Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sensational! (Score 2) 376

Actually CIAPC should be raiding the sony corporation headoffice and other media houses etc. for helping the song to be published in the first place. If there was no song in the first place, it can be correctly argued that google would have had nothing to lead to. We need to arrest the media houses executives/employees, I guess, and implicate them for facilitating and promoting piracy. They too are corporations worth billions of dollars, not some child innocently led astray by a corporation's services, namely their music production. :)

Comment Re:Sensational! (Score 5, Funny) 376

And if you are seriously advocating to pay the police and prison employees from PUBLIC tax money, to protect and enforce the interests of PRIVATE corporates... instead of taking the usual civil suits route... you have to be either a RIAA/MPAA crony or certifiably batshit insane

...or of course, a US senator, who are usually both.

Comment Re:Sensational! (Score 4, Insightful) 376

Just quoting a few nuggets that were the basis of having copyrights at all

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

Thomas Jefferson : Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding — years but for no longer term and no other purpose.[9]

Copyright Act of 1976 : Barbara Ringer, the U.S. Register of Copyrights, called the new law "a balanced compromise that comes down on the authors' and creators' side in almost every instance.

So a question here... did RIAA sing this song? Because all the instances I can find(I quoted a few above), say that copyright laws were pushed on pretext of protecting authors, inventors and creators. But here you are coming and advocating that the an author/creator should be persecuted for infringing "their own" creations. Unless, you can point out the songs that RIAA and MPAA executives sang along with her. I am waiting. Go ahead...

The mills that produce the paper I use for making a painting, the middlemen I hire for something, the marketing firm I hire to promote my products, should have ZERO rights to prosecute me criminally over "infringing" my own creations. If you advocate for laws to PROMOTE progress of science and other useful Arts, then you should also PROHIBIT and deem conflicting any laws that DISSUADE progress of science and other useful Arts by allowing original creators themselves to be imprisoned and fined millions for "copyright infingment", instead of just being sued for a breach of contract for exact/actual damages caused.

And if you are seriously advocating to pay the police and prison employees from PUBLIC tax money, to protect and enforce the interests of PRIVATE corporates... instead of taking the usual civil suits route... you have to be either a RIAA/MPAA crony or certifiably batshit insane.

Comment Re:Paulie Walnuts (Score 5, Informative) 127

I know the next big heist that is going to happen. Tonnes of salt is about to go missing next!

How do I know this, you ask? That is because, I have deciphered the nefarious plans of this master-villain!

He is making a lifetime-supply of maple glazed walnuts!!!

Comment Re:How does this work? (Score 1) 175

First part of your argument WAS what I was saying actually. To do business in a new country, a company has to usually open a new subsidiary and enter incorporation. So in short, the subsidiary has to comply to local laws, while parent company will not need to. The wordings you are choosing make it seem like, Google USA has to comply with laws in China, India, UK, USA etc. all at same time, which is not the case. Google India has to comply with Indian laws, but can ignore the laws and regulations in China, and Google China need not comply with US regulations at all. Different companies even if parent owner is same. Ownership grants the parent control, but the subsidiary still has to comply with local laws (and only local laws). And btw, you forgot the union carbide case I referred to. Dow Chemicals distanced itself from any actions of Union Carbide India. Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide who was in India at time of Bhopal disaster, was arrested and skipped bail, and simply disowned the subsidiary(one wonders if UCIL India was independent entity not owned by UCC USA, what on earth was Warren doing there)... and USA courts/government apparently disagree with your interpretation of Google UK/Google USA example you stated above, and said that UCC USA was not responsible for actions of UCIL India. So there is that. And then again, Indian government actually tried to get Yahoo, Google, Blackberry etc. to allow them to monitor communications. Yahoo USA simply refused on grounds of jurisdiction(Yahoo India had to comply). Basically jurisdiction is something more like an etiquette(come to think of it almost anything international comes down to same, be it laws, treaties, conventions). Most countries try not to overreach and have mutual agreements spoken/unspoken. USA's stance has been that it doesn't gives a crap about such etiquette and tries to claim international jurisdiction wherever it thinks it can get away with it, and keeps quiet where it thinks it will get an ass-kicking and will be forced to eat crow(You don't see it making too much noise in respect to China for example, despite IP violations, currency fixing and human rights violation. RIAA/MPAA have been unable to force US government to take any actual concrete action whatsoever against China regards its lax piracy laws, for example). That is all it boils down to, in the end.

Comment Re:How does this work? (Score 1) 175

What I pointing out was that your quoted case regards HGS was too murky. You are speculating yourself. HGS does apparently operates in UK regardless, since the case clearly mentions GKS as an associated company, not as a party to the suit. And further, world-over, when companies enter the market of a country they can do so only by incorporating as a new legal entity under the laws of that country. Companies thus operating in several jurisdiction have their different local subsidiaries obeying the laws of the country THEY are operating in. Case in point, Microsoft USA has to obey only USA laws. Microsoft China does NOT has to obey USA laws. This is particularly important since USA laws pertaining to privacy and human rights, may actually be in conflict with Chinese laws. Your understanding of International laws is pretty flawed. And the line in your first point is pure bullshit I am afraid. Do you mean to say that if the court in India order Google India to share private emails of American Senators, Google USA has to comply,since these are "same entities"? Keep in mind, that by undergoing incorporation in India, Google India is obligated to follow India's jurisdiction. But something tells me that Google USA will tell Google India to get lost in such case. So much for that theory. If you want to sue some company, you need not have local presence in that country. You do NOT need to open a local new company. But you cannot sue a local company like Seiyu in Switzerland for example, which has no presence in Switzerland owing to its being a Japan only company. I mean even if the Switzerland gave a ruling against Seiyu in absentia, how will it get enforced? Do they invade Japan to enforce it? Your understanding of how the international law works in such case is seriously flawed, probably due to USA's abuse of the payment system monopoly. USA is able to enforce out-of-jurisdiction rulings simply by abusing its monopoly control of credit card systems, banking systems, .com domain control systems etc. i.e. you may not come under our jurisdiction but we can still get at you by forcing your local bank to freeze your accounts(if they don't want to be blacklisted), by freezing your credit cards, your paypal account(remember the completely illegal freeze of wikileaks' paypal account?) or simply illegally seizing your .com domain name. Outcome of USA case technically has zero bearing on German one, since German courts simply do not recognize the rulings of any other courts. They will simply check if patent claimed is valid under EPO, and rule based on that. You might be shocked to know that USPTO and EPO are different entities and certain patents granted by USPTO are actually invalid under EPO(Check their approach to Software patents and Stem cells etc for example). US court is trying to interfere directly with rulings of German court. In effect what the US judge is saying is, I don't give a crap about what German court decides, I forbid you to do X or we will seize your assets here in USA. Not only is this undiplomatic(i.e. flipping Germans a finger), it is also unethical as well as a clear undue exploitation of Google USA's relationship with Motorola Germany.

Slashdot Top Deals

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.