Slashdot Mirror

Finally this is our chance to make Congress liken spammers to cyber-terrorists, and for a reason politicians fear and know well enough to do something about it: "Now some of the spammers are even building a network of worm-ridden computers, possibly at the fingertips of a madman who is willing to do anything for money, and may only be waiting to turn them into Weapons of Mass Disruption, wreaking havoc to the Nation, the Internet, and e-mail as we know it..." (spooky, huh? ;-))
Outlaw spammers, put an end to spam. Sometimes it's as simple as that. (And it works: Haven't seen much fax spam for years...)
Just be "Mr. Concerned Citizen" for once and send articles like this to your congresscritter now. Let them know what spammers have already done "to your kids" (rather omit the "to your p...s" part even if you've ordered their pills and pumps) "and to your computers".

You're right.

Should have been This. The bill text PDF's were correct though.

What will this legislation look like once it's ready for the president? How many riders will be attached? Will Alaska be open for drilling?

The DO-NOT-CALL issue is so popular that I'd be surprised if it survives in it's currently lean form.

Or you could just read the full text of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.316 1: so you will see that neither are correct.
At least I would love to see someone argue there are loopholes there. :)

Sorry, try again.

thomas.loc.gov searches are time based. Results expire quickly. You need to find a more permanent link (house)

The text of the bill can be found here (House, PDF). Or here (Senate, PDF)

Well this isn't exactly an answer to your question, the reason they could pass this bill so easily is because it only consists of a few sentences. Text of the Bill

In case anyone's interested, the actual text of the bill that was just passed is here.

Remember, Google knows MORE than you do.

How do they handle ILLs when they cross provincial boundries? Is a copy of every science journal ever printed available somewhere in Saskatchewan? Of course OCLC has competitors for many of its services -- Those upstarts at the LOC and the Bibliotheque nationale de France among them. But I doubt they worry too much about Saskatchewan.

In case you're interested in how exactly the LCC (Library of Congress Classification) works, check out this page at the Library of Congress' website. Shows a complete breakdown of how it works, what all the categories are, etc.

This one's not open source but at least it's public domain AFAIK : the Library of Congress classification system.

I've already done a Web site with content classified under Dewey rules, so that means I could have get sued ? Gee, that IP Scheisse is getting sillier by the day...

They really should use The Library of Congress' Classification -- it's currently in use by (most?) libraries, and no one owns a trademark on it!

I didn't want to politicize the discussion beyond the fact that it is politically significant when people deal technology to China.

Your comment doesn't make sense. I have to imagine that is why you posted anonymously. You forget the Marshall plan where we spent (in today's dollars) hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Europe. That's right, the U.S.A. spent ALL that money over there helping to get things straight after WW2.

Everything worth doing takes time and everything that is valuable is worth fighting for. Even more importantly, it is worth LIVING for. I would die for freedom. For my own freedom, and for yours.

From the article:

Until 1978, copyright only lasted 52 years in the U.S. -- and then only if you remembered to renew it. There were other technical lapses that could result in the inadvertent loss of copyright -- it wasn't really user-friendly.

Sure it was, once you realize that copyright was never meant to grant a copyright holder perpetual income. Copyright was meant to be an incentive to publish, part of a bargain with the public. So a limited term of copyright (which we don't have today thanks to retroactive term extension) that expires well within someone's lifetime (which we also don't have today) were both good things. Mark Twain fought this and we (as a society) are better off for his not having gotten his wish in his lifetime. If the term of copyright was then what it is now, we wouldn't have as many of his works to share (we might not have any, they might all be tightly controlled by his estate like Mitchell or Gershwin's estate handles their works). You don't spur society to publish more work by granting them everlasting power to deem how the work can be disseminated and built upon.

I think it's reasonable to say far more works would have been lost to time because nobody could legally preserve them by copying them (a time-honored means of saving knowledge for future readers). The Public Domain Enhancement Act (H.R. 2601) attempts to restore a more reasonable effective term of copyright without violating on the Bern treaty. I encourage everyone to contact their congresspeople to co-sponsor this act.

Once you recognize that nobody makes ideas in a vacuum and we all base everything we think and do on the work of others, you get to a point where you begin to question the underlying assumptions of copyright and anyone who pitches copyright as property (a prejudicial term, at the least). I wonder about a far shorter term of copyright and whether society would benefit from not allowing certain expressions to not have copyright power at all (such as non-free software which remains non-free even after it would enter the public domain because the source code for the program is never revealed).

How much weight do we put behind that, though?

I mean, just look at all the bills President Bush has vetoed from the 107th and 108th Congresses.

