Agreed there--that the rights may have arisen from German rights, but IP law is not generally international (though recognizing that TRIPS and similar international agreements create minimum standards for signatories). To bring a copyright suit in the US, you're suing under US copyright law, and that doesn't apply German rights nor German standing requirements.
Isn't it the case (as shown in the Righthaven cases), that you can't assign a right to sue? You actually have to own the Copyright to sue? Maybe I'm just misreading that sentence.
Yeah. They were peddling more of the same over on CNET today. Those poor carriers: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57386434-78/mobile-operators-stop-picking-on-us-or-else/?tag=TOCcarouselMain.0
I was just curious why no one has challenged the implication that $455 is the sole price. Perhaps I am reading an implication where none exists, but it seems irresponsible to report that the price is $455 when the basic subscription for computer and smartphone access is only $180.
While I think certain elements of the decision are odd or even arbitrary--why differentiate tablet and cell phone readership at different tiers--I'm also curious to see if it will work, and part of me sincerely hopes it does. Good, in-depth investigative journalism requires significant resources, and I would hate to see that go away. There are very few papers left with the resources and structure to support that kind of reporting. I'd like to see them stick around and keep doing such reporting.
I hope the judge nails DGW on Rule 11 (below for those unfamiliar). This kind of tactic is absolutely egregious.
Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b), Representations to the Court:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper ? whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it ? an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
I think the ethical issue here is more subtle; it's the Professor. He claimed to write his own questions, but he did not. He accused the students of cheating, but all he knew was that an answer bank was available (not surprising given the availability of information in the internet). He went on television and devalued the degrees of that graduating class, but he hasn't responded to since media began scrutinizing exactly what the 'cheating' behavior entailed. And lastly, in effectively barring any study aids, he tells the students to use their own work, but he copies his test from answer banks.
That said, I think under the UCF code of conduct, this probably was cheating. It's broad boarding on the absurd. The UCF code of conduct states that academic misconduct includes "unauthorized assistance: using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information or study aids in any academic exercise unless specifically authorized by the instructor of record. The unauthorized possession of examination or course related material also constitutes cheating." It also states that "these rules of conduct should be read broadly."
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brad S.
"If Nintendo was smart" ... That's a big 'if.'
Re: Re: Clarifying Question
Agreed there--that the rights may have arisen from German rights, but IP law is not generally international (though recognizing that TRIPS and similar international agreements create minimum standards for signatories). To bring a copyright suit in the US, you're suing under US copyright law, and that doesn't apply German rights nor German standing requirements.
Clarifying Question
Isn't it the case (as shown in the Righthaven cases), that you can't assign a right to sue? You actually have to own the Copyright to sue? Maybe I'm just misreading that sentence.
CNET Sob Story
Yeah. They were peddling more of the same over on CNET today. Those poor carriers: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57386434-78/mobile-operators-stop-picking-on-us-or-else/?tag=TOCcarouselMain.0
Realistic Pricing
I was just curious why no one has challenged the implication that $455 is the sole price. Perhaps I am reading an implication where none exists, but it seems irresponsible to report that the price is $455 when the basic subscription for computer and smartphone access is only $180.
While I think certain elements of the decision are odd or even arbitrary--why differentiate tablet and cell phone readership at different tiers--I'm also curious to see if it will work, and part of me sincerely hopes it does. Good, in-depth investigative journalism requires significant resources, and I would hate to see that go away. There are very few papers left with the resources and structure to support that kind of reporting. I'd like to see them stick around and keep doing such reporting.
Finally.
FRCP Rule 11
I hope the judge nails DGW on Rule 11 (below for those unfamiliar). This kind of tactic is absolutely egregious.
Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b), Representations to the Court:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper ? whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it ? an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
I think the ethical issue here is more subtle; it's the Professor. He claimed to write his own questions, but he did not. He accused the students of cheating, but all he knew was that an answer bank was available (not surprising given the availability of information in the internet). He went on television and devalued the degrees of that graduating class, but he hasn't responded to since media began scrutinizing exactly what the 'cheating' behavior entailed. And lastly, in effectively barring any study aids, he tells the students to use their own work, but he copies his test from answer banks.
That said, I think under the UCF code of conduct, this probably was cheating. It's broad boarding on the absurd. The UCF code of conduct states that academic misconduct includes "unauthorized assistance: using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information or study aids in any academic exercise unless specifically authorized by the instructor of record. The unauthorized possession of examination or course related material also constitutes cheating." It also states that "these rules of conduct should be read broadly."