There is not a single reason to "only lend one digital" copy out at a time, other than to force some insane business model down the throats of people
There is this little thing call copyright law. It has to do with the RIGHT to COPY something. They have a right to loan out their single copy, but not more than one.
Buy them today as the market dips
Markets are closed today.
How would you like it if your job, country and culture was stereotyped into the guilt-ridden nonsense that The Simpsons aired?
Apparently Americans have been liking it for the past 20+ years.
Rumour has it George Lucas is working on a version in which Michael Collins steps on the Moon first.
That would be a HUGE step for a man. Actually, more like free-fall now that I think of it. (He was in the moon orbiter.)
The XSS attack should now be fully patched and no longer exploitable. Thanks, those reporting it.
about 1 hour ago via web
Retweeted by 100+ people
So, they tweeted that they had fixed a bug preventing unintended retweeting, and 100+ people have retweeted it?
I never thought I'd feel sorry for them.
I don't.
I missed the one for the KIN
It is considered polite to allow family the right to quiet grief in the case of stillborns.
What did we ever do to you?
Created MTV.
If, after a transaction, the hotel needs to do something like refund part or all of the charge (e.g. returning a deposit), it would seem like they should be able to do that with just the transaction ID. Is there something I'm missing?
The fact that VISA/Mastercard/etc (or by proxy, most payment processors) provide no way to do that.
Why do they need to retain the info?
When the customer inquires about a charge, they don't/can't/won't have a transaction identifier. There is no transaction identifier issued by a card provider, just an approval and authorization code.
They look accurate to me. From me undergrad stats classes, I seem to recall that to get 5% confidence level out of population of 10k, one needed a sample of around 850.
If you upgrade to the new Total Recall (TM) solution, you'll have 95% confidence in what you remember.
A foreign import isn't reproduced under that monopoly grant and is thus illegal to import or sell in the US. Black letter law guys. The fact that in small quantities (and marked up over the closest local version as in the typical import album) the rights holders don't mind, but they still possess an absolute legal monopoly on reproduction of copies for sale inside the US so if they do decide they don't like an import they have the right to forbid it.
Too bad that isn't how they ruled in QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L’ANZARESEARCH INT’L.
Held: The first sale doctrine endorsed in 109(a) is applicable to imported copies. Pp. 3—18.
...
(b) The statutory language clearly demonstrates that the right granted by 602(a) is subject to 109(a).
So, if I live in England, legally buy an Omega watch there, then legally immigrate to the US, it is now a copyright violation to resell that watch on eBay?!? This flies in the face of common sense!
See USC TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 6 > 602 (a) (3) (B). That is not an infringement.
if you look at the article directly, you'll burn out your retinas!
I don't think any
NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater
