Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Key Point Missing (Score 2) 34

The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

Submission + - Appeals Court finds scanning to be fair use in Authors Guild v Hathitrust

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In Authors Guild v Hathitrust, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has found that scanning whole books and making them searchable for research use is a fair use. In reaching its conclusion, the 3-judge panel reasoned, in its 34-page opinion (PDF), that the creation of a searchable, full text database is a "quintessentially transformative use", that it was "reasonably necessary" to make use of the entire works, that maintaining maintain 4 copies of the database was reasonably necessary as well, and that the research library did not impair the market for the originals. Needless to say, this ruling augurs well for Google in Authors Guild v. Google, which likewise involves full text scanning of whole books for research.

Comment Re:Liability (Score 1) 474

How does it make any sense for Comcast to charge your for extra bandwidth that somebody used on their public WiFi network, not logged in as you? This may be a terrible idea, but not for that reason. Comcast is just using existing equipment to do something other than sit idle. This doesn't seem that nefarious to me. (I'm sure they'll try to prove me wrong later, but for now anyway).

Comment Re:Liability (Score 3, Insightful) 474

Comcast will be just as liable as they are now. This is not Comcast giving people access to your private network. For this to be even technologically feasible, it's going to have to be configured so that every router broadcasts the same SSID. That means it's going to be a separate virtual network from your home network. So some random guy is not going to be able to log onto your shared folders and print to your printer. If somebody downloads porn, it's going to show that it was some user (with a username and login) that logged into the public Comcast network, and happened to do it from your router. (But more than usual, see my .sig)

Comment Re: Liability (Score 4, Informative) 474

That's not true at all, and is a bad analogy. You own your house. If the bank has a mortgage, then they have a lien on the house. If they want to take possession of it, they have to go through a foreclosure proceeding. They can't just walk into your living room and start watching TV. Your house is real property, which has lots of strong protections. Comcast, on the other hand, does own the router that they lease to you, which is a chattel and therefore subject to a different set of rights. No, they can't walk in and just take it (that would violate your real property rights). But they do own the network, and if their contract with you is written in a way that permits them to reconfigure a leased router to grant somebody else access to their network over wireless signals that you're leaking out into the air anyway, then yeah, they can do that.

Comment Re:This would actually be kinda good if true (Score 1) 245

You act like it's some crazy notion that people in government would covertly collect information on private citizens for purposes of blackmail to "keep them in line"---not because those citizens are breaking any law, but because certain officials deem them to be dangerous to their own personal agendas and power structure. Have you ever heard of a guy named J. Edgar Hoover? Perhaps you should look into that.

Comment Re:Are they arguing Occam's Razor? (Score 1) 245

Exactly the opposite. They designed their system to comply with the law (delete the data). Now the EFF wants them to do something different (retain the data so they can peruse it). If you've ever worked a a big system you would know that a major requirements change like that cannot be implemented quickly or easily.

What I find most interesting here is the outrage we keep seeing on /. when a story is posted about search warrants that are too broad. But now the EFF has essentially requested a search warrant for everything the NSA has.

No, that's not true. The duty of preservation in a civil lawsuit is entirely different from a search warrant in a criminal investigation. And no, they didn't design the system to comply with the law. If they'd done that, they wouldn't allegedly have so much information that it can't be stored. They should be performing targeted searches related to actual criminal cases and threats to national security, not wholesale data mining on every man, woman, and child in the United States, regardless of how soon they delete it.

Comment Re:Keep it simple (Score 1) 170

You guys are thinking too much into this. Any third party you entrust your secret to (bank authorities, lawyers, software etc) is a potential point of breach.

Just keep your information in hard copy (papers, journals etc), put it in a box, lock it up and bury it. Entrust the secret and key to a son/daughter with strict instructions it is not to be opened until you pass away, with the warning that the secrets revealed may destroy the family.

The less people know about it, the more secure it is.

I'd rather trust family who have an interest in protecting your secrets rather than some stranger or worse, impersonal unthinking code. And having a living, thinking secret keeper who can respond to challenges and situations you may not even forsee is far more effective.

I'm going to do this, and all that will be in the capsule will be a note saying, "You have been pwned! Dad has trolled you one final time."

Comment Re:Yeah, no... (Score 1) 323

"(2) the permission to destroy the originals (you'll always find a few volunteers)" why? So, the send a copy of me, so what? It's Geekoid2. It's not going to come back and claim my social security benefits.

Of course; if we can build people, we would build more optimized people and not copies. Skin color, hair growth, strength, spectrum off vision would all be customized to the unique properties of that planet.

So your proposal is that we build a genetically-engineered race of super men? And then send them off into space in deep freeze so they can return some day and conquer us? What ever will we call the ship? I think S.S. Botany Bay is already taken, but let me check up on that.

Submission + - Councilman/Open Source Developer submits Open Source bill (

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: New York City Council Member Ben Kallos (KallosEsq), who also happens to be a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) developer, just introduced legislation to mandate a government preference for FOSS and creating a Civic Commons website to facilitate collaborative purchasing of software. He argues that NYC could save millions of dollars with the Free and Open Source Software Preferences Act 2014, pointing out that the city currently has a $67 million Microsoft ELA. Kallos said: "It is time for government to modernize and start appreciating the same cost savings as everyone else."

Slashdot Top Deals

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.