Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Hmm (Score 1) 208

Well, it's a quandary. Publishers want to sell books. Academics and students want to use those books for free, and with a volume of use that would make ever purchasing the book unnecessary for all but a handful of them. I'm sure this will seem a reasonable position to some folks here, but I think it's clear which side is asking for the moon. Incidentally, if you RTFA it's clear Georgia State was operating well beyond what might be considered "fair use" (which Georgia State more or less admitted by tightening its policies after the lawsuit was filed).

Comment Wait... people actually paid for these?!? (Score 2, Informative) 505

I seem to remember getting all of mine by "borrowing" them from work. I've still got a box with several hundred of these in it. I've been meaning to return them any day, but a) I haven't worked there in over 10 years, b) I'd probably have to delete all the viruses and porn from them first, and c) I don't believe anybody really wants these anymore -- even if they are free.

Comment Nothing amiss about it (Score 1) 439

Lots of colleges and universities are switching over to Google. The reasons are pretty straightforward: Google offers more storage space than most higher ed IT departments could reasonably afford and the move relieves them of the need to administer an email server. See this article for an overview. Even Hope, in Taco's home town, switched over a couple years back and I know they've been pretty happy with it.

Comment Hrmm (Score 2, Funny) 113

Perhaps someone with better knowledge of the case could comment on the substance of the judge's order, which concerns the apparently incorrect testimony given by the defendant. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you can recover fees when your own client makes material misrepresentations. I'm surprised that the RIAA's own request for sanctions was denied under the circumstances.

Comment Re:There's the kicker: (Score 1) 184

The summary, however, oversimplifies things. In the opinion, the Court notes that the sergeant signed an acceptable use policy in 2000, and was informed at a general meeting in 2002 that pagers (and their messages) were considered email as far as the policy was concerned. The city had a policy/practice (not entirely clear how official) that employees who went over the 25,000 character limit would pay the overage. The lieutenant who acted as the bill collector apparently told members of the force that if they paid the overages there would be no questions asked. In 2003, the chief asked for an evaluation of whether these repeated overages were work-related, apparently (and a jury agreed) to determine whether the 25,000 character limit was still reasonable or whether it needed to be increased. The primary point of contention, I think, is over whether the provider violated the Stored Communications Act by turning over the transcripts to the city in the first place. There's an interesting write-up over at Volokh from Orin Kerr, whose work on the SCA is cited in the Court's opinion.

Slashdot Top Deals

The faster I go, the behinder I get. -- Lewis Carroll

Working...