I'm not going to rag on Katz more than necessary, but hey man - ever heard of the Internet Movie Database? Singer last directed Apt Pupil, not The Usual Suspects. And considering that Apt Pupil was pretty crappy, I don't think there was all that much pressure on Singer, from the directorial aspect. Thanks for the thought, though.
The decentralization of Gnutella is a big problem for copyright enforcers, because it's a heck of a lot easier to put all the pressure on a big company. Plus, there's potential money there. The little guys using these programs aren't deep pockets.
When Metallica wanted to stop Napster users it got Napster to ban them (not that this was terribly effective, as two minutes in the registry got a user back in with a new account name). But if Metallica wanted to enforce its rights under Gnutella, there is no central company to put pressure on. They have to go after the individuals. They've said they don't want to do that, and I can't imagine there are many that would, because there's nothing in it for them.
Depends who you talk to on the Supreme Court regarding how important precedent is. But remember, as another reply has said, Jackson defined these in his findings of fact, and the Court is unlikely to touch these.
First of all, unless the Supreme Court decides to take this case, there's won't be one word for from them to "read into." When cert is denied, it's just denied. The Court does not say why, nor could it really, because there are just too many. Plus, it would defeat the purpose of denying to hear a case if the Court said why it was doing so.
Second, there are far fewer "tricks" that MS could "pull" on the appellate level. Basically there is straight brief filings, and oral arguments. That's it. Sure, there are appellate "tricks," but nothing like there is on the trial level.
Third, I wouldn't expect the Court to say that Jackson was prejudiced. It takes a helluva lot of bad stuff for an appeals court to say that a lower judge was prejudiced. From what I've seen of this case, maybe he was prejudiced in the "lay" sense of the word, but not in the legal sense of the word. Not to mention, an appeals court will not just look at Jackson's behavior, but will look at an "tricks" or rudeness that occurred in the courtroom.
I fully expect most of Jackson's legal findings to get reversed, but not because of any prejudice. The Supreme Court, especially (but this is just as true for the Appeals Courts), if they've got the votes, can make the opinion support whatever outcome they want. Considering the conservative stance this court has taken, and the smart individuals in that conservative group, I expect that should the Court take this, we'll see MS not getting broken up (although I hope Jackson's other business practices survive).
And yes, I called them smart. Say what you will about Scalia, he puts out the best written opinions by the Court (just so happens about %97 of them come out the wrong way).
Now, I not only can go to Radio Shack to get those spare cables I need, but soon I'll be able to get that spare meteorite I've been dying to have.
There's certainly nothing wrong with the commercialzation of this type of thing. The government funding is terrible, and the public is on-again/off-again about funding space exploration with their own tax dollars (see the mars hoo-hah several years ago, versus the general lack of interest now).
My only problem with this is the sneaking suspicion that Radio Shack just sees this as an opportunity to dump off the mounds and mounds of useless and worthless Tandy components....
What the other replies say is correct. Plus, since this is a big case (big, in terms of both the law/issues involved, and in terms of the media attention/hype) the court wants to take its best opportunity to do things right.
I think that, in conjunction with the above mentioned effeciency argument, is why they're hearing it en banc.
I believe Bill's got his law mixed up. If the case were in a state court, with federal and state issues, then it could indeed be bifurcated, with the federal portion going into the federal system, while the state portion remained in the state system (although with a case this big and complex, the court would never allow it to be split into two separate cases).
However, if the whole case started out in the federal court, this doesn't apply. If Penfeild grants their motion (how much says he does?), then the Big 9 can take it if they want to, and the Middle 3 lose out. And they'll get all of the case, not just any federal issues.
If B steals A's trade secret, B is liable. If B then tells it to C, B is still liable. If C has reason to know/believe that it's a trade secret, then C is liable. If the info is given out to the public, it's status as a trade secret may be taken away, but they're still an issue as to liability for causing that status to be taken away.
Corporate authors get 95 years. Individual authors don't get a set term (such as 120 years). Rather, their work is protected for the term of their life, plus 70 years. So in theory, the term could be over 120 years (if I write a book when I'm 25, and live to be 85, my book is protected for 130 years).
This amount of time is completely rediculous, and is only so large because of the large corporations which have a vested interest in keeping rights vested in their intellectual property. The most common theory for intellectual property rights is an incentive-based one. Whether a work will be protected for 70 years, or my life plus 70 years, really isn't going to change my decision to create or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know where James Earl Jones was, at the time Sir Alec died? If I were the bobbies, I would check this out . . . .
