I'm speaking from the point of view of the newbie.
So you're saying that someone new to Ebay needs to learn how it works? Isn't that common sense?
Proxy bidding is a crutch for ebay not wanting to implement an auction end delay
Yeah, but an auction end delay has it's own host of issues. For example, instead of a proxy max bid that would mean I have to be online and logged in to Ebay whenever any auction that I'm interested in is ending.
Even if I put in a bid for $75, and I get sniped by a bid for $75.51 with three seconds left to go in the auction.
Then either (1) The "sniper" is willing to pay more than you are and deserved to win the auction, no matter when they bid. or (2) You were really willing to pay more than what you bid, and didn't use the bidding system correctly.
The whole point of the proxy bidding system is that it makes no difference whether you bid with 2 days left or 2 seconds left. If you enter the max amount you're willing to bid, then the highest bidder wins. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen. People who don't like "snipers" just don't understand how to correctly use the proxy bidding system.
I still think the rest of my argument stands though. This appears to be a battle between the two publishers more than anything else. I think people who are attacking or defending the two authors over this case are missing that. I also think a lot of people are equating the website with the book, which is incorrect. The book only contains a subset of the website, specifically the part that most directly draws from Rowling's work.
In fact, in the summery itself, it says Warner Bros vs RDR Books.
IMO, this is the most important part of this case. Despite what a lot of people are saying, Rowling did not sue. Her publishing company did. Also, despite what a lot of people are saying, the author of the Lexicon was not sued. His publishing company was. This case, to me, is a lot more about the two publishing companies fighting over who gets to make money. It doesn't really seem to have much to do with the two authors fighting.
If you read through the judgement, it actually gets specific about how the Lexicon came about. The author of the website is not the one who wanted to publish this book. A publishing company approached him (RDR Books) and said they wanted to publish it. He originally refused, because he also thought that what they were planning on publishing would be a copyright infringement. He also said that Rowling, not him, deserves to make money from a Harry Potter encyclopedia. It wasn't until RDR Books told the website author that they had investigated the matter and that their legal team determined that it would not violate copyright, did the website agree to let them have the rights to publish the Lexicon. They also had to write in special clauses to the contract indemnifying him of any copyright infringement responsibility. I think RDR Books had to say that they would defend him as well as pay any costs/penalties if they lost a case.
Also, my understanding is that RDR Books intentionally stripped out a lot of the original/creative material that is part of the Lexicon website when they published the book, in order to make it shorter. From what I've read the Lexicon book != the Lexicon website. The book is supposedly mostly just quoted material from Rowling.
I think RDR Books screwed up here, not the website author. I also think that this is really just the two publishing companies slugging it out over rights (aka) money.
And if you've ever looked at the Lexicon website, you know that it does precisely that.
The website does, yes. My understanding of the book though is that a lot of this was being driven by the publisher, not really the author of the Lexicon website. The publisher decided to strip out virtually all of the original material from the website in order to shorten the book. The Lexicon book, as opposed to the website, supposedly is almost entirely direct quotes from the Harry Potter books.
Not if they're buying the original OS X legally and then reselling to customers. That's pretty much what every computer manufacturer does when they pre-install the OS for you. You're confusing this with them making their own copies of OS X to sell, which would violate copyright. Are they doing that?
Now, you're probably thinking, "That sounds like a paper ballot system? Why would we pay all this money for these fancy machines when we have to basically fall back on a paper ballot system to make sure they're reliable?"
Exactly.
Having a computer help the voter fill out their ballot is actually not a bad idea. Having the computer count the ballots, with absolutely no way to verify them, is completely insane.
I'm trying to understand what is so good about an electronic voting machine?... If the machine is purely electronic with no physical ballot, tampering could occur without detection.
I think you've answered your own question. That's a definite plus to the people who are forcing these things on us.
There are several cheaper eink devices. The one in this story is by far the most expensive. It has the largest screen and most hardware features though, which is what you're paying extra for.
Not really. There's a really big difference between just hitting the right pad at the right time, and actually playing music. Someone who can play the drums in RB on expert is certainly very coordinated, but there's a lot more to being a drummer than just coordination.
You're not missing anything. It's a game, none of it is the same as playing the real instrument. It's not supposed to be. If it was realistic most people would get frustrated and quit, when the point is to just have fun. Both the guitar and drums are extremely simplified versions of the real thing. All you need for either is a very basic understanding of how it works. Push button, hit pad... etc.
