That flat blocky thing doesn't look like a seaworthy ship it looks like an overpriced houseboat, perfect for mooring in the San Francisco Bay, or, perhaps, the Mediterranean. It seems like another example of Steve Jobs letting aesthetics (ugly aesthetics, in this case) take precedence over function.
The judge still thinks ReDigi's arguments are likely to fail and that Capitol Records will prevail. The only thing that is significant is that ReDigi's case isn't over yet at the motion stage.
I'm not sure if people get how crazy dangerous even a low end class 4 laser is to people's eyesight. Even diffuse reflections can cause blindness. And blindness from a direct beam or specular reflection is virtually instant, literally before you can blink. This laser is not a toy. Not something you can casually show off safely to your friends. You can blind people, forever, accidentally, in an instant. Just keep it in mind.
"From TFA: Years ago, college students were our best customers," he said. "Now they're among our worst customers."" ---
Well, of course the RIAA is selling fewer units per capita. The number of media choices competing for the a person's money is far greater than it has ever been. The RIAA is blaming its dwindling share of wallet on piracy instead of the fractionalization of the market. They can sue 20,000 people and that won't change--the proof being they did and it hasn't.
If you read the link in the Parent, you'll find that Dozier wanted to subpoena an anonymous internet poster but couldn't because the posts didn't trigger any DCMA provisions. Then sent him one of their patented (er, copyrighted) pompous huff and puff Cease and Desist letters. It got posted and--Shazaam--they now have evidence of copyright violation sufficient for a subpoena for the identity of the poster--their original intent all along.
Dozier is an internet bully and an arrogant arse wipe.
This post is my opinion, so don't even think about it, Dozier.
"As I understand it, a DTrace user has experimented with the program, determined it to be specifically crippled, and given an educated guess about why it is crippled in that way"
No, the frickin' **author** of DTrace has found the specific code used by Apple to cripple it.
Doing an important presentation that is 100% reliant on perfect internet connectivity is currently a stupid, stupid idea. It might work ok for presentations on your home turf in company meeting rooms but for remote presentations, training and sales it is a totally not yet ready for prime time idea. Someday perhaps, but not today. There are enough things that can go wrong with a presentation without using an on line app.
" John Dunlavy, who manufactures audiophile loudspeakers and wire to go with it, does think questioning is valid. A musician and engineer, Mr. Dunlavy said as an academic exercise he used principles of physics relating to transmission line and network theory to produce a high-end cable. ''People ask if they will hear a difference, and I tell them no,'' he said. Mr. Dunlavy has often gathered audio critics in his Colorado Springs lab for a demonstration.
''What we do is kind of dirty and stinky,'' he said. ''We say we are starting with a 12 WAG zip cord, and we position a technician behind each speaker to change the cables out.''
The technicians hold up fancy-looking cables before they disappear behind the speakers. The critics debate the sound characteristics of each wire.
''They describe huge changes and they say, 'Oh my God, John, tell me you can hear that difference,' '' Mr. Dunlavy said. The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, ''It's the placebo effect.''"
"Perhaps I'm not reading it as broadly as the poster, but it doesn't sound like Randi is offering the reward to anyone. Instead it reads that he is challenging Dave Clark or peers to prove the claims."
Randi specifically invited Dave Clark to apply for the prize. The $1,000,000 prize for proof of claims of the paranormal used to be open to all comers, but now there is a standard in place to weed out the the completely deluded nut jobs who think they can fly or what not. However, the contest is still open to anyone who can get an academic to vouch for them and who can rustle up some publicity. For $1,000,000 it should be worth it for "genuine" applicants to put in a little leg work...
It would seem that not only is the RIAA's evidence in this case pathetic they are also trying to pursue their discredited and recently abandoned "Making Available" charge. This is because they have no evidence that the songs they allege the defendant was sharing were ever downloaded by anyone other than the RIAA--who are presumably authorized downloaders and not illegal downloaders.
