They copy the file to their own site first for processing before downloading it to you.
There are some legal questions here, but US copyright law says, the work has to be somewhere for more than a "transitory duration." If it's just on their servers for a very brief period of time to effectuate the service, I don't see how that makes a difference.
Since they never managed to revoke his access, can he argue that he was indeed (still) authorized to the material in question? Sure, logically, since he didn't work for them anymore it stands to logic that he *shouldn't* have access, but he did. It's a technical differentiation, of course, but sometimes that is how things are decided.
Well, yes, that's an argument -- and similar ones have been made in the past. I think it makes sense, but courts haven't always agreed. And that makes it a risky argument to make in court.
Really -- if we don't complete the transfer China might feel entitled to build a great firewall? Oh wait, I thought they already had??
This is a red herring. This has nothing to do with what China does with its local internet. It's about what might happen if China has more say over the global internet. And making this transition PREVENTS that from happening.
Authoritarian regimes will do what they want with or without our approval.
Yes, on the parts they control. That's why this transition is important. To make sure that they don't get control over the wider internet.
Without the US to ensure our version of "free speech" as defined by the 1A (even as imperfect as it is and as imperfectly as it is ensured) is order of the day, its a given that other extremely more questionable organizations such as the ITU will be gunning for, and will receive, the power to ensure "free speech" as defined by most of the rest of the world. And that's at minimum, more likely it will be much worse considering that's just the baseline: other international organizations' "free speech" definition will inevitably devolve it further.
1. Nothing about the Commerce Dept/NIST role over ICANN now "ensures free speech" on the internet. So, this is meaningless garbage.
2. ITU has been using US contractual relationship over IANA as THE KEY REASON it seeks control. Ditching that connection works to PREVENT ITU from gaining power over internet governance.
3. The multistakeholder process built into ICANN/IANA means less ability for ITU and/or governments (any governments) to exert control by making sure that others, such as actual techies, have the ability to block such things.
UN = a coalition of governments. NewICANN = a coalition of something, what else, something, and RICH FUCKERS WITH POWER and a LONG list of agendas!
Man. You really have set your mind with an ignorant and wrong understanding of what's happening and WILL NOT CHANGE IT, huh? Incredible.
No, ICANN -- both before and after the transition -- will be managed by a *multistakeholder process* that involves lots of people, including technology experts. It actually STOPS a "coalition of governments" from controlling the internet governance issue, because it actually includes lots and lots of non-gov't people. And a lot of those people are NOT "rich fuckers."
But, you, who have demonstrated an inability to understand what ICANN actually does, still insist on things that are simply factually incorrect.
I love techdirt's articles but really you should stop promoting PIA which does not live up to its name AT ALL, as it it does not provide the privacy it claims.
Hmm. Reading through that article, the complaint seems to be that they use tracking services on their own website, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how safe or good the VPN service is. And if tracking services are a problem (1) we use some too and (2) there are easy ways to block them totally unrelated to VPN service.
So, yeah, it seems like a weird, misplaced complaint.
Put aside the idea that a few bad Skittles justify banning entire classes of immigrants. That’s racist nonsense. Don’t flatter that argument by countering it with statistics. Consider: When you let people in, yes, you increase the likelihood that something bad will happen. You also increase the potential that something good could happen. If you want to make America greater, you need to increase that potential.
Not letting in good people harms America. That's a big deal. My entire family came to America between 100 and 130 years ago fleeing oppression elsewhere. And they've built huge things. Turning our back on others now is profoundly stupid and short sighted.
I agree that Univision acted cowardly, but from a risk management perspective, even if the lawsuits "were obviously bogus," that doesn't mean it wouldn't cost millions of dollars to prove that they're obviously bogus.
Yeah, but the lawsuit remains against Gawker, the company, not Univision. Could they update the lawsuits to include Univision? Yes, but Univision should be able to get those tossed because of the first publication rule.
...unless, of course, it's Aaron Swartz, in which case it's all the prosecutors' fault for driving him to suicide by doing their job.
Nope. FWIW we've always avoided making any such claim. I know others (including his girlfriend) have argued that the DOJ drove him to suicide, but you will not find a story on our site suggesting that is the case -- for exactly the reasons discussed above. I don't know why he killed himself, but I will not pin it on the DOJ.
I will pin lots of other bad behavior in his case on the DOJ -- but not the suicide.
When Matt Lauer is moderating a debate, he is not being a journalist. He is a moderator and I agree that it isn't his job to fact check or call BS. It is the opposing candidate's job. If he is interviewing a candidate or reporting news, then it is his job.
Yeah, maybe if you're a sardine. By and large, people living in NYC live there by necessity, or because they were born there and don't have any easy way to leave. In all my life I've known a grand total of one person who wanted to move there, and she was crazy.
I know a ridiculously high number of people who absolutely want to live in NYC (and many people who live there because they wanted to). Having grown up right outside of NYC, I still frequently think about moving there and I love every time I visit. The idea that people don't like it there seems completely wrong to me.
Excellent. Will the event be live-streamed, torrented, podcasted, or anything similar?
Since much of it is conversational in small groups, there's no good way to live stream or record the whole thing. We will, however, do *something* to get the ideas that were discussed out into the wider world and continue the discussion online.
Big time. In a way that impacted many, many, many websites.
They noticed it and fixed it.
They didn't notice it. Five days of people complaining on Google's own forums and sending in notices did nothing. It was only when I reached out for comment from Google that someone seems to have finally realized things were broken.
Big deal - is there anybody on Earth this doesn't happen to once in a while?
Break a critical system and not notice for five days while your users suffer? Yeah. That doesn't happen that often, actually.
This pretty much sums up your ridiculous approach to IP. You simply label McKenna a "maximalist" and then refuse to engage anything he says on the merits.
You're right. That was both uncalled for and wrong...
I got McKenna confused with someone else and overreacted and I apologize for that. My original comment was not about McKenna's paper at all, but about the quotes you gave from the law. That was it. Then I overreacted and wrote something up quickly when in a rush and that was a mistake.
I understand what you are saying and I'm not upset or angry one way or the other, but, at least in Florida, you are wrong (cue Florida jokes).
In Florida, theft is defined as someone who "knowingly ... uses the property of another with intent to ... appropriate the property to his own use." Fla. Stat. s. 812.014(1). Under this, the Court has held that copyright infringement constitutes theft. See CBS, Inc. v. Garrod, 622 F. Supp. 532, 536 (M.D. Fla. 1985), aff'd, 803 F.2d 1183 (11th Cir. 1986).
It does seem worth pointing out here -- as that ruling does -- that under the 1976 Copyright Act, basically all state copyright laws are pre-empted by federal copyright law and no longer apply. This case notes that it's talking about actions prior to that taking place, but you can certainly point out that this is no longer considered current or good law, because it only refers to actions taking place before July of 1977.
Either way, it is absolutely true that some people have been led to believe that copyright infringement equates to theft, and that means that every so often you get politicians writing "theft" into the law, or even courts coming out with questionable rulings, like the Bridgeport ruling saying "thous shalt not steal" in a sampling case.
But that doesn't change the basic factual point that we're making that copying is not theft.