Whether this should be legal or not is far from clear, perhaps if there is a risk of misidentifying the company placing the ad then the trademark holder should at least be given the option to buy rights to the search term at market rates . ..
Since there are at least 5 or 6 cases already where the courts have said that unless the ad attempts to deceive the customer into thinking it's from the trademark holder, there's no violation of the trademark.
Trademarks aren't all powerful, unless there is a reasonable possibility that a consumer would be confused between the trademarked product and the referring product, a competitor is free to use the trademark. Google selling adspace based on trademarks doesn't violate the trademark since there is no reasonable way to confuse the clearly labeled "Sponsored Links" with the product itself.
Hell you want to push it, remember that Google's consumers aren't the people who use the search engine. Google's consumers are the advertisers - the people using the search engine are the product they sell. Under that frame of reference, there is no possible way for the consumer (a company buying keyword placement) to mistake the trademarked product for the advertised product.
Howard Tate is the one that I can find right now. 3 top 20 hits on a single album & no royalties.
Of course to quote Rich Fiscus of afterdawn.com
Of course, as the artists who are waiting for their cut of the hundreds of millions of dollars collected last year when various online services settled copyright infringement lawsuits can tell you, in the entertainment industry every project officially loses money until the artists' lawyers and accountants prove otherwise.
One caveat (in seriousness) - don't assume that they're trying to keep this information away from defendants. It's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists.
Hollywood accounting is well known. It would be interesting to see exactly how different the numbers presented to the individual artists differed from the numbers presented in court. I know of several artists that had top 10 hits in the 60s & 70s that are still waiting for their first royalty check.
Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?"
The judge can issue an order for en camera review - essentially he get's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense. So yes, he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it's petitioned to do so.
I fail to see the difference between this and accessing a website to download some audio or video file to watch them myself without giving them to anybody else.
If you're downloading an audio or video file that the owner of the website has the right to distribute, it is exactly the same. If, however, the owner of the website does not have the right to distribute, then they are violating a portion of the copyright law. Simple really. Note that all of the US RIAA & MPAA cases have involved being the source not the receiver of unlicensed copies.
So let's face it. If you don't understand the difference, it's because your trollishly obtuse.
That would be a nifty interpretation, however as far as I know you are governed by where you have physical presence. IE If you buy something legal in china, that is illegal in the US, and you live in the US, you've still broken the law.
Perhaps. All of the cases so far have been about distribution - ie. giving out copies, not receiving a copy. I believe that the current state of law says that the making of the copy happens on the PC that has the original not the PC it's being copied to.
But wouldn't you at least check if the server you got was the one you wanted before you handed over credentials?
The PERL & PHP POP3 packages don't. I don't believe the Java or Python packages do either. In fact, I don't recall any section of the POP3 server protocol (RFC 1939) to validate the server itself. By convention, the server name is included in the welcome message, but it's not required. The PID, timestamp, & qualified servername are included if the server supports APOP, but that is again optional, and I do not believe it's used by many ISPs.
That's the biggest problem with the internet - the major protocols do not verify identity. That means that you have to trust that the person at the other end of the connection is who they say they are, and that the DNS system has routed you to the correct end point. How many people do you know that have personal certificates validated by a third party. My count is 4, and that includes 2 people in the DoD, a former network admin for a Fortune 50 company, and a professor of forensic science that consults with the FBI. Other than that, the only personal certificates I know people have are self signed by the company requesting them. Verizon for example self signs the certificates that they send out for accessing their internal ordering system.
I have 2 websites, neither of them have certificates, and I'm not planning on getting any. Neither of my sites are set up to respond to https and I do not believe that http requests the certificates. That means anyone who can poison the DNS cache can forge my sites. But let's face it, if they're poisoning the DNS cache, I'm screwed already anyway.
This has been known for a very long time but SIP providers set the ANI to the CID value
I know that Sprint does this, but from what I had read it seemed to be an aberration not the norm. If it's the norm, then the carriers they buy numbers from need to start enforcing their rules.
Hmm, time to warm up the Asterisk server for more than incoming business calls. Might cycle through some outgoing providers & chart who does & who doesn't let you do that.
Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail (most are configured without password) to listen to voicemail messages, "hacking". This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.
There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI. The caller ID can be changed, the ANI is part of the switching protocol & is inserted by the phone company at the switch & can't normally be changed (it can be blocked/caused to fault). Any company that's using the caller ID & not the ANI to access voicemail without a password should be sued into oblivion for criminal negligence.
If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.
Several states have had rulings that photos of a car's plate violating a law - automated speedtrap, redlight camera, toll booth - are insufficient to issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle since it is impossible to determine from the plate who is driving.
Moreover, nude photos of anyone of any age are not illegal - they have to be sexually explicit as a precondition for a charge of the photos being child pornography.
Photographers have been arrested for child porn for shooting nude photos of their children running around the back yard. The only requirement to start a child porn trial is the hypothetical presence of a child. Simulated children - hang the bastard. Nude children running around the back yard - hang the bastard. Black & white soft focus of a naked baby on a blanket - obviously porn, hang the bastard twice.
The whole situation is so vague that it's impossible to know what will get you arrested and what won't. Which is exactly how some people like it. Art should be Whistler's Mother and American Gothic not David & The Venus DeMilo.
I certainly hope you had someone else finish it. Poor guy running around with his liver hanging out - "There we were at 30,000 feet and my surgeon just walked away...."
Oh yeah these movies were called Saw. And I saw it in the cinema. The realism and gore was extreme. If these people were put away for making similar movies and selling them on the net then how can Amazon and Play.com sell the Saw movies? Surely every horror movie should be illegal and the directors and distributors arrested?
Because the Miller test is only about sexual content. There is no similar standard for violence. So, according to the law, speech can be restricted when it deals with sex (obscenity) or hate, but no amount of graphic violence can render a movie or book unprotected.
It had SC time - the Miller test was the result and the SC rejected the Nitke v Ashcroft argument that the subjective nature of "Community Standard" created sufficient variance as to constitute "Unconstitutionally Vague".
[THe only thing obscene] is this verdict. Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional. I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity. Totally stupid.
The Supreme Court already ruled that obscene material isn't protected speech - that's the Miller Test. The US Postal service also has rules about what can & can't be shipped via the US post. From what I can make out, the material being shipped was "obscene" by the Miller test:
Unless it's a BDSM community, it's not going to fit a community standard
It's goal is definitely to stimulate a prurient interest
The producers didn't try to push that it had "Artistic Merit"
While I don't like the Miller test - its arbitrary and places the burden of proof on the defendant - it is the current standard used by the court system. Additionally the Miller test explicitly only deals with sexual material - under the Miller test, no degree of graphic violence can be considered obscene because violence alone fails both the first and second test.
So, while you can't show explicit rape scenes - or really even most heavy S&M scenes, you can show graphic depictions of vivisections and simulated torture snuff with impunity.
It seems odd to me that pictures of naked people is censored, but, if I wanted, I could post videos of "zombies" killing mowing each other down with chainsaws with no public outcry whatsoever.
Hmm, zombie slasher porn. I'm sure there's a market for that somewhere....
Deliberately infection someone with a fatal disease, to test a vaccine that you are not sure is effective (hence the need for the test) sounds like criminal negligence
That would be "depraved indifference" not negligence.
So, years of bullshit and fiction, basically. Again, I ask, who does the authority reside in? "3 thousand years of tradition" is not a person or an authority.
You are correct, it's not an authority or a person. It is however a standard against which the community itself will measure you and, ultimately, it is the community itself which will determine if you are accepted as a member or not. Do you think Charles Manson will get invited to dinner frequently if the Pope appointed him a Cardinal?
To point out the absurdity of your insistence on a central authority to define membership, who approved your membership as a nerd or a geek? As a troll, you fulfill a long standing traditional role within the community and as such, probably are accepted in that role.
To belong to any community you have to meet it's standards, in very few communities is that standard so low as to rely solely on your profession of inclusion. If you find that pathetic, so be it. The rest of us find that it helps build a community based on common ground.
No, the lesson is that the law actually takes notice of the real world, and that shell games like the GP suggests only work until the laws are updated to reflect the reality...
That depends on who has the money. In this case, the banks, manufacturers, and distributors that set up the laws regarding shell companies have more money than the media companies. They also have more to loose. Selling a lot of things to NK is illegal from the US, but if you route it through shell companies in Europe, Africa, South America, and the Philippines you can do it with impunity. Routing your money through a shell company in the Cayman Islands is perhaps one of the best known ways of protecting "investment" earnings.
Most shell companies exist solely for the purpose of isolating business dealings from each other in order to limit or block liability - TPB is actually discussing using a series of shell companies exactly as they are designed to be used.
So, "the Jewish community" are like the mob now? Where does their authority to determine Jewishness come from?
