Just because it's okay with you that random people use "your" bandwidth, doesn't mean it's okay with your ISP. Some ISPs are fine with it; some aren't. That's between the ISP and the customer, not the randoms.
That depends on your definition of "reasonable doubt", doesn't it? No, it depends on the legal definition of "reasonable doubt"--which doesn't necessarily require the accused to have any evidence at all.
If you were the ONLY person to have access to that gun (you always kept the gun in a gun safe and you were the only one to have a key to that safe, for instance) then that points to you quite strongly. This is begging the question. It also isn't the scenario russotto posed or comparable to the others you've posed. Specifically, you've advocated "to hold the 'owner' responsible for damage done by his property".
If ONLY your fingerprints were on the gun, that points to you even more strongly. A latent fingerprint match is evidence (though less probative than commonly represented) that a person handled an object (which, in this scenario, is already given; it's his gun!). The absence of a match is not evidence that someone did not handle an object--for example, it doesn't take an especially bright spark to wear gloves.
Of course, all this only applies to a CRIMINAL case. Traffic fines are handled as 'administrative fees' and such, and don't have the same rules. Yes, the standard for an infraction is de facto presumption of guilt. No one has discussed infractions in this branch since your false analogy to red light cameras at the top. russotto's discussion of homicide, which is usually a crime, followed your discussion of receipt of child pornography, which is also a crime. If you want to return to the topic of the article, it is the tort of copyright infringement.
Myself, my cat, my neighbors, anyone driving by with a laptop and anyone in the general vicinity that may or may not have a pringles can pointed at my house. This list of suspects you talk about is not nearly as small as you think.
There would be other possible subjects. You would be the most likely suspect.
Just because I live in my house, and I give back to society by providing an open WAP does not in any way make me guilty of filesharing, child pornography, harassment, or any other activity that could been tied to my IP address.
I'm curious who YOU would hold responsible for the traffic coming out of YOUR router, which is hooked to YOUR broadband line in YOUR house. The Tooth Fairy? The law is structured to punish certain actions, not to ensure that someone is "held responsible" for every offense. Earlier, you wanted the owner of an open WAP to be immune from even investigation, so I have to believe you understand the concept.
Having to provide a defense for yourself != Having to prove your innocence. fredklein wrote that the accused should "show" (i.e., prove) innocence or be held responsible. He equated, in that post and others, showing innocence with identifying the culprit.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes. That's their theory. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever bought it.
...I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. That's a contract between the ISP, the customer, and no one else.
I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. The person is, reasonably, a suspect.
I am fully aware of this. It was an example of HYPERBOLE for the simple purpose of being funny. Hyperbole is exaggeration, not just making shit up. Or was that supposed to be a joke, too? Funny isn't funny when it's indistinguishable from garden-variety ignorant.
You can patent the click (Amazon) The one-click patent is stupid, but not quite that stupid.
You can patent the letter i (Apple) No, you can't. It conceivably could be trademarked, but it hasn't been.
You can patent a number (AACS) No, you can't. AACS LA claimed that the key was a access control circumvention device, which is illegal under the DMCA.
You can patent software written by someone else, and then sue them for it. (Microsoft, Linux) The exclusive right to implement the invention is the essence of a patent. Also, Microsoft haven't sued; that would require them to identify the patents allegedly infringed.
There's an self-interested, arguably rational reason. Whether or not that's "good" is a philosophical question.
Apple wants Windows users who don't think about looking at a Mac to have a good look at MacOS X.
iTunes for Windows can serve as an sales pitch for Mac OS X because of the library interface and ease of synchronization, not because of the skin. All Apple's applications for Windows have looked alien since QuickTime 4, and the idea that it was supposed to sell Macs would have been laughable. It's a constant reminder that the application is from a different planet (specifically, Apple), but not an advertisement for the OS specifically. Also, doing it this way lets Apple keep more of the code in common.
I smoke, therefore I pay higher rates for life insurance, why shouldn't someone who had a genetic predisposition for lung cancer be penalized just as much as me?
Yah, many of the responses to date are nothing but typical Slashdot hypocrisy. After Columbine and after VT, the calls were loud and long for the authorities to be called to account for their failure to Do Something about the students before they snapped.
But when the authorities actually attempt to do so (although a bit ham handed I grant), the howls are long and loud about how the student is opressed, repressed, etc... etc...
What you call "a bit ham handed" makes all the difference. Psychiatric evaluation? Good idea. Criminal charges? Bad idea, especially when the 'crime' is unsettling the teacher.
Complete the sentence: "this would be technically infeasible given their current contracts with the labels." You know, like EMI.
Contracts are legal, not technical, constructs. I think the grandparent post is not so much incomplete as it is incorrect. It was explained to me as a business decision: Apple wanted to be free to work out the details of any future offerings with the majors.
However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.
I didn't and it doesn't. Where do people get these ideas?
To my knowledge the Itunes song is licensed to you, for your use with itunes and Ipods. You arn't buying the song, you're buying a license to use it how they decide you can use it.
The transaction is nominally a sale and practically a lease. Continued use of a song requires an active account with the iTunes Store, which is subject to certain terms of service, which is not a license. Use on a desktop computer requires at least QuickTime and usually iTunes, which are subject to licensing agreements--the software, not the songs.
The GPL-3 allows the copywrite holder to place certain restrictions on the licensee's use of the software, for instance no military/weapons use
This would make GPL3 non-free by the FSF's own definition, which requires the freedom to run the program for any purpose. Please support your claim with text from the current GPL3 discussion draft.
I feel like a complete noob for asking this, but... what's an "overlay", in the context that the Gentoo people are using it?
