Slashdot Mirror

He's been doing one hell of a job, though once in a blue moon I think he might let some companies off too easily. AG's do have discretion to do that though.

Besides, NY has a pretty advanced system for getting people in touch with their lost money

Eliot Spitzer does a lot of good internet work, like suing spammers and enforcing privacy rights, and today he will announce a settlement with five major music labels to force them to pay illegally-withheld royalties to musicians. He's got my vote when he runs for governor.

In the article: It's already illegal by New York state law to operate Segways, motorized scooters, and the like on streets, sidewalks, and parks. The ban makes it illegal to do anything with it except own the thing (I suppose you could carry it to New Jersey or something...) So, what they're basically trying to do is have a stronger reason to stop and fine someone trying to use a vehicle which is already illegal to operate in public, as well as completely stop its introduction. NY DMV's stance on motorized vehicles

That's how New York works. It's pretty interesting to. If you don't actually look at the instructions they provide you with a handy dandy little chart to compute the tax owed based on your income. This is supposed to cover all purchases less then a thousand dollars. But only at the end do they mention that you can put a zero in this line. I wonder how many people that skim through their taxes just paid it without even looking at what it was? Quite the cash cow for the state.

They do apply it to everything though. Quoted from the instructions for IT-201 (the New York State standard tax return):

When do you owe sales or use tax?

You owe state and local sales or use tax if you:

• purchase property or a service which is delivered to you in New York State without payment of New York State and local tax to the seller, such as through the Internet, by catalog, from television shopping channels, or on an Indian reservation.

You may also owe state and local sales or use tax if you are a resident of New York State at the time of purchase and you purchase any of the following outside the state:

• property you bring into New York State for use here;
• a service performed on property outside New York State and you bring that property into New York State for use here; or
• a service (such as an information service) you bring into New York State for use here.

(You may be eligible for a credit for sales or use tax paid to another state. See Instructions for Worksheets 1, 2, and 3, Column D, on page 38.) However, you are not required to pay state or local sales or use tax on any property or service that you bring into New York State which you purchased outside of the state before you became a resident of New York State.

You may owe an additional local tax if you are a resident of a locality (county or city) at the time of purchase and you:

• bring property into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate;
• bring property into that locality on which you had a taxable service performed in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate; or
• bring a service (such as an information service) into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate.

However, you are not required to pay any additional local tax on any property or service that you bring into a locality in New York State that you purchased outside that locality before you became a resident of that locality.

So it's not just the Internet they are going after. I don't know what I'm going to do with mine (haven't filed yet). I don't think putting a zero down is a good idea -- it could be considered fraud. That said many tax professionals have told me in the past that they won't audit you unless the amount of cash they can get back is greater then the cost of the audit. It probably wouldn't be worth their time unless you buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff off the 'net or in a catalog.

I'm impressed that it's 18 states doing this. I thought only New York and California pulled this sort of stuff. Guess all the budget crises probably have something to do with it?

You might want to look into it further, but if your not a NY resident you might not be subject to NY sales tax. At least that's how it works here in Washington state.

Their have however been attempts to introduce legislation pertaining to ATM safety in general, both on the federal and on the state level (the only example that I'm personally familiar with being NY (see here and here) .

Their have however been attempts to introduce legislation pertaining to ATM safety in general, both on the federal and on the state level (the only example that I'm personally familiar with being NY (see here and here) .

And lawyers! Three cheers for lawyers everyone - specifically, state attorney's in New York and Florida as well as the Federal Trade Commission.

Geeks and Attorneys! Together, we're unstoppable.

Hmmm...

From the NYS department of labor UI site:

CONDITIONS THAT AFFECT ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS

Claimants are ineligible for benefits if:

5. They are not totally unemployed. No benefits are payable for any day on which they performed some work whether
full-time or part-time, or on a self-employed or freelance basis.

I couldn't find anything about having to be paid for self-employed work and I'm not a labor lawyer. Are you?

> Where does SPAM originate? Meet Scott Richter.

1. Blocking all IP traffic to/from 69.6.0.0/18 will make some of the symptoms of this go away.

2. The 600-plus-page document compiled by the NY AG and staff was here:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/dec/syn2.pdf and has been mirrored by someone here:
http://www.pc-radio.com/syn2.pdf

I looked up the IP address ranges on ARIN Whois, and got the following records Wholesale Bandwidth Inc (the /18) and My Email Wizard (the /24) from Westminster, CO.

