Well, among other things, Google Trends would require them to log IPs, since Google Trends can show you search popularity by region of the country, which is a function of IP address.
And it's really poor DB practice to store the location in the same table as the search data. Rather (a really simplified way I admit this example is), you'd want a table with the IP and search stuff, and then a table with the IP and location the IP maps to.
Google does face additional liability if most videos are copyrighted material, and Viacom would likely be vindicated.
The Betamax case specifically disagrees with you by saying that even if a technology is primarily used for infringing purposes it's safe provided that there exists substantial noninfringing use.
This trustworthy site, among other things, describes the outcome of the Betamax case, including the Supreme Court upholding the right to make the Betamax VTRs even though only about NINE PERCENT of use was noninfringing use based on the facts adduced at trial.
Just go to page 24 of the order: it sets out what is actually ordered (the other pages are the factual background and reasoning behind the order).
Google doesn't have to give Viacom YouTube's source code.
Google doesn't have to give Viacom the source code for the "Video ID" program, which is their new software that can spot clips of copyrighted material in videos, provided that a copyright owner had submitted a reference clip to Google
Google has to give to Viacom all videos removed from YouTube (that's interesting: does Google have to turn over the child porn that occasionally is posted to YouTube and promptly deleted? Or does Google permanently delete that stuff and not the infringing material?)
Google has to give Viacom any logging database data that concerns every YouTube view, whether through YouTube.com or through the EMBEDs on other sites (because that still goes through YouTube's servers, after all) -- this data is specifically the username, IP address, video identifier, and the time the video was started playing
Google doesn't have to give Viacom certain data fields regarding all videos posted to the site
Google doesn't have to give Viacom the schema for their advertising database (I can't believe Viacom even had the balls to ask for this; strike that, yes I can)
Google has to give Viacom the schema for their video content database
Google doesn't have to give Viacom "private" videos except for certain non-content data about them (perhaps a hash or something like that?)
I invite you to read the ruling. The order itself at the end contains the legal language. The rest of the document is very easy for a technical person to read. All it does is describe what the "Video ID" program is and the "Mono" database, and things like that.
In Texas we have this thing called the Texas Rules of Evidence, which creates the Husband-Wife Privileges. One of them is that a spouse may prevent the other from revealing any communication intended to be private.
The only exceptions are when it's a proceeding where one spouse is pitted against the other (e.g., divorce; note that criminal proceedings are NEVER spouse vs. spouse so you can prevent your wife from revealing anything in a criminal proceeding), a hearing to determine competence, commitment, a crime against the spouse or child or in furtherance of a crime (the only criminal exceptions).
So if you told your wife you committed a crime (e.g., that you did drugs) and then you're charged with that crime, you can prevent your wife from revealing that you told her that (unless you telling her was in furtherance of the crime, such as if you were inviting her into the conspiracy).
If you're in TX at a federal trial, the Texas privilege rules apply because there are no Federal privilege rules except one: a pointer to the rules of whatever state the proceedings are in.
Just food for thought; I'm not trying to say you're wrong about anything.
Well, by sending information of yourself to YouTube, you entered the US. Are you suggesting that if you stood just west of the Russofinnish border and shot someone just east, you would be completely safe from prosecution because the murder occurred in Russia and you never went into Russia?
To explain, "oya" means "parent" and "ko" means "child" in Japanese--it's a rice-based dish (donburi) that includes both chicken and eggs.
Re:Summary of Stallman Interview
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Whoops, I forgot to mention this, too.
For most of society, software licensing issues are way below the radar.
That doesn't really change the fact that Obama has even extended the term "open source" to refer to a way he wants to implement democracy in the US. sources list, quick and dirty
This implies that he (or an advisor) at least knows what open source is enough to extend the term's meaning in an analogous way.
Re:Summary of Stallman Interview
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm saying that Lessig and Obama are friends who used to teach together at the University of Chicago law school. I'm saying that Obama called Lessig up when he was going to run for president in order to discuss his internet/technology policy. I don't have the source for this, but I'm not making it up--hopefully my credibility on Slashdot is sufficient.
There has even been speculation by people outside the tech industry that Lessig may be tapped for the Supreme Court in an Obama administration. I've even come across fervently anti-Obama blogs that discuss their fear that Obama will appoint "communist Lessig" to the Court--so it's not just Lessig lovers who are suggesting this appointment may happen.
I think maybe Lessig mentions as much in his 20-minute presentation here. I don't want to watch the 20 minutes on my slow-as-molasses computer right now, though.
Also, Obama has invited Lessig to speak with him. source
my mechanic should have PI so if he finds child porn in my trunk I can be reported
He already can.
Re:Summary of Stallman Interview
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Informative
a "political movement" that no one in the US congress has ever heard of
Well, considering that Larry Lessig (EFF/Creative Commons/Change Congress) and the FSF have been advising Sen. Obama, I'd be willing to put money on the proposition that he's at least heard of "free software."
Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Technically, I should have said "licensee's freedom to sublicense, but on Slashdot clarity is not that important, no?;)
Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Should you have the freedom to restrict other people's freedom?
If your answer is "yes" to that, I hope you don't reproduce.
You mean how the GPL upholds the programmer's freedom to restrict a licensee's freedom to relicense the code?/devilsadvocate
And you don't have to put away groceries bought at the local store? Because you included that in your calculation of why farmer's markets are too time-consuming.
Get off Slashdot if you don't have time to stay healthy. Seriously. I mean, it's like you're saying, "I don't have time to buy healthy food, because I spend time discussing why I can't on Slashdot."
Speaking of which, I'm getting off this discussion before I RAGE anymore and going running! Because I've got better things to do than read this thread (like dropping another 10-15 ell bees.
Or go to HEB. I don't know if it's because I live in the fucking awesome town of Austin, TX, but my HEB (the kosher one in Far West for any Austinites reading) stocks a crap ton of fresh fruits, veggies, meats, nuts, etc.
I buy peanuts, almonds, shallots, scallions, FOUR DIFFERENT COLORED BELL PEPPERS, basically sashimi-grade tuna, etc.
Jeez, there are foods there that I'd never heard of before at the HEB. Where do you people live that your local grocery stores don't have fresh foods? My hick hometown's HEB, Wal-Mart, Albertsons, etc. all have fresh food up the wazoo.
In junior high we had this thing called "Junior Economics" where a local businessperson would teach an hour or so a week for about 6 weeks.
My teacher was the franchisee of all the local McDonalds in my town. He told me that they sold their burgers at a loss and made up the money in drinks.
That was my first touch on the concept of a "loss leader."
Hi. My Chinese and Japanese friends who've been drinking soymilk and eating tofu their entire lives have a distinct lack of tits they'd like to talk to you about.
On the other hand, your post really demonstrates that poor people get more exercise than do rich people (i.e., rich people drive everywhere and pay other people to perform manual labor, while poor people have to walk and perform manual labor themselves).
Free individuals do not "owe" society anything. Society is a voluntary association.
I agreed with you up until you said this. Read some social theory and get back to me after that.
For one thing, how could we morally have any laws if free individuals don't owe society anything? How is it valid to punish murder if free individuals don't even owe society enough to obey that law?
God Damn, the US was founded on Locke's principles of social contract. If you live in the US, and definitely if you use roads built by society, you damn well owe society at least a modicum of something in response.
Interested, I read ANKOJ just now. All I can say is that oh Lord, that's a terrible proposal.
A few brief criticisms: In proposal #1, the author asserts that once a lawsuit is brought, it cannot be dismissed; furthermore, if a plaintiff brings a lawsuit and fails to win, then the plaintiff has to pay the defendant the amount the plaintiff was seeking.
