I was merely trying to point out that band names have nothing at all to do with copyrights, which is what this case is about. Not sure why band names entered the discussion on copyright violation.
Names of bands are protected by trademarks, not copyrights. And you can trademark a band name (and/or logo), on a state and federal level. (I manage bands and have done this many times before in the past.) If you trademark a band name, and somebody else uses the same band name, you have a legal right to ask them to cease and desist using said name.
You are aware that Hollywood existed before the 1970s, right? And I never claimed Hollywood wasn't a place where profit came first and foremost - just that at times, meaningful art and profit occupied the same space there. (Yes, it is the exception to the rule, but it DID happen occasionally)
My Answer: you are too young. Too young to actually remember when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films. Now movies are just vehicles for selling tie-in merchandise, and count on the bar being set so low that even crap like JarJar and Mannequin Skywalker's bad acting are perfectly acceptable to the younger generations. Ewoks? If I wanted fucking Muppets in a movie, I would go see one of the Muppet Movies (which were great - at least the first 2)- but don't mess up my Star Wars movies with them.
No way. Not with my new Chuck Norris(TM) brand anti-rootkit software. Not only does it find the rootkit and get rid of it, but it first makes it cry and beg for it's life needlessly.
None, as in a single one doesn't exist? I seriously doubt ANY major religious figure has had only positive thing written about them. Maybe none you think are legitimate, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I have personally read a bunch of disparaging accounts of Joesph Smith's past. Whether or not they had merit, or the authors had agendas is debatable, but claiming there are zero accounts portraying him negatively is a bit of a stretch.
The fact that he is a significant (you left that word out) religious figure may be indisputable by you, (or other LDS members) but I have certainly heard dispute from others on the same subject. I am not pointing this out to start a religious debate (complete and total waste of time), merely pointing out that accounts do exist portraying Mr. Smith negatively.
If by "well-documented" you mean "hearsay and other stuff not admissible in any court of law", then you might be right. The supposed evidence that he was a significant religious figure is entirely composed of accounts from people who liked him and liked what he taught. Of course they would seek to credit him. I challenge you to find an account by an impartial third party who documented Joseph Smith's supposed religious aspects.
See how that can work both ways pretty easily? I am guessing that you are a practitioner of the Mormon faith?
Yeah, my comment was definitely made tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I have "had fun" doing all the things you talked about, and am very complacent using this easier new fangled technology. Thank God the days of typing in all the info manually about hard drives so you could low level format them is over...
Even if they could, you are still assumed of being guilty as you receive a fine before anyone conclusively proves that you were driving. You should never have to go to court being assumed guilty to prove your innocence. And how many hours are the police wasting trying to identify the driver of the car from the pictures? Alternately a hat, wig, or other similar disguise should be enough reasonable doubt to get out of any tickets issued this way. Way too many holes to be an effective system IMHO. I realize different states have different constitutions, but I did assume that all states would still go by the "innocent until proven guilty" system. Apparently not though.
Not too surprising that the DA would pursue something that would generate income rather than paying money out. Sentencing people to jail costs the state/county money and generates zero income.
And in my city of Minneapolis, they installed the red light cameras, had them going for a few months, then the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. They are still in place, just no longer used. Great waste of taxpayer dollars. Aren't cities supposed to have a legal team to avoid stupid crap like this from happening in the first place? And if they are unconstitutional here, why do they fly other places? It is a pretty simple argument that the car owner is being presumed guilty without any evidence they were actually operating the vehicle at the time. Seems pretty cut and dried to me, just wondering how other states argue the case that that is legal.
I never said a self-respecting person would go into one of the indie coffee shops either, just that they wouldn't go to Starbucks. Self-respecting people brew their own damn java.
No, I want examples of people who have accessed WiFi by circumventing security, and were subsequently charged. Not interested in all the other "thefts of service" examples, I know they exist but they have very little to do with the conversation. We were specifically speaking of unauthorized access to WiFi at Starbucks.
If it "happens all the time" as you claim, please cite some references. I seriously doubt that Starbucks or AT&T would risk the negative publicity going after "criminals" like this. For another unsuccessful model of suing your own customers, please see the RIAA strategy.
"a very arrogant well put together young urban professional who you more than likely will find wearing gucci and prada with a large bank account which they love to brag about. You can find them drinking Starbucks, living in a one bedroom apartment in a city where they will pay 1000-2000 a month for and spending another 3000 a month on their credit cards. They brag about their designer clothes and love to flaunt them , as well as their wealth. They look down upon anyone who isn't as wealthy or high status as they are. Men are likely to be found wearing designer suits, gucci preferably with slicked back or well cut hair. The women will be wearing prada/gucci and fendi. The most arrogant concieted fucks on the planet."
So is jaywalking, but the point the OP was making is that it is a rarely prosecuted crime. I have only read about 1 case where someone was actually charged with this before. Not saying it hasn't happened more than that, just that I don't think it is very common.
Slashdot Mirror
I was merely trying to point out that band names have nothing at all to do with copyrights, which is what this case is about. Not sure why band names entered the discussion on copyright violation.
Names of bands are protected by trademarks, not copyrights. And you can trademark a band name (and/or logo), on a state and federal level. (I manage bands and have done this many times before in the past.) If you trademark a band name, and somebody else uses the same band name, you have a legal right to ask them to cease and desist using said name.
