I was a tech for an Edison project school. They use the same password for every computer in every school the operate. This includes the servers that hold all the individual passwords.
if you want to support democracy you have to say this is a victory! 100 of 115 property owners wanted to sell to the developers. 15 people were stopping it.
hey folks the Court actually limited itself to reading the law and not creating onitself here for a change.
eminent domain is thousands of years old and has always been acccepted as a power of the state.
there is no mention of eminent domain in the constitution. this means it is in the States authority not the Federal Governments
the fifth amendment only states that people must be paid for the land
The US Court ruled it has no standing to rule in this case and that the state courts had made the final decision
if you don't like it don't bitch at the judges that read the law correctly and justly. Bitch to the state and federal legislatures who have had 200 years to pass legislation to limit eminent domain but haven't
begin rant--opps thats right congress is far to busy trying to stop people from burning flags to worry about governments seizing homes--end rant
PS just a little refresher. A Republic State is the land inside its borders. the state Owns all land. A deed (issued by the state folks) truly grants ownership rights in much the way a copyright does (a copyright does not mean you own it just the right to copy) this is the way govenments work
Gee guys get a grip. Lets look at what was actually decided here.
1. Local Governments have the right to Forcibly purchase property for the public good (not seize - not take). This has been true since day one....(and I for one would have no problem taking what the property tax guy say my property is worth)
2. The public good can be a private development. (was never used this way before but nothing in the bill of rights (not the constitution) prevents this) the court didn't write acticle 5 they just read it as it was written.
3. The definition of public good is Not a power given to the Federal Government so only the states can make that decision. (meaning that while the court may question the local decision they can not overturn it.)
Over all not much new here...remember eminent domain has existed forever but is rarely used because of this type of reaction. Using it without popular support can mean a quick end to your political career.
Like any government power this one can be abused. the only way to stop this is to pay attention and react when it happens. Of course with so many ready to throw away our rights to question the government it may get harder and harder.
the whole issue of being forced to live in University housing aside. What happens if you call up the local cable company/phone company and sign up for cable/DSL access. Then of course the university will say No you can't do that. Then you bring up the fact that the courts have ruled many times that landlords can't prevent you from accessing such services or tell you which service to use. I think just the thought of having to open up there cabling systems to outside venders would make them shut up and do anything to make you happy and quiet.
maybe just stick a DSS dish out your window...would get there attention and is already specificly protected by law.
I guess my point here is that there is DRM that doesn't prevent you from arciving or even from making a non-DRM copy on CD. I find this very exceptable.
Just Because your friend is stupid doesn't make ITMS evil.
Nobody is just going to give you another copy of commercial work just because you lost yours
It would be nice if ITMS would allow you to redownload stuff for a small fee much in the way Adobe will sell you a new copy of a program you have registered for $10 or so. But unfortunatley I don't see this being very possible due to the complication of the copyrights being owned by the record companies who would want there cut.
Sharing has nothing to do with DRM its just the features of iTunes. The only real changes Apple has made is to expand the rights of its customers boosting the number of authorized computers from 3 to 5. there is no limit to the number of cds you can burn (only the number of cds at a time...per playlist) ITMS files have never been sharable to nonauthorized computers
First off Apple does not sell music...it sells a license to it. First sale does not really apply.
First sale applies to media..there is no media here.
Second this is not hacking a file on your system. This is using false information and your secure password to connect to a external network and download something you don't have a legal right to (since you know you violating the TOS the fact that your getting billed doesn't make it legal)
Using limewire bittorrent or edonkey may be a copyright violation but using this program could very well be viewed in legal terms as computer fraud. Is a DRM free file worth a FEDERAL FELONY to you!!!!!
This action may very well put DVD Jon in jail this time!!!!
PC user waits 3 years for new game to come out only to be disappointed.
Mac user waits 3 1/2 years for new game to come out only to be disappointed.
Whats the diff.
the game market is suffering from Microsoft syndrome--Its become so large all its energy is consumed sustaining itself and can no longer grow and innovate. The big companies cant do anything but rehash the same old titles while abusing there employees to make an extra buck. Meanwhile small companies that can innovate can't reach the market any more without a million dollar PR budget.
For all you idiots here with the "I'm only liable for $50 of fraudulent charges BS" guess what...there not fraudulent till you prove them to be. (or at least get someone at Visa to agree) I remeber the case of a FEDERAL JUDGE that had her cards stolen and used for thousands of dollars. Guess what... it took her years to get the charges cleared and her money back (yes she had to pay or face having her credit destroyed) Just because the law puts you in the right legaly doesn't mean that you can't get royally screwed.
I remember 10 years ago or more when the picture card came out 60 minutes sent a guy all around new york spending thousands with a card that clearly wasn't his. he even signed his own name instead of the one on the card....he was never denied or asked for ID
Extortion (Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition) is defined as:
"The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
sorry no..force, violence, or fear.. here. therefore no bais for charge.
Of course since the sherif has obtained the site (which clearly belongs to its creator) under color of official right. The sherif has in-fact committed extortion.
I know web designers in that area that get $50-$75/hr and companies that charge more than a hundred if he worked more than 20 hours a week and paid way to much for access and bandwidth (this ain't silicon valley here we get screwed for high speed access here) I can see $200-$300 thousand for three years. Now not that that's a good deal but its not insane as some have suggested (I have no doubt that if they had created an open bid process for site with all the content his did there would be higher bids, and much lower ones too).