He has put the equivalent of a black board and a box of chalk on the Internet and only erases things the court orders him to. A rather interesting and unfiltered reflection of society.
I agree, it's a revolutionary idea. Maybe he can call it "USENET".
But MediaSentry would be the downloader. The downloader is not the one infringing on copyright. The uploader is the infringer. So whether MediaSentry is an agent of the RIAA doesn't matter, they can't infringe themselves because they're not uploading.
The part I don't know is, does it matter who the downloader is? Or is the uploader infringing regardless of who is downloading from them.
However, it should be "illegal" to "take" (copy) said files... The RIAA are suing those who simply put their files in the public space instead of going after those who "take" said files via copying.
Copyright law restricts distribution rights, it does not apply to someone who is receiving a copyrighted work. In the P2P world, it's the sharer who is committing copyright infringement.
...the same it would be illegal to take someone's car who's parked it on the public street.
Now you're confusing physical theft with copyright infringement. You'd think that people would understand the difference by now, it's only been pointed out on here about a million times.
Not so. The judge came to the realization on his own. He got no help from any of the lawyers, even Ms. Thomas's lawyer.
You'd think that Ms. Thomas's lawyer would be jumping up and down trying to tell this to the judge. If there is a new trial, does she have to keep the same lawyer?
Well if MediaSentry is considered an agent of the RIAA who is a agent of the copyright holders, then no it does not count
I've seen that logic before, but is it true? The P2P user is not authorized to distribute the file, regardless of whether or not the downloader is another P2P user or an agent of the RIAA. Isn't that correct? Otherwise I guess you're saying that the RIAA implicitly gives you a distribution license if they download the song from you.
What I think people get confused by is that if the P2P user is the downloader, then there can't be a case of copyright infringement if they download from the RIAA or their agent, since the RIAA can legally distribute their own content. That doesn't apply here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm speaking from the point of view of the newbie.
So you're saying that someone new to Ebay needs to learn how it works? Isn't that common sense?
Proxy bidding is a crutch for ebay not wanting to implement an auction end delay
Yeah, but an auction end delay has it's own host of issues. For example, instead of a proxy max bid that would mean I have to be online and logged in to Ebay whenever any auction that I'm interested in is ending.
Even if I put in a bid for $75, and I get sniped by a bid for $75.51 with three seconds left to go in the auction.
Then either
(1) The "sniper" is willing to pay more than you are and deserved to win the auction, no matter when they bid.
or
(2) You were really willing to pay more than what you bid, and didn't use the bidding system correctly.
The whole point of the proxy bidding system is that it makes no difference whether you bid with 2 days left or 2 seconds left. If you enter the max amount you're willing to bid, then the highest bidder wins. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen. People who don't like "snipers" just don't understand how to correctly use the proxy bidding system.
Sniping makes absolutely no difference if you use the bidding system correctly.
Doh!
I still think the rest of my argument stands though. This appears to be a battle between the two publishers more than anything else. I think people who are attacking or defending the two authors over this case are missing that. I also think a lot of people are equating the website with the book, which is incorrect. The book only contains a subset of the website, specifically the part that most directly draws from Rowling's work.
In fact, in the summery itself, it says Warner Bros vs RDR Books.
IMO, this is the most important part of this case. Despite what a lot of people are saying, Rowling did not sue. Her publishing company did. Also, despite what a lot of people are saying, the author of the Lexicon was not sued. His publishing company was. This case, to me, is a lot more about the two publishing companies fighting over who gets to make money. It doesn't really seem to have much to do with the two authors fighting.
If you read through the judgement, it actually gets specific about how the Lexicon came about. The author of the website is not the one who wanted to publish this book. A publishing company approached him (RDR Books) and said they wanted to publish it. He originally refused, because he also thought that what they were planning on publishing would be a copyright infringement. He also said that Rowling, not him, deserves to make money from a Harry Potter encyclopedia. It wasn't until RDR Books told the website author that they had investigated the matter and that their legal team determined that it would not violate copyright, did the website agree to let them have the rights to publish the Lexicon. They also had to write in special clauses to the contract indemnifying him of any copyright infringement responsibility. I think RDR Books had to say that they would defend him as well as pay any costs/penalties if they lost a case.
Also, my understanding is that RDR Books intentionally stripped out a lot of the original/creative material that is part of the Lexicon website when they published the book, in order to make it shorter. From what I've read the Lexicon book != the Lexicon website. The book is supposedly mostly just quoted material from Rowling.
