I was going to say... "scientists are still out on the long term effects of low level electromagnetic radiation exposure" Due to the anthropomorphic condition, the fact that we're here, and the sun constantly emits "low-level EM radiation" is nothing that hasn't been a selective pressure to tolerate since forever.
It's like those people who are running around with EM detectors, get into a brightly lit area and freak out going "OMG! THERE'S A HOTSPOT OF EM RADIATION HERE!!!!"
It's like... anime tear face... you can SEE part of the EM spectrum you twit.
Hmmm a quick internet search reveals they act more like other states' special masters or federal magistrate judges than true judges, and like those positions they are subject to approval by the real judges. Sounds like you could have appealed quite easily.
The commissioner in this case was equivalent to a judge pro tempore, so no.
In any case, the situation is one that sometimes, if you're exploiting a really uncommonly used part of the law, a trial judge may not even be aware of the relevant laws.
Still not really following you, if you're talking about an administrative matter then I don't think you can conflate judges and "commissioners."
Commissioners in the State of Washington can act as judges. It's like being a "Judge pro tempore", except that their "commission" is to act indefinitely as a judge as long as they hold it.
So, in the State of Washington there are commissioners who may be properly conflated with judges.
This guy didn't make money, or gain anything else of value, from selling the songs and being a real distributor. This leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that he didn't violate distribution rights in a traditional fashion, and laws need to be changed to address this gap.
Oh, I quite agree that the laws need to be changed. However, the laws as written when he did his action are still illegal.
I'm driving down a road at 45mph, and I'm stopped and given a ticket because I was exceeding the speed limit of 35mph. The next day, the limit is increased to 55mph. It's entirely dick and stupid that I was hit with a ticket for something that the very next day would have been perfectly legal... it's arbitrary and capricious... welcome to the law.
Uhh...huh? What commissioner are you talking about?
A certain arbitrary commissioner in an entirely unrelated case.
The point is that judges and commissioners can have a lot of power that they shouldn't have, and really it doesn't matter what any particular party's interpretation of the law is, the judge/commissioner's stands out as the ruling... one can object, and then this allows them to later also seek an appeal based on that objection, but really then it relies upon a different judge's opinion. All the way up until the Supreme Court's panel of judges...
The civil law system works a bit differently, in that all actions and arguments must have specific statutes to back them up.
so don't obfuscate or stammer and stomp around NYCL's point. it is an obvious and easy point for you or anyone else to understand, and so you either address the point directly, or you fail to make a convincing argument of your own that dispels NYCL's point. but as it is now, your mockery of NYCL's point about the meaning of "distribution" only makes a mockery of your own position
by changing the subject, you are making yourself appear to be avoiding the topic at hand, which is really only a kind of a way to concede to the superiority of NYCL's argument in the eyes of everyone else
So far I've asked him the same question about 10 times, in this thread and in an earlier thread from a few weeks ago, and he is unable to answer it. So don't hold your breath on getting an answer.
We've answered numerous times... and you fail to address why our answers are insufficient.
As I stated before, if Tenenbaum had made physical copies of these songs and placed them out like he had the MP3s electronically, then there would be no question of an infringement upon a right to distribute.
And the fact that the juries came back in both Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rassett against the defendant suggests that in a court of law that it WAS sufficiently proven that they had engaged in distribution. This has been settled as a matter of fact by a jury already.
In the cases I've been involved in the only "activists" have been the RIAA lawyers, making arguments that have no basis in existing law. You have never seen me do that, in my court papers, or here.
I do hope that you understand that the RIAA is saying the same thing vice versa...
Once you stop being able to argue the case from both sides, you're going to start getting blind-sided with stuff that you're not expecting.
And I got shot down by a commissioner for attempting to file a motion in a case where I were not the plaintiff, even though the filings for the forms stated that I was the plaintiff, but since the title of the case was "In RE: Alice vs Bob", and my name was neither Alice nor Bob, and she couldn't be concerned with looking down the page to where it says "The plaintiff is: snowgirl", and the signature of the other commissioner granting the action, and the stamp marking it as certified and official...
Sometimes as "practical" as the law is, a judge can misinterpret the facts of the case and just blindly bulldoze through with their shit... and in my case, when they're beginning to threaten you with practicing law without a license, you just sit down and shut up...
I'm sure you've been in similar "unwinnable" situations before in your career, but you still go out with your best argument, and take losing like who you are.
They'll weep if the precedent is now set closer to 35 cents a song and not $150,000.....
Statutory damages cannot go any lower than $200 per violation, and that's only when the infringing party is "innocent" of having made the distribution. Namely, the individual had no intent or knowledge that distribution of the material were illegal. Say... I got on a PvP network, and it shared out my music without my consent.
These people didn't just buy the songs, they are accused of also having distributed them. The statutory damages are there to be used as a deterrent to keep other people from infringing on the same rights. So "actual damages" plays no part in this at all, especially when legislative intent has already been plastered all over the purpose for the statutory damages.
What CAN be done is to point out that $150,000 per work is only warranted in cases of fraud and malicious activity. The true and real cap is at $30,000 per work under the statutory law... unless someone can prove that they fraudulently presented the works as their own, or did some other malicious activity like that...
As an alien living in this US, I find this SSN situation ridiculous. Everybody is going to say that you should not give your SSN to ANYBODY. Yet everybody is asking for it...
It seems to me that people are schizophrenic about SSN number. Is it a public unique identifier of a tax payer or a secret information ?
The SSN is a unique number, but it was not ever intended to be used publicly. The SSN, or Social Security Number was intended to be a private number for the government to be able to track an individual's contributions to the social security program. Laws were put in place requiring that no one can compel you to give them your SSN in exchange for service unless it is a government organization.
The problem is that since people are generally willing to pass over passwords for a cookie, means that people are generally far too willing to give up their SSN, even if as the article author portrays himself, that they are paranoid.
The problem is that people are paranoid about things that people have told them about, but rarely seem to be paranoid about the important things... like handing out their SSNs.
"The things like the publics need to be available to the other build machines in the distributed system."
Ahhh, I missed the distributed part. I've worked on some very large systems that took hours to build but I've never actually come across a distributed build during my 20yrs in the industry. The system I'm looking after at the moment builds win32, x64 and ia64 all on the same box, it uses a single python script with a cvs tag as a paramter to do the lot. The *nix builds are also kicked off from a single makefile/tag but run on seperate boxes for the half a dozen flavours we produce.
Yeah, Windows Server 2003 takes over 5,000 tasks to get everything done for x86, ia64, and x86-64, just for the English, Japanese and German localizations only.
This was across, say... 12-ish machines, I believe...
"Honestly, there was a ton of retarded shit that went on in the code base, and I would have done it entirely different"
A wise man once told me that source code is like shit, everybody else's stinks.;)
Oh, I wholly agree. I look back at my crap from earlier days and I go "holy crap, did I write this?" The main project that I've been working on the most for getting close to 10 years now has been rewritten at least like 3 times... I'm at major version number 3, and no one else even uses it!
But each time, I refine the techniques, and the models, until now I would say it's pretty nice.
I'm a strong proponent for a writer-editor style dichotomy with source code. Namely, there is one person writing the code, and one person, who's sole job it is, is to look at the writing before it goes in. This doesn't catch everything of course... real publishing doesn't catch everything either.
But think about when the last time you saw a comma misplaced in a major publication, and you'll start to get the idea behind this method.
Why would you want to archive stuff that can be reproduced by a build?
The things like the publics need to be available to the other build machines in the distributed system. The easiest way to do that was to check it in, and then push the data back out.
Recall, we're talking about just maintaining code... I didn't write it, and so I don't really know everything that was going on worked. I had a good overview of what was going on, and some deep introspection into some very limited areas (namely those that broke).
Honestly, there was a ton of retarded shit that went on in the code base, and I would have done it entirely different... but I wasn't the original desginer, I was just a maintainer.
meanwhile the real build engineers have to deal with serious shit.
Real Engineers use conditional compilation so they don't have to recompile every single stinking row of code every night.
Real codebases actually have this dependency information written out so that one can do incremental builds. The Windows codebase however does not have such information declared. Any change could potentially affect anything else in the build.
