1) The file was never downloaded by her.
2) There is no harddrive evidence. She took her computer in to be formatted and reinstalled before ever receiving any notice of a claim of infringing on copyright, and has receipts and evidence to show for this. This was because of a problem with Windows refusing to start, and she needed it fixed.
3) She regularly has guests at least once a month from many different countries, all who use her internet connection. From what I understand having the internet connection in your name does not make you responsible for what people do on your connection. As she has guests, there is no reasonable expectation for her to police their behaviour and invade their privacy. Right?
4) She ran an unsecured wifi connection for some time as there were problems with an older computer signing on with any kind of security.
With no proof and any number of possible people who could have downloaded the file, surely they have no case?
I am familiar with Australian and UK law, not so much US law. The principles are largely the same however, and I would like to try and fight my friends case (just with wording motions and such, not actually representing her), but I am desperate as to where I could get some free advice to enable me to do so. I have very specific questions, and am not looking for free representation. Does the slashdot community have any suggestions on where I may find such advice, or opinions on if I can simply apply to have the case dismissed?
To me it would be a pity if Mandriva ceased to exist as we know it. The distribution is one of the best out there for polish and attention to detail, and would be a good corporate buy based on that alone. I've always felt that it would be a great "house" Linux version for a big player like Dell, HP, etc. but clearly there are factors stopping such computer companies or other Linux distributors from buying it.
Oh well, if they cannot make it then that's the way it goes...
Link to Original Source
I am wondering whether there is room for hope, since
(1) I started the project on my own, and since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer I question whether they can claim that they now own the extended version of the project.
(2) The whole project relies on GPL libraries, since from the start I intended to release it under GPL, and without those libraries it would be useless. Can they still claim copyright and prevent me from publishing the source code even though it is derived from GPL software?
So your point is that maybe he's just afraid of being rich, for a reason? But it's too late! The money is already his, and half of the stuff you described is already happening.
He needs to accept that there's a world full of people out there, and guess what, he's in it. And however sad that may be, saying "leave me alone" is sometimes not enough. People sometimes get to you anyway. Of course, publishing a life-changing mathematical proof doesn't help.
Now that he's already in the spotlight, and especially if he wants to be left alone, he needs to take a stand regarding the prize. Either he takes it, or he calls Millennium and get them to withdraw/donate/whatever, or he refuses and tells the media why... something. The money is already in his porch, and he needs to deal with it. Doing nothing is only making it worse.
Will: Oh, come on! What? Why is it always this? I mean, I fuckin' owe it to myself to do this or that. What if I don't want to?
Chuckie: No. No, no no no. Fuck you, you don't owe it to yourself man, you owe it to me. Cuz tomorrow I'm gonna wake up and I'll be 50, and I'll still be doin' this shit. And that's all right. That's fine. I mean, you're sittin' on a winnin' lottery ticket. And you're too much of a pussy to cash it in, and that's bullshit. 'Cause I'd do fuckin' anything to have what you got. So would any of these fuckin' guys. It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TFA only shows that:
- BEFORE the merger, Youtube was intentionally lax about video copyright;
- Google knew it.
That can be easily downplayed in court by Google, by saying "yes we knew but that's why we bought it, so we could fix that part". Plus, Google's got plenty of evidence of their effort to remove copyrighted stuff AFTER the merger.
Now, about countering "your evidence of infringement was uploaded by yourself"...
2. You don't have the right to know all indisputable facts. I don't have the right to know your sexual orientation, what medication you may or may not use, who you voted for in the presidential election, where you live, your social security number or your bank account PIN.
True, but while no one's claiming to have the right to know, Wikipedia is claiming to be unbiased. And bias towards noble intentions is still bias. WP should have stuck to its encyclopedia roots, and allowed any edit backed by reliable sources. Of which there were a few.
And on that "noble intentions" bit, there was no way to be absolutely sure that suppressing the news about the kidnapping would help. Maybe that could have caused the guy to die. And WP, by taking the same side of other media outlets who complied with the blackout, would be accountable. Instead, if they had just reflected what's been reported elsewhere, they could have kept their distance from whatever outcome.
NOOOOOO IT'S REAL IT'S REAL.
Posted 22 Hours Ago
Church of Scientology
Given that this is the same author of the original post, and that there is no link to a CoS website source anywhere, I guess that's not really Mr. Miscarriage's opinion. Not that it would surprise me if it were.
ESPN is just trying to stick to their classic business model.
When the only way to get ESPN was cable TV, they lobbied the cable companies to make sure ESPN was included on as many channel packages as possible, even if it meant ignoring consumer requests. That way more people paid their fee, even if they were not watching the shows. And they made money off people who never watched their channel.
This is just an attempt to repeat that model. Now cable TV is the net, cable companies are ISPs, but even though ESPN is on all packages by default, they're not making money off non-watchers anymore.
Guess what ESPN, proxies and offshore ISPs will not go away. So I guess you're gonna have to depend on the quality of your shows in order to make money. Bummer...