Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: No expectation of Privacy say what? (Score 1) 216

by bl968 (#49625531) Attached to: Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant

I very well do have a legal expectation of privacy. cell blocked (or cellular blocked) is a phrase applied to scanners and wideband receivers manufactured for sale in the US which denotes that they comply with the provisions of PL 102-556, which amended Section 302 of the Communications Act (47USC302) to prohibit manufacture, importation, or certification of scanners which could receive the frequency band allocated for analog AMPS cellular telephony, "the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service":


Comment: Re:They are burning down a city (Score 4, Interesting) 203

by bl968 (#49602483) Attached to: Inside the Military-Police Center That Spies On Baltimore's Rioters

“I was watching the news last night,” said Morgan Freeman. “and said, ‘You know, when we were out here marching peacefully, nobody was here. And now we start burning the place down, everybody is listening. What do you think we’re gonna do to be heard?’

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 1) 489

by bl968 (#49441557) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

Why did the internet access service get classified as a information service to bypass the regulations including the mandate that they provide wholesale access to their competitors. They had to sell it to me a competitor cheaper than they sold to their own customers so I could still make a profit. After Internet access service was classified as an information service which it is not. It killed a vibrant and competitive access market ensuring that only the largest companies could afford to do so.

Comment: TOS (Score 1) 569

Twitch should add this to their TOS

You should not give out personal information which may lead to your being identified, or contacted in person, by email or other means. If you chose to do so, then you also accept all accompanying risks. Aliases and the use of alternate identities, social media accounts, and email addresses are strongly encouraged.

Comment: fair use (Score 1) 127

by bl968 (#48710347) Attached to: Bitcoin Gets Its First TV Ads

The users simply have to state that their uses of the work meets the definition of fair use according to the copyright office.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

                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 fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]

Comment: No proof (Score 4, Interesting) 187

by bl968 (#48487575) Attached to: Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy

Rightscorp can't claim the subscriber is actually infringing their customers copyright, as their software tool can simply see if the information is available from the host in question but it cannot tell anything else about it. They have no way to know that anyone other than their self has actually downloaded the information in question. They can only guess and I hate to say it but you can't sue over speculation.

54,000 claimed infringements over 64 days sounds like a lot, but it's basically just under once per second, and claiming each time is another incident of infringement. So basically their software is constantly checking the ip, and this could be argued constitutes theft of service since both Cox and the customer in question pays for the bandwidth.

As for them downloading the information themselves, since the tool and the company that runs it is authorized by the copyright holder to search for and access their copyrighted files one could easily argue that no actual infringement taking place.

I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints, I think 10$ per complaint sounds about right. So 54,000 x $10 = $540,000. Plus attorney fees and costs for this frivolous lawsuit.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"