This sounds like something typical of the recording industry tactics. If you can't get what you want by getting the laws rewritten, do an end run around the law. They will do anything to get what they want, anything except prove that they've been harmed.
Didn't Intel discover that you can't trademark a number?
Has the USPTO changed their policy on this in the last decade?
I think we could bury the AC troll up to his neck in Julie Bass's front garden he is living and with his brain I doubt much above plant life.
First, the dismissal was "with prejudice," so the charges can be brought again. But...
If the dismissal is 'with prejudice', then the charges cannot be brought again. The original article has it listed as 'without prejudice,' meaning the charges can be brought again.
It will be interesting to see what Verizon does if Sony loses that lawsuit over remkving functionality from the PS3.
Marcel, that's part of the problem. This *isn't* a law. It's a private agreement between the ISP and the MPAA/RIAA. About the only way you could get this killed would be to show it's a violation of an existing law, like anti-trust law.
Other than that, once your ISP has agreed to it, and incorporated it into the terms of service, you're screwed. You either have to agree to accept this load of crap, or else you don't get an account with that ISP. Given the list of companies signed up for it, that would mean no broadband access to the internet.
If you look at almost any system, you can "find the good". The question will always "is the good really worth it"? In the case of piracy, the answer is pretty much no.This may, or may not be true. It's also pretty much irrelevent. In the 13 years since the DMCA passed, the recording industry has tryed sueing P2P software companies, sueing internet downloaders, DRM, and "education" campaigns. The one thing that all the attempts at stopping internet copyright infringement have in common is that they have all failed.
Not really. The use a VPN will likely be a trigger for further checking, especially if you are moving a large volume of data over that connection.How exactly are they going to go about doing this? The VPN is encrypted, so at best they'll be able to identify endpoints for the link.
Just out of curiosity, what about automated systems like security cameras and webcams? I suppose there could be a claim of some minimal creativity involved in the initial setup that determines the framing of the pictures, but other than that, the entire process, from lighting levels to the exact timing of the picture is automated. Does that initial setup involve enough creativity to allow for copyright on images that may be taken years later, or are all those automated pictures automatically in the public domain due to lack of creativity involved in taking them.
For that matter, would the courts decide that the machines do have some creativity, in which case, who owns the copyright, the machine's owner, the installer, or the programmer who wrote the computer code that controls everything?
Fair use doesn't include resale rights. Trying to resell the image on a stock photo site without a release for the main subject of the photo is risky. Legally, he is very likely to lose.
Fair use doesn't mean "any use".
Make all of their mail - voice mail, email, paper mail, all of it, completely public and published on a government website. And give everyone access to delete their message or file them wherever.
Treat their privacy like they treat others.
The mail still works, fedex still runs, the banks still cash checks, etc. Yes, Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal are more convenient, but they do not control the money movement market.Visa and Mastercard do control some 95% of the online payments market, and this is the area the plaintiff requires access too in order to remain competitive in business.
It is also clear that the Wikileaks people have been slippery with the truth, using third party companies, less than honest addresses, and the like to get their processing done. Third parties accepting Visa transactions requires that the company have a sort of IPSP account (for allowing third party transactions), and each third party must be directly approved by Visa. Without it, the processing can be stopped without warning.This third party procedure is not 'slippery with the truth' It's a standard business practice, as you even admit to when mentioning the procedures required for it. What's more, the company plainly stated up front that they were going to be processing payments for WikiLeaks.
...wikeleaks legal status is somewhat in question.There is no question at all about the legal status of Wikileaks. One individual has been in custody for almost a year over the major leak that has embarrassed the US government. In spite of the long delay, that individual has not yet been charged with anything. wikileaks has not yet been charged, let alone convicted, of any offense whatsoever. Unless you are willing to throw out the basis for the entire legal system in the western world, Wikileaks has to be considered as innocent until guilt is proven in a court.
This story reads more like Wikeleaks being more than slightly desperate for attention, as fewer and fewer people (and the media) are paying attention to their spew anymore.It sounds to me like WikiLeaks is fighting back against a government determined to kill it by any possible means.
The recording industry is in it'd death throws, people like Marcus are just trying to throw them a frickin' lifeline!
The recording industry keeps throwing the lifeline back because it's not _their_ lifeline, and they don't get paid when someone uses it.
And if there's a bombing at a school or a house, would you want the TSA there too?
ALL means ALL Mike, seems to me like a even playing field, one that does not favor either the big company or the small one, nor does it make it any harder for the small brewer to sell to a shop than a large one.
I'm not at all surprised that a legacy industry has predicted disaster every time a technological change has disturbed the status quo. The fact is, that most of those changes were a disaster for some part of the industry, even though they ended up being very good for the overall industry in the long run.
I'm much more surprised that, after a century long unbroken string of false alarms, that anyone still believes the latest predictions.
In any communications system, the node identifiers must be unique. Currently, the telephone system uses something like 14 digits to create a globally unique identifier for each phone. IP addresses are also globally unique. IPV4 addresses are only 12 digits at most, and there aren't enough of them to go around as is. IPV6 addresses are numerous enough to supply several to every person on the planet, but a 32 character 'random' hexadecimal string is much harder for humans to memorize than a string of digits.
Humans are best at remembering strings of text, but there we have a problem. If we use random strings of characters as an ID, they're no better than the IP addresses. If we restrict ourselves to pronouncable strings to make memorization easier, there just aren't enough. I'd love to have a unique identifier of firstname-lastname, but I know of at least three famous people with the same first and last name as me, and I've got an unusual combination. even something like firstname-lastname-cityofbirth-country isn't enough to be unique for someone like Bob Smith of Boise Idaho, USA.
I can see some sort of assignment of a unique individual ID consisting of an owner unique prefix combined with a two digit suffix to identify a specific device owned by that person, but that's still just a minor variation on the traditional phone number.
Phone numbers are far from being perfect, but I don't see us coming up with anything better for a very long time, if ever.
Honestly, it sounds like the study's applicability may be limited, but just to be safe, I think my new corporate management philosophy is going to involve forcing everyone to drink a lot, but keeping the bathrooms locked up for "cleaning" most of the time... It's foolproof.
Re:
Next time read the article a bit. The story is about a Canadian copyright collective and Canadian universities. Last time I checked, both Yale and Harvard were located in the United States.