This is very interesting and informative. Thanks for the reply. I didn't cite the post to prove the truth of the matter you're asserting, strong or not, but to shift the discussion away from the chopping up carbon statement to something more relevant, like the rest of what you posted. I should have been more clear.
Since it appears that you have some expertise in the matter at hand, what are your thoughts one the loss of laying the strands vertically for different vectors of rigidity? What I mean is, it looks like the current strands are laid down on the horizontal plane and just layered on top, losing the ability for strands to run lengthwise. Given that compromise, what kind of products would this printer be good at printing, which, not so good?
The incredible strength of carbon fiber comes from the long, continuous strands that carry load down the entire part. This is why space shuttles, rockets, and Formula 1 cars are constructed from continuous strand carbon. And it’s how we print. Don’t settle for plastic with a dash of chopped carbon fill. Longer is stronger.
I was a bit flippant before I read the case. So she filed for certiorari, big deal. But I like the argument, and frankly, I agree. The statutory damages that have come to the supreme court have been against institutional respondants, not individuals. The purpose of having such large amounts was to focus deterrence towards those types of offenders, not individuals. That the amounts in this case are thousands of time larger than the actual damages, and are not just.
Additionally, the circuits are split on what to do, and there is some case law that appears to be ignored by the circuit court.
I wish them great with this case. I hope it gets picked up. I think there is a case that it should.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but in the United States many legislatures have enacted laws to protect the elderly from those trying to take advantage of their age, trusting nature, and in some cases dementia.
There is even an entire area of law known as, wait for it, elder law.
So when the GP brings this issue up, it is indeed, a valid of question of law for the jurisdiction in which AOL operates, the United States.
Stock Prices Falling.
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Please note, kdawson,
The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.
Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops. I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story. Bad editor, bad, bad.
I really appreciate you passing this along. I plan on reading this.
One note: Would the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be the best place to look for evidence of if climate change exists, on the scale we're talking about, and whether CO2 affects this process and by how much? I would expect they would assume an outcome to justify their entire existence.
The name alone implies a huge conflict of interest. Yet, I don't think in this politically charged atmosphere we are going to find anything but politically patronized studies.
If you you of any good place to read some papers of the causal links. I'd like something to read and bookmark for future uses.
This was one of the reasons I purchased my SLVR years ago.
I later discovered that I can not charge the phone, and use the audio out at the same time. (Think cross country road trips) Other than that I do like the idea of a singular connector to charge.
As devil's advocate, let's look at the iPhone, because I have one and am familiar with it. Two connectors, one for audio/mic, another, the proprietary dock connector.
I assume Apple and those with other proprietary connectors would have to retool how they output video, audio, line out, control, in/out, PWR, GND, and anything else over USB. Annoying, but possibly worth it to consumers.
However, how much competition are we losing by specifying which connectors or what interfaces should be mandatory. When the tech industry shoots past this legislation do we really want devices tied to legacy connectors?
Should the government regulate or is this an area where the speed of the consumer to adapt to the market will better provide the winners and losers of an industry?
I'd like to see what the industry has to offer before I call for regulation
I did a quick text search and didn't find power of attorney listed.
Sign a power of attorney to give a person you trust access to your sites. This would of course require documenting those sites in a location that would be found by that person, presumably a will. Then this person you ave selected has the legal authority to be YOU. So choose wisely.
With respect to passwords, you can document them if you like, but I would presume that sites like Flickr would have a method of contact where by you could present the power of attorney and gain access your account.
During Defcon III it was all we could do to find a POTS line. This is pretty spiffy, and more than I would have expected if I were to attend.
Defcon 6 had some internet thing going, as well as a large piece of butcher paper with usernames and passwords from those refusing to use secure channels.
I guess this would naturally be the standard evolution of things.
No one should eliminate the Anonymous posting method.
When it comes to slander and libel, from an anonymous post, I would wager most people reading the post would consider the source and move on. Or at least I would.
Anonymous posting is great when it comes to combating injustice via the dissemination of information. The dissemination of vital information outweighs the risk of government retaliation of the poster is known. The elimination of this form of posting would hurt those working towards keeping the government accountable.