At least 3 thousand years of Jewish heritage, tradition, religion, and culture. You want to be accepted as Jewish, you need to understand all of it. I have a Jewish friend who describes it like this:
Christian go out fishing with a big net and anything caught in the net is Christian.
Jews go out and when a fish jumps in the boat, they throw it back. The second time the fish jumps in the boat, they think about it and then throw it back. If it jumps in the boat a third time, they decide it really wants to be in the boat & they'll keep it.
You want to declare yourself Jewish out of the blue, fine, do it. There's a word for people like that - poser. You get to be accepted as Jewish 2 ways - your mother is Jewish, or you work your ass off learning Jewish tradition. Of the 2 it's usually easier to get your Sicilian Catholic mother to convert.
Sure I can. I just announce that I'm Jewish, and I'm Jewish. I announce that I'm not, and I'm not. Who's going to stop me?
I suppose you could do that & I doubt anyone would knock on your door and black bag you, however I wouldn't try promoting yourself to the Jewish community that way.
There is the "us" and there is the "them". What is confusing you ?
Is a multinational company that's based outside the US but happens to do business here an "us" or a "them"? I lost my scorecard and can't figure it out anymore.
As a side note, evidently the equipment sent to Iran is standard telephone switching equipment with digital wiretap capabilities - the same hardware mandated by the US & most other governments.
Slashdot Mirror
Since there are at least 5 or 6 cases already where the courts have said that unless the ad attempts to deceive the customer into thinking it's from the trademark holder, there's no violation of the trademark.
Trademarks aren't all powerful, unless there is a reasonable possibility that a consumer would be confused between the trademarked product and the referring product, a competitor is free to use the trademark. Google selling adspace based on trademarks doesn't violate the trademark since there is no reasonable way to confuse the clearly labeled "Sponsored Links" with the product itself.
Hell you want to push it, remember that Google's consumers aren't the people who use the search engine. Google's consumers are the advertisers - the people using the search engine are the product they sell. Under that frame of reference, there is no possible way for the consumer (a company buying keyword placement) to mistake the trademarked product for the advertised product.
Of course to quote Rich Fiscus of afterdawn.com
You may also want to look into Hollywood accounting.
Hollywood accounting is well known. It would be interesting to see exactly how different the numbers presented to the individual artists differed from the numbers presented in court. I know of several artists that had top 10 hits in the 60s & 70s that are still waiting for their first royalty check.
The judge can issue an order for en camera review - essentially he get's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense. So yes, he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it's petitioned to do so.
Google's customers are the advertisers - you sir, are the product they sell.
If you're downloading an audio or video file that the owner of the website has the right to distribute, it is exactly the same. If, however, the owner of the website does not have the right to distribute, then they are violating a portion of the copyright law. Simple really. Note that all of the US RIAA & MPAA cases have involved being the source not the receiver of unlicensed copies.
So let's face it. If you don't understand the difference, it's because your trollishly obtuse.
Perhaps. All of the cases so far have been about distribution - ie. giving out copies, not receiving a copy. I believe that the current state of law says that the making of the copy happens on the PC that has the original not the PC it's being copied to.
The PERL & PHP POP3 packages don't. I don't believe the Java or Python packages do either. In fact, I don't recall any section of the POP3 server protocol (RFC 1939) to validate the server itself. By convention, the server name is included in the welcome message, but it's not required. The PID, timestamp, & qualified servername are included if the server supports APOP, but that is again optional, and I do not believe it's used by many ISPs.
That's the biggest problem with the internet - the major protocols do not verify identity. That means that you have to trust that the person at the other end of the connection is who they say they are, and that the DNS system has routed you to the correct end point. How many people do you know that have personal certificates validated by a third party. My count is 4, and that includes 2 people in the DoD, a former network admin for a Fortune 50 company, and a professor of forensic science that consults with the FBI. Other than that, the only personal certificates I know people have are self signed by the company requesting them. Verizon for example self signs the certificates that they send out for accessing their internal ordering system.
I have 2 websites, neither of them have certificates, and I'm not planning on getting any. Neither of my sites are set up to respond to https and I do not believe that http requests the certificates. That means anyone who can poison the DNS cache can forge my sites. But let's face it, if they're poisoning the DNS cache, I'm screwed already anyway.
I know that Sprint does this, but from what I had read it seemed to be an aberration not the norm. If it's the norm, then the carriers they buy numbers from need to start enforcing their rules.
Hmm, time to warm up the Asterisk server for more than incoming business calls. Might cycle through some outgoing providers & chart who does & who doesn't let you do that.
