One: The filing was in 2008, which means six years went by without a word until now. What changed and who ordered the stoppage?
Two: Fluke's trademark is in conjunction with the removable case and the color of the multimeter. In other words: Fluke is recognized for the casing and the yellow multimeter, not the yellow band around the meter.
Basically put: the colors are reversed and no one will mistake this multimeter as a Fluke.
I will say this: If Fluke was the one which ordered the ITC to intercept this shipment, they lost another customer.
"But with both fixed line and wireless carriers increasingly charging by the megabyte and gigabyte, people might want to brush up on the term before they have to take out a second mortgage to fund their Angry Birds habit." Do me a favor, Karl. Take a quick trip to Netflix and find me information on the amount of data will be used to play the video about to stream.
Okay, now head to Facebook and see if you can find a quick reference on the data push there. Amazon? Techdirt?
I've learned long ago people don't care about space and limits. All they care about is accessing content. When customers get bill shocked, they'll simply cut back on frivolous websites like Techdirt and The Wall Street Journal so they can spend more time on Facebook without punishment.
Because a website doesn't tell people how much data it's pushing, nor does it engage people with caution notices a stream is going to be over 500MB. People don't realize the true impact of many images over the course of time.
All they want is to access it.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're overshadowing the true culprit here: websites don't state how much data they're pushing because to do so may actually get visitors to leave, and not come back.
Instead of trying to blame consumers, blame the carriers and ISPs who are purposely gouging customers because they're well aware how much data they're using, and precisely where to cap them.
Educate them to fight this stupidity, not learn what a gigabyte is.
That's my job, as a web developer, as it's necessary to streamline the content with as little as data as possible since it also costs us to push it.
I can't agree to this at all. While on paper, it's true, when applied to the real world, it's 100% extortion: You will or ELSE.
OSPs aren't going to risk a court case for every single action of refusing to abide by a takedown request, nor will they ever risk the possibility of a maximum fine of $250,000 per infringement, so they "comply" to the extortion.
In addition, there is absolutely zero oversight to the process. If the public is afforded the luxury of copyright use by law, then how is it these sites are also not entitled to the same right?
The law was fucked up when it was hastily drafted (by the RIAA and MPAA), signed by Clinton, and the internet's been worse for it ever since.
Not just the internet, either. Because the DMCA also includes the infamous "circumvention" law, we can't even do with our electronics what we want despite legally purchasing them.
Copyright maximalists can kiss my ass. The law, all of it, should be abolished.