I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here; we're not talking about their Kickstarter page, we're talking about actual pre-orders. Meaning, I wouldn't be paying for an investment on a speculative basis, I'd be paying for the promise of an actual console at some future date.
Or are you having difficulty wrapping your brain around the idea of a pre-order?
Not at all. I rarely do them, because I tend to prefer my money remaining in my bank account as opposed to the company's, until the exchange of value actually happens. Pre-ordering is essentially the customer granting the company credit. They have not proved their credit-worthiness to me.
It's fine if you don't want to be an early adopter. But acting like you have the superior position seems ludicrous.
In what way did I "act like I had the superior position"? I'm simply unwilling to pre-order something with only a CGI rendering of what they envision. Having a prototype doesn't mean they're ready to launch, but it does mean they're much closer, and at that point I would be willing to reconsider.
I love how everyone here is like, "Y'know, they really should have a backup software solution on the rover" or "If I was doing this, I would do this, that, and the other thing, and they're stupid for not doing that".
An awful lot of assumptions being made about people who are probably the very top of their game. I'm going to give NASA the benefit of a doubt here: I think they wouldn't do the upgrade unless it was very beneficial, and I'd bet they're doing it in a way that has layers upon layers of safeguards.
OSI have a point, the logos are so similar as to imply a connection / sponsorship. (Look at TFA, the similarities are really striking.)
OSHWA almost certainly must have been intending the similarity.
OSHWA didn't seek out approval in advance.
Thus, to keep their trademark, OSI are compelled to protect it. But this makes one wonder, what about OSHWA does OSI not like? Otherwise, one would think they would extend a license to the trademark. Alternatively I suppose that OSHWA might not want to abide by any restrictions set by OSI on use of the mark, but then I'm curious what restrictions were proposed.
There has to have been some conversation already, right?
Heck, I'd like to see them do what the **RA like to do. NASA file a counterclaim and get it back, Scripps file another notice, repeat that a few times and watch Youtube auto-suspend NASA's youtube account for three abuse claims. (doesn't matter if they are reversed, three claims is all it takes) That would generate some AWESOME publicity!
That's not the way the DMCA works. After the posting party sends a properly-worded counterclaim, the next step of the party claiming the copyright violation is to file a lawsuit. They can't just file another DMCA claim.
If you're asking a question like this, the subject is the federal government, and the answer eludes you, you can safely default to "corruption" and be right 99% of the time.
You know, I'd like to think that F-Secure wouldn't be dumb enough to believe a forged From address... I'd like to think that, but I'd probably bet otherwise.
They could argue that their posting of your ad constitutes good and valuable consideration, which fulfills your "two way" requirement (more accurately stated that contracts require negotiation, consideration, and must not be unconscionable) since you're providing them content and they're providing an audience. Consideration need not be monetary.
They don't own the copyright; they own an exclusive license to it. Subtly different, and my reasoning as to why they shouldn't be able to pursue copyright claims using it (see my earlier post).
Clicking "Continue" confirms that craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.
Is this legally enough for Craigslist? Wouldn't they need a full copyright assignment in order to pursue copyright infringement claims?
I bet if questioned in court, such a claim would be thrown out due to lack of standing, since copyright ownership would belong to the writer of the post, not with Craigslist. After all, that was the reasoning that killed Righthaven when they tried to make a similar deal with their newspaper clients.
The copyright claim wouldn't be against the poster, it would be against the Craigslist competitor to whom the original poster copied their ad. I'm certain Craigslist is fine with that.
I bet they do enforce it on an individual basis against other sites; this allows them to maintain a monopoly position on online classifieds with legal force. All they need is a bot to look for their content and an automated DMCA system.
This situation with class action lawsuits being inequitable would easily be fixed by mandating that at least 50% of the total settlement amount must be equally distributed to the members of the class.
But that's not going to happen as lawmakers tend to be... lawyers.
I don't know about everyone else, but I find myself completely disinterested in the Olympics this round due to all the commercial bullshit attached to it. NBC et al can go fuck themselves; they have thusfar not received a single view of Olympic advertising from me. I haven't even bothered to watch a single event.
And that's pretty sad, because the ideal of the Olympics is something worth protecting.
Slashdot Mirror
So you don't understand what kickstarter is?
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here; we're not talking about their Kickstarter page, we're talking about actual pre-orders. Meaning, I wouldn't be paying for an investment on a speculative basis, I'd be paying for the promise of an actual console at some future date.
Or are you having difficulty wrapping your brain around the idea of a pre-order?
Not at all. I rarely do them, because I tend to prefer my money remaining in my bank account as opposed to the company's, until the exchange of value actually happens. Pre-ordering is essentially the customer granting the company credit. They have not proved their credit-worthiness to me.
