Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 08:28 AM EST |
How can this not be a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice (with jail time for the sociopaths involved), and
misconduct by the lawyers who tried to carry it out (getting
them struck off)?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 09:56 AM EST |
Quote from the article:
the judge said AFP and Getty
would only be liable, at most, for a single statutory damage award per image
infringed
It is in a US Court, and it was "for profit"
infringement, so I certainly hope the Jury involved ends up issuing damages
proportionate to the damages the Jury in the Thomas-Rasset case felt
appropriate:
For infringing 24 songs, $1.92 Million in damages,
$80,000 per infringement!
I don't wish that on AFP - they appear to be
a non-US entity. And I'm not sure what Getty's connection to The Washington
Post is so I don't necessarily wish that fall on them.
But it would be
nice that a commercial, for-profit corporation choosing to infringe copyright
was found liable for the equivalent amounts that a private individual who
infringed for non-profit purposes was found for.
Perhaps if corporate
interests who embodied entities like the RIAA started being found for damages
that the RIAA pushes - perhaps then, some balance would come back.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 11:39 AM EST |
Link
Ah, at last we see "We The People" for
what it is: more window dressing for the Obama White House. First they ignore
petitions with more than 25,000 signatures, now they raise the threshold to
100,000. Apparently We The People is OK for meaningless drivel, but they don't
want any serious issues addressed, like recall petitions for gov't
officials.
Don't want nothin' but the _appearance_ of democracy goin' on around
here.
albert, not logged in.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TerryC on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 02:27 PM EST |
Facebook also announced a closer partnership with Microsoft's Bing search
engine, which will provide search results from the web to augment searches on
Facebook. Microsoft's Bing has struggled to gain traction against Google's
search engine, which provides billions of dollars in advertising revenue for
Google.
This is a classic case of continuing with the same course
of action when it has repeatedly been shown to fail. Microsoft seems to be
convinced that Bing's search capability is at least as good as Google's and they
only have to get more 'exposure' for it to take off.
Whereas everyone
else knows that Bing does get traction because it doesn't work....
---
Terry [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 07:10 PM EST |
The
HuffPo story directly quotes tweets as Tom Dolan's (Ortiz'
husband). However WBUR
more
cautiously says But on an unverified Twitter account with her
husband’s name, picture
and identification as an IBM executive, someone was
tweeting in defense of Ortiz ...
If it was Dolan, it's dirty. If
it was someone impersonating Dolan it's double dirty. It's also sad that these
cases so often descend into muckraking and lose sight of the moral principles
at stake?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 05:01 AM EST |
Orin Kerr's
Part 2: Prosecutorial
Discretion picks apart the way the charges could be built, dissing kneejerk
reactions like "Aaron's Law". The offensive
parts of the law seem to be
including Wire Fraud offenses in the CFAA so they can be used as parallel
charges; and the provision for two
misdemeanours, regardless of triviality, to
bootstrap to a felony. This explains a puzzle I had understanding how Swartz the
lone offender could aid
and abet himself in the commission of his alleged
crimes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 10:19 AM EST |
This is disingenuous at best. The offer of 6 months is
conditioned on Swartz pleading guilty. It does not apply
if it goes to trial.
"Go to trial, lose, and you could get 35 years. Settle
now, plead guilty to these charges, and we drop others and
get 6 months ..."
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe Apple design: Dutch
court
(Reuters) - A Dutch court, citing previous decisions
in British courts, has ruled that some Samsung Electronics Galaxy tablets do not
infringe an Apple design.
Wednesday's ruling by a district court in
The Hague concerned the rounded corners of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy Tab
8.9, and Galaxy Tab 7.7.
"We continue to believe that Apple was not the
first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that
the origins of Apple's registered design features can be found in numerous
examples," Samsung said in a statement.
Astonishing. A court
recognizing that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with rectangular
shape and rounded corners? But what about the fact that Apple recently
g
ot a patent
on rectangles with rounded corners? Surely the patent
examiners couldn't be wrong.
--- The price of freedom is eternal
litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Question? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 06:07 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 03:55 PM EST |
There was no way Aaron Shwartz was only going to get 6-months in jail. If
the case went to trial, the maximum would be on the table. That's why everyone
accepts plea bargains.
Clicky
I'm also struggling with how you can get
6-months for trying to access scholarly research, no matter how annoying you
are for the publishers. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 05:33 PM EST |
Just who pays for this?
When someone is on a fishing expedition are the ISP's on the hook for the cost
of making the copies? I had to make an encrypted image for someone last year
and it took several hours to make an 8 gig encrypted disk image, and since it is
encrypted it couldn't be compressed to make it easier to send. Drop box failed
several times so I ended up spending more time to burn it to a DVD and send it
by courier. Since this will be evidence extra precautions will be required to
prove that it i in fact a true copy. The Tech might also need time off to
testify...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 06:48 PM EST |
Elop knows what he is doing. He has to downsize in line
with expectations
for sales of the Windows Phone. He is a
good and wise CEO. In the end he may
meet market demand by
selling them out of his basement. No need for all that
overhead. That would be super efficient. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 07:08 PM EST |
United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who still has political
ambitions beyond her current station, and her husband, and some unfortunate
media enablers, have finally organized a response to the torrent of criticism
she and her office have received in regard to her
breaking-a-butterfly-on-a-wheel prosecution of activist Aaron Swartz, whom
Ortiz's office tried to throw in prison for the crime of stealing stuff the
actual owners eventually said that they didn't care that much
about.
Charles
P. Pierce
, Esquire[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 11:07 PM EST |
Call it
Linux's revenge. --- RMS: The 4
Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 01:54 AM EST |
News
Pick link
don't lie about if afterwards, though. Don't try
to claim that the threats were "appropriate". If you use the maximum penalty as
a threat (and I agree people do, and it's reality), don't then come out later
when people complain that you were over-reacting, and say "oh, but we never
meant it".
That's weasel-wording. And it's lying. The words may be
"technically true" if you read them in the right light, but they are clearly
meant to be misleading to the point of being a lie.
...(another)...
the lie is how they
first make a big deal to journalists and the public how Aaron Swartz faces 35
years in prison. And then come out later with a big statement saying "no, no, we
never meant that".
That's a bold-faced lie. You can't first make a big PR
splash about how bad something is, and then later (by not using the same exact
wording) try to say something completely different.
So yes, it may be
"technically true" that in private they never sought the maximum penality, but
it is very much lying in public when you put on two such very different faces on
the same thing.
I realize that lawyers are brought up (probably from small
children) to think that "technically true" is what matters, but when you make
public PR statements, they should be more than "technically" true.
They
should be honest.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sciamiko on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 04:49 AM EST |
From The Edge Question 2013
there is a piece by Roger Schank near the end which seems almost on
topic:
I am worried about stupid. It is all around us. When the
Congress debates an issue, both sides appear to be wrong. Worse, our
representatives can't seem to make a reasoned argument. Candidate after
candidate in this last election said things completely unsupportable by the
evidence. Supporters of these candidates can't usually explain in any coherent
way what they are really in favor of.
s.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 09:54 AM EST |
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 05:25 PM EST |
Article link.
In a
word:
Nice!
I like the questions asked. Especially the first question.
The one asking for the review that determined the conduct was
appropriate.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 06:03 PM EST |
We might note that CopyrighUnbalanced.epub is just a ZIP of unencrypted files,
including .html files that contain the content.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 06:45 PM EST |
From the article:
“There’s lots of
blame (in the Swartz case). What’s unwarranted is to put it all on her,”
attorney Francis J. DiMento said. “She’s a product of the system. We have to
change the system.”
So let me get this straight:
Ortiz was not
allowed to make a judgement call and be less agressive
In other words:
if she had been less agressive, she would have been fired
Ok... if that's
really what happened:
I agree. She's a product of the system and the system
needs changed!
Somehow though - I don't think the system was holding her
feet to the fire to be as agressive as she was.
Ortiz said,
“Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and
whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim
whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.”
That
doesn't sound like someone who is being forced to follow the line the RIAA/MPAA
has been spouting. And of course, there's also the current outstanding
questions asked by a Senator (my paraphrasing:
Please provide the review
that found the behavior "appropriate".
Did Ortiz actually perform a review?
Or did she merely voice an opinion in a public message that appeared to carry
the weight of the office? Was she authorized to voice such an opinion? Or
should she publicly admit a review hadn't been done and she only voiced her own
opinion?
Many questions to be answered!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 07:09 PM EST |
News Pick
link
Here is the problem that SCOTUS must address:
If they allow
Monsanto to win their argument, then
any self-replicating life form that has a
patent
on part of it's chemical makeup (i.e., the genes),
will effectively
become an indefinite patent, way
exceeding the 20 year patent
expiration.
Monsanto only wants farmers to plant Soybean seeds
that they
(Monsanto) grew themselves, and to never
use seeds that other farmers grew, even
though at
this point in time, almost all Soybean seeds now have
the patented
gene within them.
In effect, SCOTUS would be telling the farmers,
that you
always have to pay Monsanto *every* year
to grow soybeans. Whether you spray
them with
glyphosate or not.
SCOTUS needs to be very careful here. The
next thing
is that all seeds will have the genetic material,
and Monsanto would
become the plant-tax man forever.
An effective indefinite monopoly
controlling life
on planet Earth.
Oh, that way madness
lies.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 12:48 AM EST |
Am I missing something here. It appears that the DOJ slaps the proverbial wrists
of those that ruin the lives of large groups of people. Yet, pursues with
overzealous enthusiasm individuals whose actions affect a very small group of
people.
By deliberately putting home buyers in compromising financial positions some
mortgage lenders planned to cash in on the resale after the foreclosure. When
too many happened at the same time, the taxpayers have to pay not only for
losses, but also, for the bonuses. The rest of the population has to suffer the
continuing long term recession
The bankers launder money for drug dealers over extended periods, feeding the
growth of international drug cartels, receive what amounts to the equivalent of
a traffic fine for the average citizen.
Voting fraud with intent to push through an agenda against the wishes of the
populace, most likely seeking some form of future financial gain, is only a
misdemeanor.
The system may need to be revised. However, the DOJ needs to do it's primary job
and protect the citizens of the United States, as opposed to a relative few at
the expense of the many.
Corruption also involves a lack of equal justice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 05:12 PM EST |
wikileaks discloses??? Swartz as possible connection ?!
read here at theverge[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|