Years ago, when I was involved with international standards-setting organizations (SSO), one of the first things we were told was that an international SSO derived such legitimacy as it had by the consensus process, rather than a 'majority rules' scheme. Consensus was (rather loosely) defined as the absence of significant opposition. This is the process that the ITU meeting was operating under ? until the chair surprised everyone by declaring a straw poll to be a 'majority rules' decision, despite significant opposition from multiple member countries.
If what we were told was true for all international SSOs (I found it affirmed in e. g. the ISO directives) and if it still holds, then ITU may have declared itself to be illegitimate by its own rules.
Of course, ISO de-legitimized itself by the way it allowed Microsoft to buy the IS26900 (is that the right number?) adoption some years ago, by the chair refusing to recognize significant opposition — and IS26900 has still not been implemented by anyone, including its buyer.
Obviously, this is a plot to destroy the German press by denying them the revenue derived from search-engine references. Qui bono? The beneficiaries will be the German-language press in other countries, like Austria and Switzerland. To a lesser extent, other beneficiaries will be press (in other countries) published in languages the German people have learned to read.
US Constitution:
Article VI...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
A 451 error, per "A New HTTP Status Code for Legally-restricted Resources" would be more appropriate, ignoring Microsoft's non-standard usage.
Blocking was basically erasing the DNS record and when you requested the IP address for piratesite.com, the DNS servers would just sit on it and not respond. Of course, there's no way to educate users with a message in this case, and many of them will think their ISP is having network issues.
Because copyright protects everyone equally.
MPAA/RIAA is not the source of the problem. They are just *one* of the ones currently playing the role of legislative manipulator. The real source of the problem needs to be traced to why we have this role and why it is such a prosperous one.
The bill had absolutely zero to do with sites like Facebook and Wikipedia, yet there were all these dumb lemmings talking about how the bills would end the internet.
From reading the indictment ?
Except megaupload does in fact prevent duplicates on the server by giving multiple links to a single file on the server.
Upon receiving the DMCA notice, they kill the link, but they do not remove the file from the server if the indictment is to be believed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
This statement shows, beyond a doubt, that your understanding of copyright is not quite as complete as you seem to believe.
All GPL software is encumbered by copyright. The 'L' in GPL stands for License, of the copyright variety. Take the Linux kernel for example: the compilation copyright owner is Linus Torvalds of the Linux Foundation. Under the GPL, I am licensed to use, modify, and/or distribute it, subject to one condition on distribution ? if I wish to distribute it, I must distribute the whole thing, not just the executable code, under the same license.
The family computers run Linux. They each have a copy of Microsoft Windows, unused, but only because of Microsoft's treatment of PC makers, which makes it essentially impossible to get a PC without Microsoft stuff.
At work, we used Microsoft, because we wrote software for that environment. (My screensaver was Marquee, reading "A computer without Microsoft is like chocolate cake without mustard".) We used Openoffice.org, even though we had Microsoft Office (or parts thereof) on each PC. I eventually learned which features of OO.o were too advanced for MS Word to handle, in order to be able to exchange documents with MSWord users.
We also used Eclipse, licensed like GPL but with some different terms, due to its different function.