There is no law against this "false advertising." There IS a law against fraud

Are you sure about that?

fraud
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

False advertising IS a form of fraud. The state of NY has specific laws and penalties for false advertising, I'm sure other states do also.

A study by Cornell University estimates that as much as 60k deer a year are killed in NY state alone per year by cars. Add in the other states multiplied by 20 years and it looks pretty staggering. Take into consideration the side effects of human loss and property damage along with that and it makes these bird incedents look like nothing. These people probably like the anti-turbine battle because shutting down the turbines would not directly effect them. Take their cars away so they don't hit a deer and see how many are left to fight for that.

The original poster seems to have missed the story. OptInRealBig spammer Scott Richter isn't "looking for attention" -- he's being prosecuted for fraud. His (implausible) claims about a deal with Brightmail have been disclosed in emails gathered as evidence by the New York Attorney General's office (that's a 2.5 MB PDF, Richter's Brightmail allegations are on p.90-91).

The original poster seems to have missed the story. OptInRealBig spammer Scott Richter isn't "looking for attention" -- he's being prosecuted for fraud. His (implausible) claims about a deal with Brightmail have been disclosed in emails gathered as evidence by the New York Attorney General's office (that's a 2.5 MB PDF, Richter's Brightmail allegations are on p.90-91).

America didn't give up on trains -- large auto manufactures diverted funds into building roads, dismantled our railroads, and used propaganda to get the public looking the other way.

New York's registry requires that people using the search enter their own address. I think this might be a new feature, last time I saw the registry I don't remember having to give up my info.

Actually in the above scenario (far-fetched as though it might be) your neighbor would likely be charged with Theft of Services (or the local equiv). In my state (follow the link and look for 165.15) it can range from a violation (traffic ticket for all intents and purposes) to a Class E felony (up to four years in prison) depending on the worth of the goods stolen and if you have previously been convicted of theft of services or not. To quote the penalty portion:

Theft of services is a class A misdemeanor, provided, however, that theft of cable television service as defined by the provisions of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subdivision four of this section, and having a value not in excess of one hundred dollars by a person who has not been previously convicted of theft of services under subdivision four of this section is a violation, that theft of services under subdivision nine of this section by a person who has not been previously convicted of theft of services under subdivision nine of this section is a violation and provided further, however, that theft of services of any telephone service under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision five of this section having a value in excess of one thousand dollars or by a person who has been previously convicted within five years of theft of services under paragraph (a) of subdivision five of this section is a class E felony.

Add to the theft of services a few computer related charges -- at the very least "Unauthorized use of a computer" (section 156.05 - Class A misdemeanor), but quite possibility computer trespassing (section 156.10 - Class E felony) -- depending on how much the DA wanted to make an example out of you. In the scenario that started this debate (the Canadian with the kiddie porn), in the state of New York, he would have been charged with both of these crimes (to go along with everything else). To quote the two that I've pointed out:

S 156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer.
A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and the computer utilized is equipped or programmed with any device or coding system, a function of which is to prevent the unauthorized use of said computer or computer system.
Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor.

S 156.10 Computer trespass.
A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and:
1. he does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
2. he thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
Computer trespass is a class E felony.

Interestinly enough the chapter also states defenses to these crimes:

S 156.50 Offenses involving computers; defenses.
In any prosecution:
1. under section 156.05 or 156.10 of this article, it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he had authorization to use the computer;

So, to defend yourself against these charges you'd have to convince a judge or jury that you had reasonable grounds to believe you had permission to use the Wi-Fi resource in question. Saying "my neighbor didn't bother to secure it" isn't going to wash. The DA will promptly toss a "unlocked house" analogy at you, you won't have an answer for it (try explaining to him the difference between going into the house and using signal that is on your property), and you just lost the case.

I doubt they'd send you upriver for the maximum allowed sentance and they'd probably try to plea bargain it out of the courtroom altogether, but if you think they'd just let you get away with it "Because it wasn't secured" your sadly mistaken.

Strap the word "co

Actually in the above scenario (far-fetched as though it might be) your neighbor would likely be charged with Theft of Services (or the local equiv). In my state (follow the link and look for 165.15) it can range from a violation (traffic ticket for all intents and purposes) to a Class E felony (up to four years in prison) depending on the worth of the goods stolen and if you have previously been convicted of theft of services or not. To quote the penalty portion:

Theft of services is a class A misdemeanor, provided, however, that theft of cable television service as defined by the provisions of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subdivision four of this section, and having a value not in excess of one hundred dollars by a person who has not been previously convicted of theft of services under subdivision four of this section is a violation, that theft of services under subdivision nine of this section by a person who has not been previously convicted of theft of services under subdivision nine of this section is a violation and provided further, however, that theft of services of any telephone service under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision five of this section having a value in excess of one thousand dollars or by a person who has been previously convicted within five years of theft of services under paragraph (a) of subdivision five of this section is a class E felony.

