I can see it now, this is going to turn out just like the federal seizure database
California is going to put all this data into the system, and 10 years from now, someone is going to ask "how many people have been killed by police so far?", and the police are going to say "We don't know, because it would crash the system if we tried to look it up".
In the past, in cases where it was literally the cop's word against the defendant, the judges always assumed that the cop's testimony was more likely to be true.
Just grab a phone out of one of those recycling bins they have at some electrics stores, and call 911 (all phones can call 911, even if not activated). You don't even have to talk, just make muffled sounds, and the police will eventually show up.
The police don't even need to have a stingray, they already know where the phone is though e-911
Replacing the micro-switches wouldn't be such a problem if Logitech didn't act like the shape of the human hand changes every few years.
The MX 510 and MX 518 were legendary, and people still rebuild old ones, yet Logitech doesn't produce them anymore, and the new ones are a different shape.
It also doesn't help that their mice only come in two categories: cheap and basic, or "lets cover the entire mouse in buttons"
I think they were referring to joysticks, which is what saitek makes.
Joysticks use atleast 2 pots, with up to 6 pots on the HOTAS joysticks, and the quality of the pots is a huge part of the quality of the joystick.
You could build the most comfortable and durable joystick ever, and it would still be crap if the pots have a dead zone a mile wide and drift like a leaf on the breeze.
That is a really tenuous argument in this particular case, because they weren't accusing Ubuntu itself of being infringing. If there had been more than the one solitary link then there might have been a case. I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume there is some minimum standard for establishing potential or actual harm.
There are other cases, especially with youtube videos, where slander/libel could definitely apply (especially when dealing with fair-use exemptions)
The issue really needs to be fixed from within the copyright law, to specifically deal with false copyright claims, instead of just relying on anti-slander laws.
Now THAT is an interesting idea, since the courts have already ruled that Google can do whatever it wants with search rankings.
I'm not sure there is anything Paramount could do against being de-ranked (or removed entirely) since removing links (outside of the DMCA) would be considered free speech on Google's part.
In this particular case, who would have grounds to sue for libel? The only reputation that has been damaged here is Google's, and that was as a result of Google's own action (or automated inaction) and not the take-down request itself. (WB's reputation has also been damaged, but you can't sue yourself for libel)
The only party that would have been harmed directly would be extratorrent, for the implication that they hosted pirated content, but I'm pretty sure the operators of extratorrent don't want to get anywhere near that particular can of worms. (And they probably live outside the US anyway, making it a moot point)
The DMCA forces Google to immediately take action for every request. If they started manually vetting each request (or limiting request rate), WB would immediately accuse Google of violating the safe harbor provision by not acting as soon as technically possible.
Google shot themselves in the foot with the automated system. Now that the studios are used to the rapid automated results, any intentional slowing of the take-downs (even to ensure accuracy) could be considered resisting the DMCA.
Also, nobody has done a good job of informing webmasters and others about counter-notices. Under DMCA, if Warner Brothers sends a notice, the recipient has to take it down, BUT you can then send a COUNTER-notice saying "this isn't infringing" and they have to put it back up.
No. If you send a counter notice, Google has to ask Warner Brothers "are you sure this specific link is infringing?", and if WB says "Yes" then the link stays down and you have to take it to a judge.
The problem is that it's ALL automated, including the final confirmation from Warner Brothers (which is automatically "Yes")
Google probably has a whitelist of domains that, at the very least, will raise a flag in the takedown system. Anything not in that whitelist just gets taken down automatically without anyone even knowing about it.
"The Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) ordered Google in May to apply RTBF removals not only to the company’s European domains such as google.co.uk or google.fr, but to the search engine’s global domain google.com."
It's a regulatory body, not a court, but it carries the same weight.
"The Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) ordered Google in May to apply RTBF removals not only to the company’s European domains such as google.co.uk or google.fr, but to the search engine’s global domain google.com."
"hyperlinks to copyright infringing works constitutes a "communication to the public" for the purposes of EU copyright law"
It sounds like there is a clause against merely telling someone where copyrighted work can be found, and because it's part of the copyright law itself, it's a violation of the whole law.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now, this is going to turn out just like the federal seizure database
California is going to put all this data into the system, and 10 years from now, someone is going to ask "how many people have been killed by police so far?", and the police are going to say "We don't know, because it would crash the system if we tried to look it up".
It wasn't just cops backing each other up.
In the past, in cases where it was literally the cop's word against the defendant, the judges always assumed that the cop's testimony was more likely to be true.
Its easier than that.
Just grab a phone out of one of those recycling bins they have at some electrics stores, and call 911 (all phones can call 911, even if not activated). You don't even have to talk, just make muffled sounds, and the police will eventually show up.
The police don't even need to have a stingray, they already know where the phone is though e-911
Or they just drop the charges entirely and walk away.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
Does this qualify her for a Darwin award?
Replacing the micro-switches wouldn't be such a problem if Logitech didn't act like the shape of the human hand changes every few years.
The MX 510 and MX 518 were legendary, and people still rebuild old ones, yet Logitech doesn't produce them anymore, and the new ones are a different shape.
It also doesn't help that their mice only come in two categories: cheap and basic, or "lets cover the entire mouse in buttons"
I think they were referring to joysticks, which is what saitek makes.
Joysticks use atleast 2 pots, with up to 6 pots on the HOTAS joysticks, and the quality of the pots is a huge part of the quality of the joystick.
You could build the most comfortable and durable joystick ever, and it would still be crap if the pots have a dead zone a mile wide and drift like a leaf on the breeze.
You think it's suicide, because you have only seen Phase 1.
Phase 2 is to lock down all bluetooth audio using DRM so the BT headphone/speakers companies have to pay a fee to be Apple Compatible.
It might be a simple as standing in the right place and yelling "Computer! Arch!" in a commanding tone.
Are your users stupid?
Introducing the StupidaMouse, a mouse with no buttons!
What your users can't click, they can't screw up!
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/...
Sorry, you are right. I got the rules for Content ID takedowns and DMCA takedowns mixed up.
That is a really tenuous argument in this particular case, because they weren't accusing Ubuntu itself of being infringing. If there had been more than the one solitary link then there might have been a case. I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume there is some minimum standard for establishing potential or actual harm.
There are other cases, especially with youtube videos, where slander/libel could definitely apply (especially when dealing with fair-use exemptions)
The issue really needs to be fixed from within the copyright law, to specifically deal with false copyright claims, instead of just relying on anti-slander laws.
Now THAT is an interesting idea, since the courts have already ruled that Google can do whatever it wants with search rankings.
I'm not sure there is anything Paramount could do against being de-ranked (or removed entirely) since removing links (outside of the DMCA) would be considered free speech on Google's part.
In this particular case, who would have grounds to sue for libel? The only reputation that has been damaged here is Google's, and that was as a result of Google's own action (or automated inaction) and not the take-down request itself. (WB's reputation has also been damaged, but you can't sue yourself for libel)
The only party that would have been harmed directly would be extratorrent, for the implication that they hosted pirated content, but I'm pretty sure the operators of extratorrent don't want to get anywhere near that particular can of worms. (And they probably live outside the US anyway, making it a moot point)
The DMCA forces Google to immediately take action for every request. If they started manually vetting each request (or limiting request rate), WB would immediately accuse Google of violating the safe harbor provision by not acting as soon as technically possible.
Google shot themselves in the foot with the automated system. Now that the studios are used to the rapid automated results, any intentional slowing of the take-downs (even to ensure accuracy) could be considered resisting the DMCA.
Also, nobody has done a good job of informing webmasters and others about counter-notices. Under DMCA, if Warner Brothers sends a notice, the recipient has to take it down, BUT you can then send a COUNTER-notice saying "this isn't infringing" and they have to put it back up.
No. If you send a counter notice, Google has to ask Warner Brothers "are you sure this specific link is infringing?", and if WB says "Yes" then the link stays down and you have to take it to a judge.
The problem is that it's ALL automated, including the final confirmation from Warner Brothers (which is automatically "Yes")
Google probably has a whitelist of domains that, at the very least, will raise a flag in the takedown system. Anything not in that whitelist just gets taken down automatically without anyone even knowing about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
"The Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) ordered Google in May to apply RTBF removals not only to the company’s European domains such as google.co.uk or google.fr, but to the search engine’s global domain google.com."
It's a regulatory body, not a court, but it carries the same weight.
Or allow any of your internet content to be accessible in the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
"The Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) ordered Google in May to apply RTBF removals not only to the company’s European domains such as google.co.uk or google.fr, but to the search engine’s global domain google.com."
It's liberal in the sense that mild socialism falls on the liberal end of the scale.
"hyperlinks to copyright infringing works constitutes a "communication to the public" for the purposes of EU copyright law"
It sounds like there is a clause against merely telling someone where copyrighted work can be found, and because it's part of the copyright law itself, it's a violation of the whole law.
And who decides which jurisdiction it falls under, when the links are on a US site, but visible to the world?
They have already tried to force EU law on the entire internet with "right to be forgotten".
I was thinking the same thing. It's the Mario Bros Game & Watch, for the iPhone.
The story is that a Tesla was involved, that's it.
Welcome to tesladot.org: News for Telsa nerds, stuff that matters (if you are into Tesla)
Existing airbag crash sensors could be used to detect the crash. Design it to release some sort of spring-loaded jumper that disconnects the battery.