Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - UMG v Grooveshark settled, no money judgment against individuals

Submitted by NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: UMG's case against Grooveshark, which was scheduled to go to trial Monday, has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement (PDF), (a) a $50 million judgment is being entered against Grooveshark, (b) the company is shutting down operations, and (c) no money judgment at all is being entered against the individual defendants.

Comment: Re:Automated sorting of mail and metadata? (Score 1) 66

by causality (#49580127) Attached to: New Privacy Concerns About US Program That Can Track Snail Mail

Get rid of government and see how long your liberty lasts.

Do you deny that liberty tends to erode over time? Or did a hallucination cause you to falsely believe I wanted to get rid of all government?

br
If neither of those is true, then I cannot understand what motivated you to write that post. It looks like a knee-jerk response to someone else's conversation.

Comment: Re:Criminals are dumb (Score 1) 105

by Mathinker (#49580085) Attached to: Why Crypto Backdoors Wouldn't Work

> make life of the next Scott Peterson too easy

Had never heard of him, and after searching I discovered that he is on death row, even though there was no "hard" evidence that he murdered his wife. Could you explain, then, how he is a good example to use to justify weakening encryption for all of society? His case would seem to be exactly the opposite --- a good example how, even if encryption of all our devices were impregnable, most criminals are stupid and it wouldn't help them anyway (hey, that's even the subject of your post!)

Comment: Re:The author forgot one other option. (Score 2) 105

by Mathinker (#49575357) Attached to: Why Crypto Backdoors Wouldn't Work

> and existence of encrypted data

I don't think it's possible to reliably show that encrypted data certainly exists. I also do not think it is always possible to prove that someone has the capability of decrypting data --- Bruce Schneier has proposed a scenario for people crossing borders where a long random key is used which is sent to the destination ahead of time so that any request for a decryption key could be truthfully answered with "I don't have the key". Assuming the trusted third party has been instructed to destroy the key in the case that the traveler is delayed, that scenario is indistinguishable from the scenario where the person is lying.

Comment: Re:He screwed up. (Score 1) 148

by Sun (#49549419) Attached to: Groupon Refuses To Pay Security Expert Who Found Serious XSS Site Bugs

Let's tone down the ad-hominem, please.

I brought forward the period of time the data was published as indication of intent. It does imply that the publication was unintended.

There is a Hebrew proverb, "the law will puncture the mountain". It means strict adherence to the letter of the law, regardless of circumstances (or common sense).

If you say "that's the agreement, and he violated it, however brief and however unintentional", then you still have to account to the 30 other vulnerabilities, for which Groupon is also refusing to pay, for no good reason at all.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Automated sorting of mail and metadata? (Score 1) 66

by causality (#49537733) Attached to: New Privacy Concerns About US Program That Can Track Snail Mail

The USPS has been using automated systems of sorting mail for decades. It's why mail across town goes to a consolidated center (perhaps halfway across the state) first for sorting into carrier routes and has been for decades.

That Homeland Security want to capture this information - which has long been determined to accessible (the original pen-trace) isn't surprising at all.

And they only have to photograph/image the ones that the machines can't read. It's only surprising to people who drink the conservative kool-aide that government can't do anything right.

There are four things government is in a position to do better than anyone else: military defense, law enforcement, public works, and the erosion of liberty.

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 301

by Sun (#49504643) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

I didn't say "Jews control Hollywood"

You claimed that no movies are made about other genocides done by the Nazis because the Jews want the term "Holocaust" to only refer to that aspect of it. It is not possible for the to happen if the Jews don't actually control Hollywood. Merely producing a few movies won't stop others from producing other movies.

Also, I cannot help but point out that while you emphatically deny that you said that, you did not deny that that is what you believe. Quite the contrary, you tried to bring support to precisely the same point of view you deny expressing (albeit from the only person in history who can be said to have murdered even more people than Hitler himself).

Anti-Semite? I don't recognize Jewish "ownership" of this term

It should be fairly obvious at this point that I have zero control over what you do or do not do. In terms of what the term means, however, you are wrong. See wikipedia, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford dictionary.

is the quick insult that's guaranteed to kill the conversation

Which is strange, because after I called you that, I went on to address your argument. Now why would I do that if all I want to do is kill the conversation?

While I completely agree that the label "anti-semite" is used too quickly on people who do not deserve it, in your case, given that you repeat a well known anti-semite story, it seems warranted.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 0) 301

by Sun (#49503987) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

In fact, not to sound crass, Goebbels would have been proud.

He'd certainly commend you on this comment. Particularly the part where you say:

Hollywood has produced movie after movie, I don't blame for keeping history alive to protect themselves

So the Jews control Hollywood? Anti-Semitic much?

The Armenian Holocaust have been hashed mostly for political reasons. Too many nations care too much about what Turkey thinks, and they are extremely touchy about the matter. Let's hope that now that the Pope bashed them for it, that it will get more attention.

As for the Nazis non-Jews murder victims: the Nazis haven't been nearly as methodical in persecuting Roma, blacks, socialists etc. as they have the Jews. One of the side effects is that no one is really certain who should be counted toward that number (as opposed to "normal" war casualties). In fact, according to wikipedia, the number you quote (5 million) is on the low end of the estimates range, with the high end reaching as far as 16 million!

Shachar

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 301

by Sun (#49503913) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

60 million is a bit over-reaching. The only numbers I know that match that from WWII are for the number of casualties during the war. The number of people the Nazies actually murdered is not 100% clear, because other than the Jews, the Nazies weren't as methodical about the murders. Including 6 million Jews, the estimates range from 11 to 20 million.

I don't think it makes sense to count people killed, say, by invading British or American armies as people Goebbels can be held personally accountable for.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Is banishment legal? (Score 1) 271

by causality (#49498253) Attached to: Gyrocopter Pilot Appears In Court; Judge Bans Him From D.C.

Well, the constitution does say any American citizen has free travel between areas within the US. So if I was this guy, I'd sue the federal court. Fun fact, because it's a federal issue, he's constitutionally promised a jury of at least 6 people if the suit is for more than $20. At that point, it really doesn't matter what the federal judge says, it's the jury. And since the US is a country of "letter of the law", the federal government is going to have a hell of a time defending this action when the constitution explicitly prohibits it.

Sure thing. All it will cost him is his life savings plus whatever debt he incurs.

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim. -- Leibnitz

Working...