Add to the theft of services a few computer related charges -- at the very least "Unauthorized use of a computer" (section 156.05 - Class A misdemeanor), but quite possibility computer trespassing (section 156.10 - Class E felony) -- depending on how much the DA wanted to make an example out of you. In the scenario that started this debate (the Canadian with the kiddie porn), in the state of New York, he would have been charged with both of these crimes (to go along with everything else). To quote the two that I've pointed out:

S 156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer.
A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and the computer utilized is equipped or programmed with any device or coding system, a function of which is to prevent the unauthorized use of said computer or computer system.
Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor.

S 156.10 Computer trespass.
A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and:
1. he does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
2. he thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
Computer trespass is a class E felony.

Interestinly enough the chapter also states defenses to these crimes:

S 156.50 Offenses involving computers; defenses.
In any prosecution:
1. under section 156.05 or 156.10 of this article, it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he had authorization to use the computer;

So, to defend yourself against these charges you'd have to convince a judge or jury that you had reasonable grounds to believe you had permission to use the Wi-Fi resource in question. Saying "my neighbor didn't bother to secure it" isn't going to wash. The DA will promptly toss a "unlocked house" analogy at you, you won't have an answer for it (try explaining to him the difference between going into the house and using signal that is on your property), and you just lost the case.

I doubt they'd send you upriver for the maximum allowed sentance and they'd probably try to plea bargain it out of the courtroom altogether, but if you think they'd just let you get away with it "Because it wasn't secured" your sadly mistaken.

Strap the word "co

I recall reading an article on CNN a couple years ago (if anyone has a link, please post -- tried to find it quickly but was unable) where a guy received a nasty C&D letter when he posted a copy of his state laws on the Internet.

Apparently his state had contracted a publisher to print books with all the state laws. Said publisher claimed a copyright to the laws themselves and claimed that his website was hurting their business. As I recall he backed down -- he probably could have challenged it, but who wants to spend the money on a lawyer?

In any case, WTF is wrong with that picture? My state (NY) posts all of the state laws (Penal, DMV, Liquor, etc etc) on the State Assembly webpage. Shouldn't this be a model for everybody?

Does not matter where he got that information. It is not true (at least not in NY state).

Let's all say it together... "Due Regard"

Section 1104 of the NY Traffic code reads:

1104 Authorized Emergency Vehicles -

(a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.

(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:

1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title;
2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operations;
3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property;
4. Disregard the regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.

(c) Except for an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle, the exemptions herein granted to an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when audible signals are sounded from any said vehicle while in motion by bell, horn, siren, electronic device or exhaust whistle as may be reasonably necessary, and when the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted lamp so that from any direction, under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet from such vehicle, at least one red light will be displayed and visible.

(e) THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE DRIVER OF AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE FROM THE DUTY TO DRIVE WITH DUE REGARD5 FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS, NOR SHALL SUCH PROVISIONS PROTECT THE DRIVER FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/ems/policy/00 -13.htm

The FTC also has some jurisdiction over this.

I'm not a lawyer, but the lawyers at those places will be happy to but your investigational talent to use. Keep up the good work!

There's also info at the same page concerning some other cool Internet work that the NY Attorney General has done.

Mark E. Felstein was denied admission to the New York state board on the grounds of "misconduct in college, history of substance abuse, criminal record and lack of candor since college concerning such matters"

Such a conviction would require that the individual's actions are legally proven to be stealing property worth that amount.

You will find your answers here.

http://iloveny.state.ny.us/

Yes, sneaking into a theater to avoid paying is theft, at least in some jurisdictions. The legal term for what you're doing when you sneak into a theater to avoid paying is Theft of Services , at least in New York. If I got an RIAA subpoena, I'd be a lot more worried about the legal definiton of theft than the slashdot definition of theft.

(see also here for other examples of theft of services, including telephone and other telecom servcies).

He claims to have consulted with several lawyers, it adds credibility.

I'll bet his lawyer friends weren't IP lawyers. The difference is like the difference between a heart surgeon and a general practitioner. It will certainly be interesting if I'm totally wrong about this though... from my interactions with my lawyer friend, it seems like everything I thought about the law was upside-down.