Again, I already stated: the Windows codebase and build process is not a "product" and thus does not receive the attention that it should get for shine and polish.
We had one guy working on building an accurate dependency graph when I left... he was trapping the syscalls to report which files each compile was using, and dumping it into a large database (we're talking over 4GiB).
Again... spaghetti code is enormously difficult to maintain, and when that spaghetti code is Windows, one cannot simply dump months or years of work into sidetracking to make things work the way they're supposed to.
I mean, that's why Windows Vista was so late. x86-64 came out and Microsoft basically said, "porting WinXP to x86-64 will cost us just as much money as porting Server 2003 cost... let's just dump the work we had already, and start from Server 2003".
I totally agree with you, and as I already stated the Windows codebase is a horrible mess... but we had to make it work... that's what they paid us for.
You don't have to run KDE to run KDE apps. You just need Qt, plus whatever dependencies the application happens to require. Also, KDE 3.x is at least as 'light' as XP (despite having more and better features as standard).
I reiterate, "If I wanted to use bloatware, I'd run Windows XP..."
My statement about a Country Lawyer is not intended to imply that they are less than a lawyer, in fact, my statement was intended to show that they are lawyers, simply by a different process. A country lawyer studies law outside of a law school (for any of a number of reasons) and then takes a bar exam, passes and becomes qualified to practice law, and thus a lawyer. The distinction here is that a Country Lawyer is a subset of Lawyer.
As evidence, I present the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_lawyer (Sorry, I don't have access to Black's Law Dictionary without driving down to the court house's Public Law Library to look it up there.)
In the U.S., a country lawyer, or county-seat lawyer,[1] refers to an attorney who has completed little or no formal legal training and has become a member of a county bar or a state bar after "reading law"; traditionally, these lawyers practiced general law in a rural setting, or on the frontier such as Andrew Jackson.
Next:
And I have asked you and your colleague to show what evidence the RIAA has educed of either of these necessary elements.
Theaetetus has already stated that Tenenbaum acknowledged on the stand that he distributed the materials to the public. If you can find the transcripts for the trial for me, I'd be happy to point it out. (Apparently, http://joelfightsback.com/about-the-case/legal-documents/ does not appear to have all of the documents necessary to prove this assertion.)
Theatetus and the lawyers of the RIAA have represented that Tenenbaum's claim that statutory damages for copyright violations are in violation of due process indicates it as an affirmative defense, which requires as a first principle that there is an admission to the act by the individual.
Theatetus has also stated that MediaSentry downloaded a song from the defendant in the Thomas-Rasset case. MediaSentry in this manner was acting as an anonymous member of the public, and thus the defendant materially distributed a copy of the song to the public.
As I stated in my point by point of 17 USC 1006, if either defendant had been making CDs or flash drives containing the files alleged to have been distributed, and had handed them out, there would be no question of if transfer of ownership were to have occurred.
Apple provides songs for download for money, and there is no question that this is a transfer of ownership, sale, and distribution. If such a download were supplied for free (say, because I had a coupon) there would still be no question of transfer of ownership, and distribution. (Easily arguably still as a sale, although for Scrip instead of cash at this point.)
So. We have a defendant using an affirmative defense against statutory damages being assessed against him, as well as openly admitting liability on the stand, then we have another person caught red-handed... what exactly are you looking for in terms of evidence beyond what is here... all of it is sufficient enough proof for a court of law...
Whaaaaat? Why does the person doing the builds need write access to ANY of the code base? That makes no sense!
First, the build tools are in the code base... we're not just running "make" here, there's a hojillion scripts doing a hojillion things every which way...Windows goes through a crazy amount of pre and post processing...
Next, this is Windows... it's a critical build... the build MUST be pushed out every day, and include as many checkins as possible.
Someone pushes out a checkin that breaks the build... 100 other people made checkins and their code didn't break the build, and they need to test their code now... We can't just say, "sorry, build broke, we're scrapping, Person XY needs to fix the break, and then we'll start again." Because the build takes 14 HOURS!!!
