The last judgment against AFACT in the case against iiNet was explained very well by the judge in charge of that trial. This just goes to show that the music industry and the movie industry are desperate to protect their tenuous hold on the music and movie distribution business and have the money to fight all the way to the top.
One of the greatest legal tools for this must be the EULA. You pay to own nothing, just to have very limited rights to use what you paid for within the boundaries of very restrictive terms.
Is it common knowledge among/. readers that the term robot comes from a book by a Czech author named Karel Capek (the C should have a little v shape above it making it sound like Chapek with the ch pronounced like in China) and comes from the Czech word robota which in that language means work?
There are at least one or two quite large institutional bagholders who have an interest in not letting the price slip down too much. Upwards movements have generally been on low volume which can be easily achieved by these bagholders buying after selling the stock to themselves just to prop up the price.
It's difficult to live up to "Don't be evil.". On one hand protecting users' privacy fits in well with this but on the other taking actions to protect those who clearly aim to do the complete opposite of this doesn't seem to live up to this lofty principle.
Completely different situation. Apple makes the iPod and has every right to limit it to run whatever software it chooses. If MS made the player nobody would have a right to say that it must run other companies' software. The problem here is MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.
Slashdot Mirror
The last judgment against AFACT in the case against iiNet was explained very well by the judge in charge of that trial. This just goes to show that the music industry and the movie industry are desperate to protect their tenuous hold on the music and movie distribution business and have the money to fight all the way to the top.
One of the greatest legal tools for this must be the EULA. You pay to own nothing, just to have very limited rights to use what you paid for within the boundaries of very restrictive terms.
Is it common knowledge among /. readers that the term robot comes from a book by a Czech author named Karel Capek (the C should have a little v shape above it making it sound like Chapek with the ch pronounced like in China) and comes from the Czech word robota which in that language means work?
Are they also going to sue face.com? http://www.face.com/
There are at least one or two quite large institutional bagholders who have an interest in not letting the price slip down too much. Upwards movements have generally been on low volume which can be easily achieved by these bagholders buying after selling the stock to themselves just to prop up the price.
It's difficult to live up to "Don't be evil.". On one hand protecting users' privacy fits in well with this but on the other taking actions to protect those who clearly aim to do the complete opposite of this doesn't seem to live up to this lofty principle.
Sure, Dell stock had a stunning run from 1995 till the bubble burst in 2000 but has been pretty much flat as a tack since then, just like Microsoft.
Does this inspire confidence: from whois on mturk.com "Hostmaster, MTAI mechturk1@hotmail.com" and a post office box in Seattle? ;)
Completely different situation. Apple makes the iPod and has every right to limit it to run whatever software it chooses. If MS made the player nobody would have a right to say that it must run other companies' software. The problem here is MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.