Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Submission + - DHI Group is selling off Sourceforge and Slashdot-> 1 1

An anonymous reader writes: In their own words DHI Group, formerly known as DICE Holdings, has "not successfully leveraged the Slashdot user base to further Dice's digital recruitment business." As a result, DHI plans to sell off both Slashdot and Sourceforge, the latter of which has become notorious for inserting malware into the installers of popular open-source projects such as GIMP. All of this is likely to make the Slashdot editor's censoring of the Sourceforge scandal on DICE's behalf pointless to say the least, but the question remains; what is the future of Slashdot, without DHI Group?
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:But... but? (Score 2) 164 164

LOL ... who the hell still has access to usenet feeds?

Usenet is alive and well with some nice automated tools that handle all the processing of downloads and even download things for you. Search "NZB" and have fun. I just tell my home server what I want to watch and it handles the rest for me.

Comment Re:Jury Nullification at least (Score 1) 292 292

As a resident of Georgia this would be ONE case I would not mind being on the jury for. As with so many things that this State's legislature does this is beyond absurd. If this is being published by the State of Georgia as an official document then it should fall under the Open Records Act.

And since it's not, then you'd be a typical uninformed jury member who has made up his mind based on what one media source says about something.

As others have noted, this is not an "official document" and the statutes are not subject to copyright. It's a bunch of third party commentary about the statute that is subject to copyright, much like a textbook or treatise or thesis.

Comment Re:Copyright needs reform (Score 1) 93 93

Making a "non-commercial" copyright infringement tier would level the playing field a bit. It would still let copyright owners smack down infringers, but it wouldn't allow for the abuse of "settle on our terms or face a $75 million fine!"

There actually already are two tiers for commercial or non-commercial infringement, but they're rarely utilized: there are criminal penalties for for-profit infringement that don't apply to non-commercial stuff; and you know how people always say that statutory damages are "up to $150,000 per work"? That's for willful infringement. The regular tier is $750-$30,000 per work. And, in this context, "willful" does not mean "intentional" or even "I knew this was under copyright, and still infringed" (there's an entirely separate tier for innocent infringement, with 'up to $200 per work' statutory damages). Rather, "willful" means something closer to "malicious". Like, if you hate movie ticket prices, so you pirate and distribute the movie in order to drive theaters out of business. Or if you're distributing pre-release leaked versions, knowing that it will kill the release-day market.

Normal infringement should be in that $750-$30,000 tier. However, infringement defendants have never raised that argument, because they've taken the (always losing) position that $1 should be adequate damages, and for them, even $750 is too much. So, the judges hear one side saying "$150,000" and the other side saying "$1", and only the former is supported by the law, so that's the end. If some defendant were to try to not shoot for the moon, for a change, we might see proper application of these tiers.

Comment Re:In favor of paid copyright protection (Score 1) 93 93

This is how copyright should be changed: give every 'work' ten years of free protection - plenty to understand whether it is making money or not. And beyond that, allow for infinitely repeatable five-year terms, paid for at a progressive rate.

Other people have mentioned the "infinitely repeatable" issue, so I'll simply mention that aside from that, your idea isn't terrible and has parallels in patent law: patents are valid for 20 years from filing, provided the patent owner pays maintenance fees at 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years... and those fees are $1600, $3600, and $7400 respectively. As a result, many patents get abandoned long before their full 20 year term.

Comment Re:Copyright needs reform (Score 1) 93 93

2) All non-commercial infringing (i.e. no profit motive - and, no, ads don't count) would carry a penalty of $100 times the market value of the work. For example, get caught distributing 500 MP3s? Your fine would be around $50,000 (500 * $1). Still high, but not "bankrupt you for life" high.

But that's not the relevant market value. For example, Apple distributes MP3s on the iTunes Music Store. Do you think, for example, they only paid $1 to Taylor Swift to distribute Bad Blood? Of course not. They're paying royalties and likely have a fixed floor amount too (e.g. 30 cents per copy sold, minimum of $100,000, with the expectation that they're going to sell way more than a million copies). Or, for another example, remember a decade or two back when Michael Jackson bought distribution rights for a whole bunch of the Beatles' catalog? He paid $47.5 million for 4000 songs, or a little under $12k per song.

So, the market value for a single download of an MP3 may be $1, but the market value for distributing the MP3? Try somewhere between $10k and $150k or more. And suddenly, the damages of $9,250 per song for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, or $22,500 per song for Joel Tenenbaum sound a lot more reasonable.

It's not that copyright damages are flawed... It's that people aren't making just copies for themselves, but are entering the market as distributors.

Comment Re:Newsflash, the desperate have computers too (Score 1) 176 176

That said, things are different now and it is harder for older people to find suitable partners -- they're fishing in a dwindling pool full of: - Unpleasant, bitter divorcees who have had their personalities permanently ruined - The unmarryable -- men and women -- who haven't been able to attract anyone due to serious flaws of one kind or another - The permanently single -- aka the creepy 55 year old guy still hitting on women in the bar with no intention of settling down or even being honest

They should be hunting widowers.

If all else fails, lower your standards.