So, it's the builder on duty's job to revert the checkin and then restart the build, hopefully, you will have enough time to make the build finish by 9:00am tomorrow, when people start arriving at work.
You may be happy with your 3-4 hour compiles, and builds that can sit around broken, because 100 people aren't depending upon you for that build... meanwhile the real build engineers have to deal with serious shit.
What are you talking about? The ActiveState Perl installer configures that for you. You'd just enter the name of the Perl script and it would run. That's all. Even at the command prompt.
Which means exactly what, when the perl.exe binary is installed into a dev environment, and not individually to each machine...
A former Windows div Microsoftie says: shindex, baby, shindex! If you don't know what that is, ask the guy or gal in the next office over. And then be prepared to spend the next week or so troubleshooting permissions problems until it works across all versions you care about. But after that, you're golden and there's no faster way to search the source.
And yeah, I agree with the suggestion of installing SOME *ix toolset. I'm partial to unixutils because they seem lighter weight than some of the subsystem-based solutions like Cygwin or SUA aka Interix.
Actually, permission rights were never the problem for me. As a build engineer, I had full read and write permission to every windows code base. And, I had a keyword that would override any Product Studio that might be there.
Basically, I could have checked in a "Hello World" dialog into explorer.exe without any approval from anyone... as a build engineer, one needs that kind of power.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to say... "scientists are still out on the long term effects of low level electromagnetic radiation exposure" Due to the anthropomorphic condition, the fact that we're here, and the sun constantly emits "low-level EM radiation" is nothing that hasn't been a selective pressure to tolerate since forever.
It's like those people who are running around with EM detectors, get into a brightly lit area and freak out going "OMG! THERE'S A HOTSPOT OF EM RADIATION HERE!!!!"
It's like... anime tear face... you can SEE part of the EM spectrum you twit.
You obviously haven't seen his posts before. He is most definitely a pizza themed troll (why?!).
It isn't a language barrier - his english is evidently too good to "not know any better" and to use a different topic branch to discuss it.
His stories are not even consistent and always pretty lame, he stretches it too far getting a pizza theme to these stories.
Also, he should use a different name - he rarely makes a pizza analogy, just a pizza troll
Thank you for actually explaining this situation rather than just saying "HIS NAME IS PIZZAANALOGYGUY!!!"
Hmmm a quick internet search reveals they act more like other states' special masters or federal magistrate judges than true judges, and like those positions they are subject to approval by the real judges. Sounds like you could have appealed quite easily.
The commissioner in this case was equivalent to a judge pro tempore, so no.
In any case, the situation is one that sometimes, if you're exploiting a really uncommonly used part of the law, a trial judge may not even be aware of the relevant laws.
look at his name - he's a pizza themed troll.
I don't think he's a troll... I just think that he doesn't speak English natively, and doesn't realize this is not the topic branch to discuss it.
It's not really worth labeling everyone causing trouble as a "troll"... because some people just don't know any better.
Still not really following you, if you're talking about an administrative matter then I don't think you can conflate judges and "commissioners."
Commissioners in the State of Washington can act as judges. It's like being a "Judge pro tempore", except that their "commission" is to act indefinitely as a judge as long as they hold it.
So, in the State of Washington there are commissioners who may be properly conflated with judges.
This guy didn't make money, or gain anything else of value, from selling the songs and being a real distributor. This leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that he didn't violate distribution rights in a traditional fashion, and laws need to be changed to address this gap.
Oh, I quite agree that the laws need to be changed. However, the laws as written when he did his action are still illegal.
I'm driving down a road at 45mph, and I'm stopped and given a ticket because I was exceeding the speed limit of 35mph. The next day, the limit is increased to 55mph. It's entirely dick and stupid that I was hit with a ticket for something that the very next day would have been perfectly legal... it's arbitrary and capricious... welcome to the law.
I suggest an Ask Slashdot to get a wider array of response... as is, this is offtopic.
Uhh...huh? What commissioner are you talking about?
A certain arbitrary commissioner in an entirely unrelated case.
