I don't think this will pass, as no one is happy about. The law allows personal infringement in a lot of cases, so not even the record companies are happy with it. I think they will have to do a re-write, and maybe that version will be somewhat realistic.
That reads more like a press release than any kind of tech article. It also sounds too good to be true, like some of the tech announcements from North Korea. I hope that its real, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm not in Colorado, so I don't know their particular statute of frauds, but in general it requires a contract, signed, in writing for things over $500. Since, according to the contract on the bottom, one page is worth $5,000, I would argue they need my signature to imply that I agreed to the contract. Also, basic contract law requires a meeting of the minds and an agreement. There isn't one with a crawler. Finally, I don't think you can eliminate fair use rights in the manner that she is doing. That's a basic part of the law. She's trying to extend copyright in a manner that definitely isn't settled, and may have sufficient precedence against to make this a forgone conclusion. I hope that the judge didn't dismiss the claim so that he can establish some precedent on the matter, showing how stupid it is, and prevent future law suits of the same kind.
Palm's intent was less important than Microsoft's perception of their intent. You are correct on what killed Palm; its shameful to have that much of a market lead and give it away.
But even if a department in MS loses money, but serves to protect or expand their money making operations, isn't that profit driven? Using XBox to push Windows Media Center, using CE to disrupt Palm and limit that avenue of attack on Windows, giving away IE to destroy Netscape? Its too simplistic to say that all of their projects don't make money just because the revenues that MS reports don't directly credit those profits to the projects that generate or protect them.
It really depends on the judge. A good judge will look at the DMCA, the Grokster decision, then how much user created content is on YouTube, decide YouTube doesn't actively encourage infringement or rely upon it as a business plan, and will tell Viacom to police YouTube, as is the intent of the DMCA. A bad activist judge will correct this "injustice" and find against Google. Either way, Viacom loses out long term. This is a stupid law suit.
Government, please stay off of the Internet. Freedom of speech involves some risk. Let the people choose if they take that risk or not, but if you take it from us, you take our freedom as well.
Patents in the EU and the US are different, so the EU's ruling probably won't have much effect in the US courts. Also, being forced to reveal any non-patented trade secrets, as defined by US code, could have a bad precedential effect on US law. I wouldn't be surprised to see DOJ get involved in this one in some manner. Trade secrets don't have to be unique enough to be patented, but they are still protected by criminal penalties. If the EU can force American companies to give them up, that pretty much invalidates the entire statute. And I'm not arguing on the moral grounds of the Trade Secret statute, just that it exists, and the US government has an interest in maintaining it as such.
Why not? They are taking the advertiser's money and providing a platform for the message. It may not be reality, but its a sufficient argument for a lawyer to pitch it as a sufficient reason why the power company shouldn't be forced to run the ad.
There was a case about an enivornmental group suing a power company to put an advertisement in the power company's bills. The court ruled that the power company didn't have to include the advertisement, even at no cost to themselves, because it would force them to either contest what was said in the ad, or implicitly agree with it. I don't see how this is any different, except it involves that internet thingy. Maybe a lawyer looking to make a quick buck?
I agree with your first point, but disagree strongly with your second. You can't discount an article as biased based on its conclusion. Even if the conclusion sounds crazy, but it has facts and a logical conclusion, it may not be biased or wrong. And although personal anecdotes fail to prove anything, I am using a Mac for a variety of tasks, and find myself far more productive than with Windows (NT 4.0 through XP) or on Linux. There is some transition pain, but overall, I feel its a better environment. And that's one of the problems with quantifying user experience; everyone is different, and works better in different ways.
People need to get involved early on to make sure things like this don't become exactly what the fear. The article shouldn't be suprised that privacy advocates are getting involved early. Glad to see it, personally.
I'm all for choice, and I think its pretty stupid of Dell not to have offered this before. However, I wonder how many unique requests there are, and how many people asked for that a 1000 times or so. I use Linux at home, but it sure isn't on a Dell box; I built my own, as I guess a lot of Linux hobbists do. But if this gets Dell to implement that option, then great. More Linux penetration is good. Of course, people have to follow up on it; if they offer it and no one buys it, it just gives them and other retailers a reason not to offer it and will make it harder in the future to get pre-made Linux boxes from the major sellers.
I wonder how much China would complain if the NSA launched an attack against any confirmed hosts? If there is evidence that computers are attacking use, either live or as bots, can China make a real complaint about us protecting our interests?
I agree that we give China too much leeway in a variety of venues, but things are changing there. They have the special economic zones, which are essentially capitalist, and the government is losing its grip on a lot of places. It appears their accounting rules are becoming more westernized, and with them, more transparency in to their economy.
The government already makes many decisions about how to raise our children. They will continue to do so, further intruding into parents' lives. Why should we allow them to do so with TV, when it is so easy for parents to restrict what their children watch. Block content. Use a V-chip. But why should a social good allow for the government to ignore the constitution? Its a social good for them to torture people to get information that prevents terrorits attacks. But I don't support that. Yes, I realize they are on different orders of magnitude. But the government has certain rules that it isn't supposed to violate, and if it can violate one because of a "good idea," then there is little argument that they can't violate them all. If someone is going to regulate TV, it should be the states, who are supposed to have the police power in our federal system. Of course, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to expand the Bill of Rights to all of the states, so the states would be hard pressed to regulate speech under current Constitutional law. Bottom line, if this is such a good idea that we need to break the Constitution to implement it, then lets amend the Constitution to make it legal.
The FCC found one study that gives them evidence to extend their authority, ignore the Constitution, and further entrench the government in our lives. What a surprise. Really, for an organization that was initially designed to de-conflict the radio spectrum, the FCC sure has expanded. Police powers are supposed to be left to the states. The federal government is intruding on their power and citizens' rights. If its so bad, parents should do their job and not let kids watch it. If its so bad, then no one will watch it, and they will put on other programming. The thing is, people are watching it, and its what people want. Let me make my own decisions, and stop trying to be my parent. That's not the purpose of government. Defend me from the big, bad media companies, please, cause I don't have the common sense to turn off the TV and read a book.
The laws the are enforcing are passed with certain policy goals in mind. If there verdicts don't advance those policy goals, then they have lost. The EU failed in trying to create a free and open market for media players through the court system. It ended up being a waste of tax payer's time, although maybe not money because of the verdict. However, there were other ways to achieve the goal that were not used because the EU relied on the courts, and now they are no better off than when they started.
Not to defend the amount lawyers make, because it does seem a bit much, but isn't it also logical that a large group of people would go to law school, charge less, and take away an enormous amount of business? Even $10 an hour would make a large difference in big litigation. Maybe the market isn't clear, but there are market forces at work, even in litigation.
Winning is who is shaping the market place, not who paid the fine. The EU was trying to provide consumer choice by preventing MS from bundling a media player. If you examine the marketplace now, does MS continue to have a competitive advantage in the media player market based on bundling? Yes, they do. Do the advantages they have received exceed the fines? I would assume so, but that's something that you need MS internal records to determine. However, their continued conduct suggests that it was. So, the EU increased MS's cost of business, but the behavior they were trying to curtail continues unabated. So I would say MS won. On an interesting side notes, I wonder if Apple has changed the equation with the inclusion of Quicktime in iTunes. If so, and there is a competitive marketplace in Europe for media players, at least between MS Media Player and Quicktime, then Apple, in the market, succeeded where Europe, in the courts, failed.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this will pass, as no one is happy about. The law allows personal infringement in a lot of cases, so not even the record companies are happy with it. I think they will have to do a re-write, and maybe that version will be somewhat realistic.
That reads more like a press release than any kind of tech article. It also sounds too good to be true, like some of the tech announcements from North Korea. I hope that its real, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm not in Colorado, so I don't know their particular statute of frauds, but in general it requires a contract, signed, in writing for things over $500. Since, according to the contract on the bottom, one page is worth $5,000, I would argue they need my signature to imply that I agreed to the contract. Also, basic contract law requires a meeting of the minds and an agreement. There isn't one with a crawler. Finally, I don't think you can eliminate fair use rights in the manner that she is doing. That's a basic part of the law. She's trying to extend copyright in a manner that definitely isn't settled, and may have sufficient precedence against to make this a forgone conclusion. I hope that the judge didn't dismiss the claim so that he can establish some precedent on the matter, showing how stupid it is, and prevent future law suits of the same kind.
Palm's intent was less important than Microsoft's perception of their intent. You are correct on what killed Palm; its shameful to have that much of a market lead and give it away.
But even if a department in MS loses money, but serves to protect or expand their money making operations, isn't that profit driven? Using XBox to push Windows Media Center, using CE to disrupt Palm and limit that avenue of attack on Windows, giving away IE to destroy Netscape? Its too simplistic to say that all of their projects don't make money just because the revenues that MS reports don't directly credit those profits to the projects that generate or protect them.
It really depends on the judge. A good judge will look at the DMCA, the Grokster decision, then how much user created content is on YouTube, decide YouTube doesn't actively encourage infringement or rely upon it as a business plan, and will tell Viacom to police YouTube, as is the intent of the DMCA. A bad activist judge will correct this "injustice" and find against Google. Either way, Viacom loses out long term. This is a stupid law suit.
Created by DARPA and universities and turned over to private entities to control.
I'm more worried about my government getting "good ideas."
Government, please stay off of the Internet. Freedom of speech involves some risk. Let the people choose if they take that risk or not, but if you take it from us, you take our freedom as well.
You do realize that most of the large music companies are headquartered outside of the US, right?
Patents in the EU and the US are different, so the EU's ruling probably won't have much effect in the US courts. Also, being forced to reveal any non-patented trade secrets, as defined by US code, could have a bad precedential effect on US law. I wouldn't be surprised to see DOJ get involved in this one in some manner. Trade secrets don't have to be unique enough to be patented, but they are still protected by criminal penalties. If the EU can force American companies to give them up, that pretty much invalidates the entire statute. And I'm not arguing on the moral grounds of the Trade Secret statute, just that it exists, and the US government has an interest in maintaining it as such.