No one would ever file a suit against a big corporation if this were true. No lawyer would ever take pro bono cases in order to set precedent.
Second, in many lawsuits, the defendant has all the information and the plaintiff has none. Suppose you're injured at Wal Mart through the company's gross negligence. Typically you file a lawsuit and conduct discovery to get at their data so you can help your case (because you don't own the property and run the company, you don't know their safety precautions, you don't have the security tapes, you don't know their business methods, etc.). So you file suit, alleging about $30K for medical bills and lost wages for the 6 months you were laid up in bed due to your injury. Then it turns out they don't have any of the information you need. So, even though you are in the right, you're going to owe Wal Mart $30K! That's a ridiculous.
#2 Damages set at 125% of net damages (or some other number)? Well, for one thing, that means if a person's life earnings would be about a million dollars, but the person has a secret about Wal Mart that will cost them 2 million, then they'll have him killed. The jury would be precluded from taking more than 1.25M from Wal Mart, and so Wal Mart commits murder and still comes out financially ahead.
Beyond that, lawyers typically accept cases on contingency fee basis, which means that a plaintiff doesn't have to worry about massive debt to a lawyer if they lose. This proposed rule #2 effectively destroys either (1) a plaintiff's ability to keep anywhere near just compensation after paying the lawyer, or (2) the contingency fee setup altogether goes away, meaning that fewer people who deserve to win will have the financial means to even go to trial. That's a ridiculous outcome as well.
#3 I don't understand how the author comes up with the idea that if your opponent is 80% responsible he should only have to pay 60% of computed damages, but assuming the author just made a math error, we already have this. It's called comparative negligence, and most states use this form of negligence, as opposed to contributory negligence.
Now, the author then says my arguments are bunk because lawyers would act as insurers and lawyers together. This is flawed economic analysis, and here's why:
The effects of the proposed system include a decrease in money lawyers can earn on a case (since damages are limited to 125% of actual damages, so there's basically no such thing as pain and suffering, gross disfigurement, punitive damages, etc.). Thus, lawyers have less money in general. Thus, they have less ability to take risks. Thus, lawyers will refuse clients who aren't guaranteed to win.
This results in what the author says WON'T happen: little guys not being able to sue the big guys.
I'm all for non-experts making proposals on how to fix the current system (because no system is perfect and can always be improved). However, our legal system in the US has been around for a thousand years, and it's evolved rather efficiently. I used to think the same as the author until I started to study it; there really is a sort of beauty to the way the law stands in the US.
There are flawed areas (like copyright law), but for the most part, when the courts have been able to set the rules, things have turned out great. There's no need to overhaul our system; the media just wants us to think that because they want to rebuild the system in a way that benefits their corporate owners.
Slashdot Mirror
The modding down was soooooo worth it.
Bah. It's already been YouTubed: here.
Well, among other things, Google Trends would require them to log IPs, since Google Trends can show you search popularity by region of the country, which is a function of IP address.
And it's really poor DB practice to store the location in the same table as the search data. Rather (a really simplified way I admit this example is), you'd want a table with the IP and search stuff, and then a table with the IP and location the IP maps to.
This is called "database normalization."
The Betamax case specifically disagrees with you by saying that even if a technology is primarily used for infringing purposes it's safe provided that there exists substantial noninfringing use.
This trustworthy site, among other things, describes the outcome of the Betamax case, including the Supreme Court upholding the right to make the Betamax VTRs even though only about NINE PERCENT of use was noninfringing use based on the facts adduced at trial.
Law student here.
Just go to page 24 of the order: it sets out what is actually ordered (the other pages are the factual background and reasoning behind the order).
I invite you to read the ruling. The order itself at the end contains the legal language. The rest of the document is very easy for a technical person to read. All it does is describe what the "Video ID" program is and the "Mono" database, and things like that.
I've heard that YouTube does not.
In Texas we have this thing called the Texas Rules of Evidence, which creates the Husband-Wife Privileges. One of them is that a spouse may prevent the other from revealing any communication intended to be private.
