I fully believe innovation should be rewarded, which isn't to say that the patent system isn't royally screwed up. However, in this case were the proprietor can't keep up with demand the duplicate drug should be allowed into the country and the government should step in to allocate a fair tariff that would go to the patent owner. This would be similar to the government taking over private land for road development and paying the land owner a fair market value.
So this once again displays,
a) A non-open privatized voting system is a complete cluster-****.
b) The government is asleep at the wheel. Privatizing voting systems only works if there is oversight, governmental, public, etc.
c) The government doesn't give a flying F about voting security. Laws should be implemented against people with this kind of power, particularly when any abuse is tantamount to treason.
This crap is mind-boggling.
"If you are paid by a company to work for them, to promote them, or other, and fail to disclose it while talking about them, you could mislead people into thinking your opinion is unbiased - when in fact, you are getting paid (or receiving some other form of compensation)."
There's your problem. News outlets have no obligation to the truth and as such, there is equally no obligation to remain unbiased.
Even without the extortion charge this is a pretty clear cut case that multiple studios are colluding to affect pricing differently for certain retailers. That's quite clearly illegal.
So at this point, why in the hell isn't the judge holding them in contempt of court??? That better be the next step, along with jail time for anyone involved in not relinquishing the information.
Gotta agree with you there. It seemed to me that he was more pissed that the guy who put the file up is generating a profit, albeit indirectly, from it, i.e., advertising revenue and donations. I would be pretty pissed too, as that doesn't seem much different than some guy setting up a shop and selling copies of your book on burned CD's and claiming to only charge for the media.
Read the article for God sakes! This is strictly about notes on lectures, not the distribution of pre-written material, which includes handouts, quizzes, tests, etc. In fact, the article implies that the material you find so precious would actually be copyrighted!
And btw, it's arrogant to assume that students will learn best by following your particular teaching style. Different people have different methods of learning. After all, this is why we have tests, to gauge the ability of students to absorb information.
Wait a minute here, the entitlement argument only applies to people who think they deserve special treatment when they haven't actually invested anything into the system. This seems to be a scenario of paying for services that were never rendered. Personally I think this is a positive thing as it makes universities actually accountable for the quality of their education. If you sell me a Lexus and I come to find out I actually got a Honda, you better damn well believe I am going to be angry. Just because I sign a check and enter the gates doesn't mean your duty to me is over. Universities don't play the customer service game very well, mostly because they are run more like government institutions rather than streamlined businesses, but their duty to the student body shouldn't be any less than any company that has a product or service to sell.
The irony of all this extra surveillance is that it seems to be catching criminal cops instead of the supposed mass of criminal citizens out there waiting to terrorize others.
I look forward to a day where people stop acting like idiots.
Should the media be able to publish photos of alleged criminals? I would say that mugshots should not be released to the media until someone has been proven guilty. This is especially salient in issues of underage pornography busts where the associated stigma could literally ruin someone's life. Don't get me wrong, the guilty ones are the scum of the earth, but in the court of public opinion just having your picture up there is enough to convict you.
Actually, if you run into any illegal activity on a user's system I'm pretty sure you are required by law to disclose it. I'm assuming here that not doing so would make you an accomplice.
I've done plenty of tech work and I was one of the few moral people who wouldn't go snooping, but a lot of scumbags do.
This is really an issue of what kind of permission is implied in any repair whether it be computer, home, etc. As mentioned, when you invite an electrician into your home there is an implied expectation of privacy. He shouldn't be going through your underwear drawer, which btw would be an illegal activity. So why is it any different for a computer hard drive?
The question comes down to, is there any valid excuse for the tech to be accessing those files? In a DVD hardware repair, there isn't and I don't understand how any tech could take the stand and say so. Even for entire file backups, there is ZERO reason that files should be opened. Sure, if the file says, "here's all my illegal porn," then you report it to the authorities. You don't go opening individual files under ANY circumstance.
Honestly, the guy is pure scum for having these types of files on his computer, but I would have fired the tech for doing what amounts to an illegal activity.
Can someone explain to me why tech companies are the only ones being put under the microscope as far as antitrust goes? It seems to me there are plenty of others out there that should be scrutinized a bit more.
Tell me about it! Let's start with the telcos leveraging their market power to either extort consumers, Time Warner, or prevent competition in the form of township's providing broadband service to their residents.
Last time I checked in order to trigger anti-monopoly regulation you actually have to be abusing your power of monopoly.
While profitability is not a determining factor for fair use, I would say that Turnitin's entire business model hinges solely on the "fair use" of these papers. Since they are making money off the uniqueness factor of each individual paper submitted, the fair use argument pretty much goes out the window.
There's a number of key points that sway this debate for me:
1. Is the key to your profitability, i.e., your business model, hinge upon the uniqueness of an author's work.
2. Is this work accessed often, weekly, daily, hourly.
3. Is the amalgamation of these works considered an asset to the company, i.e., if this data were lost would there be considerable financial loss to the company.
