If your 16-year-old -- someone less than two years away from adulthood -- doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, then you have objectively failed in your responsibility as a parent.
I'm sure suing AT&T would really teach the Presidency -- who by the way is not AT&T -- a big lesson in how much they have to follow the law.
Your anger is misdirected and your opposition to this bill is illogical. It's clear that if anyone is at fault, it's the President more than the telephone companies. And frankly, it's not entirely clear that he was wrong. The law was ambiguous on this point. However, the biggest thing about this bill is that it clarifies that ambiguity.
The President may skirt around FISA again. It's within the realm of possibility. But he can no longer do so and claim that the law allows him to, because now it clearly does not. This clarification in the law is a good thing, and you're a foolish foolish man to oppose it.
I hope to God that you never sit on a jury. You're the kind of guy who would convict an innocent man because otherwise "[n]obody is going to be held accountable"... and we can't have that.
Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries. Enforcing EULAS does not. O RLY? You've researched the law in all the Western countries and can make a quantitative statement like "most"?
EULAs have a solid history of enforcement in the U.S. See, e.g., ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
How about "Yes you are, and I'm a specialist in this field." ?
"the downloader does not make a copy" {{cn}}
"technicalities are the law being used the way it was intended when it was written." {{cn}}
Between the file sitting on a computer somewhere and the file ending up on your computer, there is a reproduction made. That reproduction is in violation of copyright. The reproduction is made intentionally. Who makes the reproduction? Who is responsible for that violation?
Case law says the recipient. The RIAA would like to say both (thus the "making available" theory). But whether making-available is judicially cognizable theory is impertinent to the point that the recipient is liable as the law stands today. The Supreme Court says so. QEDEOF.
It passed the House 410-10. There aren't 410 Democrats in the house. Give cred^H^H^H^H blame where it's due.
Since this bill is regarding the legal system directly, it was through the House Judiciary Committee, which is split - like all committees - between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats on the committee shouldn't have passed that. But let's see about the other side, hmm?
First, we see that passing the HJC was unanimous, so both sides passed it.
We see that the ranking Republican is Lamar Smith, who has sought to expand the DCMA
The next most influential Republican is none other than Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. For those of you without long-term recall, Rep. Sensenbrenner was the genius who introduced the PATRIOT ACT and authored Real ID
MS is not a US corporation any more than it is a European, African, East Asian or Indian.
Microsoft is absolutely a U.S. corporation. I don't know where you're getting your information from.
Microsoft is a Washington corporation[1], incorporated under Washington law[2]. Its registered office, pursuant to Washington state law[3], is at 920 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington[4].
While Microsoft may have subsidiary and/or partner corporations in other countries, there is no doubt whatsoever that the "real Microsoft" is an American corporation, based in America, run by a board of American businessmen and an American Chief Executive officer, responsible to a largely American base of stockholders. Any contention otherwise is surely a joke.
Then it would depend on if they did whatever it was they wanted to conspire to. If they decided NOT to do it, then nothing criminal was done. If they decided to do it and were successful, charge them with the underlying offense. If they decided to do it and were unsuccessful, charge them with attempt of the underlying offense.
You can't charge someone with attempted conspiracy because conspiracy itself is an attempt (at complicity). You can't charge attempted attempts. You have to take actual, concrete steps toward doing something illegal. Otherwise, the government could imprison you for just talking about a possible conspiracy -- which would be plainly violative of the First Amendment.
Yeah, the quality of this post wasn't all that great. Publishing something in the HBR doesn't guarantee that the case study will be used in any classes at HBS, and even if it did, a case study does not a course curriculum make.
Another nitpick - there are exactly zero "aspiring MBA candidates" in business school. If you've been admitted to business school, you already *are* an MBA candidate. It's like trying to charge someone with attempted conspiracy.
The difficulty of the case is that Jane Doe also filed suit that her "rights of publicity" were being violated. Which is a far more nebulous concept than IP Rights. No. Rights of publicity are intellectual property rights. [1][2][3]
Where things get really confusing, though, is that the article suggest that Jane Doe's "rights of publicity" arguments were denied. No, the article explicitly says they werent. [4]
Instead, the judge is treating it as a pure IP violation case. Which seems only right and proper in my mind. Yes, because publicity rights are intellectual property rights. [1][2][3]
Yet the article appears to be suggesting that this would set a rather negative precedent across the industry. Which makes very little sense to me. Perhaps someone more in the know could shed some light on the exact problem? (Or if one even exists?) The author (and the OP) are just being sensationalist. The "immunity shield"[5] is inapplicable to intellectual property claims[6], and has been inapplicable to them since it was passed in 1996.
