I agree, they're extremely forward with what they do and don't do (and one thing they claim they don't do is sell out your information). If the TOS and Privacy Policy is the only reason people believe they're shady, then I disagree completely. Having said that, reading the comments it appears that some people are wary because 30gigs.com isn't a name they know, so they're wary if they'll be trustworthy or not.
To anyone that thinks this is a serious contender in the Webmail wars, you're missing the point. I doubt very many people use their entire storage, or even come close. It's just used as a marketing point. The reason that any particular mail storage will beat the others is because of it's features. Gmail is popular (well, for starters because it's google and at the moment google is sexy among some geek circles) because of it's interface. Yahoo recently realised this and brought out a new interface of it's own (well, I say new. As in new for a webmail provider. From the articles it's just an Outlook Express clone, although it may be quite useful, I don't know. Like google, Yahoo has decided to not open it's new and improved webmail service to everyone, at least last i heard anyway).
Having said that, I doubt anyone is going to win the Webmail wars. All that will happen is they'll fight amongst each other to get more of a customer share by adding more features. Which is great for us. But 30gigs isn't going to be a contender anytime soon (if ever).
I remember when everyone used hotmail, back when it used to be usable. Then Microsoft screwed over its users with more and more intrusive ads, shitty interface and more. I'm just waiting for Microsofts response to Yahoo and Google's improved webmail interface.
It's true. Only white males were allowed to be free. Women were not given equal rights, and blacks, well, there had to be a whole war just to free those. And even then they weren't given equal rights until the 20th century. Modding people who state this Flamebait will not change the past, it will only encourage ignorance so our forefather's mistakes can be repeated by our descendants.
And that's why he wasn't sent a cease and desist when he made his own map using the facts. From the article:
I'm very aware that they are copyright violations, but I'm not trying to make money or do anything malicious. I'm not in this to piss people off.
I'd say this guy knew he was breaking the law, which is why he didn't kick up a stink. Everyone is actually acting fairly amicably in this situation (based on my impression from the article anyway).
Doesn't large part of the MTA's budget come from city taxes? There is a reason the map is available at no cost - we have already paid for it.
In that case, I think you paid for the creation of said map and should be able to do anything you want with it. Print it on bags without a license, sell it on the corner street, change it however you like, publish it on your website.
A company should either make it on their own, or give up some of their priviledges when the government funds them. But then again, the government doesn't really care about protecting people's rights, do they?
What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you just babbling the slashdot group think to get your ass modded up? (+1 Insightful as of posting this, so he aint being very successful).
The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books"
Now while the term limit has been increased dramatically, that isn't the issue here (we're not talking about maps that are over 14 years old are we?). So don't give me that bullshit about this being another example of copyright "thing" getting worse and worse. Unless you were talking about the US being a free country before 1790 of course.
To the Subway People: Shame on you for being this petty.
To keep their trademark, they MUST be this petty. The law forces them to (or they'll lose their trademark). Having said, if they do issue this guy with a license for free, then would you really call them petty? Talk about jumping to rash conclusions.
Having said that, they are broke and according to this poster they're issuing licenses for $500. So it's quite possible they won't issue a license for free.
Can anybody explain what is the public benefit in suing people like this?!!
1) They're not suing, they sent a cease and desist, he complied.
2) He had the incorrect information on his website, so 9,000 people used an outdated map.
3) They're broke, and they're issuing licenses to desperately seek money. The public benefit (and this is arguable, as they may be a really shitty company and the public benefit might be them to become bankrupt) is that by not breaking the law and abusing their copyright, they will be able to reap money from their labour and continue to provide the service to the citizens of their city.
Of course asking for permission doesn't cost anything, but would he receive it for free as well? A quick look at the links in the article doesn't mention any licensing policies, so I couldn't see if they are handing out free licenses.
In summary, I consider this lawsuit to be insane and unnecessary.
There was no law-suit. A cease and desist was issued to Bright, he complied. He then went and made his own map that he uploaded under the CC license, he hasn't been sent a new cease and desist for that map. MTA is broke, it's recently begun trademarking its symbols and issuing licenses to use them. They couldn't allow Bright to continue and still have their trademark be valid.
There are reasons to protect with copyright other than preserving profit.
