And I also don't buy for one second this "very short term" mentality. Investors choose investments that have some intrinsic value that they believe will hold in the long term. If they don't, they know they might be caught holding the bag, and lose everything.
I am going to point you to the current financial meltdown of some of the biggest banks & trading houses in the US(World) as proof that a large number of "Investors" are choosing investments that have intrinsic value. Most of these "commoditiezed mortgages" were junk, that's why they were being sold. However "investors" saw a chance at a quick buck & bought them up like a 3 year old buying penny candy.
I use "investor" loosely here as they aren't investors, they are speculators. The majority of the money being moved around on any given day isn't about long term investment. It's about short term speculation - hoping to grab a 1-3% growth in 14 days or less, followed by bailing & reinvesting hoping for an annual return of 20% or more.
Investors buy for the long haul. IBM stock isn't a huge mover & isn't likely to make you rich. But it usually shows steady growth and has a dividend.
The majority of the money in the stock market may in fact be invested in long term stocks and bonds, but what people see on the news at the end of the day is how the day traders and speculators are moving. And they are always moving to maximize todays profit - even if that means destroying the long term sustainability of a company to do it.
Shareholders have ousted several boards for favoring long term profit over the quarterly report, so it's not surprising that boards & CEO's are pushing more for the quick buck & less for the sustainability for that profit.
Also: Just because something is downloaded does not mean it is a lost sale, since some of the shows I've downloaded (Monk, Rome, Sopranos, Shield) I later purchased on DVD. I believe in supporting the actors, writers, and staff when they create a good show.
Chances are, they would be a lot better compensated if you mailed a buck to the SAG & SWG offices. 50% to 70% of the sale is going to the store. The same percentage of what's left is going to the pressing house. Somewhere between 0% & 5% may actually get lumped to go to the actual actors, directors, and writers. Mostly you're still supporting the distributors & shafting the actual talent.
Hollywood accounting practices are legendary - in the sense that Al Capone & the Sheriff of Nottingham are legendary. Some top rated shows are touted as having made millions for the studios when talking to investors but are still in the red when it comes time to pay out royalties.
I integrated their TAXI (SOAP based trouble ticket system) with out Trouble ticketing system. Ran wonderfully in the test environment, when I pushed it live - I found 4 spelling errors in the live environment that killed it. When I mentioned it I got an errata page w/ my 4 & a couple of others I hadn't found yet.
It's remembering things like this that make me almost glad to be laid off from there --- now if I was only getting paid to be laid off.
Judicial review is within the jurisdiction of every court. Only the Supreme Court gets final say. In this case, FISA reviewed the program, as it exists now, and is giving it a green light. If you can get someone with standing to take it to the Supreme Court, and they didn't opt out on "State Secrets" grounds, then SCOTUS would be the final ruling.
I had a CT state trooper do the same to me. Car drove up past half a mile of cars in the left lane & gunned the engine to pull in front of me. If I hadn't slammed on the brakes I would have taken him in the driver door. I honked & flipped him off & the cop standing 5' away made me pull over for 'aggressive driving'. When I asked him why the other driver who had performed a blatantly unsafe lane change wasn't there also, he threatened to impound my car & have me arrested.
Actually yes, they are supposed to for the simple reason that it is impossible to guarantee that something caught in the spam filter isn't actually valid Email.
The Bush White House Email system is KNOWN to not be backed up properly. It's been a deliberate cluster fuck since they "revamped" the IT when they took office. They have been called to task on it in court several times.
It's a relatively well documented fact that the Bush admin hasn't been properly backing up it's E-mail since they overhauled the Whitehouse IT setup in the first year of his administration. They have been investigated twice - once for using RNC email addresses to do govt business & then again when someone tried to get access to emails & was told they didn't exist. Both times they were told they were in violation of the archiving rules & needed to clean up their act.
At one point "Backups" were done by an intern who went from computer to computer exporting emails to a "backup". From what I understand - they have a 2 separate chunks of software that supposedly don't play well together, Lotus Notes & Exchange Server if I remember correctly. However claims that this is causing a 7 year backup issue are utter crap. Anyone with the least bit of Email Admin knowledge can build a proxy to record all email coming in or going out in under a day - might take a week to tune & test - but certainly not 7 years.
From having worked to integrate Verizon as a 3rd party supplier, I honestly think that they use tin cans, string, ditto machines, and RPN calculators to do things.
Took us a week to get an IP address changed in their FTP push solution for CLEC ordering.
Day one request w/ paperwork
Day 2 paperwork from day 1 not processed before 3:30 - won't go live until day 3
Day 3 find UN/PW being rejected, find out UN/PW no longer meets security requirements & entry failed silently & must be changed - resubmit change request.
Day 3 find UN/PW being rejected. Per Verizon - they included trailing spaces when entering the PW - resubmit change request after 3:30 - because Verizon called @4 w/ cause.
Day 4 bang head on desk while talking to VP about why system isn't updating Verizon orders.
Day 5 Find Verizon doesn't process orders on Friday
Day 6 wait
Day 7 yeah finally works - except they send through 1 copy for each rejected order previously & I now have 200 copies of some orders.
Verizon's software only configures the modem and sets up the initial account w/ Verizon itself. A 5 minute call to Verizon will set up the account & another 2 minutes will configure the DSL modem. The directions are on the big Red & White "quick setup" poster that comes with the "self install kit".
All that being said. Verizon now uses overseas call centers for Tech support, and they don't know how to do the manual setup - including not having the default password for the routers after they tell you to reset it.
Just wait until ISP's are banned from carrying traffic that can't be opened up and examined. I don't think this is a battle the governments are guaranteed to lose.
That one is a looser. How many companies currently use VPNs to connect their offices? How many banks & online retailers use HTTPS to handle transactions?
Banning all encrypted traffic will kill the online economy in about 30 seconds. There is simply no way to handle the banking law requirements for security in an unencrypted environment. Add to that the VPN security requirements of every Fortune 1000 company, the internet would die an ignoble death in about a week and companies would drop back to dedicated lines connecting offices - at a cost of 10-100X the current infrastructure.
My last job, I worked in a small - 35 employees - company. We had 4 VPN connections to outside suppliers - at least 2 of them are mandated by law. Converting those 2 VPNs to dedicated loops would have run between $500 & $1800 a month depending on the loop type. Think about a company like a check clearing house. Rather than have an internet connection that can touch every bank to process checks, it would need a dedicated loop to each bank - figure out exactly how many connections that would be & you'll see exactly how unlikely it is that it could be done without going back to doing it by mail.
FISA is a dedicated branch of the Federal Court system set up for the sole purpose of handling warrants for the intelligence agencies. All of it's members are required to have a Top Secret or better security clearance and it is very much a closed door court.
Most of the paperwork that goes through FISA is classified in some way or another, so its not available for review like normal court documents. In some ways, it's a lot more like a Grand Jury where everything is sealed until after the trial. The only problem is that Intelligence agency work is almost never done, so nothing ever becomes unsealed.
As for history, FISA was created in response to Nixon & Watergate. It satisfied the needs of the intelligence community to be able to work in secret inside the US to handle cross border work, while still maintaining checks & balances on the actual activity. Currently, god only knows what kind of check it's actually performing - last report I saw was rating @ 99+% approval of warrant requests.
("all of his PCs are built in his basement by chained up mexicans!")
Actually, you'd probably loose a case claiming libel for this statement. Hyperbole is a recognized defense in the US. If the statement is so excessive that it's not reasonable to believe on it's face, then it's not considered libel.
Note that different countries have different rules - notably truth is not an absolute defense in England.
