shutup. just shut the fuck up.
you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make.
its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty.
its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access.
you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished.
Theoretically we are a civilized nation.
But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
The "digital divide" is a real thing. It's the difference between spoiled people like yourself growing up with a computer in your home, and inner city kids who have no computer access at home and have to wait on line at the public library to get a 15 minute time slot.
If you don't recognize that in this society those without computer access are at a disadvantage, you are as stupid as you are uncaring.
The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.
Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."
Can this be used as precedent to dismiss all the pending RIAA and MPAA lawsuits? What about reversing past suits whose victims are already in the body count?
A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.
An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?
A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.
And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher.:)
Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )
I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.
I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.
In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.
Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.
I would like to retain your services in this matter. Please list your bank account information so that I may transfer a retainer payment to you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Prince Bernard Koffi Austine
Nigeria
Dear Prince Bernard,
If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree:)
It does seem insane. I mean how can the court not see that this case is clearly about killing vimeo and by extension video sharing sites. How can they expect all employees to be 100% diligent. It's never going to happen. If the only option to adhere to Safe Harbor is to have google class content filter Youtube is going to be the only game in town in the US.
Maybe it's not about killing Vimeo, but rather making it "play nice" the way YouTube has: Pay for sync licensing of the music and support the licensing costs with ads.
In my experience, their primary goal in every instance is to put people out of business, if at all possible. YouTube has been 'playing nice' with them for many years, but they haven't dropped the pending case.
The blog post linked from TFS is a brief (~70 word) summary of the recent development with no links to other posts on your blog for the background on the story, only the big PDF of the decision.
The decision, IMHO, gives you what you need to know about the facts of the case in order to understand the significance of the decision. 56 pages is enough reading in my view, for our purposes. If you want more you can go on PACER and get hundreds of additional pages from the case file.
1. I don't have a paralegal to work on my blog. I do all this stuff myself.
2. The guiding principle of Recording Industry vs The People since its inception in 2005 has always been that it is designed for readers who are smart enough, and serious enough, to read the actual litigation document rather than let someone else tell them what it means.
3. The blog post doesn't link to Slashdot for "more details" it links to it for "Commentary & discussion".
4. Most Slashdotters, I have found, do read the story and litigation document... not every word, but enough to form their own opinions.
5. And no, thanks, I am not looking for you to explain to me what the decision says; I read it, and I know exactly what it says.
Slashdot Mirror
shutup. just shut the fuck up. you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make. its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty. its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access. you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished. Theoretically we are a civilized nation. But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
Well spoken, bro
The "digital divide" is a real thing. It's the difference between spoiled people like yourself growing up with a computer in your home, and inner city kids who have no computer access at home and have to wait on line at the public library to get a 15 minute time slot.
If you don't recognize that in this society those without computer access are at a disadvantage, you are as stupid as you are uncaring.
The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.
Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."
So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.
Can this be used as precedent to dismiss all the pending RIAA and MPAA lawsuits? What about reversing past suits whose victims are already in the body count?
Don't I wish.
A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.
:)
An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?
A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.
And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher.
Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )
I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.
Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo
I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.
In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.
Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.
while the summary is laudatory, fawning, even, it is not central to the decision
Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.
I would like to retain your services in this matter. Please list your bank account information so that I may transfer a retainer payment to you. Thank you. Sincerely, Prince Bernard Koffi Austine Nigeria
Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)
So, if this stands does this mean it's lawful for Google to make the full text available of these books, or not?
Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.
If google can legally copy books (even when profit is involved) then why can't I do the same?
Wouldn't I get hammered with copyright infringement problems if I scanned in books I did not author myself?
I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.
Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
Thatswhatappealscourtsarefor
What a horrible example of how not to behave as a decent human being.
Agreed. Abelson should be ashamed of himself.
Can someone tell me why it's newsworthy that MIT clowns exonerate themselves & blame their victim?
Other than to demonstrate how low some people can go.
You're one of my 3 favorite lawyers, the other two being the lady who handled my divorce and the man who handled my bankruptcy.
Great that you found good people to handle those important things.
Maybe to you 4channers it is, troll, but NYCL is well known and greatly respected here at slashdot. So go back to reddit and leave us grownups alone.
Thanks, bro :)
Hey buddy, you watch your mouth when you're talking about NYCL!
All riggghhhhtttt. Thanks Amicus :) I always wanted to have a big brother :)
No... I think people want something in between 70 words and 56 pages.
Oh. OK. How many words do they want?
It does seem insane. I mean how can the court not see that this case is clearly about killing vimeo and by extension video sharing sites. How can they expect all employees to be 100% diligent. It's never going to happen. If the only option to adhere to Safe Harbor is to have google class content filter Youtube is going to be the only game in town in the US.
The legal fees alone are the killer. Veoh won every round, but had to go out of business due to the legal fees.
Maybe it's not about killing Vimeo, but rather making it "play nice" the way YouTube has: Pay for sync licensing of the music and support the licensing costs with ads.
In my experience, their primary goal in every instance is to put people out of business, if at all possible. YouTube has been 'playing nice' with them for many years, but they haven't dropped the pending case.
The blog post linked from TFS is a brief (~70 word) summary of the recent development with no links to other posts on your blog for the background on the story, only the big PDF of the decision.
The decision, IMHO, gives you what you need to know about the facts of the case in order to understand the significance of the decision. 56 pages is enough reading in my view, for our purposes. If you want more you can go on PACER and get hundreds of additional pages from the case file.
I clicked on this story because I was interested in the original topic, but this whiny, defensive stuff is way more interesting.
Yeah, definitely
1. I don't have a paralegal to work on my blog. I do all this stuff myself.
2. The guiding principle of Recording Industry vs The People since its inception in 2005 has always been that it is designed for readers who are smart enough, and serious enough, to read the actual litigation document rather than let someone else tell them what it means.
3. The blog post doesn't link to Slashdot for "more details" it links to it for "Commentary & discussion".
4. Most Slashdotters, I have found, do read the story and litigation document... not every word, but enough to form their own opinions.
5. And no, thanks, I am not looking for you to explain to me what the decision says; I read it, and I know exactly what it says.
Haha, way to drive people away :P
Well he shouldn't call something "obscure" just because he's too lazy to read it, and wants someone else to tell him what it said.