There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI. The caller ID can be changed, the ANI is part of the switching protocol & is inserted by the phone company at the switch & can't normally be changed (it can be blocked/caused to fault). Any company that's using the caller ID & not the ANI to access voicemail without a password should be sued into oblivion for criminal negligence.
Several states have had rulings that photos of a car's plate violating a law - automated speedtrap, redlight camera, toll booth - are insufficient to issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle since it is impossible to determine from the plate who is driving.
Photographers have been arrested for child porn for shooting nude photos of their children running around the back yard. The only requirement to start a child porn trial is the hypothetical presence of a child. Simulated children - hang the bastard. Nude children running around the back yard - hang the bastard. Black & white soft focus of a naked baby on a blanket - obviously porn, hang the bastard twice.
The whole situation is so vague that it's impossible to know what will get you arrested and what won't. Which is exactly how some people like it. Art should be Whistler's Mother and American Gothic not David & The Venus DeMilo.
I certainly hope you had someone else finish it. Poor guy running around with his liver hanging out - "There we were at 30,000 feet and my surgeon just walked away...."
Because the Miller test is only about sexual content. There is no similar standard for violence. So, according to the law, speech can be restricted when it deals with sex (obscenity) or hate, but no amount of graphic violence can render a movie or book unprotected.
It had SC time - the Miller test was the result and the SC rejected the Nitke v Ashcroft argument that the subjective nature of "Community Standard" created sufficient variance as to constitute "Unconstitutionally Vague".
The Supreme Court already ruled that obscene material isn't protected speech - that's the Miller Test. The US Postal service also has rules about what can & can't be shipped via the US post. From what I can make out, the material being shipped was "obscene" by the Miller test:
While I don't like the Miller test - its arbitrary and places the burden of proof on the defendant - it is the current standard used by the court system. Additionally the Miller test explicitly only deals with sexual material - under the Miller test, no degree of graphic violence can be considered obscene because violence alone fails both the first and second test.
So, while you can't show explicit rape scenes - or really even most heavy S&M scenes, you can show graphic depictions of vivisections and simulated torture snuff with impunity.
Hmm, zombie slasher porn. I'm sure there's a market for that somewhere ....
It's illegal to ship obscene material through the US mail.
Um, actually he lost the popular vote both times & won on the Electoral College vote.
That would be "depraved indifference" not negligence.
You are correct, it's not an authority or a person. It is however a standard against which the community itself will measure you and, ultimately, it is the community itself which will determine if you are accepted as a member or not. Do you think Charles Manson will get invited to dinner frequently if the Pope appointed him a Cardinal?
To point out the absurdity of your insistence on a central authority to define membership, who approved your membership as a nerd or a geek? As a troll, you fulfill a long standing traditional role within the community and as such, probably are accepted in that role.
Pathetic? Hmm, Isolationist, Elitist, Xenophobic? Yes, yes, and yes. Pathetic, nope.
To belong to any community you have to meet it's standards, in very few communities is that standard so low as to rely solely on your profession of inclusion. If you find that pathetic, so be it. The rest of us find that it helps build a community based on common ground.
That depends on who has the money. In this case, the banks, manufacturers, and distributors that set up the laws regarding shell companies have more money than the media companies. They also have more to loose. Selling a lot of things to NK is illegal from the US, but if you route it through shell companies in Europe, Africa, South America, and the Philippines you can do it with impunity. Routing your money through a shell company in the Cayman Islands is perhaps one of the best known ways of protecting "investment" earnings.
Most shell companies exist solely for the purpose of isolating business dealings from each other in order to limit or block liability - TPB is actually discussing using a series of shell companies exactly as they are designed to be used.
At least 3 thousand years of Jewish heritage, tradition, religion, and culture. You want to be accepted as Jewish, you need to understand all of it. I have a Jewish friend who describes it like this:
You want to declare yourself Jewish out of the blue, fine, do it. There's a word for people like that - poser. You get to be accepted as Jewish 2 ways - your mother is Jewish, or you work your ass off learning Jewish tradition. Of the 2 it's usually easier to get your Sicilian Catholic mother to convert.
I suppose you could do that & I doubt anyone would knock on your door and black bag you, however I wouldn't try promoting yourself to the Jewish community that way.
Is a multinational company that's based outside the US but happens to do business here an "us" or a "them"? I lost my scorecard and can't figure it out anymore.
As a side note, evidently the equipment sent to Iran is standard telephone switching equipment with digital wiretap capabilities - the same hardware mandated by the US & most other governments.