Could you run another item by your IP lawyer friend? The DMCA makes it a crime to circumvent access controls by descrambling DRM. Any DRM that can be descrambled by a program can also be descrambled by a person doing nothing more than THINKING through the steps of the program and calculating mentally. Is there any reason they couldn't put me in prison for staring at a DRM'd e-book and reading the text in this manner? Doesn't that make the DMCA unconstitutional for creating thoughtcrime?

He's no fan of the DMCA, I can tell you that. In fact, he agrees with the majority opinion on Slashdot that all this stuff is the dying gasps of a soon to be dead industry. However, they have a lot stronger case under the law than almost anyone on this message board understands.

Your question is easy enough one that I can answer it (I think)... What you describe would actually fall under the civil remedies section of the DMCA. For you to be fined under this provision, the book publisher (or someone who was harmed by your action) would have to show with a preponderance of the evidence that you had in fact read their book by descrambling the DRM in your mind. If they can show this, I would guess they would win some damages. It's not really any crazier than the laws that say the government can take all your property if they find drugs on it, without having to prove that you put the drugs there.

I have asked him about the paradox that the DMCA makes it impossible to legally view copyright works that have fallen into the public domain. The legal answer (at least until a court rules differently) is: too bad.

He's actually more worried about the expanding power of contract law than copyright law. Things like software licenses and a lot of other things have taken contract law much further than before, apparently. At least there are some people in the government trying to keep some kind of sane limits on contract law: there was a case recently in New York where the Attorney General of New York sued Network Associates for a clause in their EULA saying users couldn't review the product without permission. Network Associates lost, but unfortunately it appears to be on a technicality (read the ruling to see what I'm talking about): New York v. Network Associates decision

• The NEJM site does indeed has free registration but, as of this morning, claims that the entire text is only available to subscribers.
• I will address some of the beginning comments first, then question 2, and then question 1.

So, does ECT work or not? If you are worried about rhetoric, I suggest you give evidence to backup your statements since you seem to be lacking in that area.

So far, I have made no statements as to the effectiveness of ECT. I am suspect of ECT's proponents. (further addressed below)

You don't seem to have any argument other than ECT should not be used because the pioneers of psychotherapy were actually trying to find ways to help severely mentally ill patients through desperate measures? I am telling you the facts. ECT is the MOST effective treatment for serious depression. You can go and refute every article I present but try finding one that disagrees with my statement, the statements from the psychiatrists referenced in the Atlantic article, and the NEJM article.

The studies that favorably show ECT's effectiveness have an interesting thing in common. They typically had one or more of the following people involved: Sackeim, Abrams, Fink, Weiner, Swartz, and Krystal. Abrams and Swartz co-founded Somatics, one of only two companies that manufacture and sell ECT devices. Fink, who wrote one of the few books on ECT is a consultant to Somatics and appears in their training videos. Sackeim, Weiner, and Krystal all have consulted for either or both Somatics and MECTA (the only other manufacturer of ECT machines), and had equipment donated to their studies by Somatics and/or MECTA. Weiner received grants from one or both of the companies.

Selected references for the above:

• http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Depression /ect/resources/jama/disnews.asp(I don't care for the tone of the commentary in this article, but their informational statements seem abave board.)
• http://www.omh.state.ny.us/omhweb/ect/(This lists the studies that were used to form NY's policies on ECT, note the names)
• http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/2001/snr 0314.htm(the donation of equipment is mentioned in the editors note)

This leads to my answer to question 2.

Who is an independent source of information on ECT?...[let me also address a related point from Q1:]...You seems to have found yourself in a contradiction. You choose not to believe the psychiatrists because they use and advocate ECT. At the same time you would presumably believe psychiatrists that do not use ECT? If they do not use ECT wouldn't the natural presumption be that they are already biased against it? Whose testimony on this topic would you believe?

I don't believe I quoted any psychiatrists in my earlier responses, just sections of Daniel Smith's commentary. But, I admit that it amounts to the same thing. I'll clarify and narrow my position on practioners of psychiatry. Not all current psychiatrists practice their profession in the manner their predecessors did. I also don't think that ECT is a litmus test for a "trustworthy" psychiatrist. Especially considering updated techniques such as use of muscle relaxants and anesthesia during the procedure. Also, the guidelines for ensuring patient consent for using the treatment seem positive. These positive changes could only come about with the acknowledgment of past abuses and a commitment to not allowing such things to happen again. In light of this, all studies involving past abused techniques and the indviduals conducting the studies should be held to a higher standard. As shown above it seems that the main proponents of ECT have a vested

Web site

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz
404 55th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11220

Advice from a skinny person to fat people:

The solution to overcoming obesity is very, very simple: STOP EATING SO MUCH. Put down that cheeseburger, lard-ass. I have no sympathy for you. Eating makes you larger. It's that simple.

