Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Troll alert (Score 1) 108

Frankly, your attempt to put words in my mouth, impugn my credibility, and suggest some ulterior motive (to the point of demanding to know who my employer is) is insulting, rude, and unprofessional. But I'm sure you didn't actually intend any of that and will apologize momentarily.

Mr. Theaetetus

1. Don't hold your breath.

2. I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll and/or shill, and will ignore you accordingly.

Submission + - Appeals court upholds sanction against BitTorrent download attorney (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld sanctions awarded by a District Court against one of the lawyers bringing copyright infringement cases against individuals for BitTorrent movie downloads, in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670. The Court's opinion (PDF) described the lawyer's "strategy" as "suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars — a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country"."
Technology

Submission + - Court denies injunction against Aero's tv-to-computer service (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Finding to no avail the television networks' attempt to distinguish Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings, the case upholding Cablevision's DVR service, a federal district court judge has denied their motion for a preliminary injunction against Aero's tv-to-computer screen subscription service. After 11 weeks of discovery, followed by a 2-day evidentiary hearing (a mini-trial, if you will), the Court rendered an excruciatingly detailed 52- page analysis of the technology involved (PDF) and of how the technology meshed with "Cartoon Network"."

Comment Re:Who are you? (Score 1) 108

The complaint (PDF) included a 3rd claim for "negligence". Complaint, paragraphs 47 to 58.

The defendant moved to dismiss the 3rd claim for "negligence" on preemption grounds and the EFF filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the request for dismissal of the negligence claim on preemption grounds.

Thereafter the Judge granted the motion to dismiss the 3rd claim for negligence on preemption grounds.

You can say whatever you want, but the documents don't lie.

By suggesting that this didn't really happen, you are misleading anyone who cares to accept you as credible, and your motivations for doing so are curious indeed.

You can play whatever games you like, but I deeply resent your suggestion that the summary which I wrote was somehow inaccurate. If you don't intend any "offense", don't say something I wrote was wrong when it's right, and the only thing "wrong" is your outlandish argument that the papers do not mean what they say.

Submission + - No you can't claim "negligence" in a copyright case (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the myriad BitTorrent downloading cases against individuals, one plaintiff's law firm thought they'd be clever and insert a "negligence" claim, saying that the defendant was negligent in failing to supervise his roommate's use of his WiFi access. Defendant moved to dismiss the negligence claim on the ground that it was preempted by the Copyright Act, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) agreeing with him. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan agreed, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the "negligence" claim was preempted by the Copyright Act."
Software

Submission + - Forensic investigator makes claims about BitTorrent detection technology (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the many BitTorrent download cases brought by pornographic film makers, the plaintiff — faced with a motion to quash brought by a "John Doe" defendant — has filed its opposition papers. Interestingly, these included a declaration by its "forensic investigator" (PDF), employed by a German company, IPP, Limited, in which he makes claims about what his technology detects, and about how BitTorrent works, and attaches, as an exhibit, a "functional description" of his IPTracker software (PDF)."

Comment Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score 1) 166

Nope. A swarm is nothing like a conference call, because you aren't interacting with every member of the swarm, but just a few members at a time - restricted by how many connections your bandwidth can actually handle at a given time. Regardless, the reported "offenses" are so separate in *TIME* that there is no guarantee that the Doe's in this case were actually online and part of the swarm at the same time as each other. Even if they were the chance that they actually shared parts of the movie between each other is so low as to be nil. You really should read the documents linked to - they might be in legalese, but it is close enough to english for just about anyone to follow. And it does explain things simply enough for anyone to be able to understand them. Yes, there is an explanation for how a BitTorrent swarm works in the actual motion and it was written in such a way as to be understandable by any of the legal professionals - including the judge in the case. And regardless of whether or not "participating in the same swarm" is a legal theory that holds water and fulfills the requirements of the rules, well... There is the fact that these "joinders" benefit only the plaintiffs in the case and create hardships for the joined defendents that break the required "fairness" of the legal system. (Yes, the legal system is supposed to be fair - surprising, no ?) So the joinder should be undone anyway :) Again, read the actual motion. These arguments are covered in depth and explained in excruciating detail inside it. To tell the truth, I will be surprised if this motion doesn't go through. Doe #4 has a *LOT* of legal precedent on his side :)

Why, thank you.

Submission + - Is being in the same BitTorrent "swarm" equal to "interacting"? (blogspot.com) 1

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In the new wave of bittorrent downloading cases, the plaintiffs' lawyers like to lump a number of "John Does" together in the same case in order to avoid filing fees ($350 a pop). Their excuse for 'joinder' is the allegation that the defendants 'interacted' with each other by reason of the fact that their torrents may have eminated from the same "swarm". In Malibu Media v. Does 1-5, when John Doe #4 indicated his intention to move for severance, the Court asked the lawyers to address the "swarm" issue in their papers. So when John Doe #4 filed his or her motion to quash, sever, and dismiss, he filed a detailed memorandum of law (PDF) analyzing the "swarm" theory in detail. What do you think?"

Submission + - EFF submits amicus brief: no 'negligence' in copyright case (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the multitudinous bittorrent download cases now clogging the federal court system, Liberty Media Holdings v. Tabora, a plaintiff's lawyer cleverly invented a "negligence" claim, just in case he couldn't prevail on his weak copyright claims, arguing that defendant was 'negligent' in letting his roommate use his wireless internet service. Defendant's lawyers astutely moved to dismiss the negligence claim on the ground that it was preempted by the Copyright Act. The Electronic Frontier Foundation agreed with defendant and, with the Court's consent, filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) supporting defendant's motion."
AI

Submission + - Google's AI Watches YouTube, Identifies Cats (latimes.com)

KhabaLox writes: Wired and the LA Times are reporting that Google and Stanford have created an artificial "brain" that can recognize cats after watching several days worth of YouTube videos, without relying on human intervention or metadata.

From the Times article:

Google researchers and Stanford scientists have discovered that if you show a large enough computing system millions of images from random YouTube videos for three days, the computer will teach itself to recognize ... cats.

That may sound inconsequential at best and downright ridiculous at worst — but in fact, it is very important.

The research shows that if a computer is big enough, and programmed correctly, it can learn to make sense of random, unlabeled data, in just days without any help from humans.

And this research is especially important to Google because it has major implications for search.

Comment Re:How about this one (Score 1) 225

The main problem with the music industry is not the artists, they don't make any money off album sales; not because of pirating, but because the distributors suck every last penny from the sales. The RIAA is not made up of artists, they are made up of distributors. The distributors are no longer needed in digital distribution, so they are losing money, the artists are not losing money, as they always made their money from the live performances.

When you try to defend the music industry, really think about who you are defending because it isn't the artists.

Very well said.

I think the time will come that musicians will be making some real money from the recordings, which has never been the case before, because they get to keep a much, much higher percentage.

It was a sad day for the big labels when indie artist Amanda Palmer brought in over a million dollars ($1,192,793, to be exact), independently of the labels, to mix, distribute, and promote her new album. On her Kickstarter page there's a video where she explains the whole thing, and points out that if she'd financed the album by letting a record label do it, she herself would wind up receiving zilch from the album sales.

All she needed was a twitter account, a facebook account, a Kickstarter account, and 25,000 friends.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.

Working...