So, coincidentally, where homosexual rights have been most clearly advanced in this country, we end up with public displays of:
1. Nudity
2. Masturbation
3. Urination on other people
4. Oral sex
5. BSDM
OK, I'll bite for public displays of:
1. Nudity - Where I live (Western MA) I can get to at least 3 nudist camps in under an hour. I really don't think it's any different anywhere else. I used to live in Rochester NY, home of the Rochester 7 - so public nudity or at least female toplessness isn't an issue related to gay/lesbianism. I seem to recall that there are a few towns in VT or NH that don't have any laws regarding nudity - never had either. Also I really wish that they would stop closing down the nude beaches - royal PITA it is to find one now.
2.Masturbation, 3.Urination on other people, 4.Oral Sex - Blatant public displays of all of these are generally frowned upon by just about everyone in the terms of 'nonconsensualy involving people in your kink'. Although "sneaking sex" in public does have a more accepted following in both straight & gay communities. I'd also point you in the direction of Swingtown with it's key parties & similar events - that's public/semi-public sex & was pretty much exclusively a white hetero phenomenon. Also public displays of sexual activity are usually covered under local public indecency laws.
5.BDSM - Yawn, you think this is a gay thing? Check your stats. Depending on your study, 'Slap & Tickle' runs as high as 70% in the hetero community with bondage experimentation running in the 30's & higher. Both Mascher and DeSade were privileged white male heterosexuals.
No decorum, no decency. No self-restraint.
Sounds like Mardi Gras in NO to me. I really have to get to Brazil to check out Carnival - I hear it makes NO look like a nunnery.
Leaving aside simple blow jobs, several of the acts that occurred in that event are evidence of deep-seated, severe psychological problems suffered by the participants. Yet in the name of 'tolerance' and 'gay rights', we end up with these deranged acts celebrated amidst cheering crowds.
Hmm, per the DSM V they aren't "deep-seated, severe psychological problems" but hey, what could that book tell us.
The participants of "Up your Alley 2008" quite frankly justify the stigma previously attached to homosexuality.
Yawn, Of course let's ignore the fact that the majority of people arrested for all of your complaints are heterosexual males. Yep, accepting homosexuality is the cause of the nutjob arrested a couple of weeks ago for asking women to kick him in the nuts - or the one who was sniffing women's armpits.
I don't disagree that open public sex acts shouldn't be tolerated, but your premise that accepting homosexual behavior is the cause of it is, quite frankly, laughable.
I suggest you check exactly how many barratry cases have been prosecuted in the US in the last decade. Even Jack Tompson hasn't been charged with that yet. Although one lawyer did have to cough up for his opponent's legal fees recently.
you really can't know until after the trial if what you're doing was legal
Which in most cases means you just can't do it. Period.
What!? you disagree with the courts ruling in Nitke V. Ashcroft that lack of clear lines does not result in a chilling effect of the arts? I'm shocked sir, shocked.
[/sarcasm]
One of the most bizarre arguments ever made, that it competed with something she was thinking of writing.
This was an argument the judge explicitly rejected. So I believe he agreed with you that it was suspect if not bizarre.
Even the judge agreed it was mostly transformative. Only a lunatic would buy the 'lexicon' rather than the novel.
By it's nature, transitioning from the fiction genre to the reference genre is transformative. If I read the judges argument correctly, the problem lay not with the nature of the book, but rather with the presentation of the contents. The lack of original content in the lexicon entries precluded a ruling for the transformative nature of the work.
From the GP post:
Despite the large amount of copying that weighed against the lexicon author I find his work transformative rather than mere cut & paste because: a) A huge amount of original research, organization, and sheer effort was put into its creation. b) How can you write any lexicon without referring directly to and quoting the original facts in their most original (hence correct) form?
To address a)While the website does in fact include references and a substantial amount of organizational effort, the Lexicon as a book is supposed to have trimmed a substantial amount of that in the name of space.
In addressing b) while quotes and paraphrased references to the original work are required in order to create a properly annotated Lexicon, failure to include original content in the form of analysis or comment reduces a work to an alphabetized 'cut & paste' job.