With respect to your response to unlikelyhood of a police force to systematically marginalize those who speak out, please consider a smaller community. A small police force can easily implement an unspoken marginalization technique against a citizen it finds to be a threat. I will concede that in a small community most people to recognize the anonymous poster.
Anonymous speech is an important technique to keep the government as honest as possible.
After reading the article the two paragraphs that fully illustrated the rules were such:
While Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently, she said it has long been a tradition for students to brainstorm homework in groups, particularly in heavy programs such as law, engineering and medicine.
Each student in the course received slightly different questions to prevent cheating, she said, and she did not see evidence of students doing complete solutions for each other. Instead, she said, they would brainstorm about techniques.
The instructions of the prof as stipulated by the accused student's advocate tell us that students were to accomplish their assignments independently. The professor went to lengths to provide different questions to enforce independent work. The students have shown that while working on that assignment they were seeking methods to answer their questions. I believe this falls under an academic dishonesty standard.
Of the degrees I have and am currently perusing, the professors have stipulated quite clearly how we were to accomplish our tasks. Based on those instructions my fellow students and I displayed different levels collaboration.
Examples:
Saddleback College CS 1B: I was grading assignments for a professor and found thress students using a case statement instead of a a multi-tiered If-Then structure. It wasn't wrong but decidedly different. One of the programs was unique, the other two shared comments. Sad. Prof. gave them half off knowing the exam would separate out those that could and those that could not. Cheaters end up harming themselves more than anyone else.
UCSD CSE 141B CPU Circuit Design: Our professor requested we work alone for our home work problems and make groups for our final CPU design. My two other roommates and myself worked very hard to do our own assignments within the scope of the instructions. Thirty percent of the class did not and received punishment for that.
MBA School:We were supposed to work in groups for our problem based curriculum. So we worked together.
Law School:We are not allowed to consult with anyone on our papers, not even our husbands or wives. So guess what? No one talks about their papers.
The accused did not work independently as instructed. The professor could have highlighted many different methods for collaborative work, he did not. Sorry Dude.
Science, from what I can tell, is the search for truth through repeatable experiment. An elementary science class should be about learning how to define a question, design a repeatable experiment, log the results, and write a conclusion based on those results.
The theory of evolution is a theory, although trending towards scientific fact. This only means it is what we can describe thus far. What makes sceince great is that we could be wrong about evolution. Believing in the theory of evolution now doesn't prevent new data from supporting or destroying the theory. In which case the scientific community would slowly lumber to a new way of framing the world.
I don't see a problem with teachers presenting "evidence" that might contradict an evolution based approach to biology, I just don't think much exists in that realm. Part of science has always been questioning the rules you are given. The IDers are ironically using science to disprove evolution, albeit not in the best of ways.
I'm aware of how companies exist in the legal context, but I am also aware that individuals have to write the EULAs, and come up with the idea to install software to monitor their customers. So I was addressing the moral decisions of the decision maker, the person, not the legal entity that is the company.
With that distinction in mind I still stand by my remark. I want to meet the decision maker that felt it was OK to create a contract where by the other party allows for this tracking software to exist, and to do so by burying this little gem in the middle of the EULA. Would his reaction to my question of, "Why?" be one of indifference (probably) or defensive (I can do what I want behind my corporate veil.)
I find it difficult to respond to your comment when it doesn't cite, or name your referenced cases. I would like to know more but your facts don't give anyone the opportunity to verify your claims.
It certainly sounds like you keep up to date with rulings of this nature, so please add to the discussion with some case names and fact scenarios. I know what you have written refers to price fixing, but the article refers to "HP allegedly pa[ying] Staples $100 million to refrain from selling inexpensive third-party ink cartridges." As such it doesn't appear to fall under the business practices you are discussing above. This kind of action certainly looks to me like a restraint of trade, absent of relevant case law that would highlight the practice of contracting to exclude competition.
Bad news for HP and Staples. I mean seriously, the law has been around for 117 years!
15 U.S.C.A. Title 15. Commerce and Trade
Section 1 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 2 Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
The real question is will XO laptops help turn that around?
I think that is the true question of the day. Will laptops increase literacy rates, high school completion rates, etc?
What we are looking for is a way to consistent isolate the population from other factors to determine the efficacy of these machines, among other requirement needed to conduct such a survey. I reluctantly have my doubts about the XO program. As of now, I don't see the link between acquisition of technology and improved literacy, et. al.
I would appreciate someone discussing this further.
On Christmas day, my 3+ year old powerbook G4 met my mother-in-law's cat. Upon meeting, the cat evacuated on the keyboard. Flash forward 3 hours when I discovered that my powered laptop was dripping yellow. Powered electronics + ionic solution equal crusties everywhere.
The backlight was out, but I could still see OS X on the LCD. I get back home and take the machine apart. With my trusty bottle of alcohol and cotton swabs, I start cleaning off the crusties. I could not save the inverter card but with a CFL placed behind the stripped LCD I found that the rest of the computer still functioned normally.
While waiting for my card to arrive I had the wireless antenna drag across the main board while the laptop was powered. Flash, Pow, Smoke. Looked like a surface mount diode exploded. The diodes purpose? It was part of the battery charging circuitry. So I now had a laptop that could not charge, and requires a CFL placed behind the screen. For a week I toted this frankenstein machine to law school. Professors perplexed with a bare light bulb propped up in class.
I figured out the part I blew by matching the writing that had survived the explosion with that of other diodes on the board. Then I searched google for those markers, and found the part for sale from Digikey. I ordered 5 parts for $0.50 + $8 shipping and handling. 5 because I knew I would probably lose one, burn one, and didn't want to be left with the perverbial 1 match in the matchbox scenario. Besides the main expense was shipping, not the $0.09 for the part. I did lose the first one.
Once received, I soldered this tiny diode, received the backlight inverter board from Ebay, put it all together and finished the semester.
I still can't believe that I fixed that thing. It was awesome.
It would be like if I told you that I was going to punch you in the face, and then I punched you in the face. You should be grateful that I warned you! QFT.
I couldn't agree with you more. When I was an undergrad at UCSD, I know the student's dorm computers had to have their MAC address registered to get an IP address.
From an evidenciary stand point, that kid would be the most likely culprit. However, knowing the ease of registering the MAC address to a WiFi router, I think it is reasonable that the registered student was not the one sharing files.
Second, it is only the RIAA's opinion that what they believe is going is truly illegal. They are allowed to interpret the law, and so it the student. The court gets the final say. I am pissed that UW is getting in the middle of this fight and immediately taking the side of the RIAA.
I would much rather see UW keep their network to themselves until a subpoena comes along. It is easier for a large institution to tell the RIAA to F* themselves.
From a strategy point of view, I see this as a great opportunity for a distributed attack from the students. Could you imagine the number of separate cases that would have to be litigated if every student stood up to RIAA's bullying? It would be beautiful. It's like Computer Science exhibiting itself in the legal world.
Ok I'm done ranting. I need to go and bitch about royalties now.
Having just read this letter, the University's tone of voice and word choice already hang the students.
"The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance
they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet"
So the student is already illegally downloading, nice to know they are taking the word of the RIAA.
After careful consideration, we have decided
to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators.
Oh... So now they are alleged.
The University is unable to provide legal services to students who have
violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing.
Good. So are they going to defend the accused and innocent then?
This letter is very inconsistent with an organization staying neutral in this process. The University is spending money to comply with the RIAA's request, when there is an alleged violation.
I have been trying to figure out my field of specialty when I start practicing law, I think I may have found it.
I'm just a law student so help me out with the procedure here. Couldn't the RIAA ignore Fonovisa since it was in a different circuit? Wouldn't RIAA need to be ordered in every district, or circuit to stop this practice until the Supreme Court ruled on this issue?
