Did they concede this during oral argument two weeks ago, or is this just them blowing smoke now that there's nothing anyone can do about it until the Supreme Court hands down its opinion?
I wouldn't worry about it. The date may be April 2, but the submitters and editors are as slow and illiterate as ever, so it's probably just a stray April Fool's joke.
The thing that pisses me off about it is that some fuckers in Washington and Florida (and probably elsewhere with less outgoing news coverage) got votes out of this woman.
Yeah, but it doesn't take a satellite to find the cracks in this story!;)
Or, in the alternative: Everyone involved with this story is high on crack!
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week. No, you're really too kind. No, you shouldn't...well, okay, it's room 909, knock three times so I know it's you.
The Gmail story wasn't entirely a joke. You really are getting 2GB and rich text formatting.
But, as others have pointed out, a real prank is one that people don't see coming until it's too late - or even later. Blatant and obvious lies have hopefully never fooled anyone here. It's the difference between sarcasm and just being an ass - one has a component of irony, while the other does not. And irony is the whole point of the holiday. Romeo and Juliet is an example of a good April Fool's joke (although it had a tragic ending for the lovers themselves), because a simple and subtle misunderstanding led to them both killing themselves. Julius Caesar (the play, at any rate) is an example of a bad April Fool's joke - there was no real irony or self-involvement in actually killing Caesar (maybe in who did it there was some, but not much).
Although this obviously applies in no way to posting comments on Slashdot, I find that going to the same store 3 dozen times in one day, buying the same shirt each time, and telling the cashier each time how much you really hate that shirt can get you laid one time in 100.
Shhh...you'll ruin the surprise!;) (Actually, I learned something today - I knew all those names but catamount and painted cat, which Wikipedia lists as other regional names for the same animal. Where I grew up, incidentally, it was just a mountain lion.)
"Rip, Mix, Burn" is only infringement if you don't believe in fair use. The "rip" part of that implies that people are supposed to mix and burn music they've already licensed for personal use. Fair use is a battle for another day.
I think that the questions being asked here, with respect to intent, are severe: Did your instruction manual for your service explicitly demonstrate how to download a specific copyrighted work? If they draw the line at intent, I would hope they'd also give some evidenciary guidelines for what it takes to prove intent. (And if the guidelines are proper, then you won't have to disprove intent, because it's not your burden to prove lack of intent but rather the plaintiff copyright holder who must prove actual intent.)
And yes, if Betamax gets overruled, we're in for a hell of a ride. But I don't think that is going to happen here.
I think that MGM is arguing exactly what you're saying, and I'm not sure how far along the continuum I'm about to draw you Grokster wants the line drawn.
Consider a continuum from a point where there is no possible infringing use of a service to a point where there is not even a pretense of possible noninfringing use (to the extent that the service provider goes out of their way to encourage you to use it for copyright infringement, with everything in between being capable of representation as a point on the continuum. Betamax and Grokster are both on the continuum, although they are probably not at the same point because of how much easier, logistically speaking, it is to infringe copyrights with Grokster than it is with Betamax.
The Court is going to have to decide where on the continuum Grokster lies and whether or not that is past the line of acceptability. The Court will probably also give a good indication of exactly where they are drawing the line, but that's not necessary (they do it to save themselves work in the future, basically).
MGM appears to be arguing that the line should be drawn through the first possible infringinge use of a service. If it can be used in any way to infringe a copyright, then the service's provider can be sued for any infringement that does occur.
Grokster may be arguing that the line should be at the other end of the spectrum, but if their lawyers are smart (which I suspect they just may be), they should be arguing (it seems silly to use present tense for an oral argument heard over 36 hours ago, but informal argument is obviously still ongoing, given this story) that the line should be drawn somewhere in the intent area - when the provider specifically intends that the service be used to infringe copyrights, he can be held responsible for resulting infringement.
What scares me is not the MGM side - the Court will almost certainly not draw the line that far over. But I suspect the Court will draw the line somewhere between intent and foreseeability, and foreseeability is a dangerous place because it's obviously foreseeable that a service can be used to infringe copyrights. So we want it as close to intent as possible.
This is just my opinion, although it's not humble.
Yes, I was using irony, the appropriate definition of which is a subset of sarcasm. Let's see - I was directing it against the parent comment, moderators, and Slashdotters in general; and without being bitter and caustic, what I said has no meaning. So I was, at least, being sarcastic. Of course, I said I wasn't, so my ass is covered either way.