As I interpret it: creating a lexicon of a haiku artists works is acceptable if you list the haiku title and your summary which includes excerpts of the haiku, but not if you simply rearrange the haiku themselves in alphabetical order.
5) How could this have ever been infringement at all when it was never published due to prior restraint shown here? There should have been no statutory damages at all!
Should have been a defendant's verdict.
I don't necessarily agree that it should have been a defendant's verdict, however I do agree that given the lack of distribution, there shouldn't have been any ruling of infringment. An injunction suffices to prevent any distribution and hence any infringement.
Also there should be some kind of very inexpensive arbitration forum where these issues can be resolved quickly, expeditiously, inexpensively, and before -- rather than after -- the creator has invested his or her time, energy, and money.
I'm not certain how you could possibly arbitrate the 'fair useness' of a work before it's at least in the polishing stage. In this particular case, the judge explicitly ruled against JKR in the aspect of the book competing against her encyclopedia. He failed it as 'fair use' only on it being insufficiently transformative. In theory - a rewrite of the book to replace chunks of the quotes & paraphrasing with original content will make the Lexicon legitimate. Under those circumstances, arbitration could only happen after the work is essentially completed.
I fully agree that there needs to be much clearer guidelines as to what is & what is not fair use. The current 4 part test for fair use is almost as unwieldy as the 3 part Miller test for obscenity - in both cases you really can't know until after the trial if what you're doing was legal.
Remember, fair use is only fair use if you 1) are not profiting and 2) are not affecting the value of the original subject (very badly paraphrased).
Total Fail.
1) The judge himself states that the market for guidebooks and the like for HP is not RJK's alone. You certainly may profit from the fair use of a copyrighted work. (Weird Al comes to mind with his parodies being both fair use & highly profitable)
2) You may certainly affect the value of a copyrighted work while still being within fair use. I can do a movie review & show a scene from a movie - as support for my argument that the dialog in the movie couldn't be any more stilted if it was given by Chinese acrobats walking about on 20' bamboo poles. This is exactly what book, movie, and music reviewers do all the time - negative reviews drive the value of the work down, good ones up.
In this case, I see a reference book comprised of facts, stats and even quotes to be a classic example of this sort of problem. And what of "Cliff notes?" How much worse is this along those same lines? I don't believe the publishers of these reference notes are required to ask permission or have a license agreement.
If you read the Judges actual ruling, it shows that he considered all of those factors. Not only that, he indicated that the defendant had good faith reasons to believe he was acting under fair use. The only reason that the judge ruled against the lexicon was that there was an excessive amount of direct copying - the level of quoting & paraphrasing passages exceeded the norm for this type of work.
In Cliff Notes entire pages are condensed into a single paragraph with a few interspersed direct quotes that are important. The lexicon included a substantial number of entries where individual paragraphs were either directly copied or rewritten rather than new paragraphs synthesized.
In this particular instance, I don't believe this is a mis-application of copyright law. What I'm not sure of is how to handle it from here. In accordance with the judge's ruling, rewriting passages in the lexicon so it conforms more closely to similar works would remove it from it's infringing status. In that case, does he have to go back to court to get a pre-emptive judgment that it is non-infringing before publishing it?
Most earthbased systems are on a 6-10 year refueling schedule. It's also not like a truck where you suddenly run out of gas, the heat output of a reactor is going to taper off over the course of several weeks/months following a very predictable schedule.
This seems to be another marginal use of the class action by attorneys looking for an easy payday while the rest of us all get cheques for $0.33 and graphics card prices go up by a couple of dollars to compensate (aka the lawyer tax).
The class is stockholders not consumers. Unless you hold/held stock in Nvidia in the timerange, you won't see anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I am going to point you to the current financial meltdown of some of the biggest banks & trading houses in the US(World) as proof that a large number of "Investors" are choosing investments that have intrinsic value. Most of these "commoditiezed mortgages" were junk, that's why they were being sold. However "investors" saw a chance at a quick buck & bought them up like a 3 year old buying penny candy.
I use "investor" loosely here as they aren't investors, they are speculators. The majority of the money being moved around on any given day isn't about long term investment. It's about short term speculation - hoping to grab a 1-3% growth in 14 days or less, followed by bailing & reinvesting hoping for an annual return of 20% or more.
Investors buy for the long haul. IBM stock isn't a huge mover & isn't likely to make you rich. But it usually shows steady growth and has a dividend.
The majority of the money in the stock market may in fact be invested in long term stocks and bonds, but what people see on the news at the end of the day is how the day traders and speculators are moving. And they are always moving to maximize todays profit - even if that means destroying the long term sustainability of a company to do it.
Shareholders have ousted several boards for favoring long term profit over the quarterly report, so it's not surprising that boards & CEO's are pushing more for the quick buck & less for the sustainability for that profit.
Chances are, they would be a lot better compensated if you mailed a buck to the SAG & SWG offices. 50% to 70% of the sale is going to the store. The same percentage of what's left is going to the pressing house. Somewhere between 0% & 5% may actually get lumped to go to the actual actors, directors, and writers. Mostly you're still supporting the distributors & shafting the actual talent.
Hollywood accounting practices are legendary - in the sense that Al Capone & the Sheriff of Nottingham are legendary. Some top rated shows are touted as having made millions for the studios when talking to investors but are still in the red when it comes time to pay out royalties.
I integrated their TAXI (SOAP based trouble ticket system) with out Trouble ticketing system. Ran wonderfully in the test environment, when I pushed it live - I found 4 spelling errors in the live environment that killed it. When I mentioned it I got an errata page w/ my 4 & a couple of others I hadn't found yet.
It's remembering things like this that make me almost glad to be laid off from there --- now if I was only getting paid to be laid off.
Judicial review is within the jurisdiction of every court. Only the Supreme Court gets final say. In this case, FISA reviewed the program, as it exists now, and is giving it a green light. If you can get someone with standing to take it to the Supreme Court, and they didn't opt out on "State Secrets" grounds, then SCOTUS would be the final ruling.
I said no text
I had a CT state trooper do the same to me. Car drove up past half a mile of cars in the left lane & gunned the engine to pull in front of me. If I hadn't slammed on the brakes I would have taken him in the driver door. I honked & flipped him off & the cop standing 5' away made me pull over for 'aggressive driving'. When I asked him why the other driver who had performed a blatantly unsafe lane change wasn't there also, he threatened to impound my car & have me arrested.
Actually yes, they are supposed to for the simple reason that it is impossible to guarantee that something caught in the spam filter isn't actually valid Email.
The Bush White House Email system is KNOWN to not be backed up properly. It's been a deliberate cluster fuck since they "revamped" the IT when they took office. They have been called to task on it in court several times.
It's a relatively well documented fact that the Bush admin hasn't been properly backing up it's E-mail since they overhauled the Whitehouse IT setup in the first year of his administration. They have been investigated twice - once for using RNC email addresses to do govt business & then again when someone tried to get access to emails & was told they didn't exist. Both times they were told they were in violation of the archiving rules & needed to clean up their act.
At one point "Backups" were done by an intern who went from computer to computer exporting emails to a "backup". From what I understand - they have a 2 separate chunks of software that supposedly don't play well together, Lotus Notes & Exchange Server if I remember correctly. However claims that this is causing a 7 year backup issue are utter crap. Anyone with the least bit of Email Admin knowledge can build a proxy to record all email coming in or going out in under a day - might take a week to tune & test - but certainly not 7 years.
From having worked to integrate Verizon as a 3rd party supplier, I honestly think that they use tin cans, string, ditto machines, and RPN calculators to do things.
Took us a week to get an IP address changed in their FTP push solution for CLEC ordering.
Verizon's software only configures the modem and sets up the initial account w/ Verizon itself. A 5 minute call to Verizon will set up the account & another 2 minutes will configure the DSL modem. The directions are on the big Red & White "quick setup" poster that comes with the "self install kit".
All that being said. Verizon now uses overseas call centers for Tech support, and they don't know how to do the manual setup - including not having the default password for the routers after they tell you to reset it.
That one is a looser. How many companies currently use VPNs to connect their offices? How many banks & online retailers use HTTPS to handle transactions?
Banning all encrypted traffic will kill the online economy in about 30 seconds. There is simply no way to handle the banking law requirements for security in an unencrypted environment. Add to that the VPN security requirements of every Fortune 1000 company, the internet would die an ignoble death in about a week and companies would drop back to dedicated lines connecting offices - at a cost of 10-100X the current infrastructure.
My last job, I worked in a small - 35 employees - company. We had 4 VPN connections to outside suppliers - at least 2 of them are mandated by law. Converting those 2 VPNs to dedicated loops would have run between $500 & $1800 a month depending on the loop type. Think about a company like a check clearing house. Rather than have an internet connection that can touch every bank to process checks, it would need a dedicated loop to each bank - figure out exactly how many connections that would be & you'll see exactly how unlikely it is that it could be done without going back to doing it by mail.
FISA is a dedicated branch of the Federal Court system set up for the sole purpose of handling warrants for the intelligence agencies. All of it's members are required to have a Top Secret or better security clearance and it is very much a closed door court.
Most of the paperwork that goes through FISA is classified in some way or another, so its not available for review like normal court documents. In some ways, it's a lot more like a Grand Jury where everything is sealed until after the trial. The only problem is that Intelligence agency work is almost never done, so nothing ever becomes unsealed.
As for history, FISA was created in response to Nixon & Watergate. It satisfied the needs of the intelligence community to be able to work in secret inside the US to handle cross border work, while still maintaining checks & balances on the actual activity. Currently, god only knows what kind of check it's actually performing - last report I saw was rating @ 99+% approval of warrant requests.
Actually, you'd probably loose a case claiming libel for this statement. Hyperbole is a recognized defense in the US. If the statement is so excessive that it's not reasonable to believe on it's face, then it's not considered libel.
Note that different countries have different rules - notably truth is not an absolute defense in England.
OK, I'll bite for public displays of:
1. Nudity - Where I live (Western MA) I can get to at least 3 nudist camps in under an hour. I really don't think it's any different anywhere else. I used to live in Rochester NY, home of the Rochester 7 - so public nudity or at least female toplessness isn't an issue related to gay/lesbianism. I seem to recall that there are a few towns in VT or NH that don't have any laws regarding nudity - never had either. Also I really wish that they would stop closing down the nude beaches - royal PITA it is to find one now.
2.Masturbation, 3.Urination on other people, 4.Oral Sex - Blatant public displays of all of these are generally frowned upon by just about everyone in the terms of 'nonconsensualy involving people in your kink'. Although "sneaking sex" in public does have a more accepted following in both straight & gay communities. I'd also point you in the direction of Swingtown with it's key parties & similar events - that's public/semi-public sex & was pretty much exclusively a white hetero phenomenon. Also public displays of sexual activity are usually covered under local public indecency laws.
5.BDSM - Yawn, you think this is a gay thing? Check your stats. Depending on your study, 'Slap & Tickle' runs as high as 70% in the hetero community with bondage experimentation running in the 30's & higher. Both Mascher and DeSade were privileged white male heterosexuals.
Sounds like Mardi Gras in NO to me. I really have to get to Brazil to check out Carnival - I hear it makes NO look like a nunnery.
Hmm, per the DSM V they aren't "deep-seated, severe psychological problems" but hey, what could that book tell us.
Yawn, Of course let's ignore the fact that the majority of people arrested for all of your complaints are heterosexual males. Yep, accepting homosexuality is the cause of the nutjob arrested a couple of weeks ago for asking women to kick him in the nuts - or the one who was sniffing women's armpits.
I don't disagree that open public sex acts shouldn't be tolerated, but your premise that accepting homosexual behavior is the cause of it is, quite frankly, laughable.
Gumstix seem to have more options.
I suggest you check exactly how many barratry cases have been prosecuted in the US in the last decade. Even Jack Tompson hasn't been charged with that yet. Although one lawyer did have to cough up for his opponent's legal fees recently.
What!? you disagree with the courts ruling in Nitke V. Ashcroft that lack of clear lines does not result in a chilling effect of the arts? I'm shocked sir, shocked. [/sarcasm]
This was an argument the judge explicitly rejected. So I believe he agreed with you that it was suspect if not bizarre.
By it's nature, transitioning from the fiction genre to the reference genre is transformative. If I read the judges argument correctly, the problem lay not with the nature of the book, but rather with the presentation of the contents. The lack of original content in the lexicon entries precluded a ruling for the transformative nature of the work.
From the GP post:
To address a)While the website does in fact include references and a substantial amount of organizational effort, the Lexicon as a book is supposed to have trimmed a substantial amount of that in the name of space.
In addressing b) while quotes and paraphrased references to the original work are required in order to create a properly annotated Lexicon, failure to include original content in the form of analysis or comment reduces a work to an alphabetized 'cut & paste' job.
As I interpret it: creating a lexicon of a haiku artists works is acceptable if you list the haiku title and your summary which includes excerpts of the haiku, but not if you simply rearrange the haiku themselves in alphabetical order.
I don't necessarily agree that it should have been a defendant's verdict, however I do agree that given the lack of distribution, there shouldn't have been any ruling of infringment. An injunction suffices to prevent any distribution and hence any infringement.
I'm not certain how you could possibly arbitrate the 'fair useness' of a work before it's at least in the polishing stage. In this particular case, the judge explicitly ruled against JKR in the aspect of the book competing against her encyclopedia. He failed it as 'fair use' only on it being insufficiently transformative. In theory - a rewrite of the book to replace chunks of the quotes & paraphrasing with original content will make the Lexicon legitimate. Under those circumstances, arbitration could only happen after the work is essentially completed.
I fully agree that there needs to be much clearer guidelines as to what is & what is not fair use. The current 4 part test for fair use is almost as unwieldy as the 3 part Miller test for obscenity - in both cases you really can't know until after the trial if what you're doing was legal.
Total Fail.
1) The judge himself states that the market for guidebooks and the like for HP is not RJK's alone. You certainly may profit from the fair use of a copyrighted work. (Weird Al comes to mind with his parodies being both fair use & highly profitable)
2) You may certainly affect the value of a copyrighted work while still being within fair use. I can do a movie review & show a scene from a movie - as support for my argument that the dialog in the movie couldn't be any more stilted if it was given by Chinese acrobats walking about on 20' bamboo poles. This is exactly what book, movie, and music reviewers do all the time - negative reviews drive the value of the work down, good ones up.
If you read the Judges actual ruling, it shows that he considered all of those factors. Not only that, he indicated that the defendant had good faith reasons to believe he was acting under fair use. The only reason that the judge ruled against the lexicon was that there was an excessive amount of direct copying - the level of quoting & paraphrasing passages exceeded the norm for this type of work.
In Cliff Notes entire pages are condensed into a single paragraph with a few interspersed direct quotes that are important. The lexicon included a substantial number of entries where individual paragraphs were either directly copied or rewritten rather than new paragraphs synthesized.
In this particular instance, I don't believe this is a mis-application of copyright law. What I'm not sure of is how to handle it from here. In accordance with the judge's ruling, rewriting passages in the lexicon so it conforms more closely to similar works would remove it from it's infringing status. In that case, does he have to go back to court to get a pre-emptive judgment that it is non-infringing before publishing it?
Go read some more tech support calls & then rewrite that.
Most earthbased systems are on a 6-10 year refueling schedule. It's also not like a truck where you suddenly run out of gas, the heat output of a reactor is going to taper off over the course of several weeks/months following a very predictable schedule.
The class is stockholders not consumers. Unless you hold/held stock in Nvidia in the timerange, you won't see anything.