The only exceptions are when it's a proceeding where one spouse is pitted against the other (e.g., divorce; note that criminal proceedings are NEVER spouse vs. spouse so you can prevent your wife from revealing anything in a criminal proceeding), a hearing to determine competence, commitment, a crime against the spouse or child or in furtherance of a crime (the only criminal exceptions).
So if you told your wife you committed a crime (e.g., that you did drugs) and then you're charged with that crime, you can prevent your wife from revealing that you told her that (unless you telling her was in furtherance of the crime, such as if you were inviting her into the conspiracy).
If you're in TX at a federal trial, the Texas privilege rules apply because there are no Federal privilege rules except one: a pointer to the rules of whatever state the proceedings are in.
Just food for thought; I'm not trying to say you're wrong about anything.
Well, by sending information of yourself to YouTube, you entered the US. Are you suggesting that if you stood just west of the Russofinnish border and shot someone just east, you would be completely safe from prosecution because the murder occurred in Russia and you never went into Russia?
To explain, "oya" means "parent" and "ko" means "child" in Japanese--it's a rice-based dish (donburi) that includes both chicken and eggs.
Whoops, I forgot to mention this, too.
That doesn't really change the fact that Obama has even extended the term "open source" to refer to a way he wants to implement democracy in the US. sources list, quick and dirty
This implies that he (or an advisor) at least knows what open source is enough to extend the term's meaning in an analogous way.
I'm saying that Lessig and Obama are friends who used to teach together at the University of Chicago law school. I'm saying that Obama called Lessig up when he was going to run for president in order to discuss his internet/technology policy. I don't have the source for this, but I'm not making it up--hopefully my credibility on Slashdot is sufficient.
There has even been speculation by people outside the tech industry that Lessig may be tapped for the Supreme Court in an Obama administration. I've even come across fervently anti-Obama blogs that discuss their fear that Obama will appoint "communist Lessig" to the Court--so it's not just Lessig lovers who are suggesting this appointment may happen.
I think maybe Lessig mentions as much in his 20-minute presentation here. I don't want to watch the 20 minutes on my slow-as-molasses computer right now, though.
Also, Obama has invited Lessig to speak with him. source
He already can.
Well, considering that Larry Lessig (EFF/Creative Commons/Change Congress) and the FSF have been advising Sen. Obama, I'd be willing to put money on the proposition that he's at least heard of "free software."
Technically, I should have said "licensee's freedom to sublicense, but on Slashdot clarity is not that important, no? ;)
You mean how the GPL upholds the programmer's freedom to restrict a licensee's freedom to relicense the code? /devilsadvocate
And you don't have to put away groceries bought at the local store? Because you included that in your calculation of why farmer's markets are too time-consuming.
Get off Slashdot if you don't have time to stay healthy. Seriously. I mean, it's like you're saying, "I don't have time to buy healthy food, because I spend time discussing why I can't on Slashdot."
Speaking of which, I'm getting off this discussion before I RAGE anymore and going running! Because I've got better things to do than read this thread (like dropping another 10-15 ell bees.
Or go to HEB. I don't know if it's because I live in the fucking awesome town of Austin, TX, but my HEB (the kosher one in Far West for any Austinites reading) stocks a crap ton of fresh fruits, veggies, meats, nuts, etc.
I buy peanuts, almonds, shallots, scallions, FOUR DIFFERENT COLORED BELL PEPPERS, basically sashimi-grade tuna, etc.
Jeez, there are foods there that I'd never heard of before at the HEB. Where do you people live that your local grocery stores don't have fresh foods? My hick hometown's HEB, Wal-Mart, Albertsons, etc. all have fresh food up the wazoo.
In junior high we had this thing called "Junior Economics" where a local businessperson would teach an hour or so a week for about 6 weeks.