It's fine if you don't want to be an early adopter. But acting like you have the superior position seems ludicrous.
In what way did I "act like I had the superior position"? I'm simply unwilling to pre-order something with only a CGI rendering of what they envision. Having a prototype doesn't mean they're ready to launch, but it does mean they're much closer, and at that point I would be willing to reconsider.
I love how everyone here is like, "Y'know, they really should have a backup software solution on the rover" or "If I was doing this, I would do this, that, and the other thing, and they're stupid for not doing that".
An awful lot of assumptions being made about people who are probably the very top of their game. I'm going to give NASA the benefit of a doubt here: I think they wouldn't do the upgrade unless it was very beneficial, and I'd bet they're doing it in a way that has layers upon layers of safeguards.
Show me a physical prototype, running actual software, connected to an actual TV (in HD), and then we'll talk.
So, a few things are evident.
OSI have a point, the logos are so similar as to imply a connection / sponsorship. (Look at TFA, the similarities are really striking.)
OSHWA almost certainly must have been intending the similarity.
OSHWA didn't seek out approval in advance.
Thus, to keep their trademark, OSI are compelled to protect it. But this makes one wonder, what about OSHWA does OSI not like? Otherwise, one would think they would extend a license to the trademark. Alternatively I suppose that OSHWA might not want to abide by any restrictions set by OSI on use of the mark, but then I'm curious what restrictions were proposed.
There has to have been some conversation already, right?
Why I'm not worried: Do you think, as a matter of policy, that a site like Demonoid would have long retention of IP logs?
The data is being delivered to the US as a gift.
Sounds like a good class action against YouTube / Google to me.
Hey, I got a free The Daily WTF mug out of Microsoft Azure, so I consider it a net gain.
Heck, I'd like to see them do what the **RA like to do. NASA file a counterclaim and get it back, Scripps file another notice, repeat that a few times and watch Youtube auto-suspend NASA's youtube account for three abuse claims. (doesn't matter if they are reversed, three claims is all it takes) That would generate some AWESOME publicity!
That's not the way the DMCA works. After the posting party sends a properly-worded counterclaim, the next step of the party claiming the copyright violation is to file a lawsuit. They can't just file another DMCA claim.
If anyone's going to know exploitable software, it's Microsoft.
If you're asking a question like this, the subject is the federal government, and the answer eludes you, you can safely default to "corruption" and be right 99% of the time.
Can we declare that they both lose and remove both their apps? They're not games, they're psychological tricks to extract credit card numbers.
You know, I'd like to think that F-Secure wouldn't be dumb enough to believe a forged From address... I'd like to think that, but I'd probably bet otherwise.
All they'd have to do would be to say "or any substantially similar posting by you" and they'd be in the clear.
They could argue that their posting of your ad constitutes good and valuable consideration, which fulfills your "two way" requirement (more accurately stated that contracts require negotiation, consideration, and must not be unconscionable) since you're providing them content and they're providing an audience. Consideration need not be monetary.
Yore.
They don't own the copyright; they own an exclusive license to it. Subtly different, and my reasoning as to why they shouldn't be able to pursue copyright claims using it (see my earlier post).
They could argue the changed verbiage was a derivative creation of the original and thus subject to its copyright.
Clicking "Continue" confirms that craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.
Is this legally enough for Craigslist? Wouldn't they need a full copyright assignment in order to pursue copyright infringement claims?
I bet if questioned in court, such a claim would be thrown out due to lack of standing, since copyright ownership would belong to the writer of the post, not with Craigslist. After all, that was the reasoning that killed Righthaven when they tried to make a similar deal with their newspaper clients.
The copyright claim wouldn't be against the poster, it would be against the Craigslist competitor to whom the original poster copied their ad. I'm certain Craigslist is fine with that.
I bet they do enforce it on an individual basis against other sites; this allows them to maintain a monopoly position on online classifieds with legal force. All they need is a bot to look for their content and an automated DMCA system.
This situation with class action lawsuits being inequitable would easily be fixed by mandating that at least 50% of the total settlement amount must be equally distributed to the members of the class.
But that's not going to happen as lawmakers tend to be... lawyers.
I don't know about everyone else, but I find myself completely disinterested in the Olympics this round due to all the commercial bullshit attached to it. NBC et al can go fuck themselves; they have thusfar not received a single view of Olympic advertising from me. I haven't even bothered to watch a single event.
And that's pretty sad, because the ideal of the Olympics is something worth protecting.
FYI, I am a green card holder, not an H1-B. I came over on a K1 fiance visa from Canada to marry my (now) wife.
As far as your argument that ICE can't be trusted because *insert conspiracy theory involving Obama here*, I don't respond to insanity.
I think the bigger issue here is that courts accept that a practice's costs are actually $220 million.