Nothing to see here, move along.
[1] ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 (6th Cir. 2003) [2] J. Thomas McCarthy, Melville B. Nimmer & the Rights of Publicity: A Tribute, 34 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 1703, 1712 (1987) [3] Black's Law Dictionary 368 (3rd pocket ed. 2006) [4] Anne Broache, Courts chip away at Web sites' decade-old legal shield, C|Net News.com News Blog, April 8, 2008 at paragraph 9, available at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html [5] 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(1) [6] 47 U.S.C. s 230(e)(2)
or when the President decides a movie rated PG-13 would be better than one rated R for his own family's viewing time. That *is* censorship. Parents censor what their kids see all the time; that isn't necessarily bad, but it's still censorship. No, it really isn't. You're being a dumbass (you too, mods)
There's no such thing as "censorship at Yahoo!" because censorship is about civic speech, not about the decisions of private entities. It's a contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility, for there to be censorship at Yahoo!.
The OP makes about as much sense as screaming "censorship!" when a publisher rejects you, or when the President decides a movie rated PG-13 would be better than one rated R for his own family's viewing time. Get over yourself.
In a teaching curriculum, yes. Researchers often do more than just research and teach, however. E.g., if you're a Ph.D. candidate and you get published, and you go on to use the published article as a substantial part of your dissertation, no journal in their right mind would sue you. These things are understood in polite company. And yet it is, technically, (probably*) copyright infringement. Of course, damages would be pretty dang hard to prove - what effect does an unpublished dissertation have on the market for an already-published journal article?
* There's a fair use argument to be made even here, but it's much less of a clear-cut issue, especially if the dissertation is published, but not in a widespread way. There's also an argument to be made that the contract was one of adhesion and shouldn't be upheld, so copyright would remain with the author. But both of these arguments are weaker than overwhelming practice and the irrationality of suing when there are no damages to be won.
As for FACT -- feh. They, quite literally, represent the interests of the film and broadcasting industry. It's in their interest to conflate copyright infringement with something that people actually care about.
1) There's no discrete thing called "fair use law," especially not that you can look up. It's an equitable doctrine codified by statute, but not defined by that statute. Whether something is "fair use" is decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on four criteria left open to judicial interpretation. If someone hasn't been sued for it and gone to trial over it in Federal court, you can't really say something is or isn't a fair use -- only whether it would be LIKELY to be ruled as a fair use.
2) Fair use *might* mean you can make copies of entire movies. You can definitely make backup copies of entire computer programs. 17 U.S.C. 117(a)(2). Some courts have shown willingness to apply this to other electronic media, some speculating, for example, that "[m]aking a back-up copy of an ebook, for personal noncommercial use would likely be upheld as a non-infringing fair use." U.S. v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1135 (N.D.Cal. 2002). In fact, that court seems to believe - or at least not challenge the assertion - that "making a single, archival backup copy of a movie that the user has already purchased... is authorized under copyright law." 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085, 1097 (N.D.Cal. 2004). Other courts disagree, some saying they are "aware of [no authority] for the proposition that 'fair use' includes the making of a backup copy." Macrovision v. Sima Products Corp., 2006 WL 1063284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y 2006). Interestingly enough, the Macrovision case is unpublished (the WL citation means it's available on the Westlaw research database, but it is NOT available from official court reporter volumes) -- meaning that someone decided it should have no authority itself.
3) The idea that if "you are violating copyright" then you are "therefore stealing" is incorrect. Copyright violation is distinct from "stealing" in the ordinary sense of the word, and quite different from any historical crime of theft. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "steal" as "1. a. trans. To take away dishonestly." Since by copying, you are not taking away anything, and since copyright violation is often done "honestly" (e.g., researchers who have assigned copyright to a journal, and then use excerpts of their articles for valid uses which are nonetheless incompatible with copyright), copyright violation doesn't necessarily mean stealing in the ordinary English sense of the word. At common law, theft was the trespassory taking of property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner permanently. Since the copying of bits is with consent (the only thing the owner objects to is reducing them to permanent form), and since you don't deprive the copyright owner of his copyright OR of his copies of the media, copyright violation by copying digital formats is utterly unlike theft.
Slashdot Mirror
If your 16-year-old -- someone less than two years away from adulthood -- doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, then you have objectively failed in your responsibility as a parent.
QED.