But aren't really applicable in this situation. Some choice quotes:
The financially strapped MTA
MTA has begun registering its colorful route symbols as trademarks and has sent more than 30 cease-and-desist letters to businesses
MTA has a licensing department
Not that I'm saying MTA is in the wrong, merely saying their concern IS monetary. There doesn't appear to be any controversy. Bright knew he was breaking the law, MTA sent him a cease and desist, he complied.
Having said that, does MTA receive any tax-breaks and/or funds for it's subway system? If so, I really believe that their work should involving the systems that they've received funds and/or tax breaks for should be placed in the public domain.
A company should either make it on their own, or give up some of their rights (not that companies actually have rights, not being a person and all).
Now, the original post did not say expressly say that C had a exclusive right to distribute from B , although it may have implied it.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that C had been assigned distribution rights by B.
I took the scenario in the context of the RIAA and its lawsuits. Sure, re-reading his post I can see that there is plenty of room to nit-pick over details, I was talking about the RIAA.
Does C now own all of B's copyright ? No. B still own's whatever rights they have NOT assigned.
Given the above assumption for my post, I think it's safe to assume that "C" (or the RIAA) haven't made any lawsuits against people that was about anything BUT the music that the RIAA has received an exclusive distribution license for (re-reading my post, I can see where there is some room for confusion, I thought it fairly clear given the subject matter of this article).
A license to distribute, does not automatically equate to assignment of the entire copyright. A license to copy does not equate to a license to distribute.
Interesting point (and carefully re-reading the OP I can again see why you made that distinction), but again in the context of the RIAA, they're only suing people who they believe have distributed copied content (however the point of this article is, it appears they can't actually prove it occurred). So not really that important.
If you want to take away the context of the RIAA and its lawsuits, well of course random entity C can't sue on B's behalf, unless they've been assigned a role by B (or someone B has nominated to assign such a role) allowing them to sue.
You also can't sue because because you copied someone elses content for personal use, if you've brought it (can you be sued for downloading it? I don't know). Fair use protects your ass there (although thanks to the DMCA I can be sued for HOW I copy the content).
Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?
Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.
But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.
This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.
Thanks a lot/. for the FUD. You sure fooled me. However I do have one question: If I edit the code that has such a "command", do I have to edit the command so it displays my derivative version of the code? Or is it fine for the command to merely publish the older version?
Isn't this what's termed as the virus effect of GPL software? I personally think the "you give away the program, you have to provide the source code" clause is sane. But having a "you use the program, you have to provide the source code" is insane. Let's say I use GPL3 software for my webcomic site.
I edit it so it has a different skin then the default one. I now have to provide the source code for my website? Fsck that! Does that make my images and content on the website released under the GPL as well?
I know I'll be avoiding GPL3 code for websites like the black plague.
while I've heard rumors of Eolas vowing not to go after FOSS infringers -- like Mozilla
If they were truly serious about that, they would allow FOSS projects to go to them for a free license that doesn't expire and is valid whilever the code is licensed under a FOSS license (if a project holds the copyright to all the code, they can re-license it). Seeings how this hasn't been done, they're obviously not very serious about not going after FOSS infringers.
Sorry, grandparent should have specified "you simply can't decide that you don't have to follow the law and expect to get away with it because you 1) don't like the law..." Yes, in the past people have committed civil disobediance, but they had to pay the consequences of those actions long before the laws were changed. And they did so willingly. They didn't hide in their parents basement.
Given that C has an exclusive right to distribute music from B, person A can't possibly be distributing it legally. If person B gave person A permission to distribute the license, then person B is going to be in deep shit (and person A would need to prove this in court, as I imagine if it's made an issue in court by person B, then C will merely get A to testify).
Domain ID:D104218484-LROR Domain Name:COLONSLASH.ORG Created On:12-Apr-2004 04:11:52 UTC Last Updated On:01-May-2005 22:56:09 UTC Expiration Date:12-Apr-2006 04:11:52 UTC
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, they're extremely forward with what they do and don't do (and one thing they claim they don't do is sell out your information). If the TOS and Privacy Policy is the only reason people believe they're shady, then I disagree completely. Having said that, reading the comments it appears that some people are wary because 30gigs.com isn't a name they know, so they're wary if they'll be trustworthy or not.
