First web-browsing, then... what? I can just see it "No, no, it wasn't me breaking into that website... It was my web-browsing parrot going to the wrong type of "cracker" site"
SQWAKK... Polly wanna cracker... Polly wanna be l33t
This seems very similar to CPU overclocking. Change one "regulator" setting (in fact, in the "BIOS"), and presto - overclocked mice!
But do they need little cooling fans in their cages? (perhaps because their surface heat dissipation system is no longer enough to handle their heat generation?).
Has anyone run CPU (i.e. brain) diagnostics on them?
I believe you've proved my point, that the decision is highly technology dependent.
As I mentioned in another quote, the court quite specifically states that they "express... confidence" at technology "making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable"
They are not making a ruling that holds for all time. Rather, they are basing the current free-speech decision on a particular technological situation. As we all know, being netheads, technology changes rapidly.
This is important. They did not make an eternal ruling. In fact, they actually hope their ruling will soon become moot! "We also express our confidence and firm conviction that developing technology will soon render the "community standards" challenge moot"
This decison is a big win, but it's more tentative a win than might be apparent at casual understanding.
They are very clear that they do not like the decision they rendered, and hope they can decide differently someday.
They talk about technology as making congressional regulationconstitutionally practicable
In so affirming, we approvingly reiterate the sentiments aptly noted by the District Court: "sometimes we must make decisions that we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result." Reno III, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 498.25 We also express our confidence and firm conviction that developing technology will soon render the "community standards" challenge moot,
thereby making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable. Indeed, in the context of dealing with technology to prevent the "bleeding" of cable transmissions, the Supreme Court in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 2000 WL 646196 at *4 (U.S. May 22, 2000) recognized, as do we, that "technology may one day provide another solution."
Nope. They are very clear, elsewhere they talk about "making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable".
C'mon Lizard, you know the answer. There are plenty of people who believe that even if these censorship laws aren't Constitutional, they should be, and it's just the gol-durn Liberal judiciary which doesn't have the Constitution right.
In affirming the District Court, we are forced to recognize that, at present, due to technological limitations, there may be no other means by which harmful material on the Web may be constitutionally restricted, although, in light of rapidly developing technological advances, what may now be impossible to regulate constitutionally may, in the not- too-distant future,
become feasible.
Because material posted on the Web is accessible by all Internet users worldwide, and because current technology does not permit a Web publisher to restrict access to its site based on the geographic locale of each particular Internet user, COPA essentially requires that every Web publisher subject to the statute abide by the most restrictive and conservative state's community standards in order to avoid criminal liability. Thus, because the standard by which COPA gauges whether material is "harmful to minors" is based on identifying"contemporary community standards" the inability of Web publishers to restrict access to their Web sites based on the geographic locale of the site visitor, in and of itself, imposes an impermissible burden on constitutionally protected First Amendment speech.
i.e., no geographical location means no community standards.
Most people are familiar with sales taxes. However, most people are not familiar with the concept of a "use tax", indeed use taxes are frequently confused with sales taxes.
The use tax is a tax imposed by states to collect taxes on sales which do not take place in their state. The tax is meant to insure that all purchases are taxed, whether purchased locally or from out of state sellers.
Contrary to some recent press reports, this is NOT a new tax.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an
intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. WIPO is responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among States, and for the administration of various multilateral treaties dealing with the legal and administrative aspects of intellectual property.
I think the answer to the question posed is "Yes". Note the agency is not the UN, but WIPO. The difference is very important. The UN is an somewhat accountable government-like body. However, WIPO is a treaty organization, and is not accountable in the same sense
There is a net-libertarian idea that since Internet makes things international, that means governments will disappear. Nonesense. It means we'll get some sort of international government. And it may not be a nice one. For the proof of this, just follow the doings of ICANN, WIPO, and their ilk.
Mandrake is a distribution of Linux, sort of like RedHat, but with certain improvements. One of the best is that they compile EVERYTHING for Pentium or better processors. They have also put a lot of thought into hardware detection and a simple installation process.
Nature of the Case. The Mormon church's intellectual property arm seeks to stop critics of the church from publishing online material from the Church Handbook of Instructions, and to stop these critics from providing information about other web sites which publish the Handbook.
... Issues. The Complaint alleges two counts: copyright infringement, and removal of copyright management information. Copyright infringement is a very common claim. However, the copyright management information claim is based on a new provision which was enacted into law in October 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This provision is codified at 17 U.S.C. 1202. It makes removing, altering, or providing false, copyright notices a separate offense.
The Defendants have raised the issue of whether the Handbook is a copyrighted work in their Motion to Dismiss. Defendants have not yet raised the affirmative defense of fair use, but may do so, when they file their answer to the complaint.
