Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:It's not the eye color screening that bugs me (Score 1) 847

So your argument is: you have a problem with people defying "nature" to reproduce. How is that a problem? How is that wrong? Car Analogy: People shouldn't use cars because it's defying "nature" to avoid using their legs. I can't imagine what the gene pool will be like after a few generations of this. Fat people who can't walk will take over the world! Well guess what, being able to walk a long distance on 2 legs is a non-issue when you have cars. It's irrelevant. And "nature" is not your mom. Or mine.

Comment: ISPs are cable providers (Score 1) 395

by AnonymityCowardily (#27557853) Attached to: ISP Capping Is Becoming the New DRM
[quote]But I've seen a large jump in bandwidth usage with my new Roku box for watching NetFlix on my tv. That's a lot of streaming video. Are they keeping tech like this in mind? Doubt it.[/quote] They are precisely keeping tech like this in mind. Many ISPs also provide cable service. What happens to cable if internet streaming becomes too convenient?
The Courts

Copyright Scholar Challenges RIAA/DOJ Position 168

Posted by Soulskill
from the whom-some-might-call-an-expert dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Leading copyright law scholar Prof. Pamela Samuelson, of the University of California law school, and research fellow Tara Wheatland, have published a 'working paper' which directly refutes the position taken by the US Department of Justice in RIAA cases on the constitutionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theories. The Department of Justice had argued in its briefs that the Court should follow a 1919 United States Supreme Court case which upheld the constitutionality of a statutory damages award that was 116 times the actual damages sustained, under a statute which gave consumers a right of action against railway companies. The Free Software Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the view that the more modern, State Farm/Gore test applied by the United States Supreme Court to punitive damages awards is applicable. The new paper is consistent with the FSF brief and contradicts the DOJ briefs, arguing that the Gore test should be applied. A full copy of the paper is available for viewing online (PDF)."

"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all." -- Nathaniel Branden