The important thing here is the county never paid him one dime he provided this service for free hoping they would see the value and compensate him later. The important meaning of this is that HE OWNS EVERY LINE OF CODE IN THAT SITE and has every right to stop providing the service and to not give the county what he created.
In a related note I am suing my ISP for extortion...they gave me free DSL for the first three months and now they are demanding I pay for it or they will shut me off.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a tech for an Edison project school. They use the same password for every computer in every school the operate. This includes the servers that hold all the individual passwords.
so in this case 100 beats 15 democracy in action.
eminent domain is thousands of years old and has always been acccepted as a power of the state.
there is no mention of eminent domain in the constitution. this means it is in the States authority not the Federal Governments
the fifth amendment only states that people must be paid for the land
The US Court ruled it has no standing to rule in this case and that the state courts had made the final decision
if you don't like it don't bitch at the judges that read the law correctly and justly. Bitch to the state and federal legislatures who have had 200 years to pass legislation to limit eminent domain but haven't
begin rant--opps thats right congress is far to busy trying to stop people from burning flags to worry about governments seizing homes--end rant
PS just a little refresher. A Republic State is the land inside its borders. the state Owns all land. A deed (issued by the state folks) truly grants ownership rights in much the way a copyright does (a copyright does not mean you own it just the right to copy) this is the way govenments work
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
it says nothing about what property or why they can take property...it just say they have to compensate the owners
there is no requirement at all that it be done for the public good!!! none ...its not there...
1. Local Governments have the right to Forcibly purchase property for the public good (not seize - not take). This has been true since day one. ...(and I for one would have no problem taking what the property tax guy say my property is worth)
2. The public good can be a private development. (was never used this way before but nothing in the bill of rights (not the constitution) prevents this) the court didn't write acticle 5 they just read it as it was written.
3. The definition of public good is Not a power given to the Federal Government so only the states can make that decision. (meaning that while the court may question the local decision they can not overturn it.)
Over all not much new here...remember eminent domain has existed forever but is rarely used because of this type of reaction. Using it without popular support can mean a quick end to your political career.
Like any government power this one can be abused. the only way to stop this is to pay attention and react when it happens. Of course with so many ready to throw away our rights to question the government it may get harder and harder.
strange their UI looks remarkably like the NeXT file Browser... (which really predates this so called patent) Apple should really sue them.
maybe just stick a DSS dish out your window...would get there attention and is already specificly protected by law.
I guess my point here is that there is DRM that doesn't prevent you from arciving or even from making a non-DRM copy on CD. I find this very exceptable.
Nobody is just going to give you another copy of commercial work just because you lost yours
It would be nice if ITMS would allow you to redownload stuff for a small fee much in the way Adobe will sell you a new copy of a program you have registered for $10 or so. But unfortunatley I don't see this being very possible due to the complication of the copyrights being owned by the record companies who would want there cut.
RULE #1 BACK-UP
RULE #2 SEE RULE#1
However those rights are tied to the physical disk....sell the disk sell the rights...the disk is the liscense
but in the case of ITMS the Liscense is the TOS agreement.
Sharing has nothing to do with DRM its just the features of iTunes. The only real changes Apple has made is to expand the rights of its customers boosting the number of authorized computers from 3 to 5. there is no limit to the number of cds you can burn (only the number of cds at a time ...per playlist) ITMS files have never been sharable to nonauthorized computers
Second this is not hacking a file on your system. This is using false information and your secure password to connect to a external network and download something you don't have a legal right to (since you know you violating the TOS the fact that your getting billed doesn't make it legal)
Using limewire bittorrent or edonkey may be a copyright violation but using this program could very well be viewed in legal terms as computer fraud. Is a DRM free file worth a FEDERAL FELONY to you!!!!!
This action may very well put DVD Jon in jail this time!!!!
PC user waits 3 years for new game to come out only to be disappointed. Mac user waits 3 1/2 years for new game to come out only to be disappointed. Whats the diff. the game market is suffering from Microsoft syndrome--Its become so large all its energy is consumed sustaining itself and can no longer grow and innovate. The big companies cant do anything but rehash the same old titles while abusing there employees to make an extra buck. Meanwhile small companies that can innovate can't reach the market any more without a million dollar PR budget.
For all you idiots here with the "I'm only liable for $50 of fraudulent charges BS" guess what...there not fraudulent till you prove them to be. (or at least get someone at Visa to agree) I remeber the case of a FEDERAL JUDGE that had her cards stolen and used for thousands of dollars. Guess what... it took her years to get the charges cleared and her money back (yes she had to pay or face having her credit destroyed) Just because the law puts you in the right legaly doesn't mean that you can't get royally screwed.
I remember 10 years ago or more when the picture card came out 60 minutes sent a guy all around new york spending thousands with a card that clearly wasn't his. he even signed his own name instead of the one on the card....he was never denied or asked for ID
sorry no ..force, violence, or fear.. here. therefore no bais for charge.
Of course since the sherif has obtained the site (which clearly belongs to its creator) under color of official right. The sherif has in-fact committed extortion.
The important thing here is the county never paid him one dime he provided this service for free hoping they would see the value and compensate him later. The important meaning of this is that HE OWNS EVERY LINE OF CODE IN THAT SITE and has every right to stop providing the service and to not give the county what he created.
In a related note I am suing my ISP for extortion ...they gave me free DSL for the first three months and now they are demanding I pay for it or they will shut me off.