Is taking tabs and applying them to web browsing all that innovative anyway?
Yes, it is an innovation because it was applied to web browsers before there was an obvious need for them. Recall that in 1997, most people were on dialup, and visited a handful of webpages, one at a time, because it too so long for them to load. Thus, at that point in time, there was practically no need for a tabbed interface.
Now, if the tabbed interface had been applied to browsers for the first time last week, well, then it wouldn't be innovation. But, in 1997 (or 1994), applying tabs to browsers was a huge interface, and showed great foresight that one day people would be reading multiple webpages pretty much simultaneously, by tabbing between them.
Then why, pray tell, was an Australian who had literally never set foot inside the territorial United States extradited to the US for commiting hacking crimes "within the United States." Simple: he entered the US by "throwing" his bits there.
Don't I keep hearing how Microsoft has to play by EU rules if they want to sell software in the EU?
Yes, you do. The difference is, AllofMP3 isn't selling in the US. Instead, the purchaser is going to Russia. Then they perform a transaction in Russia, and the purchaser returns to the US with his purchased music. Now, is importing music you legally purchased in a foreign country illegal in the US? No, it's not.
Hence the gray area. Right now, courts are creating common law which considers jurisdiction over the internet, and "where" you are when performing a transaction (in the server's location? in the client's location? in both simultaneously?). Now, common law follows precedent, but it also follows fluffy language such as "traditional notions of justice and fair play." If you support AllofMP3, you are helping to change, over time, what "justice" and "fair play" mean, thus shaping common law.
while cutting the largest consumer of power or money may *seem* like the best place to start, it's often a necessary function which just cannot be cut. However, cutting back on unnecessary waste, even if it's a mere 4%, can be a great investment of effort.
I think that is already implicit in the conversation, that only unnecessary things are considered for removal.
It seems to me that, if we are going to consider that money in virtual worlds is taxable, that it should be treated like money in foreign accounts. I'm not a tax lawyer, but if you have more than US$10,000 in aggregate in foreign accounts, they may be taxable and you may have to file a U.S. Treasury Form TD F90.22-1 annually. A foreign country is defined as geographic areas located outside the US, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Granted, this may invalidate prior case law where the internet was defined as being within the US, but I think it is very important to set a precedent that the internet is one unit that encompasses the whole world, and to rule that the entire thing is located within the US is folly.
The simpler solution is to say that while the virtual possessions are still virtual, they are worthless. However, once you make real money off of them by selling, the sales are taxable in the same way that plants you have grown on your property are not taxable, but as soon as you sell them the revenue is taxable. Otherwise, this situation is parallel and displays the idiocy of taxing virtual possessions as capital gains: MMORPG : FPS Tournament:: virtual gold : frags:: cashed out value : tournament winnings. Isn't it absurd to say you should be taxed on frags gained in pursuit of a tournament victory? Or, to put it in terms more old people (read: legislators and judges) would understand: MMORPG : tennis tournament:: virtual gold : points:: cashed out value : tournament winnings. Now, does Maria Sharapova get taxed on points she won in a match? NO! She is taxed on tournament winnings only. Thus, by analogy, a gamer should be taxed on real earnings made by "cashing out", and not by what he possesses in the virtual world.
Being overweight doesn't mean you're not fit. BMI does not measure fitness.
Well, I would argue more about whether or not I'm overweight, but instead I'll pursue this: If BMI does not measure fitness, what the hell is it useful for? After all, that's all that ought to matter!
lets me use a stylus to make notes as if it were a real book
uses the epaper technology (which is why I'm not just using a PDA for this
let's me make bookmark (like I was dogearing pages in a real book)
is not over US$400
does not add DRM to anything
doesn't require special software for transferring files to it
book form factor (Sony's reader works this angle well IMHO)
Anything else (reads other formats, wireless transfer) is gravy, and I don't need it. I can convert all formats to PDF if need be. Sony's model doesn't let me make notes (and does some ridiculous proprietary software and DRM stuff), so it doesn't work. That European company (forget what they're called) with the 800 Euro reader is waaaay too expensive.
I'm a law student, and would love to not have to carry around paper copies of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Uniform Commercial Code.