The point is that judges and commissioners can have a lot of power that they shouldn't have, and really it doesn't matter what any particular party's interpretation of the law is, the judge/commissioner's stands out as the ruling... one can object, and then this allows them to later also seek an appeal based on that objection, but really then it relies upon a different judge's opinion. All the way up until the Supreme Court's panel of judges...
The civil law system works a bit differently, in that all actions and arguments must have specific statutes to back them up.
so don't obfuscate or stammer and stomp around NYCL's point. it is an obvious and easy point for you or anyone else to understand, and so you either address the point directly, or you fail to make a convincing argument of your own that dispels NYCL's point. but as it is now, your mockery of NYCL's point about the meaning of "distribution" only makes a mockery of your own position
by changing the subject, you are making yourself appear to be avoiding the topic at hand, which is really only a kind of a way to concede to the superiority of NYCL's argument in the eyes of everyone else
So far I've asked him the same question about 10 times, in this thread and in an earlier thread from a few weeks ago, and he is unable to answer it. So don't hold your breath on getting an answer.
We've answered numerous times... and you fail to address why our answers are insufficient.
As I stated before, if Tenenbaum had made physical copies of these songs and placed them out like he had the MP3s electronically, then there would be no question of an infringement upon a right to distribute.
And the fact that the juries came back in both Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rassett against the defendant suggests that in a court of law that it WAS sufficiently proven that they had engaged in distribution. This has been settled as a matter of fact by a jury already.
So, WHY ARE WE EVEN ARGUING ABOUT IT?
In the cases I've been involved in the only "activists" have been the RIAA lawyers, making arguments that have no basis in existing law. You have never seen me do that, in my court papers, or here.
I do hope that you understand that the RIAA is saying the same thing vice versa...
Once you stop being able to argue the case from both sides, you're going to start getting blind-sided with stuff that you're not expecting.
And I got shot down by a commissioner for attempting to file a motion in a case where I were not the plaintiff, even though the filings for the forms stated that I was the plaintiff, but since the title of the case was "In RE: Alice vs Bob", and my name was neither Alice nor Bob, and she couldn't be concerned with looking down the page to where it says "The plaintiff is: snowgirl", and the signature of the other commissioner granting the action, and the stamp marking it as certified and official...
Sometimes as "practical" as the law is, a judge can misinterpret the facts of the case and just blindly bulldoze through with their shit... and in my case, when they're beginning to threaten you with practicing law without a license, you just sit down and shut up...
I'm sure you've been in similar "unwinnable" situations before in your career, but you still go out with your best argument, and take losing like who you are.
They'll weep if the precedent is now set closer to 35 cents a song and not $150,000.....
Statutory damages cannot go any lower than $200 per violation, and that's only when the infringing party is "innocent" of having made the distribution. Namely, the individual had no intent or knowledge that distribution of the material were illegal. Say... I got on a PvP network, and it shared out my music without my consent.
These people didn't just buy the songs, they are accused of also having distributed them. The statutory damages are there to be used as a deterrent to keep other people from infringing on the same rights. So "actual damages" plays no part in this at all, especially when legislative intent has already been plastered all over the purpose for the statutory damages.
What CAN be done is to point out that $150,000 per work is only warranted in cases of fraud and malicious activity. The true and real cap is at $30,000 per work under the statutory law... unless someone can prove that they fraudulently presented the works as their own, or did some other malicious activity like that...
As an alien living in this US, I find this SSN situation ridiculous. Everybody is going to say that you should not give your SSN to ANYBODY. Yet everybody is asking for it...
It seems to me that people are schizophrenic about SSN number. Is it a public unique identifier of a tax payer or a secret information ?
The SSN is a unique number, but it was not ever intended to be used publicly. The SSN, or Social Security Number was intended to be a private number for the government to be able to track an individual's contributions to the social security program. Laws were put in place requiring that no one can compel you to give them your SSN in exchange for service unless it is a government organization.
The problem is that since people are generally willing to pass over passwords for a cookie, means that people are generally far too willing to give up their SSN, even if as the article author portrays himself, that they are paranoid.
The problem is that people are paranoid about things that people have told them about, but rarely seem to be paranoid about the important things... like handing out their SSNs.
