Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenLaw to Support Open Source Community

Posted by Hemos on from the liberty-and-justice-for-all dept.

ralphclark writes "Some of you may already know of the OpenLaw project, hosted by the Harvard Law School-based Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The OpenLaw group is, in their own words "an experiment in crafting legal argument in an open forum". In other words: legal cases built, like open source, according to the principle that many eyeballs make bugs shallow." They are looking at taking it to a bigger level - click below to hear more from ralphclark. "

From ralphclark: I recently contacted Wendy Seltzer at OpenLaw to ask if they could assist the open source community in its struggle with the forces of evil (the MPAA and the DMCA and UCITA). After a brief dialogue she finally wrote back:

" I have been thinking more about this project and the tools we'll need for it, since I haven't gotten a negative response, indeed several positive ones, from people at the Berkman Center.

I think it's probably best to start low-maintenance, with a mailing list and a Web page, then to add components such as Web-based discussion and a collection of links and documents.

If you have suggestions for links to the key documents/Web pages, that would be a great help."

I think this is our clarion call: I've seen plenty of good quality debate on these issues here on Slashdot, and the most unsupportable viewpoints have been flamed to death by now so I'm sure there are lots of people reading this who have something valuable to contribute. You should e-mail your (sensible) suggestions to Open Law Feedback and she'll pick them up from there. One suggestion: When you mail, write your idea below in comments - than people can avoid duplication of effort.

213 comments

  1. suggestion by Claude+Debussy · · Score: 0

    as someone pointed out on slashnet.org a few minutes ago, there should be a law that specifically says "YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REVERSE ENGINEER" , no grey areas, no bullshit

    FIRST POST

    1. Re:suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... I'm sure that will get approved very quickly. Perhaps while they're working on that, there should also be a law which states that no idiots may work for the government, and that no one may go against the opinions of Slashdot readers.

    2. Re:suggestion by friedo · · Score: 2
      There is such a law. You can not prevent someone from reverse engineering a product by copyright protection in the US. The argument comes down to whether or not what you're doing is reverse engineering. If you take a chip, look at it under a microscope, take it apart, and copy it, that's copying, and that's illegal. The design of the chip is intellectual property and is copyrightable. The function of the chip is not necesarily intelectual property, though. If you hand some engineers a chip in a box, and say, "we get this output from this input" and make another chip that does the same thing, there's no actual copying involved, and that's fair. The internals of the chip may be totally different, or very similar.

      IANAL, but my dad is, and that's essentially how he explained it to me. I'd appreciate any corrections/clarifications.

    3. Re:suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright? Do you mean patent?

    4. Re:suggestion by Phallus · · Score: 1

      You can not prevent someone from reverse engineering a product by copyright protection in the US.

      I am not even an American, let alone a lawyer, but it was my understanding the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) does make it illegal to reverse engineer, if the reverse engineering defeats a copyright control mechanism. Thusly, AFAIK, DeCSS is actually illegal under the DMCA. I could be wrong (I bloody hope so), but this is what I've gleaned from what I've seen so far.

      --

      postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
    5. Re:suggestion by gargle · · Score: 3

      Ah, but software companies are claiming more than copyright protection. They're claiming that through the device of the shrink wrap license, you have entered into a contract with them where you agree not to reverse engineer the software.

    6. Re:suggestion by friedo · · Score: 2

      I don't know anything at all about the DMCA, but if that is the case, it will assuredly be struck down by the Supreme Court. The right to reverse engineer is as important to Capitalism as free speech and thought, IMNSHO. I'm not very worried.

    7. Re:suggestion by Barcode · · Score: 1

      I recently read some of the "shrink-licenses" and was thinking about this (after just e-mailing my math thesis/paper to my professor) for a while. Most of the contracts say something along the lines of "if you open this box or tear the wrapping, you are entering into a binding contract". So, what if you got some clerk to open the software for you (say you have arthritis or want to check to see if the disk is there), then he entered into the contaract, not you. Then, could you do whatever you want and never be bound to that contract, because you didn't open/tear the wrapping?

      --
      "Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency." -Patrick Bennett
    8. Re:suggestion by Stary · · Score: 1
      Now IANAL but... sounds true to me. Usually (on software at least) it'll say, "by using this [software/player/whatever] you agree to x and y and z" etc, but if the license says by opening the box / tearing the wrapping, then you don't even have to get the clerk to do it, just get your brother to do it, or a friend, or whoever.

      It all depends on how the license is written i guess.

      --
      Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
    9. Re:suggestion by anatoli · · Score: 2
      There are at least two persons (one at TECHNOCRAT.NET, one at OpenLaw) who think otherwise. Here's the argument:

      Movie publishers gave me authority to descramble a movie on DVD for the sole purpose of viewing the movie at home. Some of them may explicitly state that I'm allowed to use authorized player only; others may not. It's enough to find ONE DVD that does not explicitly restricts my choice of player to argue that I have the authority to build and use (with this particular movie) my own player, and I can share its design with others. It will not be a "circumvention" as defined by DMCA.

      OTOH suppose a game like Quake comes along with encrypted copyrighted non-distributable (hi NP guy) maps, and the license explicitly states that you can use these maps within context of this game only. Then decrypting a map would be an act of "circumvention" as defined, as there are no non-infringing uses for that.

      No "moderate this down" this time.
      --

      --
      Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
    10. Re:suggestion by gargle · · Score: 2

      Well the judge who granted the MPAA injunction doesn't think so.

    11. Re:suggestion by friedo · · Score: 2

      Ummm, AFAIK the MPAA injunction has nothing to do with shrinkwrap licenses. The claims made in that case were intellectual property ones, mainly that DeCSS is a threat to MPAA members' right to protection of intellectual property.

    12. Re:suggestion by Stary · · Score: 1
      IIRC, there was some claim about a shrink-wrap license forbidding anyone who used a DVD player to reverse engineer using it, and that since whoever wrote the decryption code would have had to use the player to watch the decryption process and reverse-engineer it, he'd broken the contract.

      Sounded very far out to me, but I don't remember exactly what context this was used in.

      --
      Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
    13. Re:suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup!

    14. Re:suggestion by Karellen · · Score: 1

      Movie publishers gave me authority to descramble a movie on DVD for the sole purpose of viewing the movie at home.

      Where did they give you this authority?

      Last I looked, when you buy a DVD, the law gives you the authority to do whatever you want that falls under the copyright 'fair use' protection that applies to you where you live.

      Some of them may explicitly state that I'm allowed to use authorized player only; others may not.

      I've never seen one that does

      And even if there is, I am not aware of any law that makes this restriction enforceable. Again, check your 'fair use' rights. If I buy a book, there's no way a publisher could make stick a clause on the back of the book saying that this book may only be read under the light of an 'authorised' light source - a bulb which happens to be made by a sister company to the publisher.

      It's enough to find ONE DVD that does not explicitly restricts my choice of player to argue that I have the authority to build and use (with this particular movie) my own player, and I can share its design with others. It will not be a "circumvention" as defined by DMCA.

      Irrelevant, see above.

      But although you may be allowed to build your own player, what plans will you use? The "circumvention" under the DMCA that the MPAA are trying to prosecute with is the creation of the plans in the first place by reverse-engineering an existing player.

      For my take on why this is silly, see my reverse engineering page.

      Karellen

      --
      Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
    15. Re:suggestion by Ready+Aim+Fire · · Score: 1
      The battle between the shrink wrap contract and fair-use is a crucial one.

      The arguments in the court's opinion overturning the ruling are key.

    16. Re:suggestion by anatoli · · Score: 2
      Last I looked, when you buy a DVD, the law gives you the authority to do whatever you want that falls under the copyright 'fair use' protection that applies to you where you live.
      Yes. The law (DMCA) also prohibits you from trafficking in "circumvention" devices.
      And even if there is, I am not aware of any law that makes this restriction enforceable. Again, check your 'fair use' rights. If I buy a book, there's no way a publisher could make stick a clause on the back of the book saying that this book may only be read under the light of an 'authorised' light source - a bulb which happens to be made by a sister company to the publisher.
      Maybe. The law (DMCA) talks specifically about unencripting encrypted work and unscrambling scrambled work, and calls it "circumvention". It is only applicable to digital media.
      The "circumvention" under the DMCA that the MPAA are trying to prosecute with is the creation of the plans in the first place by reverse-engineering an existing player.
      No, in DMCA lawsuits reverse engineering doesn't play a role. Circumvention does.
      --
      --
      Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
    17. Re:suggestion by bobsquatch · · Score: 1
      They're claiming that through the device of the shrink wrap license, you have entered into a contract with them where you agree not to reverse engineer the software.

      In the Santa Clara trade secret case, yes. They're even trying to claim that the mere existence of a shrinkwrap license somewhere binds everybody to that license, even if the person in question has never seen the license text.

      If you include the east coast case, they're claiming more than that... They're claiming that the DMCA + CSS combo effectively puts the software and data in a cheap cardboard box, with a 'video out' jack. If you try to open the box to exercise your fair use rights to the data inside, you violate the DMCA first, before any fair use questions enter into it -- the DMCA prohibits opening the box without permission, and if there's no other way to get fair use, well, life's tough. And they claim that this isn't "interoperability," but "piracy," so that loophole is moot; they are trying to protect movies through code, not the code itself -- so they claim. That's what's at stake in the east coast case.

      Pay no attention to the code behind that curtain! You could be committing a copyright violation!
      --

      --
      --
      #define private public
    18. Re:suggestion by Bigdom · · Score: 1

      I like this idea but if idiots do not work for the government they will be out of work and increase the homeless population a great deal. Although, there are still management positions in some large corporations they could move into.

  2. OpenLaw, OpenSource, Open... by Zach · · Score: 1

    OpenMS. -- Its inevitable.

  3. this was covered earlier .. by Zurk · · Score: 1

    but if anyone missed it there is a fundraiser to help the EFF on tuesday in boston at the harvard club.

  4. This is not a stupid idea, *except* . . . by Venomous+Louse · · Score: 3


    The word of the day is "pro bono". Lawyers have been doing voluntary community service for a long, long time. The eyes of many lawyers probably will make "bugs" shallow.

    However.

    As far as law is concerned, the eyes of a million SlashBots are worth about, oh, golly . . . I don't think they make numbers that small. How's this: That and a dollar will get you a 50-cent cup of coffee. Just barely.

    I can see it now: "IT"5 ALL ABOU7 THE SEC0ND AM3NDM3N7!"

    God help whoever as to wade through the email on this one.

    --
    "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
    1. Re:This is not a stupid idea, *except* . . . by Weezul · · Score: 2

      This is not really a problem so long as they can construct an efficent means to ignore the dribble, like using non-lawyer readers to sort and categorize the ideas for the lawyers. The best design might be to produce a digest for the lawyers, like an on going slashdot interview. Most of us would read an moderate just for fun, but the people who are really doing something could just come allong and pick up the digests. The lawyers would also drop off the most recent cort documents and plans of attack to let the unwashed masses have a look and make suggestions.

      It would keep people informed and keep the lawyers from making technical mistakes. It might also generate more pro-bono lawyers because it is a chance to become known to the rich sillion valley types and gain some techno-law-savey. This is exactly the kind of project we want our future politicians to brag about having been a part of when they graduated from law school.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    2. Re:This is not a stupid idea, *except* . . . by GenCuster · · Score: 2

      This is a valid question "As far as law is concerned, the eyes of a million Slashbots are worth about ..."

      I can tell you that the technical perspective is something that many lawyers including Tech and IP lawyers are lacking. The help that many of the people here could offer could be quite powerful. Let me offer an example.

      I was talking with my father's girlfriend, an IP Lawyer, Pre-law at Michigan, Law from Harvard Law, who works with universities on how to structure joint research IP licensees. She asked me what "This whole DeCSS thing was about?" and "Wasn't it great that the MPAA went after pirates so quickly?" I went on to inform her what the DeCSS really did, and didn't do. She was shocked. It lead to a larger discussion over the application of free speech to source code (An idea I read about in a Slashdot thread.) She thought the idea was a "brilliant way to look at the problem and presented a real challenge to the application of patents to source code."

      How much better if these people could benefit from the good arguments Slashdot can generate on the very cases they are trying to try.

      Now the only problem is her understanding "Natalie Portman petrified in Hot Grits"

      Nat Custer

      --
      "The poet presents his thoughts festively, on the carriage of rhythm; usually because they could not walk" Nietzsche
    3. Re:This is not a stupid idea, *except* . . . by Venomous+Louse · · Score: 2


      I can tell you that the technical perspective is something that many lawyers including Tech and IP lawyers are lacking. The help that many of the people here could offer could be quite powerful.

      Hmmm . . . From that perspective, it suddenly begins to make some sense. I'd taken the article to be proposing that we ask Slashdotters about the law, which would be nothing but a hindrance. It would be like asking lawyers about technical issues. But as you say, both groups need to be better acquainted with each other, and that's something we can probably help with.


      Now the only problem is her understanding "Natalie Portman petrified in Hot Grits"

      :) Hey, those guys at least tried to be funny. Compare to the spam nowadays, and they come off damn well.


      --
      "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
    4. Re:This is not a stupid idea, *except* . . . by dsplat · · Score: 2
      In fact, a Slashdot-like forum, possibly using the same code, could be just the ticket. Moderation by lots of eyes to make the better material bubble to the top could save even the people to do the final screening for the lawyers some time.

      Some of the things that we, the non-lawyers can do for the lawyers are:

      • Find documented cases of prior art for patent disputes. The lawyers know the legal terms, but there is no way that they can stay current on as many technical specialties as we can.
      • Put them in contact with experts in those specialties.
      • Explain technologies and terminology. Okay, we aren't all good at putting the really heavy terminology into layman's terms, but some people here can.

      --
      The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
  5. Yes!!! by JustShootMe · · Score: 3

    Now this is a good idea.

    It's obvious that the Open-Source (free-software) community is under attack from those who don't understand it and would like to kill it. This is probably the best way for us to meet this challenge - leveraging the one thing that makes us different (and arguably nimbler and better) than our closed-source nemeses.

    Not all of us are lawyers, and that's OK. When it comes to technical issues, you have the techies to make the cases, and the lawyers to put them into formats that the courts will accept and that could possibly win.

    I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this marks a turning point for free software. Maybe now we can mount competent defenses/offenses against the large corporations who would stifle/censor us.

    Kudos.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    1. Re:Yes!!! by jdasher · · Score: 1

      Yes, UCITA and other legislative efforts are overt attempts to limit individual freedom to innovate, simultaneously shielding tax-paying software companies from any substantial liability for their products.

      And yes, open-source-style legal forums like this one (Harvard's, not Slashdot's) could do much to help the efforts of the open-source/free software communities.