My teacher was the franchisee of all the local McDonalds in my town. He told me that they sold their burgers at a loss and made up the money in drinks.
That was my first touch on the concept of a "loss leader."
Hi. My Chinese and Japanese friends who've been drinking soymilk and eating tofu their entire lives have a distinct lack of tits they'd like to talk to you about.
On the other hand, your post really demonstrates that poor people get more exercise than do rich people (i.e., rich people drive everywhere and pay other people to perform manual labor, while poor people have to walk and perform manual labor themselves).
It wouldn't be necessary assuming you can accurately and perfectly translate object code back into the original programming language code.
For one thing, how could we morally have any laws if free individuals don't owe society anything? How is it valid to punish murder if free individuals don't even owe society enough to obey that law?
God Damn, the US was founded on Locke's principles of social contract. If you live in the US, and definitely if you use roads built by society, you damn well owe society at least a modicum of something in response.
Interested, I read ANKOJ just now. All I can say is that oh Lord, that's a terrible proposal.
A few brief criticisms:
In proposal #1, the author asserts that once a lawsuit is brought, it cannot be dismissed; furthermore, if a plaintiff brings a lawsuit and fails to win, then the plaintiff has to pay the defendant the amount the plaintiff was seeking.
No one would ever file a suit against a big corporation if this were true. No lawyer would ever take pro bono cases in order to set precedent.
Second, in many lawsuits, the defendant has all the information and the plaintiff has none. Suppose you're injured at Wal Mart through the company's gross negligence. Typically you file a lawsuit and conduct discovery to get at their data so you can help your case (because you don't own the property and run the company, you don't know their safety precautions, you don't have the security tapes, you don't know their business methods, etc.). So you file suit, alleging about $30K for medical bills and lost wages for the 6 months you were laid up in bed due to your injury. Then it turns out they don't have any of the information you need. So, even though you are in the right, you're going to owe Wal Mart $30K! That's a ridiculous.
#2 Damages set at 125% of net damages (or some other number)? Well, for one thing, that means if a person's life earnings would be about a million dollars, but the person has a secret about Wal Mart that will cost them 2 million, then they'll have him killed. The jury would be precluded from taking more than 1.25M from Wal Mart, and so Wal Mart commits murder and still comes out financially ahead.
Beyond that, lawyers typically accept cases on contingency fee basis, which means that a plaintiff doesn't have to worry about massive debt to a lawyer if they lose. This proposed rule #2 effectively destroys either (1) a plaintiff's ability to keep anywhere near just compensation after paying the lawyer, or (2) the contingency fee setup altogether goes away, meaning that fewer people who deserve to win will have the financial means to even go to trial. That's a ridiculous outcome as well.
#3 I don't understand how the author comes up with the idea that if your opponent is 80% responsible he should only have to pay 60% of computed damages, but assuming the author just made a math error, we already have this. It's called comparative negligence, and most states use this form of negligence, as opposed to contributory negligence.
Now, the author then says my arguments are bunk because lawyers would act as insurers and lawyers together. This is flawed economic analysis, and here's why:
The effects of the proposed system include a decrease in money lawyers can earn on a case (since damages are limited to 125% of actual damages, so there's basically no such thing as pain and suffering, gross disfigurement, punitive damages, etc.). Thus, lawyers have less money in general. Thus, they have less ability to take risks. Thus, lawyers will refuse clients who aren't guaranteed to win.
This results in what the author says WON'T happen: little guys not being able to sue the big guys.
I'm all for non-experts making proposals on how to fix the current system (because no system is perfect and can always be improved). However, our legal system in the US has been around for a thousand years, and it's evolved rather efficiently. I used to think the same as the author until I started to study it; there really is a sort of beauty to the way the law stands in the US.
There are flawed areas (like copyright law), but for the most part, when the courts have been able to set the rules, things have turned out great. There's no need to overhaul our system; the media just wants us to think that because they want to rebuild the system in a way that benefits their corporate owners.