Unless you're in Iran in which case it's the other way around. Or since neither of these companies are US based companies do we have to decide if the EU likes the US today before they can negotiate contracts?
Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video (regardless of the source) and posts it.
Which CNN would never do as a video-letter to the editor. They would incorporate it into a larger story dealing with youths disaffected with their towns and include excerpts of the video as they are appropriate to the topic at hand - you know, fair use. Deliberately mis-attributing the source opens them to fraud & goes a long way towards negating any defense of their intent.
Did the paper have a fair use right to use the rant in reporting news - yes.
Did they use the rant in accordance with those rights - no.
Ergo, they did not exercise their fair use rights when publishing the work.
Only the principal and his friend committed willful infringement, and that was not for commercial gain.
The friend was the editor for the paper. That blurs the line between the paper & the friend. Had the friend been Bubbles in the mailroom, you might get away with that. As the editor, the friend was the newspapers agent & in a legal sense was the newspaper.
Seems to be she would be barred from another law suit since she already litigated the issue. At the time of the initial litigation, you are supposed to bring all the issues at the same time, not piece meal.
Copyright would go to Federal not Local jurisdiction. It's the same game the Feds get away with when a high profile local case gets lost & they pull out the "Civil Rights Violations" hammer.
I don't know, but I don't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings.
They didn't publicize her writing. They did not create a news article saying "Hey this bimbo hates us & go look at it here." They published - as in created and distributed 1 copy for each newspaper printed - her work in its entirety as though it had been fully authorized by submitting it to the "Letters to the Editor" section of the paper.
Point blank, she should win a copyright lawsuit. Fair use is not a valid defense to printing a work in it's entirety with no comments or critique of the contents. On the other hand, about all she's eligible to win is legal fees and "We're sorry & won't do it again".
As for the lawyer who said:
Under (1), the use could be found to be for criticism, comment and (by the paper) news reporting (and the cases also consider 1st amendment factors under this one)
I think he was drunk when he answered.
criticism
They didn't do any critiquing of the work. They just published it.
Comment
They didn't use it as a comment on an issue or other work. They just published it.
News reporting
There was no attempt to report this as news - not even to say "Hey, this bitch wrote {blah} on her myspace page, let's lynch her". It was presented as an unsolicited letter to the editor.
First amendment
Get real. The first amendment certainly grants the paper the right to publish a rebuttal to the rant and to report on the rant. As part of a larger story discussing it, they might even be able to publish the entire work as presented on myspace. It doesn't give a paper the right to publish other peoples works in their entirety outside the framework of an actual report on the work. If it does, I am so going to start a paper & publish best selling books and movie scripts in my entertainment section - I'll save a fortune on that whole pesky licensing thing.
If the paper had addressed the rant as an actual newsworthy item and handled it as such, they could have claimed fair use. They didn't. They took a work and fabricated the semblance of permission by routing it through their "Letters to the Editor" section. They made commercial use of someone else's work by deliberately misleading their readers as to the origins of the material if not the author.
I think that a case for fraud could be made - the newspaper attempted to obtain goods or services (readers) through false pretenses (claiming a work published elsewhere as a letter to their editor).
Um the Netherland courts already declared that robots.txt isn't a valid means of controlling spiders. Their reasoning was that print copyright has a default "No" aspect. Requiring sites to use robots.txt inverts that to a default "Yes" - which is unacceptable to the majority of copyright holders.
I know how they feel: Toyota's quoting me $400 to fix a loose sun visor because they have to take the entire @&%#! side of the car apart to get to it.
Try replacing a heater core in a modern car - usually the entire dash assembly has to be removed to get it out. Figure out how much a factory shop is going to charge you for that.
Better than the Chevy 2.8L transverse V6 I suppose. The section of the shop manual for replacing spark plugs starts with: "Unbolt the dogbone and engine mounts and rotate the engine forward". Yes, to replace the sparkplugs you're supposed to unbolt the fucking engine from the car.
If car mfg's come up with this crap - think how much more convoluted your average rocket jockey is going to be when he comes up with something that's only supposed to be replaced once every 2 to 3 vehicles.
Even assuming that any of Nintendo's code would be involved (it's not obvious to me that this would be the case), you couldn't force them to do anything. If they don't comply with the terms of the GPL, then they are not licensed under the GPL, ergo they are guilty of copyright violations.