However, the most interesting issue in this case is whether, and under what circumstances, contributory infringement can be invoked to prevent a web site from linking to, or provide information about, another web site which is engaged in copyright infringement.
Assume MegaCorp thinks this facility is causing them $x million dollars in copyright violation. Assume MegaCorp tries the legal system, and is told "We are an island unto ourselves".
Question: At what point does it become economic feasible to bribe an employee of HavenCo in order to set off a bomb inside the server facilities?
I suspect the cross-over point is low enough so the world won't be changing too much.
I'm not a lawyer, but the topic of dilution is complex. In the end, a case like this is going to turn on the ability to fight. Look at: Trademark Dilution Summary:
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 expanded the scope of rights granted to famous and distinctive trademarks under the Lanham Act. Dilution differs from normal trademark infringement in that there is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion to protect a mark. Instead, all that is required is that use of a "famous" mark by a third party causes the dilution of the "distinctive quality" of the mark. Further clarification of the federal dilution cause of action is found in the following subsections:
BUT
However, the Act makes clear that certain actions will not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use
(such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act.
(Readers often don't realize that Slashdot has something like a half-dozen editors and that any of us can reject a submission...so randomness does play a large factor.)
I was skeptical too, but for different reasons. I was worried the forum would get bogged down in in-your-face anti-MPAA ranting and never actually do anything.
Wendy Seltzer deserves a lot of credit for the coordination and sorting wheat from chaff.
Now, as to depth and quality of legal arguments which the non-lawyer participants came up with on their own, well, you've been surprised before:-). As a class, programmers are intelligent and logical and very hard-working. IF someone can break them free of their tendency to repeat "This is how it SHOULD be" (instead of dealing with how it IS), then all the qualities that make one good for at coding a program can be harnessed in the service of coding a brief.
Slashdot Mirror
The life of a journalist is a hard one. Hey, there has to be some downside to the power to cloud men's minds. :-)
Seriously, as long as you've been honest and honorable (which you have), that should be a sufficient moral defense.
- The Boston Lunatic
I'd cut them some slack here. I think it's laudable to try to verify such an inflammatory story rather than rushing to get it posted.
- The Boston Lunatic
The way I've expressed this thought is:
"Perl is APL on LSD"
SQWAKK ... Polly wanna cracker ... Polly wanna be l33t
But do they need little cooling fans in their cages? (perhaps because their surface heat dissipation system is no longer enough to handle their heat generation?).
Has anyone run CPU (i.e. brain) diagnostics on them?
As I mentioned in another quote, the court quite specifically states that they "express ... confidence" at technology "making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable"
They are not making a ruling that holds for all time. Rather, they are basing the current free-speech decision on a particular technological situation. As we all know, being netheads, technology changes rapidly.
This is important. They did not make an eternal ruling. In fact, they actually hope their ruling will soon become moot! "We also express our confidence and firm conviction that developing technology will soon render the "community standards" challenge moot"
This decison is a big win, but it's more tentative a win than might be apparent at casual understanding.
The Court was just borrowing the quote and sentiment from the Playboy case, that was evident.
They talk about technology as making congressional regulation constitutionally practicable
(emphasis added)Nope. They are very clear, elsewhere they talk about "making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable".
And those people vote.
- The Lunatic From Boston
Software Industry Issues: Use Tax Information Page
And even if not perjury, whatever you say can, literally, be held against you in a court of law ...
- The Lunatic From Boston
What is WIPO
(emphasis added)There is a net-libertarian idea that since Internet makes things international, that means governments will disappear. Nonesense. It means we'll get some sort of international government. And it may not be a nice one. For the proof of this, just follow the doings of ICANN, WIPO, and their ilk.
I recommend it.
Question: At what point does it become economic feasible to bribe an employee of HavenCo in order to set off a bomb inside the server facilities?
I suspect the cross-over point is low enough so the world won't be changing too much.
A: See if you have a zillion dollars for lawyers fees, or journalists who can drum up publicity for you. Otherwise, you're out of luck.
Perhaps Slashdot needs a story-submission FAQ?
But does using Microsoft Outlook count as intent? :-)
Wendy Seltzer deserves a lot of credit for the coordination and sorting wheat from chaff.
Now, as to depth and quality of legal arguments which the non-lawyer participants came up with on their own, well, you've been surprised before :-). As a class, programmers are intelligent and logical and very hard-working. IF someone can break them free of their tendency to repeat "This is how it SHOULD be" (instead of dealing with how it IS), then all the qualities that make one good for at coding a program can be harnessed in the service of coding a brief.