Scotty: You didn't tell him how long it would REALLY take, did you?
Lieutenant: Of course I did.
Scotty: Oh, laddie. You've got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.
TFA has an error on #8. Commander Data's Off Switch is located on his back not his leg as the TFA states.
Data, who weighs 100 kg., carries a concealed master on/off switch centered just below his right shoulder blade. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/character/1112457.html
This whole "making available" thing is a contested topic. To me, a non-lawyer, in order for copyright infringement to actually occur, someone has to take (download) a copy. To me, making available (uploading) is not infringement. If no one ever downloaded the copy, how much was the rights-holder damaged? If I leave my car in the mall parking lot with the door open and the key in the ignition, did that vehicle get stolen? No, not until some one takes the vehicle and attempts to operate it for their own use. If the a phone system plays music while you are on hold, is that phone system guilty of infringement by "making available"? How about the Star Spangled Banner being played before a high school ballgame. Is that "making available"? Is showing a movie in a theater "making available"?
No? Then tell me what is the difference? With a high end cell phone I can record the Star Spangled Banner at the ball game. With a camcorder I can make a copy of a movie at the theater. Do you say that expectation has something to do with this? You mean the movie theater has no expectation that someone might try to use a camcorder to copy a film while everyone else is merely watching the movie? Why do they search people for camcorders then? I guess that some courts have fallen for the "this is how the system works" theory. In other words, if the song is available, it is certain to be downloaded so we don't need to waste our time proving that the "taking" part actually occurred. That is so wrong and here's why.
Collectively, we can't even agree on the topic of if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a noise.
Personally, I don't think that atmospheric waves caused by the movement of the tree constitute sound unless and until those waves bounce off of an eardrum and that signal is sent to the brain and then registered as something that we humans call sound. But that's just me. I think that the tree merely pushed some air around and "sound" is only created by the brain's perception of the air movement. Therefore I agree with the defendant and disagree with Mr. Gabriel and the Judge. I think infringement could have only occurred after someone actually downloaded the content and then listened to it. Similarly I don't think that marking digital ones and zeros as available to share on a computer equals someone's brain registering and understanding those digits as sound. At the point of "making available" the perception of sound has yet to occur. No listening has happened at the "making available" point. Infringement at this point, has yet to occur.
Does the infringement occur at a point after "making available" and is that infringement dependent upon other factors occurring? Yes, infringement is dependent upon some one else listening to the content in question and that action occurs later in the sequence of actions and is uncontrollable at the earlier point of "making available". So it follows that infringement is not a necessary or certain outcome of "making available".
The Ok Go cd titled "Oh No" has a 34 minute track called "9027 Km" that is silence. The story goes that the track is the sound of somebody's girlfriend sleeping. If I were to upload 34 minutes of silence to a file sharing network, would I be guilty of infringement by "making available"? What if I only uploaded 33 minutes of silence or only 32 or only 31... or only one second of silence? What if an office phone system somehow contained some silence (they all do), is that phone system guilty of infringement?. See where this leads? Under the "making available" theory I could be walking down the street making no sound and be guilty of infringing upon Ok Go's copyrights. The whole "making available" concept is fatally flawed and should never have been allowed in the jury instructions.
Now in this immediate case of Capital Records vs. Jammie Thomson, Mr. Gabriel, the RIAA attorney never claimed that anyone even downloaded the files that were "made available". All he ever claimed was that Thomson "made available" content and for that they win $220,000.00. Something is very, very wrong here.
The defendant needs to appeal this decision and find a better attorney.
I've been in a Russian court and in my case, there was no corruption, it was all very straight. The judge seemed to be a very regular guy. I remember thinking he'd be a great guy to toss back some brewskies with.
Now other public officials OTOH. They reminded me of the Ferengy Minister of Finance with the tip jar on the counter.
John: It's not your fault. The American public have screwed the movie industry over for the last time! Oh, they'll see this movie! You bet they will.
Jay: How are ya gonna make 'em?
John: We'll sue the pants off of 'em!
Bob: And then we'll sell 'em pants!
Coupon: The Trial
David V. O.: "Coupon: The Movie" versus the people of the United States.
John: Your Honor! *We* were cheated. No one *saw* this movie.
Bob: This court finds in favor of...the plaintiff!
Bob: [bangs gavel] I sentence each and every person in the United States to one viewing of "Coupon: The Movie." And may God have mercy...on your souls. Who wants to go Friday?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he's just confused because he can't find a crank handle on the side.
Someone left a jar of peanut butter in the lab.
I'd love it if they put a link to Napster on the game.
Technically, Bob wasn't an OS. Bob was a shell environment designed to run on top of the OS.
This guy would write to Microsoft concerning their claims of patent and copyright violations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
Based on this guys track record, he's probably going to try to file a patent on the machine and claim it as his own idea.
The bureau then identified "more than 400 new or clarified technical requirements,"
Now that's some serious feature creep.
"Well I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
TFA was posted by Pickens.
My take on his recent switch in area of concentration was that he realized that we can't improve copyright until we take care of corruption.
I guess I had better write up a request for some kind of email archiving system, but where oh where to find such a system?
I know, I'll check with the company (MessageOne) that financed this "research".
I can't wait to see the pictures of the Restaurant.
A handle and rubberized corners. If the XO can do this, why can't everyone else?
Lieutenant: Of course I did.
Scotty: Oh, laddie. You've got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.
That's a terrible thing to say about Jerry Springer.
gluing captions to ur cats http://xkcd.com/262/
This whole "making available" thing is a contested topic. To me, a non-lawyer, in order for copyright infringement to actually occur, someone has to take (download) a copy. To me, making available (uploading) is not infringement. If no one ever downloaded the copy, how much was the rights-holder damaged? If I leave my car in the mall parking lot with the door open and the key in the ignition, did that vehicle get stolen? No, not until some one takes the vehicle and attempts to operate it for their own use. If the a phone system plays music while you are on hold, is that phone system guilty of infringement by "making available"? How about the Star Spangled Banner being played before a high school ballgame. Is that "making available"? Is showing a movie in a theater "making available"?
... or only one second of silence? What if an office phone system somehow contained some silence (they all do), is that phone system guilty of infringement?. See where this leads? Under the "making available" theory I could be walking down the street making no sound and be guilty of infringing upon Ok Go's copyrights. The whole "making available" concept is fatally flawed and should never have been allowed in the jury instructions.
No? Then tell me what is the difference? With a high end cell phone I can record the Star Spangled Banner at the ball game. With a camcorder I can make a copy of a movie at the theater. Do you say that expectation has something to do with this? You mean the movie theater has no expectation that someone might try to use a camcorder to copy a film while everyone else is merely watching the movie? Why do they search people for camcorders then? I guess that some courts have fallen for the "this is how the system works" theory. In other words, if the song is available, it is certain to be downloaded so we don't need to waste our time proving that the "taking" part actually occurred. That is so wrong and here's why.
Collectively, we can't even agree on the topic of if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a noise.
Personally, I don't think that atmospheric waves caused by the movement of the tree constitute sound unless and until those waves bounce off of an eardrum and that signal is sent to the brain and then registered as something that we humans call sound. But that's just me. I think that the tree merely pushed some air around and "sound" is only created by the brain's perception of the air movement. Therefore I agree with the defendant and disagree with Mr. Gabriel and the Judge. I think infringement could have only occurred after someone actually downloaded the content and then listened to it. Similarly I don't think that marking digital ones and zeros as available to share on a computer equals someone's brain registering and understanding those digits as sound. At the point of "making available" the perception of sound has yet to occur. No listening has happened at the "making available" point. Infringement at this point, has yet to occur.
Does the infringement occur at a point after "making available" and is that infringement dependent upon other factors occurring? Yes, infringement is dependent upon some one else listening to the content in question and that action occurs later in the sequence of actions and is uncontrollable at the earlier point of "making available". So it follows that infringement is not a necessary or certain outcome of "making available".
The Ok Go cd titled "Oh No" has a 34 minute track called "9027 Km" that is silence. The story goes that the track is the sound of somebody's girlfriend sleeping. If I were to upload 34 minutes of silence to a file sharing network, would I be guilty of infringement by "making available"? What if I only uploaded 33 minutes of silence or only 32 or only 31
Now in this immediate case of Capital Records vs. Jammie Thomson, Mr. Gabriel, the RIAA attorney never claimed that anyone even downloaded the files that were "made available". All he ever claimed was that Thomson "made available" content and for that they win $220,000.00. Something is very, very wrong here.
The defendant needs to appeal this decision and find a better attorney.
Sounds like one more attempt to resuscitate Passport.
I've been in a Russian court and in my case, there was no corruption, it was all very straight. The judge seemed to be a very regular guy. I remember thinking he'd be a great guy to toss back some brewskies with.
Now other public officials OTOH. They reminded me of the Ferengy Minister of Finance with the tip jar on the counter.
2005 called to tell you that the kids stopped using emoticons a few years ago. They say "It's lame."
An old guy with kids
No offense but for a scientist of several years experience, you write like shit.
Try hitting the Preview button sometime.
So you're saying "Resistance is Futile"?
Jay: How are ya gonna make 'em?
John: We'll sue the pants off of 'em!
Bob: And then we'll sell 'em pants!
Coupon: The Trial
David V. O.: "Coupon: The Movie" versus the people of the United States.
John: Your Honor! *We* were cheated. No one *saw* this movie.
Bob: This court finds in favor of...the plaintiff!
Bob: [bangs gavel] I sentence each and every person in the United States to one viewing of "Coupon: The Movie." And may God have mercy...on your souls. Who wants to go Friday?
How much KoolAid do I have to drink? 6oz? 12oz?
Hey Jack, is it warm down there? See ya man! Wouldn't want to be ya!