Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion (Score 2) 49

by NewYorkCountryLawyer (#43492249) Attached to: YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again
When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

Comment: Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

by NewYorkCountryLawyer (#43489563) Attached to: YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again

Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?

Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)

Comment: Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

by NewYorkCountryLawyer (#43489139) Attached to: YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again

Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.

It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.

+ - YouTube wins again 3

Submitted by NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Once again YouTube has defeated Viacom and other members of the content cartel; once again the Court has held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually does mean what it says. YouTube had won the case earlier, at the district court level, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although ruling in YouTube's favor on all of the general principles at stake, felt that there were several factual issues involving some of the videos and remanded to the lower court for a cleanup of those loose ends. Now, the lower court — Judge Louis L. Stanton to be exact — has resolved all of the remaining issues in YouTube's favor, in a 24-page opinion. Among other things Judge Stanton concluded that YouTube had not had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement, been 'willfully blind' to any specific infringement, induced its users to commit copyright infringement, interacted with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements, or manually selected or delivered videos to its syndication partners. Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again."

Comment: power != energy (Score 1) 158

by Shakrai (#43315139) Attached to: Internet's Energy Needs Growing Faster Than Efficiency Gains

Which of course, raises the question, why couldn't you just bloody SAY "31 Gigawatts" instead of tangling yourself in this foofaral of extraneous time units that you didn't even get right?

The watt is a measurement of power. The kilowatt-hour is a measurement of energy. 31 Gigawatts on its own is meaningless. That incandescent light bulb in your closet is rated for 100 watts, does that tell you how much it cost you to operate last month? The power consumption is useless without knowing how long the device was turned on, and it's easier to say "That light bulb consumed 15kWh last month" than to say "That 100 watt light bulb was turned on for 150 hours last month."

Comment: bad sectors.... (Score 2) 295

by Shakrai (#43306481) Attached to: When Your Data Absolutely, Positively has to be Destroyed (Video)

Does the DoD have evidence that data can be recovered from a zeroed drive?

Modern hard drives identify bad sectors on the physical media and remap them in a way that is transparent to the operating system. Wiping the HD with /dev/zero will not zero out these sectors, because the OS does not see them, and the HD will not touch them once they're marked bad. If they contained confidential data prior to being marked bad then that data may well be recoverable. It's a huge long shot, but nation-states have the time and resources to chase such long shots.

Physical destruction is really the only way to be sure. Encrypting the drive from the get-go is the next best thing, since any bad sectors will contain encrypted data, though with the cheap price of drives these days you may just as well destroy it when you're done with it.

Comment: sure it is (Score 2) 344

by Shakrai (#43277589) Attached to: The ATF Not Concerned About 3D Printed Guns... Yet

Your right to a handheld explosive-powered projectile launcher is not natural.
It is a right, but it does not come directly from being a human.

Sure it does. Human beings have been possessing the cutting edge weaponry of the day since the very first Homo sapiens picked up a rock and bashed in his neighbors head. Possession of weaponry is the quintessential natural law right. It can't even effectively be taken away in highly controlled environments, just ask the poor SOB who just got shanked in the prison shower.

+ - Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal->

Submitted by sarysa
sarysa writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear the latest appeal of the 7 year old Jammie Thomas case, regarding a single mother who was fined $222,000 in her most recent appeal for illegally sharing 24 songs. Those of us hoping for an Eighth Amendment battle over this issue will not be seeing it anytime soon. In spite of the harsh penalties, the journalist suggests that: "Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.""
Link to Original Source

What's so funny?

Working...