You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP.
Unless you're also hacking some routing tables, IP spoofing doesn't work for downloading stuff over BitTorrent. It would work for something like a DDoS, where you don't actually care about getting any data back, but not for downloading stuff.
"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."
So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...
It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.
Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents...
A few do, but they shouldn't. Network neutrality does not preclude legitimate QoS based on type of data or protocol.
and origination
This part you have correct.
Giving priority to Ford-made buses over Ford-made sedans would've been wrong in their opinion.
Nope, that would be fine. Just like normal QoS prioritizing real-time protocols (e.g. VoIP) over bulk transfer protocols (e.g. BitTorrent) would be fine.
That's the nice thing about filing for declaratory judgment, though - you get to pick the jurisdiction instead of the patent holder. Of course, the patent holder will certainly ask to have it moved to Eastern Texas, but it's not guaranteed that the judge will grant it.
If Uniloc came back a third time, they'd have solid grounds for filing for declaratory judgment to get most/all of the claims invalidated at once. Or if the judge gets really annoyed, he/she could deny Uniloc's request to add claims to the case.
Fortunately, if Claim 107 was already ruled invalid, summary judgment for invalidity of Claim 1 should be pretty easy to get. Claim 21 should be easy to kill by obviousness. Claim 22 might be indefinite anyway, since it's hard to define the licensing medium as being both "portable" and "not removable". It would probably also be considered obvious, since the only two possibilities are "removable" and "not removable", and I can't imagine that they'd be able to show that making it not removable was difficult enough to be worth a patent.
It isn't a myth, people just didn't read their Adam Smith and they have no idea what it means. When does the "free market" arise? Does it arise when you take away all the rules? No, that is the Feudal system that Capitalism was designed to fix! Capitalism means that the government is looking over everybody's shoulders, and making sure that the playing field remains level, and constantly making adjustments to stop the tricks that the entrenched businesses will be trying. Then, with the neutral third party regulating the market to ensure fairness, things are predictable and that predictability allows capital to rule; people can decide based on math if they should invest or not. The whole point of Capitalism is protecting the new entrants into a market from the established companies, who will always be in a position to use collusion and other tricks to keep out new companies.
Which is why I've been saying that what we want is a "fair market" instead of a "free market".
That's all well and good if you have access to the original password and can apply the auto-correct algorithm to see if what was entered is good enough, but how is that supposed to work if you are taking password security seriously and using salted and hashed passwords?
If you don't have access to the password that the user entered, how do you check their password at all?
This is important, sooner or later it'll end up in court and this will come up. "Trust us" is not an answer.
If it comes up in court, Tesla would have to hand over all of the logs, or possibly even the physical devices if there's a way for others to extract the logs.
As for the "what if they alter the logs" question, that would be more formally called Falsifying Evidence, and it would be the most monumentally stupid thing they could ever possibly do. Judges tend to get just a bit touchy when someone in a trial falsifies evidence.
The problem with that suggestion is, what is Waze doing that's illegal? All of the issues that you mention are ambiguous enough that a court probably won't be able to assess any damages.
Of course, the nice thing about stuff being legal or illegal is that you can make changes. The simplest solution I can think of is for the city/town to post signs that prohibit through traffic during rush hours, and then have one or two police officers handing out tickets. That won't affect local residents at all, and it should pretty quickly eliminate all of the extra traffic.
Must be the T-Mobile store next to my friend's Sprint Store. He always helping T-Mobile customers coming over to switch to Sprint.
And the people at the T-Mobile store are probably helping lots of customers who are there to switch away from Sprint. AT&T and Verizon stores are probably pretty much the same.
Who can prove that my string is not just my creation and that by chance (the probability is very slim but still) it converts to an image that is very similar (or exact) to the copyrighted image?
Why would anyone have to do that? If you're in civil litigation (which copyright infringement almost always is), then the standard is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e. greater than 50%. Even in a criminal trial, that probably wouldn't even meet the requirement of being a reasonable doubt.
You can use a DMCA request to plant fake evidence?
Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This ruling says that historic pages found on archive.org are considered reliable enough to be admitted in civil litigation. I would be pretty surprised if a federal judge ever ruled that a lack of material in the Wayback Machine should be considered by a judge or jury.
Not to be standing on my lawn for too long, but I haven't seen an answer as to why this is a feature I'd want to use. If I'm not there, I don't want anything answering for me. Especially that I'm not around. And doubly so to strangers. Did anyone discuss the security implications of having what amounts to a chat answering machine?
As far as I know, you're supposed to be the user at the other end of the connection. The bots are meant to be deployed by businesses for customers to interact with. Think of them as the IM equivalent to the automated phone systems that businesses have these days.
I remember needing to write a special autoexec.bat file to not start Windows 3.1 so that I could play Doom. Apparently even exiting Windows didn't free up enough of the 4 MB of RAM, so I had to reboot and not start Windows at all.
That discussion has already started amongst some of the legal authorities, and it's going to be a very interesting discussion. If the starting cells had been entirely synthesized, then it wouldn't be an animal product at all, and it would almost certainly be classified as pareve (neither meat nor dairy). Since this cultured meat is starting from animal cells, it might be classified as being derived from meat; in that case, the next issue is whether the starting cells came from a kosher animal that was slaughtered accordingly. There's also the possibility that there wouldn't be enough "animal" in the cultured meat for it to count as being an animal product, though personally I doubt that's what the ruling will be.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP.
Unless you're also hacking some routing tables, IP spoofing doesn't work for downloading stuff over BitTorrent. It would work for something like a DDoS, where you don't actually care about getting any data back, but not for downloading stuff.
In the continuation of the article it says:
"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."
So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...
It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.
Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents...
A few do, but they shouldn't. Network neutrality does not preclude legitimate QoS based on type of data or protocol.
and origination
This part you have correct.
Giving priority to Ford-made buses over Ford-made sedans would've been wrong in their opinion.
Nope, that would be fine. Just like normal QoS prioritizing real-time protocols (e.g. VoIP) over bulk transfer protocols (e.g. BitTorrent) would be fine.
Have to give credit to the actors and producers for managing to stage something halfway reasonable out of the horrid script.
Are we still talking about the AI-generated short film?
No, but it does occasionally roll itself into a ball and start dropping bombs.
That's the nice thing about filing for declaratory judgment, though - you get to pick the jurisdiction instead of the patent holder. Of course, the patent holder will certainly ask to have it moved to Eastern Texas, but it's not guaranteed that the judge will grant it.
If Uniloc came back a third time, they'd have solid grounds for filing for declaratory judgment to get most/all of the claims invalidated at once. Or if the judge gets really annoyed, he/she could deny Uniloc's request to add claims to the case.
Fortunately, if Claim 107 was already ruled invalid, summary judgment for invalidity of Claim 1 should be pretty easy to get. Claim 21 should be easy to kill by obviousness. Claim 22 might be indefinite anyway, since it's hard to define the licensing medium as being both "portable" and "not removable". It would probably also be considered obvious, since the only two possibilities are "removable" and "not removable", and I can't imagine that they'd be able to show that making it not removable was difficult enough to be worth a patent.
Yup. Not worth the effort, of course, but they could if they really wanted to.
It isn't a myth, people just didn't read their Adam Smith and they have no idea what it means. When does the "free market" arise? Does it arise when you take away all the rules? No, that is the Feudal system that Capitalism was designed to fix! Capitalism means that the government is looking over everybody's shoulders, and making sure that the playing field remains level, and constantly making adjustments to stop the tricks that the entrenched businesses will be trying. Then, with the neutral third party regulating the market to ensure fairness, things are predictable and that predictability allows capital to rule; people can decide based on math if they should invest or not. The whole point of Capitalism is protecting the new entrants into a market from the established companies, who will always be in a position to use collusion and other tricks to keep out new companies.
Which is why I've been saying that what we want is a "fair market" instead of a "free market".