To anyone that thinks this is a serious contender in the Webmail wars, you're missing the point. I doubt very many people use their entire storage, or even come close. It's just used as a marketing point. The reason that any particular mail storage will beat the others is because of it's features. Gmail is popular (well, for starters because it's google and at the moment google is sexy among some geek circles) because of it's interface. Yahoo recently realised this and brought out a new interface of it's own (well, I say new. As in new for a webmail provider. From the articles it's just an Outlook Express clone, although it may be quite useful, I don't know. Like google, Yahoo has decided to not open it's new and improved webmail service to everyone, at least last i heard anyway).
Having said that, I doubt anyone is going to win the Webmail wars. All that will happen is they'll fight amongst each other to get more of a customer share by adding more features. Which is great for us. But 30gigs isn't going to be a contender anytime soon (if ever).
I remember when everyone used hotmail, back when it used to be usable. Then Microsoft screwed over its users with more and more intrusive ads, shitty interface and more. I'm just waiting for Microsofts response to Yahoo and Google's improved webmail interface.
it's going to cost Santa Clara $3M??
Looks like the government's caught onto the business use of "cost."
"By going open-source, Linux users are costing Microsoft untold millions. They should all be forced to pay for a Windows license."
Unfortunately, Microsoft has made good headway in making Linux users pay the Microsoft tax.
I wonder if Microsoft will suffer any sort of anti-competitive lawsuits
If it's from the DOJ then they won't care. Even if they're found guilty nothing will happen.
How about one in the Tasman Sea?
I know, they can clone the spiders and put them all on a remote island. Cause it's not like Australia has too many spiders.
It's true. Only white males were allowed to be free. Women were not given equal rights, and blacks, well, there had to be a whole war just to free those. And even then they weren't given equal rights until the 20th century. Modding people who state this Flamebait will not change the past, it will only encourage ignorance so our forefather's mistakes can be repeated by our descendants.
That would be promoting a time when a foreign power out-showed America. As a group, Americans don't like to be reminded of such times.
And that's why he wasn't sent a cease and desist when he made his own map using the facts. From the article:
I'm very aware that they are copyright violations, but I'm not trying to make money or do anything malicious. I'm not in this to piss people off.
I'd say this guy knew he was breaking the law, which is why he didn't kick up a stink. Everyone is actually acting fairly amicably in this situation (based on my impression from the article anyway).
Doesn't large part of the MTA's budget come from city taxes? There is a reason the map is available at no cost - we have already paid for it.
In that case, I think you paid for the creation of said map and should be able to do anything you want with it. Print it on bags without a license, sell it on the corner street, change it however you like, publish it on your website.
A company should either make it on their own, or give up some of their priviledges when the government funds them. But then again, the government doesn't really care about protecting people's rights, do they?
What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you just babbling the slashdot group think to get your ass modded up? (+1 Insightful as of posting this, so he aint being very successful).
America had the ability for Congress to enact copyright law in it's Constitution. You know, the piece of paper that says what America can and can't do. It was completed in 1787, 11 years after the United States of America was first formed (sorta. See here for more details.) It took effect two years later. This power was first exercised in 1790, only 1 year after the Constitution was placed into effect. Here's a small quote from this article which you might find enlightening. Emphasis mine: Now while the term limit has been increased dramatically, that isn't the issue here (we're not talking about maps that are over 14 years old are we?). So don't give me that bullshit about this being another example of copyright "thing" getting worse and worse. Unless you were talking about the US being a free country before 1790 of course.
To the Subway People: Shame on you for being this petty.
To keep their trademark, they MUST be this petty. The law forces them to (or they'll lose their trademark). Having said, if they do issue this guy with a license for free, then would you really call them petty? Talk about jumping to rash conclusions.
Having said that, they are broke and according to this poster they're issuing licenses for $500. So it's quite possible they won't issue a license for free.
Can anybody explain what is the public benefit in suing people like this?!!
1) They're not suing, they sent a cease and desist, he complied.
2) He had the incorrect information on his website, so 9,000 people used an outdated map.
3) They're broke, and they're issuing licenses to desperately seek money. The public benefit (and this is arguable, as they may be a really shitty company and the public benefit might be them to become bankrupt) is that by not breaking the law and abusing their copyright, they will be able to reap money from their labour and continue to provide the service to the citizens of their city.
He could ASK for permission, it cost him nothing.