How much weight do we put behind that, though?

I mean, just look at all the bills President Bush has vetoed from the 107th and 108th Congresses.

I would suggest you go down to city hall. Just being there will give you a bit more insight of what it is like. It's kind of like installing a new operating system. You can kind of figure out basically what it is like from pictures you have seen and properties you have read about, but you get a better picture from what is going on from trying it out.

Also, government is a huge hierarchy as you might already know, I guess like a filesystem. So you have your local, state, and country.

Cities
Pretty much all large cities have a website where you can download the city code or get information on various meetings and events that will allow you to get involved. Don't bitch about city decisions unless you don't take the effort to acquaint yourselves with current happenings every month or so. To visit your city website alter the "XX" in the following URL to reflect your state abbreviation (ie. ca - california, ny - new york)

http://www.statelocalgov.net/local-XX.htm

State
Your state government is the accumulation of all local governments within a set boundry. Do the same thing with the following URL as the one above.

http://www.statelocalgov.net/state-XX.htm

National
Here we have all those states to create a national charter of if...then statements governing your way of life. These are ultimate and cannot be evaded by each lesser government (local, state). It should be noted that those smaller governments can choose to enact various further restrictions that they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the national charter.

Here are two portals for the huge national government.

Library of congress portal - Executive (links to the other two branches of government, Legislative, and Judicial are at top the top.)

Official Federal Gov portal site

A bit more on elections specifically
Relatively recently unveiled on slashdot , Project opengov contains a wealth of information. I would recommend spending much of your time here to acquaint yourselves with the people running your government.

Alternatively, enter your zipcode to get quick summary of who's working for you in government. Project vote-smart

There are a few other good sites, one at the tip of my tongue, it features detailed financial recordings of government election campaigns. I'm sure you have enough data to grok though ;)

Knowledge is power.

I would suggest you go down to city hall. Just being there will give you a bit more insight of what it is like. It's kind of like installing a new operating system. You can kind of figure out basically what it is like from pictures you have seen and properties you have read about, but you get a better picture from what is going on from trying it out.

Also, government is a huge hierarchy as you might already know, I guess like a filesystem. So you have your local, state, and country.

Cities
Pretty much all large cities have a website where you can download the city code or get information on various meetings and events that will allow you to get involved. Don't bitch about city decisions unless you don't take the effort to acquaint yourselves with current happenings every month or so. To visit your city website alter the "XX" in the following URL to reflect your state abbreviation (ie. ca - california, ny - new york)

http://www.statelocalgov.net/local-XX.htm

State
Your state government is the accumulation of all local governments within a set boundry. Do the same thing with the following URL as the one above.

http://www.statelocalgov.net/state-XX.htm

National
Here we have all those states to create a national charter of if...then statements governing your way of life. These are ultimate and cannot be evaded by each lesser government (local, state). It should be noted that those smaller governments can choose to enact various further restrictions that they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the national charter.

Here are two portals for the huge national government.

Library of congress portal - Executive (links to the other two branches of government, Legislative, and Judicial are at top the top.)

Official Federal Gov portal site

A bit more on elections specifically
Relatively recently unveiled on slashdot , Project opengov contains a wealth of information. I would recommend spending much of your time here to acquaint yourselves with the people running your government.

Alternatively, enter your zipcode to get quick summary of who's working for you in government. Project vote-smart

There are a few other good sites, one at the tip of my tongue, it features detailed financial recordings of government election campaigns. I'm sure you have enough data to grok though ;)

Knowledge is power.

... from the desk of the reporter

No. The code pertaining to the hiring of nonimmigrant workers on H-1B visas is publically available. The bill states that H-1B dependent employers must certify that no domestic American workers were available or diplaced at the time when the H-1B worker was hired. The catch is that practically no companies are "H-1B dependent employers,"--see the bill for the formal definition--So none of them actually have to show this. However, they are likely still in violation since they must attest to paying the H-1B workers a prevailing wage, which many do not. If you personally know of a company which is in violation then you can file a complaint with the DOL by using this form. If you don't like the H-1B visa program you can help to get it repealed. There is a bill in congress now which does just that. If you are in favor of this bill, then tell your representatives about it.

The Audio Home Recording Act only allows first-generation recordings - not making copies of copies of copies of copies. Look here.

The DMCA didn't outlaw making copies - it still allows fair use copies - see page 4 of this PDF.

"KaZaA has done an incredible job of attracting young people to their site, and as a result they have been really able to attack children."(emphasis mine)

Give me a break...
I had to laugh when i read this though.