You are aware that Hollywood existed before the 1970s, right? And I never claimed Hollywood wasn't a place where profit came first and foremost - just that at times, meaningful art and profit occupied the same space there. (Yes, it is the exception to the rule, but it DID happen occasionally)
My Answer: you are too young. Too young to actually remember when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films. Now movies are just vehicles for selling tie-in merchandise, and count on the bar being set so low that even crap like JarJar and Mannequin Skywalker's bad acting are perfectly acceptable to the younger generations. Ewoks? If I wanted fucking Muppets in a movie, I would go see one of the Muppet Movies (which were great - at least the first 2)- but don't mess up my Star Wars movies with them.
Now you damn kids GET OFF MY LAWN!!
The Border Search Exemption trumps your personal 4th amendment rights. It isn't like they are completely ignoring the law.
"You are only alive because ants don't view you as a threat."
No, the ants are only alive because Chuck Norris lets them live.
"Now Steven Seagal is writing rootkits?
We're screwed."
No way. Not with my new Chuck Norris(TM) brand anti-rootkit software. Not only does it find the rootkit and get rid of it, but it first makes it cry and beg for it's life needlessly.
You ended that sentence with a "~". Why are you sarcastically advocating a new punctuation mark? ~
None, as in a single one doesn't exist? I seriously doubt ANY major religious figure has had only positive thing written about them. Maybe none you think are legitimate, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I have personally read a bunch of disparaging accounts of Joesph Smith's past. Whether or not they had merit, or the authors had agendas is debatable, but claiming there are zero accounts portraying him negatively is a bit of a stretch.
The fact that he is a significant (you left that word out) religious figure may be indisputable by you, (or other LDS members) but I have certainly heard dispute from others on the same subject. I am not pointing this out to start a religious debate (complete and total waste of time), merely pointing out that accounts do exist portraying Mr. Smith negatively.
If by "well-documented" you mean "hearsay and other stuff not admissible in any court of law", then you might be right. The supposed evidence that he was a significant religious figure is entirely composed of accounts from people who liked him and liked what he taught. Of course they would seek to credit him. I challenge you to find an account by an impartial third party who documented Joseph Smith's supposed religious aspects.
See how that can work both ways pretty easily? I am guessing that you are a practitioner of the Mormon faith?
Their Aironet wireless access points are pretty solid still. I have one in a lab that has been up without a reset for almost a year straight.
Shhh! No fair bringing reality into the Microsoft bash fest!
Yeah, my comment was definitely made tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I have "had fun" doing all the things you talked about, and am very complacent using this easier new fangled technology. Thank God the days of typing in all the info manually about hard drives so you could low level format them is over...
Ah, the glory days of MFM and RLL drives. Wasn't life more simple before the days of ATA??
Even if they could, you are still assumed of being guilty as you receive a fine before anyone conclusively proves that you were driving. You should never have to go to court being assumed guilty to prove your innocence. And how many hours are the police wasting trying to identify the driver of the car from the pictures? Alternately a hat, wig, or other similar disguise should be enough reasonable doubt to get out of any tickets issued this way. Way too many holes to be an effective system IMHO. I realize different states have different constitutions, but I did assume that all states would still go by the "innocent until proven guilty" system. Apparently not though.
Same as the Star Trek movies rule - only the even ones are good.
Not too surprising that the DA would pursue something that would generate income rather than paying money out. Sentencing people to jail costs the state/county money and generates zero income.
And in my city of Minneapolis, they installed the red light cameras, had them going for a few months, then the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. They are still in place, just no longer used. Great waste of taxpayer dollars. Aren't cities supposed to have a legal team to avoid stupid crap like this from happening in the first place? And if they are unconstitutional here, why do they fly other places? It is a pretty simple argument that the car owner is being presumed guilty without any evidence they were actually operating the vehicle at the time. Seems pretty cut and dried to me, just wondering how other states argue the case that that is legal.
I never said a self-respecting person would go into one of the indie coffee shops either, just that they wouldn't go to Starbucks. Self-respecting people brew their own damn java.
"Shame that is the definition of yuppie, as it looks more like the definition of an asshole "
Now you are getting it!
No, I want examples of people who have accessed WiFi by circumventing security, and were subsequently charged. Not interested in all the other "thefts of service" examples, I know they exist but they have very little to do with the conversation. We were specifically speaking of unauthorized access to WiFi at Starbucks.
If it "happens all the time" as you claim, please cite some references. I seriously doubt that Starbucks or AT&T would risk the negative publicity going after "criminals" like this. For another unsuccessful model of suing your own customers, please see the RIAA strategy.
From urbandictionary.com -
"a very arrogant well put together young urban professional who you more than likely will find wearing gucci and prada with a large bank account which they love to brag about. You can find them drinking Starbucks, living in a one bedroom apartment in a city where they will pay 1000-2000 a month for and spending another 3000 a month on their credit cards. They brag about their designer clothes and love to flaunt them , as well as their wealth. They look down upon anyone who isn't as wealthy or high status as they are. Men are likely to be found wearing designer suits, gucci preferably with slicked back or well cut hair. The women will be wearing prada/gucci and fendi. The most arrogant concieted fucks on the planet."
Nope, can't see any problems with that.
There's alway's time for people's to learn the proper use's of word's and punctuation's.
So is jaywalking, but the point the OP was making is that it is a rarely prosecuted crime. I have only read about 1 case where someone was actually charged with this before. Not saying it hasn't happened more than that, just that I don't think it is very common.