Or the other way round. You (the sender) should complain that email you (not a spammer) are sending are being blocked because of the actions of your ISP. If the ISP does not take steps to get themselves removed from MAPS, ORBS etc then you can always show you dis-appreciation by taking your business (and subscription charges) elsewhere.
For online you do not want anonymous transactions, as this would lead to people voting twice, voting "for" someone else etc. Having the contents of each vote anonymous is one thing, but the anonymity of the voter is another. For online voting you would need some strong method of identifying and authenticating the voter. So as to ensure that a) the person is eligible to vote and b) that no person votes more than once.
Or complain to the web admins concerned. Cisco have already released a fix for (at least some of) their products to fix this. ECN has the potential to be a very useful 'tool' in making best use of 'net resources but it cannot do this while some (high profile) sites reject connections which signal that they can handle ECN.
So should the law be changed to prohibit the trading of copyrights? So instead of selling the copyright to a publisher or distributer, the artist would "sell" them a licence to copy/distribute while still retaining the copyright.
So your university will not be doing any OS research. Nor probably high energy physics, cosmology, medical scanning etc research. Or does this "exclusivity" only apply to administrative systems?
Is it the "Copyright" or the "Performance Right" owner whose permission is required to watch a video, listen to a CD or cassette which you have purchased? The copyright owner, obviously, has the rights to control copying, but what rights (and from where do these come) does a "copyright" owner have to stipulate other conditions of usage of the copy which you have purchased?
(a)3(A) defines an access control as one which requires the copyright owner's permission to access (as opposed to copy) the work. For most works, could it not be argued that the copyright owner's permission is not required to access the work, therefore measures to circumvent such access are not covered by the provisions of the DMCA?
Taking the example of CDs and DVDs, you have a licence from the recording company which restricts your rights to play (access) the work which include a prohibition on public performance etc. The question is, when granting this licence are the recording companies doing so as the "copyright owner" in in some other capacity. That they may happen to be the copyright owner should be immaterial unless the action if taken "as the copyright owner".
What is the logic behind this (or behind a law which may say otherwise)? By the very definition, once a secret becomes common knowledge then it is no longer a secret.
For the test to mean anything, the "Golden Ears" must operate "blind". They must not be told which sample is the original watermarked one and which is the one with the watermark removed. If they know which sample is which, then the comparisons are invalid.
Re:Supreme Court Precedent
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
Why should the identity of the writer have any bearing on whether or not the writing is libelous or defamatory?
I think that it would be acceptable for minion #1 to non-obtrusively signal that the task is complete and is awaiting your attention. Like raising your hand in school (I don't know about other countries or even current practice, but this was the correct behaviour when I was at school) to solicit the teacher's attention.
Maybe I should have asked a slightly different question. What is the copyright material (whether protected or not) to which you gain access my using a hardware device in a manner or for a purpose which the manufacturer did not forsee?
In what way does using a barcode scanner (hardware) in ways which the manufacturer did not anticipate "circumcent a technical measure which protects access to copyright material"?
To rearrange the words in a historic quotation, if a body (either individual or corporate) wants the government to represent their interests then they should not avoid paying taxes.
I can imagine certain parts of the recording industry not liking the idea of monitoring actual listening patterns. If this was to happen it would totally change the way that charts work, no longer would they depend solely on the sales of recorded media in a sample of outlets, but would accurately reflect what people are actually listening to. I suspect that there may be some rather discepencies between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. What about the situation where the web page is just a (and possibly not the only) 'front-end' interface to a real-time backend system?
Or the other way round. You (the sender) should complain that email you (not a spammer) are sending are being blocked because of the actions of your ISP. If the ISP does not take steps to get themselves removed from MAPS, ORBS etc then you can always show you dis-appreciation by taking your business (and subscription charges) elsewhere.
For online you do not want anonymous transactions, as this would lead to people voting twice, voting "for" someone else etc. Having the contents of each vote anonymous is one thing, but the anonymity of the voter is another. For online voting you would need some strong method of identifying and authenticating the voter. So as to ensure that a) the person is eligible to vote and b) that no person votes more than once.
But not as late as the "original" Windows, which was 3 or 4 years late.
Or complain to the web admins concerned. Cisco have already released a fix for (at least some of) their products to fix this. ECN has the potential to be a very useful 'tool' in making best use of 'net resources but it cannot do this while some (high profile) sites reject connections which signal that they can handle ECN.
Or when they get elected pass leglislation to make it illegal to "censor" or filter "official" political campaign material/sites.
If they will not sell you a new copy, should the publisher not have an obligation to replace defective media irrespective of how old it is?
So should the law be changed to prohibit the trading of copyrights? So instead of selling the copyright to a publisher or distributer, the artist would "sell" them a licence to copy/distribute while still retaining the copyright.
Maybe the people using the region restrictions will define an "anonymous proxy" region and deny access to it.
If you are using a stand-alone system with dial-up (modem or ISDN) access then what is the address of your NIC?
The only time I have fsck on startup is following a power failure/glitch. The servers are on a UPS but the desktop system are not.
So your university will not be doing any OS research. Nor probably high energy physics, cosmology, medical scanning etc research. Or does this "exclusivity" only apply to administrative systems?
Is it the "Copyright" or the "Performance Right" owner whose permission is required to watch a video, listen to a CD or cassette which you have purchased? The copyright owner, obviously, has the rights to control copying, but what rights (and from where do these come) does a "copyright" owner have to stipulate other conditions of usage of the copy which you have purchased?
Surely only if they are acting as the copyright owner when making the prohibition.
Ooops. Transcription error. That should be (a)3(B)
(a)3(A) defines an access control as one which requires the copyright owner's permission to access (as opposed to copy) the work. For most works, could it not be argued that the copyright owner's permission is not required to access the work, therefore measures to circumvent such access are not covered by the provisions of the DMCA?
Taking the example of CDs and DVDs, you have a licence from the recording company which restricts your rights to play (access) the work which include a prohibition on public performance etc. The question is, when granting this licence are the recording companies doing so as the "copyright owner" in in some other capacity. That they may happen to be the copyright owner should be immaterial unless the action if taken "as the copyright owner".
What is the logic behind this (or behind a law which may say otherwise)? By the very definition, once a secret becomes common knowledge then it is no longer a secret.
If a treaty goes against the constitution of any country then that country's representatives should have no right to sign the treaty.
For the test to mean anything, the "Golden Ears" must operate "blind". They must not be told which sample is the original watermarked one and which is the one with the watermark removed. If they know which sample is which, then the comparisons are invalid.
Why should the identity of the writer have any bearing on whether or not the writing is libelous or defamatory?
I think that it would be acceptable for minion #1 to non-obtrusively signal that the task is complete and is awaiting your attention. Like raising your hand in school (I don't know about other countries or even current practice, but this was the correct behaviour when I was at school) to solicit the teacher's attention.
Maybe I should have asked a slightly different question. What is the copyright material (whether protected or not) to which you gain access my using a hardware device in a manner or for a purpose which the manufacturer did not forsee?
In what way does using a barcode scanner (hardware) in ways which the manufacturer did not anticipate "circumcent a technical measure which protects access to copyright material"?
To rearrange the words in a historic quotation, if a body (either individual or corporate) wants the government to represent their interests then they should not avoid paying taxes.
I can imagine certain parts of the recording industry not liking the idea of monitoring actual listening patterns. If this was to happen it would totally change the way that charts work, no longer would they depend solely on the sales of recorded media in a sample of outlets, but would accurately reflect what people are actually listening to. I suspect that there may be some rather discepencies between the two.