Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Ask Slashdot: State of the Art In DIY Security Systems?

pirodude Many options (248 comments)

You are looking for either the HAI Omnipro II or the ELK M1 gold. Check out http://cocoontech.com/forums/ for all the information you will ever need.

about a year ago
top

Civil Suit Filed, Involving the Time Zone Database

pirodude PACER (433 comments)

COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTRAINING ORDER,
DAMAGES AND TRIAL BY JURY
Parties
1. Plaintiff, Astrolabe, Inc. [hereinafter “Astrolabe”], is a for-profit
Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business at 350 Underpass
Road, P.O. Box 1750, Brewster, Barnstable County, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts 02631, and is engaged in the business of publication, marketing
and sale, including computer software publications and/or programs
pertaining to the field of astrology.
2. Defendant, Arthur David Olson [hereinafter “Olson”], is an individual with a
last and usual residence at 7406 Hancock Avenue, #2, Takoma Park,
Maryland 20912, and with a usual an ordinary place of business as a computer
specialist at the Laboratory of Experimental Carcinogenesis, Building 37,
Room 4146A, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, 37
Convent Drive, MSC 4262, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
3. Defendant, Paul R. Eggert [hereinafter “Eggert”], is an individual with a last
and usual residence in the State of California, who is engaged in the business
of computer services and programming, and employed as a lecturer with the
University of California, Los Angeles, Computer Science Department, with a
principal business address of: UCLA Computer Science, Box 951596,
4532JBH, Los Angeles, Calfiornia 90095-1596.
Case 1:11-cv-11725-GAO Document 1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 5
Jurisdiction
4. Pursuant to a written agreement, Astrolabe is the copyright assignee of the
copyright owner, of certain copyright-protected computer software programs
and information contained therein, pursuant to the Copyright Protection Act,
17 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq., known as the “ACS Atlas,” consisting of both
the “ACS International Atlas,” and the “ACS American Atlas,” in the form of
computer software program(s) and/or data bases, and in the form of electronic
output and future electronic media from said programs [hereinafter “the Works”].
5. These atlases set forth interpretations of historical time zone information
pertaining to innumerable locations throughout the world, based upon the
compilation of historical research and documentation regarding applicable
time zones officially and/or in actuality in effect, given the actual latitude and
longitudes of specific locations throughout the world.
6. Upon information and belief, defendants Olson and Eggert have unlawfully
reproduced the Works, in violation of the Copyright Protection Act, without
proper permission and/or authorization from the copyright holder, and without
paying royalties due and payable to the copyright holder and/or its assignee,
Astrolabe, in computer software format.
7. Plaintiff, Astrolabe publishes, markets and sells its ACS Atlas programs (the
Works) for commercial profit purposes to, inter alia, those interested and/or
engaged in the business and field of astrology seeking to determine the
historical time at any given time in any particular location, world-wide.
8. In connection with its rights to reproduce the Works, plaintiff Astrolabe is
contractually obligated to pay royalties to the owner/assignor of the copyright
and the authors of the same.
Facts
9. Defendant Olson’s unauthorized reproduction of the Works have been
published at ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/tzarchive.qz, where the references to
historic international time zone data is replete with references to the fact that
the source for this information is, indeed, the ACS Atlas.
10. In connection with his unlawful publication of some and/or any portion of the
Works, defendant Olson has wrongly and unlawfully asserted that this
information and/or data is “in the public domain,” in violation of the
protections afforded by the federal copyright laws.
11. Defendant Eggert’s unauthorized reproduction of the Works have been
published at http://cs.ucla.edu/~eggert/tz/tz-link.htm
http://cs.ucla.edu/~eggert/tz/tz-art.htm, where the references to historic
Case 1:11-cv-11725-GAO Document 1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 5
international time zone data is replete with references to the fact that the
source for this information is, indeed, the ACS Atlas.
12. In connection with his unlawful publication of some and/or any portion of the
Works, defendant Eggert has wrongly and unlawfully asserted that this
information and/or data is “in the public domain,” in violation of the
protections afforded by the federal copyright laws.
13. On or about May 12, 2011, Astrolabe sent a “takedown notice” to both the
National Institute of Health [hereinafter “NIH”], and the University of
California Los Angeles hereinafter “UCLA”], which have failed and/or
refused to remove the unauthorized publication and copying of the Works.
See Exhibit 1, May 12, 2011, Letter to NIH, and Exhibit 2, May 12, 2011,
Letter to UCLA.
14. Despite having received copies of the letters attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and
2, defendants Olson and Eggert continue to unlawfully publish the Works,
without permission and/or authorization to do so.
Count I
Copyright Violation -- Olson
15. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the matters set forth above, as if fully set forth
herein, incorporating the same herein by reference, and further states:
16. In publishing any and/or all of the Works as set forth above, defendant Olson
has and does so in violation of the federal copyright protection laws of the
United States, to the detriment of plaintiff, Astrolabe.
17. Defendant Olson is well aware that the information and/or data wrongfully
and unlawfully published by him violates the plaintiff’s copyright in the
Works.
18. As a direct and proximate cause of defendant Olson’s unlawful and wrongful
publication of some and/or any portion of the Works, he has unlawfully
deprived plaintiff of income it would have otherwise derived from sales of the
same, and has wrongfully and unlawfully asserted that the information and/or
date taken from the Works is in the “public domain.”
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its
favor, and against the defendant Olson, and enter the following orders and/or judgments
of the Court:
A. Issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting defendant Olson from
unlawfully publishing any and/or some part of the Works;
Case 1:11-cv-11725-GAO Document 1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 5
B. Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant Olson from
unlawfully publishing any and/or some part of the Works;
C. Award plaintiff damages and such other amounts, including interest,
attorney’s fees and costs, for the unlawful and wrongful use of the Works.
D. Such other orders and/or relief the Court deems just, reasonable and
appropriate.
Count II
Copyright Violation -- Eggert
19. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the matters set forth above, as if fully set forth
herein, incorporating the same herein by reference, and further states:
20. In publishing any and/or all of the Works as set forth above, defendant Eggert
has and does so in violation of the federal copyright protection laws of the
United States, to the detriment of plaintiff, Astrolabe.
21. Defendant Eggert is well aware that the information and/or data wrongfully
and unlawfully published by him violates the plaintiff’s copyright in the
Works.
22. As a direct and proximate cause of defendant Eggert’s unlawful and wrongful
publication of some and/or any portion of the Works, he has unlawfully
deprived plaintiff of income it would have otherwise derived from sales of the
same, and has wrongfully and unlawfully asserted that the information and/or
date taken from the Works is in the “public domain.”
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its
favor, and against the defendant Eggert, and enter the following orders and/or judgments
of the Court:
A. Issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting defendant Eggert from
unlawfully publishing any and/or some part of the Works;
B. Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant Eggert from
unlawfully publishing any and/or some part of the Works;
C. Award plaintiff damages and such other amounts, including interest,
attorney’s fees and costs, for the unlawful and wrongful use of the Works.
Case 1:11-cv-11725-GAO Document 1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 4 of 5
D. Such other orders and/or relief the Court deems just, reasonable and
appropriate.