I'm 5'7" and weigh 175 lbs. This puts me at a BMI of 27.4. 30 is "obese". I'm almost in the "obese" category (well over the "overweight" lower limit). However, I am in tremendous shape. I run over 3 miles a day (2 at 6:30 before I have breakfast), lift weights 5 days a week, have a resting heart rate better than the average human on Earth, and play tennis twice a week for nearly 2 hours. All this, and I take in less than 2500 calories a day (I actually think I take in less than 2000, but I haven't accurately measured in quite some time). I say all this merely to show that when I say I am in shape, you cannot deny it.
However, according to BMI, I am overweight. Draw your own conclusions.
Perhaps they can start talking about tienamen square maturely instead of pretending it didn't happen.
*snort* Good luck on that one. I still have yet to hear a mature discussion outside of university walls on the internment of Americans during WWII: "Them Japs got whut came to them, I tell ya'!" 60 years and Americans are still saying it was OK and necessary.
Iie.:) I guess I should have made it clear that I'm very much against the DMCA. Also, I thought about (B), but the language states that Google would have to be directly profiting from the infringement, which I bet a good lawyer could prove is not what AdSense is doing. Google may be profiting from the infringement, but indirectly. I think "directly" would mean charging people money to view the content. In other words, Google is profiting from other people viewing infringement. Thus, they are profiting indirectly, via a third party. At least, that is how I would make the argument in court. It would be difficult (and I'm not a lawyer yet), but if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Google prevailing instead of the RIAA on that point.
Peace, and I enjoyed our exchange better than the one in which someone ended up foe-ing me because I explained the law and they did not like it. It's discussions like ours that make Slashdot worthwhile to me. Thank you.
In Godwin v. Nazi Party, 1990, the Supreme Court found that making references to Nazis in discussion is grounds for summary judgment in favor of the party which did not make the reference. Subsequently, this has become known as "Godwin's Law".
Google just seems to do it's darndest to make Opera fail with their products. If you log in, it tells you that you are using an unsupported browser, and you have to append text to the end of the URL to make it work (why couldn't they have added a "if you still want to continue, click here" type anchor, like they did with Gmail back in the day?). Thus, when I append the &browserok=true or whatever, I can use Google Docs perfectly, save for Google's own actions to disable my browser. However, there are some functions that work fine, but at the last moment, a JavaScript alert pops up saying I'm using an unsupported browser, and it doesn't work, and fails for that reason (URL insertion comes to mind). Facts:
Google tells me it won't work with Opera
I use Opera and it works anyway
Google makes it fail on purpose to "protect me" (which is bullshit) even though I've said &browserok=true
Way to go, Google, you bastion of awesomeness./sarcasm
When they receive the notice they have no legal obligation to take down the material. If they do not take down the material they can be found liable for copyright infringment. If they do take it down they are immune.
I never said there was a carrot. And I never said there was a legal obligation: take it down, and you are immune. Don't, and you get sued. That's what I've been saying.Here is Wikipedia agreeing with me.
Also, if you read the law (and I have it open in another tab, switching back and forth so I can post relevant information), you'll find in Section 202 (aka Section 512 of Title 17 of the US Code) (c) (which is legislation explaining when a Service Provider -- in this case Google -- is not liable for copyright infringement induced by its users):
IN GENERAL- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief [...] for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider--
`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
`(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
Google satisfies (A)(ii), (B), (C), which are sufficient for removing liability. And since we're discussing what each other is failing to understand, I assert that you fail to understand what "limitations on liability" means.
"Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
Incorrect, you say? Apparently you did not read the first link I provided, which is the official summary of the DMCA of 1998 from the U.S. Copyright Office.
I'm not sure the US has a terribly credible position on this one, since they're effectively saying "go ahead and infringe until you're told not to, and then have no penalty as long as you stop when you're caught".
Google isn't the one infringing under the DMCA, and if it was, then Geocities, MySpace, Yahoo!, every university, Slashdot, Digg, every ISP, every owner of phone lines or cable or fiber, etc. would be infringers because of their users' posts. This would create more of a litigious atmosphere in the university, and would kill internet commerce. As the US has a policy of not killing internet commerce (save the recent internet gambling legislation), it would be idiotic to allow copyright infringement suits to be taken against Google and the like under the DMCA.
It sounds more like you are a content producer who wants Google to monitor every video as it's posted to YouTube. I think this would kill YouTube, as it would kill iTunes (which would have to monitor each podcast it allows you to subscribe to), MySpace, Blogger, etc. Do you think that is an amenable solution, to basically kill the internet to protect a few people? I mean, many artists (Barenaked Ladies -- major commercial, MC Lars -- indie, etc.) don't care about their music being distributed, so obviously not every content producer (I really hate using that phrase, since every human produces so much copyrighted content) feels the way you do.
And what are they going to be sued under? I mean, the DMCA says that a copyright owner cannot sue until (1)they have submitted a takedown request to Google (formerly Youtube), and (2)Google fails to take the copyrighted material down. For information, read this (PDF), a secondary source of law about the DMCA, with analysis. In particular, read the section at the bottom of page 9 entitled Eligibility for Limitations Generally. To my understanding, Google qualifies as a "service provider" under this definition (the definition is in the section, so don't assume it is equivalent to "ISP"). There are 2 things Google has to accomplish: (1)adopt a policy of terminating the accounts of repeat infringers, and (2)not make it difficult for copyright owners to identify and protect their works. Thus, as long as Google (formerly Youtube) has a formal takedown policy upon notification by the copyright owner, they are compliant. And here's a ProTip: Youtube was compliant; they just did not have the financing to battle frivolous suits in court. Google, on the other hand, has very, very deep pockets to fight suits like this. Furthermore, Google seems to be fine under Limitation for Transitory Communications (page 10) as well.
Even if you consider all I just posted to be weak defense, the kicker begins on page 11: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users. Google meets all three requirements:
Google must not have "requisite level knowledge of the infringing activity. Examining what this means (page 12), we see that, because there are so many files on Youtube, they cannot have this type of knowledge (unless, of course, during discovery, a corporate memo was found which cited a specific infringing video that, after the fact, was never removed), which must be knowledge of a specific infringing file, not that infringement is occurring in general.
If Google has the right and ability to control the infringing activity then (halt this boolean, we do not need to know the antecedent since it already evaluates to False: Google cannot monitor the millions of files placed on what was Youtube)
"Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
Google also has an agent filed with the Copyright Office to receive infringement claims: here (PDF). As a sidenote, it's refreshing to see that a corporation has filed handwritten documents with the Copyright Office; kind of gives them character (or an air of sloppiness?).
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure you don't run 88 miles per hour, or you might be in for a wild ride.
Now, if the tabbed interface had been applied to browsers for the first time last week, well, then it wouldn't be innovation. But, in 1997 (or 1994), applying tabs to browsers was a huge interface, and showed great foresight that one day people would be reading multiple webpages pretty much simultaneously, by tabbing between them.
No, someone needs to realize that I responded to sarcasm with sarcasm. Sheesh.
Oh, I know what "sarcasm" means. Perhaps you should reread my post and realize that mine was written sarcastically as well!
OH THE HUMOR! It is increased by the fact that a person with a UID of >1M has accused a user with a UID of ~1K of being new. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Then why, pray tell, was an Australian who had literally never set foot inside the territorial United States extradited to the US for commiting hacking crimes "within the United States." Simple: he entered the US by "throwing" his bits there.
Hence the gray area. Right now, courts are creating common law which considers jurisdiction over the internet, and "where" you are when performing a transaction (in the server's location? in the client's location? in both simultaneously?). Now, common law follows precedent, but it also follows fluffy language such as "traditional notions of justice and fair play." If you support AllofMP3, you are helping to change, over time, what "justice" and "fair play" mean, thus shaping common law.
It seems to me that, if we are going to consider that money in virtual worlds is taxable, that it should be treated like money in foreign accounts. I'm not a tax lawyer, but if you have more than US$10,000 in aggregate in foreign accounts, they may be taxable and you may have to file a U.S. Treasury Form TD F90.22-1 annually. A foreign country is defined as geographic areas located outside the US, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Granted, this may invalidate prior case law where the internet was defined as being within the US, but I think it is very important to set a precedent that the internet is one unit that encompasses the whole world, and to rule that the entire thing is located within the US is folly.
:: :: :: ::
The simpler solution is to say that while the virtual possessions are still virtual, they are worthless. However, once you make real money off of them by selling, the sales are taxable in the same way that plants you have grown on your property are not taxable, but as soon as you sell them the revenue is taxable. Otherwise, this situation is parallel and displays the idiocy of taxing virtual possessions as capital gains:
MMORPG : FPS Tournament
virtual gold : frags
cashed out value : tournament winnings.
Isn't it absurd to say you should be taxed on frags gained in pursuit of a tournament victory? Or, to put it in terms more old people (read: legislators and judges) would understand:
MMORPG : tennis tournament
virtual gold : points
cashed out value : tournament winnings.
Now, does Maria Sharapova get taxed on points she won in a match? NO! She is taxed on tournament winnings only. Thus, by analogy, a gamer should be taxed on real earnings made by "cashing out", and not by what he possesses in the virtual world.
Well, I would argue more about whether or not I'm overweight, but instead I'll pursue this: If BMI does not measure fitness, what the hell is it useful for? After all, that's all that ought to matter!
- reads pdfs
- lets me use a stylus to make notes as if it were a real book
- uses the epaper technology (which is why I'm not just using a PDA for this
- let's me make bookmark (like I was dogearing pages in a real book)
- is not over US$400
- does not add DRM to anything
- doesn't require special software for transferring files to it
- book form factor (Sony's reader works this angle well IMHO)
Anything else (reads other formats, wireless transfer) is gravy, and I don't need it. I can convert all formats to PDF if need be. Sony's model doesn't let me make notes (and does some ridiculous proprietary software and DRM stuff), so it doesn't work. That European company (forget what they're called) with the 800 Euro reader is waaaay too expensive.I'm a law student, and would love to not have to carry around paper copies of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Uniform Commercial Code.
I'm 5'7" and weigh 175 lbs. This puts me at a BMI of 27.4. 30 is "obese". I'm almost in the "obese" category (well over the "overweight" lower limit). However, I am in tremendous shape. I run over 3 miles a day (2 at 6:30 before I have breakfast), lift weights 5 days a week, have a resting heart rate better than the average human on Earth, and play tennis twice a week for nearly 2 hours. All this, and I take in less than 2500 calories a day (I actually think I take in less than 2000, but I haven't accurately measured in quite some time). I say all this merely to show that when I say I am in shape, you cannot deny it.
However, according to BMI, I am overweight. Draw your own conclusions.
Peace, and I enjoyed our exchange better than the one in which someone ended up foe-ing me because I explained the law and they did not like it. It's discussions like ours that make Slashdot worthwhile to me. Thank you.
In Godwin v. Nazi Party, 1990, the Supreme Court found that making references to Nazis in discussion is grounds for summary judgment in favor of the party which did not make the reference. Subsequently, this has become known as "Godwin's Law".
- Google tells me it won't work with Opera
- I use Opera and it works anyway
- Google makes it fail on purpose to "protect me" (which is bullshit) even though I've said &browserok=true
Way to go, Google, you bastion of awesomeness./sarcasmAlso, if you read the law (and I have it open in another tab, switching back and forth so I can post relevant information), you'll find in Section 202 (aka Section 512 of Title 17 of the US Code) (c) (which is legislation explaining when a Service Provider -- in this case Google -- is not liable for copyright infringement induced by its users):
Google satisfies (A)(ii), (B), (C), which are sufficient for removing liability. And since we're discussing what each other is failing to understand, I assert that you fail to understand what "limitations on liability" means.
Incorrect, you say? Apparently you did not read the first link I provided, which is the official summary of the DMCA of 1998 from the U.S. Copyright Office.
It sounds more like you are a content producer who wants Google to monitor every video as it's posted to YouTube. I think this would kill YouTube, as it would kill iTunes (which would have to monitor each podcast it allows you to subscribe to), MySpace, Blogger, etc. Do you think that is an amenable solution, to basically kill the internet to protect a few people? I mean, many artists (Barenaked Ladies -- major commercial, MC Lars -- indie, etc.) don't care about their music being distributed, so obviously not every content producer (I really hate using that phrase, since every human produces so much copyrighted content) feels the way you do.
Even if you consider all I just posted to be weak defense, the kicker begins on page 11: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users. Google meets all three requirements:
- Google must not have "requisite level knowledge of the infringing activity. Examining what this means (page 12), we see that, because there are so many files on Youtube, they cannot have this type of knowledge (unless, of course, during discovery, a corporate memo was found which cited a specific infringing video that, after the fact, was never removed), which must be knowledge of a specific infringing file, not that infringement is occurring in general.
- If Google has the right and ability to control the infringing activity then (halt this boolean, we do not need to know the antecedent since it already evaluates to False: Google cannot monitor the millions of files placed on what was Youtube)
- "Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
Google also has an agent filed with the Copyright Office to receive infringement claims: here (PDF). As a sidenote, it's refreshing to see that a corporation has filed handwritten documents with the Copyright Office; kind of gives them character (or an air of sloppiness?).