Ahh, but that assumes they do stop. Instead they just keep on keeping on until they are actually forced by the courts to stop.
That is the point of the lawsuit. I am a little confused here on what you are trying to say. The reason *we* sued comcast was to force them to stop XYZ practice. When we won the two previous cases part of the settlement agreement/court order was that they stop XYZ practice, which they then stopped.
If you had not noticed, most of the congress critters who were championing net neutrality have been replaced by hardcore pro- big business republicans.
The likelihood of *THIS* congress doing anything is about slim to nil. Many may be "pro business" (this is a dumb term, no one is anti-business) but many are not and NONE of them agree with each other.
uses a tremendous amount of bandwidth. I know we should be arguing that they need new infrastructure, but just try to convince comcast to spend 2 billion dollars so you can watch fresh prince of bel-air. Not gonna happen.
*I* pay for that service. That is the point of the customer paying for the internet, to get data streamed from other places to my box. If suddenly Comcast wants someone else to pay for my data stream that is fine, but they need to stop charging me too. Trying to charge two parties for the same data stream, that is unethical.
Further more, EVERY data stream from netflix to a comcast customer is paid for by the comcast customer already. Comcast wants it to be paid for twice.
As a current Comcast customer (for many years) I can assure you that while I don't give a flip about $15, however I have no problem suing Comcast again. Over the last decade I have been apart of 2 class action lawsuits against Comcast. Both were won. The real benefit is that this backasswards company stops doing whatever stupidity it is doing at the time, not the discount.
My prediction:
1) FCC is going to intervene.
2) If another company in this situation refuses to pay comcast and comcast blocks them it will take all of 3 days before a suite is filed asking for class action status.
What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of
and access rights to the information. That is the person who is
in possession of the information and determining its disposition.
Possession is irrelevant in copyright issues. It has never been a violation to possess a copy of something. It has been a violation to distribute a copy.
In this case the claim is that the service can be used to distribute copyrighted information. If it can be shown that a primary use of the service is to share the music between multiple "entities" then MP3Tunes is pretty much hosed.
Your story is interesting but not quite accurate. First you have to be a HIPAA covered entity to be liable. If Joe Smith gets a random email he has no liability under HIPAA, even if it is covered information.
Second, a single incident does not mean liability. If you have a process in place to handle such incidents, they are not endemic, your response (as the sender) meets HIPAA guidelines (and follows your in place policy) then you are still not liable (as the sender).
Lastly, it is the person/organization that SENT the message that is liable under HIPAA, not the recipient.
Many people get confused on this issue. No one is getting sued for downloading anything. They are being sued for distribution, aka uploading the movie.
I am uncertain as to your point? In our example why would you care if you had access to the underlying system? If you are a hacker targeting a commercial system and managed to get access to that systems primary database you *HAVE* what you want. There is little (if anything) of more value in that case.
Further, my point is this. A commercial server is *only* vulnerable when not administered correctly, regardless of what OS or components used.
Conversely a user's desktop is by nature more vulnerable. As another poster pointed out any combination of a modern browser with JavaScript enabled is a vulnerable attack vector. Any attempt at comparing the two separate worlds will lead to grossly unbalanced results.
Most "hackers" of commercial institution use SQL injection as the main attack vector. Notice that SQL injection attacks are OS independent. Badly designed systems are badly designed systems and you can have a bad system on any OS.
The recipe as a list of ingredients and instructions does not in general qualify for copyright protection.. (This does assume United States jurisdiction.) Here is a nifty quote and link for you:
Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression--a description, explanation, or illustration, for example--that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.
You would have to include more than just a standard recipe to qualify. In this case the "magazine" is clearly in violation (assuming they did not have permission) because they copied not just the recipe but the format, style, imagery and non-recipe text included in the article.
The issue here is not "owning" a copied item it is DISTRIBUTING a copyrighted item. That is the key that everyone overlooks.
In this case the verdict should be against Jammie Thomas and she should have to pay a fine for each copy distributed. All 0 of them. For a grand total of $0.00. (I don't think investigators downloading a copy of each song should count, but if they do then that is 24 distributions.)
This very much depends on jurisdiction. Most "leash laws" only to apply to certain types of animals, notably dogs. In most jurisdictions there is no requirement for "safe animals" such as cats, gerbils, hamsters and the like.