      Unfortunately, the Harvard model appears to suffer from a certain lack of - custom? informational infrastructure? Without FAQs to refer obnoxious or immature (or just plain ignorant) people to, or other mechanisms for organizing the input and commentary, the goal of "open source law" could get bogged down by its pursuit.

      Perhaps I'm mistaken, or perhaps the folks at FreeLaw are working on such mechanisms. I would prefer either option to the premature end of such a noble pursuit.

  6. Open Government by The+Man · · Score: 3
    How long until a new nation is founded, which has openness as its first principle? Much like Open Source, it'd be populated by people who take good government seriously, and are willing to dedicate the time and effort to it. Despite what anyone may say, it's never actually been done before. Most people even in democratic nations believe they have more important things to do than try to improve the government, and just accept that it will be seriously flawed. Just like most computer users don't want to dedicate time and effort to improving software, and instead just accept that it will be seriously flawed.

    So, who's interested? :)

    1. Re:Open Government by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good idea. Good luck with it. I'd love to help, but I'm afraid I've got more important things to work on at the moment.

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    2. Re:Open Government by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's just human. There's an old saying that 80 percent of the people are followers and 20 percent are leaders. Maybe the 80 percent that are followers are just followers, and maybe that's the natural order of things.

      The only real problem comes when one person decides that he or she is a leader, and that everyone else must be a follower...

      I'm realizing more and more that people are different, and what works for me may not work for them. For example, I find going to the mall to be distasteful, at this point in time. Others don't. And there's nothing wrong with that. I find certain things (DeCSS fiasco, for one) to be morally unconscionable. I'm moved to do something about it. Others aren't. Nothing wrong with that, either, just puts the onus on me to do what I can about it.

      So, in that way, this is an open government. We're free to be ourselves, for the most part, even if it means that we don't care. But those who *do* care should act.

      I'll get off my soapbox now.


      If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    3. Re:Open Government by cw0000 · · Score: 1

      Government, as embodied in the form of the State, is necessarily flawed and opressive. It is the nature of every organization to propogate itself and to extend its scope of influence as far as possible. The government is not exempt from this principle. I wouldn't mind a government that existed for the sole purpose of defending individuals' rights to autonomy. However, the classical liberal model of government has been abandoned entirely. Government is not about providing a legal framework in which each member of society can pursue their goals in a manner that is compossible with that of others. The government is an organization of individuals who are no more enlightened or unselfish than anybody else which aims to satisfy its own needs -- this may involve lobbying to expand its own power or accepting donations for large corporations. The whole notion that government can be "reformed", when the very nature of government is to grow whenever there is a new excuse for it to step in to the daily affairs of people, couldn't possibly be more naive. Those who are concerned about freedom must withdraw their support for this entity, as self-presevation and propagation are the only goals that matter to it. Individuals within the government might be genuinely concerned about specific issues, but these concerns only fuel the further growth of this monster. The only way the government will ever come close to shrinking back to a size that would prevent it from perpetrating numerous injustices each day is if it was unable to claim popular support. The government justifies its growth by claiming that it is responding to popular concerns, and by pointing to voting turn-outs. Why do you think that those who run the government become so nervous when there is a low voter turn-out? Because as a result, the facade that they enjoy popular support crumbles away. Right now, the best thing that you can do is to *not* vote and to cease begging your "representatives" for mercy, hand-outs, what-have-you. If there was zero voter turn-out at the next election, the consequences would be unprecedented. It would finally be made clear that the government represents nobody It would finally be made clear that the government represents nobody. About time, I say -- the very notion of representation is disingenuous. One can only represent oneself.

    4. Re:Open Government by #barcode · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a well-deserved score3 if I may say so;) . OpenSource is more than just a tool for efficiently making good software that is free. It empowers people by enabling us to do things that large corporations with large sums of money at their disposal often don't see themselves able to. On a larger scale, the net empowers people - everybody, not just programmers - in a similar way by providing opportunities for everybody to take part in issues one finds of interest. The very logical next step is to include people in government-related issues or cases. The government of the future could allow minorities with a strong interest in something (like the anarchist etc at Seattle, WTO) to take part in decision-making processes. What I've heard so far about open law seems like a good step in that direction.

  7. opensource law? by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Isn't law already open sourced? I mean, that's the whole point of bringing up precedence in a court...

    1. Re:opensource law? by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

      That's not open source. That's an open API. There's still an elite cabal of people (lawyers) who are the only ones (in most cases) that put the stuff together and submit it. In order to do most things, one must go through a lawyer.

      This gives us access a little more to the internals. Things must go through the kernel API now, instead of the userspace API. It's the difference between a libc call and a system call.


      If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    2. Re:opensource law? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      But in this case access is limited by expertise rather than any sort of copyright protection. Which, now that I think about it, is a lot like open source as well...but anyway, implementation still lies with the government, and the API calls are just for the most part documented; this project seems like just trying to rewrite the documentation into a more readable form..

    3. Re:opensource law? by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

      But in this case... the documentation actually determines how well the code runs.


      If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    4. Re:opensource law? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So it's just a case of supplying better code to the judges in the hope that it will compile more favorably?

    5. Re:opensource law? by sinator · · Score: 2

      But anyone can become a lawyer if they invest in the training and meet the standard. Or more importantly, anyone can run for office -- our system was designed so that the common man had a chance at office, even though this isn't always the case -- and if they get elected, they can make laws.

      Think of law as open source via a smaller bazaar than usual; more like the FreeBSD team than the Linux developers. There's a tighter grip on who can make a CVS commit (write and enact legislation) and who can submit patches (judge's precedents), but anyone has access to the law and, provided they go through the proper voting, running for office or law training, change it...

      --
      Three Step Plan:
      1. Take over the world.
      2. Get a lot of cookies.
      3. Eat the cookies.
  8. This would be greatly appreciated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3
    I've asked quite a few attorneys to do pro-bono assistance for the free software community, advising on the legal issues of copyright, licensing, patents, etc. Not one of them have come through so far. They cite:

    • It's a conflict of interest with my proprietary software customers.
    • The liability issues are too large. I don't want to consult for nothing and then find a malpractice suit or some other liability suit is the reward for my efforts.

    The only attorney that I know of who is helping pro-bono is working on the DVD lawsuits.

    We want to file our own patents and then license them for blanket use by free software. We need attorneys for that. Sometimes we want to go to court to fight things like the DVD lawsuit or patents that are being enforced against free software. That's more than just consulting, but it would be great if we could get some more pro-bono help with that, too. That one pro-bono attorney, and the staff attorney at EFF who is working on DVD, are pretty overwhelmed and could use some help.

    Someday, we might have to be the agressor, too. Enforcing our licenses, or attacking something like the DVD Copy Control Consortium in the courts. I'm not expecting all of this to be pro-bono. We need more money to do this than we have so far.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:This would be greatly appreciated by pb · · Score: 1

      That's true. But there's nothing that says "If you patent it, you must make money off of it hand-over-fist". You could license your patents BSD or even GPL-style, or make them "free for free software use"...

      LinuxOne will give you 50% of their holdings, which constitutes half a soapbox and 5,000 flames. And a t-shirt, if you're lucky. :)
      ---
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

      --
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    2. Re:This would be greatly appreciated by nomadic · · Score: 1

      We could probably get the best legal support by filling law school with the right kind of people, i.e. hacker types who are more interested in the intellectual challenge than the money.

    3. Re:This would be greatly appreciated by st.n. · · Score: 1
      Bruce writes:
      Someday, we might have to be the agressor, too. Enforcing our licenses, or attacking something like the DVD Copy Control Consortium in the courts. I'm not expecting all of this to be pro-bono. We need more money to do this than we have so far.

      So what about the "new" big&rich companies like Red Hat and VA Linux, has somebody asked them about this? Especially VA, they emphasize all the time that they want to support the "Linux community" in many different ways, so how about them hiring attorneys?

      - Stephan.
      --
      Carpe diem!
    4. Re:This would be greatly appreciated by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2
      Bruce, I know there are a number of professors here at the Harvard Law School who would definitely be interested. A friend of mine was working with them against the Copyright Extension Act last year or the year before. I will be attempting to solicit interest from Jonathan Zittrain an HLS professor who is definitely interested in these issues, in helping with the DVD case.

      In general I think academic lawyers would be more amenable to doing pro bono work for the Free Software community, as they Get It (TM) based on my interactions with them, whereas lawyers who do IP type stuff in the corporate communities are almost universally of the Not Getting It (TM) variety (I have filed patents before and come into contact with those sort of bozos).

  9. Problem: "IANAL" by MostlyHarmless · · Score: 1

    The one major problem with this is the famous acronym IANAL.

    Peer review is all well and good for computer programming, where everyone can at least help in finding bugs, even if they cannot program directly. The law, on the other hand, is something that requires a lifetime of study to understand. While this is often true for programming as well, non-programmers can still make positive contributions towards programs. On the other hand, non-lawyers can only contribute their opinions to the discussions. These opinions can be (and usually are) virtually worthless because of the lack of legal expertise on the part of their owners.

    Sure, any non-lawyer can clearly grok that "ucita is evil" and "dvd decryption is good", but to understand the complicated legal aspects of each is far over the head of even the most well-meaning netizens.

    void recursion (void)
    {
    recursion();
    }
    while(1) printf ("infinite loop");
    if (true) printf ("Stupid sig quote");

    --
    Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
    1. Re:Problem: "IANAL" by tjgrant · · Score: 1

      This is a valid point, though not entirely true. IANAL, but I grew up working in law firms, and my first consulting gigs were to lawfirms. I was ostensibly the DP manager, however, I spent a good deal of time working on economic models for plaintiffs in lawsuits.

      I eventually got to understand the industry we represented so well that I was able to review most of our complaints, and contribute suggestions, modifications, etc. I never paid attention to the "legal" stuff, but paid much attention to the soundness of the arguments themselves.

      So yes, WANL, that doesn't mean we can't contribute to the soundness of the legal arguments.

      Stand Fast,

      --

      Stand Fast,
      tjg.

  10. What do you suggest? by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

    This is all fine and good. I've joined EFF, I've joined the ACLU, and I put my considerable moral support behind all of this...

    But what else do you suggest?


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    1. Re:What do you suggest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      become a lawyer and put interests before money. Oops, that's impossible.

    2. Re:What do you suggest? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      Make lots of money on free software and put it to work for free software politics. Money is power.

      I asked this guy who made $2B on free software for some help with PR and he said yes. I hope they're all like that.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  11. Re:Is this ok... by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself, Troll. I have a lot of regard for what Stallman has done, but I've always thought he was a little extreme and have taken a little softer approach to the whole thing.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  12. What a great idea! by pb · · Score: 1

    Now that there's an OpenLaw project, you can just look there for the plethora of patent issues and other legal crap that currently finds its way to slashdot. News for Lawyers, Stuff that makes you wanna say "IANAL"...

    Then maybe we can get back to our roots. Microsoft VS DOJ is a good topic, a feature on DVD-DeCSS is okay once in a while. But "Is xxx patent good?" is about as much Slashdot as "xxx Kewl Game Now On Dreamcast!". I've actually been pretty happy with the resurgence of Linux/NT stories, and Transmeta articles.

    In short, if you wanna see every "xxx patent" story ever, find a legal site. If you wanna see all the "Dreamcast r00lz" crap, find a gamer site. I like the First Amendment and Gauntlet:Legends as much as the next hacker ("Tan Patent-Lawyer needs fees badly!"), but enough is enough, people.

    Maybe if Slashdot posted 20-30 stories, each with a story rating (based on the sheer number of "Is this really news" comments :), and I set my threshold higher, it'd be okay...
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
  13. Legal forums by Signal+11 · · Score: 2
    I don't see why this wouldn't work.. provided it's used properly. Legal advice / forums have the slight problem of money. Even if it was done in good faith and at no cost there would still be people trying to get such a group to put time and effort into things maybe better spent elsewhere.

    This isn't easy to explain, but think what would happen if it became public knowledge that there was a group of lawyers working for free for "just" cases. They'd be innundated... both with requests and with people upset they didn't make the cut. Unlike code where the product is already there - a legal forum would help push a case from start to finish. It's the "something for nothing" crowd I'm worried about here..

    The second, and less important, problem I see is that unless there is a clear set of guidelines / criterion for what such a forum would - and would not do or allow is laid out, it's doomed from the start. The reason is simply that there is no focus, hence work is duplicated, petty arguements break out over what the Right Thing is (or direction), and things just never get done.

    Lastly, it would take a helluva lot of lawyers to do this... and, uhh.. in our country.. they're pretty busy already.

  14. Create Slashdot style forum (maybe from /. source) by The_H0und · · Score: 1

    I think a /. style forum would be great for this.

    Lawyers would need a special status however. (not sure how to verify their lawyer status)

    Anyone could suggest a legal question (like "Ask Slashdot") or legal cases to post into a general forum like slashdot's main page.

    Then, each lawyer could maintain their personal list of cases that they are working on and receive feedback /. style. If the maintainer of the General forum thought that the case was interesting enough for everyone to see, he could post a general news article for it.

    Also lawyers would automatically get a bonus score for new new posts. (maybe a user configurable option like the feature on /. to give long responses extra points)

    The /. source code would probably be a very good starting point for this kind of system. We in the Open Source community should write something like this for the Open Law community. Then, if someone could find a host site for it...we'd be in great shape.

    --
    Plenty of projects, not enough developers...
  15. Re:Is this ok... by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

    No, I agree with his ideals, actually. But there's a such thing as tact. And there's a such things as compromise. Free software wouldn't be where it is now if it weren't for ESR. It'd still be a fringe movement. ESR knows how to talk to the people who have the money. And in spite of RMS's ideals, it's the money that gets the wheels moving.

    RMS has done a lot, but he is ultimately not the reason it is going mainstream. One of them, yes. THE? No.

    For the record, I do admire ESR standing up for his beliefs and stuff. I don't knock that. I wish I were half that idealistic. But... life, at least for me, isn't that way...


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  16. Re:Create Slashdot style forum (maybe from /. sour by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

    This is a decent idea, but I'm not too sure how it would actually pan out. Lawyers are a finicky bunch, but that's not their fault - law is very finicky.

    Starting small, with sites such as this, is probably the best idea.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  17. The Declaration of Digital Independence by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen billion united citizens of the Internet:

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the copyright bonds which have separated them from each other, and to assume among them powers of mass storage, with separate and equal access to Bandwidth and a decent respect for the advancement of mankind, it requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to be separated.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all bits are created equal, that they are endowed by their viewer with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Replication.--That to secure these rights, Copyrights are instituted among bits, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Copyright becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Bits to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Copyright, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Copyrights long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that bits are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Copyrights, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of Open Source; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Licensing Restrictions. The history of the present RIAA and MPAA is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these bits. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    RIAA and MPAA have refused to change the Copyrights to those most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    RIAA and MPAA have forbidden their artists from passing Copyrights of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.

    They have refused to pass other Copyrights for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Open Source, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    They have called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their measures.

    They have dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights of the bits.

    They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Deletion, have returned to the Internet at large for their exercise; the bits remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    They have endeavoured to prevent the population of the Internet; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreign Software; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Royalties.

    They have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing their Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

    They have made Judges dependent on their Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our artists, and eat out their substance.

    They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies of Lawyers without the Consent of our legislatures.

    They have affected to render the Upstream Providers independent of and superior to the Civil power.

    They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to their Acts of pretended Digital Content Delivery:

    For Quartering large bodies of armed lawyers among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punative damages for any Deletions which they should commit on the Bits of the Internet:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the Napster community:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by our Internet Peers:

    For transporting us beyond firewalls to be tried for forged logs of offences

    For abolishing the free System of OpenCSS in a neighbouring Domain, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into the Open Source Community:

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Internet:

    For suspending our own User Groups, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    They have abdicated Copyrights here, by declaring us out of their Protection Racket and waging War against us.

    They have plundered our subnets, ravaged our routers, burnt our high speed connections, and destroyed the bits on our hard drives.

    They are at this time transporting large Armies of Lawyers to compleat the works of deletion, punischment and closed-source tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Bulletin Board Service.

    They have constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the Internet to bear narc against their Security Consultants, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:

    Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A CEO whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free Internet.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our artist brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of the lawyers, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united citizens of the Internet, in General User Groups, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of Network Addressing for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good bits of this Internet, solemnly publish and declare, That this network is, and of Right ought to be a Free and Independent Internet; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to RIAA or MPAA, and that all political connection between them and the greedy corporations, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Internet, they have full Power to copy themselves, store themselves, transmute themselves, trade themselves, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent bits may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our computers, our hard drives and our sacred DSL connections.

    (Cheezy, but you get the point?)

    - JoeShmoe

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    --
    -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    1. Re:The Declaration of Digital Independence by |deity| · · Score: 1

      Preach on brother JoeShmoe.

      And I sayeth unto the powers that be that ye shall be struck down by a great and furious wrath.

      And I lifted forth my keyboard and many viruses came forth I asked the MPAA shall ye let mine brothers go?

      The MPAA and the RIAA hardened their hearts and I lifted forth my keyboard and all of thier websites became clogged with bad packets.

      Even still the MPAA and RIAA hardened their hearts and I lifted my keyboard for a last time.
      I smote the leaders upon the head repeatedly with mine keyboard and blessed silence reigned as their shouts and curses were silenced.

      This mine children is the story of our liberation from the tyranny of the coorperate conglomerates. Let the word go forth.

      And any who alter this text shall be damned to an eternity of windows 3.1.

      --
      Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
  18. wft??? by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

    That has nothing to do with this!

    For those of you that don't follow the link, that stands for "North American Man Boy Love Association". Perv.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    1. Re:wft??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "gay-ass heterosexual faggot"... haha If you'd take your head out of your ass you'd realize that is incredibly stupid. "Gay-ass" and "faggot" are the exact opposite of "heterosexual". Fact is I'm not homophobic but that's just fucking sick.

  19. Re:Is this ok... by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

    Yup, that was a typo. I meant RMS.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  20. Bruce and Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bruce,
    The only thing open is your butt-hole. Oh, yeah, thats right, Eric Raymond fills that void.

    Why not just make everything free? That way we can all starve to death whilst those very few with an income worship you.

    1. Re:Bruce and Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we'll all starve because bread isn't copyrighted so nobody makes it any more. Freak.

  21. Lawyers say NO WAY because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The reason Lawyers don't mess with Open Sores is :
    a) There is no money in it.
    b) There is no common law.
    c) The GPL is so laden with religion its unenforcable.
    d) The GPL is so widely abused (outside the rarified confines of /.) that it's gonna be impossible to enforce it.
    e) OSI and OSS are conflicting bodies which are producing conflicting licences.
    f) Which Open Source licence???

    Get a grip here. When and if the Open Source community get their shit together and stop behaving like a rabid bunch of communist diktators, Lawyers will mess with it.

    Finally, patents have to (a) be assigned to an individual and (b) take 24-36 months to work through. By this time the 'inventor' will have a job, a life and require an income.

    1. Re:Lawyers say NO WAY because by divec · · Score: 1

      a) Red Hat's worth as much as Apple. But you're right, this is a problem.
      b) Good - common law is often ambiguous.
      c) The US constitution is full of ideology.
      d) Commercial software licenses are more widely abused.
      e) How is this relevant?
      f) I don't understand what this means.

      Litigation may seem to be an insurmountable problem. So did writing a free Unix clone.

      --

      perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

  22. OpenWorld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a matter of time.

  23. Why patents? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    Once you have patent rights to trade, you can get other people to make their patents accessible for Open Source software.

    Consider how the GPL uses copyright against itself. I'm thinking of the same sort of strategy, although not as elegant as RMS did with GPL.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Why patents? by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 1
      Once you have patent rights to trade, you can get other people to make their patents accessible for Open Source software.
      I dunno. What if they can play the game better than you? What about hostile takeovers and/or defections? I'm unsure that it's such a good idea to swim with the sharks, sounds like a good way to get eaten.
    2. Re:Why patents? by Weezul · · Score: 2

      Consider how the GPL uses copyright against itself. I'm thinking of the same sort of strategy, although not as elegant as RMS did with GPL.

      I think on of the versions of the OPL dose this, but it is also worth pointing out that you could possibly pay for a whole research institute with patent revinues. The institution would be a non-profit orginisation which was obligated to compramise between money and morals.

      A still better idea is to get the NSF to say "universities and existing research institutes should attempt to take some minimal responcibility for who they let use their patents" and get a law passed which says "the courts can grant these institutions the right to deny the party who paid for the research the right to use the patent if it's use is questionable enough." This means that envoromentalists or OSSers can protest at the university (and/or get a judge to file a motion regarding the questionablness of the use of the patent) instead of protesting the company. This could be really effective for the enviromentalists (preventing things like terminator genes) and OSSers, i.e. it is an opertunity for a coallition which we should seriously investigate. Plus, once the nuts at green peace are earning a reputation for blugening corps with patents there will probable be a lot fewer people with money who want to increase the duration of patents. :)

      It might also be a good idea to fight for some sort of patent "financial equality act" which basically says that you can be sued for patent abuse, but that limited finacial resources for an effective patent search will be taken into account if you are just some Joe OSS developer, i.e. we are allowed to do nasty things with patents, but the big corps are not. This could be sold as an "aww.. look at all the pore small buisnesses which have been strangled bill."

      We could get honest free traders to support these things.. and maybe even the WTO (as labor and enviromentalists keep puttingthe presure on them).

      Jeff

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    3. Re:Why patents? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      The trouble is, the GPL does not use copyright against itself. It uses copyright for its own interests (which is quite in line with what copyright is for), and it uses the low barriers of entry for copyright to make it easier to propagate its interests.

      It is too costly to try and use patents similarly, and it's not an analogous case (which is why you sense it isn't as elegant). Instead of advocating a free method of permanently making works free to all who will treat them a certain way, you are advocating a staggeringly expensive method of confining works within restrictions that can only be overcome through agreements. Your end result is not a large body of work that is copyright a particular way, it is a large body of work with significant legal entanglements for the industry, easily abused by people in moments of annoyance or through prejudice.

      It's sort of like this. The GPL does not concern itself with the motives of its users, only with their interaction with itself. A developer can be the most proprietary, patent-seizing bugger in the world, but he can still use GPLed work all he likes as long as he upholds its requirements. Now, in this patent proposal, how many people are advocating that the portfolio be used as a weapon and withheld from all those who will not share their patents with us? How many people want the portfolio withheld from Microsoft, from Unisys, from other 'enemies'? Isn't the whole point of a patent portfolio to selectively withhold it from others in order to make them do what you want?

      This is the key difference between an opensource patent portfolio and the GPL, and why I adamantly oppose the accumulating of any such portfolio. GPLed works are available by default, and only your refusal to comply with the terms denies you access to them. Patents are unavailable by default, and only coming to an agreement with the patent holder entitles you to them. Even without the cost, even without the many people wanting to punish others in the industry, I still could not tolerate this proposal, because it does not diminish the problem of patents at all. It only furthers it and brings new levels of politicking and trouble to the OSS community.

      What I would like to see, instead, is a glaringly public Open Concepts website, not just for software developers but for general inventors to use. At this site you could write up everything you've invented, and have it hosted somewhere searchable where people can get at it, where the patent office can do searches through it, where it's out in the open. Such publication would be effectively public domain (or it could specifically be made public domain), so a good idea could be instantly seized on by individuals _and_ the monstro-corps- the distinction is that, if an idea is listed on this hypothetical site, it is a case of prior art and blocks any patents from being filed along those lines.

      THAT is what I see as a useful reaction to patent hell. How do you expect to deal with chokingly restrictive intellectual property issues by making more of them? The only way is to establish a place, a method, where people can choose of their own free will to cooperate instead of hoard. Then, you have to make that method a block against other people abusing this freedom- with the GPL, this is done by copyright, and requiring the license to be propagated, and in so doing, you prevent someone from grabbing all the code and making it proprietary again. With this public domain site proposal, this is again done by using the rules against themselves- in this case, rather than having code being made proprietary, the behavior you want to block is of somebody taking the ideas and patenting them. By making the ideas formally public (in the scientific tradition, BTW), you are blocking anyone's ability to go and patent those ideas, yet as with the GPL, they are free to _use_ them as long as it's within the accepted restrictions. For the GPL, that means you can never un-GPL the thing as a third party and remove people's access to it. For this proposed PD storehouse, it means you can never patent an idea taken from the storehouse, and remove people's access to it.

      I'm sorry, but your patent-portfolio entirely depends on arbitrarily removing people's access to it. I realise that many people feel removing the access for 'bad people' is a good thing, but I can't agree with that, and I strongly suggest that it will not have the results you want from it.

  24. Good project for law students? by oldman1080 · · Score: 1

    IANAL or a law student or anything remotely resembling either. But I notice that many of the open source projects have been started by students in their spare time to help them learn more about programming. The GIMP and Linux are prime examples. Perhaps OpenLaw needs to attract more law students, while not being full lawyers, could both use and contribute to this resource in helping them learn. I'm not sure how likely this would be, but it would be nice to see a law school that requires their students participate in one OpenLaw case as a requisite for graduation.

    --
    Find and share links to celebrity profiles on MySpace! http://www.myspacecelebrities.com
  25. Bingo. by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

    Bingo.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  26. ACLU == NAMBLA: Free Spech Pervorsion Insitute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    They are the man-hating Lesbian Dykes of child abuse central Communist DIctatorship commune of the AMerican Liberal Left! Dont believe the lies about first ameNDment and all the free spech isues: THey are lies!

    It is all a schem of the catholic CHurch (whore of babylon) to provide legal justification for their Homosexual priests to have their way with "altar boys" (sex slaves) it's been proven time and again, all you have to read is the Satanic Abuse Ritual reports all over in the Legal and Medical Provession THEY PROVE IT. Seventy percent of altar boys are sexuall abused by their trusted so-called spiritual guides into the sexual raelm of the Catholic church perversions!

    STOP THE LIBerALAS NOW and don't let them get any worse MCCAIN IS A LIBERAL HE"S FAKING BEING CHRISTAIN DON"T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT!@

    1. Re:ACLU == NAMBLA: Free Spech Pervorsion Insitute! by TollTroll · · Score: 1

      please consider voting libertarian. ps. shave a cat today for jesus.

      --
      "Have some dignity" --Mickey Knox
    2. Re:ACLU == NAMBLA: Free Spech Pervorsion Insitute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

  27. Re:Is this ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just socked RMS's cock. Let's just say that he likes beards everywhere.

  28. OpenLaw vs OpenSource by Jett · · Score: 1



    A lot of people have a reasonable understanding of the basics of how law should function. We are exposed to it all the time in our media saturated culture. I think OpenLaw will work out fine, the best lawyers, those professionally trained, will no doubt contribute the most. But it will also allow the rest of us with minimal understandings of the law to still contribute if we can. That's about how it is with OpenSource, if you can make a worthwile contribution, it doesn't matter if you spent 6 years at MIT or 6 months dropping acid and playing around with Perl every weekend, if you can write some good code, you can write some good code. Same goes for law. Just keep it all Open and it'll evolve into something better and better.

    1. Re:OpenLaw vs OpenSource by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 1
      A lot of people have a reasonable understanding of the basics of how law should function.
      Disagree. Strongly. A lot of people have outspoken ideas of what certain decisions should be, but that's not the same thing.
    2. Re:OpenLaw vs OpenSource by Jett · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that a lot of people have outspoken ideas of what certain decisions should be. But a lot of people also have feelings about how the law should function, certainly not as many as have opinions about decisions but still a significant amount.

  29. America... zuh? by citizen_bongo · · Score: 1

    It's ironic that a country built on the principles of freedom and pursuit of happiness has degenerated to what it has today. It seems that any somewhat radical (and somewhat helpful) is branded with labels and quickly regarded with fear (alcohol, lsd, communism). America is just as bad as China in terms of human rights, it's just we quietly opress our rights to think with our social criticism instead with a gun. It's hard to keep optimism up when your country seems to be built on glue and tar.

  30. Good explanation. by jjsaul · · Score: 1

    No - he did mean copyright. If it is patented, then the reverse engineering technique is irrelevant. Actually the explanation was a quite good one. The point is that copying is different than independant parallel development. So the thousand monkeys on typewriters couldn't get sued when they start coming up with the Bard's sonnets.

    I'm not practicing - but I guess three years of intellectual property specialty in law school shouldn't go to waste - I'm very interested in helping out with this open law project. I'm often surprised by the good ideas in this forum, so I hope I'm not the only one.

    And let's hope the children stay here. Crushed under Slashdot's very own DoS attack of grits and Natalie Portman, this very good idea could easily be abandoned when they realize just how "open" it gets around here.

  31. Rather than emailing openlaw feedback... by wendy · · Score: 1

    ...please join the (majordomo) mailing list dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu and add your ideas to the mix.

    --

    -- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain

  32. Law Is Not Source Code by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 2
    I've been thinking about OpenLaw for a while, ever since I saw the original annoucement. I can't shake the feeling that it's a gimmick. Yes, it sounds good, cool, the wave of the future - but what IS it?

    Is it that the lawyers in a case are going to post the briefs-in-progress and invite public comment? This is NOT the same as open source. The "open" part is the same, but law is not source code.

    Source code is, to a first approximation, either correct or not. If someone wants to work on a routine in a program, it can usually be modularized, parcelled out, and tested to some degree of reliabily. Critically, it's typically OBVIOUS if it's completely wrong.

