I'm not aware of any legal decision that says "don't keep our stuff in a historical archive" stuffed into robots.txt is legally binding in any way. Frankly, I'd be concerned if it was.
For example, I understand the "no part of this work may be reproduced..." bit in books, magazines, etc. That's fine. But your book doesn't have a Mission Impossible style "this book will self-destruct" message in the foreword and it doesn't tell you that you can't keep it
Web pages, though transitory by nature, are broadcast publicly on creation. Though one can place caveats out there about usage of the material, you can't control storage of it (though some would like to try).
The real problem here is that the plaintiff got caught and realizes that the other company can use their records as evidence, so they want to stop that. This suit really is more about keeping the trademark evidence in the original case out of court than it is about busting the Wayback Machine. The problem is, like everything lawyers get their hands on, they're only thinking about their clients - today - and not about what could happen as a result of this.
What's next? They going to sue the paper shredder companies that the other folks used to shred the hard copy of their old correspondence saying that it was an "enabling technology" that allowed them to commit a crime?
Don't laugh. It'll happen sooner or later.
If you steal a can of Diet Coke from a convenience store, you've removed the physical can from the owner of the store and deprived him of the revenue. Coca-Cola doesn't care because the store owner is still paying for the soda. The person harmed is the store owner.
In the case of TV, the harmed party could be said to be the distributor, if it could be proved that downloading deprived them of ad revenue. In the current model, ad revenue is computed by ratings. Unless your act of getting the show off of P2P lowers ratings, you have no negative impact on the broadcaster.
I'm in the US but have been watching Dr. Who, which isn't broadcast here, for weeks and loving it.
The question now is, where is the stealing? I'm not removing the program from the store (to use the original analogy), nor depriving anyone of direct revenue.
One could argue that I'm lowering the possibility of DVD sales at a gajillion dollars a season. I wouldn't pay that much anyway, though I know folks who say they have Netflix for this same reason.
Now, if there were only a way I could legally download the same program for a more appropriate sum of money, a dollar or two perhaps.
I'd pay to watch the latest Dr. Who right now, but I can't. No one is offering it. I don't want to wait months for the DVD and don't plan on spending that much money anyway, nor do I like to buy TV series as I only watch them once.
It's one thing to get a reader to gather all my personal data, but at what distance can equipment detect the presence of one of these chips? Is the US the only country using them?
I don't like the idea of walking around with a US Passport emitting signals to advertise my nationality.
Re:Not so cut and dried...
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Before we all jump at this (from either direction), does anyone have access to the actual agreement? I know that common understanding is that Apple agreed not to go into the music business, but that's a summary. What's the wording of the contract?
Obviously, Apple's lawyers think it's in their favor.
Of course, the actual agreement (as is pretty normal with these cases) is non-public, but before we all second-guess Jobs, McCartney and everyone else, reading the agreement(s) would really help.
I took typing in the 7th Grade. It was the most important class I took in all of Public School for my future earning potential.
All of the other classes I took-history, math, science-built on each other, but typing was a skill.
With a degree in, ahem, the Fine Arts I needed access to the workforce when not working as an actor. Typing got me into the Legal environment.
I can touch type. I can burn up shells if I need to. I can get my thoughts on paper without having to think about how they get there.
I kept a journal in 1993 on my PowerBook 145B because I could type so much faster than I could write.
If we accept the fundamental premise that digital writing is better than using analog tools like pens and pencils because it allows faster input and simpler editing, then the absolute necessity of touch-typing to fulfill that premise is incontoverbile.
My kids are 4 and 2. They already use the mouse and can find letters on the keyboard. Touch typing will follow soon.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your opinion: Cheating or Shortcut?
It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!
I'm not aware of any legal decision that says "don't keep our stuff in a historical archive" stuffed into robots.txt is legally binding in any way. Frankly, I'd be concerned if it was. For example, I understand the "no part of this work may be reproduced..." bit in books, magazines, etc. That's fine. But your book doesn't have a Mission Impossible style "this book will self-destruct" message in the foreword and it doesn't tell you that you can't keep it Web pages, though transitory by nature, are broadcast publicly on creation. Though one can place caveats out there about usage of the material, you can't control storage of it (though some would like to try). The real problem here is that the plaintiff got caught and realizes that the other company can use their records as evidence, so they want to stop that. This suit really is more about keeping the trademark evidence in the original case out of court than it is about busting the Wayback Machine. The problem is, like everything lawyers get their hands on, they're only thinking about their clients - today - and not about what could happen as a result of this. What's next? They going to sue the paper shredder companies that the other folks used to shred the hard copy of their old correspondence saying that it was an "enabling technology" that allowed them to commit a crime? Don't laugh. It'll happen sooner or later.
If you steal a can of Diet Coke from a convenience store, you've removed the physical can from the owner of the store and deprived him of the revenue. Coca-Cola doesn't care because the store owner is still paying for the soda. The person harmed is the store owner. In the case of TV, the harmed party could be said to be the distributor, if it could be proved that downloading deprived them of ad revenue. In the current model, ad revenue is computed by ratings. Unless your act of getting the show off of P2P lowers ratings, you have no negative impact on the broadcaster. I'm in the US but have been watching Dr. Who, which isn't broadcast here, for weeks and loving it. The question now is, where is the stealing? I'm not removing the program from the store (to use the original analogy), nor depriving anyone of direct revenue. One could argue that I'm lowering the possibility of DVD sales at a gajillion dollars a season. I wouldn't pay that much anyway, though I know folks who say they have Netflix for this same reason. Now, if there were only a way I could legally download the same program for a more appropriate sum of money, a dollar or two perhaps. I'd pay to watch the latest Dr. Who right now, but I can't. No one is offering it. I don't want to wait months for the DVD and don't plan on spending that much money anyway, nor do I like to buy TV series as I only watch them once.
It's one thing to get a reader to gather all my personal data, but at what distance can equipment detect the presence of one of these chips? Is the US the only country using them? I don't like the idea of walking around with a US Passport emitting signals to advertise my nationality.
Before we all jump at this (from either direction), does anyone have access to the actual agreement? I know that common understanding is that Apple agreed not to go into the music business, but that's a summary. What's the wording of the contract?
Obviously, Apple's lawyers think it's in their favor.
Of course, the actual agreement (as is pretty normal with these cases) is non-public, but before we all second-guess Jobs, McCartney and everyone else, reading the agreement(s) would really help.
I took typing in the 7th Grade. It was the most important class I took in all of Public School for my future earning potential. All of the other classes I took-history, math, science-built on each other, but typing was a skill. With a degree in, ahem, the Fine Arts I needed access to the workforce when not working as an actor. Typing got me into the Legal environment. I can touch type. I can burn up shells if I need to. I can get my thoughts on paper without having to think about how they get there. I kept a journal in 1993 on my PowerBook 145B because I could type so much faster than I could write. If we accept the fundamental premise that digital writing is better than using analog tools like pens and pencils because it allows faster input and simpler editing, then the absolute necessity of touch-typing to fulfill that premise is incontoverbile. My kids are 4 and 2. They already use the mouse and can find letters on the keyboard. Touch typing will follow soon.