It examined 157 files downloaded in response to three search terms of interest to children -- Britney, Pokemon and Olsen twins. It classified 49 percent of those files as pornographic.

2 things.

1) Britney... No kiddin. Look to MTV for the reasons there! I believe that many outraged people (who wrote piles of letters to newspapers) would consider the 2-second kiss to be of that nature.

2) So, the lessons to be learned here are:

a) Files can have misleading search information associated with them, and
b) Some people will use "common" search terms to attract attention to specific files that have no association with them.

A study in March by the General Accounting Office found that KaZaA would be effective for someone looking for child pornography. The agency searched for 12 terms associated with child pornography, such as "incest" and "underage." It did not actually download the files it found, but it determined that 42 percent of them had titles or descriptions associated with pornographic images of children. (emphasis mine)

Well of course they say they didn't download them, admitting they did if they did would be a crime.

But wait, didn't we learn from 2a & 2b above that often people use search terms to attract attention to files that don't necessarily have any association, just to generate interest?

Non sequitur and propaganda, plain and simple.
So which US slashgeeks are going to run for office and replace these incompetent people?

Toss the two named terms in google and find dozens of "legitimate" sites seeking the same type of attention.

This is sad.

-dave-

Looking for YOUR peer-to-porn engine? Get it here!

H.R.2885

Check the cosponsor list, your congressperson might be one!

For more info: Bill Summary & Status

H.R.2885

Check the cosponsor list, your congressperson might be one!

For more info: Bill Summary & Status

H.R.2885

Check the cosponsor list, your congressperson might be one!

For more info: Bill Summary & Status

H.R. 2885

... from the Gettysburg Address.

The original link I wanted to show: Full text of DMCA legislation

I also found this: DMCA Summary (i.e. written in plain English) Look at page 8. Specifically, Title II Section 512. There are provisions there for ISPs. This section was added so that ISPs should not be held liable to what their users are doing. You are required, once you receive a subpoena, to reveal the identity of the person in question. However, this can be impossible if you run a wireless AP and don't log MACs or you can even claim that the person was using a fake MAC. In any case, you have a lot of leeway.

Anyone hit by the RIAA extortion lawsuit should claim ISP rights!

The original link I wanted to show: Full text of DMCA legislation

I also found this: DMCA Summary (i.e. written in plain English) Look at page 8. Specifically, Title II Section 512. There are provisions there for ISPs. This section was added so that ISPs should not be held liable to what their users are doing. You are required, once you receive a subpoena, to reveal the identity of the person in question. However, this can be impossible if you run a wireless AP and don't log MACs or you can even claim that the person was using a fake MAC. In any case, you have a lot of leeway.

Anyone hit by the RIAA extortion lawsuit should claim ISP rights!

DMCA Section 202.512.(a)

Consider linking to the bill in a way that will work once the entry expires from their cache. From their FAQ on this issue:

How do I link a particular part of THOMAS to my own web site?

You can create a permanent link to a bill, a list of bills, a committee report, or any other search result by using UNIX GET or POST protocols. Details about how to do this are found in the Direct Links to THOMAS Documents document. It is necessary to use these protocols because the URL addresses you see when you execute a search, are temporary addresses and will expire in about 30 minutes. Thus, there is no point in bookmarking a search result.

All the material on THOMAS is in the public domain, and no special permission is required to use it in any way.

HR 2239 (from the 108th Congress) should get you what you want.

Consider linking to the bill in a way that will work once the entry expires from their cache. From their FAQ on this issue:

How do I link a particular part of THOMAS to my own web site?

You can create a permanent link to a bill, a list of bills, a committee report, or any other search result by using UNIX GET or POST protocols. Details about how to do this are found in the Direct Links to THOMAS Documents document. It is necessary to use these protocols because the URL addresses you see when you execute a search, are temporary addresses and will expire in about 30 minutes. Thus, there is no point in bookmarking a search result.

All the material on THOMAS is in the public domain, and no special permission is required to use it in any way.

HR 2239 (from the 108th Congress) should get you what you want.

Consider linking to the bill in a way that will work once the entry expires from their cache. From their FAQ on this issue:

How do I link a particular part of THOMAS to my own web site?

You can create a permanent link to a bill, a list of bills, a committee report, or any other search result by using UNIX GET or POST protocols. Details about how to do this are found in the Direct Links to THOMAS Documents document. It is necessary to use these protocols because the URL addresses you see when you execute a search, are temporary addresses and will expire in about 30 minutes. Thus, there is no point in bookmarking a search result.

