Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Apropos Akbar (Score 1) 504

A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?

Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...


Explanation: https://theconservativetreehou...

Comment Another Giveaway? (Score 3, Insightful) 86

Why don't they collect on the broadband promises that never materialized from the last round of subsidies before giving away another half billion dollars? Oh, right, never mind. They're just bribing people with our own money and trying to make it sound like a good thing, knowing that most people won't be able to call them on it.

Maybe this time it'll be different? I wish I could believe that.

Comment Re:Google needs to be responsible (Score 1) 153

> Well guess what: that isn't the copyright holders problem. If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model.

This is utter nonsense. One, that's not how the DMCA is set up--this burden is squarely on the copyright holder to identify and issue takedowns.

Two, it shouldn't work the other way. You see, copyright relies upon PERMISSION. So even if I upload a "leaked' video that looks completely pirated to an outsider, if I have permission from the copyright holder, it's legal. Given that the copyright holder is the only one who can reasonably be expected to know who they have and have not given permission to, they are the only reasonable party to do so. If you think this example sounds far-fetched, then you need to go back and read Viacom v. YouTube, because Viacom did exactly this and had to remove "infringing" videos they'd given permission to from the case. Twice. After extensive review by expensive lawyers. If their own lawyers with all that information can't get it right, what hope does a 3rd party have?

That this burden is unreasonable is of no concern to the rest of us--it's simply not our property, so it's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to manage it for them.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 644

> Hillary didn't pull dirty tricks. That's all lies that idiots who believe everything they are told fall for.

So you mean the DNC didn't give her access to Sanders' campaign info while cutting him off from the system?

Oh... right, let's just forget about that.

Comment Re:ugh (Score 1) 104

...except that half of the devices are mobile, which probably means mainly Android. I think as people migrate to latest Windows with their Windows Defender builtin, it's going to be tricky to hold on the PC market

(Yeah, not that AVs help a lot, of course, unless you are doing something crazy like downloading cracks. But perception is everything.)

Comment Re:Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial jud (Score 1) 23

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

Comment Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial judge (Score 4, Informative) 23

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Submission + - Appeals court slams record companies on DMCA in Vimeo case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the long-simmering appeal in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Vimeo's positions on many points regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In its 55 page decision (PDF) the Court ruled that (a) the Copyright Office was dead wrong in concluding that pre-1972 sound recordings aren't covered by the DMCA, (b) the judge was wrong to think that Vimeo employees' merely viewing infringing videos was sufficient evidence of "red flag knowledge", and (c) a few sporadic instances of employees being cavalier about copyright law did not amount to a "policy of willful blindness" on the part of the company. The Court seemed to take particular pleasure in eviscerating the Copyright Office's rationales. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Vimeo had been submitted by a host of companies and organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Twitter.

Slashdot Top Deals

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum