Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (Score 4, Informative) 94

What's really needed (short of scrapping the whole thing) is to change the law so that DMCA takedowns must be of the form "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of this copyrighted material, and it is being used here in violation of my copyright." And start putting some of these bastards in jail for perjury if they keep this crap up.

That's how the DMCA is already written. The problem is the lack of enforcement, not the law.

Comment: Re:and... (Score 4, Insightful) 94

Read a DMCA claim wording _carefully_.

What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work....

Correct. And since they're not authorized by the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work the statute should kick in.

There's no way out. Someone perjured themselves and it's high time they get to see the inside of a jail cell. This crap stops tomorrow with one single example. Right now, there's literally no downside to filing thousands of frivolous claims. The worst that happens is... nothing. The whole point of the DMCA is that you can take stuff down but you have to put your own ass on the line in order to do so.

There's tons of precedent for this, by the way. If I call the police and say "so and so robbed my house today" and then, when they come and investigate and find no evidence that my house was robbed I say "oh, well, not really" - I'm going to jail in that case. That's filing a false report and it's a crime.

We do this for a reason. The DMCA was written like that for a reason. What we see right now is the direct result of lack of enforcement.

Comment: Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (Score 1) 94

Is it me or is the mere fact that they automated the takedown notices speaking volumes of how frivolous the whole matter has become? Take them all down and let God sort them out, or how is that supposed to be?

Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.

They're already supposed to be sworn under penalty of perjury, which beats the hell out of a "fine". The mechanism is already there, it's just that nobody seems to be interested in enforcing it.

Whoever sent the takedown notice should be looking at jail time according to the law.

Comment: Re:Eurocopter / Airbus X3 (Score 5, Funny) 103

While a simpler and more conservative design, a helicopter like this already exists: The Eurocopter (now Airbus) X3.

Not yet in production but several functioning machines that already reached speeds of 472 km/h.

Yeah, but we need one that travels in miles per hour.

Comment: Re: If you take the bait (Score 1) 117

Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?

I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.

You're not the only one who noticed that. The utter cluelessness to start with "May One" and they move to calling it "May Day" is staggering.

Comment: Re:Bad media coverage (Score 1) 1316

The whole "winshape" part of the "controversy" came after Cathy's comments. It was his comments that set it off, and his comments were no different than those expressed by Obama and Clinton (both) over the years. The difference is that he's an evil "conservative" and they're "Democrats".

Comment: Re:Bad media coverage (Score 4, Informative) 1316

Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.

Were there any documented cases of Chic-Fil-A refusing to serve someone because they were gay? Refusing to hire someone because they were gay? Attacking someone because they were gay?


Since the guy you're actually asking seems to be uninterested in answering, I'll answer for you.

The answers are "no", "no", and "no".

What happened was that the president of Chik-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, expressed an opinion on same-sex marriage that was exactly what Barack Obama had expressed just a couple of years earlier and that HIllary Clinton had also expressed. Oddly, only one of these three people were harassed for their opinion.

Oddly, it happens to be the one of the three with the least power to effect any change in regard to the subject matter at hand. But, he doesn't claim to be a "Democrat", which is an allegiance which absolves one from all responsibility and repercussions from their opinions.

Comment: Re:Classic $Politician (Score 4, Interesting) 211

Obama seems to be the first mainstream US presidential candidate in a long time to "talk the talk" to the kind of people who read Slashdot. The others have been spouting ignorant crap or simply ignoring the topics that most Slashdotters care about. Therefore Obama is the first president that we can be disappointed in -- the others were known bad before they became presidents.

Um, maybe to you. I saw Obama coming a mile away, he's admittedly even more of a let down than I or anyone else could imagine but I knew the vapid talk was just that. I'm glad you admit that he fooled you, most on your side keep claiming that he's actually not an embarrassing failure and that things are way better than when Bush was in office.

The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he fills out a job application form. -- Stanley J. Randall