All the material on THOMAS is in the public domain, and no special permission is required to use it in any way.

HR 2239 (from the 108th Congress) should get you what you want.

is someone who's not afraid of a $250,000 max. fine and a 5 year max. federal prison sentence to electronically write in Kermit the Frog for president. Seems like it would be impossible change the outcome of even a local election without getting caught if the election wasn't tight, but not that hard if it was.

If you're diabolical enough to want to change the outcome of an election for whatever reason, you could probably find a way to circumvent any elections system, be they paper ballots or mind reading machines from the 24 and a half century. Either by direct bribes to registered voters, or dissuading blocks of voters through disinformation, etc.

As others have said, support the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 by writing or calling your representative. At least we can try to make it harder for fraud to occur.

Don't just complain, act: There is a bill in Congress introduced by Rush Holt, D-NJ. It is called "The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003". It is H.R. 2239. It currently has 29 cosponsors and needs more support. The Summary page is here. The press page is here. Congress is in session again now. Contact your Congressperson and demand they support this bill. It would require a voter-verifiable paper trail.

"...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

But of course, anyone who believes such drivel is a right-wing nut (as opposed to a right wing-nut, in which case you were born to be screwed.)</humor>

Dean G.

Xix.

The only adverb defintion for verbatim given in Webster's Diectionary says, in its entirety, "in the exact words : word for word." Your first two sentences argue that verbatim copying did not occur.

[...] He cannot use this code in his own software, it flat out doesn't belong to him. [...]

If there is no law making something illegal, it's generally legal (although some broadly written laws can theoretically make a lot of things illegal). You haven't quoted a law that defines a penalty on which he could be prosecuted, nor have you identified a law that creates a private right of action on which he could be sued. Indeed, you haven't quoted or even identified a single law, court decision or any other reference in this entire discussion. I don't know what you mean by "belong" in this theory, given that copyrights in the United States are not derived from a theory of property, but rather from a power of congress in article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; [...]." "Sweat of the brow" copyright theory has been explicity rejected by the Supreme Court (Feist v. Rural). One can imagine all sorts of legal systems that might be possible, and that might be useful for writing science fiction, but that is not a substitute for information about what our laws happen to be.

However, I am not a lawyer, so one should still not rely on anything I've said as legal advice.

Your challenge occasioned me to (re)read the DMCA

The clause I had in mind was 1201(a) [attached]. While the tone of the act suggests it applies to performances and literary works, it is my understanding that it applies to software/firmware/devices as well. It was clearly the intent of Dell that you click to agree and by circumventing this process you are availing yourself of whatever IP is inside the computer, thus circumventing the copyright protection system.

Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

There's a reason that professional librarians go to graduate school to learn how to do essential "librarian" things like cataloging. Any database of this nature will collapse in on itself and be completely useless without things such as language control. This is another case where a techie with a really good idea should first consult with a professional librarian before trying to re-invent the wheel.

Curious for more about this story, the best background I found was here.. Also, this bill seems to be starting down a better path toward a publicly viewable system. Not sure about the paper trail part though.

Funny. That's not what the Founding Fathers said. You'd think an orginization devoted to defending the Bill of Rights would have at least read it's user manual.

<paranoid rant>

You see, GE could give a shit about wind power. All you have to do is follow the money. First of all check out the Energy Policy Act of 2003, as Senator Domenici (NM) promises it will fix a whole laundry list of problems with our energy supply (real and percieved). Do` we really need a new Under Secretary position for energy and science as well as two new Assistant Secretary positions: one for science and one for nuclear energy, I digress.

Anways Being from New Mexico, the home of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories Don't be so shocked when Domenici's bill is pro nuclear.

Well, John Rice President and CEO GE Power Systems, recently (May 8) sez he's cautiously optimistic that there will be a new nuclear facility in the United States and has spoken with half-dozen major nuclear utilities about building a new reactor .

And I suppose since GE is a member of United States Energy Association and gave about $9 Million in campaign contributions (since 1990), It probably has some say into Domenici's Energy Bill which provisions for up to 8-10 new 1100MW nuclear reactors that The taxpayers (read you and I) would pay, through loans, 50% of the costs to build these. And according to the Congressional Budget Office the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high - well above 50 percent(p.11). The CBO also figures that each of these will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3Billion.

< /paranoid rant >

So why the hell would GE develop it's patents on Wind Turbines when the Good Ol US of A is gonna spend $52.6Billion over the next 10 years (p.1) on the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

Just follow the money....

"...Second Amendment was to protect the regime both from outside and inside dangers, that it's worked for over two centuries so far and that it's something unheard of in modern history."