Slashdot Mirror
This is very interesting and informative. Thanks for the reply. I didn't cite the post to prove the truth of the matter you're asserting, strong or not, but to shift the discussion away from the chopping up carbon statement to something more relevant, like the rest of what you posted. I should have been more clear.
Since it appears that you have some expertise in the matter at hand, what are your thoughts one the loss of laying the strands vertically for different vectors of rigidity? What I mean is, it looks like the current strands are laid down on the horizontal plane and just layered on top, losing the ability for strands to run lengthwise. Given that compromise, what kind of products would this printer be good at printing, which, not so good?
Thanks!
I think the useful quote from the site is this:
The incredible strength of carbon fiber comes from the long, continuous strands that carry load down the entire part. This is why space shuttles, rockets, and Formula 1 cars are constructed from continuous strand carbon. And it’s how we print. Don’t settle for plastic with a dash of chopped carbon fill. Longer is stronger.
I was a bit flippant before I read the case. So she filed for certiorari, big deal. But I like the argument, and frankly, I agree. The statutory damages that have come to the supreme court have been against institutional respondants, not individuals. The purpose of having such large amounts was to focus deterrence towards those types of offenders, not individuals. That the amounts in this case are thousands of time larger than the actual damages, and are not just.
Additionally, the circuits are split on what to do, and there is some case law that appears to be ignored by the circuit court.
I wish them great with this case. I hope it gets picked up. I think there is a case that it should.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but in the United States many legislatures have enacted laws to protect the elderly from those trying to take advantage of their age, trusting nature, and in some cases dementia.
There is even an entire area of law known as, wait for it, elder law.
So when the GP brings this issue up, it is indeed, a valid of question of law for the jurisdiction in which AOL operates, the United States.
Please note, kdawson,
The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.
Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops. I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story. Bad editor, bad, bad.
I really appreciate you passing this along. I plan on reading this.
One note: Would the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be the best place to look for evidence of if climate change exists, on the scale we're talking about, and whether CO2 affects this process and by how much? I would expect they would assume an outcome to justify their entire existence.
The name alone implies a huge conflict of interest. Yet, I don't think in this politically charged atmosphere we are going to find anything but politically patronized studies.
If you you of any good place to read some papers of the causal links. I'd like something to read and bookmark for future uses.
This is going to get oh so close to the charging regulation discussion from last night.
I later discovered that I can not charge the phone, and use the audio out at the same time. (Think cross country road trips) Other than that I do like the idea of a singular connector to charge.
As devil's advocate, let's look at the iPhone, because I have one and am familiar with it. Two connectors, one for audio/mic, another, the proprietary dock connector.
I assume Apple and those with other proprietary connectors would have to retool how they output video, audio, line out, control, in/out, PWR, GND, and anything else over USB. Annoying, but possibly worth it to consumers.
However, how much competition are we losing by specifying which connectors or what interfaces should be mandatory. When the tech industry shoots past this legislation do we really want devices tied to legacy connectors?
Should the government regulate or is this an area where the speed of the consumer to adapt to the market will better provide the winners and losers of an industry?
I'd like to see what the industry has to offer before I call for regulation
P.S. I hate mini-Displayport.
Sign a power of attorney to give a person you trust access to your sites. This would of course require documenting those sites in a location that would be found by that person, presumably a will. Then this person you ave selected has the legal authority to be YOU. So choose wisely.
With respect to passwords, you can document them if you like, but I would presume that sites like Flickr would have a method of contact where by you could present the power of attorney and gain access your account.
During Defcon III it was all we could do to find a POTS line. This is pretty spiffy, and more than I would have expected if I were to attend. Defcon 6 had some internet thing going, as well as a large piece of butcher paper with usernames and passwords from those refusing to use secure channels.
I guess this would naturally be the standard evolution of things.
Me too, Prof. T.C. HU at UCSD.
Book: Combinatorial Algorithms
Great book, great professor. Taught me to use computer science outside the computer world.
No one should eliminate the Anonymous posting method.
When it comes to slander and libel, from an anonymous post, I would wager most people reading the post would consider the source and move on. Or at least I would.