In addition, in the majority of the country such a deliberate act can turn into a cause of action by the animal's owner (including negligence charges). It can also be a crime to intentionally poison an animal as such, you can be charged with cruelty to animals in several States.
To give a concrete example from my home State: If you were to leave out a pan of anti-freeze to intentionally poison a pest and my cat were to drink it and die, the following would be possible:
*You could be charged with the class C felony cruelty to animals (as anti-freeze is a very inhumane poison and even has warnings on the label). This caries with it a hefty monetary fine (although I do not know the maximum) and up to 5 years in prison.
*You would be financially responsible for any and all vet bills. Any associated costs would also be included.
*You could be sued for emotional distress. This is not a small thing, I have a friend who works at Dove Louis Animal Hospital, she has told me of incidents where a very not-nice person did something similar, was sued. The judgment against that person (in Civil court) was over one quarter of a million dollars (including vet bills).
In summary I just want to say that anyone who would do this to another living being is about as worthless as can be. That is in addition to the complete ignorance of the situation as a whole.
I am curious how many of your posts don't include the words, "you're an idiot" in some form? Your ramblings are pretty amusing though. It reminds me of my neighbor's kid (he's in middle school) throwing a tantrum.
Quick prediction:
I will be called "an idiot" in the reply post. =P
The main difference is that the spammer never showed up to court and the medical company did. Who knows what the fine would have been if he had made any attempt to defend himself. Instead facebook made a claim saying, "This guy is bad, he owes us a billion dollars." This was followed by the judge asking if anyone objected which was followed by crickets chirping.
I entirely agree that a medical malpractice issue resulting in deaths should carry a waaaaay heftier fine than a spam case (the guy also committed fraud, identity theft, hacking). But if the medical company didn't show up to court I bet their fine would be just as large as the plaintiff asked for, even if it too was a billion dollars.
Except in most jurisdictions Sony DID do something legally wrong. That is why in most of the EU, retailers selling PS3s have offered partial refunds upon request. That is just one example. Here is a link so you don't have to Google it:
If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me?
It's PD. You can be sued (you can be sued for anything) but all you need to win is "Here's this thing, it's PD, by so and so, date whatever, and I used it as such. Thank you, I'll be leaving now, and by the way, I'll have court costs, too."
Assuming US jurisdiction (and most western countries actually). If his work is floating around WITHOUT a license, then it is most certainly NOT public domain. To be in the public domain, the copyright holder must EXPLICITLY grant such a right.
If you find some random bit of source code with no license and you include it in your commercial application, you have just committed willful copyright infringement. The second you distribute, you are liable for ungodly penalties which would most likely be many times the gross sales of XYZ program (see RIAA cases for damage examples).
Bad analogy, since this is leased equipment from Verizon, it's more like you rent an apartment and the landlord changes the busted up locks on your door or performs other various maintenance on their property for you. If you haven't rented before, I can tell you that is quite normal.
Congratulations for not even reading the summary. I think the analogy is quite correct along with most of the rest of the post. From the summary:
I am upset about this because Verizon should not have any way to get into my router and change the settings, especially because I own the router, not them!
You cannot add developers to a project and make it release sooner, no more than 9 women can make a baby in one month.
Your only saying half of the statement. The idea is that you can't add developers late in the development cycle and expect them to speed up development.
If you are talking about adding developers six months or more out from the last update date, then you will indeed see those new developers increase the total speed of the project.
Here is the actual quote from Brooks:
adding manpower to a late software project makes it later
"Compulsory" means you have no option to do otherwise. If you have an option to do otherwise, regardless of your understanding, then it can not by definition be compulsory.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, but that assumes they do stop. Instead they just keep on keeping on until they are actually forced by the courts to stop.
That is the point of the lawsuit. I am a little confused here on what you are trying to say. The reason *we* sued comcast was to force them to stop XYZ practice. When we won the two previous cases part of the settlement agreement/court order was that they stop XYZ practice, which they then stopped.
If you had not noticed, most of the congress critters who were championing net neutrality have been replaced by hardcore pro- big business republicans.
