You Do Really Own What You Buy: If you buy a horse, the previous owner has no right to drop by an shoot it to force you to buy another one!
The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with Logitec: the justices have "a long tradition of ownership known as “first sale,” which does not allow owners to automatically control a product past its first sale: If a farmer buys a horse from a breeder, the breeder no longer has any say about what the farmer does with the horse. The same goes for CDs, books and works of art." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/20/supreme-court-sides-against-textbook-publishers- resale-imported-works
A court is a place where two parties make their case before a judge, possibly assisted by a jury, judges. Any party not satisfied with the outcome can lodge an appeal. Proceedings and judgements are generally made in public.
FISA is a government office where a government official rubberstamps applications made by other government offices, typically in secret. Due to a track record of no application ever being rejected, no appeals needed. NOT A COURT.
..., since Verizon enables Netflix to sell premium HD-content, it is only fair that Netflix shares the extra profit with Verizon. A little contribution towards Verizon bearing the cost installing the internet cables, you know.
Once you got rid of regulation and competition, your arguments don't have to make sense - you can charge whatever you want if the only alternative for customer is going back to newspapers and DVDs.
How weird! Whenever us underlings are concerned, the DOJ insists that anything accessible to any third party whatsoever is in the public domain and up for grabs to whoever wants it.
How come they suddenly change their view when one of their own is concerned? Even if the allegations are correct, Shafer has done nothing but make publicly available information, well, a bit more public. How can anyone believing in the Third Party Doctrince take issue with that?
All the judge asked for is for the government to narrow down the list to real suspects. If presenting their evidence and showing a suspect list is too much effort for the DOJ, one wonders what the real reason for the so called "investigation" might have been in the first place.
Deutsche Bahn wanted to tear down parts of Stuttgart Railway station, to refurbish the whole area around it. The building had been opened in 1922, the architect Paul Bonatz died in 1956.
One the heir asked for a court injunction, since tearing down part of the building would infringe his (inherited) copyright, as the overall impression of the protected building would change.
The court turned him down on the grounds that three quarters of the copyright protection period had lapsed already, and there was a strong public interest (make that government interest, large parts of the public actually wanted to keep the original building).
Will there be pictures of naked police people in humiliating poses soon?
It is questionable enough for security services to distribute (fake) bombs to entrap terrorists, or to deal drugs to arrest junkies.
By distributing child porn, the police are abusing the children again. Nobody has the right to distribute another persons picture without their explicit permission, let alone pictures showing people, children for god's sake, in humiliating positions.
Let's hope that this copyright absurdity, with (American) courts awarding ridiculous damages for copyright infringement, will for once be used for a good cause: 12.000 pictures x 770.617 views x $160.000 Dollars would amount to a reminder that makes not only the Australians, but all police forces around the world think very carefully next time they get creative to boost their statistics.
[The NSA] is “aggressive” in its methods [...], “in that they will make copies of files on a computer, anything that they think is interesting.”
A small but significant difference: The NSA's hunting and gathering expeditions are not sanctioned by license agreements. They are illegal, even criminal in most parts of the world!
The system displays small text snipped linked to paywalled content. This is a catalogue for Elsevier content, not a Wikipedia for Science.
The main purpose seems to be to keep people away from Wikipedia and Google, where they would likely find (free) content from providers other than Elsevier.
I have cancelled both my Netflix and my Amazon subscriptions when it turned out that most of their content has neither original or English language tracks nor (English) subtitles here in Germany.
When will the content providers learn that customers will pay when they get what the customers want, not what the content providers want to push?
The laws are not intended to fight terrorism. The are the basis for keeping down anybody the authorities have issues with. Whistleblowers for example, or people asking inconvenient questions. Their actions are perfectly legal, so terrorism laws are the only way to shut them up
Hutchins real crime? He took away fantastic opportunity from the FBI
Finally, with WannaCry, the big, nasty Cybermonster showed its head. Big money on the horizon for the FBI, lots of new people to be hired. Promotions. Brave FBI-cyberwarriors protecting America from the evil Cyberthreat.
But no. Along comes Hutchins, and pulls the plug on this Fairy tale. The FBI is back to hunting UFOs or mysterious Russian Hackers that no sane person believes in. Back to propping up some misfits with FBI bombs and FBI undercover terrorist cells to get a few fleeting moments of media attention.
Her only mistakes: She picked the wrong lawyer and the wrong court
The entire internet is currently being steamrollered by the MAFIA using exactly the same argument: Some intermediate with no involvement at all "could have done more". ISP COX has to pay $25 m in "damages" plus §8m in fees for "not doing enough". Cox's arguments - pretty much the same as cite above - were brushed aside by judge O'Grady "Cox's defensive arguments may have been reasonable as an abstract legal theory"
There are plenty of judges around the world who appear to see the Internet as a threat to humankind that needs to be destroyed, whatever the letter of the law says. And, just in case the judges don't play ball, there are enough politician s willing to change the law or, worse, "encourage" service providers to "voluntary" censor the internet in the interest of whatever private party pays them some money.
As soon as the DOJ has established precedent, Putin can just ask Amazon (Russia) to compile a little package of data from Amazon Servers in the US (from their office in Russia, without leaving their desk). North Korea, Iran, Syria contact their local CIA reps for copies of files in Langley, Goldmans-Sachs (Katar) retrieves a bundle of financial data to facilitate negotiation with US companies.
May your confidential source would not be so jealous if they know what was really discussed ..
"We know where you live". "You would not want those pictures of your meetings with your mistress leak out on the internet, would you?". "The boys on those pictures you downloaded look awfully young, don't you think"?
... with Rightscorp new extortion campaign. What are those supreme court judges thinking, pulling the carpet under the MAFIA enforcers feet and leaving them hanging to dry? (die? one can hope ...)
On the post: Logitech Once Again Shows That In The Modern Era, You Don't Really Own What You Buy
You Do Really Own What You Buy: If you buy a horse, the previous owner has no right to drop by an shoot it to force you to buy another one!
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/20/supreme-court-sides-against-textbook-publishers- resale-imported-works
On the post: Wyden's Reform Bill Would Also Deter Misuse Of NSA Powers To Compel Tech Company Assistance
Please stop calling FISA a court
FISA is a government office where a government official rubberstamps applications made by other government offices, typically in secret. Due to a track record of no application ever being rejected, no appeals needed. NOT A COURT.
On the post: Verizon Will Graciously Now Let You Avoid Video Throttling For An Additional $10 Per Month
Re: Actually, ....
Once you got rid of regulation and competition, your arguments don't have to make sense - you can charge whatever you want if the only alternative for customer is going back to newspapers and DVDs.
On the post: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe And Others Over A Smiley Emoji Tweet
Third Party Doctrine
How come they suddenly change their view when one of their own is concerned? Even if the allegations are correct, Shafer has done nothing but make publicly available information, well, a bit more public. How can anyone believing in the Third Party Doctrince take issue with that?
On the post: Government Drops Its Demand For Data On 6,000 Facebook Users
So they never were after any criminals, then
On the post: Neighbor Sues For $2.5 Million After Renovation Looks Too Much Like Their Own House
Similar case: Stuttgart railway station
One the heir asked for a court injunction, since tearing down part of the building would infringe his (inherited) copyright, as the overall impression of the protected building would change.
The court turned him down on the grounds that three quarters of the copyright protection period had lapsed already, and there was a strong public interest (make that government interest, large parts of the public actually wanted to keep the original building).
On the post: Australian Police Ran A Dark Web Child Porn Site For Eleven Months
Will there be pictures of naked police people in humiliating poses soon?
By distributing child porn, the police are abusing the children again. Nobody has the right to distribute another persons picture without their explicit permission, let alone pictures showing people, children for god's sake, in humiliating positions.
Let's hope that this copyright absurdity, with (American) courts awarding ridiculous damages for copyright infringement, will for once be used for a good cause: 12.000 pictures x 770.617 views x $160.000 Dollars would amount to a reminder that makes not only the Australians, but all police forces around the world think very carefully next time they get creative to boost their statistics.
On the post: Hackers Grab More NSA Exploits, Possibly With Assistance Of Russian Antivirus Developer
Not so different, then:
A small but significant difference: The NSA's hunting and gathering expeditions are not sanctioned by license agreements. They are illegal, even criminal in most parts of the world!
On the post: Elsevier Launching Rival To Wikipedia By Extracting Scientific Definitions Automatically From Authors' Texts
Not a Science Wikipedia
The main purpose seems to be to keep people away from Wikipedia and Google, where they would likely find (free) content from providers other than Elsevier.
Suggested alternative: https://scholar.google.com searches the entire science universe.
On the post: Scientific Publishers Want Upload Filter To Stop Academics Sharing Their Own Papers Without Permission
If the EU wanted to support creative people (and scientists) ...
The EU should also clarify that copyright prevents only IDENTICAL copies of the articles, not modified versions.
On the post: With Court Ruling, Fan Subtitles Officially Copyright Infringement In Sweden
Netflix, Amazon ....
When will the content providers learn that customers will pay when they get what the customers want, not what the content providers want to push?
On the post: Repeal All UK Terrorism Laws, Says UK Government Adviser On Terrorism Laws
Mr Hill got it wrong
On the post: The Indictment Against Malware Researcher Marcus Hutchines Is Really Weird
Hutchins real crime? He took away fantastic opportunity from the FBI
But no. Along comes Hutchins, and pulls the plug on this Fairy tale. The FBI is back to hunting UFOs or mysterious Russian Hackers that no sane person believes in. Back to propping up some misfits with FBI bombs and FBI undercover terrorist cells to get a few fleeting moments of media attention.
On the post: There Is An Easy Answer To Whether Machines Should Get Copyright Rights And It Comes Down To Copyright's Purpose
it awards copyright to the creator of the creator
Does it really matter if they rip off an artist, the artists children or a computer?
On the post: Judge Tosses Woman's Lawsuit Brought Against Google Because A Blogger Said Mean Things About Her
Her only mistakes: She picked the wrong lawyer and the wrong court
There are plenty of judges around the world who appear to see the Internet as a threat to humankind that needs to be destroyed, whatever the letter of the law says. And, just in case the judges don't play ball, there are enough politician s willing to change the law or, worse, "encourage" service providers to "voluntary" censor the internet in the interest of whatever private party pays them some money.
On the post: DOJ Asks The Supreme Court To Give It Permission To Search Data Centers Anywhere In The World
No more Russian hacking, then ....
An interesting door the DOJ is opening here.
On the post: NSA Appears To Be Seducing Sen. John Cornyn With Personal Tours And One-On-One Meetings
May your confidential source would not be so jealous if they know what was really discussed ..
On the post: Legislators Want To Open Up Wiretap Laws To Target Sex Workers And Their Customers
Did they really think this through?
On the post: White House Plan To Reduce Drug Prices... Is To EXTEND Patents?
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/17/520430944/should-the-u-s-government-buy -a-drug-company-to-save-money
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can't Ban People From The Internet, No Matter What They've Done
Not helping. Not at all ...
Next >>