We shouldn't trust people who don't understand science to vote whether to cut science! But we should trust people who don't understand the military to vote whether to cut the military!
Now cue the inevitable defense of "Duh, it's self evident we should cut the military budget" and the refusal to acknowledge that possibility of being wrong on that.
I agree that there are wasteful military programs; however, at least have the decency to acknowledge you're basically doing the exact same thing you're decrying.
Oh, no, my anti-intellectualism is showing! How dare I question my betters?
I'm going to start appending that to the end of my posts in a futile, silly attempt to defend ridiculous, unfounded assertions I make. Oh, no, my anti-intellectualism is showing! How dare I question my betters?
The tags are in the HTML file that Delicious exports as an attribute in the anchor tags for the bookmarks (i.e., <a href="...." tags="foo,bar">) IIRC. So worst case scenario, write a Python script that uses something like this regex: tags="[^"]*?porn[^"]*?" to weed out your porn links.
As someone who pays for webhosting, I'm curious if there have been any decent open source del.icio.us variants created. I've used the site for years, but I could just as easily bookmark this stuff myself if I could just get some code running on my own site.
I guess I could code one if I need to. The social networking/web2.0 aspect of seeing what "the community" is bookmarking wasn't much of a draw for me so much as the multi-tag, shared-between-all-my-computers aspects were.
And here is the original 9th circuit ruling [google.com] which does have precedent in that circuit, and will likely be referenced in other circuits.
Practically the first thing I was taught when I was interning for the US Attorney's Office was that I shouldn't cite Ninth Circuit cases unless I absolutely have to; they're afforded much less weight by courts outside the Ninth Circuit than other Circuits' decisions are.
The relevant engine runs on OS X. All I see on the GE:S page are Windows and Linux versions. Is there an OS X version I'm not seeing, or are we Mackers left out in the cold again?
Thanks. Not going to lie: that's awesome. I guess in this case I'm like the elephant with a rope around his ankle.
A man was visiting Thailand and noticed an elephant standing in place with a thin rope tied around his ankle. The man asked the elephant's owner how the thin rope kept the elephant in place. The trainer responded that when the elephant was a baby, the rope was strong enough to restrain it. As the elephant aged, it never tested the strength of its cage, so it remained docile and restrained.
I'm sure my paraphrasing isn't as good as the original.
Congratulations on living in NYC or Silicon Valley, man. My choices are: dialup, Time Warner, or ATT. All forbid running such services or are frigging dialup.
Oh wait, I could also get DishTV's satellite Internet service. Also forbids running such services.
To be fair, he's less defending a patent than he is defending a level of learned discourse on./ that has only ever existed in mythological antiquity.:)
Well, the "just because you can" element makes your definition pretty untenable. There aren't very many people we would even (rightly) call "terrorists" who attack just because they can. 9/11 wasn't "just because they could." It was for a specific purpose: to cause terror. Hell, it may have been for more purposes than that.
Now, that may be a "duh" thing to everyone reading this post, but it absolutely, positively does not fit within the terrorism framework you hastily concocted for post #34541618.
Take another crack at haughtily defining "terrorism"?
That sounds like a great opportunity for competitors ten years from now, once they've raised the capital, convince municipalities to revoke the forced monopolies, and then spend tens of millions to roll out new fiber.
The Interstate Commerce Clause ("To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes") was only intended to keep the states from entering trade wars, not to dictate how, where, who, when trade will occur.
Woah, citation needed. I never heard, in all my years of being a lawyer and law student before that, that the CC was created exclusively to prevent trade wars!
Why is it funny? They want to make as much money as possible, so they make decisions accordingly. Is that so hard to understand? There's no right to have glorious parallels in all business decisions, you know.
The Peace Prize has ALWAYS been political. Five years after it was first awarded (1906), Teddy Roosevelt got one for essentially bullying Japan into accepting worse terms than they should have after winning the Russo-Japanese War. 1973, Henry Kissinger got a Peace Prize essentially for just quitting a war. There's probably more, but that's
This message has been interrupted as gman003 has left to accept his Nobel Peace Price.
Looking at the quote you used, what was found illegal was the distribution. The P2P systems that were used allowed sharing and distribution. The argument that downloading in and of itself is not illegal goes like this:
I read every bit of information I could find, including case law. I studied the DMCA. Since then I have studied the NET Act. I have studied everything I could find. Guess what? I could not find a single line in any act that said that downloading anything was illegal, or even anything that could be construed to mean it. I submit that there’s a legitimate reason there is no law covering the downloads. I believe it’s because you cannot know for certain that a file is pirated until it is in your possession. File names mean nothing. Fake music files planted on Kazaa prove it. Fake video files planted on torrent sites prove it. Even non-pirated files get named with titles that could be misconstrued as being pirated. I also believe that intent is insufficient to come to the conclusion that a person is attempting to download a pirated file.
This argument is absolutely a losing argument. The Copyright Act says that making copies is an exclusive right that can be infringed. When you download, there is an argument that has not been rejected yet that the downloader makes a copy, and therefore infringes.
I'm not arguing downloading is infringing; I'm arguing against the assertion that courts have held it is not infringing. Can you see the difference?
Until then, it is pretty clear that there is no law nor precedent that states that downloading by itself is infringement
Correct. I never said otherwise. I was responding to someone saying "clearly downloading is not infringement" or some other bogus statement.
and thus it depends on what judge/jury you end up with.
Judge? Yes. Jury? No. This is a question of law, and, as such, the jury does not get to address it.
The jury serves only as "fact finder," not "law finder."
But logically consider that fact that since when is being in receipt of an unauthorised copy a copyright infringement on the part of the recipient?
Come on, you're on Slashdot. I hope you have more respect for my understanding of technology than that.
If you hack into my Windows box and get remote access, make a copy of an MP3, and send it back to yourself, did I make the copy or did you?
I guarantee you a court is going to say you did. Requesting a file via Kazaa is very arguably the same thing but with only slightly more consent on my part. You're still the one doing the copying.
it logically makes sense that if you were downloading a new copy or something you legally owned it is no different than if you made that copy yourself
So you admit you make the copy. Making a copy of a copyrighted work is infringement.
Or else don't you think that there'd be a lot more downloaders sued?
No, because it's really, really hard to prove download. That's the only reason only uploaders are being sued.
The way to prove download is to be the RIAA, share a song, and sue the guys who download it from you. But then you'd have to fight against their claims of "I was trying to download a different song with the same name" and "you, the copyright owner's agent, gave me permission to download the file by enabling it in the first place." That is why you don't see downloaders being sued.
subpoena the logs from Rapid Share find the IP addresses of everyone who downloaded files and thus use that the same way they use the rest of their evidence and start suing
They don't do that because it's more expensive than going after RS, and likely less effective.
The RIAA may have deep pockets, but they're not infinitely deep. They do actually have to make decisions about costs.
So, in summation: I didn't say it was definitive that downloading is infringement. I said it's not definitive that it's not.
you definitely don't want to ignore this. The Pac-Man copyrights are well-established and well-defended in court
THIS ISN'T LEGAL ADVICE. I'M A LAWYER BUT NOT YOURS.:) Beyond that, it's a good idea for you to start adding that disclaimer to basically everything even touching on the law you ever post here. Without it, you could inadvertently form an attorney-client relationship (A-C relationship forms when the "client" is reasonable in believing one has formed, regardless of your intent, IIRC) and get pwned hard down the line.
There are already about a hundred posts here elaborating correctly in the exact same way. Just open your eyes and read any comment talking about how it's clearly a copyright violation, and you're likely reading something correct enough for/.'s purposes.
Plaintiffs own the copyrights in various works embodying the character Superman and have thereby acquired copyright protection for the character itself.
Accordingly, fan fiction often does infringe copyrights. However, no one sues them because it's just a dumb business move. You're not going to make any money off shallow-pocketed fifteen-year olds, you're not going to stop all of them, you're not going to scare them into stopping since they don't believe it's against the law, it's a tougher case to win than "here's proof she downloaded my song, therefore she infringed" and necessarily will cost more in legal fees to stop, and it's harmful to the fanbase to try and stop them.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the hypocrisy of this
Now cue the inevitable defense of "Duh, it's self evident we should cut the military budget" and the refusal to acknowledge that possibility of being wrong on that.
I agree that there are wasteful military programs; however, at least have the decency to acknowledge you're basically doing the exact same thing you're decrying.
I'm going to start appending that to the end of my posts in a futile, silly attempt to defend ridiculous, unfounded assertions I make. Oh, no, my anti-intellectualism is showing! How dare I question my betters?
You'll find that in literally no point in history were lawyers ever anything other than (upper) middle class. Aristocracy? Don't make me giggle.
I am actually doing it right now in PHP. Viva unemployment!
The tags are in the HTML file that Delicious exports as an attribute in the anchor tags for the bookmarks (i.e., <a href="...." tags="foo,bar">) IIRC. So worst case scenario, write a Python script that uses something like this regex: tags="[^"]*?porn[^"]*?" to weed out your porn links.
As someone who pays for webhosting, I'm curious if there have been any decent open source del.icio.us variants created. I've used the site for years, but I could just as easily bookmark this stuff myself if I could just get some code running on my own site.
I guess I could code one if I need to. The social networking/web2.0 aspect of seeing what "the community" is bookmarking wasn't much of a draw for me so much as the multi-tag, shared-between-all-my-computers aspects were.
Isn't the case in question specifically one that went against a corporation (CostCo)?
