Wow, why comment on the process if you have never used the process?
On E-Bay when a seller creates an auction they can set a starting bid, and the minimum bid increments. When someone puts in a bid on a given item they can set what their bid is and set their bid to automatically re-bid the next increment up to a maximum bid if another person bids on the item.
For instance I put something up for auction with a starting bid price of $10 and minimum increment of $0.50, Tom comes along and bids on the item for $10 and sets the maximum he wants to bid on the item to $12. Well when Laura comes along and bids on the item for $10.50 and sets her maximum bid to $15, the E-Bay system will cycle through the intervening bids very quickly. Meaning Laura bids $10.50, well Tom said he would pay more than this so the system bids $11 for Tom, then $11.50 for Laura, then $12 for Tom, and finally the system bids $12.50 for Laura which is above Tom's maximum bid.
In the example above remember that Tom, or someone else says Steve, could come back and bid more for the item since auctions last for days or weeks.
Umm, that is not E-Bay's fault in any way whats-ever. There are ways to ensure that a seller ensures that a particular 'base-price' is met when they create the auction, if he wasn't savvy enough to configure it properly that's no fault of the winning bidder. However, again, E-Bay is not responsible for someone trying to hold out on you.
"A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah."
So Eric Goldman wants a cutoff notice to be the equivalent of the lowest defense condition? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he probably meant Defcon 1 (Nuclear war is imminent)?
The case was not about whether pissedconsumer makes money or not, or has a for profit business model; the case was about whether the information/look/feel of their site would confuse consumers into believing that pissedconsumer was Ascentive. Since any idiot, moron, or even a lawyer would not confuse pissedconsumer for Ascentive there is no Trademark claim.
All that above aside, who clicks on embedded links throughout a paragraph?
Yea but banks are 'money creators' right? So if you give money to banks then it eventually finds its way down to everyone else....ohh wait that sounds like Regan's failed trickle-down economics theory.
If you are contacted by an FBI terrorist cell then drive to the nearest FBI home office and turn them in to the FBI. Which is what you are supposed to do if a real terrorist cell contacts you.
I know what they are doing is entrapment:
"In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit."
However that's been the FBI's operational strategy for decades.
What anyone "admits" here is that an anti-piracy group which believes that any 'unauthorized' use/acquisition of content by people should be fined millions upon millions of dollars/euros. Yet when the same group has the opportunity to use a song without a license, etc. they did not even hesitate to break their agreement. Then when the artist calls them on it he gets the run around, and then runs into an extortion attempt.
Without this fairy world of copyright law, the artist would have created his work and gotten paid for it. Then the same company, or people, etc could use that same performance/track however they wanted, and the artist would not have lost anything.
All I ask is for a company/organization to play by their own rules, but I know that is too much to ask.
If you were really paranoid you would have designed a battery powered electromagnet into your computer case that is designed to engage when the power plug is removed without holding down three other hidden "buttons" like a screw, etc. and then for good measure have pads of thermite ignite above each of your hard drives.
I personally am not that paranoid/would never put anything incrementing on something the government could get their hands on.
It just cracks me up to read your un-knowledge (yes a new word just for you.) Whether a radio signal is "digital" or "analog" does not really matter so much, either way the signal must be processed in some form. If you actually understood how your radio (short-wave or reception FM/AM only) worked you would not make such ignorant statements. Whether someone is using a short-wave radio or a wireless router they both send/receive a signal at a particular wavelength and other such terms that are a bit over your head, other components of the device then process that signal. For me to listen to someones short-wave conversation I would need a short-wave radio and they would have to send it in the clear; for me to listen to someones wireless communication I would need some wireless device and they would have to send it in the clear.
Gee sounds like a wireless device falls pretty clearly into the same category as a short-wave radio to me, almost any appeals court is likely to come to the same conclusion.
What people like this judge do not understand is that a Wireless router is merely advanced communication between two radio devices. A related example would be two or more people using a short-wave radio to communicate without any scramble or encryption over a particular frequency, a third party would be perfectly within their legal rights to listen in on their communication. Both the short-wave radio and the Wireless router are devices that are used to interpret modulations in radio frequency to communicate with other such devices. Ergo the law as currently defined does not make distinctions between the two and thus covers both equally.