Of course asking for permission doesn't cost anything, but would he receive it for free as well? A quick look at the links in the article doesn't mention any licensing policies, so I couldn't see if they are handing out free licenses.
In summary, I consider this lawsuit to be insane and unnecessary.
There was no law-suit. A cease and desist was issued to Bright, he complied. He then went and made his own map that he uploaded under the CC license, he hasn't been sent a new cease and desist for that map. MTA is broke, it's recently begun trademarking its symbols and issuing licenses to use them. They couldn't allow Bright to continue and still have their trademark be valid.
But aren't really applicable in this situation. Some choice quotes: Not that I'm saying MTA is in the wrong, merely saying their concern IS monetary. There doesn't appear to be any controversy. Bright knew he was breaking the law, MTA sent him a cease and desist, he complied.
Having said that, does MTA receive any tax-breaks and/or funds for it's subway system? If so, I really believe that their work should involving the systems that they've received funds and/or tax breaks for should be placed in the public domain.
A company should either make it on their own, or give up some of their rights (not that companies actually have rights, not being a person and all).
Now, the original post did not say expressly say that C had a exclusive right to distribute from B , although it may have implied it.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that C had been assigned distribution rights by B.
I took the scenario in the context of the RIAA and its lawsuits. Sure, re-reading his post I can see that there is plenty of room to nit-pick over details, I was talking about the RIAA.
Does C now own all of B's copyright ? No. B still own's whatever rights they have NOT assigned.
Given the above assumption for my post, I think it's safe to assume that "C" (or the RIAA) haven't made any lawsuits against people that was about anything BUT the music that the RIAA has received an exclusive distribution license for (re-reading my post, I can see where there is some room for confusion, I thought it fairly clear given the subject matter of this article).
A license to distribute, does not automatically equate to assignment of the entire copyright. A license to copy does not equate to a license to distribute.
Interesting point (and carefully re-reading the OP I can again see why you made that distinction), but again in the context of the RIAA, they're only suing people who they believe have distributed copied content (however the point of this article is, it appears they can't actually prove it occurred). So not really that important.
If you want to take away the context of the RIAA and its lawsuits, well of course random entity C can't sue on B's behalf, unless they've been assigned a role by B (or someone B has nominated to assign such a role) allowing them to sue.
You also can't sue because because you copied someone elses content for personal use, if you've brought it (can you be sued for downloading it? I don't know). Fair use protects your ass there (although thanks to the DMCA I can be sued for HOW I copy the content).
Yeah, my site was used as an example. Thankyou very much for grabbing onto it like a rabid terrier and not letting go.
Isn't this what's termed as the virus effect of GPL software? I personally think the "you give away the program, you have to provide the source code" clause is sane. But having a "you use the program, you have to provide the source code" is insane. Let's say I use GPL3 software for my webcomic site.
I edit it so it has a different skin then the default one. I now have to provide the source code for my website? Fsck that! Does that make my images and content on the website released under the GPL as well?
I know I'll be avoiding GPL3 code for websites like the black plague.
while I've heard rumors of Eolas vowing not to go after FOSS infringers -- like Mozilla
If they were truly serious about that, they would allow FOSS projects to go to them for a free license that doesn't expire and is valid whilever the code is licensed under a FOSS license (if a project holds the copyright to all the code, they can re-license it). Seeings how this hasn't been done, they're obviously not very serious about not going after FOSS infringers.
Sorry, grandparent should have specified "you simply can't decide that you don't have to follow the law and expect to get away with it because you 1) don't like the law..." Yes, in the past people have committed civil disobediance, but they had to pay the consequences of those actions long before the laws were changed. And they did so willingly. They didn't hide in their parents basement.
Given that C has an exclusive right to distribute music from B, person A can't possibly be distributing it legally. If person B gave person A permission to distribute the license, then person B is going to be in deep shit (and person A would need to prove this in court, as I imagine if it's made an issue in court by person B, then C will merely get A to testify).
Actually, they have the FBI for that. I wish I was joking.
I got interested in another site...
Domain ID:D104218484-LROR
Domain Name:COLONSLASH.ORG
Created On:12-Apr-2004 04:11:52 UTC
Last Updated On:01-May-2005 22:56:09 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Apr-2006 04:11:52 UTC