Practically the first thing I was taught when I was interning for the US Attorney's Office was that I shouldn't cite Ninth Circuit cases unless I absolutely have to; they're afforded much less weight by courts outside the Ninth Circuit than other Circuits' decisions are.
The relevant engine runs on OS X. All I see on the GE:S page are Windows and Linux versions. Is there an OS X version I'm not seeing, or are we Mackers left out in the cold again?
Jazz Jackrabbit
Thanks. Not going to lie: that's awesome. I guess in this case I'm like the elephant with a rope around his ankle.
I'm sure my paraphrasing isn't as good as the original.
*fires up FTP server and VPN server*
Congratulations on living in NYC or Silicon Valley, man. My choices are: dialup, Time Warner, or ATT. All forbid running such services or are frigging dialup.
Oh wait, I could also get DishTV's satellite Internet service. Also forbids running such services.
To be fair, he's less defending a patent than he is defending a level of learned discourse on ./ that has only ever existed in mythological antiquity. :)
Well, the "just because you can" element makes your definition pretty untenable. There aren't very many people we would even (rightly) call "terrorists" who attack just because they can. 9/11 wasn't "just because they could." It was for a specific purpose: to cause terror. Hell, it may have been for more purposes than that.
Now, that may be a "duh" thing to everyone reading this post, but it absolutely, positively does not fit within the terrorism framework you hastily concocted for post #34541618.
Take another crack at haughtily defining "terrorism"?
Woah, citation needed. I never heard, in all my years of being a lawyer and law student before that, that the CC was created exclusively to prevent trade wars!
Why is it funny? They want to make as much money as possible, so they make decisions accordingly. Is that so hard to understand? There's no right to have glorious parallels in all business decisions, you know.
That being said, this sucks for us, the clients.
This message has been interrupted as gman003 has left to accept his Nobel Peace Price.
This argument is absolutely a losing argument. The Copyright Act says that making copies is an exclusive right that can be infringed. When you download, there is an argument that has not been rejected yet that the downloader makes a copy, and therefore infringes.
I'm not arguing downloading is infringing; I'm arguing against the assertion that courts have held it is not infringing. Can you see the difference?
Correct. I never said otherwise. I was responding to someone saying "clearly downloading is not infringement" or some other bogus statement.
Judge? Yes. Jury? No. This is a question of law, and, as such, the jury does not get to address it.
The jury serves only as "fact finder," not "law finder."
Come on, you're on Slashdot. I hope you have more respect for my understanding of technology than that.
If you hack into my Windows box and get remote access, make a copy of an MP3, and send it back to yourself, did I make the copy or did you?
I guarantee you a court is going to say you did. Requesting a file via Kazaa is very arguably the same thing but with only slightly more consent on my part. You're still the one doing the copying.
So you admit you make the copy. Making a copy of a copyrighted work is infringement.
No, because it's really, really hard to prove download. That's the only reason only uploaders are being sued.
The way to prove download is to be the RIAA, share a song, and sue the guys who download it from you. But then you'd have to fight against their claims of "I was trying to download a different song with the same name" and "you, the copyright owner's agent, gave me permission to download the file by enabling it in the first place." That is why you don't see downloaders being sued.
They don't do that because it's more expensive than going after RS, and likely less effective.
The RIAA may have deep pockets, but they're not infinitely deep. They do actually have to make decisions about costs.
So, in summation: I didn't say it was definitive that downloading is infringement. I said it's not definitive that it's not.
Good luck w/law school. Network your ass off (unless you're at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford!); it's a jungle out there right now.
He also gave this advice:
THIS ISN'T LEGAL ADVICE. I'M A LAWYER BUT NOT YOURS. :)
Beyond that, it's a good idea for you to start adding that disclaimer to basically everything even touching on the law you ever post here. Without it, you could inadvertently form an attorney-client relationship (A-C relationship forms when the "client" is reasonable in believing one has formed, regardless of your intent, IIRC) and get pwned hard down the line.
"You should consult an attorney" is not legal advice. I suppose you haven't taken the MPRE yet.
There are already about a hundred posts here elaborating correctly in the exact same way. Just open your eyes and read any comment talking about how it's clearly a copyright violation, and you're likely reading something correct enough for /.'s purposes.
Absolutely, 100% wrong on both counts.
Regarding the copyright of characters themselves, see numerous opinions, including Warner Bros. v. Am. Broadcasting Cos., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, fan fiction often does infringe copyrights. However, no one sues them because it's just a dumb business move. You're not going to make any money off shallow-pocketed fifteen-year olds, you're not going to stop all of them, you're not going to scare them into stopping since they don't believe it's against the law, it's a tougher case to win than "here's proof she downloaded my song, therefore she infringed" and necessarily will cost more in legal fees to stop, and it's harmful to the fanbase to try and stop them.
Your point? It's a government service, and will\d.* was "arguing" that governments should not provide any service that isn't a right.