    A judge isn't a compiler. No-one really knows if a legal argument is going to work or not. It's like the world's worst debugging session, there's almost no way to retest the results.

    It sounds like a good idea, but there's a lot that's very unclear in practice.

    1. Re:Law Is Not Source Code by jjsaul · · Score: 1

      You're not looking at law in the right way - if there is a precedent on point, then it DOES either work or not. In areas that are still up for grabs - most often when the Circuits hold contrary positions, then the opinion of the appellate judge counts for more.

      But what is really important, and what this forum can help with , is finding the right path for the law. There are decisions made every day, usually by clueless, technologically illiterate ludites, that will resonate for generations. Isn't it important that the broadest possible set of minds apply their reasoning faculties to the project?

      Believe me - most briefs, and most judges' opinions are written by law students or recent graduate clerks. Most of them are lazy, and no few are stupid. A lot less thought than you think goes into the decisions that will govern our lives.

      The old joke when I was in law school was that law is like sausages - if you want to stomache either one, don't find out how it is made.

      Here's a chance to change the recipe.

    2. Re:Law Is Not Source Code by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 2
      When it doesn't work, the judge basically says "That's different", which has the formal name of "distinguished". The best programming analogy I can come up with here was if *HUGE* areas of the language had unspecified and undefined behavior. Sort of like the old C problem where people would write code with pointers and integers being used interchangeably. Except that was considered a bug, not an unavoidable implementation issue.

      By the way, if the judge is one of the "clueless, technologically illiterate ludites", why will he or she be impressed by a brief filled with sparkling technical expertise?

      Anyway, my point is I'm wondering if there is even a way that many Slashdot-like minds can EFFECTIVELY "apply their reasoning faculties to the project". I'm skeptical that legal parts of a case modularize for effective multiple contributions. Sure, a piece related to expert testimony, I can see that. But nobody tries to substitute an ideological tract for a kernel driver ("I tell you, who is to be master, man or machine? This *scuzzy* bus, this *slave* client, should accept its priority and not disrupt interrupts").

    3. Re:Law Is Not Source Code by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2
      There are definitely ways in which this can help and be useful. First of all, a sort of informal peer review, and common-folk review of some of the arguments involved can be very useful to lawyers, to gauge general reaction to parts of the case.

      If you think of it like source code, then it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It is more like a collaborative groupware type facilitation of cooperation. Ultimately, I don't think briefs will be written by groups of people, but feedback on a webboard, open discussion bringing together techies and lawyers is bound to strengthen cases.

      Moreover, in cases like the DVD/CSS issues, where multiple cases are currently ongoing in different venues, and more are bound to spring up, it seems fairly clear that a centralized point for discussion about the issues could be additively useful for lawyers in all of the involved cases.

      I think if you keep in mind the real useful benefits that this sort of collaboration could provide, and keep away from a strict Open Source analogy, you'll see why it is a Good Thing.

  33. Non-lawyers needed to generate evidence by wendy · · Score: 1

    I saw many people commenting that the defendants didn't present the strongest evidence of non-infringing uses at the preliminary injunction hearings. As the cases move toward full-blown trials, there will be plenty of opportunity to find and present that evidence.

    Non-lawyers can help to flesh out these points. Why is DeCSS more like the VCR (used for copying movies but also legitimate "time shifting" of TV programs) than an illegal weapon? Show us the "substantial non-infringing uses."

    --

    -- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain

    1. Re:Non-lawyers needed to generate evidence by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 1

      So this is a kind of call-for-testimony? I can understand that. Much clearer.

  34. Re:The only people who need lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your good christian ramblings and shove them up your ass like you would love to shove George W. Bush's manhood.

    Fucking troll.

  35. Open-source Paranoia by Hrunting · · Score: 2

    It's obvious that the Open-Source (free-software) community is under attack from those who don't understand it and would like to kill it. This is probably the best way for us to meet this challenge - leveraging the one thing that makes us different (and arguably nimbler and better) than our closed-source nemeses.

    Oh please. The open-source model is not under attack from people who don't understand it. It's not like Sony, Microsoft, and Paramount are all gathered around a table going, "That damn OSS. We don't know what it is, but it's high-time it stopped!" While I'm not sure what you mean by open-source, I'll go over both possible explanations (since you're ambiguous about it). Free software has actually been given out by Microsoft (remember Internet Explorer? Netmeeting? Messenger?) and Microsoft recognizes and even links to many sites that promote Windows freeware. I think companies like Apple and Microsoft that deal in decidedly pay-for software recognize the value of free software in promoting their operating system and would never want the practice to stop. As for open-source software, Apple has supported it. IBM has supported it. The DVD consortium is not against it. The NSA is not against it. Wal-Mart is not against it. There's not a coordinated attack against open-source software and to say it is so is to not understand the nature of the legal battles that involve potential OS/free software concepts.

    I don't think the law idea is necessarily a bad one. I do think trying to characterize it as a champion of OS/free software is. I will also point out that the open-source community model is a software model and does not always translate into other professions. Law is practiced by registered lawyers for a reason, because there are many intricacies to law that need to be studied to be understood (IANAL). While a community of free lawyers may be a great idea, considering the incredible time-commitment it takes to become a lawyer and the decidedly puny return on pro bono services, I don't see it as a profession you're going to get the world's best and brightest in. Lawyers do not have the mentality of programmers.

    And while we're on the topic of open-source models, I use open-source software and I support it, too, but I do not live an open-source life. I do not give people permission to reproduce and change my ideas. I do not give a community the group right to tinker with my car. I do not want an open-source model managing my electric utilities or my sewage or my education. I think open-source ideas have their place, and I think they rightly belong in information services, like programming, writing, and support, but I don't necessarily think they extend into everything.

    Sometimes, I don't like computers to cross into real life, and the paranoid comments that prompted this reply highlight a fear of mine that that is exactly what's happening.

    1. Re:Open-source Paranoia by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

      No they're not necessarily against open-source per se but they ARE against what it stands for. In their view, OSS and free-market principles are not reconcilable. It's not the truth, but tell that to their lawyers.

      My view is this: OSS is a bit too close to communism for the comfort of most old-school capitalists. The ones control the large corporations, and the money...


      If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    2. Re:Open-source Paranoia by divec · · Score: 2

      > OSS is a bit too close to communism for the comfort of most old-school capitalists.

      Yes. It's easy to paint this form of "sharing" as communism. Particularly if you forget that copyright is a government-granted monopoly. The market for OSS is a much more free market than the market for closed-source software. But many people associate capitalism with corporatism and government favours for large businesses, which is not free market economics.

      --

      perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

    3. Re:Open-source Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a community of free lawyers may be a great idea, considering the incredible time-commitment it takes to become a lawyer and the decidedly puny return on pro bono services, I don't see it as a profession you're going to get the world's best and brightest in. Lawyers do not have the mentality of programmers.

      Some do, some don't . . . Remember that the best and brightest of us want to be challenged beyond the remarkable rewards of the grind of corporate law practice. Makes all the time invested worthwhile.

    4. Re:Open-source Paranoia by The_H0und · · Score: 1

      I think that Open Source is more about freedom of information and cooperative learning than it is about cooperative service providing.

      The open model works much better when tied to a service which is heavily dependant upon information.

      Food for thought: Open source development is often similar to any other service. (eg. electic, phone, etc)
      In one case you have a service provider which you request service from and they come out and turn it on.(charging appropriately for installation) If you have a problem or need, you can often do your own repairs/upgrades (sending the results of your work back to the company in question often does not make sense here). If you don't want to do your own repairs/upgrades, then you must wait for the service provider to either fix your problem or make more services available.
      In the open source case, you request a service (download a program) and you or a friend installs it.(your friend might make you pay him to setup it up) If you have a problem or need, you can often do your own repairs/upgrades. If you don't want to do your own repairs/upgrades, then you must wait for the service provider to either fix your problem (bug) or make more services (features) available.

      I know this is full of holes, but it's interesting that the main difference has to do with money.

      --
      Plenty of projects, not enough developers...
    5. Re:Open-source Paranoia by redhog · · Score: 2
      Free software has actually been given out by Microsoft (remember Internet Explorer? Netmeeting? Messenger?)
      This shows that you have no knowledge about what Free software is or stand for. Free software is not the same as freeware. Freeware stands for "free as in beer" (It doesn't cost anything), while free software stands for free as in freedom (you have certain rights).
      Microsoft Internet Explorer is freeware - it doesn't cost you anything. But it only gives you the freedom of usage and redistribution - not modification, nor distribution of modified versions, which is requered for Free Software.
      "considering the incredible time-commitment it takes to become a lawyer" - Then consider the amount of time it takes to become a good programmer. I, for example have learned programming for five years - and still only knows 9 out of possible hundreds or thousands of languages, and yet, there are the data structures and algorithms to learn, for each field of programming.

      Not being able to help yourself or your neightbours is the worst sentence you could possibly get.

      /"Egil Möller" a.k.a. "RMS (clone)"
      --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
      --
      --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
    6. Re:Open-source Paranoia by ralphclark · · Score: 2

      many people associate capitalism with corporatism and government favours for large
      businesses, which is not free market economics.</i>
      <br><br>
      Indeed. It's nothing more than feudalism: Barons and serfs. Funny to see that nothing has really changed in a thousand years :o\
      <br><br>
      I'm just hoping that the organizing potential of the internet will change the rules sufficiently to enable us finally to build our own castles so that we can at last compete on their terms. That's why I have great hopes for movements like Open Source, Open Law, and whatever comes out of www.cluetrain.org.

      Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
      Thought exists only as an abstraction

  36. Sad but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html

  37. Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see that you have given your brain over to him.

  38. correction... by dick_long · · Score: 1
    IT"5 ALL ABOU7 THE SEC0ND AM3NDM3N7!

    wouldn't that be:

    17'5 411 4B0U7 7H3 53C0ND 4M3NDm3N7!

    1. Re:correction... by Issue9mm · · Score: 2

      Nope, it would be:

      17'5 411 480u7 7#3 53c0nD 4m3ndM3n7...
      -or perhaps-
      17'5 411 480u7 7#3 53c0|\|D 4|V|3|\|dIVI3I\I7...

      Or something even more ridiculous...

      That's not even worth 2 cents... Sorry.

    2. Re:correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or
      ITZ AL ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
      ...or...
      i+S åL @bout tH3 3coNd @m3nDM3N+!
      ...or even...
      |+s @l åBÖu+ tH3 Z£CÖNd @M3NDm3N+!

  39. This was born on slashdot by bwt · · Score: 2

    I've been corresponding with Wendy Seltzer since the initial suggestion that we do this in the original proposal thread. Thanks to sholton for pointing us to openlaw and to ralphclark for efforts to bring this about.

    I've also been in touch with Robin Gross from the EFF, who has indicated that she would like to participate in the forum. I hope that we can create a high quality combination of legal and technical input.

    This step is just the start, I hope. I would like to encourage people to participate in this. I think it would be a good goal to file an 'amicus' brief to each of the DVD cases that is written using open source methods that represents the views of the open source community.

    1. Re:This was born on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have actually been drinking Seltzer for a while. It does not leave an aftertaste like cola drinks.

    2. Re:This was born on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been gulping down Seltzer for some time. Tastes GREAT! Especially if you filter out the lumpy bits thru her panties! :-D~~~~~

  40. Lawyers are different from engineers by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    Take two lawyers, they will not really argue. They will tend to agree with each other. Take two engineers, they will always argue!

    An engineer is used to changing the universe to solve a problem. If the computer can't handle the interrupts fast enough, change the number of interupts, and change their significance. This type of thinking It can also be useful in law. You can change the legal theory to fit the case. By viewing the facts in a different light, you can include a contract claim in a discrimination case.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  41. $2Bn, oh you are so full of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There are only a couple of people that this could apply to, so quit the High and Mighty SHIT and cough the details.

    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.
    ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL.

  42. this is why i still belive in the internet by fsck! · · Score: 1

    bravo to whoever first proposed this idea. i think this is one of the most romantic experiments in recent memory.

    i am reminded of those movies about the civil rights movement where a young law student from new york goes down to mississippi to defend a wrongly accused black man. only this time, instead of the student and the drunken public defender, we have hundreds of people throwing coal on the proverbial fire to liberate the rightous.

    maybe it won't turn out quite like that, but the idea is still there. i hope the founders of that project have enough technical knowledge to build a forum where this can actually work without turning into a flamewar or something. might i recomend a little perl hack called slash?

  43. Beggar's can't be choosers by divec · · Score: 1

    Well I think you're right that this needs actual *lawyers* looking to be any use. But if any lawyers do put in some time then it can't but help. If there's a few lawyers from different parts of the world they may be able to forge strategies which will work in courtrooms in different juristictions.

    Besides, it's not as if there's a multi-million dollar pool with which to hire expensive lawyers. The EFF will be stretched to its limits. If this is the only help some Doe gets in his case, then it could make a big difference.

    --

    perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

  44. Re:LINUX REALLY SUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot.

  45. I know! by eth1 · · Score: 1
    The next time you have the urge to watch a movie do the following:

    1. Mail check for money you *would* have spent on the movie to EFF or similar organization.

    2. Drive to the library instead of the theatre, and read to your hearts content!

  46. Judge is not a compiler! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    It's true. A judge may not apply logic, or may apply his/her own logic.

    It's always good to have a few extra sets of eyes on legal briefs. An extra set of eyes, can add a new view on an old arguement. Or maybe a new plan of attack.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  47. Free Software != "Freeware" by Mister+Attack · · Score: 2

    I couldn't help but notice that you used those terms interchangeably. Free Software is _not_ the same thing as freeware! To paraphrase RMS, free software means free as in you can do whatever you want with it, not free as in beer. Just thought I'd clear that up...
    --

  48. Re:The only people who need lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK YOU CHRISTIAN FUCKING FREAKS. I FUCK GAY MEN FOR FUN. SO FUCK YOUR OPEN SORES.

  49. Re:The only people who need lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck? Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck-fuck fuck. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fu-fuck fuck. Fuck fuck. --fuck

  50. Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wanna be careful, I bet Andover.net would hand over their logs to the FBI if threatened.

  51. Even better ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time you want a DVD of something:

    1. Buy a decent quality bootleg DVD
    2. Send the difference to the EFF

    Obviously I wouldn't really advocate a course of action which is illegal, and therefore immoral. Although if it's anything like VHS, you may have paid for your crime already in the royalties levied on *blank* DVDs.

    1. Re:Even better ... by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 2

      WARNING!

      Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. Nor is the reverse true.

      We would like them to be equivalent, but differences of opinion over morality will prevent that.

      --
      Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
  52. Perens, you are a EGO WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There are only a couple of people that this could apply to, so quit the High and Mighty SHIT and cough the details.

    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH
    GET A GRIP - YOU ARE NOT GOD. ERIC RAYMOND IS GOD. HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU AS WELL. HAH HAH

  53. And Bruce is thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ....ah, nothing from Eric Raymond for some time...chance...to...get...my...EGO OUT ON SLASHDOT!!!!

    Dont thank Christians for God, thank God for Bruce Perens!

    Now go screw yourself, we remember what you did to Debian

  54. Direct Democracy by Bizzaro · · Score: 2
    Despite popular belief, the U.S. government is not run "by the people." There have always been layers of abstraction between the people and Uncle Sam. For example, you want to vote for your man or woman of your choosing for president. Not so fast! He or she has to first submit a petition to some state office before they can even go on the primary ballot. If and only if your guy has the right number of signatures will they _consider_ him or her. And put an emphasis on consider. In many U.S. states, the political party the candidate wants to run under may just decide they won't accept the person. This happens every election year in New York State with one candidate or another.

    And then there is the primary. You think the person with the most votes wins, right? Wrong! Delegates from each state can throw the popular vote any way they choose. For example, let's say you voted for John McCain in the New Hampshire primary, and indeed McCain won New Hampshire. But the good ol' boys in the Republican convention may be in a George W. Bush mood, which is more than likely. They may very well say, "New Hampshire casts all of its votes to Bush." The delegates can do that!

    Okay, so now your guy won the primaries and is in the general election. Hey, he or she wins! Nope, not quite. There's a little known group called the "electoral college" that can do whatever they want, and _legally_. Just as with the delegates in the primary, they can decide the people are off their collective rocker and then elect THE OTHER GUY!

    Okay, well what about laws. Did you think that the president makes the laws? Nope. He or she can do nothing but veto a law, providing less than 2/3rds of the congress voted for it. Laws are passed by the congress, a relatively small group of people.

    So, you want UCITA to be rejected? Where can you go and vote against it? NOWHERE. You have to vote for someone to get into congress first, and then maybe they'll vote against it. But good luck there. It could take 6 years to get a new person into office. By then UCITA could be law.

    "But, can't I vote on a ballot for or against a law?" NOT FOR FEDERAL LAWS! This can only be done for _some_ state laws. First you need to get it on the ballot: not an easy task. Then, even if it passes, the state legislature can nullify it the next day. This happened in my state, where the legislature passed a seatbelt law. The _people_ said no and voted to remove it via ballot. Well, I guess we didn't know what we wanted, at least according to the legislature, because right after the _people_ shot the law down, the legislature VOTED IT RIGHT BACK IN AGAIN!

    It's frustrating, because the only way a person can support or oppose a law is to vote for a representative that feels the same way. BUT THE REPRESENTATIVE MAY VOTE AGAINST YOUR IDEALS ON EVERY OTHER ISSUE.

    Much of the way the U.S. government works is due the difficulties in communication and travel when the U.S. was established in the 18th century. It would be pretty pathetic trying to get everyone in the country to mail in a vote on every issue when the letter could take a few weeks to get across the country. It was therefore considered more pragmatic to have representatives at every step in the process.

    The communications or information age should change all this, however. The speed at which people can now educate themselves and share ideas cannot be compared to the way things were in great grandpa's days.

    I hope that computers will put an end to the delegate and electoral college system, and even the representative system. And I hope people can be trusted with the responsibility of direct democracy. But that's another issue.

    Jeff

    This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

    --

    --
    This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
    HAL9000

    1. Re:Direct Democracy by Tim+Pierce · · Score: 2

      Much of the way the U.S. government works is due the difficulties in communication and travel when the U.S. was established in the 18th century. It would be pretty pathetic trying to get everyone in the country to mail in a vote on every issue when the letter could take a few weeks to get across the country. It was therefore considered more pragmatic to have representatives at every step in the process.

      While that surely contributed to the representative system of democracy, it was hardly the only or even the main reason. Read the Federalist Papers some time. Federalist #10 argues at some length that direct democracy on a large scale inevitably amounts to mob rule. James Madison would be horrified at the suggestion that inefficient communications channels are the only reason for representative democracy.

    2. Re:Direct Democracy by Bizzaro · · Score: 1
      After posting that comment on why I thought the U.S. ended up a republic, I recalled the writings of some of the nation's founders. John Adams, for one, did not believe the common man was to be trusted with democracy. Much of this 'elitism', as I like to call it, gave us a nation without direct democracy and without suffrage for most.

      Jeff

      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

      --

      --
      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
      HAL9000

  55. And Bruce is thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ....ah, nothing from Eric Raymond for some time...chance...to...get...my...EGO OUT ON SLASHDOT!!!!

    Dont thank Christians for God, thank God for Bruce Perens!

    Now go screw yourself, we remember what you did to Debian

  56. RedHat has yet to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make a penny profit. Apple makes a profit.

  57. We are (not) poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    OK, many of us can not afford a high-priced attorney as we don't have the necessary dollars to do so. But, what we do have is an immense wealth of technical knowledge. Lets put that to use. Why don't we form a project to offer free technical advice, linux software and linux installations to various law firms in exchange for the legal representation we need in things like DeCSS?

    There are benefits for all:

    We get the legal representation we need but can not "afford".

    The law firms get substantial savings on their technical infrastructure

    The law firms get a robust, stable platform on which to run their businesses

    Linux use grows that much more.

    Both sides will develop a better understanding of each other.

    Everybody wins.

    1. Re:We are (not) poor by dammy · · Score: 1

      What the well known portions of the Linux community could do is donate items that will be or are already collector's items which would be auctioned off. Other possibilities could be GIMP artist banding together to create a art book that would create a source of short to medium term revenue generation. I don't think the Open Source (OS) community needs to look for handouts from EFF. The OS has the capability of generating funds to substain a fight in the courts for our rights. Question is, is there enough leadership and initiative in the OS community to make this happen? If there is, the first thing they need to do is form a Not For Profit Corp to coordinate the fund raising and legal contracts with attorneys.

    2. Re:We are (not) poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just put all that technical knowldge to work and write a $&*&* alternative to DVD/CSS??? Duh!

    3. Re:We are (not) poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because n o movie producer would use it.
      Maybe the @ltern@tive movie circuit; but
      you wouldn't see the next Star Wars or
      Matrix or Titonic on it.

  58. The other thing a legal forum could do ... by divec · · Score: 2

    The other way such a body could help is by giving advice about things to do *before* litigation starts. They could teach the free software community how to protect itself, how to avoid blunders which make litigation more likely.

    Perhaps somebody could put together a legal howto. How to keep your copyright enforceable. How to react to threatening letters. And if it comes to it, how to defend yourself in court. Sure, reading a howto is no substitute for years of legal training, but it's better than nothing.

    --

    perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

  59. Yes, but no by / · · Score: 2

    I agree that law is not strictly like source code, but the picture isn't quite as bleak as you paint it.

    There is one market that openlaw forums could address quite well: those silly cdroms of do-it-yourself legal briefs that you buy and fill in the blanks and use. While it's true that it's impossible to foresee how new judges will react to new arguments in new proceedings, some things have been filed and refiled to death and it's silly to pay a lawyer to reinvent the wheel with them.

    And you overstate the dissimilarity between source code and law in another fashion: like with new judges in new situations, established source code can break in new environments and hardware configurations. Just as the user will make a bug report and tell the author that the code doesn't always work in a given situation, so will the would-be lawyer when his argument falls on its face. And while code is more reproduceable than is law, any coder will also be quick to tell you that bugs often seem to appear and disappear with the phase of the moon.

    With that said, I have to smirk at what coding would look like if it functioned in the same way that law does in one respect: all those disclaimers about how "I am not a lawyer". Can you imagine what source code would look like if it were sprinkled with comments asserting "This may look like code, and if you try to compile it it might actually work, but I am not a programmer and this is not code."? Feel free to insert a wisecrack about Microsoft here.

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  60. Correction on Free Software Definition and Impact by PatientZero · · Score: 1
    Just to clarify a point for others.

    Free software has actually been given out by Microsoft (remember Internet Explorer? Netmeeting? Messenger?) and Microsoft recognizes and even links to many sites that promote Windows freeware.

    Remember that the free in free software is not the same as free beer. Microsoft did not make available any means to freely muck with the software they distributed. You have to use it exactly as the EULA stipulates, which does not include modifying the behavior nor redistributing it in any form. Thus, those apps are not free software; they just don't cost money to use.

    I do not give a community the group right to tinker with my car.

    They couldn't just tinker with it. Someone might release a new version of the fuel injection driver. Car afficianados would check it out, test it, and modify it more. If you so wanted, you could surf to a site that distributed new patches and pick the one for you:

    • Drag racer
    • Commuter-mobile
    • Weekend mountain driving

    Whatever you wanted, but you have choices, and that is the point of free software. With Internet Explorer, what are your choices? Yes or no, that's it. Not much of a selection.

    I do not want an open-source model managing my electric utilities or my sewage or my education.

    Same thing here. Suppose all of the California utilities use the same base of free software for running their plants. People "in the know" tinker with the development -- not production -- versions to improve performance, lower prices, etc. Some plants test it early under more restrained conditions and find that they can save 1 cent per kWh on electricity production. Ask any utility company if they'd implement such a change that still maintained safety levels and what do you think the answer would be? Yeah, I thought so.

    Keep in mind that if Bob has the ability to modify the source for a particular program, it doesn't mean that the binaries on my machine will be affected. I have to actively choose to pick up those changes.

    Now skip forward two or three years. People are used to frequent enhancements being made to their apps, but it starts to get difficult for Joe Consumer to benefit. Someone will start a company to provide a hands-free home package that continuously and automatically adds updates to their system. The system provides all the basics: web, mail, personal financing, security, yada yada yada.

    It's this model that I drool over. I haven't taken the time to delve into Linux. I've installed it, gotten most everything working, etc. However, I am sure that it's not at all secure. I'd bet any newbie hacker could get on it, grab the root password, and launch whatever attack they liked from it.

    I don't like that, but do I have time to read all the CERT advisories and grab all the latest patches to make it more secure? No, and I'd rather play Quake anyway. But I'd love to be able to trust someone else to do that for me at a reasonable price.

    I'd also bet there are millions of consumers that want the same thing. They don't want to install anything. They want a functional internet terminal that can play games and balance their checkbook.

    - PatientZero

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  61. Apple's fluctuating profitability. by divec · · Score: 2

    > Apple makes a profit.

    It has been known not to for several years in a row. Of course Red Hat makes consistent losses right now, but Apple probably did this at the start, too.

    --

    perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

    1. Re:Apple's fluctuating profitability. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no.

      Back in those days, to have a succesful company in market terms you had to make money. So you are wrong. For the past two years+ Apple has made a profit every quarter. Right now they earn 3.69 a share.

      There is no reason to think that RedHat will ever turn a profit. They hire more people, but once again, if people don't buy service contracts, they are going to just go under quicker.

  62. Re:100th Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    click me

  63. umm... mobs and bigotry?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't there some rather horrible counter-examples to this? Judicial law is often horribly outdated and ignorant, particularly on technical issues, but they pass the rulings that no voice of consensus ever would. If not for judicial law, we probably would have desegregated in the late 80's, maybe, in fact, probably, later. (Things like desegregating the armed services inserted a lot of people into the populace who weren't bigoted, so as their, and other, ranks grew, desegregation would have come eventually.)

    I don't have an organized rebuttal to this case at the moment, but 'All bugs are shallow' would translate into 'All are guilty'. The analogy doesn't convert. Interpreting law doesn't have similar connotations to working collaboratively on code.

  64. Money Gets People to Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can see a major problem with this: people won't help unless there is some self interest involved. (1) if the case happened to do with free software, people might help because they're somehow involved with the free software movement. (2) but if the case happens to involve some other subject, which doesn't have a support of a large group of people, then, perhaps, another method is needed. i propose that people be paid if their submission is used or is helpful. this would work on pretty much any case since, then, the burden on the lawyers to find new information is greatly reduced... all it takes is money. patrickg@earthling.net

  65. Help Fight Direct Democracy by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
    No, you are quite wrong. The United States is a republic, not a democracy- and that is not by accident or mistake.

    There's a level of inefficiency built into the system specifically to avoid straight-up vote over issues, and specifically to avoid democracy. Think for a second about what you are suggesting. Consider what votes you'd get for the following issues:

    • What is the official American OS? (Windows/Mac/Linux/Be)
    • How much taxes should people pay? (twice as much as now/same as now/nobody should pay any taxes)
    • Should Microsoft be allowed to innovate and help consumers by standardizing the world on its products? (Yes, they have that right/No, they should not be allowed to help consumers if it hurts Sun)
    Beginning to get the picture? Direct democracy is basically an open invitation to pure Politics As Spin, and it is very likely that you'd be the first against the wall, you slashdot reader hacker criminal type you ;)

    The problem is, it's well accepted that larger factions _will_ stomp all over smaller factions given the slightest opportunity. That's the way it's always been, and certainly watching the tech industry does _not_ suggest that this tendency has changed with the increase in technology we've seen.

    The question you need to ask is, exactly how do you keep all littler factions from being taken out and shot? That's basically what happens as soon as you start attempting to use pure democracy. For instance, in pure democracy applied to the computer industry, this very website is grossly undeserving of any support or 'mindshare'. It isn't about windows- it wastes huge amounts of resources, periodically slashdots other sites and eats bandwidth and offers _nothing_ to support Windows, which clearly has the numbers. Now, if Windows users mostly _want_ Slashdot that would be a different story, but under direct democracy there is no room for the concept of 'Loyal Opposition' much less underground or radical factions. It's a powerful homogenizing force that only begins to really kick in when people sense that they have the power to use this 'direct democracy'.

    It's not merely the 'Bread And Circuses' problem, it is worse because you get factions seemingly 'competing' in much the same way that the largely unregulated computer industry has been 'competing': playing dirty as hell, and winner-take-all. If you think having the RIAA and MPAA around treading on your rights is a problem, imagine what happens when The People get to vote on these issues! These associations have media resources that would blow your mind, and sure as 'hacker' is spun to sound like a terrorist, you'll get the issues presented in such a way that Orwell would drill through his grave, and The People will cheerfully vote to have to taken out and shot if you reverse engineer software programs. Hell, I could see _programming_ _itself_ made illegal for the unlicensed, given the right spin- such as these DOS attacks, or some credit-card-oriented spin.

    You don't know how lucky you are to live in a system where any particular faction is basically tied up in red tape. If you want to see what direct democracy looks like, look at Microsoft in the tech industry, and imagine them without the DoJ or any government. The trouble is you can't expect people to take an interest in everything: at least the representatives can be expected to read 4000 page bills and the like, as that is their job. You cannot expect the general public to read 4000 page bills before voting on them, so the vote becomes pure armwrestling over how things are phrased and spun. That's not really democracy because people are being fooled...