"The key is the photographer was not publishing it for commercial purposes; putting the photo up on Flickr was not illegal since it was for personal use/browsing, but when it was used in the ad became illegal. The original photog would only have been "publishing" it in the context of this suit if he had, for example, used it to promote "Joe's Photography Service" or some other type of advertising/endorsement situation."
I think those are the kind of facts a **court** decides. It is not a clear case.
"If you publish a photo, YOU are liable, not the photographer or whoever gave you the photo. As an example, a person may sell you a photo he didn't take, you publish it, and the true photographer then sues YOU, the publisher, for copyright infringement."
In this case the photographer **published** it by placing it on a for-profit photo sharing site. The internet has changed the meaning of what it means to "publish" something. Even if the photog placed it under CC, Flickr is still an ad supported commercial site. I don't think the case law is settled in this area re: the internet and what does and doesn't constitute "publishing" something. There'd be a lot more case law on the issue if the copyright act hadn't been changed in 1978 so that publication is essentially irrelevant to whether copyright, though publication for purposes of copyright might not have had any relationship to the much more nebulous "right to privacy" and "right of publicity" that model releases are somewhat shakily required for as those are usually based on common law or state case law as opposed to explicit statue.
Conversely, an **Australian** company may have had no obligation to obtain a release for a photo taken outside the US of a foreign (to them) national, just as US companies don't have to.
Seeing as how the ad was a **printed** ad and not a web ad (as far as I know) and run solely in Australia by an Australian company, it is going to be a stretch to try to apply Texas state law to the case.
Oh, well informed one, then you also know that the photographer had no right to **publish** the photo in Flickr without a model release--a for-profit commercial website that allows photo sharing supported by ad revenue--even if he wasn't charging for the photo.
Of course, if everyone went by the strict rule of law, Flickr would drop dead because almost none of the photos published on Flickr have model releases.
That being said, I think your advice about getting model realized photos for advertising is good advice.
"This 'duty' doesn't exist for the photographer. It's always the responsibility of the final client to ensure that a model release exists. Just because the photograph in this case was free does not mean that Virgin / their advertising agency can suddenly forget about that."
That would be true if the photographer didn't publish the photo. By posting it on Flickr, **he's** a publisher and needed a model release. The girl can/should/has to sue him. Suing an Australian company for lack of model release? Not so much. We have international copyright agreements, not international "model release" agreements.
"Without a model release signed by the girl (and her parents if under 18) the counselor will lose the case. Use of someone's image in a commercial context requires a model release from any identifiable people in the image."
Well, in the US, but that isn't where the the ads were made and displayed. Keep in mind that the law is complex. Talent releases are based on the nebulous "invasion of privacy" principle, which in the US doesn't apply in the case of photos you take outside of the US since the US right to privacy doesn't extend to foreign nationals photographed in their home country. Similar exceptions may apply in reverse, as this photo was used in an ad in **Australia** not the the US.
Google doesn't get to charge for fraudulent clicks. That isn't the same as "loosing" $1,000,000,000.
Google isn't out any cash for the fraud, it is people who **buy** Google ads and pay per click who potentially loose money to fraudulent clicks, not Google. And there no way that Google can catch all click fraud, so it is **inevitable** that at least some advertisers will be charged for fraudulent clicks.
Nice post. Way to make Google look like the victim when they aren't the ones who actually pay for fraudulent clicks.
"He got a ticket and his bag was searched and he won't have a leg to stand on in court. The court of general public opinion thinks he's an ass and a judicial court will probably rule he was being an ass."
Just a ticket? You misstate the facts. He has an arrest record based on false accusations. His bag was searched. He was excessing his lawful rights, and **you** are not the "court of general public opinion."
If you want to be a sheep, fine, but don't call other people "twat stains" because they don't share your low opinion of your rights. You are the one throwing around the perjoratives, not him. I think that speaks poorly of you, but I'll let your record speak for you.
"IANAL, but it's too bad that T-shirt, sticker, and email signature ones wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because simply reading the terms of an agreement does not constitute acceptance of it."
You may well be right, but you aren't even required to know that the supposed contracts in stores and parking lots exist--let alone to have read them--for the proprietor to claim that you have "agreed" to them. So, it would be a battle in court. One could change the T-Shirt to a "by letting me enter you store" agreement to make it a more "active" acceptance.
"That's not true at all. He was being an ass about it"
Really, in what way? He said "No thank you" to their request to search his bag and left. They physically prevented him from leaving the parking lot. Other than his decision to exercise his legal rights you have not what he could have done that would not have made him an "ass" in your eyes that wouldn't involve his capitulation.
You have made it clear that the reason he is an "ass" is for the sole reason that he had the temerity to exercise his rights.
Your attempted analogy of exercising a right to speech fails because there you could criticize the **content** of his speech as making him an "ass" as opposed to his exercise of his rights. In the OP's case, there is no such distinction. The entire case hinges on two rights he exercised: the right to decline a voluntary bag search and the right to identify one's self to the police but not to have to produce a government issued ID except under narrow circumstances. The OP was **completely** within his rights and there is no **content** that you are disagreeing with, only the act of exercising those rights.
"They have a right to detain you if there is reasonable suspicion that you've shoplifted. "
The suspicion must be reasonable and that reasonability varies from state to state. One thing is clear, failure to submit to a voluntary bag search is not legal reason to detain someone.
They had no legal right to detain the OP. They admitted to his face, when asked, that they were not accusing him of shoplifting--they just wanted to see in his bag. They had no right--literally.
Stores do not have police powers! They cannot detain people and force them to submit to store policy! They can only detain people who have committed a crime they have directly witnessed, or, in some states, have **reasonable** cause to believe occurred. To affect a citizen's arrest, you must have witnessed a crime, not merely suspect one may have occurred.
"I've wondered for a while that if those are valid contracts, would wearing a t-shirt with something like, "By selling to me, you agree to give up any rights to search me or my bags." also be a valid contract. How often would the store refuse to sell to you based on that?"
I've though such a t-shirt would be a good idea. But it should be based on "By reading this t-shirt you agree to the contract terms at {mywebsite.com}, or "By letting me enter your property, no matter for how short a time, you agree to the terms on this shirt."
Check out ReasonableAgreement.org. They have an anti-ELUA agreement you can add to your email sig and such things:
"READ CAREFULLY. By [accepting this material|accepting this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer."...and YES, it comes on a T-SHIRT!!!
The OP was **completely** within his legal rights. When we start calling people you use their rights "asses" we are effectively saying they shouldn't have those rights.
"I kind of feel bad for the Circuit City manager. He was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament. You can't expect this guy to know much about the law so he's acting on what he has probably been told by his superiors."
Loss prevention is Store Manager 101. There is no excuse for the manager to be unaware of the limitations of the bag check policy or of the stores ability to detain people. That you would give him a free pass is insulting. He doesn't need to be a constitutional scholar or know "much about the law" to know the **basics** of merchant shoplifting laws, like the fact that bag checks are voluntary and that the store has no legal right to detain anyone unless they have witnessed a crime. Just wanting to look in a bag is not a legal reason to detain someone.
This can not be said enough. Neither stores nor their private security guards have police powers! They can only make citizen's arrests, and that only if they have witnessed a crime. The OP had the right to arrest the Circuit city employees for unlawful detention, they had no right to arrest him for anything.
"What's the big deal with showing them receipts?"...and what is the big deal about not showing them...
I don't buy into the idea that we should all just submit to the corporate whims of Best Buy, et al, because the person charge with enforcing the corporate policy is low paid and "just doing his job."
To F'ing bad. I'm not going to let Circuit City socially engineer me into conformity because they put their employees into untenable situations. You, of course, are free to be a sheep who surrenders his rights. I see no reason to go along just to get along. That way lies subservience.
Slashdot Mirror
That flat blocky thing doesn't look like a seaworthy ship it looks like an overpriced houseboat, perfect for mooring in the San Francisco Bay, or, perhaps, the Mediterranean. It seems like another example of Steve Jobs letting aesthetics (ugly aesthetics, in this case) take precedence over function.
No, selling used mp3s has not been found legal. If you trace the link's back to the original source you get this article at Ars:
**Judge denies record label's request to shutter "used" MP3 store**
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/judge-denies-record-labels-request-to-shutter-used-mp3-store.ars
The judge still thinks ReDigi's arguments are likely to fail and that Capitol Records will prevail. The only thing that is significant is that ReDigi's case isn't over yet at the motion stage.
I'm not sure if people get how crazy dangerous even a low end class 4 laser is to people's eyesight. Even diffuse reflections can cause blindness. And blindness from a direct beam or specular reflection is virtually instant, literally before you can blink. This laser is not a toy. Not something you can casually show off safely to your friends. You can blind people, forever, accidentally, in an instant. Just keep it in mind.
"From TFA: Years ago, college students were our best customers," he said. "Now they're among our worst customers.""
---
Well, of course the RIAA is selling fewer units per capita. The number of media choices competing for the a person's money is far greater than it has ever been. The RIAA is blaming its dwindling share of wallet on piracy instead of the fractionalization of the market. They can sue 20,000 people and that won't change--the proof being they did and it hasn't.
If you read the link in the Parent, you'll find that Dozier wanted to subpoena an anonymous internet poster but couldn't because the posts didn't trigger any DCMA provisions. Then sent him one of their patented (er, copyrighted) pompous huff and puff Cease and Desist letters. It got posted and--Shazaam--they now have evidence of copyright violation sufficient for a subpoena for the identity of the poster--their original intent all along. Dozier is an internet bully and an arrogant arse wipe. This post is my opinion, so don't even think about it, Dozier.
Well, yes its a contract of sorts. And contracts can be irrevocable.
Try "revoking" the sale of your home a year after you sold it, see how that goes. A home sale is a contract.
"As I understand it, a DTrace user has experimented with the program, determined it to be specifically crippled, and given an educated guess about why it is crippled in that way"
No, the frickin' **author** of DTrace has found the specific code used by Apple to cripple it.
Doing an important presentation that is 100% reliant on perfect internet connectivity is currently a stupid, stupid idea. It might work ok for presentations on your home turf in company meeting rooms but for remote presentations, training and sales it is a totally not yet ready for prime time idea. Someday perhaps, but not today. There are enough things that can go wrong with a presentation without using an on line app.
Your wish is the NY Times command:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E1D61739F930A15751C1A96F958260
" John Dunlavy, who manufactures audiophile loudspeakers and wire to go with it, does think questioning is valid. A musician and engineer, Mr. Dunlavy said as an academic exercise he used principles of physics relating to transmission line and network theory to produce a high-end cable. ''People ask if they will hear a difference, and I tell them no,'' he said.
Mr. Dunlavy has often gathered audio critics in his Colorado Springs lab for a demonstration.
''What we do is kind of dirty and stinky,'' he said. ''We say we are starting with a 12 WAG zip cord, and we position a technician behind each speaker to change the cables out.''
The technicians hold up fancy-looking cables before they disappear behind the speakers. The critics debate the sound characteristics of each wire.
''They describe huge changes and they say, 'Oh my God, John, tell me you can hear that difference,' '' Mr. Dunlavy said. The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, ''It's the placebo effect.''"
"Perhaps I'm not reading it as broadly as the poster, but it doesn't sound like Randi is offering the reward to anyone. Instead it reads that he is challenging Dave Clark or peers to prove the claims."
Randi specifically invited Dave Clark to apply for the prize. The $1,000,000 prize for proof of claims of the paranormal used to be open to all comers, but now there is a standard in place to weed out the the completely deluded nut jobs who think they can fly or what not. However, the contest is still open to anyone who can get an academic to vouch for them and who can rustle up some publicity. For $1,000,000 it should be worth it for "genuine" applicants to put in a little leg work...