Even if Nintendo's code was involved, Nintendo wouldn't be liable for anything. As much as it's bandied about, GPL isn't recursive. If I use your libraries, I am responsible for releasing code. You have no obligation to do anything. The only legal relationship that could possibly cause you to be held to the GPL would be if I were an agent of yours acting in a manner consistent with our agentry agreement.
If I understand correctly, Nintendo doesn't actually publish or distribute this game. Their only involvement is providing the SDK and the license to use the Wii logos. Apart from that, Nintendo doesn't have any involvement in this situation.
If on the other hand, Nintendo does directly publish or distribute the code, then yes, since they are distributing without a valid license, they could be sued under copyright law. Interestingly, as a company they know exactly how much money they've made from the game & 4X gross profit could prove to be a tidy sum. Alternatively, the statutory damages are almost certainly less than the profit they've made.
This is the dumbest argument against wind power I've seen. Have you ever looked at a windmill? See the little spindly tower holding up the big honking blades. See how much area is around the tower so those big ass blades can rotate around the tower? See how little the tower effects the lighting of the ground?
Farmers today in the midwest & southwest are begging windpower companies to put towers on their land - they loose the use of the foundation and possibly access roads, but the vast majority of the land is still useful for grazing or farming and they can actually make more money from land leases than they can from raising certain crops.
Rooftop solar collection actually has 2 benefits in the summer - first is the obvious generation of electricity to run the AC/Lights/whatever. The second and often unobserved effect is to actually reduce the solar heating of the building involved. Proper ventilation combined with solar collection can reduce thermal heating by up to 30% (roof to wall ratios are important here) - ask how many building managers wouldn't want to see their cooling bills go down by that?
Last time I tried to work with Verizon's tech support for someone, they had me reset the DSL modem - and hung up on me without providing the default UN/PW or the settings. I had to call back twice & ended up going through 4 drones & 2 supervisors before finding someone who understood that you had to MANUALLY ENTER the data if you don't have Windows - and they didn't know how to do the manual configuration.
This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.
Please, how can large companies afford to pay their CEOs obscene salaries if their busy charging each other instead of ass raping their customers?
Providing service and value for payment is so last century.
Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.
True but irrelevant since we signed onto the WTO treaty.
In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy.
The WTO is attempting to enforce a treaty we DID sign. And no they are not making up crap. The US permits remote gambling, but only if you are dealing with US based companies. That is a violation of the WTO treaties. It's not making crap up, it's reading the damn paperwork.
They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.
Um, the US is attempting to opt out using the morality clause. IE. gambling is morally unacceptable therefore we will not permit it across our border. That's fine, except that the US does permit gambling within it's borders. The WTO correctly ruled that the US can't have it both ways.
Remember than when someone contacts IT, they've gone from feeling like a capable adult to feeling like a stupid helpless child. Part of what you have to do is convince them they're a capable adult as you're fixing the problem.
I prefer to demand tribute - Diet Coke & candy are the preferred sacrifices, but the occasional donut will do. All non-critical/non-scheduled work is held at the same priority with preference given to those who have done the most groveling/bribing.
Hey if it's not worth a candybar it can't possibly be mission critical.
Alternately, one person in the department has the license and the others are working under his supervision and in accordance with approved practices. Which way it works seems to be dependent on the state.
Yup... In this case, an ounce of prevention is worth several tons of cure. I was in this situation, and ended up using AD group policy to redirect everyone's My Docs to a server directory that I could back up. Then just make sure everyone knows that *everything* important has to go in there. Fortunately, most stuff defaults to saving there.
This is probably the most important policy you can implement in a business environment. Not only does it make fixing a broken PC trivial, it makes moving people from one location to another equally trivial - they move & log in - problem solved. Add to that the ability to ensure that all the files are backed up on time & life is good.
As an alternative to having to re-load an image, you can either keep a drive with the image already installed or my preference, a spare PC fully ready to install. In either case, swap it out, change the PC name & rebuild the image at your convenience.
Sad thing is, before I even got to your post I was envisioning this exact scenario and was considering starting a business on the side doing house calls.
Even sadder, is I do this for a living - onsite, in home repair & installation - and the reality is they just whine about having to pay you for watching the progress bar. Pickup & dropoff involves so much less whining.
Of course there is a solution. The problem has been in fact studied by mathematicians and algorithmic code theorists extensively, because the very same issues are present in issuing instructions to a computer. Instructions for building a society have great resemblance and operate on principally the same rules as computer software. And so not only whole sets of tools exist to achieve it, but there are whole volumes of scientific research already conducted to light the way.
Great, just when you thought laws couldn't get any more fucked up -- now their going to be written by the same people who wrote Windows ME
Letting the RIAA pick the "forensics expert" does absolutely nothing to ensure that a fair and impartial expert is chosen. I'd think all that would do is make it very easy for the RIAA to set up a forensics lab of their own that could potentially plant evidence on the mirror copy.
First, a forensics expert hired by the RIAA isn't supposed to be fair or impartial. He's their expert. As for the second, there is not a chance in hell that they would. Planting evidence would destroy the RIAA. They are a bunch of lawyers from the ground up. Contract lawyers, litigation lawyers, entertainment lawyers, etc.
They will do everything they can to bend the laws until they crack, but they won't plant evidence. NYCL can correct me, but if they did as you proposed, every lawyer:
involved in the case
who had part in setting up the forensics lab.
is on staff at the forensics lab.
In the BOD at the RIAA
would face censoring at the least, disbarment as most likely, and criminal prosecution for evidence tampering at the outside. They are the worst kind of scum lawyers, but they like the money and power, they aren't going to go to throw it away.
The district court in Texas told them to stuff it a while ago. That's one of the reasons they dropped their latest suit in Texas - they pulled the same enjoinder crap again & got called on it.
Exactly. At home I've had wireless for a decade. But now with the ubiquity of wireless ADSL modems, there are about 15 hotspots within range and I can't get a stable connection anymore.
The last wireless network I installed in an apt showed 4 'Lynksys' networks available plus a few secured & a few more unsecured with actual names. Given what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if 20% of apartment dwellers are using the wrong wireless connection.
As dargaud pointed out, saturation is becoming a significant issue in residential areas - most apartment buildings outside of the slums are already having interference issues, a situation which is only getting worse as people continue to push for a wireless life.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're in Iran in which case it's the other way around. Or since neither of these companies are US based companies do we have to decide if the EU likes the US today before they can negotiate contracts?
Which CNN would never do as a video-letter to the editor. They would incorporate it into a larger story dealing with youths disaffected with their towns and include excerpts of the video as they are appropriate to the topic at hand - you know, fair use. Deliberately mis-attributing the source opens them to fraud & goes a long way towards negating any defense of their intent.
Did the paper have a fair use right to use the rant in reporting news - yes. Did they use the rant in accordance with those rights - no. Ergo, they did not exercise their fair use rights when publishing the work.
The friend was the editor for the paper. That blurs the line between the paper & the friend. Had the friend been Bubbles in the mailroom, you might get away with that. As the editor, the friend was the newspapers agent & in a legal sense was the newspaper.
Copyright would go to Federal not Local jurisdiction. It's the same game the Feds get away with when a high profile local case gets lost & they pull out the "Civil Rights Violations" hammer.
They didn't publicize her writing. They did not create a news article saying "Hey this bimbo hates us & go look at it here." They published - as in created and distributed 1 copy for each newspaper printed - her work in its entirety as though it had been fully authorized by submitting it to the "Letters to the Editor" section of the paper.
Point blank, she should win a copyright lawsuit. Fair use is not a valid defense to printing a work in it's entirety with no comments or critique of the contents. On the other hand, about all she's eligible to win is legal fees and "We're sorry & won't do it again".
As for the lawyer who said:
I think he was drunk when he answered.
They didn't do any critiquing of the work. They just published it.
They didn't use it as a comment on an issue or other work. They just published it.
There was no attempt to report this as news - not even to say "Hey, this bitch wrote {blah} on her myspace page, let's lynch her". It was presented as an unsolicited letter to the editor.
Get real. The first amendment certainly grants the paper the right to publish a rebuttal to the rant and to report on the rant. As part of a larger story discussing it, they might even be able to publish the entire work as presented on myspace. It doesn't give a paper the right to publish other peoples works in their entirety outside the framework of an actual report on the work. If it does, I am so going to start a paper & publish best selling books and movie scripts in my entertainment section - I'll save a fortune on that whole pesky licensing thing.
If the paper had addressed the rant as an actual newsworthy item and handled it as such, they could have claimed fair use. They didn't. They took a work and fabricated the semblance of permission by routing it through their "Letters to the Editor" section. They made commercial use of someone else's work by deliberately misleading their readers as to the origins of the material if not the author.
I think that a case for fraud could be made - the newspaper attempted to obtain goods or services (readers) through false pretenses (claiming a work published elsewhere as a letter to their editor).
Um the Netherland courts already declared that robots.txt isn't a valid means of controlling spiders. Their reasoning was that print copyright has a default "No" aspect. Requiring sites to use robots.txt inverts that to a default "Yes" - which is unacceptable to the majority of copyright holders.