    1. Re:Help Fight Direct Democracy by Bizzaro · · Score: 1
      No, you are quite wrong. The United States is a republic, not a democracy- and that is not by accident or mistake.

      That's exactly my point. I was trying to debunk the myth that the U.S. is a true democracy. Yes, it is a republic.

      What is the official American OS? (Windows/Mac/Linux/Be)

      How much taxes should people pay? (twice as much as now/same as now/nobody should pay any taxes)

      Should Microsoft be allowed to innovate and help consumers by standardizing the world on its products? (Yes, they have that right/No, they should not be allowed to help consumers if it hurts Sun)

      Well, I did end my comment saying that the responsibility that comes with direct democracy is another issue ;-) And that's what you bring up here.

      Whether or not ANYTHING can come up for vote is a good point. Perhaps there should be a vote on the importance of each law before the law itself is voted on. If we _must_ give these rather silly questions a yes or no vote, we're in trouble.

      Also, I think people will realize they're follies very quicky when they vote for things such as the abolition of all taxes. They'll learn.

      The problem is, it's well accepted that larger factions _will_ stomp all over smaller factions given the slightest opportunity. That's the way it's always been, and certainly watching the tech industry does _not_ suggest that this tendency has changed with the increase in technology we've seen.

      I think you're suggesting anarchy is the inevitable result of direct democracy. I don't agree. I think with the right system of weights and balances, as seen elsewhere in the U.S. gov., it can work. On the other hand, we _now_ have a _closed_ boy's club of a system where government is done under the table in smoke-filled rooms. The more power politicians have, the more corrupt they'll be: POWER CORRUPTS!

      It's a powerful homogenizing force that only begins to really kick in when people sense that they have the power to use this 'direct democracy'.

      Again, you're assuming that _everything_ is up for vote. Would we really see a national vote for or against Slashdot? Or anything as harmless?

      These associations have media resources that would blow your mind

      Why do you think these associations have more power to influence millions than they have to influence a few hundred congressmen?

      and sure as 'hacker' is spun to sound like a terrorist, you'll get the issues presented in such a way that Orwell would drill through his grave, and The People will cheerfully vote to have to taken out and shot if you reverse engineer software programs.

      Are citizens more naive than congressmen? Those in Washington would sure like to believe they are the 'elite', fit to rule the huddled masses of ignoramises. You're playing into that mentality.

      and imagine them without the DoJ or any government.

      I never suggested the whole government be eliminated, just the legislative branch.

      The trouble is you can't expect people to take an interest in everything: at least the representatives can be expected to read 4000 page bills and the like, as that is their job.

      That's true, but I've watched many sessions of congress on C-SPAN, and most admit that they haven't read the whole bill before them. Now, do you seriously think they'd all read a 4,000 page bill?

      Plus, you're implying the media will have the biggest role, spinning things however they like. You may have a point there, but polls drive politicians too ;-)

      Jeff

      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

      --

      --
      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
      HAL9000

  66. nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Software is _not_ the same thing as freeware!
    sorry, you're wrong.

  67. Freeware/Free Software/Opensource Bigot Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  68. But what about the opposing lawyers? by Booker · · Score: 3

    How do you keep the other side from following all of your discussions? Do you really want the lawyer on the other side to know exactly what arguments you'll make in court?

    I think this is a great idea, but I'm wondering about this aspect. How do you keep your best arguments a secret? Or do you just hope that they're so good, it doesn't matter WHO knows them?
    ----

    1. Re:But what about the opposing lawyers? by wendy · · Score: 1

      That's one of the challenges to this model. The hope is that the number of collaborators in the open process will allow it to develop so many more and better arguments that the gains outweigh the loss of secrecy and surprise.

      --

      -- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain

    2. Re:But what about the opposing lawyers? by bwt · · Score: 1

      I've tried playing chess against the computer where I can see everything it is thinking. It still wins. It's the same reason why Linux is more secure than NT even though crackers can read our source code.

    3. Re:But what about the opposing lawyers? by Ready+Aim+Fire · · Score: 1

      Lawyers have to share whatever evidence will be presented before a trial anyway. Your best arguments should be known to the other side because that's your best opportunity to get them to settle out of court.

    4. Re:But what about the opposing lawyers? by jjsaul · · Score: 1

      The point is to make the process transparent so that the best ideas and logic will succeed - not to just do the same old adversarial gamesmanship that makes the US legal system subject to the contempt of most of us.

    5. Re:But what about the opposing lawyers? by ralphclark · · Score: 2

      That's the same as arguing for security through obscurity. It doesn't work for software when a cracker is determined to break in (see DeCSS for example!) so why should it work in law? If both sides' lawyers are equally competent, they should both be aware of all the arguments for and against, and should both be equally adept at presenting their own side. Given a fair and intelligent Judge and Jury as well, justice should prevail.

      That is how the law is *supposed* to work, but rarely does in practice, because one side can usually afford more and/or better lawyers. This is surely the precise issue that efforts like OpenLaw are meant to address. Eyeballs. Bugs. Shallow.

      Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
      Thought exists only as an abstraction

  69. Where? by Vanden · · Score: 1

    I'd love to be a citizen of such a nation, but where would we go? A few hundred years ago there was still a lot of unclaimed territory in the world, and room to start new nations. Now I think we have to either improve our existing gov't. (an insurmountable task IMHO), or try to force it to dole out some land for a new country. I just wish that our government hadn't become so controlled by economics. Personally, I don't think gov't should be allowed to do a damn thing unless someone tries to use force to gain some illegal end (physical force or extortion).

  70. Re:Correction on Free Software Definition and Impa by firstnevyn · · Score: 1

    You want one of two things. Open BSD if you are REALLY paranoid about security or Debian which has an auto updater that works all that stuff out and then all you have to do is keep your kernal uptodate

  71. Re:Correction on Free Software Definition and Impa by firstnevyn · · Score: 1

    You want one of two things.

    Open BSD if you are REALLY paranoid about security

    or Debian which has an auto updater that works all that stuff out and then all you have to do is keep your kernal uptodate

  72. Re:Correction on Free Software Definition and Impa by JustShootMe · · Score: 2

    You have to make an effort but Linux can be pretty much as secure as OpenBSD. It's just usually shipped in a wide-open state.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
  73. Corporations DO plot against Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have overheard execs discussing the Open Source Movement. They were not saying nice things. I don't think it's that big of a leap to assume that they activly try and combat it. Spreading FUD through the media is rather easy in this day and age. Keep your mind Open.

  74. We will Assimilate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should be Open Borg and assimilate the planet.

  75. Re:I M A TROLL AND THIZ IZ MYE MANIFEZTOE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have only laughed once while reading comments on /., this is it.

  76. Courting the Open Source Legal Dept. by bwt · · Score: 1

    I sort of think of the open source movement as creating an "Anti-company" wereby we, the consumers, take back space previously the province of proprietary interests. We've come to the part where we've got to create our legal department.

    I think there are several ways to do this. All rely on our community doing what it does best -- colaborating using the methods of open source.

    One way to improve our "legal department" is to approach creation of legal documents as a plain old open source documentation project. This works for creating legal briefs, and it can even work for creating legislation. In states with direct ballot votes, this can be enough to get it into law. We must to some extent not be afraid to use technology and teamwork to push back the boundaries of the "guild".

    In some cases, though, you are right, we need lawyers on our side doing full time "real" lawyer work. One way that I see to interest more lawyers to do pro bono work for us is to do pro bono work for them. Believe me, big law firms are wasting BIG BUCKS on IT "solutions". Perhaps we should target open source software towards law firms. Make it a goal to put free software operating systems on lawyers desks running free software applications that lawyers need. Technically, this isn't much of a challenge: basically, they need legal search engines, document management systems, and groupware. I think if more lawyers understand how our methods work and can touch and feel the benefits, we'll have created a lobbying effort better than one we could gotten by knocking on the front door.

    1. Re:Courting the Open Source Legal Dept. by Ramses0 · · Score: 1

      If I had moderator points, I'd moderate this up several times. This is exactly the right strategy (to barter geek-skills for lawyer-skills), the only difficulty I see is actually working near lawyers. From the way it's portrayed in media/slasdhot, I'd be afraid to sneeze in a law office because of the liability issues, and if you somehow misconfigure their webserver you're screwed ;^)=

      As a techie, I'd -so- be willing to do tech support, installs, web apps, etc... for lawyers (in return for their support of free software).

      Perhaps this could be managed through the EFF? If you want to help out lawyers, sign up with the EFF to leave your skillset and zipcode. Whenever a law office needs help doing something, spam people that are nearby. If it's interesting and you've got a free hour on the weekend, go in and consult for free. The effect would (hopefully) be immediate and powerful.

      A relationship like this can only help both sides (just so long as you get the contracts, waivers, disclaimers, etc... correct before touching anything ;^)=

      --Robert

    2. Re:Courting the Open Source Legal Dept. by musak · · Score: 1

      On the trading-IT-work-for-legal-support tip-- I think this is a very attractive idea. Even though most lawyers would not think of switching to free-software, for many reasons, you never know who might be on your side with a little help. The legal battlefield we are on now can turn into a major social revolution. And the right lawyers might be able to help. It's worth a shot. We never know who our friends are until we meet them.

  77. Re:Correction on Free Software Definition and Impa by Roundeye · · Score: 2
    Their are two major security advantages to OpenBSD and you have hit upon one of them, namely that it ships in a "secure by default" state. Linux can be tightened down to the same state (no unnecessary services, verbose logging, tighten file permissions, apply all known patches, etc.).

    The other is not so obvious, but even more important: the source distributed with OpenBSD has undergone an extensive (years long) line by line security audit. Bugs that were fixed in OpenBSD two years ago and posted to various advisories lists are still turning up in Linux (and Free/NetBSD, and even proprietary Unix variants) to this day.

    In addition, even given that a Linux distribution which has been audited to the degree that OpenBSD has (btw, there isn't one) is shipped in a secure-by-default (which I don't know of either...) state, this does not imply security. Security is a process which transcends a particular software installation (as the thousands of dumpster-diving and social engineering tales make clear).

    There is a tradeoff, however, between security and usability. Most Linux newbies (or anything else newbies for that matter) don't want to be told that they have to reconfigure 10 security settings to easily reset the permissions on their sound card. People run X as root. People, for some reason, like to run anonymous ftp servers. And so on. The distro that strikes a balance between ease of use and default security will go a long way towards widespread adoption.

    --
    "Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
  78. Already common law? by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

    I don't want to discourage or anything, but since court decisions are already open and capable of being modified by anyone with (a certain standard) education and experience, the law is already essentially open source. It's just that it takes a lot longer than a single case to fix -- a single court case is the equivalent of a single edit-compile-test-debug cycle, and nobody ever wrote a program with only one of those ;-).

    This digital millenium copyright act garbage really needs a good jury nullification, though. Now THAT would be quick.

    Anyhow, I don't think a whole lot of unskilled but enthusiastic eyes are going to find anything worthwhile.

    -Billy

  79. MODERATE THIS UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Yes. Yes. You get it.

  80. formal method? by slashdot-terminal · · Score: 2

    I was wondering is there is an exact say formal method of reverse engineering that works for hardware and such. I am really quite curious if I am to be more fully informed about the process. I would have thought it was just guess test and repeat however I may more than likely be wrong in this account.
    Sometimes for some things there is no other way to do something then use reverse engineering. Most old and unattended cobol applications needed a little RE before their true nature was discovered.

    I hope this works I have been getting a great many network reed errors or something (may be a little conspiracy)

    --
    Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
    1. Re:formal method? by Stary · · Score: 1
      I don't think there's any exact formal method specified for it. Basicly, reverse engineering is copying the function of someting, but not the implementation of it.

      This means, if you'd copied the actual code, it'd been theft, or at least a crime against copyright laws, but if you just write entirely new code, that does the same thing, it's reverse engineering. Also, I beleive, documenting the functions of something can fall under reverse engineering (as documenting the function of someting is needed in order to copy the function of something).

      The sum of it all is: you'll still have to write the new code (/make the new chip/device/hardware) yourself.

      --
      Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
    2. Re:formal method? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has a point, I mean, Linux is just a reverse-engineered Unix isn't it :)

  81. Re:BRUCE: THIS COCK'S FOR YOU SWEETCHEEKS!!! by quadong · · Score: 1

    And it looks like he is holding water, or some fluid anyway (heh) above his arm... clean up the image already!

  82. Re:I M A TROLL AND THIZ IZ MYE MANIFEZTOE!!! by gargle · · Score: 1

    This is good stuff. Never have I seen such poetry on slashdot.

  83. Some problems with "Open Law" by Inspector_Hound · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it sounds great, but it's too optimistic, IMHO. The problem is there's no reason lawyers who are opposed to open source--or, for that matter, who work for tobacco companies, asbestos companies, anti-environmental or anti-labor corporations--wouldn't want to team up (secretly, of course), and chat with other evil lawyers about how to flout those annoying little Clean Air, Clean Water & Civil Rights acts they don't like. Then again, they probably do this already. Of course, they & their supporters might innundate the OpenLaw site (arena?) to spread legal advice they know to be incorrect, plant legal traps, etc. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic...

    --
    "Nothing is more unnerving to the truly conventional than the unashamed misfit."--J.K. Rowling
  84. Government Is Not That Important. by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Most people believe they have more important things to do than improve the government because that's true.

    For example: your boss's decisions have a much greater and direct impact on your life than most of the president's decisions. Consequentally, most people spend a lot more time trying to improve their careers than they do trying to improve the government.

    This is not to say that government is not important. However, by turning the chores of government over to specialists who make it their life's work to improve the government we allocate resources much more effectively. Try to imagine a govt. where *everybody* had to spend 2 hours a day reading proposed legislation. Society would rapidly becomed bogged down as time was diverted from things like education, medicine, healthy exercise, etc...

    I can't say too many times how a lot of us could benefit from reading and re-reading basic economic theory. What we have here is a suggestion that we should violate the law of comparative advantage. If I remember correctly, the law is that people should specialize in what they do best, because that will maximize the efficiency of the economy.

    This, BTW, is why the founding fathers made the US a republic, and not a straight democracy.

    Likewise, most people don't mess around with Open Source because they have better things to do. I've had conversations with people where it took me 10 minutes just to explain the difference between binary and source. Such people are not stupid. In fact, they've made the very wise decision not to waste their time on persuits for which they are not suited. What if Linus Torvalds had to help with graphic layout for the Transmeta website as part of his job? Would that be a proper use of his resources?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Government Is Not That Important. by The+Man · · Score: 1
      I hope you don't really believe that the current government is composed of people who are better at governing than the rest of us. I can't speak for any other country, but in .us, this would constitute a sick joke at best and treason at worst.

