So, saw a comment today regarding some people getting 10 mod points instead of the normal 5. Must be nice, I haven't seen any mod points in literally 6+ years. I can pretty much narrow down when they disappeared too, after posting in political articles from a conservative standpoint. Supposedly there's no 'blacklist' but I'm sure it's statistically very very unlikely to go without mod points for so long. Anybody else suffering from an suspiciously odd drought of mod points?
If you live on campus, though, the campus internet (ResNet) people officially only support PC and Mac, and they only support it if your computer is directly connected to the connection they provide. If you have a router between you and the campus network, you are required to remove it and directly connect to the cable modem or other gateway device that they provide. I think the policy is bollocks, but judging from the stories I've heard of how inept some of the L1 techs are, maybe it is better that way...
If you believe in numerology...
Apollo 13 ended happily with capsule and crew recovered, yet we lost 7 astronauts twice. And you thought 13 was supposed to be unlucky and 7 was supposed to be lucky...
I don't think you should get flamed for this. I agree with you that this particular case in the article (soundtrack for a slideshow) is a poor example of fair use at best.
There are four considerations for fair use in US copyright law:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The case holds up well on points (1) and (4), it is not for profit and is for a very limited audience. On (2) and (3), it's used without modification and is not changed enough to be transformative (even if the audio quality was degraded), so it completely fails these points.
However, There are plenty of other cases where most if not all aspects of fair use are clearly present, but the content was removed anyway. In one case, WMG ordered the takedown of a video of a girl singing 'Winter Wonderland'. Also, numerous AMVs (Anime Music Videos) have been taken down that provide parody of and artistic commentary on the original subject materials. It is this blanket, cluster-bomb approach that is the problem. It's completely unfair (and illegal) for content holders to tread on our fair use rights, even if it is in the name of the supposedly noble cause of fighting piracy.
They are not claiming what is there is not Fair Use, they are simply claiming that the video is using copyrighted material, which is correct.
I thought they were claiming the use of copyrighted material infringed upon the copyright laws, not simply that the copyrighted material was present. Wouldn't consideration of fair use fall under the determination of whether or not copyright infringement was committed?
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
IANAL, but it seems obvious to me that misrepresenting something that is clearly fair use as something that isn't means that the notification was NOT accurate. Therefore, the law firm representing the copyright holder (and possibly the copyright holder themselves) should have charges of perjury filed against them. I haven't seen the EFF file any countersuits like this yet, though...
Well, they're mostly wrong, but partially right. All things considered, the biggest security risk isn't the web browser used, it's the incompetent organic mass between the keyboard and the chair.
It still amazes me how many people really think they're the 1,000,000th visitor to a site, and that they've actually won something because of it.
One thing about botnets... I don't really understand why there couldn't be a blacklist of known botnet controllers maintained by a trusted authority (SANS, or perhaps a collaboration of the leading AV vendors, for example) that ISPs could use to block their customers from connecting to. Or, they could even go one step further and shut off the customers connecting to botnets until they're sure the customers have cleaned their computers.
No matter how you look at the numbers, PS3 lost, even before it came out. I know people who gotten the PS3 just as a Blu-Ray player, simply because they were cheaper than stand-alone Blu-Ray players at the time, and they have not gotten any games for it. Of course now that stand-alone Blu-Ray players are actually cheaper than PS3s, that market share is no longer there either.
They need to drop the price point to be just slightly above the average Blu-Ray player to be competitive, I think. Which will never happen, seeing as how Sony has been taking the financial blow from the PS3 since well before it was released. To have a $200 loss on each PS3 sold would be just far too much.
Oddly enough, there were no images from 1939 to 1945 in the archive.
Brian Griffin: Uh, I'm not seeing anything about German history between 1939 and 1945. There's just a big gap.
Tour guide: Everyone vas on vacation! On your left is Munich's first city hall, erected in 15--
Brian Griffin: Wait, what are you talking about? Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and--
Tour Guide: WE WERE INVITED! PUNCH WAS SERVED! CHECK WITH POLAND!
Brian Griffin: You can't just ignore those years. Thomas Mann fled to America because of Nazism's stranglehold on Germany.
Tour guide: Nope, nope. He left to manage a Dairy Queen.
Brian Griffin: A Dairy Queen? That's preposterous.
Tour guide: I WILL HEAR NO MORE INSINUATIONS ABOUT THE GERMAN PEOPLE!!!! NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!!!!!! SIE WERDEN SICH HINSETZEN!!! SIE WERDEN RUHIC SEIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!