I think RDR Books screwed up here, not the website author. I also think that this is really just the two publishing companies slugging it out over rights (aka) money.
And if you've ever looked at the Lexicon website, you know that it does precisely that.
The website does, yes. My understanding of the book though is that a lot of this was being driven by the publisher, not really the author of the Lexicon website. The publisher decided to strip out virtually all of the original material from the website in order to shorten the book. The Lexicon book, as opposed to the website, supposedly is almost entirely direct quotes from the Harry Potter books.
My wife does the same thing, then she loses the notebook.
the first several results on Google for dvd shrink say "we're not allowed to host this nor tell you where it is hosted; use Google"
That's OK. It comes as part of Nero now, so you don't have to look very hard.
I did. It says the copies were legitimately purchased.
Not if they're buying the original OS X legally and then reselling to customers. That's pretty much what every computer manufacturer does when they pre-install the OS for you. You're confusing this with them making their own copies of OS X to sell, which would violate copyright. Are they doing that?
M. Night Wasshisname
M. Night Shamalamadingdong
Now, you're probably thinking, "That sounds like a paper ballot system? Why would we pay all this money for these fancy machines when we have to basically fall back on a paper ballot system to make sure they're reliable?"
Exactly.
Having a computer help the voter fill out their ballot is actually not a bad idea.
Having the computer count the ballots, with absolutely no way to verify them, is completely insane.
I'm trying to understand what is so good about an electronic voting machine? ...
If the machine is purely electronic with no physical ballot, tampering could occur without detection.
I think you've answered your own question. That's a definite plus to the people who are forcing these things on us.
You're not going to spot it, that's the problem. For all you know the machines will have already been tampered with before you even open the polls.
The only reason for warrantless is so you can hide what you're doing from the other branches of government.
There are several cheaper eink devices. The one in this story is by far the most expensive. It has the largest screen and most hardware features though, which is what you're paying extra for.
Standing in line, without knowing what they're waiting for. Gotta love Mac fans. ;)
Not really. There's a really big difference between just hitting the right pad at the right time, and actually playing music. Someone who can play the drums in RB on expert is certainly very coordinated, but there's a lot more to being a drummer than just coordination.
You're not missing anything. It's a game, none of it is the same as playing the real instrument. It's not supposed to be. If it was realistic most people would get frustrated and quit, when the point is to just have fun. Both the guitar and drums are extremely simplified versions of the real thing. All you need for either is a very basic understanding of how it works. Push button, hit pad... etc.
He has put the equivalent of a black board and a box of chalk on the Internet and only erases things the court orders him to. A rather interesting and unfiltered reflection of society.
I agree, it's a revolutionary idea. Maybe he can call it "USENET".
But MediaSentry would be the downloader. The downloader is not the one infringing on copyright. The uploader is the infringer. So whether MediaSentry is an agent of the RIAA doesn't matter, they can't infringe themselves because they're not uploading.
The part I don't know is, does it matter who the downloader is? Or is the uploader infringing regardless of who is downloading from them.
Not long. Do you want a copy?
However, it should be "illegal" to "take" (copy) said files... The RIAA are suing those who simply put their files in the public space instead of going after those who "take" said files via copying.
...the same it would be illegal to take someone's car who's parked it on the public street.
Copyright law restricts distribution rights, it does not apply to someone who is receiving a copyrighted work. In the P2P world, it's the sharer who is committing copyright infringement.
Now you're confusing physical theft with copyright infringement. You'd think that people would understand the difference by now, it's only been pointed out on here about a million times.
Not so. The judge came to the realization on his own. He got no help from any of the lawyers, even Ms. Thomas's lawyer.
You'd think that Ms. Thomas's lawyer would be jumping up and down trying to tell this to the judge. If there is a new trial, does she have to keep the same lawyer?
Well if MediaSentry is considered an agent of the RIAA who is a agent of the copyright holders, then no it does not count
I've seen that logic before, but is it true? The P2P user is not authorized to distribute the file, regardless of whether or not the downloader is another P2P user or an agent of the RIAA. Isn't that correct? Otherwise I guess you're saying that the RIAA implicitly gives you a distribution license if they download the song from you.
What I think people get confused by is that if the P2P user is the downloader, then there can't be a case of copyright infringement if they download from the RIAA or their agent, since the RIAA can legally distribute their own content. That doesn't apply here.