Anonymous posting is great when it comes to combating injustice via the dissemination of information. The dissemination of vital information outweighs the risk of government retaliation of the poster is known. The elimination of this form of posting would hurt those working towards keeping the government accountable.
With respect to your response to unlikelyhood of a police force to systematically marginalize those who speak out, please consider a smaller community. A small police force can easily implement an unspoken marginalization technique against a citizen it finds to be a threat. I will concede that in a small community most people to recognize the anonymous poster.
Anonymous speech is an important technique to keep the government as honest as possible.
While Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently, she said it has long been a tradition for students to brainstorm homework in groups, particularly in heavy programs such as law, engineering and medicine.
Each student in the course received slightly different questions to prevent cheating, she said, and she did not see evidence of students doing complete solutions for each other. Instead, she said, they would brainstorm about techniques.
The instructions of the prof as stipulated by the accused student's advocate tell us that students were to accomplish their assignments independently. The professor went to lengths to provide different questions to enforce independent work. The students have shown that while working on that assignment they were seeking methods to answer their questions. I believe this falls under an academic dishonesty standard.
Of the degrees I have and am currently perusing, the professors have stipulated quite clearly how we were to accomplish our tasks. Based on those instructions my fellow students and I displayed different levels collaboration.
Examples:
Saddleback College CS 1B: I was grading assignments for a professor and found thress students using a case statement instead of a a multi-tiered If-Then structure. It wasn't wrong but decidedly different. One of the programs was unique, the other two shared comments. Sad. Prof. gave them half off knowing the exam would separate out those that could and those that could not. Cheaters end up harming themselves more than anyone else.
UCSD CSE 141B CPU Circuit Design: Our professor requested we work alone for our home work problems and make groups for our final CPU design. My two other roommates and myself worked very hard to do our own assignments within the scope of the instructions. Thirty percent of the class did not and received punishment for that.
MBA School:We were supposed to work in groups for our problem based curriculum. So we worked together.
Law School:We are not allowed to consult with anyone on our papers, not even our husbands or wives. So guess what? No one talks about their papers.
The accused did not work independently as instructed. The professor could have highlighted many different methods for collaborative work, he did not. Sorry Dude.
The theory of evolution is a theory, although trending towards scientific fact. This only means it is what we can describe thus far. What makes sceince great is that we could be wrong about evolution. Believing in the theory of evolution now doesn't prevent new data from supporting or destroying the theory. In which case the scientific community would slowly lumber to a new way of framing the world.
I don't see a problem with teachers presenting "evidence" that might contradict an evolution based approach to biology, I just don't think much exists in that realm. Part of science has always been questioning the rules you are given. The IDers are ironically using science to disprove evolution, albeit not in the best of ways.
I'm aware of how companies exist in the legal context, but I am also aware that individuals have to write the EULAs, and come up with the idea to install software to monitor their customers. So I was addressing the moral decisions of the decision maker, the person, not the legal entity that is the company. With that distinction in mind I still stand by my remark. I want to meet the decision maker that felt it was OK to create a contract where by the other party allows for this tracking software to exist, and to do so by burying this little gem in the middle of the EULA. Would his reaction to my question of, "Why?" be one of indifference (probably) or defensive (I can do what I want behind my corporate veil.)
I would love to meet the decision maker that believes this is morally permissive act that can be "contracted" through an EULA.
I find it difficult to respond to your comment when it doesn't cite, or name your referenced cases. I would like to know more but your facts don't give anyone the opportunity to verify your claims.
It certainly sounds like you keep up to date with rulings of this nature, so please add to the discussion with some case names and fact scenarios. I know what you have written refers to price fixing, but the article refers to "HP allegedly pa[ying] Staples $100 million to refrain from selling inexpensive third-party ink cartridges." As such it doesn't appear to fall under the business practices you are discussing above. This kind of action certainly looks to me like a restraint of trade, absent of relevant case law that would highlight the practice of contracting to exclude competition.
Please, let's discuss.
Bad news for HP and Staples. I mean seriously, the law has been around for 117 years!
