I've seen a message about installing the Interactual Player from several DVDs. I generally cancel the message and play the DVD with my own DVD decoder software. The message usually claims that you need to install the software to playback the movie, but as far as I've seen, this is not true. This makes sense to me because the movie plays fine in his DVD player. I'd be willing to bet that if he used any other program than Windows Media Player he would be able to play the DVD with no issues.
If these torrent sites are found to be guilty, it would have incredible reprecusions for the internet. What would make Google any different than these torrent sites? Would it simply be a judgement call as to what percentage of the material linked is infringing on copyrights? Google would be even worse because they actually display excerpts of the material on their site, whereas the torrent sites merely link to material based on the title of the work.
Frankly, it looks like this is just another case of going after the more convenient, but incorrect target. The person hosting the file is the one to blame, but thats small change compared to what would be accomplished by a victory over a torrent hosting site. Chances are what will come of this is stricter and more active enforcement of copyrights by torrent hosting sites. It seems like a reasonable solution would be to just force these sites to expend a reasonable effort to not link to torrents that infringe copyrights. Its not that tough to do this and it would allow the very useful bit torrent system to continue.
The relevant section would appear to be section 506 (pages 139 and 140) covering what acts are considered criminal under the legislation. I can't see anything there about links to links to trackers to seeds to peers with copyrighted material. Hence I would conclude that the grandparent was justified in his assertion. Any counterarguments?
First, I'd like to note that I wasn't trying to indicate that the conclusion was wrong, just that it was basically an opinion because it wasn't supported by anything.
However, I think that it is important to note that laws are generally not intended to enumerate every type of way that a law can be broken. In the case of the section of the copyright code that you pointed to, the very first sentence states: Any person who infringes a copyright willfully... Basically there are two elements here: infringing a copyright and doing so willfully. We could argue as to whether they willfully infringe copyrights because they include disclaimers and ask for copyright holders to notify them, but neither the grandparent, nor you, really debated that. So, for purposes of this discussion lets assume that if they do infringe a copyright that they are doing so willfully. So, we are left with whether they do in fact infringe a copyright.
Infringement of copyrights is actually not defined in 506 (506 merely discusses what brings infringement of copyrights to a criminal level. Infringement of copyrights is defined by section 501. 501 states: Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122... is an infringer of the copyright... Section 106 lists the Exclusive right in copyrighted works. I don't think that anyone would argue that a movie is a copyrighted work, but just in case, I'm going to make clear that I'm assuming a movie is a copyrighted work. 106 states that the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following... IMHO the torrent listing sites have not violated any of the exclusive rights set forth (see 106 for the list). However, there may be some argument that they are distributing the copyrighted material. Just because the media is not on their property, doesn't mean that they can't distribute it. Think about a person who charges you 10$ to show you a box in an alley that has copied cds in it. He is distributing those cds even if he never touches them. Torrent sites charge you that 10$ via the advertisements on the site. At this point, we would have to look at how courts have viewed the term distribute in the past. This is something that I don't have the time for right now.
So, of course this has been a lengthy explanation, but I think that it shows that this isn't quite the black and white issue that the earlier post indicated. You can't simply dismiss the lawsuits because you think that this activity should be legal. And, to top it, if nothing else, the Torrent sites are aiding and abetting the violation of copyright law, which is probably illegal in itself.
You have a conclusion: The sites were not violating copyright law Followed by some facts: They were listing links that went to other links that connected to a tracker that connects seeds and peers to each other in order for them to share the love.
But you fail to provide any justification for your conclusion based on your facts. What element of copyright law are they missing? Maybe you should read: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf before forming your conclusion.
If you disagree that copyright violations should be criminal matters, you should be complaining about Congress, not companies or police forces. If the law states that copyright violation is a criminal matter, then it is up to police forces and courts to enforce that matter. The fact is that copyright violation is currently a criminal matter under certain circumstances and it should be therefore be enforced. Enforcement should only end if Congress changes the law or the courts deem the law to be an infringment of constitutional rights.
Even more curious to me is the idea that I'd go to the grocery store when I'm in a hurry to get a cup of coffee and race off to wherever.
I'm thinking that the idea is that you would have purchased the product ahead of time. You could keep a stash in your car or your desk and whenever you felt like it you could grab one and drink one. This is pretty much how most quick snacks work too. If we had to go to the grocery store everytime you wanted a snack, we probably would have fewer people overweight...