Besides that, I have been reading up on U.S. history and found a list of U.S. conflicts in the past, which gave me the basis in searching for the events of the U.S.-Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. From what I have read so far the U.S., having the ideology of a "manifest destiny", was close to a colonial state as it tries to "embrace other countries into its loving arms" so to speak. With this in mind, it seems that the U.S. had no direct outside threat that needed protecting against, in which the 2nd amendment was put to use but an inside conflict: the civil war. Some can say that the Civil war might not have been as long and bloody as it was if the there wasn't a 2nd amendment since in this case the 2nd amendment was used to protect the citizens from the same threat which strenthened because of the 2nd amendment. That meant that the 2nd Amendment was "improperly" from what the Founding Fathers intended it for by being used by people who benefitted from the tyrannical control of slaves, which was abolished by the government, instead of being used to defend against a tyrannical government.

If what I wrote was true (and please correct me if I am wrong) the 2nd amendment did not "work" to protect the U.S. from outside threat because it did not have an outside threat to protect itself against. In the Civil War's case, the 2nd amendment protected people from itself which makes it seem more redundant and being worst instead of superior and helped lengthened what could of been a shorter war if the citizens did not have a strong bond to own a weapon because it was a constutionally protected right. This is all based of course on your original statement that it "...it's worked...." before protecting the U.S.

I am interested in your point of view being a resident (I believe) of the U.S. Thanks.

BTW, I just like to say that I dislike the post which are not insightful and has an insulting, close-minded mood. This devoids the purpose of a debate.

But to explain further, the GPL pretty much grants one the right to make copies, and the only condition is that, if you alter the source, you are requested to contribute your alterations.

That, unto itself, is a copyright license - it grants the right to copy to whoever uses the product licensed under such.

But it is not a copywrite.

This explains copyright.,p> This explains what a copywriter does, which is write copy. Copywrite is what a copywriter does, and it's broadcast radio jargon. You can copyright a copywrite, and copywrite a copyright, bu they are not interchangeable.

Inventors for all practical purposes now means corporate entities, because if they can ban the tools required to investigate and experiment with technology, then the era of the individual inventor is over. The ability of corporations to stifle scientific investigation now rivals that of the Inquisition.

Now the question isn't "what can I invent?", but "can I afford a lawyer to defend my right to invent?"

I actually feel physically sick.

Well, according to my crude calculations, it can hold 0.000769231 libraries of congress, working on the basis that they have 2.6 million recordings, which if (and it's a big if) they encode them like I encode my music (190k oggs), average out at about 5mb each.

Giving and impressive 13 *terra*bytes of recordings. And according to my rusty maths, 10gb is 0.000769231 of 13tb.

QED

"What I would call the tyrany of the majority."

yes, the tyranny of the majority is a well established argument against democracy. However your argument applies equally to a Republic and a true Democracy. As in a democratic Republic the will of the majority is still expressed through representatives. So, the wolves have two representatives in Congress and the sheep one. Or in the case of redistricting, the wolves have 3 representatives and the sheep none. So, if they are still voting on who is for dinner, how is the situation different? The wolves will likely vote for their wolf constituents and let dinner ensue. A representative form of government does nothing to counter the tyranny of the majority. It is only by a constitution which can be changed only by super-majority that limits the authority of the government with respect to individual rights which can counter the tyranny of the majority. But the point is that such a constitution can apply to a true democracy as well as a republic.

"As you say, the U.S. and other constitutional democracies have checks and balances to counter-act such abuses from the majority."

I still disagree with the watering down of the word democracy. Democratic Republic is how I would describe the form of government in the US. The Federal System is Democratic in that people vote for something, but it is not a Democracy. Constitutiuon as a description of government is irrelevent, since nearly all forms of government have some type of constitution, some good some very bad.

Also, a declaration of rights or mere acknowledgement of rights is not a constitution, and if you read it carefully the US constitution does not declare rights either. It acknowledges them and limits the United States government from infringing upon them. Just compare the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" found here to the US Constitution
To someone unconcerned with language they may appear like they would have similar effect, but any computer programmer that can read english should be able to tell you that one of these documents is meant to be put to work and the other is meant to be looked at.

To quote GNU's website:

Copyleft and the GNU GPL
The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software from being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is called "copyleft".(1)

Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it becomes a means of keeping software free.

The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute modified versions--but not permission to add restrictions of their own. Thus, the crucial freedoms that define "free software" are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.

Some links I found usefull:
A Software Copyright Primer
US Copyright Office Website