- Dec 18, 2013
- 2,946
- 56,640
- 79
Older Folks and Vaping Back Porch - Part Seven
- Thread starter yiddleboge6
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Strictly to make you worry. No other reason. The conversation in the cockpit: "Let's do something to worry grandpa, who's watching the flight tracker."
Ya know I had 2 of those VTCminis ordered last night figuring they were like FT with free shipping but wanted $12 for their slowest shiping. So decided against it. Then I got to looking at my stuff up in the vape room and forgot all about the 3 Picos I have also so I don't need anything else except maybe 4 more K5's. I don't foresee anything happening to mine but you never know and they are such a great atty. Oh wait am I breaking any copyright laws mentioning that.
now, I don't know anything about it, but I think it is possible that the flight passed another going in the opposite direction, and the signals got confused?
Wow it's really weird here today. We live at the end of a really quiet cul de sac and we have had about 15 cars in the last couple hours go around. Thats more then we usually get in 2 days. I know that people really want to buy houses in this area because of the schools and every hoouse having to be on 1+ acre of ground. Everyone wants to get out of town and we have the best schools of any place in the area. I read a post on the Neighborhood web page. People are fighting over places here paying more then the asking prices. Guess that a good thing.
Yeah it could've just been a glitch because AA doesn't show that little detour. Same flight.
Here's a little tidbit you all may not be aware of. The MPAA and RIAA use bots to scour sites to see if there are any copyright infringements going on.
This is from the logs on another site I'm an admin on:
This is a Time Warner bot looking for copyright violations. We'd probably find something similar on ECF if we looked at the logs regularly.
So when we get heavy handed on copyright issues, there's a reason for it. While technically ECF falls under safe harbor laws, if we get a DMCA take down notice or a legal notice to provide information on a user who is breaking the law, we're obligated to comply.
This is from the logs on another site I'm an admin on:
Code:
[Thu Dec 17 08:05:25.939804 2015] [:error] [pid 9879] [client 67.79.4.126] ModSecurity: Access denied with code 403 (phase 2). Pattern match "(?i:(?:c(?:o(?:n(?:t(?:entsmartz|actbot/)|cealed defense|veracrawler)|mpatible(?: ;(?: msie|\\\\.)|-)|py(?:rightcheck|guard)|re-project/1.0)|h(?:ina(?: local browse 2\\\\.|claw)|e(?:rrypicker|esebot))|rescent internet toolpak)|w(?:e(?:b(?: (?:downloader|by ..." at REQUEST_HEADERS:User-Agent. [file "/usr/local/apache/conf/crs/activated_rules/modsecurity_crs_35_bad_robots.conf"] [line "27"] [id "990012"] [rev "2"] [msg "Rogue web site crawler"] [data "Jakarta"] [severity "WARNING"] [ver "OWASP_CRS/2.2.9"] [maturity "9"] [accuracy "9"] [tag "OWASP_CRS/AUTOMATION/MALICIOUS"] [tag "WASCTC/WASC-21"] [tag "OWASP_TOP_10/A7"] [tag "PCI/6.5.10"] [hostname "www.xxxxxxxxxx.org"] [uri "/"] [unique_id "VnKzFc8HVGUAACaX7DMAAAAD"]This is a Time Warner bot looking for copyright violations. We'd probably find something similar on ECF if we looked at the logs regularly.
So when we get heavy handed on copyright issues, there's a reason for it. While technically ECF falls under safe harbor laws, if we get a DMCA take down notice or a legal notice to provide information on a user who is breaking the law, we're obligated to comply.
Can somebody explain what's going on with the talk about copyright violations? Was there something posted that was removed? Was there something posted that could conceivably have been a copyright violation? If so, I need to make myself aware, because I didn't see anything that I'd have known might have constituted such a violation.
Cross talk between the "Cut the Cable" thread and here ..
And, Pat, with all due respect .. well, you know what I mean ..
Mee Too
I think I do but you can still mention titles of movies just not how you came about seeing them if it's other then one of the paid apps?
There's another thread where the discussions were leaning towards obtaining materials improperly without paying for the content.
No. That falls under trademark violations and that would between the trademark holder and the company making the clone. And considering a vast majority of the original mods were never trademarked............
It's all very cornfusing to me. Wondering if you can mention the addons as long as you don't mention what you were able to see on them, Titles, Stars and Teams and such?
"Oh wait am I breaking any copyright laws mentioning that." ..
That's a poke, and you know it .. sorry, bro, but it is what it is ..
- Status
Similar threads