So in Turnitin's case you would find that their cash flow is tied to using the works, more specifically the uniqueness of each individual work. They likely access these works, or the data subset representing the work, on an extremely frequent basis. And if they lost their database of papers, they would be severely financially crippled.
So tell me, how is this fair use if I, the author, have lost control over how my original work is utilized?
Ebay had a contractual obligation to not compete directly with Craigslist. Ebay then purchases an overseas company and launches it in the US in direct competition with Craigslist. Craigslist follows the terms of the contract, dilutes Ebay's shares and freezes them out. Sure, we don't have all the details, but it's pretty hard to see how Ebay could come out looking like the good guy in all this.
I think the key here is profit. If a news organization actually had some real duty to report the news, as opposed to being a profit driven machine, then I might argue for fair use here. However, the usage in this case can be measured as a tangible profit for the news agency and as such, there should be damages awarded for Ms. Dupre.
Then leave if you hate techdirt so much! Wait, you never had permission to be accessing a private server on a private network in the first place!!! BUSTED! You just committed the same crime as the wardriver in question.
Unfortunately you are wrong. This did already happen a few years ago at Staples. They sent a coupon to their best customers for $50 off $50. Of course, being the idiots that they are, this coupon worked for anyone placing an order. A good number of people had their orders shipped with this coupon. Staples sent out a notice saying return the items or we will charge your CC the full price. Some people folded and returned the items, while others stood firm. Most actually won their CC disputes, with a handful being denied.
At the end of the day what Staples did, and now what Amazon are doing, is consumer fraud. Once the transaction has taken place and the item has been shipped the sale is considered final. Amazon can claim legal precedent, but only in the court of law. Any charges to your CC would be unauthorized because you have not specifically given consent. So, while there may be laws protecting Amazon from this kind of loss, they don't get to play judge, jury and executioner here. After all, that is why we have a legal system, to resolve these types of disputes.
Yeah this has been a problem for a while now, ever since Cloudmark was back in original beta. I tested it out and my legitimate mailing lists would be flagged as SPAM. No matter how many times I told them it wasn't SPAM, it would still flag them. Don't know why it has taken them so long to realize that in fact, not everyone can agree on what is and what is not SPAM.
RSS
Twitter
(as Bri)
I fully believe innovation should be rewarded, which isn't to say that the patent system isn't royally screwed up. However, in this case were the proprietor can't keep up with demand the duplicate drug should be allowed into the country and the government should step in to allocate a fair tariff that would go to the patent owner. This would be similar to the government taking over private land for road development and paying the land owner a fair market value.
(as Bri)
So this once again displays,
a) A non-open privatized voting system is a complete cluster-****.
b) The government is asleep at the wheel. Privatizing voting systems only works if there is oversight, governmental, public, etc.
c) The government doesn't give a flying F about voting security. Laws should be implemented against people with this kind of power, particularly when any abuse is tantamount to treason.
This crap is mind-boggling.
Re: (as Bri)
"If you are paid by a company to work for them, to promote them, or other, and fail to disclose it while talking about them, you could mislead people into thinking your opinion is unbiased - when in fact, you are getting paid (or receiving some other form of compensation)."
There's your problem. News outlets have no obligation to the truth and as such, there is equally no obligation to remain unbiased.
Re: Re: (as Bri)
Even without the extortion charge this is a pretty clear cut case that multiple studios are colluding to affect pricing differently for certain retailers. That's quite clearly illegal.
Hmmm (as Bri)
So at this point, why in the hell isn't the judge holding them in contempt of court??? That better be the next step, along with jail time for anyone involved in not relinquishing the information.
Re: Wil Wheaton... (as Bri)
Gotta agree with you there. It seemed to me that he was more pissed that the guy who put the file up is generating a profit, albeit indirectly, from it, i.e., advertising revenue and donations. I would be pretty pissed too, as that doesn't seem much different than some guy setting up a shop and selling copies of your book on burned CD's and claiming to only charge for the media.
Re: (as Bri)
Read the article for God sakes! This is strictly about notes on lectures, not the distribution of pre-written material, which includes handouts, quizzes, tests, etc. In fact, the article implies that the material you find so precious would actually be copyrighted!
And btw, it's arrogant to assume that students will learn best by following your particular teaching style. Different people have different methods of learning. After all, this is why we have tests, to gauge the ability of students to absorb information.
Say what? (as Bri)
Wait a minute here, the entitlement argument only applies to people who think they deserve special treatment when they haven't actually invested anything into the system. This seems to be a scenario of paying for services that were never rendered. Personally I think this is a positive thing as it makes universities actually accountable for the quality of their education. If you sell me a Lexus and I come to find out I actually got a Honda, you better damn well believe I am going to be angry. Just because I sign a check and enter the gates doesn't mean your duty to me is over. Universities don't play the customer service game very well, mostly because they are run more like government institutions rather than streamlined businesses, but their duty to the student body shouldn't be any less than any company that has a product or service to sell.