True, the probablity of a professional knocking over the array is much lower, but the damage caused by a professional knocking over an array is much greater. If I knock over my personal array its not a big deal. In fact, it may be a nonissue, I just have to put it back together. If a webserver admin somehow knocks over his array...boom, the webpage is down, it could be very serious. I agree though, the risk is much lower. It just seems that there are better solutions for swappable drives that are as effective but more "sturdy" for lack of a better term. Is anyone swapping out drives so much that taking 10 seconds to remove a drive is that much better than 5 seconds?
Is an easily removable drive really that great of an idea? What if I trip on the power cord and knock the whole stack over? It seems to me that there is some benefit derived from drives that are securely in place.
I think that the real invention here is not the drive array itself, but the connector that is used. This would be a great way to dock things like handheld devices, cell phones, and cameras. It would also be great for portable media. It seems like it could be called "electrical connections for dummies." I can't understand how a person could have trouble with a USB plug, but people still do. I think anyone could handle putting the camera down on the big blue pad!
If company A offers me x dollars a year and company B offers me x dollars a year plus y shares of stock options...I know which I'm choosing.
Stock options are not some evil thing that means a company is going to spiral downwards. Treat stock options like stock options and not cash. Do some work to determine the likelihood that the stock options will be worth the money. Discount the stock options when comparing cash with options, but I wouldn't discount them to zero. Not all investments have a 100% chance of success. Heck, even cash is a gamble, albeit a rather small one. But look at the devaluing of the USD$ as an indication of how even cash can be a gamble. What if you had been given the option of USD$ vs. Euros five or ten years ago. If you chose USD$ you'd be unhappy right now!
For those employees receiving stock options, I'll break this matter down to simple terms for you:
If you liked receiving stock options: This is bad for you.
If you didn't like receiving stock options: This might be good for you.
This basically makes the disbursement of stock options to employees cost as much as giving cash. If you liked receiving stock options, you will be probably be disappointed because companies do not have the incentive to give them that previously existed. However, I only said that this might be good for you if you didn't like receiving stock options. Whether you like them or not, stock options do have the potential of being very profitable for you. If the expense to the company is very low, they will not have too much trouble handing them out as bonuses and such. Now, with an expense tied to giving stock options and with as tight as companies are currently, these stock options may begin to try up only to be replaced by...nothing. IANAEA (economic analyst) but as far as I can tell, we are still in employer's market or possibly close to a balance, thus, large bonuses to attract employees are not currently in force.
Sometimes when I search for a company I am interested in those people making the same product cheaper. It all depends on what the product is. Then, once you find the cheaper product you can search for reviews. I see a benefit in getting information about alternate companies when you search for a specific company. But the company should come first, which incidently is exactly what happens for Geico.
The first link (pointing to the decision) claims that the Federal judge issued a directed verdict for the defendant, but the second link states that the same judge denied a directed verdict for the defendant on 12.13.04... what the deuce?
UPDATE: I reread both articles, the TMC article incorrectly states that the judge had denied to give a directed verdict for the plaintiff. This is not true, the judge had denied to give a summary judgement before the case went to trial. Then, after hearing one or both sides the judge issued a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The end result is the same, but the means are quite a bit different for the person paying the attorney fees...
I think he might have been referring to the comments about Jim Wales being a self-admitted pornographer etc...
I did like how all of the "articles" linked to either wikipediasucks.com templeofhayah.com or 247news.net. The first two sites are Sollog sites and I'm guessing the last is either Sollog site or rather disreputable site.
You are suggesting that ISPs as a rule block all mail from China...doesn't that seem to go against the connectiveness that the internet provides? One of the great things about the internet is that I can send an email to a client in China as easily and for the same price as sending an email to a client in the US. I don't think blocking all mail from China is a viable solution at the ISP level. Now, at the user level, you might have a point. I wouldn't mind having my personal email block all mail from China.
claiming the new Google Scholar infringes on its own product
This part of the article, which is quoted in the summary, doesn't really make any sense. You can't infringe on a product. In fact, you can't really infringe on a patent or trademark either, you infringe on the rights granted by those documents. But, it is definitely not correct to claim that something infringes on a product. I can't access the complaint because the server is "down for upgrades" but from other posts it sounds as though there may be a trademark issue because Google's name is so close. However, this may just require Google to change the name of a product that is in the Beta phase...no big deal.
If, however, the ACS has a patent on a search engine avaiable on the internet wherein a list of words matching a user's partially typed words are provided to facilitate a user entering a query in the search engine, there may be an issue.
I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that a product doesn't infringe on another product in any way. If you go out and make product A and don't get a patent, I have an almost unlimitted right to start making and selling product A as well.
It seems like sports are going to become dominated by nerds... so what happens to the atheletes? Are they now the ones that get left out? Interesting role-reversal...
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a message about installing the Interactual Player from several DVDs. I generally cancel the message and play the DVD with my own DVD decoder software. The message usually claims that you need to install the software to playback the movie, but as far as I've seen, this is not true. This makes sense to me because the movie plays fine in his DVD player. I'd be willing to bet that if he used any other program than Windows Media Player he would be able to play the DVD with no issues.
If these torrent sites are found to be guilty, it would have incredible reprecusions for the internet. What would make Google any different than these torrent sites? Would it simply be a judgement call as to what percentage of the material linked is infringing on copyrights? Google would be even worse because they actually display excerpts of the material on their site, whereas the torrent sites merely link to material based on the title of the work.
Frankly, it looks like this is just another case of going after the more convenient, but incorrect target. The person hosting the file is the one to blame, but thats small change compared to what would be accomplished by a victory over a torrent hosting site. Chances are what will come of this is stricter and more active enforcement of copyrights by torrent hosting sites. It seems like a reasonable solution would be to just force these sites to expend a reasonable effort to not link to torrents that infringe copyrights. Its not that tough to do this and it would allow the very useful bit torrent system to continue.
First, I'd like to note that I wasn't trying to indicate that the conclusion was wrong, just that it was basically an opinion because it wasn't supported by anything.
However, I think that it is important to note that laws are generally not intended to enumerate every type of way that a law can be broken. In the case of the section of the copyright code that you pointed to, the very first sentence states: Any person who infringes a copyright willfully... Basically there are two elements here: infringing a copyright and doing so willfully. We could argue as to whether they willfully infringe copyrights because they include disclaimers and ask for copyright holders to notify them, but neither the grandparent, nor you, really debated that. So, for purposes of this discussion lets assume that if they do infringe a copyright that they are doing so willfully. So, we are left with whether they do in fact infringe a copyright.
Infringement of copyrights is actually not defined in 506 (506 merely discusses what brings infringement of copyrights to a criminal level. Infringement of copyrights is defined by section 501. 501 states: Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 ... is an infringer of the copyright... Section 106 lists the Exclusive right in copyrighted works. I don't think that anyone would argue that a movie is a copyrighted work, but just in case, I'm going to make clear that I'm assuming a movie is a copyrighted work. 106 states that the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following... IMHO the torrent listing sites have not violated any of the exclusive rights set forth (see 106 for the list). However, there may be some argument that they are distributing the copyrighted material. Just because the media is not on their property, doesn't mean that they can't distribute it. Think about a person who charges you 10$ to show you a box in an alley that has copied cds in it. He is distributing those cds even if he never touches them. Torrent sites charge you that 10$ via the advertisements on the site. At this point, we would have to look at how courts have viewed the term distribute in the past. This is something that I don't have the time for right now.
So, of course this has been a lengthy explanation, but I think that it shows that this isn't quite the black and white issue that the earlier post indicated. You can't simply dismiss the lawsuits because you think that this activity should be legal. And, to top it, if nothing else, the Torrent sites are aiding and abetting the violation of copyright law, which is probably illegal in itself.
Seems to clue in to the fact that blamanj doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!
Followed by some facts: They were listing links that went to other links that connected to a tracker that connects seeds and peers to each other in order for them to share the love.
But you fail to provide any justification for your conclusion based on your facts. What element of copyright law are they missing? Maybe you should read: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf before forming your conclusion.
To learn what makes copyright violation a criminal offense, read this: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/CFAleghis t.htm
I'm thinking that the idea is that you would have purchased the product ahead of time. You could keep a stash in your car or your desk and whenever you felt like it you could grab one and drink one. This is pretty much how most quick snacks work too. If we had to go to the grocery store everytime you wanted a snack, we probably would have fewer people overweight...
I followed your steps, but it didn't work...I got 12
True, the probablity of a professional knocking over the array is much lower, but the damage caused by a professional knocking over an array is much greater. If I knock over my personal array its not a big deal. In fact, it may be a nonissue, I just have to put it back together. If a webserver admin somehow knocks over his array...boom, the webpage is down, it could be very serious. I agree though, the risk is much lower. It just seems that there are better solutions for swappable drives that are as effective but more "sturdy" for lack of a better term. Is anyone swapping out drives so much that taking 10 seconds to remove a drive is that much better than 5 seconds?
I think that the real invention here is not the drive array itself, but the connector that is used. This would be a great way to dock things like handheld devices, cell phones, and cameras. It would also be great for portable media. It seems like it could be called "electrical connections for dummies." I can't understand how a person could have trouble with a USB plug, but people still do. I think anyone could handle putting the camera down on the big blue pad!
Stock options are not some evil thing that means a company is going to spiral downwards. Treat stock options like stock options and not cash. Do some work to determine the likelihood that the stock options will be worth the money. Discount the stock options when comparing cash with options, but I wouldn't discount them to zero. Not all investments have a 100% chance of success. Heck, even cash is a gamble, albeit a rather small one. But look at the devaluing of the USD$ as an indication of how even cash can be a gamble. What if you had been given the option of USD$ vs. Euros five or ten years ago. If you chose USD$ you'd be unhappy right now!
If you liked receiving stock options: This is bad for you.
If you didn't like receiving stock options: This might be good for you.
This basically makes the disbursement of stock options to employees cost as much as giving cash. If you liked receiving stock options, you will be probably be disappointed because companies do not have the incentive to give them that previously existed. However, I only said that this might be good for you if you didn't like receiving stock options. Whether you like them or not, stock options do have the potential of being very profitable for you. If the expense to the company is very low, they will not have too much trouble handing them out as bonuses and such. Now, with an expense tied to giving stock options and with as tight as companies are currently, these stock options may begin to try up only to be replaced by...nothing. IANAEA (economic analyst) but as far as I can tell, we are still in employer's market or possibly close to a balance, thus, large bonuses to attract employees are not currently in force.
Strange names indeed, I've never heard of KCRVKXHL EUJDXZ and a google search for him revealed nothing...
With Sprint's merger with Nextel, are there really that many standards in the US? I think that two would be the common denominator at this point.
Sometimes when I search for a company I am interested in those people making the same product cheaper. It all depends on what the product is. Then, once you find the cheaper product you can search for reviews. I see a benefit in getting information about alternate companies when you search for a specific company. But the company should come first, which incidently is exactly what happens for Geico.
UPDATE: I reread both articles, the TMC article incorrectly states that the judge had denied to give a directed verdict for the plaintiff. This is not true, the judge had denied to give a summary judgement before the case went to trial. Then, after hearing one or both sides the judge issued a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The end result is the same, but the means are quite a bit different for the person paying the attorney fees...
Can we use inefficient circuits that build up a lot of heat to defrost the windshield (I know there is already tech to do this...its a joke!)
I did like how all of the "articles" linked to either wikipediasucks.com templeofhayah.com or 247news.net. The first two sites are Sollog sites and I'm guessing the last is either Sollog site or rather disreputable site.
You can send my ten bucks by check, cash, or money order...the article has been locked due to vandalism.
LOL, agreed, making it a feature seems to be a really good idea!
You are suggesting that ISPs as a rule block all mail from China...doesn't that seem to go against the connectiveness that the internet provides? One of the great things about the internet is that I can send an email to a client in China as easily and for the same price as sending an email to a client in the US. I don't think blocking all mail from China is a viable solution at the ISP level. Now, at the user level, you might have a point. I wouldn't mind having my personal email block all mail from China.
This part of the article, which is quoted in the summary, doesn't really make any sense. You can't infringe on a product. In fact, you can't really infringe on a patent or trademark either, you infringe on the rights granted by those documents. But, it is definitely not correct to claim that something infringes on a product. I can't access the complaint because the server is "down for upgrades" but from other posts it sounds as though there may be a trademark issue because Google's name is so close. However, this may just require Google to change the name of a product that is in the Beta phase...no big deal.
If, however, the ACS has a patent on a search engine avaiable on the internet wherein a list of words matching a user's partially typed words are provided to facilitate a user entering a query in the search engine, there may be an issue.
I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that a product doesn't infringe on another product in any way. If you go out and make product A and don't get a patent, I have an almost unlimitted right to start making and selling product A as well.
Would it be easier to simply hide the camera in the car when the kids don't know about it?
It seems like sports are going to become dominated by nerds ... so what happens to the atheletes? Are they now the ones that get left out? Interesting role-reversal...
I was just at the dealership drooling over a new Ford - Bohemian Rye!