It would seem that not only is the RIAA's evidence in this case pathetic they are also trying to pursue their discredited and recently abandoned "Making Available" charge. This is because they have no evidence that the songs they allege the defendant was sharing were ever downloaded by anyone other than the RIAA--who are presumably authorized downloaders and not illegal downloaders.
"The key is the photographer was not publishing it for commercial purposes; putting the photo up on Flickr was not illegal since it was for personal use/browsing, but when it was used in the ad became illegal. The original photog would only have been "publishing" it in the context of this suit if he had, for example, used it to promote "Joe's Photography Service" or some other type of advertising/endorsement situation."
I think those are the kind of facts a **court** decides. It is not a clear case.
"If you publish a photo, YOU are liable, not the photographer or whoever gave you the photo. As an example, a person may sell you a photo he didn't take, you publish it, and the true photographer then sues YOU, the publisher, for copyright infringement." In this case the photographer **published** it by placing it on a for-profit photo sharing site. The internet has changed the meaning of what it means to "publish" something. Even if the photog placed it under CC, Flickr is still an ad supported commercial site. I don't think the case law is settled in this area re: the internet and what does and doesn't constitute "publishing" something. There'd be a lot more case law on the issue if the copyright act hadn't been changed in 1978 so that publication is essentially irrelevant to whether copyright, though publication for purposes of copyright might not have had any relationship to the much more nebulous "right to privacy" and "right of publicity" that model releases are somewhat shakily required for as those are usually based on common law or state case law as opposed to explicit statue. Conversely, an **Australian** company may have had no obligation to obtain a release for a photo taken outside the US of a foreign (to them) national, just as US companies don't have to.
Seeing as how the ad was a **printed** ad and not a web ad (as far as I know) and run solely in Australia by an Australian company, it is going to be a stretch to try to apply Texas state law to the case.
Oh, well informed one, then you also know that the photographer had no right to **publish** the photo in Flickr without a model release--a for-profit commercial website that allows photo sharing supported by ad revenue--even if he wasn't charging for the photo. Of course, if everyone went by the strict rule of law, Flickr would drop dead because almost none of the photos published on Flickr have model releases. That being said, I think your advice about getting model realized photos for advertising is good advice.
"This 'duty' doesn't exist for the photographer. It's always the responsibility of the final client to ensure that a model release exists. Just because the photograph in this case was free does not mean that Virgin / their advertising agency can suddenly forget about that."
That would be true if the photographer didn't publish the photo. By posting it on Flickr, **he's** a publisher and needed a model release. The girl can/should/has to sue him. Suing an Australian company for lack of model release? Not so much. We have international copyright agreements, not international "model release" agreements.
"Without a model release signed by the girl (and her parents if under 18) the counselor will lose the case. Use of someone's image in a commercial context requires a model release from any identifiable people in the image."
Well, in the US, but that isn't where the the ads were made and displayed. Keep in mind that the law is complex. Talent releases are based on the nebulous "invasion of privacy" principle, which in the US doesn't apply in the case of photos you take outside of the US since the US right to privacy doesn't extend to foreign nationals photographed in their home country. Similar exceptions may apply in reverse, as this photo was used in an ad in **Australia** not the the US.
Google doesn't get to charge for fraudulent clicks. That isn't the same as "loosing" $1,000,000,000.
Google isn't out any cash for the fraud, it is people who **buy** Google ads and pay per click who potentially loose money to fraudulent clicks, not Google. And there no way that Google can catch all click fraud, so it is **inevitable** that at least some advertisers will be charged for fraudulent clicks.
Nice post. Way to make Google look like the victim when they aren't the ones who actually pay for fraudulent clicks.
"He got a ticket and his bag was searched and he won't have a leg to stand on in court. The court of general public opinion thinks he's an ass and a judicial court will probably rule he was being an ass."
Just a ticket? You misstate the facts. He has an arrest record based on false accusations. His bag was searched. He was excessing his lawful rights, and **you** are not the "court of general public opinion."
If you want to be a sheep, fine, but don't call other people "twat stains" because they don't share your low opinion of your rights. You are the one throwing around the perjoratives, not him. I think that speaks poorly of you, but I'll let your record speak for you.