(as Bri)
The irony of all this extra surveillance is that it seems to be catching criminal cops instead of the supposed mass of criminal citizens out there waiting to terrorize others.
I look forward to a day where people stop acting like idiots.
Does bring up a larger issue (as Bri)
Should the media be able to publish photos of alleged criminals? I would say that mugshots should not be released to the media until someone has been proven guilty. This is especially salient in issues of underage pornography busts where the associated stigma could literally ruin someone's life. Don't get me wrong, the guilty ones are the scum of the earth, but in the court of public opinion just having your picture up there is enough to convict you.
Re: (as Bri)
Actually, if you run into any illegal activity on a user's system I'm pretty sure you are required by law to disclose it. I'm assuming here that not doing so would make you an accomplice.
I've done plenty of tech work and I was one of the few moral people who wouldn't go snooping, but a lot of scumbags do.
This is really an issue of what kind of permission is implied in any repair whether it be computer, home, etc. As mentioned, when you invite an electrician into your home there is an implied expectation of privacy. He shouldn't be going through your underwear drawer, which btw would be an illegal activity. So why is it any different for a computer hard drive?
The question comes down to, is there any valid excuse for the tech to be accessing those files? In a DVD hardware repair, there isn't and I don't understand how any tech could take the stand and say so. Even for entire file backups, there is ZERO reason that files should be opened. Sure, if the file says, "here's all my illegal porn," then you report it to the authorities. You don't go opening individual files under ANY circumstance.
Honestly, the guy is pure scum for having these types of files on his computer, but I would have fired the tech for doing what amounts to an illegal activity.
(as Bri)
Can someone explain to me why tech companies are the only ones being put under the microscope as far as antitrust goes? It seems to me there are plenty of others out there that should be scrutinized a bit more.
Tell me about it! Let's start with the telcos leveraging their market power to either extort consumers, Time Warner, or prevent competition in the form of township's providing broadband service to their residents.
Last time I checked in order to trigger anti-monopoly regulation you actually have to be abusing your power of monopoly.
Fair Use... pffft (as Bri)
While profitability is not a determining factor for fair use, I would say that Turnitin's entire business model hinges solely on the "fair use" of these papers. Since they are making money off the uniqueness factor of each individual paper submitted, the fair use argument pretty much goes out the window.
There's a number of key points that sway this debate for me:
1. Is the key to your profitability, i.e., your business model, hinge upon the uniqueness of an author's work.
2. Is this work accessed often, weekly, daily, hourly.
3. Is the amalgamation of these works considered an asset to the company, i.e., if this data were lost would there be considerable financial loss to the company.
So in Turnitin's case you would find that their cash flow is tied to using the works, more specifically the uniqueness of each individual work. They likely access these works, or the data subset representing the work, on an extremely frequent basis. And if they lost their database of papers, they would be severely financially crippled.
So tell me, how is this fair use if I, the author, have lost control over how my original work is utilized?
Don't make me laugh (as Bri)
Apple was never into free markets so don't start whining about it now!
Seems pretty clear cut to me... (as bri)
Ebay had a contractual obligation to not compete directly with Craigslist. Ebay then purchases an overseas company and launches it in the US in direct competition with Craigslist. Craigslist follows the terms of the contract, dilutes Ebay's shares and freezes them out. Sure, we don't have all the details, but it's pretty hard to see how Ebay could come out looking like the good guy in all this.
Infringement... yes (as Bri)
I think the key here is profit. If a news organization actually had some real duty to report the news, as opposed to being a profit driven machine, then I might argue for fair use here. However, the usage in this case can be measured as a tangible profit for the news agency and as such, there should be damages awarded for Ms. Dupre.
Re: (as Bri)
Then leave if you hate techdirt so much! Wait, you never had permission to be accessing a private server on a private network in the first place!!! BUSTED! You just committed the same crime as the wardriver in question.
Re: Some of you people need to get a life... (as Bri)
Unfortunately you are wrong. This did already happen a few years ago at Staples. They sent a coupon to their best customers for $50 off $50. Of course, being the idiots that they are, this coupon worked for anyone placing an order. A good number of people had their orders shipped with this coupon. Staples sent out a notice saying return the items or we will charge your CC the full price. Some people folded and returned the items, while others stood firm. Most actually won their CC disputes, with a handful being denied.
At the end of the day what Staples did, and now what Amazon are doing, is consumer fraud. Once the transaction has taken place and the item has been shipped the sale is considered final. Amazon can claim legal precedent, but only in the court of law. Any charges to your CC would be unauthorized because you have not specifically given consent. So, while there may be laws protecting Amazon from this kind of loss, they don't get to play judge, jury and executioner here. After all, that is why we have a legal system, to resolve these types of disputes.
No Subject Given (as brbubba)
Yeah this has been a problem for a while now, ever since Cloudmark was back in original beta. I tested it out and my legitimate mailing lists would be flagged as SPAM. No matter how many times I told them it wasn't SPAM, it would still flag them.
Don't know why it has taken them so long to realize that in fact, not everyone can agree on what is and what is not SPAM.