Taco is also fine, because the subtext of what he "sez" (seriously, if you're going to lecture me on the definition of words I use, at least make sure that what you type consists of words) implies bitterness toward the many people, Slashdotters in particular, who frequently claim that MySQL is not a real database because it lacks the particular features he calls attention to. So he, too, was being sarcastic.
When I think "electronic implant" and "opt-out," I think Tripods. Remember the part where they have to cut an implant out of the kid's armpit without any anaesthetic?
I want all of my data to die with me. (Except my will (living or otherwise). That should stay around a bit longer. Maybe on a floppy.) That way, I will be remembered for what I was eating and wearing when I fell over dead rather than all the inflammatory shit I've written over the years.
Nobody at Slashdot is ever sarcastic. Ever. Especially me. I've never been sarcastic, and I don't understand sarcasm at all. I can't smile and laugh when someone makes an obvious crack at the fact that the insanely popular web site where his joke will be viewed is run by MySQL. The joke itself is stored in the database he's making fun of. It's a good thing, though, that he wasn't being sarcastic, because people here have a hard time with sarcasm.
That's right, everyone at Slashdot hates and fails to understand sarcasm. Except moderators. Those guys love the stuff. They eat it up and mod funny things "funny" even though the sarcasm they perceive isn't really there, and the comments are just trolls or flamebait.
Well, it's more a question of whether the GPL effectively relinquishes copyright protection by some kind of incompatibility with copyright law. I agree that you don't need the GPL to be valid in order to sue for copyright infringement, but there are weak points in even the best structure.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they concede this during oral argument two weeks ago, or is this just them blowing smoke now that there's nothing anyone can do about it until the Supreme Court hands down its opinion?
I figured this would be the first story to not get slashdotted, because BeOS is deader than BSD. ;)
Thank you. That made my day. I was expecting jokes, but that's just a classic.
I wouldn't worry about it. The date may be April 2, but the submitters and editors are as slow and illiterate as ever, so it's probably just a stray April Fool's joke.
The thing that pisses me off about it is that some fuckers in Washington and Florida (and probably elsewhere with less outgoing news coverage) got votes out of this woman.
it is probably taco's brain
Contrast with Terri Schiavo's brain, which was only 1 zeptogram, not "a few" as the story claims.
What? Too soon? Oops. ^L
He also forgot to capitalize "anonymous" or provide a noun to make it work as the adjective God intended it to be, but two is still an all-time low. :P
Satellite images show cracks in the moon
;)
Yeah, but it doesn't take a satellite to find the cracks in this story!
Or, in the alternative: Everyone involved with this story is high on crack!
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week. No, you're really too kind. No, you shouldn't...well, okay, it's room 909, knock three times so I know it's you.
The Gmail story wasn't entirely a joke. You really are getting 2GB and rich text formatting.
But, as others have pointed out, a real prank is one that people don't see coming until it's too late - or even later. Blatant and obvious lies have hopefully never fooled anyone here. It's the difference between sarcasm and just being an ass - one has a component of irony, while the other does not. And irony is the whole point of the holiday. Romeo and Juliet is an example of a good April Fool's joke (although it had a tragic ending for the lovers themselves), because a simple and subtle misunderstanding led to them both killing themselves. Julius Caesar (the play, at any rate) is an example of a bad April Fool's joke - there was no real irony or self-involvement in actually killing Caesar (maybe in who did it there was some, but not much).
Although this obviously applies in no way to posting comments on Slashdot, I find that going to the same store 3 dozen times in one day, buying the same shirt each time, and telling the cashier each time how much you really hate that shirt can get you laid one time in 100.
timely real news
Dude, if you come to Slashdot for that, you have deeper issues.
You'd think I'd remember that, since I run Panther on my Powerbook. But maybe I just have trouble with names in general. ;)
Shhh...you'll ruin the surprise! ;) (Actually, I learned something today - I knew all those names but catamount and painted cat, which Wikipedia lists as other regional names for the same animal. Where I grew up, incidentally, it was just a mountain lion.)
How about puma, cougar, mountain lion, panther, catamount, and painted cat?
(For the link-checking impaired mods: the links are all to the same article, on purpose.)
"Rip, Mix, Burn" is only infringement if you don't believe in fair use. The "rip" part of that implies that people are supposed to mix and burn music they've already licensed for personal use. Fair use is a battle for another day.
I think that the questions being asked here, with respect to intent, are severe: Did your instruction manual for your service explicitly demonstrate how to download a specific copyrighted work? If they draw the line at intent, I would hope they'd also give some evidenciary guidelines for what it takes to prove intent. (And if the guidelines are proper, then you won't have to disprove intent, because it's not your burden to prove lack of intent but rather the plaintiff copyright holder who must prove actual intent.)
And yes, if Betamax gets overruled, we're in for a hell of a ride. But I don't think that is going to happen here.
I think that MGM is arguing exactly what you're saying, and I'm not sure how far along the continuum I'm about to draw you Grokster wants the line drawn.
Consider a continuum from a point where there is no possible infringing use of a service to a point where there is not even a pretense of possible noninfringing use (to the extent that the service provider goes out of their way to encourage you to use it for copyright infringement, with everything in between being capable of representation as a point on the continuum. Betamax and Grokster are both on the continuum, although they are probably not at the same point because of how much easier, logistically speaking, it is to infringe copyrights with Grokster than it is with Betamax.
The Court is going to have to decide where on the continuum Grokster lies and whether or not that is past the line of acceptability. The Court will probably also give a good indication of exactly where they are drawing the line, but that's not necessary (they do it to save themselves work in the future, basically).
MGM appears to be arguing that the line should be drawn through the first possible infringinge use of a service. If it can be used in any way to infringe a copyright, then the service's provider can be sued for any infringement that does occur.
Grokster may be arguing that the line should be at the other end of the spectrum, but if their lawyers are smart (which I suspect they just may be), they should be arguing (it seems silly to use present tense for an oral argument heard over 36 hours ago, but informal argument is obviously still ongoing, given this story) that the line should be drawn somewhere in the intent area - when the provider specifically intends that the service be used to infringe copyrights, he can be held responsible for resulting infringement.
What scares me is not the MGM side - the Court will almost certainly not draw the line that far over. But I suspect the Court will draw the line somewhere between intent and foreseeability, and foreseeability is a dangerous place because it's obviously foreseeable that a service can be used to infringe copyrights. So we want it as close to intent as possible.
This is just my opinion, although it's not humble.
I use a .308 Win. 2500fps beats your solution and guarantees every sector you hit will be unreadable.
Aw, crap. s/subset/superset/. And here I was, pretending to be perfect. :P
Yes, I was using irony, the appropriate definition of which is a subset of sarcasm. Let's see - I was directing it against the parent comment, moderators, and Slashdotters in general; and without being bitter and caustic, what I said has no meaning. So I was, at least, being sarcastic. Of course, I said I wasn't, so my ass is covered either way.
Taco is also fine, because the subtext of what he "sez" (seriously, if you're going to lecture me on the definition of words I use, at least make sure that what you type consists of words) implies bitterness toward the many people, Slashdotters in particular, who frequently claim that MySQL is not a real database because it lacks the particular features he calls attention to. So he, too, was being sarcastic.
When I think "electronic implant" and "opt-out," I think Tripods. Remember the part where they have to cut an implant out of the kid's armpit without any anaesthetic?
Oops, I got the wrong URL in that link. This is what I meant.
I want all of my data to die with me. (Except my will (living or otherwise). That should stay around a bit longer. Maybe on a floppy.) That way, I will be remembered for what I was eating and wearing when I fell over dead rather than all the inflammatory shit I've written over the years.
Isn't that a web browser? I don't see how it's relevant here. ;-D
Nobody at Slashdot is ever sarcastic. Ever. Especially me. I've never been sarcastic, and I don't understand sarcasm at all. I can't smile and laugh when someone makes an obvious crack at the fact that the insanely popular web site where his joke will be viewed is run by MySQL. The joke itself is stored in the database he's making fun of. It's a good thing, though, that he wasn't being sarcastic, because people here have a hard time with sarcasm.
That's right, everyone at Slashdot hates and fails to understand sarcasm. Except moderators. Those guys love the stuff. They eat it up and mod funny things "funny" even though the sarcasm they perceive isn't really there, and the comments are just trolls or flamebait.
Well, it's more a question of whether the GPL effectively relinquishes copyright protection by some kind of incompatibility with copyright law. I agree that you don't need the GPL to be valid in order to sue for copyright infringement, but there are weak points in even the best structure.