They are liable as long as they are considered a content provider.
As soon as the ISP's started filtering traffic they didn't like and affecting what data is on their network, they became content providers and could not ask for immunity. If they were to stop filtering/blocking/etc what goes over their tubes, they could probably ask to not be considered a content provider and then what happens on their tubes is not their fault; they would be just offering a service.
This is interesting. iiNet are only testing the filtering to prove it doesn't work. If they were to lose this case all the other Aussie ISPs would turn their backs on the proposed filtering or risk lawsuits as content providers.
it's something that 99.8 per cent of users wouldn't notice
Dear EA,
By the time you start gathering stats from users its already too late. What you should be asking is how many potential users you lost due to the DRM. And you can knock it off with the users too, we are your customers. Try to remember that.
You're right--there's no doubt that they're hypocrites. What I wonder is whether they won that argument when the shoe was on the other foot? I don't have any way to see whether or not they won that particular point.
They won. The Court agreed that 10 times the actual damages was unconstitutional.
Doesn't that set a precedent that can be used against them?
At least you know the scene guys have quality control -- when their releases don't work, they get nuked.
This quote in your post really stood out for me.
Why is it that the pirates have such pride in releasing a quality working product, that they can be proud of, when the developers seem to release any old crap and just expect their paying customers to put up with the bugs until a later patch. Surely it should be the 'professional' developers that should be releasing the better product?
It would be nice if some of the more innocent victims of the RIAA assaults slapped them back with barratry lawsuits. The RIAA lawyers have already established a pattern of abuse with their shotgunning approach that shows that they are not acting in good faith.
Why even bother with the lawsuit?
One of those nice TV ads - 'Hello, my name is xxxx. I'm innocent but I was sued by the RIAA. I lost my job and my life was destroyed. Here is a list of RIAA members.'
How long do you think that would have to run before the record companies got the message?
It uses completely anonymous information and, based on your surfing and search activity on the Internet, it infers your interests in certain product or service.
I do the same, but there is another way to enjoy your music.
I stopped buying RIAA affiliated music about four years ago, but since then have probably spent about £3000 on independents, concerts & festivals. Thats including tickets, accomodation, tshirts, food, beer and CDs bought direct from the artist. My girlfriend was at all of these with me and probably spent a similar ammount.
I would like to thank the RIAA for pissing me off so much that I turned my back on them. I would never have blown that kind of money buying CDs, but have enjoyed myself more and discovered more new bands than I could have ever hoped for. Thanks RIAA, you're doing a great job (just not for your members).
For years now UK ISPs have been advertising that their broadband can be used to stream video,
knowing that the services to do so did not exist.
Now the BBC rolls out iPlayer and the ISPs are screaming that their crappy service cant cope, and the BBC should pay for their upgrades.
Well how about shutting up and providing the service you have been charging for for all these years, or maybe a lawsuit for false advertising would be a better wake up call.
And just for info, Tiscali is widely regarded as the worst ISP in the UK in terms of speed, reliability and customer service. No one I know will use them or any of their resellers.
Unless you have a DVD player that sucks the tray back after 2 seconds whether or not you have grabbed the disc. And then makes you wait 5 more seconds when you hit eject again...
Blizzards downloader is a really crappy bittorrent client.
It doesn't appear limit the upstream like most bittorrent clients do, which means that your downstream gets throttled.
The best way to download the WoW patches is paste the.torrent into something like BitComet or uTorrent and let that handle the download instead. I find that the download rate at least doubles that way.
Slashdot Mirror
She wasn't convicted of harassment...
And that is what I don't understand. Isn't this exactly what harrasment and anti-stalking laws are for?
I thought Bush got called a monkey due to all his screw ups. And of course this is not OK. It upsets the monkeys.
I can has cheezburger patent?
Nooooo! They iz stealin ma patentz!
They are liable as long as they are considered a content provider. As soon as the ISP's started filtering traffic they didn't like and affecting what data is on their network, they became content providers and could not ask for immunity. If they were to stop filtering/blocking/etc what goes over their tubes, they could probably ask to not be considered a content provider and then what happens on their tubes is not their fault; they would be just offering a service.
This is interesting. iiNet are only testing the filtering to prove it doesn't work. If they were to lose this case all the other Aussie ISPs would turn their backs on the proposed filtering or risk lawsuits as content providers.
That would mean the court ruling them impotent.
it's something that 99.8 per cent of users wouldn't notice
Dear EA,
By the time you start gathering stats from users its already too late. What you should be asking is how many potential users you lost due to the DRM. And you can knock it off with the users too, we are your customers. Try to remember that.
Fixed that for you...
Wow, I have mitochondria now? I just ticked 'Religion: Jedi' as a joke on that questionaire.
Oh, wait...
Or do they?
(sorry)
Funeral planners rely on repeat clients?
I thought they were kind of a one use thing...
Doesn't that set a precedent that can be used against them?
This quote in your post really stood out for me.
Why is it that the pirates have such pride in releasing a quality working product, that they can be proud of, when the developers seem to release any old crap and just expect their paying customers to put up with the bugs until a later patch. Surely it should be the 'professional' developers that should be releasing the better product?
Anyone got an address we can send donations to?
Why even bother with the lawsuit? One of those nice TV ads - 'Hello, my name is xxxx. I'm innocent but I was sued by the RIAA. I lost my job and my life was destroyed. Here is a list of RIAA members.'
How long do you think that would have to run before the record companies got the message?
Repeatedly bringing these worthless cases, only to drop them at the last minute is bordering on contempt of court.
I am really surprised that some judge has not made them pay all the court costs as well for time wasting.
I am slightly colour blind, so if there was no one else in the house to tell me what the colours were I couldn't start the game.
You missed the first step out:
...
...
1) City of London police receive thousands of pounds worth of gifts from $cientology
So, targeted pr0n ads then?
I stopped buying RIAA affiliated music about four years ago, but since then have probably
spent about £3000 on independents, concerts & festivals. Thats including tickets, accomodation, tshirts, food, beer and CDs bought direct from the artist. My girlfriend was at all of these with me and probably spent a similar ammount.
I would like to thank the RIAA for pissing me off so much that I turned my back on them. I would never have blown that kind of money buying CDs, but have enjoyed myself more and discovered more new bands than I could have ever hoped for. Thanks RIAA, you're doing a great job (just not for your members).
For years now UK ISPs have been advertising that their broadband can be used to stream video, knowing that the services to do so did not exist. Now the BBC rolls out iPlayer and the ISPs are screaming that their crappy service cant cope, and the BBC should pay for their upgrades. Well how about shutting up and providing the service you have been charging for for all these years, or maybe a lawsuit for false advertising would be a better wake up call. And just for info, Tiscali is widely regarded as the worst ISP in the UK in terms of speed, reliability and customer service. No one I know will use them or any of their resellers.
And if you want an interview, please provide transport.
How true. They are always getting beaten, whipped and slapped around.
But you never hear them complain, do you?
Unless you have a DVD player that sucks the tray back after 2 seconds whether or not you have grabbed the disc. And then makes you wait 5 more seconds when you hit eject again...
So changing the desktop wallpaper is a security issue in Linux too?
The problem is not that Vista asks for permission where admin is required, it's that it asks for permission everywhere.
Blizzards downloader is a really crappy bittorrent client.
.torrent into something like
It doesn't appear limit the upstream like most bittorrent clients do, which means that your downstream gets throttled.
The best way to download the WoW patches is paste the
BitComet or uTorrent and let that handle the download instead. I find that the
download rate at least doubles that way.