Portage stores package information in a directory tree updated via rsync, which overwrites local modifications. An overlay is a separate directory maintained by the administrator. This capability has been used to kludge a third-party repository system, since Portage lacks direct support.
It does indeed make an exception for circumvention for the purposes of fair use.
Copyright infringement is not an element of the offenses defined in 1201(a) and (b), so 1201(c)(1) is totally irrelevant to those offenses. Those two sections direct the Librarian of Congress to assess the chilling effect and grant exemptions for specific noninfringing uses, which would be unnecessary if infringement were a prerequisite for those offenses. Members of Congress have introduced bills which would extend the fair use defense to DMCA violations, which also would be superfluous if it already implicitly applied.
Copyright is a prohibition against distributing, not copying
In the US, copyright is a limited monopoly over reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, and the preparation of derivative works (17 USC 106). Reproduction is controlled for the same reason you claim it isn't: when it was inefficient and expensive, personal copying was virtually unthinkable.
I assume that the sentence in question ("infringment would not apply") is logically connected to the preceding sentence ("the customer's Fair Use right") and consistent with the theme of the post (correcting gilroy's errors). What the court didn't say isn't helpful in that context. But, it is an assumption.
You're not suggesting that this ruling would apply to the students, are you?
I'm saying that the court was silent on the issue of student copying. A future court could find such use fair or infringing without contradicting this decision.
I agree with you that he badly botched the language and issue of "having copyright", but the above point he was trying to make was correct despite the poorly executed explanation.
I'm saying that even allowing for that, Doc Ruby didn't accurately describe the circumstances of the case (which I don't think he was trying to do) or the precedent it established. So, I disagree that "anyone who has has done an general review of the most important US copyright law cases would immediately recognize that particular issue and recognize the details he lists from the case."
"the decision of this court does not consider" / "that h[er] ruling of infringment would not apply"
No, "does not consider" means exactly what it says: that wasn't the question before the court, so the court didn't answer it.
What he wrote was basically correct, and anyone who has has done an general review of the most important US copyright law cases would immediately recognize that particular issue and recognize the details he lists from the case.
The only details from Doc Ruby's post that are consistent with Basic Books v. Kinko's are "Kinko's" and "class".
The judge explains that Kincko's could not "borrow" someone else's Fair Use rights and engage in copying and retail sales of those copies based on the customer's Fair Use right to himself make such copies. The judge explicitly said that his ruling of infringment would not apply had the teacher or the students gone into Kinko's and rented usage of the copy machines and done the copying themselves.
Can you provide direct quotations? I reread the fair use section to compose my reply to your other post and didn't see the statements you describe. Your last sentence in particular contradicts footnote 13, "Expressly, the decision of this court does not consider copying performed by students...". (FYI, the judge was a she.)
Slashdot Mirror
tftp covered the Starbucks scenario pretty well.
...I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. That's a contract between the ISP, the customer, and no one else. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. The person is, reasonably, a suspect.mrseigen implied that a 2.0 release of VMware Fusion had been out for months; my only point was that this wasn't even close to accurate.
But, since you brought it up: Parallels Desktop 3.0 is in release candidate and does have a public time frame for release.
The users are the ones interacting with the software. If this section is relevant, you're modifying and publicly performing it.
The draft reads "clearly not permitted"; "not clearly permitted" is your own invention.
I didn't and it doesn't. Where do people get these ideas?
The transaction is nominally a sale and practically a lease. Continued use of a song requires an active account with the iTunes Store, which is subject to certain terms of service, which is not a license. Use on a desktop computer requires at least QuickTime and usually iTunes, which are subject to licensing agreements--the software, not the songs.
This would make GPL3 non-free by the FSF's own definition, which requires the freedom to run the program for any purpose. Please support your claim with text from the current GPL3 discussion draft.
Portage stores package information in a directory tree updated via rsync, which overwrites local modifications. An overlay is a separate directory maintained by the administrator. This capability has been used to kludge a third-party repository system, since Portage lacks direct support.
Copyright infringement is not an element of the offenses defined in 1201(a) and (b), so 1201(c)(1) is totally irrelevant to those offenses. Those two sections direct the Librarian of Congress to assess the chilling effect and grant exemptions for specific noninfringing uses, which would be unnecessary if infringement were a prerequisite for those offenses. Members of Congress have introduced bills which would extend the fair use defense to DMCA violations, which also would be superfluous if it already implicitly applied.
(originally posted here)
In the US, copyright is a limited monopoly over reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, and the preparation of derivative works (17 USC 106). Reproduction is controlled for the same reason you claim it isn't: when it was inefficient and expensive, personal copying was virtually unthinkable.
I assume that the sentence in question ("infringment would not apply") is logically connected to the preceding sentence ("the customer's Fair Use right") and consistent with the theme of the post (correcting gilroy's errors). What the court didn't say isn't helpful in that context. But, it is an assumption.
I'm saying that the court was silent on the issue of student copying. A future court could find such use fair or infringing without contradicting this decision.
I'm saying that even allowing for that, Doc Ruby didn't accurately describe the circumstances of the case (which I don't think he was trying to do) or the precedent it established. So, I disagree that "anyone who has has done an general review of the most important US copyright law cases would immediately recognize that particular issue and recognize the details he lists from the case."
No, "does not consider" means exactly what it says: that wasn't the question before the court, so the court didn't answer it.
The only details from Doc Ruby's post that are consistent with Basic Books v. Kinko's are "Kinko's" and "class".
Can you provide direct quotations? I reread the fair use section to compose my reply to your other post and didn't see the statements you describe. Your last sentence in particular contradicts footnote 13, "Expressly, the decision of this court does not consider copying performed by students...". (FYI, the judge was a she.)