The likelihood of *THIS* congress doing anything is about slim to nil. Many may be "pro business" (this is a dumb term, no one is anti-business) but many are not and NONE of them agree with each other.
uses a tremendous amount of bandwidth. I know we should be arguing that they need new infrastructure, but just try to convince comcast to spend 2 billion dollars so you can watch fresh prince of bel-air. Not gonna happen.
*I* pay for that service. That is the point of the customer paying for the internet, to get data streamed from other places to my box. If suddenly Comcast wants someone else to pay for my data stream that is fine, but they need to stop charging me too. Trying to charge two parties for the same data stream, that is unethical.
Further more, EVERY data stream from netflix to a comcast customer is paid for by the comcast customer already. Comcast wants it to be paid for twice.
As a current Comcast customer (for many years) I can assure you that while I don't give a flip about $15, however I have no problem suing Comcast again. Over the last decade I have been apart of 2 class action lawsuits against Comcast. Both were won. The real benefit is that this backasswards company stops doing whatever stupidity it is doing at the time, not the discount.
My prediction:
1) FCC is going to intervene.
2) If another company in this situation refuses to pay comcast and comcast blocks them it will take all of 3 days before a suite is filed asking for class action status.
What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of and access rights to the information. That is the person who is in possession of the information and determining its disposition.
Possession is irrelevant in copyright issues. It has never been a violation to possess a copy of something. It has been a violation to distribute a copy.
In this case the claim is that the service can be used to distribute copyrighted information. If it can be shown that a primary use of the service is to share the music between multiple "entities" then MP3Tunes is pretty much hosed.
Your story is interesting but not quite accurate. First you have to be a HIPAA covered entity to be liable. If Joe Smith gets a random email he has no liability under HIPAA, even if it is covered information.
Second, a single incident does not mean liability. If you have a process in place to handle such incidents, they are not endemic, your response (as the sender) meets HIPAA guidelines (and follows your in place policy) then you are still not liable (as the sender).
Lastly, it is the person/organization that SENT the message that is liable under HIPAA, not the recipient.
Many people get confused on this issue. No one is getting sued for downloading anything. They are being sued for distribution, aka uploading the movie.
I am uncertain as to your point? In our example why would you care if you had access to the underlying system? If you are a hacker targeting a commercial system and managed to get access to that systems primary database you *HAVE* what you want. There is little (if anything) of more value in that case.
Further, my point is this. A commercial server is *only* vulnerable when not administered correctly, regardless of what OS or components used.
Conversely a user's desktop is by nature more vulnerable. As another poster pointed out any combination of a modern browser with JavaScript enabled is a vulnerable attack vector. Any attempt at comparing the two separate worlds will lead to grossly unbalanced results.
Most "hackers" of commercial institution use SQL injection as the main attack vector. Notice that SQL injection attacks are OS independent. Badly designed systems are badly designed systems and you can have a bad system on any OS.
The recipe as a list of ingredients and instructions does not in general qualify for copyright protection.. (This does assume United States jurisdiction.) Here is a nifty quote and link for you:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html:
Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression--a description, explanation, or illustration, for example--that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.
You would have to include more than just a standard recipe to qualify. In this case the "magazine" is clearly in violation (assuming they did not have permission) because they copied not just the recipe but the format, style, imagery and non-recipe text included in the article.
The issue here is not "owning" a copied item it is DISTRIBUTING a copyrighted item. That is the key that everyone overlooks.
In this case the verdict should be against Jammie Thomas and she should have to pay a fine for each copy distributed. All 0 of them. For a grand total of $0.00. (I don't think investigators downloading a copy of each song should count, but if they do then that is 24 distributions.)
This very much depends on jurisdiction. Most "leash laws" only to apply to certain types of animals, notably dogs. In most jurisdictions there is no requirement for "safe animals" such as cats, gerbils, hamsters and the like.
In addition, in the majority of the country such a deliberate act can turn into a cause of action by the animal's owner (including negligence charges). It can also be a crime to intentionally poison an animal as such, you can be charged with cruelty to animals in several States.
To give a concrete example from my home State: If you were to leave out a pan of anti-freeze to intentionally poison a pest and my cat were to drink it and die, the following would be possible:
*You could be charged with the class C felony cruelty to animals (as anti-freeze is a very inhumane poison and even has warnings on the label). This caries with it a hefty monetary fine (although I do not know the maximum) and up to 5 years in prison.
*You would be financially responsible for any and all vet bills. Any associated costs would also be included. *You could be sued for emotional distress. This is not a small thing, I have a friend who works at Dove Louis Animal Hospital, she has told me of incidents where a very not-nice person did something similar, was sued. The judgment against that person (in Civil court) was over one quarter of a million dollars (including vet bills).
In summary I just want to say that anyone who would do this to another living being is about as worthless as can be. That is in addition to the complete ignorance of the situation as a whole.
But, if you choose the rounding method known as "floor", then 0.999... is 0, right? So for sufficiently bad rounding methods, 1 = 0.
Looks like you have an off by one error...
My bad. I obviously underestimated your propensity for failure, I guess.
LAMO! *giant grins*
I am curious how many of your posts don't include the words, "you're an idiot" in some form? Your ramblings are pretty amusing though. It reminds me of my neighbor's kid (he's in middle school) throwing a tantrum.
Quick prediction:
I will be called "an idiot" in the reply post. =P
perhaps whoever taught you to read was a dumb as your mother?
Ahh, exactly the kind of calm and level headed debate I am used to on /..
The main difference is that the spammer never showed up to court and the medical company did. Who knows what the fine would have been if he had made any attempt to defend himself. Instead facebook made a claim saying, "This guy is bad, he owes us a billion dollars." This was followed by the judge asking if anyone objected which was followed by crickets chirping.
I entirely agree that a medical malpractice issue resulting in deaths should carry a waaaaay heftier fine than a spam case (the guy also committed fraud, identity theft, hacking). But if the medical company didn't show up to court I bet their fine would be just as large as the plaintiff asked for, even if it too was a billion dollars.
And my apologies back to you and the rest of slashdot for using the phrase 'pdf file'
I should know better!
Its ok, we forgive you. But from now /. is going to require you to type in your PIN number. Not the same PIN number you use at the ATM machine though.
Except in most jurisdictions Sony DID do something legally wrong. That is why in most of the EU, retailers selling PS3s have offered partial refunds upon request. That is just one example. Here is a link so you don't have to Google it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PS3-playstation-Linux-Rebate-Amazon,10140.html
If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me?
It's PD. You can be sued (you can be sued for anything) but all you need to win is "Here's this thing, it's PD, by so and so, date whatever, and I used it as such. Thank you, I'll be leaving now, and by the way, I'll have court costs, too."
Assuming US jurisdiction (and most western countries actually). If his work is floating around WITHOUT a license, then it is most certainly NOT public domain. To be in the public domain, the copyright holder must EXPLICITLY grant such a right.
If you find some random bit of source code with no license and you include it in your commercial application, you have just committed willful copyright infringement. The second you distribute, you are liable for ungodly penalties which would most likely be many times the gross sales of XYZ program (see RIAA cases for damage examples).
Bad analogy, since this is leased equipment from Verizon, it's more like you rent an apartment and the landlord changes the busted up locks on your door or performs other various maintenance on their property for you. If you haven't rented before, I can tell you that is quite normal.
Congratulations for not even reading the summary. I think the analogy is quite correct along with most of the rest of the post. From the summary:
I am upset about this because Verizon should not have any way to get into my router and change the settings, especially because I own the router, not them!
Many of Larry Niven's Known Space books talk about this type of situation. I recommend the Gil "The ARM" Hamilton short stories.
ALL OF US are "dead anyway". Life is a condition with a 100% fatality rate. It's just a matter of when.
I don't know about you but I fully plan on living forever. But hey, what ever floats your boat.
You cannot add developers to a project and make it release sooner, no more than 9 women can make a baby in one month.
Your only saying half of the statement. The idea is that you can't add developers late in the development cycle and expect them to speed up development.
If you are talking about adding developers six months or more out from the last update date, then you will indeed see those new developers increase the total speed of the project.
Here is the actual quote from Brooks:
adding manpower to a late software project makes it later
My new favorite car analogy. It has explosions and death, what more can you ask for. =)
"Compulsory" means you have no option to do otherwise. If you have an option to do otherwise, regardless of your understanding, then it can not by definition be compulsory.
Here for your use is the Merriam Webster definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory