Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:IE all over again (Score 4, Insightful) 371

Launching another browser presents the usual "do you want me to be default" dialog. It's completely trivial to change your browser preference. Yes, I would have preferred if Microsoft had left my browser preferences alone with the upgrade, but this is blown a bit out of proportion.

It's also a bit disingenuous to compare today's situation to the Internet Explorer case that's literally 20 years old. I find it improbable to believe that anyone using Windows 10 is unaware of alternative browsers availability.

Comment Re:Why should we care, vote down this story. (Score 1) 172

If it is all so simple, here are questions for you than. I have a domain at home, how do I go about getting my free copy of Windows 10? How does one reinstall this copy of Windows 10 so that it isn't a buggy upgrade install? I have Windows 7 Ultimate (OEM as I built the computer from parts), so it isn't like I am caught in the hole of Windows 7 Enterprise.

Those aren't eligibility questions, those are process questions. The eligibility is very simple.

Anyone who is on either Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 will be entitled to a free (as in beer) upgrade to Windows 10 during the first year of the Windows 10 launch. The exclusions to that offer are for Windows 7/8/8.1 Enterprise and Windows RT/RT 8.1. The licenses for the upgraded systems are permanent and perpetual.

Details are in the footnote at the bottom of https://www.microsoft.com/en-u....

Comment Re:Why should we care, vote down this story. (Score 1) 172

Has all the confusion about who would qualify for free Windows 10 been on purpose? This has certainly given MS free publicity.
Lets vote down this story to reflect its true relevance.

I have to believe people are being deliberately obtuse about upgrade eligibility. It's just not that difficult.

Comment Re:"no official statement" (Score 1) 172

Other than the post on the official Windows blog, I guess


Although that doesn't say this is the RTM, just that "this build is one step closer to what customers will start to receive on 7/29"

Can you prove that Microsoft even runs that site?

It's a reasonable assumption that windows.com, which uses msft.net nameservers, which CAN be proven to belong to Microsoft, legitimately belongs to Microsoft.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

If other judges follow this precedent, it will be the death knell of civil litigation involving the internet in any way. I don't like how trolls do business, but I don't think changing the rules like this is a good idea overall.

This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.

See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped. About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.

I beg to differ.

Malibu Media can't choose the venue, or the judge.

If Judge Hellerstein's decision is followed by other judges, it will be the death knell of the present wave of Malibu Media litigation.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.

While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.

Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.

This is in every single case .

Comment Re:Well, she was an interim. (Score 2, Interesting) 467

Ellen made all the hard changes, like clamping down on offensive speech.

"Offense is never given, it's only ever taken."


"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."

Brigham Young

WTF happened to the basic American principle of dying for the right of the offensive to be offensive... not just when we don't agree but especially when we don't agree??

4chan is what happened. Who needs another shitty cesspool of Internet assholes?

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...

You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme. The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.

Well said

Comment Re:Copyright trolls going down is a good thing (Score 4, Informative) 91

Hi Ray, nice to see the NYCL moniker around here again. I have a few questions if you're willing. First, you indicate that a judge has denied discovery due to several factors, one being that an IP address does not identify any particular individual. Can you speak to the weight or breadth of this specific Court's opinion here, in layman's terms? I see references to the Eastern and Southern districts of New York, might this decision influence cases outside of those jurisdictions?

It's not binding on anyone. But Judge Hellerstein is a very well respected judge, so it will probably have a lot of 'persuasive authority'.

Second, this business of "if the Motion Picture is considered obscene, it may not be eligible for copyright protection." I've read about certain cases where the Court stated that obscenity has no rigid definition, but "I'll know it when I see it." Does that have any bearing on the Malibu case? Was this some kind of completely outrageous pornography, where any community standard would likely find it to be obscene, or was it just run-of-the-mill porn? Would it matter either way? Would the opinion have likely been the same if the case involved a blockbuster Hollywood film instead of a pornographic and potentially obscene film?

I haven't researched that question yet, and I may well be litigating that issue in the near future, since I have several cases against Malibu Media which are now in litigation mode... so all I can say is, stay tuned.

Lastly, I'm curious whether or not you've kept up with developments in the case regarding Prenda Law, and how you might compare this case to that one, if at all. I try to read Ken White's PopeHat blog every once in awhile to see how poorly the Prenda copyright trolls are faring. It doesn't look good for Prenda, and I wonder if you would put Malibu in the same proverbial boat.

The Prenda people are a bunch of strange people who, based on reports I've read, may well wind up doing jail time. I know nothing about the Malibu Media people. If I did find out something really bad about them in would probably wind up in my court papers if relevant to the case or to their credibility.

Comment Re:F? (Score 1) 91

I should clarify: I didn't mean actual expansion of the law. What I meant in regard to item "F" was: since when does difficulty of enforcement, even if they did prove it, justify loosening the standards of evidence? I did not think that was allowable.

Well I knew exactly what you meant Jane, even before you 'clarified' it.

When the bosses talk about improving productivity, they are never talking about themselves.