more than 3 years ago
top

How Do You Store Your Personal Photos?

pirodude Re:NAS + Online storage (680 comments)

I concur with SmugMug. I have their entry level account for $40/year and it's worth every cent for unlimited storage. Plus you can get back your original images very easily instead of compressed versions. Highly recommended.

more than 3 years ago
top

An Anonymous, Verifiable E-Voting Tech

pirodude Not completely 'secret' (236 comments)

If you're removing the candidate list from the side you keep, that means that the barcode somehow has your specific ordering of candidates stored. While this may be encrypted, the computer has a way of knowing for that specific ballot, what each option is for, which means that someone, somewhere, has access to that key to be able to determine how to get the per ballot candidate ordering.

That key will be much easier to get access to than people think, and once you do, you've compromised the secrecy of the entire election. Walk into your local election clerk's office and see if they're the type of person who could safely store and maintain a vital electronic key.

about 4 years ago
top

Mixed Reception To AT&T's New Data Pricing Scheme

pirodude Like electricity? Not quite. (514 comments)

When you pay your electric bill, you typically pay a flat rate (a connection charge) to your electric company for the transmission system, and a per kwh rate to them to buy electricity from any number of generating plants. Use 1 kwh or 1000kwh, your payment stays the same. Now if you want to jump to the next level (1ph 120v to 3ph 480v) then you pay a higher connection charge, but still don't pay more for your usage for the /transmission/ of the power.

If you want to follow that model then I'll gladly pay AT&T $5/month for their network transmission services, and a per MB rate that they can pass on to the webmasters and hosts of the websites that I visit.

more than 4 years ago
top

Would You Rent a Song For a Dime?

pirodude Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (580 comments)

If you wait too long between searching and picking one it will time out the download link due to the playToken expiring.  Just re-try the search and pick your number faster.

more than 6 years ago

Submissions

pirodude hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

pirodude has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?