Why not? They are taking the advertiser's money and providing a platform for the message. It may not be reality, but its a sufficient argument for a lawyer to pitch it as a sufficient reason why the power company shouldn't be forced to run the ad.
There was a case about an enivornmental group suing a power company to put an advertisement in the power company's bills. The court ruled that the power company didn't have to include the advertisement, even at no cost to themselves, because it would force them to either contest what was said in the ad, or implicitly agree with it. I don't see how this is any different, except it involves that internet thingy. Maybe a lawyer looking to make a quick buck?
I agree with your first point, but disagree strongly with your second. You can't discount an article as biased based on its conclusion. Even if the conclusion sounds crazy, but it has facts and a logical conclusion, it may not be biased or wrong. And although personal anecdotes fail to prove anything, I am using a Mac for a variety of tasks, and find myself far more productive than with Windows (NT 4.0 through XP) or on Linux. There is some transition pain, but overall, I feel its a better environment. And that's one of the problems with quantifying user experience; everyone is different, and works better in different ways.
Microsoft being penalized or software patents being eliminated? Its like torture! Which way will we go!
People need to get involved early on to make sure things like this don't become exactly what the fear. The article shouldn't be suprised that privacy advocates are getting involved early. Glad to see it, personally.
I'm all for choice, and I think its pretty stupid of Dell not to have offered this before. However, I wonder how many unique requests there are, and how many people asked for that a 1000 times or so. I use Linux at home, but it sure isn't on a Dell box; I built my own, as I guess a lot of Linux hobbists do. But if this gets Dell to implement that option, then great. More Linux penetration is good. Of course, people have to follow up on it; if they offer it and no one buys it, it just gives them and other retailers a reason not to offer it and will make it harder in the future to get pre-made Linux boxes from the major sellers.
I wonder how much China would complain if the NSA launched an attack against any confirmed hosts? If there is evidence that computers are attacking use, either live or as bots, can China make a real complaint about us protecting our interests?
I agree that we give China too much leeway in a variety of venues, but things are changing there. They have the special economic zones, which are essentially capitalist, and the government is losing its grip on a lot of places. It appears their accounting rules are becoming more westernized, and with them, more transparency in to their economy.
The government already makes many decisions about how to raise our children. They will continue to do so, further intruding into parents' lives. Why should we allow them to do so with TV, when it is so easy for parents to restrict what their children watch. Block content. Use a V-chip. But why should a social good allow for the government to ignore the constitution? Its a social good for them to torture people to get information that prevents terrorits attacks. But I don't support that. Yes, I realize they are on different orders of magnitude. But the government has certain rules that it isn't supposed to violate, and if it can violate one because of a "good idea," then there is little argument that they can't violate them all. If someone is going to regulate TV, it should be the states, who are supposed to have the police power in our federal system. Of course, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to expand the Bill of Rights to all of the states, so the states would be hard pressed to regulate speech under current Constitutional law. Bottom line, if this is such a good idea that we need to break the Constitution to implement it, then lets amend the Constitution to make it legal.
I don't think you should regulate any of it, although I agree with your point that sex is better than violence.
The FCC found one study that gives them evidence to extend their authority, ignore the Constitution, and further entrench the government in our lives. What a surprise. Really, for an organization that was initially designed to de-conflict the radio spectrum, the FCC sure has expanded. Police powers are supposed to be left to the states. The federal government is intruding on their power and citizens' rights. If its so bad, parents should do their job and not let kids watch it. If its so bad, then no one will watch it, and they will put on other programming. The thing is, people are watching it, and its what people want. Let me make my own decisions, and stop trying to be my parent. That's not the purpose of government. Defend me from the big, bad media companies, please, cause I don't have the common sense to turn off the TV and read a book.
The laws the are enforcing are passed with certain policy goals in mind. If there verdicts don't advance those policy goals, then they have lost. The EU failed in trying to create a free and open market for media players through the court system. It ended up being a waste of tax payer's time, although maybe not money because of the verdict. However, there were other ways to achieve the goal that were not used because the EU relied on the courts, and now they are no better off than when they started.
Not to defend the amount lawyers make, because it does seem a bit much, but isn't it also logical that a large group of people would go to law school, charge less, and take away an enormous amount of business? Even $10 an hour would make a large difference in big litigation. Maybe the market isn't clear, but there are market forces at work, even in litigation.
Winning is who is shaping the market place, not who paid the fine. The EU was trying to provide consumer choice by preventing MS from bundling a media player. If you examine the marketplace now, does MS continue to have a competitive advantage in the media player market based on bundling? Yes, they do. Do the advantages they have received exceed the fines? I would assume so, but that's something that you need MS internal records to determine. However, their continued conduct suggests that it was. So, the EU increased MS's cost of business, but the behavior they were trying to curtail continues unabated. So I would say MS won. On an interesting side notes, I wonder if Apple has changed the equation with the inclusion of Quicktime in iTunes. If so, and there is a competitive marketplace in Europe for media players, at least between MS Media Player and Quicktime, then Apple, in the market, succeeded where Europe, in the courts, failed.