Interesting question actually. Not sure that's been tested in law yet. People doing things as a consequence of their employment are representing a company and the company is responsible. Officers of a company are vicariously liable for the things that their employees do. But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it? IANAL, just a business student (in another country), so if there's anyone out there who does know, I'd be interested...
One would expect so. Otherwise the banks and other financial institutions would be repudiating stock market trades made by their automated systems but which they later wished had not been made.
(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3
Could the actual copyright owner (NASA in this case) not initiate a prosecution for perjury against the person/organisation who submitted the original takedown notice.? Not only that but claim damages from them as well.
Both links and torrents are essentially equivalent to bibliographical references in paper books. The only difference is the mechanism used to follow the reference. With a reference in a printed book you go to the library index to determine on which stack/shelf the work is located, with links and torrents your software does a DNS lookup get to get the IP address of the server holding the work, In both cases you (or your software) visit the location and read the referenced work.
Yet while tablets, smartphones etc have made the actual computing devices smaller, monitors for desktop computers have got bigger. Systems such as the Commodore PET and the original MAC had very small screens. Not too long ago, 14" or 15" monitors were standard, now 20+" are common.
I agree if he bought the domains legally and mail was sent to those he didn't unlawful interception anything since it was sent to a domain he owned. It would be like a letter from someone else ending up in my mail box and cause i took it outta my mail box its tampering with the mail.
And not only ending up in your mail box, but also having your name and address on the envelope. ie It was correctly delivered according to the sender's instructions.
As the adverts all say, "the value of investments can go down as well as up". The stock market is gambling pure and simple, so punters (investers) should not be surprised if they sometimes lose. Following the initial floating of the shares, the price will naturally settle to their current true value - sometimes this will be up and sometimes it will be down. The people who bought the shares at their opening value obviously thought they were worth it, otherwise they should not have bought them at that price. They took a gamble and lost!
This may prevent Kaleidescape and its dealers from supporting the servers, but does it prevent someone not connected with Kaleidescape from setting up a support operation for the servers?
Automatically 'pushing' messages from one computer to another is something a "practitioner skilled in the art" (mostly anyone here) can do and consider obvious.
Which is what email has been doing since at least 1982 when RFC821 was published.
How would this work for female astronauts? For males, external catheters and urine collection bags are established technology and could conceivably be incorporated into a close fitting space suit. For a female,. urine collection/recycling in a suit does not seem nearly so straightforward. The collection tube would have to form a permanent (or at least while she is urinating) water-tight seal over her labia otherwise the urine would pool in the suit (or where there is gravity, run down her legs).
And any person putting themselves forward as a candidate for a position of political power is demonstrating that they are unsuited to hold such a position. While there are rare exceptions, in general, politicians should not be trusted to rule a country. They are habitual liars - they do not honour promises made during election campaigns; they are devious - they are masters at avoiding giving answers to direct questions, they often answer a different question to the one which was asked.
If you go to "mybank.com" and they say "we are mybank.com, trust us,we are who we say we are, here is an encrypted connection, use it to send your bank info", would you proceed? i hope you wont.
Many banks do that when they phone you. They do not present their number and then ask you to answer their security questions (the ones you have to answer when you phone them). Then act surprised if you tell them that as they called you anonymously that they have to first demonstrate that they are calling from the bank and are not scammers attempting to elicit your security details.
If you were presented with a fingerprint on first connection and mybank published its fingerprint 'out of band;' (eg having printed on every paper statement, available (in print) in every branch, etc) then this would give a much greater level of trust. On the other hand this only works well with entities with which you already have a relationship not a "random" web commerce site. Though, with entities such as banks with which you already have a relationship they could provide their X.509 certificate out of band by giving it to you on a CD, USB stick, etc.
Or maybe a more appropriate penalty would be , as they were claim others' copyrights as their own, to strip them of their copyrights and place into the public domain all works whose copyrights they currently own.
a statement that, under penalty of perjury, [evil RIAA goon lawyer] is authorized to act for the copyright holder
So as WB were NOT not acting with the authority of the copyright owner, were they not committing perjury? Unlike the other statements quoted, this one does not contain the 'goof faith' clause.
If, as the rights owners claim, unauthorised copying is 'copyright theft, then surely claiming to own the copyright of something which they do not. is a much more serious case of copyright theft.
I wonder how may bank telephone helplines for on-line banking could tell a caller the fingerprint of, or even which CA issued, the certificate for their on-line banking service. I suspect that not many could.
In which case they should not include the term 'Non-Discriminatory' in the title as it is blatantly discriminating against implementations (such as open source) which are freely distributable.
It would help if the browsers warned if a site sends a different certificate than the previous time(s) you visited the site. To handle certificate expiry, a certificate could also be accepted if it is signed by the one already held by the browser. That way if someone did set up a MITM attack, anyone who had previously visited the site would be warned that something may be amiss. For the 'popular' sites like Google, facebaook, Amazon etc. it is very likely that a large number of people would have the certificate prior to the setting up of the MITM and the alarm would be quickly raised.
Nowhere in the summary or article does it define the abbreviation NCAA. As I had not previously encountered the abbreviation and the articles talked about college athletes in North Carolina, I assumed that it meant "North Carolina Athletic Association".
Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.
If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.
In this case one of the things the court is ordering is that the identity of the person posting the tweet be revealed. So how does the court know that the tweeter was either aware of the existence of the superinjunction or, if they were aware of the existence of a superinjunction, that the person about whom they were tweeting was the subject of the injunction?
In practice, how is it going to work? If Joe Public knows or sees "X", unless the court publishes the very information which the injunction is trying to prevent being published, how is he to know that the particular fact "X" is the one covered by the injunction? Or does the injunction prevent any discussion or mention of any brain damaged people just in case the person is the one covered by the injunction?
Unlikely. It would probably be distributed in the same way as royalties for audio CD taxes are, which means it's based on radio airplay counts. Translation: unless you're writing music for a major label, you're not going to see a cent.
They could base it on the number of scrobbles recorded on LastFM and similar systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting question actually. Not sure that's been tested in law yet.
People doing things as a consequence of their employment are representing a company and the company is responsible.
Officers of a company are vicariously liable for the things that their employees do.
But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it?
IANAL, just a business student (in another country), so if there's anyone out there who does know, I'd be interested...
One would expect so. Otherwise the banks and other financial institutions would be repudiating stock market trades made by their automated systems but which they later wished had not been made.
(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3
Could the actual copyright owner (NASA in this case) not initiate a prosecution for perjury against the person/organisation who submitted the original takedown notice.? Not only that but claim damages from them as well.
Both links and torrents are essentially equivalent to bibliographical references in paper books. The only difference is the mechanism used to follow the reference. With a reference in a printed book you go to the library index to determine on which stack/shelf the work is located, with links and torrents your software does a DNS lookup get to get the IP address of the server holding the work, In both cases you (or your software) visit the location and read the referenced work.
Yet while tablets, smartphones etc have made the actual computing devices smaller, monitors for desktop computers have got bigger. Systems such as the Commodore PET and the original MAC had very small screens. Not too long ago, 14" or 15" monitors were standard, now 20+" are common.
The solution to that is for Author A to licence it to distribution company E for online access worldwide,
I agree if he bought the domains legally and mail was sent to those he didn't unlawful interception anything since it was sent to a domain he owned. It would be like a letter from someone else ending up in my mail box and cause i took it outta my mail box its tampering with the mail.
And not only ending up in your mail box, but also having your name and address on the envelope. ie It was correctly delivered according to the sender's instructions.
As the adverts all say, "the value of investments can go down as well as up". The stock market is gambling pure and simple, so punters (investers) should not be surprised if they sometimes lose. Following the initial floating of the shares, the price will naturally settle to their current true value - sometimes this will be up and sometimes it will be down. The people who bought the shares at their opening value obviously thought they were worth it, otherwise they should not have bought them at that price. They took a gamble and lost!
This may prevent Kaleidescape and its dealers from supporting the servers, but does it prevent someone not connected with Kaleidescape from setting up a support operation for the servers?
Automatically 'pushing' messages from one computer to another is something a "practitioner skilled in the art" (mostly anyone here) can do and consider obvious.
Which is what email has been doing since at least 1982 when RFC821 was published.
