Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security

Submission + - MPAA Spying Case To Be Appealed (torrentfreak.com) 1

esocid writes: Back in 2005, the MPAA hired Robert Anderson, a former associate of TorrentSpy's owner, to illegally obtain internal emails and trade secrets. He did so by routing the email from the internal server to his own Gmail account. He subsequently sold 34 pages of stolen information for $15,000 to the MPAA. TorrentSpy owner Justin Bunnel sued them for spying, but however lost the case due to a ruling that stated it was not illegal since the information was not intercepted under the Wiretap Act. The EFF called this decision a "dangerous attempt to circumvent privacy laws," since it implies that the unauthorized interception of anyone's personal email is legal. The appeal could have ramifications for MPAA president Dan Glickman, as the decision is expected around the time of his contract renewal.

Comment Yet one more reason.... (Score 1) 393

to avoid doing direct business with Microsoft. They can and will pull the plug at any time without notice and leave you hanging. Worse, they are in such a position to do so with little recourse. For this reason alone, this wannabe pub owner (ex-Microsoft employee?) should have known to not rely on Microsoft to follow through.

The first mistake, however, was to assume that it was appropriate to place a pub on corporate grounds anyway. This has a big red flag all over it. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't have questioned this move up front.
The Courts

Submission + - Copyright Scholar Challenges RIAA/DOJ Position (blogspot.com) 1

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Leading Copyright Law scholar Prof. Pamela Samuelson, of the University of California law school, has published a 'working paper' which directly refutes the position taken by the US Department of Justice in RIAA cases on the constitutionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theories. The Department of Justice had argued in its briefs that the Court should follow a 1919 United States Supreme Court case which upheld the constitutionality of a statutory damages award that was 116 times the actual damages sustained, under a statute which gave consumers a right of action against railway companies. The Free Software Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the view that the more modern, State Farm/Gore test applied by the United States Supreme Court to punitive damages awards is controlling. The paper with Prof. Samuelson is consistent with the FSF brief, and contradicts the DOJ briefs, arguing that the Gore test should be applied. A full copy of the paper, in *pdf format, is available for download online here."
The Courts

Submission + - MP3 of RIAA Argument Available Online (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Download this: an MP3 file of the hearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, over whether a lower court proceeding in an RIAA case can be made available online, is now available online. The irony of course is palpable, not only because a court which freely makes its proceedings available across the internet is being asked by the RIAA, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, to prevent the district court from making similar proceedings available across the internet, but also because the end product is an MP3 file which can be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through p2p file sharing, and even "remixed". The legal arguments focused on relatively narrow issues: the interpretation of a rule enacted in the District Court of Massachusetts, and the legal effect of a resolution by the First Circuit Judicial Council, rather than on broader First Amendment grounds."
Microsoft

Submission + - Microsoft order to pay $388 million in patent case 1

jeffmeden writes: BusinessWeek reports today that Microsoft suffered a loss in federal court Monday. The judge rendering the verdict ordered Microsoft to pay $388 Million in damages for violating a patent held by Uniloc, a California maker of software that prevents people from illegally installing software on multiple computers. Uniloc claims Microsoft's Windows XP and some Office programs infringe on a related patent they hold. It's hard to take sides on this one but one thing is certain, should the verdict hold up it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million.

Comment Re:Easy solution (Score 1) 414

This only works as long as the jurors are in the courthouse. As soon as they go home for the day, all bets are off. If the trial is that important, then the only solution is for the judge to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial and prevent them from using internet devices, reading newspapers and watching television.

Comment Will JJ's vision be enough to revive Trek? (Score 1) 444

Even from the trailers for the new film, I don't see this leading to a long term franchise. We've already had a re-incarnated TOS through Enterprise that didn't really work. I'm not sure why JJ is trying to do it over again. If Enterprise couldn't reinvigorate the series, I seriously doubt that JJ's vision will either.

Worse, we're going back to the origins to try to bring in a younger version of the TOS crew. We've already visited TOS so the rules are set. Enterprise was before TOS and we knew the rules there. Trying to create something that fits between Enterprise and TOS is too small of a time frame to fill with meaningful plots.

To create something to invigorate the Trek brand will take a complete overhaul which will not be in JJ's movie. In fact, I believe it would need to consist of all new stories, new characters and a new context (where the rules don't have to apply). It should probably be set substantially in the future far away from TOS and Enterprise, TNG/DS9/Voyager. All of those show's plot threads need to stay closed. Putting it far enough into the future could allow the rules to change substantially and also the technology. But, keep just enough of the hierarchy and structure of the federation to keep it familiar.

By setting up a new show in this way allows the new series the freedom to do what it needs to do. With JJ's film leaching off of old characters, plots and hardware just ensures it to be a prequel. So, ultimately, JJ's film (and sequels to it) end(s) up saddled with rules that it cannot break... and if it does break the rules, then it's just viewed inconsistent (like Nemesis). A brand new franchise set in the future wouldn't need to uphold any of the old rules. A new show could start fresh with its own new set of rules that it can build upon. This change is what I believe is needed to reinvigorate the Trek franchise.

Although, I will withhold my ultimate judgment until after I've seen JJ's film.

Slashdot Top Deals

"This isn't brain surgery; it's just television." - David Letterman

Working...