"IANAL, but it's too bad that T-shirt, sticker, and email signature ones wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because simply reading the terms of an agreement does not constitute acceptance of it."
You may well be right, but you aren't even required to know that the supposed contracts in stores and parking lots exist--let alone to have read them--for the proprietor to claim that you have "agreed" to them. So, it would be a battle in court. One could change the T-Shirt to a "by letting me enter you store" agreement to make it a more "active" acceptance.
"That's not true at all. He was being an ass about it"
Really, in what way? He said "No thank you" to their request to search his bag and left. They physically prevented him from leaving the parking lot. Other than his decision to exercise his legal rights you have not what he could have done that would not have made him an "ass" in your eyes that wouldn't involve his capitulation.
You have made it clear that the reason he is an "ass" is for the sole reason that he had the temerity to exercise his rights.
Your attempted analogy of exercising a right to speech fails because there you could criticize the **content** of his speech as making him an "ass" as opposed to his exercise of his rights. In the OP's case, there is no such distinction. The entire case hinges on two rights he exercised: the right to decline a voluntary bag search and the right to identify one's self to the police but not to have to produce a government issued ID except under narrow circumstances. The OP was **completely** within his rights and there is no **content** that you are disagreeing with, only the act of exercising those rights.
"They have a right to detain you if there is reasonable suspicion that you've shoplifted. "
The suspicion must be reasonable and that reasonability varies from state to state. One thing is clear, failure to submit to a voluntary bag search is not legal reason to detain someone.
They had no legal right to detain the OP. They admitted to his face, when asked, that they were not accusing him of shoplifting--they just wanted to see in his bag. They had no right--literally.
Stores do not have police powers! They cannot detain people and force them to submit to store policy! They can only detain people who have committed a crime they have directly witnessed, or, in some states, have **reasonable** cause to believe occurred. To affect a citizen's arrest, you must have witnessed a crime, not merely suspect one may have occurred.
"I've wondered for a while that if those are valid contracts, would wearing a t-shirt with something like, "By selling to me, you agree to give up any rights to search me or my bags." also be a valid contract. How often would the store refuse to sell to you based on that?"
...and YES, it comes on a T-SHIRT!!!
I've though such a t-shirt would be a good idea. But it should be based on "By reading this t-shirt you agree to the contract terms at {mywebsite.com}, or "By letting me enter your property, no matter for how short a time, you agree to the terms on this shirt."
Check out ReasonableAgreement.org. They have an anti-ELUA agreement you can add to your email sig and such things:
"READ CAREFULLY. By [accepting this material|accepting this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer."
The OP was **completely** within his legal rights. When we start calling people you use their rights "asses" we are effectively saying they shouldn't have those rights.
"I kind of feel bad for the Circuit City manager. He was put in a damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament. You can't expect this guy to know much about the law so he's acting on what he has probably been told by his superiors."
Loss prevention is Store Manager 101. There is no excuse for the manager to be unaware of the limitations of the bag check policy or of the stores ability to detain people. That you would give him a free pass is insulting. He doesn't need to be a constitutional scholar or know "much about the law" to know the **basics** of merchant shoplifting laws, like the fact that bag checks are voluntary and that the store has no legal right to detain anyone unless they have witnessed a crime. Just wanting to look in a bag is not a legal reason to detain someone.
This can not be said enough. Neither stores nor their private security guards have police powers! They can only make citizen's arrests, and that only if they have witnessed a crime. The OP had the right to arrest the Circuit city employees for unlawful detention, they had no right to arrest him for anything.
"What's the big deal with showing them receipts?" ...and what is the big deal about not showing them...
I don't buy into the idea that we should all just submit to the corporate whims of Best Buy, et al, because the person charge with enforcing the corporate policy is low paid and "just doing his job."
To F'ing bad. I'm not going to let Circuit City socially engineer me into conformity because they put their employees into untenable situations. You, of course, are free to be a sheep who surrenders his rights. I see no reason to go along just to get along. That way lies subservience.