(1) See a doctor. Follow his advice, not mine - I am not a doctor and am not going to be in any way responsible if you die after following my instructions.

(2) Eat moderately sized healthy meals, 3 times a day. Lots of vegetables.

(3) Don't eat between meals. I mean it. Put down that donut. No chips for you. If you must snack, no more than twice a day - and eat fruit instead of crap.

(4) If the grease on your food turns your napkin transparent - don't eat it. It's bad for you. Delivery pizza is not a health food, neither are 50% of the foods in the frozen section of your supermarket.

(5) The simplest foods tend to be the most healthy - and easy to prepare. eg: fruit, meat (grilled), rice.

(6) Exercise. Go for a walk. Take the stairs. I'm not saying go for a 4-mile run just yet (I think it's enjoyable, but you will probably die if you're super-fat). Baby steps. Or horrible huge lurching, waddling steps in your case.

If you don't follow the above and die as a result of being fat - I could not care less. Get the hell out of the gene pool.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

This "game tax" is a laughable excuse for raising government money. I'm amazed at the lengths that politicians will go to when they want to weasel some extra money out of the populace without admitting to it. So they pick on those they consider a minority - enough to raise the money they want, but not enough to piss off their core block of voters. All under the guise of "helping" the consumer.

They tax you when you earn it, tax you when you spend it. Personal grudges against certain segments of the media are not exactly professional. First games but then what? A special tax on movies? Television? Books? All are equally likely to make someone sit down for a bit.

My (former) nearby state park had one. There used to be a wooden water tower in Heckscher State Park, in East Islip, NY. After a new steel one was erected to replace it, the wooden one was left to decay. It eventually fell over, dumping thousands of gallons of water into the woods, washing away a lot of ground in the process. The roots from the trees in the area held on to enough soil to create a nice bike track (or so the legend has it).

It's about 200 yards away from one of the camping fields, but totally hidden by the forest. Most people don't know it's there until somebody shows them. I still go there once a year or so.

In the US, this obligation applies to every telco anyway, under FCC regs, but the filed tariffs aren't online, only displayed in the FCC library IIRC.

Verizon publishes their tariffs online.

The NYS Public Service Commission also publishes tariffs of some of the utilities they regulate online, although Verizon's are not currently among those available.

By law, you can always obtain a copy of any publicly-regulated utility's tariff. Contact the utility or your state's PSC, PUC, or other regulator. If not available online, you should be able to receive information through the mail. Since when has "online" become the yardstick of availability?

Mark

There's some confusion in this thread about what's actually legal as opposed to what maybe should be legal.

The "Soo" poster is correct: owning something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. Under United States law, it is illegal to practice discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. This is Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter II. (See the US Code Collection.) Places of public accommodation include inns, hotels, stadiums, etc., etc., regardless of ownership. A privately owned hotel is still subject to these laws.

For restaurants and bars and things, other than those serving interstate travelers, you need to go to state law. I believe that all 50 states have analogous laws. In New York, for instance, it's Article 4 of Chapter 6 of the Consolidated Laws. (Read it.) Public accommodations here include restaurants, ice cream shops, bars, rinks, bowling alleys, golf courses, etc.

You cannot refuse service to blacks in your privately owned restaurant. It is illegal.

You can't charge them more, or even put up a sign saying they are less welcome than whites.

A number of posters have asserted: "I am free to refuse service to any group I choose, in my restaurant, because I own it; this freedom is balanced by your right to boycott me for it." Like it or not, this is just plain false. Legally, you don't have that freedom.

Linky
Apparently, they've been trying to for ages, but as you can imagine, the MTA (nyc metropolitan transit authority) is huge, and it would cost way more money than anyone actually has. All of Akron's busses could fit in one of the MTA's maintenence boards. I agree that diesel busses suck, and they smell, I have to ride them every day. The problem is that Akron is not New York City. Huge sweeping conversions just don't happen like this. Pity, I guess.

In today's NY Times article "6 Retailers Plan Venture to Sell Music on the Web" Laura M. Holson writes, "a proliferation of free music-swapping services on the Internet has led to a decline in CD sales."

