The group exploited a bug in WhatsApp to deliver the spyware. It wasn't an E2E issue.
> A U.S. judge ruled on Friday in favor of Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab WhatsApp in a lawsuit accusing Israel's NSO Group of exploiting a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.
There is certainly an economic utility to a more educated populous, but should that cost 30k+ in debt? If the ROI isn't there and the purpose is a general one for the economic benefit of the nation, shouldn't the taxpayer bear the cost of that?
This is actually the case where I live (the Netherlands). It has pros and cons of course, balancing of which has over time put some restrictions on the usage of the system (both subsidized college fees and separate study funding).
My understanding was that ads pay to be viewed, they can't get paid if you have it on background play and not watching. So they made it a premium feature and get paid by the subscription.
The Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
They do, but applications on these matters can easily overwhelm the financially weaker opponent. Interesting comment in one of the Post Office judgements:
"10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal."
Because there isn't much difference in the force between a 1m and a 8000m drop due to the above. So it really comes down to case, angle, and material onto which it was dropped with corners being more vulnerable.
There is. Dropping your phone follows a curve, it falling from 16,000ft it does not. There are more forces at play when you fumble your phone. They aren't necessarily stronger forces though...just more of them. Trajectory and spinning add different forces on top of gravity. There is also the catch attempt that invariably forces the phone down harder and changes the trajectory.
I believe the issue with Lovelace is that you may find less than PG results typing that on a search engine. Hence using Ada primarily on the marketing.
I think the complaint is more with the consumer card being 4xxx but this is 5000 both on the same architecture.
Yeah they have different naming conventions on the workstation cards;
Quadro RTX 4000
RTX A4000
RTX 4000 Ada
Unfortunately they’ve had 3 separate naming conventions in 3 successive generations. Those 4000 series cards are in the same position in the lineup for each generation.
I just went through this with our Dell rep. The generations aren't totally successive, if you count the non-Quadro RTX 4000 series, which is Ada generation but not part of the RTX 4000 Ada series.
Add to it the card variants, and there's a chance that you might still end up with the wrong part if your purchaser isn't careful.
The question would be, do you want to fight Disney lawyers to make the argument that your use was not as a trademark, represented as Disney, or that it might cause confusion? With or without a disclaimer.
I'm picking up on a lot of undertones in these comments and elsewhere something like an argument that while it may not technically be copyright infringement in 2024 onward, it will remain de facto off-limits simply from the threat of having to deal with lawsuits from Disney, no matter whether they're actually well-founded. What's missing from that argument is an acknowledgement that there are organizations for the public good that are more than willing to litigate over this (and happen to be bigger targets, too). Wikimedia, for example.
There is no DMCA analogue for trademarks, so, for example, YouTube has no obligation to automate trademark complaints or to resolve disputes between trademark owners and video creators, so almost every case will go through the court, and overloading courts with bogus cases can have consequences for them.
YouTube technically has no obligation to comply with DMCA takedown notices either; there is no direct financial penalty for failing to do so. Rather, the DMCA provides a "safe harbor" exempting YouTube from liability for infringement, then removes that safe harbor if they fail to comply with a takedown notice.
For trademarks, there simply is no safe harbor, and thus no conditions under which it can be removed. That means there isn't a codified process for YouTube to follow; but the stick they can be beaten with at the end of the day -- infringement litigation -- is the same in either case. You can bet they'll do what they can do avoid it.
It's probably too short. It would live authors with very little bargaining power particularly if they become bigger in their writing carriers. Corporations would just have to wait 20 years and save themselves the exclusive rights and royalties.
It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc. Realistically no author is thinking I won't create this art unless I get lifetime + 70.
I would think 50 years total is a much more reasonable figure.
40 years seems like the highest defensible limit. This would mean if you created a work in your 20s, copyright would expire when you're eligible for social security. It's safe to say that if you haven't made money on your work within nearly 2 generations since its publication and before you become a pensioner, you're not going to. Or it's at least not going to drive you to create new works.
Corporations can't wait even 20 years because tastes change. There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore. Also corporations can't have much margin on public domain material; there's too much competition if anyone can publish it, and for digital creations they'd be competing with legal p2p sharing. So they need that exclusivity.
> There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore.
Perhaps not for Sum 41. But how about Beatles? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Metallica?
I don't know if people will still be listening to Swift and Eilish in 50 years from now, but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..
Not all copyright is owned or even licensed to organisations.
It really is a bad feel if you created something, then 20 years later someone releases the exact thing you created and make millions and you don't get a cent of that money.
Also many people after retirement age probably need the income from royalties a little bit more than when they were in their prime, not less.
The comment I responded to said eons to come. I’m perfectly ok with tying copyright expiry to death of the artist, plus a little extra for the immediate family. I don’t, however, think that someone should be entitled to free money just because their great grandparents or other ancestor was a successful artist, the same way I don’t agree that someone should be entitled to free money because their ancestors happened to start a bank or oil company or be a monarch or whatever.
A simple, naive solution I've seen proposed would enable copyright extension on an exponential fee scale.
This has the nice side effect of wildly-successful works disproportionately funding the copyright offices, thus enabling theoretically lower fees for newcomers.
> Corporations can't wait even 20 years because tastes change.
Corporations create the taste. They can even wait hundreds of years. Just look at how many old stories are remade today. Unless there is something extraordinary, hyped for longer than a summer, they will wait all they want.
>It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc
I agree, I don't see how 20 years isn't long enough from that pov.
What company is going to wait 20 years before signing a book deal, film deal, etc.
Further. This still ignores the fact that there's value to having the original creator attached. You don't want the author of the book trashing your new film, you want them promoting it.
Most licence terms already include a term to change the terms. So technically once you buy it, install it, and agree to it, you are also agreeing the terms may change. They probably also have arbitration clauses you are agreeing to so you can't directly sue them either.
That's why they get you to agree to new terms and conditions with an update, or when there is a new TC you get a lovely email or whatever to ignore. Either you don't accept it so you don't get the update or you don't accept them and you can't continue to use the service if you don't accept the new terms.
The consideration for the change is getting the new features, updates, or using the services.
> Under the rules, the registrar will not approve a name if it is offensive and not in the public interest. It also will not approve given names that are more than 50 characters, include symbols, or an official title or rank such as princess, Queen, or goddess.
Shame, it doesn't seem to violate policy. They should have been forced to do a full legal name change, and a welfare check on the other kids wouldn't be out of line either.
> A U.S. judge ruled on Friday in favor of Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab WhatsApp in a lawsuit accusing Israel's NSO Group of exploiting a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.