How would this work for female astronauts? For males, external catheters and urine collection bags are established technology and could conceivably be incorporated into a close fitting space suit. For a female,. urine collection/recycling in a suit does not seem nearly so straightforward. The collection tube would have to form a permanent (or at least while she is urinating) water-tight seal over her labia otherwise the urine would pool in the suit (or where there is gravity, run down her legs).
And any person putting themselves forward as a candidate for a position of political power is demonstrating that they are unsuited to hold such a position. While there are rare exceptions, in general, politicians should not be trusted to rule a country. They are habitual liars - they do not honour promises made during election campaigns; they are devious - they are masters at avoiding giving answers to direct questions, they often answer a different question to the one which was asked.
If you go to "mybank.com" and they say "we are mybank.com, trust us,we are who we say we are, here is an encrypted connection, use it to send your bank info", would you proceed? i hope you wont.
Many banks do that when they phone you. They do not present their number and then ask you to answer their security questions (the ones you have to answer when you phone them). Then act surprised if you tell them that as they called you anonymously that they have to first demonstrate that they are calling from the bank and are not scammers attempting to elicit your security details.
If you were presented with a fingerprint on first connection and mybank published its fingerprint 'out of band;' (eg having printed on every paper statement, available (in print) in every branch, etc) then this would give a much greater level of trust. On the other hand this only works well with entities with which you already have a relationship not a "random" web commerce site. Though, with entities such as banks with which you already have a relationship they could provide their X.509 certificate out of band by giving it to you on a CD, USB stick, etc.
Or maybe a more appropriate penalty would be , as they were claim others' copyrights as their own, to strip them of their copyrights and place into the public domain all works whose copyrights they currently own.
a statement that, under penalty of perjury, [evil RIAA goon lawyer] is authorized to act for the copyright holder
So as WB were NOT not acting with the authority of the copyright owner, were they not committing perjury? Unlike the other statements quoted, this one does not contain the 'goof faith' clause.
If, as the rights owners claim, unauthorised copying is 'copyright theft, then surely claiming to own the copyright of something which they do not. is a much more serious case of copyright theft.
I wonder how may bank telephone helplines for on-line banking could tell a caller the fingerprint of, or even which CA issued, the certificate for their on-line banking service. I suspect that not many could.
In which case they should not include the term 'Non-Discriminatory' in the title as it is blatantly discriminating against implementations (such as open source) which are freely distributable.
It would help if the browsers warned if a site sends a different certificate than the previous time(s) you visited the site. To handle certificate expiry, a certificate could also be accepted if it is signed by the one already held by the browser. That way if someone did set up a MITM attack, anyone who had previously visited the site would be warned that something may be amiss. For the 'popular' sites like Google, facebaook, Amazon etc. it is very likely that a large number of people would have the certificate prior to the setting up of the MITM and the alarm would be quickly raised.
Nowhere in the summary or article does it define the abbreviation NCAA. As I had not previously encountered the abbreviation and the articles talked about college athletes in North Carolina, I assumed that it meant "North Carolina Athletic Association".
And (in the Sarah Jane Adventures spinoff) Sarah Jane Smith had a sonic lipstick.
I wonder how many broken build & configure scripts and runtime version checks will fail because they do not check the major version number.
Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.
If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.
In this case one of the things the court is ordering is that the identity of the person posting the tweet be revealed. So how does the court know that the tweeter was either aware of the existence of the superinjunction or, if they were aware of the existence of a superinjunction, that the person about whom they were tweeting was the subject of the injunction?
In practice, how is it going to work? If Joe Public knows or sees "X", unless the court publishes the very information which the injunction is trying to prevent being published, how is he to know that the particular fact "X" is the one covered by the injunction? Or does the injunction prevent any discussion or mention of any brain damaged people just in case the person is the one covered by the injunction?
And in 1998, it looks as though the toilet is completely absent, only to return in 2006.
Unlikely. It would probably be distributed in the same way as royalties for audio CD taxes are, which means it's based on radio airplay counts. Translation: unless you're writing music for a major label, you're not going to see a cent.
They could base it on the number of scrobbles recorded on LastFM and similar systems.