I'm not going to rag on Katz more than necessary, but hey man - ever heard of the Internet Movie Database? Singer last directed Apt Pupil, not The Usual Suspects. And considering that Apt Pupil was pretty crappy, I don't think there was all that much pressure on Singer, from the directorial aspect. Thanks for the thought, though.
The decentralization of Gnutella is a big problem for copyright enforcers, because it's a heck of a lot easier to put all the pressure on a big company. Plus, there's potential money there. The little guys using these programs aren't deep pockets.
When Metallica wanted to stop Napster users it got Napster to ban them (not that this was terribly effective, as two minutes in the registry got a user back in with a new account name). But if Metallica wanted to enforce its rights under Gnutella, there is no central company to put pressure on. They have to go after the individuals. They've said they don't want to do that, and I can't imagine there are many that would, because there's nothing in it for them.
Depends who you talk to on the Supreme Court regarding how important precedent is. But remember, as another reply has said, Jackson defined these in his findings of fact, and the Court is unlikely to touch these.
First of all, unless the Supreme Court decides to take this case, there's won't be one word for from them to "read into." When cert is denied, it's just denied. The Court does not say why, nor could it really, because there are just too many. Plus, it would defeat the purpose of denying to hear a case if the Court said why it was doing so.
Second, there are far fewer "tricks" that MS could "pull" on the appellate level. Basically there is straight brief filings, and oral arguments. That's it. Sure, there are appellate "tricks," but nothing like there is on the trial level.
Third, I wouldn't expect the Court to say that Jackson was prejudiced. It takes a helluva lot of bad stuff for an appeals court to say that a lower judge was prejudiced. From what I've seen of this case, maybe he was prejudiced in the "lay" sense of the word, but not in the legal sense of the word. Not to mention, an appeals court will not just look at Jackson's behavior, but will look at an "tricks" or rudeness that occurred in the courtroom.
I fully expect most of Jackson's legal findings to get reversed, but not because of any prejudice. The Supreme Court, especially (but this is just as true for the Appeals Courts), if they've got the votes, can make the opinion support whatever outcome they want. Considering the conservative stance this court has taken, and the smart individuals in that conservative group, I expect that should the Court take this, we'll see MS not getting broken up (although I hope Jackson's other business practices survive).
And yes, I called them smart. Say what you will about Scalia, he puts out the best written opinions by the Court (just so happens about %97 of them come out the wrong way).
Now, I not only can go to Radio Shack to get those spare cables I need, but soon I'll be able to get that spare meteorite I've been dying to have.
There's certainly nothing wrong with the commercialzation of this type of thing. The government funding is terrible, and the public is on-again/off-again about funding space exploration with their own tax dollars (see the mars hoo-hah several years ago, versus the general lack of interest now).
My only problem with this is the sneaking suspicion that Radio Shack just sees this as an opportunity to dump off the mounds and mounds of useless and worthless Tandy components....
What the other replies say is correct. Plus, since this is a big case (big, in terms of both the law/issues involved, and in terms of the media attention/hype) the court wants to take its best opportunity to do things right.
I think that, in conjunction with the above mentioned effeciency argument, is why they're hearing it en banc.
I believe Bill's got his law mixed up. If the case were in a state court, with federal and state issues, then it could indeed be bifurcated, with the federal portion going into the federal system, while the state portion remained in the state system (although with a case this big and complex, the court would never allow it to be split into two separate cases).
However, if the whole case started out in the federal court, this doesn't apply. If Penfeild grants their motion (how much says he does?), then the Big 9 can take it if they want to, and the Middle 3 lose out. And they'll get all of the case, not just any federal issues.
MacNN can still be liable.
If B steals A's trade secret, B is liable. If B then tells it to C, B is still liable. If C has reason to know/believe that it's a trade secret, then C is liable. If the info is given out to the public, it's status as a trade secret may be taken away, but they're still an issue as to liability for causing that status to be taken away.
Corporate authors get 95 years. Individual authors don't get a set term (such as 120 years). Rather, their work is protected for the term of their life, plus 70 years. So in theory, the term could be over 120 years (if I write a book when I'm 25, and live to be 85, my book is protected for 130 years).
This amount of time is completely rediculous, and is only so large because of the large corporations which have a vested interest in keeping rights vested in their intellectual property. The most common theory for intellectual property rights is an incentive-based one. Whether a work will be protected for 70 years, or my life plus 70 years, really isn't going to change my decision to create or not.
Gotta love big business.