gas in Oregon if I can avoid it.
Why should the SEC be interested? The stockholders are only entitled to know if, say, it is determined that he is going to die or be disabled. If he's getting treatment and it works, nothing has happened that they need to know about. If insider trading is the issue, there's only a problem if insiders use secret information, say by selling short, and then the secret gets out. But there's no evidence that any of the insiders at Apple did anything like that, is there?
No, it isn't. According to ASCAP's own definition:
Yeah, he did use a somewhat awkward phrasing.
I think he means that Monsoon Media, the company that was violating the Busybox license, was making money off it.
Uh, are you aware that neither apple trees nor honeybees are indigenous to North America?
Your points are well taken, but don't we owe some support to the minority of Iranians who are oppressed by the majority? It's one thing for a society to make decisions that we think unwise but that don't violate fundamental rights. It is another thing when the majority choose to oppress women, Jews, Baha'is, Christians, atheists, homosexuals, and others. Of course, how to support them is not a trivial question, but we shouldn't simply write off sick societies like that of Iran and ignore them except when their actions affect others.
Transcripts are not free because they are not automatically produced as part of the trial process. The usual process is for a court reporter to type into a special device called a stenotype, like a typewriter but designed for greater speed. The output of this device is not normal text but a sort of mechanical equivalent of shorthand. To produce a transcript, the court reporter has to manually convert from the stenotype record to normal text. The upshot is that producing a transcript is a time-consuming and expensive process. Since most cases are not appealed, there is no reason in most cases to produce a transcript. Whoever wants a transcript, most commonly a loser wishing to appeal, has to pay (usually the court reporter - most are independent contractors, not employees of the court).
There are some alternative systems, including "voicewriting", in which the court reporter speaks into a microphone (within a mask so that she will not interfere with the proceedings) and the resulting audio is run through a speech recognition system.
What is missing from the current system is posting of transcripts once made. If, say, the loser at trial pays for a transcript, that gets her a transcript but doesn't necessarily make it available to anyone else. If you are a third party interested in the case and would also like a transcript, you may have to purchase it, at full cost, from the court reporter, unless you can get a copy from the losing party. It would be good if there was a system such that, once somebody paid to have a transcript made, it was posted for everyone to use, as well, perhaps, as a system whereby people could subscribe to a transcript, that is, where interested parties could say: "I'd like a transcript and am willing to put up to so many dollars into the kitty."
I'm having a very hard time seeing how this is not obvious.
I don't believe this. What "course agreement"s are you talking about? In general, there are no "agreements" associated with taking individual courses. If you mean a form that students sign on registering or entering a university, none of the universities with which I am familiar have anything like that.
It's a large circuit that handles a lot of cases so this is true of the absolute number of cases but not percentage-wise.
Sorry, but no. Federal employees do have rights, as the court has ruled. If the matter were settled, it wouldn't have ruled that way, would it?
They already have certified copies? So they lied in their brief?
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Hey, they're just being proactive. If she's busy being sued, she'll have less time for piracy.
Why weren't they able to obtain competent representation? With all due respect to lawyers, there certainly seem to be competent lawyers who will take on very dubious cases if paid enough, e.g. David Boies representing SCO.
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Their motion opposing the defense expert seemed to me to be incompetant. They don't seem to understand Daubert and to be able to distinguish between "speculation" and presentation of scientifically plausible alternative scenarios.