15 U.S.C.A.
Title 15. Commerce and Trade
Section 1
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 2
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
I think that is the true question of the day. Will laptops increase literacy rates, high school completion rates, etc?
What we are looking for is a way to consistent isolate the population from other factors to determine the efficacy of these machines, among other requirement needed to conduct such a survey. I reluctantly have my doubts about the XO program. As of now, I don't see the link between acquisition of technology and improved literacy, et. al.
I would appreciate someone discussing this further.
On Christmas day, my 3+ year old powerbook G4 met my mother-in-law's cat. Upon meeting, the cat evacuated on the keyboard. Flash forward 3 hours when I discovered that my powered laptop was dripping yellow. Powered electronics + ionic solution equal crusties everywhere. The backlight was out, but I could still see OS X on the LCD. I get back home and take the machine apart. With my trusty bottle of alcohol and cotton swabs, I start cleaning off the crusties. I could not save the inverter card but with a CFL placed behind the stripped LCD I found that the rest of the computer still functioned normally. While waiting for my card to arrive I had the wireless antenna drag across the main board while the laptop was powered. Flash, Pow, Smoke. Looked like a surface mount diode exploded. The diodes purpose? It was part of the battery charging circuitry. So I now had a laptop that could not charge, and requires a CFL placed behind the screen. For a week I toted this frankenstein machine to law school. Professors perplexed with a bare light bulb propped up in class. I figured out the part I blew by matching the writing that had survived the explosion with that of other diodes on the board. Then I searched google for those markers, and found the part for sale from Digikey. I ordered 5 parts for $0.50 + $8 shipping and handling. 5 because I knew I would probably lose one, burn one, and didn't want to be left with the perverbial 1 match in the matchbox scenario. Besides the main expense was shipping, not the $0.09 for the part. I did lose the first one. Once received, I soldered this tiny diode, received the backlight inverter board from Ebay, put it all together and finished the semester. I still can't believe that I fixed that thing. It was awesome.
It would be like if I told you that I was going to punch you in the face, and then I punched you in the face. You should be grateful that I warned you!
QFT.
I couldn't agree with you more. When I was an undergrad at UCSD, I know the student's dorm computers had to have their MAC address registered to get an IP address.
From an evidenciary stand point, that kid would be the most likely culprit. However, knowing the ease of registering the MAC address to a WiFi router, I think it is reasonable that the registered student was not the one sharing files.
Second, it is only the RIAA's opinion that what they believe is going is truly illegal. They are allowed to interpret the law, and so it the student. The court gets the final say. I am pissed that UW is getting in the middle of this fight and immediately taking the side of the RIAA.
I would much rather see UW keep their network to themselves until a subpoena comes along. It is easier for a large institution to tell the RIAA to F* themselves.
From a strategy point of view, I see this as a great opportunity for a distributed attack from the students. Could you imagine the number of separate cases that would have to be litigated if every student stood up to RIAA's bullying? It would be beautiful. It's like Computer Science exhibiting itself in the legal world.
Ok I'm done ranting. I need to go and bitch about royalties now.
Having just read this letter, the University's tone of voice and word choice already hang the students.
"The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet"
So the student is already illegally downloading, nice to know they are taking the word of the RIAA.
After careful consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators.
Oh... So now they are alleged.
The University is unable to provide legal services to students who have violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing.
Good. So are they going to defend the accused and innocent then?
This letter is very inconsistent with an organization staying neutral in this process. The University is spending money to comply with the RIAA's request, when there is an alleged violation.
I have been trying to figure out my field of specialty when I start practicing law, I think I may have found it.
NewYorkCountyLawyer
I'm just a law student so help me out with the procedure here. Couldn't the RIAA ignore Fonovisa since it was in a different circuit? Wouldn't RIAA need to be ordered in every district, or circuit to stop this practice until the Supreme Court ruled on this issue?
22% "Better" movie. (94%-77%)/77% = 22.0779221%
UCB hates being called anything but Cal, Berkeley, or University of California. Well guess what, nobody cares!
Alum: CS @ UCSD.