"The things like the publics need to be available to the other build machines in the distributed system."
Ahhh, I missed the distributed part. I've worked on some very large systems that took hours to build but I've never actually come across a distributed build during my 20yrs in the industry. The system I'm looking after at the moment builds win32, x64 and ia64 all on the same box, it uses a single python script with a cvs tag as a paramter to do the lot. The *nix builds are also kicked off from a single makefile/tag but run on seperate boxes for the half a dozen flavours we produce.
Yeah, Windows Server 2003 takes over 5,000 tasks to get everything done for x86, ia64, and x86-64, just for the English, Japanese and German localizations only.
This was across, say... 12-ish machines, I believe...
"Honestly, there was a ton of retarded shit that went on in the code base, and I would have done it entirely different"
A wise man once told me that source code is like shit, everybody else's stinks. ;)
Oh, I wholly agree. I look back at my crap from earlier days and I go "holy crap, did I write this?" The main project that I've been working on the most for getting close to 10 years now has been rewritten at least like 3 times... I'm at major version number 3, and no one else even uses it!
But each time, I refine the techniques, and the models, until now I would say it's pretty nice.
I'm a strong proponent for a writer-editor style dichotomy with source code. Namely, there is one person writing the code, and one person, who's sole job it is, is to look at the writing before it goes in. This doesn't catch everything of course... real publishing doesn't catch everything either.
But think about when the last time you saw a comma misplaced in a major publication, and you'll start to get the idea behind this method.
Why would you want to archive stuff that can be reproduced by a build?
The things like the publics need to be available to the other build machines in the distributed system. The easiest way to do that was to check it in, and then push the data back out.
Recall, we're talking about just maintaining code... I didn't write it, and so I don't really know everything that was going on worked. I had a good overview of what was going on, and some deep introspection into some very limited areas (namely those that broke).
Honestly, there was a ton of retarded shit that went on in the code base, and I would have done it entirely different... but I wasn't the original desginer, I was just a maintainer.
meanwhile the real build engineers have to deal with serious shit.
Real Engineers use conditional compilation so they don't have to recompile every single stinking row of code every night.
Real codebases actually have this dependency information written out so that one can do incremental builds. The Windows codebase however does not have such information declared. Any change could potentially affect anything else in the build.
Again, I already stated: the Windows codebase and build process is not a "product" and thus does not receive the attention that it should get for shine and polish.
We had one guy working on building an accurate dependency graph when I left... he was trapping the syscalls to report which files each compile was using, and dumping it into a large database (we're talking over 4GiB).
Again... spaghetti code is enormously difficult to maintain, and when that spaghetti code is Windows, one cannot simply dump months or years of work into sidetracking to make things work the way they're supposed to.
I mean, that's why Windows Vista was so late. x86-64 came out and Microsoft basically said, "porting WinXP to x86-64 will cost us just as much money as porting Server 2003 cost... let's just dump the work we had already, and start from Server 2003".
I totally agree with you, and as I already stated the Windows codebase is a horrible mess... but we had to make it work... that's what they paid us for.
You don't have to run KDE to run KDE apps. You just need Qt, plus whatever dependencies the application happens to require. Also, KDE 3.x is at least as 'light' as XP (despite having more and better features as standard).
I reiterate, "If I wanted to use bloatware, I'd run Windows XP..."
Your missing the 'grep -v "\.svn"' part. And given the maximum command line length, it might break completely in a large code base.
The "svn" isn't required because we're not hosting it on a subversion depot.
Yours as well is using xargs to build a command line... so yours could break with a very large code base as well.
My statement about a Country Lawyer is not intended to imply that they are less than a lawyer, in fact, my statement was intended to show that they are lawyers, simply by a different process. A country lawyer studies law outside of a law school (for any of a number of reasons) and then takes a bar exam, passes and becomes qualified to practice law, and thus a lawyer. The distinction here is that a Country Lawyer is a subset of Lawyer.
As evidence, I present the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_lawyer (Sorry, I don't have access to Black's Law Dictionary without driving down to the court house's Public Law Library to look it up there.)