That's all well and good if you have access to the original password and can apply the auto-correct algorithm to see if what was entered is good enough, but how is that supposed to work if you are taking password security seriously and using salted and hashed passwords?
If you don't have access to the password that the user entered, how do you check their password at all?
This is important, sooner or later it'll end up in court and this will come up. "Trust us" is not an answer.
If it comes up in court, Tesla would have to hand over all of the logs, or possibly even the physical devices if there's a way for others to extract the logs.
As for the "what if they alter the logs" question, that would be more formally called Falsifying Evidence, and it would be the most monumentally stupid thing they could ever possibly do. Judges tend to get just a bit touchy when someone in a trial falsifies evidence.
The problem with that suggestion is, what is Waze doing that's illegal? All of the issues that you mention are ambiguous enough that a court probably won't be able to assess any damages.
Of course, the nice thing about stuff being legal or illegal is that you can make changes. The simplest solution I can think of is for the city/town to post signs that prohibit through traffic during rush hours, and then have one or two police officers handing out tickets. That won't affect local residents at all, and it should pretty quickly eliminate all of the extra traffic.
Must be the T-Mobile store next to my friend's Sprint Store. He always helping T-Mobile customers coming over to switch to Sprint.
And the people at the T-Mobile store are probably helping lots of customers who are there to switch away from Sprint. AT&T and Verizon stores are probably pretty much the same.
Who can prove that my string is not just my creation and that by chance (the probability is very slim but still) it converts to an image that is very similar (or exact) to the copyrighted image?
Why would anyone have to do that? If you're in civil litigation (which copyright infringement almost always is), then the standard is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e. greater than 50%. Even in a criminal trial, that probably wouldn't even meet the requirement of being a reasonable doubt.
This is equivalent to asking a random private citizen that has nothing to do with a case to testify as a witness in said case.
Er, what do you think an eyewitness is? Other than "random", but archive.org isn't randomly selected either.
Just submit a DMCA request. Poof!
You can use a DMCA request to plant fake evidence?
Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This ruling says that historic pages found on archive.org are considered reliable enough to be admitted in civil litigation. I would be pretty surprised if a federal judge ever ruled that a lack of material in the Wayback Machine should be considered by a judge or jury.
This is unadulterated Click-bait...
...that worked on you.
Not to be standing on my lawn for too long, but I haven't seen an answer as to why this is a feature I'd want to use. If I'm not there, I don't want anything answering for me. Especially that I'm not around. And doubly so to strangers. Did anyone discuss the security implications of having what amounts to a chat answering machine?
As far as I know, you're supposed to be the user at the other end of the connection. The bots are meant to be deployed by businesses for customers to interact with. Think of them as the IM equivalent to the automated phone systems that businesses have these days.
they don't drug test the automated machines that are replacing the human workers.
They should. There have been plenty of times when I've been certain that my computer was smoking crack.
Given the same amount of time to grow up, why have they refused?
You'll have to ask that again in another 500 years, when it's been the same amount of time as Christianity now.
The discoveries were a result of an automated technique implemented in a publicly available custom software package called Vespa
So which of these planets is Druidia?
...and deemed wrong simply for disagreeing with him
What does Bush II have to do with this?
I remember needing to write a special autoexec.bat file to not start Windows 3.1 so that I could play Doom. Apparently even exiting Windows didn't free up enough of the 4 MB of RAM, so I had to reboot and not start Windows at all.
Would these products be kosher?
That discussion has already started amongst some of the legal authorities, and it's going to be a very interesting discussion. If the starting cells had been entirely synthesized, then it wouldn't be an animal product at all, and it would almost certainly be classified as pareve (neither meat nor dairy). Since this cultured meat is starting from animal cells, it might be classified as being derived from meat; in that case, the next issue is whether the starting cells came from a kosher animal that was slaughtered accordingly. There's also the possibility that there wouldn't be enough "animal" in the cultured meat for it to count as being an animal product, though personally I doubt that's what the ruling will be.