Try replacing a heater core in a modern car - usually the entire dash assembly has to be removed to get it out. Figure out how much a factory shop is going to charge you for that.
Better than the Chevy 2.8L transverse V6 I suppose. The section of the shop manual for replacing spark plugs starts with: "Unbolt the dogbone and engine mounts and rotate the engine forward". Yes, to replace the sparkplugs you're supposed to unbolt the fucking engine from the car.
If car mfg's come up with this crap - think how much more convoluted your average rocket jockey is going to be when he comes up with something that's only supposed to be replaced once every 2 to 3 vehicles.
This is the dumbest argument against wind power I've seen. Have you ever looked at a windmill? See the little spindly tower holding up the big honking blades. See how much area is around the tower so those big ass blades can rotate around the tower? See how little the tower effects the lighting of the ground?
Farmers today in the midwest & southwest are begging windpower companies to put towers on their land - they loose the use of the foundation and possibly access roads, but the vast majority of the land is still useful for grazing or farming and they can actually make more money from land leases than they can from raising certain crops.
Rooftop solar collection actually has 2 benefits in the summer - first is the obvious generation of electricity to run the AC/Lights/whatever. The second and often unobserved effect is to actually reduce the solar heating of the building involved. Proper ventilation combined with solar collection can reduce thermal heating by up to 30% (roof to wall ratios are important here) - ask how many building managers wouldn't want to see their cooling bills go down by that?
Last time I tried to work with Verizon's tech support for someone, they had me reset the DSL modem - and hung up on me without providing the default UN/PW or the settings. I had to call back twice & ended up going through 4 drones & 2 supervisors before finding someone who understood that you had to MANUALLY ENTER the data if you don't have Windows - and they didn't know how to do the manual configuration.
Please, how can large companies afford to pay their CEOs obscene salaries if their busy charging each other instead of ass raping their customers?
Providing service and value for payment is so last century.
I prefer to demand tribute - Diet Coke & candy are the preferred sacrifices, but the occasional donut will do. All non-critical/non-scheduled work is held at the same priority with preference given to those who have done the most groveling/bribing.
Hey if it's not worth a candybar it can't possibly be mission critical.
Alternately, one person in the department has the license and the others are working under his supervision and in accordance with approved practices. Which way it works seems to be dependent on the state.
You wish the clean room guys charged $100/hr. Most of them charge a grand or more just to evaluate the disk.
This is probably the most important policy you can implement in a business environment. Not only does it make fixing a broken PC trivial, it makes moving people from one location to another equally trivial - they move & log in - problem solved. Add to that the ability to ensure that all the files are backed up on time & life is good.
As an alternative to having to re-load an image, you can either keep a drive with the image already installed or my preference, a spare PC fully ready to install. In either case, swap it out, change the PC name & rebuild the image at your convenience.
Even sadder, is I do this for a living - onsite, in home repair & installation - and the reality is they just whine about having to pay you for watching the progress bar. Pickup & dropoff involves so much less whining.
Great, just when you thought laws couldn't get any more fucked up -- now their going to be written by the same people who wrote Windows ME
Do you have that tagged already or are you going to run it through photo recognition software?
You elected Bush Jr?
How exactly is it you're supposed to prevent someone from putting "Reply:me@example.com" in their spam?
First, a forensics expert hired by the RIAA isn't supposed to be fair or impartial. He's their expert. As for the second, there is not a chance in hell that they would. Planting evidence would destroy the RIAA. They are a bunch of lawyers from the ground up. Contract lawyers, litigation lawyers, entertainment lawyers, etc.
They will do everything they can to bend the laws until they crack, but they won't plant evidence. NYCL can correct me, but if they did as you proposed, every lawyer:
would face censoring at the least, disbarment as most likely, and criminal prosecution for evidence tampering at the outside. They are the worst kind of scum lawyers, but they like the money and power, they aren't going to go to throw it away.
The district court in Texas told them to stuff it a while ago. That's one of the reasons they dropped their latest suit in Texas - they pulled the same enjoinder crap again & got called on it.
The last wireless network I installed in an apt showed 4 'Lynksys' networks available plus a few secured & a few more unsecured with actual names. Given what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if 20% of apartment dwellers are using the wrong wireless connection.
As dargaud pointed out, saturation is becoming a significant issue in residential areas - most apartment buildings outside of the slums are already having interference issues, a situation which is only getting worse as people continue to push for a wireless life.