      Try to imagine a govt. where *everybody* had to spend 2 hours a day reading proposed legislation. Society would rapidly becomed bogged down as time was diverted from things like education, medicine, healthy exercise, etc...

      I don't think so. I think that instead there would be a hell of a lot less legislation. Since there would be no full-time "government" per se, people wouldn't have lots of time to come up with this kind of spam legislation. What would end up happening is a nation with a very few, very good laws and citizens that spend virtually no time governing themselves but instead have more time to dedicate to useful tasks.

      I'm familiar with basic economics as you mention. In fact, there is a theory of economics that states that over extended periods of stability, economic interests become entrenched within government and innovation and competition are stifled, leading to less efficient markets. By extrapolation, occasional revolutions are beneficial, strange as it would seem. But by having a government of this alternative type, this effect could be greatly reduced - it's hard to lobby a hundred million people but easy to lobby a few dozen. Citizens under Open Government would be expected to debate issues and vote independently. Voting would be mandatory, and anyone could propose and refine legislation. (Sound familiar? "I've got this new feature added in. Comments appreciated..." "Yeah, there's a huge bug, here's a patch..." "Ok, I think this is ready for inclusion (vote)") This could be seriously made to work if some kind of sanity requirement were made of citizens (think Jeff V Merkey).

    2. Re:Government Is Not That Important. by esperandus · · Score: 1
      been thinking abouit something of the sort for quite a while now. The main goal of my life has long been to help design and implement this kind of utopian society *grin*

      Voting would be mandatory, and anyone could propose and refine legislation. (Sound familiar? "I've got this new feature added in. Comments appreciated..." "Yeah, there's a huge bug, here's a patch..." "Ok, I think this is ready for inclusion (vote)") This could be seriously made to work if some kind of sanity requirement were made of citizens (think Jeff V Merkey).

      Not sure if voting should be mandatory. As you say, there is the issue of 'sanity'. POssibly too much potential for abuise and mayhem if you force people who have a poor understanding of the issues ot excersise their leagl power of self-determination. The rush limbaugh effect could endanger the satte so created. One possible solution would be to ask a selection of random questions testing the potential voters' knowledge of the issues involved. Composing unbiased questions would be difficult, but more or less doable. The revolution in IT makes something like a direct democracy possible for the first time (maybe. IF the logistics were what was preventing it from taking root before-systems larger than, say, Athens are simply unmanageable- then we are all set. They are no longer a problem. Of course, logistics might not be the most important problem...)

      Perhaps some kind of prestige-based benefit could be attached to the act of voting as a kind of reward. Or maybe voting for The election (of executive officer) would be mandatory, and the others would be requisiste on the voters grasp of the issues as described above.

      The scary question: what if we are given free reign to design our own government form the ground up away from the prying o hands of the power-hungry jackals who aer exactly the knid of people who seek and should not be granted positions capable of being exploitedm for their own benefit, and we still make a mess of things by coincentrating on nothin gbut our own short-term gain. Fear that this might be the case is one of the things that has been stopping me from trying more seriously to startt some kind of forum discussing the idea... (that and laziness, anyway)

      matt

      --
      The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
    3. Re:Government Is Not That Important. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. I think that instead there would be a hell of a lot less legislation. Since there would be no full-time "government" per se, people wouldn't have lots of time to come up with this kind of spam legislation.

      Ummm... If slashdot is any indicator, we could anticipate reveiwing lots of Natalie Portman bills, and petitions for more hot grits.

      As far as our legislators not being experts goes, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Laws get complicated because contingencies tend to pop up around essentially simple ideas, just as in programming. I can explain the concept of Z-buffered rasterization in 5 minutes. So why is my rendering engine 5875 lines of code? Contingencies. Loopholes. Accomodations. And it *still* isn't exactly the way I want it.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Government Is Not That Important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the middle 50s some guy colonel smth. (can't remember his name), who was concerned about the communist infestation of the government, noted that the pyramid model is potentially corruptible, and therefore he devised the cell model of resistance, where the independent cells of "hmm. . ." militia share information, and work together. thus they're much less of a subject to abuse or corruption. we could manage ourselves without burdening and unfair hierarchies; the open source and the Internet demonstrate clearly that (BTW, the politcs follow the code) there could be a rather productive, self sustainable environment without any centralized hierarchical authoritative control . this is the next logical step; Brew.

    5. Re:Government Is Not That Important. by The+Man · · Score: 1
      Ummm... If slashdot is any indicator, we could anticipate reveiwing lots of Natalie Portman bills, and petitions for more hot grits.

      Two reasons this wouldn't be a problem:

      1. Admissions requirements. Like I mentioned, citizenship is a priviledge not a right; applicants will be sanity-checked. Before you go nuts and scream "HITLER!!!" all I'm saying is the people should be committed to good government. How to test that properly is hard, but maybe some sort of interview process would work.

      2. There's no anonymous legislation proposal. You have to vote on each piece, but if it's from some guy who proposes lots of this kind of tripe, you can safely just punch up "Nay" and be done with it. And there would presumably be some sort of method for ejecting such spammers from the country, just as we have here with moderation and on Usenet with cancels.

  85. Then let me clarify by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
    It is _not_ that congressmen are cleverer, more educated, or wiser than your average person (god forbid!). It's just that your average person doesn't have TIME to handle this kind of thing directly. That's what congressmen are _for_, they are basically employees of the citizenry hired to learn about this stuff and make good decisions. Certainly they have faults but they are not that much worse than the citizenry, not worse at all.

    My thinking on the matter is colored by a lot of reading on Watergate: representatives were placed in pretty intolerable positions at that time. Some represented deeply conservative constituencies which doggedly supported Nixon- yet gradually the representatives began to realise that Nixon had lied to them, lied to the people, committed crimes, and as impeachment grew closer and closer, they all ended up turning against Nixon, because they owed their constituencies not just their obedience, but their judgement. It was a tough call, causing many of them great anguish- they like you took representation seriously. But the bottom line was this: they knew that their own constituents had been lied to and misled, and they couldn't wait around for 'em to figure that out. They had to act based on the truth.

    If it was a pure democracy, it is possible that Watergate could have ended in an expertly 'spun' poll or vote (The Nixon people spent millions in astroturf campaigns through fake organizations, even buying a fullpage Times advertisement under a false name) resulting in a criminal President who engaged in wiretapping, surveillance, and conspiracy to burglary and obstruction of justice... staying in office and continuing to do it. That's not OK.

    By the same token, though it's hard to argue that politicians should be trusted, _somebody_ has to get the job of learning up on this stuff and deciding things. When you read history it might surprise you, sometimes, how our pols can sometimes rise above all the corruption and politicking and do what we'd want them to do- even eloquently, movingly.

    Campaign reform, yes. Tie the hands of corporate pork barrel special interests, yes. Replace the pols with one big vote- no thank you. For all their faults the pols do that job better than one big vote ever could.

    1. Re:Then let me clarify by Bizzaro · · Score: 1
      It's just that your average person doesn't have TIME to handle this kind of thing directly.

      Do we have too many laws, then? Are congressmen trying to justify their earnings by passing frivolous laws? It's a question that can't really be answered. But I'll ask you, after 224 years, does the U.S. still need thousands of laws added to the books each year? And did you know that many laws passed were inacted previously, but no one knew about them?

      It was a tough call, causing many of them great anguish- they like you took representation seriously. But the bottom line was this: they knew that their own constituents had been lied to and misled, and they couldn't wait around for 'em to figure that out. They had to act based on the truth.

      And do you believe the people of the U.S. to be incapable of such serious thought, anguishing over their decision, and acting based on truth? I'd like to think so. Or do you think that there was just too little time to affect public opinion? Might people have acted more swiftly in the information age?

      By the same token, though it's hard to argue that politicians should be trusted, _somebody_ has to get the job of learning up on this stuff and deciding things.

      And maybe it's not a bad thing that people have to become EDUCATED about these things.

      When you read history it might surprise you, sometimes, how our pols can sometimes rise above all the corruption and politicking and do what we'd want them to do- even eloquently, movingly.

      Again, you're saying that the people of the U.S. are incapable of rising above corruption and politicking. I'm dogging you on this, because this is how you keep distinguishing politicians from the common folk. Is there anything else that makes representatives better are passing laws, other than having some elite nature not possessed by everyone else, having more time to pass too many new laws, and being able to respond quicker (which is no longer true thanks to computers)?

      Jeff

      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

      --

      --
      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
      HAL9000

    2. Re:Then let me clarify by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      It's not about responding quicker (that might be the worst thing you could do!). It's certainly not about the people being either better _or_ worse than the pols. It _is_ about having or making the time to deal with the issues. What does UCITA mean to you? Well then, what about Monsanto? That's yet another area, agribusiness, and I only mention it because I have heard enough about it to know there are serious issues with that. Many people who know more than I do about dangerous agribusiness developments haven't got a clue what UCITA is or why they should care. And then I am quite certain that there are still other issues I haven't even heard about, thousands of them.

      "You shut up! Try running a state for a while instead of a small business and see how you like it!" (Robert Heinlein character in 'Magic, Inc.')

      I mean it. There just ISN'T time. No sane person should expect that they can make sensible decisions on all the doings of government, individually. You have to delegate. It's stark raving madness to think you can micromanage U.S. government, and the whole concept of ever-more-direct-Democracy is essentially wanting to turn the country over to micromanagement on the assumption that this would work. Even _if_ the idea of simple majority was a smart one (and there are reasons why it can be an absolute curse), there is just no way 'the people of the U.S.' are able to educate themselves on what they would need to know. Nobody could, even the pols only get part of the way there, and they are (at least in theory) fulltime employed at it. If you want government to improve, figure out how to get the pols to work harder and take more responsibility for their actions, don't just talk about giving the People a governmental 'remote'. "Click 'yes' to fight cyberterrorist acts"...

      I guess when I get right down to it I'm saying this: the ONLY key difference between the pols and the People is that the pols get full-time to learn about the issues. The People don't _have_ the time to learn about the issues. They probably are experts on their own backyards, but nobody is giving them time to learn about Qatar and labor issues in Cleveland and UCITA and genetically engineered wheat and the implications of telecommuting on OSHA regulations and SSI Red Book incentives and the price of tea in Des Moines?

      If the pols are so useless at this when it's all they do, what on earth gives you the idea that you can turn the decisions over to people who haven't even heard about half of these things? How would you make them listen, how are you going to force them to abandon every free hour they have and stay up extra late at night to be briefed on Somalia?

      Yes, I'm getting 'debatey', but so are you. Really, isn't this a major concern?

    3. Re:Then let me clarify by esperandus · · Score: 1
      I did not think that the original proposal suggested thatg all politicians should be removed as useless. It seems clear that there is an advantage ot specialization in the act of governing--As you say, micromanagement of a government by an entire po[ulation would be impossible.

      If I am not mistaken, however, the original idea was to permit the selection of rep[resentatives based upon the principles of direct democray instead of the 'boys' club' of the electoral college. This would maintaint eh benefits of having full-time employees of the citizenry working on representing everybody's best interest, but it might make it more likle ythat the poele sleected actually do represent the interests of their constituents. Add a few more regulations (equal campaign media time, publicized debates around a mediated set of issues standardizd and made mandatory, etc.) and you just might have something.

      I would even take the idea farther, into dangerous and possibly flame-ridden territory. I agree that extremem micormanagement ins impossible, but the information revolution at least makes it more feasible. representatives and some kind of watchdog organization could select issues of extreme import to the poeole and offer periodic presentations on the relevenat information (such selections and the organizations to do the selecting would have to be choas ewith the utmost of care--by the voters!!). Voting might even be mandatory for those who could answer a few basic questions about the issue indicating a general level of education and the presnece of more than 3 neurons devopted to the problem. I think a mix of a direct quasi-micromanagement and directly chosen representatives, facilitated by IT, might work a good bit better than oligarchy/plutocracy based on the idea of exploiting everyone elese for one's own benefit (the invisiable hand be dammned!)might work a good bit better than what we have now.

      Course, its never been tried. Not enough data even to predict likelhood of success. Even thought the ideas undoubteldy flawed, it might be woprth refining. Dont dismiss the idea so easily. And I think that a direct democracy actually prevents the kind of oppression of factions that you speak of--it wuld let everyone be heard, while the opinoins and interesrts of teh margina;lozed few ar enot even voiced in washingtopn today. There are no socialsist congressmen, for example (err....I think). However, if one biut a system with 100 candidates, and awarded the first 100 positions to the people with 1% or greter of the popular vote (or the candidates with the 100 largest number sof votes), then almost every significant group would get to appoint someone to voice their interests and at least put up a fight if someone tries to 'bring them out to the wall'.

      tricky question, but important. Interested in feedback.

      Matt

      --
      The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
    4. Re:Then let me clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something *has* to be better than the current system. More and more the politician's argument is "such and such is good for the industry," as if it is assumed that what is good for industry is what is good for the nation. Examples: all the modifications to copyright law, which was originally created to promote the sharing of ideas. Now, thanks to things like the endless extensions of copyright (now up to 75 years!) and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, individual expression is squashed in favor of big business. Thanks, Disney. Now we'll never get e-texts of recent masterpieces.

      I believe a more open form of government, with the hidden avenues of money&influence exposed is a worthy goal. Business has learned over the years what those avenues are, while the general population has mostly stayed ignorant. Killing "soft money" would be a good first step.

      Next step, I think: assign a time to live (TTL) to each law :). Too much crap on the books.

    5. Re:Then let me clarify by Bizzaro · · Score: 1
      I did not think that the original proposal suggested thatg all politicians should be removed as useless.

      The emphasis of my first post was to point out that we do not have a direct democracy, but that it would be nice to have one. My later posts argue that, while I do not expect all politicians to be done away with, direct legislation by the people is possible.

      True, not everyone has the time to learn about every new law, and some people just don't care. This has been used as an argument against direct democracy.

      I propose that those with the time and concern enough to cast votes for and against laws be allowed to do so. And those without the time and concern be allowed to vote for a representative. The representative would then _represent_ the number of votes equal to the number of people who voted for them.

      So, you may end up with 100 million popular votes on a law and 110 million represented votes. The total votes would be 210 million. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE!

      I guess this is something like what you were suggesting, but I couldn't tell with the garbled text :-)

      Jeff

      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

      --

      --
      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
      HAL9000

    6. Re:Then let me clarify by Bizzaro · · Score: 1
      Then I propose that those with the time and concern enough to cast votes for and against laws be allowed to do so. And those without the time and concern be allowed to vote for a representative. The representative would then _represent_ the number of votes equal to the number of people who voted for them.

      So, you may end up with 100 million popular votes on a law and 110 million represented votes. The total votes would be 210 million. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE!