Ms. Holmes has either succumbed to the incessant propaganda of the big music labels or has an insight into global economic causal relations that would make even Chairman Greenspan envious.

During the same time period that peer-to-peer file-sharing networks have been active, several other factors have existed that seem as likely or more likely to explain the recent decline in CD sales.

1. The music industry has consolidated to such an extent that many radio stations sound exactly alike, reducing consumer choice and interest.

2. The music industry focuses almost all its promotional efforts on a few super-artists who have a chance to sell millions of records (Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Boy Bands, etc.) and so non-mainstream or non-teen-pop artists that would interest people over age 25 (with purchasing power) do not get the exposure necessary to attract new fans.

3. Consumers have more products competing for their limited dollars than ever before. DVDs, wireless phones, digital cable, broadband internet, PDAs and a host of other things soak up time and money that used to be spent listening to music and buying CDs.

4. The music labels over-charge for their products (and were even recently convicted of illegal price-fixing and they have not offered a reasonably priced alternative to file-sharing networks that does not cripple the downloads in some way (limited playbacks, unable to burn to CD, expires after a set time, etc.) It's not surprising then that when consumers don't get what they want, they don't shell out their hard-earned cash.

5. There is an overall slowdown in the economy, if no one has noticed.

In response, consider instead that:

1. Jupiter Communications did a study in 2000 at the height of Napster usage that showed Napster users bought MORE not FEWER CDs.

2. Actual artists claim that file-sharing increases their sales.

I would have hoped that a reporter for The New York Times would be more careful about so casually asigning a single cause to such a complex effect.

[snip personal info]

If published, please print name and city/state only.

• "Software maker Network Associates, Inc. ("Network Associates" or "the company") misleads its consumers by placing written restrictions on their software purchases. Namely, the company tells consumers, either in form License Agreements or on the face of the software diskette, that:
  • "Rules and regulations" prohibit consumers from "disclos[ing] the results of any benchmark test" (i.e., product test), absent "written approval" and
  • Those "rules and regulations" also prohibit them publish[ing] review of this product," absent "prior consent." (Hereinafter, the "Censorship Clause.")

  This Censorship Clause is unenforceable, illegal and deceptive. First, it is by its own terms an illegal restrictive covenant, which violates public policy and thus Executive Law 63(12). Under New York law, a restriction that broadly chills or restricts important rights -- here, of free speech and fair use -- without a legitimate purpose, will be struck down. This Censorship Clause restricts consumers and the media alike from reviewing the software or disclosing important design or product flaws. Yet it serves no legitimate purpose, such as protecting trade secrets or confidential material.

  The Censorship Clause is also a deceptive practice, contrary to New York GBL 349 and Executive Law 63(12). Specifically, it misinforms consumers that the company's prohibition against publication of reviews or benchmark tests (itself an illegal restriction) reflects existing "rules and regulations." Of course, no "rules and regulations" actually exist, under federal or state law -- a fact that most attorneys, including those who drafted the Censorship Clause, surely know. Misinforming consumers about their legal rights in this way is a deceptive practice, forbidden by New York GBL 349 as well as Executive Law 63(12). Finally, the Censorship Clause is also void and deceptive because it conflicts with the License Agreement contained with the company's boxed software. The boxed License Agreement, which is by its own terms the "entire Agreement between the parties," omits the Censorship Clause. Yet the company then places that very Clause on the face of the software diskette -- even though it is by the very terms of the License Agreement void and unenforceable. This, too, is an independent deceptive practice, prohibited by GBL 349 and Executive Law 63(12)."

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

If they still have funding and you're currently unemployed, check them out. Government assisted retraining. Lots of paperwork and meetings, but if you're approved, you get up to $10k to spend on training: that's how I got my CCNP.

To start the process find your local One Stop. Go there and sign up and attend there introduction seminar. After that you should be assigned a case worker. From there do everything they ask and hopefully you'll be accepted.

Good luck!

To paraphrase the statute's text, all New York State government agencies must disclose to the public all info/data/documents they possess unless doing so will violate someone's privacy or would endanger someone's safety, plus a few more exceptions that don't apply to these shipwreck locations.

When I complained about a series of these frauds, providing direct links to the actual face prices, I was informed that on law enforcement complaints would be accepted for scalping.

I complained to law enforcement. They did nothing.

Before you say "ticket scalping hurts no one, read this.

Most of these rights were the main casualties in the War on Drugs. See US: This Is Your Bill of Rights, On Drugs for some other egregious examples of the police getting out of hand. You do not have to tell the police your name, address or let them photograph you. Since this is America the police have the right to ask you anything that they want; and you have the right to ignore them. These rights are laid out in the ACLU 's web site. I think that the best place to read about what the police can and cannot do when they approach you is a study by the New York Attorney General's Office entitled The New York City Police Department's "Stop & Frisk" Practices. This article goes on to site case law supporting things like "civilians are not required to answer or to provide proof of identity":

See De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d at 219, 386 N.Y.S.2d at 382 n.1; see also People v. Powell, 246 A.D.2d 366, 667 N.Y.S.2d 725 (1st Dep't 1998)

Some of this information is specific to the state of New York but much of it is applicable for people in every state. This report goes on to explain things like Federal law provides a floor for state standards. This means that states may enact tougher restrictions on their police departments but that they cannot give the police more lattitude to do things like question citizens.

The practice mentioned in the article will stand until someone sues to have it stopped. Here we are back with the ACLU again. They seem to be about the only organization that has deep enough pockets to pursue things like this. And the worst that is going to happen is they are told to stop. In reality the state and federal prosecutors are probably right when they say that the collecting of this information is legal. This is because the people that got into this file didn't walk away from the police in the manner that is outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio and subsequent case law. For the police to detain you - meaning that you cannot just ignore them and walk away - they must first reasonably concluded that the suspect is engaged in criminal activity. The article in question says that the people were detained for loitering so the police have found what they say is a criminal activity. Make them prove it! Make them file a detailed report of the stop. File your complaints with the entities I listed above and make them justify their stop to their superiors. Make their superiors justify the stop to the local paper and the federal authorities. If everyone that was annoyed would push just a little then it would work more than one or two people pressing really hard.

Unfortunately the police are rarely required to justify their actions much less defend them in an official inquiry. Police enjoy something called qualified indemnity that protects them from the consequences of their actions in all but the most severe of circumstances. And even then they get off with a slap on the wrist instead of the punishment that they deserve. Case in point:

I used to live Colorado where they have a law similiar to that in many other states called capital murder. It states that if someone dies while in the commission of a felony that all people committing that felony can be charged with first degree murder. Perjury is a felony; that is what swearing out a false affidavit is. So when an officer lies while asking a judge for a search warrant they have committed a felony. When an innocent person dies in the execution of that search warrant it should be capital murder. If the person that lies is a police officer then it works out differently. They can even get their job back and the opportunity to lie again. This was not his first mistake. The FBI has even been critized for that very same offense.

We MUST stand up for our rights or we will loose them.
Regards, Tres.

EZPass doesn't NEED to know who I am - an anonymous system like Metrocard could have worked just as well. I'd rather prepay cash than be able to be tracked.

--

0x0d0a didst speak thusly:

The SEC also went after Rice, the guy that hired her. Everything got covered. I've seen attempts to sue spammers, to complain to them, to flood their phones, to complain to local police/attorney general. Nothing does much...except this. Seems that the first effective clean sweep against a spammer that I've ever seen -- and it was done by a black hat. Frankly, I'm quite pleased.

Actually, not quite the first clean sweep...

The first clean sweep I am aware of, or rather clue-by-fouring en masse, was of a particularly notorious spammer (both Usenet and email) by name of "Krazy" Kevin Lipsitz (notation in the Spam Timeline here: http://keithlynch.net/spamline.html).

Krazy Kevin was one of the parties that directly lead to confirmation of accounts--he used to use Compuserve throwaway accounts in particular, as I recall, to promote his magazine scheme.

It came out after a while on many net.abuse forums that not only was he spamming, but he also failed to deliver magazines...

Eventually the State of New York spanked him in probably one of the first court precedents in regards to spam. (Reference here: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet/litigation/leb edeff.html)

This all happened around '96 or '97...Krazy Kev was busted around 1997ish.

"Krazy Kevin" no longer is spamming, and apparently makes much of his living now being a professional gourmand (he apparently holds a world's record for consuming the most amount of pickles in a five-minute span, and is a regular contestant at the Nathan's hot-dog eating contest)...at least it's a bit more honest a way of life than spamming, I suppose. :) (More about Krazy Kev going honest, in a sense: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WolfFiles/wolffi les204.html) Still selling magazines too, but hopefully people get them now :)

Sanford, aka "Spamford", Wallace also was whacked into sense between being sued by both AOL *and* Compuserve (pre-merger) and getting ordered not to spam them (info on that lawsuit here: http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/c ompucase.htm)--and having literally been nearly banned from the Internet entirely and causing one of the major "backbone" sites of the Internet to be nearly universally shunned as well (the Agis.net UDP around 1996--Wallace and the nancy.com spammers were almost completely responsible) after it ended up being the last site on the Internet to deal with him...