I'm sure suing AT&T would really teach the Presidency -- who by the way is not AT&T -- a big lesson in how much they have to follow the law.
Your anger is misdirected and your opposition to this bill is illogical. It's clear that if anyone is at fault, it's the President more than the telephone companies. And frankly, it's not entirely clear that he was wrong. The law was ambiguous on this point. However, the biggest thing about this bill is that it clarifies that ambiguity.
The President may skirt around FISA again. It's within the realm of possibility. But he can no longer do so and claim that the law allows him to, because now it clearly does not. This clarification in the law is a good thing, and you're a foolish foolish man to oppose it.
I hope to God that you never sit on a jury. You're the kind of guy who would convict an innocent man because otherwise "[n]obody is going to be held accountable" ... and we can't have that.
I support the FISA amendment. It's a good compromise. Read the thing before judging.
the AGPL is a EULA
[citation needed]
[EULAs] may not be enforceable
[citation needed]
Not if he can help it
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml
EULAs have a solid history of enforcement in the U.S. See, e.g., ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Your sig is interesting. I compiled it because I couldn't read it.
What I don't understand is why I didn't get a compiler warning for r. Isn't it a char**?
I guess I don't understand how this code works without ever declaring or defining c.
How about "Yes you are, and I'm a specialist in this field." ?
"the downloader does not make a copy" {{cn}}
"technicalities are the law being used the way it was intended when it was written." {{cn}}
Between the file sitting on a computer somewhere and the file ending up on your computer, there is a reproduction made. That reproduction is in violation of copyright. The reproduction is made intentionally. Who makes the reproduction? Who is responsible for that violation?
Case law says the recipient. The RIAA would like to say both (thus the "making available" theory). But whether making-available is judicially cognizable theory is impertinent to the point that the recipient is liable as the law stands today. The Supreme Court says so. QEDEOF.
NOP? For shame, wasting your delay slots
It passed the House 410-10. There aren't 410 Democrats in the house. Give cred^H^H^H^H blame where it's due.
Since this bill is regarding the legal system directly, it was through the House Judiciary Committee, which is split - like all committees - between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats on the committee shouldn't have passed that. But let's see about the other side, hmm?
First, we see that passing the HJC was unanimous, so both sides passed it.
We see that the ranking Republican is Lamar Smith, who has sought to expand the DCMA
The next most influential Republican is none other than Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. For those of you without long-term recall, Rep. Sensenbrenner was the genius who introduced the PATRIOT ACT and authored Real ID
Another member, Tom Feeney, has been written about in Wired for his attempts at touch screen tampering
So yeah. It's the Dems behind this bill that are the bad guys.
You're severely mistaken.
Mod parent -1, Troll
MS is not a US corporation any more than it is a European, African, East Asian or Indian.
Microsoft is absolutely a U.S. corporation. I don't know where you're getting your information from.Microsoft is a Washington corporation[1], incorporated under Washington law[2]. Its registered office, pursuant to Washington state law[3], is at 920 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington[4].
While Microsoft may have subsidiary and/or partner corporations in other countries, there is no doubt whatsoever that the "real Microsoft" is an American corporation, based in America, run by a board of American businessmen and an American Chief Executive officer, responsible to a largely American base of stockholders. Any contention otherwise is surely a joke.
[1] Washington Secretary of State, Corporations: Registration Data Search: Microsoft Corporation, http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=600413485.
[2] Wash. Stat. s 23B.01.010 et seq., available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=23B.
[3] Wash. Stat. s 23B.05.010(1), available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=23B.05.010 (requiring that "[e]ach corporation [under this Title] must continuously maintain in this state
[4] Microsoft, Articles of Incorporation, available at http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/corporategovernance/articlesincorp.mspx
Even if it is, the heirs have no claim against "You" -- the licensees' rights would remain unaffected.
No.
AdBlock Plus is your friend. The Element Hider blocks element contents from even being loaded.
Summary of the article: "Only GPLv3 is Free Software. Anything without an anti-TiVoization clause is unfree. Also, dual licensing does not exist."
Then it would depend on if they did whatever it was they wanted to conspire to. If they decided NOT to do it, then nothing criminal was done. If they decided to do it and were successful, charge them with the underlying offense. If they decided to do it and were unsuccessful, charge them with attempt of the underlying offense.
You can't charge someone with attempted conspiracy because conspiracy itself is an attempt (at complicity). You can't charge attempted attempts. You have to take actual, concrete steps toward doing something illegal. Otherwise, the government could imprison you for just talking about a possible conspiracy -- which would be plainly violative of the First Amendment.