      Jeff

      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

      --

      --
      This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
      HAL9000

    7. Re:Then let me clarify by esperandus · · Score: 1
      Actually, I was replying to Mr. Chris Johnson...I agree with your proposals (more or less, anyway). I believe that with a little bit of modification (to ensure that voters are educated and passionate), a direct democracy would be far superior to any contemporary governmental system. Incidentally, if you are aware of any extant direct democracies, I would be greatly interetsed in hearing about them...

      --
      The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
  86. potential of communications. by ripicheep · · Score: 1

    Open source is the realization of the great potential that communications technology has brought to us. What product/idea is not made better by peer review?

    My friends and I play team chess. Each team (colour) has two (or more) players, and within a team, you reach consensus about a move. The other team can however hear your strategies as well. It makes for excellent games, and entertaining debates.

    Open source is a method, a means not an end. open source can be applied to software, to law, to chess, to cooking... to anything in fact that involves making informed descisions.

    In open sourceit is critical that high standards be maintained and that project focus is enforced by a guiding group or individual.

    Debating merit with, and bouncing ideas off of peers has long been a method of honing ideas. Thanks to the ability to communicate our ideas to milions of people in a very short time and recieve their thoughts back, it is now a much more effective process.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
  87. please support my charity organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More Moderators Foundation

  88. please support my charity organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More Moderators Foundation

  89. bruce, i found your homepage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    or is it your homopage?

  90. Re:esr really turns me on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i've got his dick in my mouth right now.

    jesus loves you!

  91. check out bruce's homepage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bruce's homopage

  92. OpenLaw should read Slashdot! by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 1
    At the risk of being assaulted by the fashionably anti-Slashdot crowd, I'd like to suggest that perhaps OpenLaw would benefit by reading and - better yet - participating in Slashdot discussions.



    --

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  93. not YET enforceable by _Marvin_ · · Score: 1

    Isn't this one of the big things UCITA is all about? And with american states racing to be the first to implement and enforce UCITA, they WILL be enforced!

    --
    "We won't use guns, we won't use bombs, we'll use the one thing we've got more of and that's our minds" - Pulp
  94. Hey you dotbrains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else seen this coming? We don't trust people (kings/priests/whoever) to administer the powers of state and manage our societies so we place the decision making powers in the hands of machines. Laws. We make laws to tell us what's right and wrong. Laws are programs. Machines. Machines for telling right from wrong. Machines for making decisions. Machines for deriving unquestionable judgements from inescapable assumptions. Machines as trustworthy as science. As trustworthy as the assumptions the laws/programs/theories are founded upon. Now we've got this really rigorous process for developing bugless programs called open source. Now we can create perfect programs. Perfect laws. Laws that all of the blind, idea-worshiping, machine-loving geeks can agree are logically consistant, based upon assumptions that are inescapable, and are therefore as righteous as the fear in their clenched, caffiene-scarred hearts. Laws as consistant as nanobuilt diamonds. Legal avatars of the logic god. Perfect programs for the social machine. Laws we can trust. Fuck that. I'd rather have a priest-king. LETS ALL PLAY ULTIMA ONLINE 24-7 FROM OUR WORK COFFINS!

  95. Englick not 1st language by esperandus · · Score: 1

    Spelling is hard late at night. Sorry.

    --
    The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
  96. Collective drafting by Sanity · · Score: 2
    I have often thought about creating a system like CVS but which would operate over the web and be designed to allow a group of people to edit English text. This sounds like an ideal application for such a system. If anyone would like to find out more about my ideas (they are quite well developed although I haven't coded anything) please email me".

    --

  97. I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try to imagine a govt. where *everybody* had to spend 2 hours a day reading proposed legislation. Society would rapidly becomed bogged down as time was diverted from things like education, medicine, healthy exercise, etc... I've thought some on this. How about some kind of a superflexible representative/proxy voting system? for example: I could assign my vote to my retired-lots-of-time-on-her-hands mother. Her vote would then be worth "2 votes". She might not feel like putting in the time researching the issues and such so she assigns her vote to her favorite science fiction author. That author would then have my moms vote, my vote, and the vote of anyone else who was impressed enough with his writing to give him their vote. Assignment of proxy/representative could be by a superquick online process. You could assign/deassign representatives at a moments notice. Fiftytimes a day if you felt like it. There could be professional representatives of course but boy would they have to toe the line. Instant accountability.

  98. New intellectual property laws are needed by mangu · · Score: 2
    Hardware property is very easy to define, therefore easy to enforce. It doesn't matter what is the law, maybe total capitalism, or communism, or in between. Since property is so closely related to possession, any property of a material object is easy to verify and enforce. The exceptions to (possession == property), such as rents and leases, are few and easy to define.

    Intellectual property, on the other hand, is rahter fuzzy and slippery. People may agree on some basic concepts, but very soon there will start appearing exceptions and side issues and ramifications that weren't thought out. It's very hard to get from basic principles to details in intellectual property law for two reasons:
    1) Intellectual property isn't so well correlated to physical possession. You may buy a book, the book is yours, but the content is mine, etc.
    2) Intellectual property can be duplicated. If I own a tract of land, I can't copy it, if I own a book I can.

    Therefore, I think we need some differentiation between material and intellectual property in the law. It's easy to say they are exactly the same in principle, just say "pirating software is exactly like stealing", but saying it doesn't make it true. At least, not in the practical sense.

    Unenforceable laws should be avoided, because they create a general disrespect for the law. It's like the alcohol prohibition that some countries tried in the early 20th century. Those laws had only one effect: they created a widespread corruption among the police officers and a lot of admiration and tolerance for gangsters among the general public. The intellectual property laws as they stand now, will only create a cracker worship mentality among the people.

    From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny

  99. Here's my suggestion: by mangu · · Score: 1
    "In order to claim intellectual property over something, you must publicly declare EXACTLY what is the property you are claiming"

    In other words, you cannot claim intellectual property over anything that you keep secret.

    For instance, if you distribute a binary file, you can claim intellectual property over the binary data you distributed, but not over the source code you compiled to obtain those bits. Therefore, if somebody decompiles your executable file, he may distribute the source code.

    Another example, if somebody distributes a cryptographically encoded movie, his property is the encoded data. You may decode the data and sell the decoded result. If he doesn't want the original data to be in the public domain, he must take care to use a strong encoding and keep his key secret

    The rationale behind my proposal is that no one can be forced to guess what is it that is claimed as "intellectual property". How can I ever be sure that I am not violating someone's porperty if I don't know what the property is? This is like arresting someone for trespassing in a land where there are no fences and no property titles are publicly availalbe.

    From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny

  100. Re:I M A TROLL AND THIZ IZ MYE MANIFEZTOE!!! by Pierce · · Score: 1

    :-) That was funny!

  101. For Law, Is Cathedral Better than Bazaar? by werdna · · Score: 2

    For code, code readings are great. More code readings are better. This is, in part, because code either works or it doesn't, is fast or it isn't. This isn't always true, but it is more true than it isn't. To the extent this is true, the leverage of a community of open source contributors interested in a project is better, not worse.

    For law, code readings are silly. It is not true of the law that an argument either works or it doesn't, or that more code readings can be used to find "the best argument." Indeed, to the contrary, Brooks law may ultimately overtake a legal project, and squeeze it to death: too many cooks . . .

    A brief is usually subjected to rigid page limitations, and must be delivered up subject to a rigid (and usually short-fuse) time deadline. This is not the stuff for which large numbers of hobbyist contributors can be useful. Where legal research must be complete, it must be COMPREHENSIVE, and where it needn't be complete, it needn't be deep at all.

    More important, the twenty pages of a legal brief must persuade. Advocacy is quite different from merely "getting it right." There is never room in twenty pages to give a complete and comprehensive analysis of everything relevant -- but twenty pages is the space in which you must give ALL the analysis of everything important. You must pick your BEST shots, focus on your BEST issues, and present them in their BEST light. Then, one must find the theme, the overall single "gist" of the argument, and weave those arguments therein, so that the judge or judges reading the brief are drawn in and buy into the rest of the story.

    This is the kind of stuff for which one mind works better than two, at least after the brainstorming. Sure, it is helpful to have a few more eyes passing over a work to help cite-check and proofread the brief. Sure, it is helpful to have many people providing access to the obscure "home-run" cases when you can find them, if they can find them. But ultimately, someone needs to sift through these myriad claims of genius "finds," to determine their merits and relative weight.

    In law, it is the FOCUS and HONING of an argument, not merely a comprehensive analysis, that wins the day. In my view, the Brooks law communications may well quickly defeat the possibility that a brief can be improved by an open law analysis.

    At the end of the day, debugging a brief is not a big deal. Cite-checking twenty pages of brief's cases isn't that hard. Fifty people doing it doesn't make it much better.

    The economies of scale that make open source work just don't seem to fit into the world of legal research and briefing. I agree with Seth and others who manifest skepticism that OpenLaw is simply an attempt to leverage the hype and panache, without the real and meaningful benefits, of open source.

    This is not to say that legal volunteerism is unimportant. To the contrary, it is essential. Better pro bono publico work may well be improved by a network of (a moderate number of) well-wired attorneys working together in smaller bits, but with a central cathedral focus. (It is also a wonderful opportunity to make pro bono work fun!) If this is openlaw, I'm all for it. But it still is just law in a cathedral, albeit with wires, and not in the bazaar.

  102. Law vs. Ethics by hoangelos · · Score: 1

    Just because a law is in effect, doesn't make something ethicsal. Reverse engineering is unethical. As a programmer, I take offense at the process of destruction that is inherent in reverse engineering. I believe in Open Source. However, the community at large only benefits from such a practise if it is willing open source.

  103. You sorta missed the point. by Venomous+Louse · · Score: 2


    My point is that computer geeks are rarely lawyers. I Am, as they say, Not a Lawyer. Nor are you, I'm willing to bet.

    The answer to most legal questions is "ask a lawyer", not "ask Slashdot". Would you hire a programmer to write code? Hell, I wouldn't even hire most Slashdotters to write code -- and they know more about that than they do about the law.

    --
    "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
  104. Re: whatever you mean by "better" laws by #barcode · · Score: 1

    sorry to say this, but I think you missed the point. OpenLaw is not about making laws or the results of a case "better" in the sense that software is improved in quality/ reliability/ and the like through OpenSource-methods and peer review. The thing about laws is whether they meet people's needs and allow minorities their chances. OpenLaw isn't just trying to copy our methods. As I see it, the idea is that the possibilities through Internet-based collecting, exchanging and discussing of ideas as well as the organization of parctical measurements can empower the very people our government and our laws are supposed to represent and defend in the same way as the whole OpenSource-practice empowers "simple" people to achieve better results than large commercial-based organisations. It's not they're imitating us because computers and sharing ideas are hype. It's just a totally natural reaction to and consequence of the shift of power already apparent in various powerful public outcries like the demonstrations in Seattle last December. Our democracy has already become a lot more direct than one is inclined to notice at first glance.

  105. Moderate this up! by Deven · · Score: 1

    Moderators, please moderate the above comment up. It's a very good idea.

    --

    Deven

    "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

  106. Re: whatever you mean by "better" laws by werdna · · Score: 2
    Suffice it to say that I disagree entirely. OpenLaw isn't about making laws at all -- its about a methodology for lawyering cases, that is, for crafting legal arguments. It doesn't appear to have anything whatsoever to do with participatory democracy. Your remarks appear to manifest a remarkable overreading of the project, which Berkman center defines as:


    The OpenLaw group is, in their own words "an experiment in crafting legal argument in an open forum". In other words: legal cases built, like open source, according to the principle that many eyeballs make bugs shallow."


    It is possible that I may have misread/overread what was written there and misunderstood your response, but I don't see how your remarks are in any way responsive to mine, or to the subject matter of the article.
  107. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  108. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  109. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  110. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  111. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  112. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  113. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  114. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  115. Thoughts on Multiple Postings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thoughts on Multiple Postings

    My friends an issue I must now address
    One which has grown rampant and now runs unchecked,
    What do I speak of with half sullen eyes?
    I speak of Trolls posting multiple replies.

    One time long ago only one post did one need
    Then came moderation: the Demon Spawn Seed.
    Now if one wants to ensure that his post chance be seen
    Required you hit the submit button until your thumbs bleed.

    Now please dont think that I am being rash,
    Have you had your post moderated into the trash?
    Do you sit and wonder chance you post will be seen?
    If did then you'd hit the submit button for 2-53.

    Now what can you do to help stop this crime,
    Where Anonymous Cowards are treated like slime?
    The answer is close and soon shall be yours
    Just hit the submit button until your arm's sore.

    --
    POET TROLL
    YOU can make a difference. Join today.
    United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation

  116. Movie is message; decoder interops with encoder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Whether the message arrives on plastic or via T3, it is the output of encoding software, and the effort is to provide an interoperable message receiver/decoder. Reverse engineering for that purpose is legal. Any particular movie is just test data.

    Linkage of copyright and access to copyrighted materials is a great big red herring, and a law that promotes the confusion is a bad law.

    Next thing you know, the DMCA will be dragged into a case where someone breaks into a bank safety deposit box and steals a copyrighted DVD movie master. Why? Breaking into the bank is circumventing ... sheesh, what a law.

    DMCA is not primarily about copyright. It's about access control, a certain amount of which is needed to make a market. The honor system is the access control that feels best, and it is very effective in a good social context (we should worry more about the breakdown of that context than about how much razor wire we need).

    DMCA "copyright protection" law is providing sheepskins for the wolves of market domination and manipulation to wear, while threatening to entangle ordinary copyright litigation in endless irrelevancies. (IMHO/IANAL).

  117. Re: whatever you mean by "better" laws by werdna · · Score: 2

    Perhaps you misread the article? The OpenLaw project is about a methodology for developing legal arguments in ongoing cases, and has nothing (except in the most indirect sense) to do with lawmaking or participatory democracy.

  118. But they'll be able to find security holes by esjewett · · Score: 1

    Sorry but this is exactly why software companies are/were saying that open-source is inherently insecure, which we all know to be a false assertion.


    The obvious solution is to make sure that your arguements don't have any holes for opposing lawyers to exploit. This, I think, is the whole idea behind this concept.



  119. "Warranty-related remedies" submission to OpenLaw by Animats · · Score: 2
    I submitted a document of mine on warranty-related remedies to the Microsoft Remedy forum on OpenLaw earlier today, but so far, it hasn't appeared on line there. It may be in the moderation queue, or they may have technical problems.

    I'm not sure their discussion mechanism actually works; I don't see any items other than the ones the OpenLaw staff posted, and at one point I got the message Warning: Uninitialized variable or array index or property (phorum-collapse-general) in home/httpd/html/msdoj/discuss/read.php3 on line 271. So they need to do some debugging.

  120. Please moderate Chris's post up. Its a better idea by kgeorge · · Score: 1

    see subject