In fact, Sanford Wallace has the rather dubious distinction of not only having been the reason behind many states' proposed antispam statutes, not only does he have the dubious distinction of having also been a junk faxer before he went into spamming and being almost singlehandedly responsible for the US law prohibiting junk faxing, but is singlehandedly responsible for much if not most of the early case law in regards to spamming...

After having realised the errors of his ways around 1998 or so, he started running an opt-in mail service for a while and (in a theme that seems to recur among reformed spammers) also apparently does entertainment, specifically, he's a DJ (more info here: http://www.canismajor.demon.co.uk/antispam/sanford .htm; info regarding his present company here: http://www.annonline.com/interviews/970522/biograp hy.html)...

(Now, mind, I've just included the first two cases I can recall off the top of my head involving people being sued directly for stuff related to spamming...)

New York Law Journal
The opinion

I heartily approve of this ruling. The court has managed to make a sensible decision about an online legal issue by extrapolating existing laws. No need to treat web pages as something magically different, or worthy of less protection.

In New York State you can register you phone number(s) on a Do Not Call list. Any telemarketer (with exceptions for politics and those with whom you have a "prior business relationship") who calls a number registered with the state is liable for fines up to $2000. So Yahoo might be able to get away with calling you, but not some other business you have no relationship with who they've given your number to.
___

I agree with of Lomborg completely.

In the NYC area, the reverse is essentially true.

Cormorant Population Boom

The 1998 State of the Environment Report shows declines in pollution across the board.

NY State spending billions for environment

The New York State Office of the Attorney General has made public a pdf file with the full text of the petition. Makes for some interesting reading.

The specific clauses in the EULA in question are (according to the lawsuit):

****
2. The customer shall not disclose the results of any benchmark test to any third party without
Network Associates' prior written approval.

3. The customer will not publish reviews of this
product without prior consent from Network
Associates, Inc.
****

This doesn't appear to restrict people's personal opinions at all. There's nothing here that prevents anyone from bad mouthing a product to their friends.

The key areas are:

"Benchmark Tests" - Normal users don't sit at home and do "Benchmark tests" on software, running and testing it's performance on a system versus others. Generally only magazines and certain companies do this. This wouldn't appear to affect your average user at all.

"Publish Reviews" - Normal users don't generally "publish reviews" of software. At a stretch, they may post some comments about a piece of software on the web somewhere, but not a full-fledged software review. This also appears to not be aimed at your typical computer user.

They also appear to have only used this clause once, more than 2 years ago, against "Network World" magazine, again referenced from the lawsuit.

And according to the Wired article, the Network Associates Lawyer says that the reason this clause was in place was because they did not want people publishing reviews of older products, i.e. they wanted reviewers to check in with Network Associates to see that they were testing/benchmarking the latest version.

I see no reason to attribute nefarious motives to the company. Maybe the products suck. maybe not. It just seems that they wanted to make sure they were getting reviewed/benchmarked fairly.

high court = Court of Appeals
intermediate court = Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
trial court = Supreme Court

New York state has other courts, too, but the courts listed above are most in the public eye.

Here's more information.

Not at all. Microsoft's products allow script kiddies et al to exploit a vulnerability in their software. The product itself does not malfunction and send out malicious data to thousands of people. In the case of guns, people weren't suing because the gun malfunctioned but rather because guns were used in crimes and people were injured, thus costing the state & tax payers money. In NY at least they were suggesting that the sale of guns helped contribute and maintain a public nuisance.

IMO frivolous lawsuits are a public nuisance.

What my original intent here is to suggest that if a vendor makes a product they are not ultimately responsible for what users do with it, i.e. exploit it, commit crimes whatnot. Yes a vulnerability in the software allowed someone to take advantage of it but the responsibility must be put on the person who took advantage of it not the manufacturer of the product.

With that being said, it is indeed the responsibility of the manufacturer to repair the vulnerability once it is known. In the non-software world this happens through recalls. The major problem is that Microsoft usually does not make a good faith effort to stop people from exploiting vulnerabilities in their software.

Ceinwyn

here here here here and here