Yeah, the quality of this post wasn't all that great. Publishing something in the HBR doesn't guarantee that the case study will be used in any classes at HBS, and even if it did, a case study does not a course curriculum make.
Another nitpick - there are exactly zero "aspiring MBA candidates" in business school. If you've been admitted to business school, you already *are* an MBA candidate. It's like trying to charge someone with attempted conspiracy.
Nothing to see here, move along.
[1] ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 (6th Cir. 2003)
[2] J. Thomas McCarthy, Melville B. Nimmer & the Rights of Publicity: A Tribute, 34 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 1703, 1712 (1987)
[3] Black's Law Dictionary 368 (3rd pocket ed. 2006)
[4] Anne Broache, Courts chip away at Web sites' decade-old legal shield, C|Net News.com News Blog, April 8, 2008 at paragraph 9, available at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html
[5] 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(1)
[6] 47 U.S.C. s 230(e)(2)
That *is* censorship. Parents censor what their kids see all the time; that isn't necessarily bad, but it's still censorship. No, it really isn't. You're being a dumbass (you too, mods)
There's no such thing as "censorship at Yahoo!" because censorship is about civic speech, not about the decisions of private entities. It's a contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility, for there to be censorship at Yahoo!.
The OP makes about as much sense as screaming "censorship!" when a publisher rejects you, or when the President decides a movie rated PG-13 would be better than one rated R for his own family's viewing time. Get over yourself.
In a teaching curriculum, yes. Researchers often do more than just research and teach, however. E.g., if you're a Ph.D. candidate and you get published, and you go on to use the published article as a substantial part of your dissertation, no journal in their right mind would sue you. These things are understood in polite company. And yet it is, technically, (probably*) copyright infringement. Of course, damages would be pretty dang hard to prove - what effect does an unpublished dissertation have on the market for an already-published journal article?
* There's a fair use argument to be made even here, but it's much less of a clear-cut issue, especially if the dissertation is published, but not in a widespread way. There's also an argument to be made that the contract was one of adhesion and shouldn't be upheld, so copyright would remain with the author. But both of these arguments are weaker than overwhelming practice and the irrationality of suing when there are no damages to be won.
As for FACT -- feh. They, quite literally, represent the interests of the film and broadcasting industry. It's in their interest to conflate copyright infringement with something that people actually care about.
1) There's no discrete thing called "fair use law," especially not that you can look up. It's an equitable doctrine codified by statute, but not defined by that statute. Whether something is "fair use" is decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on four criteria left open to judicial interpretation. If someone hasn't been sued for it and gone to trial over it in Federal court, you can't really say something is or isn't a fair use -- only whether it would be LIKELY to be ruled as a fair use.
... is authorized under copyright law." 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085, 1097 (N.D.Cal. 2004). Other courts disagree, some saying they are "aware of [no authority] for the proposition that 'fair use' includes the making of a backup copy." Macrovision v. Sima Products Corp., 2006 WL 1063284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y 2006). Interestingly enough, the Macrovision case is unpublished (the WL citation means it's available on the Westlaw research database, but it is NOT available from official court reporter volumes) -- meaning that someone decided it should have no authority itself.
2) Fair use *might* mean you can make copies of entire movies. You can definitely make backup copies of entire computer programs. 17 U.S.C. 117(a)(2). Some courts have shown willingness to apply this to other electronic media, some speculating, for example, that "[m]aking a back-up copy of an ebook, for personal noncommercial use would likely be upheld as a non-infringing fair use." U.S. v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1135 (N.D.Cal. 2002). In fact, that court seems to believe - or at least not challenge the assertion - that "making a single, archival backup copy of a movie that the user has already purchased
3) The idea that if "you are violating copyright" then you are "therefore stealing" is incorrect. Copyright violation is distinct from "stealing" in the ordinary sense of the word, and quite different from any historical crime of theft. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "steal" as "1. a. trans. To take away dishonestly." Since by copying, you are not taking away anything, and since copyright violation is often done "honestly" (e.g., researchers who have assigned copyright to a journal, and then use excerpts of their articles for valid uses which are nonetheless incompatible with copyright), copyright violation doesn't necessarily mean stealing in the ordinary English sense of the word. At common law, theft was the trespassory taking of property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner permanently. Since the copying of bits is with consent (the only thing the owner objects to is reducing them to permanent form), and since you don't deprive the copyright owner of his copyright OR of his copies of the media, copyright violation by copying digital formats is utterly unlike theft.