In the U.S., a country lawyer, or county-seat lawyer,[1] refers to an attorney who has completed little or no formal legal training and has become a member of a county bar or a state bar after "reading law"; traditionally, these lawyers practiced general law in a rural setting, or on the frontier such as Andrew Jackson.
Next:
And I have asked you and your colleague to show what evidence the RIAA has educed of either of these necessary elements.
Theaetetus has already stated that Tenenbaum acknowledged on the stand that he distributed the materials to the public. If you can find the transcripts for the trial for me, I'd be happy to point it out. (Apparently, http://joelfightsback.com/about-the-case/legal-documents/ does not appear to have all of the documents necessary to prove this assertion.)
Theatetus and the lawyers of the RIAA have represented that Tenenbaum's claim that statutory damages for copyright violations are in violation of due process indicates it as an affirmative defense, which requires as a first principle that there is an admission to the act by the individual.
Theatetus has also stated that MediaSentry downloaded a song from the defendant in the Thomas-Rasset case. MediaSentry in this manner was acting as an anonymous member of the public, and thus the defendant materially distributed a copy of the song to the public.
As I stated in my point by point of 17 USC 1006, if either defendant had been making CDs or flash drives containing the files alleged to have been distributed, and had handed them out, there would be no question of if transfer of ownership were to have occurred.
Apple provides songs for download for money, and there is no question that this is a transfer of ownership, sale, and distribution. If such a download were supplied for free (say, because I had a coupon) there would still be no question of transfer of ownership, and distribution. (Easily arguably still as a sale, although for Scrip instead of cash at this point.)
So. We have a defendant using an affirmative defense against statutory damages being assessed against him, as well as openly admitting liability on the stand, then we have another person caught red-handed... what exactly are you looking for in terms of evidence beyond what is here... all of it is sufficient enough proof for a court of law...
"Whaaaaat? Why does the person doing the builds need write access to ANY of the code base? That makes no sense!"
Not sure how you do it, but I tag the source before building it.
Windows also has a bunch of metadata that each build generates along the way, and this metadata gets checked in during the build process...
Whaaaaat? Why does the person doing the builds need write access to ANY of the code base? That makes no sense!
First, the build tools are in the code base... we're not just running "make" here, there's a hojillion scripts doing a hojillion things every which way...Windows goes through a crazy amount of pre and post processing...
Next, this is Windows... it's a critical build... the build MUST be pushed out every day, and include as many checkins as possible.
Someone pushes out a checkin that breaks the build... 100 other people made checkins and their code didn't break the build, and they need to test their code now... We can't just say, "sorry, build broke, we're scrapping, Person XY needs to fix the break, and then we'll start again." Because the build takes 14 HOURS!!!
So, it's the builder on duty's job to revert the checkin and then restart the build, hopefully, you will have enough time to make the build finish by 9:00am tomorrow, when people start arriving at work.
You may be happy with your 3-4 hour compiles, and builds that can sit around broken, because 100 people aren't depending upon you for that build... meanwhile the real build engineers have to deal with serious shit.
What are you talking about? The ActiveState Perl installer configures that for you. You'd just enter the name of the Perl script and it would run. That's all. Even at the command prompt.
Which means exactly what, when the perl.exe binary is installed into a dev environment, and not individually to each machine...
kompare k3diff meld pick one
Do you have one that doesn't use KDE? I'm sorry, but if I wanted to run bloatware, I'd use Windows...
A former Windows div Microsoftie says: shindex, baby, shindex! If you don't know what that is, ask the guy or gal in the next office over. And then be prepared to spend the next week or so troubleshooting permissions problems until it works across all versions you care about. But after that, you're golden and there's no faster way to search the source.
And yeah, I agree with the suggestion of installing SOME *ix toolset. I'm partial to unixutils because they seem lighter weight than some of the subsystem-based solutions like Cygwin or SUA aka Interix.
Actually, permission rights were never the problem for me. As a build engineer, I had full read and write permission to every windows code base. And, I had a keyword that would override any Product Studio that might be there.
Basically, I could have checked in a "Hello World" dialog into explorer.exe without any approval from anyone... as a build engineer, one needs that kind of power.