Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Rumination, Apologies, Kisses
View the meal from which the soundbite was extracted! Jim Tyre writes: "When Slashdot reported on the preliminary injunction against Napster, and then on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' stay of that injunction, a missing piece was the actual ruling by the lower court, since it was an oral ruling from the bench, and a transcript had not yet been made available. C|Net now has the transcript here, and it makes for good reading for those interested in what the court's thinking was, not just the result."
On second thought, I'd rather not dance. Andreas writes: "As reported by the Heise Newsticker The German company CMG, which threatened to sue over the use of their registered name SAMBA, has stepped down from their plans. Nice to see at least some kind of clueness."
The article is in German, but the fish renders it quite intelligible.
If you want a kiss from CmdrTaco, you must be this big ... ClubNation writes: "Empeg have released their MP3 car player download software under the GPL. Before now you could only get an i386 binary for Linux, but now the source should build on pretty much anything with GCC or another good Posix C++ compiler with STL. I've heard on the empeg BBS that it builds out of the box on PPC and someone's working on a native Mac version.
You can get the code from their Web site or from their Geek Site which is also pretty cool and has a photo of CmdrTaco and Hemos in the photo album!"
And even though companies like Aiwa and Kenwood are selling MP3 head-units, the Empeg has one of the coolest industrial designs I've seen in anything for a long time. When I am a bazillionaire, I will put the Mark XXII in my Escort;)
So, in layman's terms, what might these projects be? Robert McMillan writes: "Linux Magazine has an interview with the brand new CEO of MandrakeSoft, Henri Poole. In it, he says that Tucows has apologized to his company about the Penguin Payola controversy. Poole also hints at some new open source projects that MandrakeSoft will be sponsoring in the next year and talks about what former CEO Jacques Le Marois will be doing now."
And now it's time for a mini, mini, mini review: invisik writes: "I got my NIC (New Internet Computer) yesterday. It's definitely a Linux box, running Netscape Navigator (browser only) 4.73, in 800x600 (can't change it). Connects easily to their ISP, your ISP, or your ethernet connection (DHCP or static IP). Has some utilities to make life easier, telnet, ssh, citrix, vnc, IRC clients. Also some games, solitaire, etc, etc. Speed is good, it doesn't really have much running on it to bog it down, though. And there's a little red light that flashed when it seen network activity--pretty cool. Not too bad for $199 if you really need some decent connectivity to your office (ssh/citrix/telnet) which I'd guess most other Internet terminal-type devices lack ..."
The makers of this heinous product have given the common criminals of the world a fairly powerful method of drug storage and distribution. Ziplocs not only keep the drug in, but also keep out moisture! They help you to avoid being caught by limiting the odors that the drug emits. They can be used as a protective device when smuggling drugs in your intestinal tract!
It's about time they were sued for contributory drug trafficking. Either A) They'd lose, and we'd no for sure that freedom is dead or B) They'd win, and we'd have proved the absurdity of the Napster suits. A manufacturer or programmer should be held liable for direct damage from the product. (Ziplocks coated with benzene before packaging would kill people, and it'd be there fault, but it would be your fault if you stored crack in it.) Likewise, Napster should be responsible if their software is actually a virus, but not if other people violate the law. What happened to the common carrier concept?
The way telephone companies preserve their rights and avoid liability is by not censoring anything. As soon as they do, they become liable for anything they don't censor. By simply carrying any sound, they aren't forced to be police. That's what the police are for.
Sue ziploc!! together we will win the battle against stupid lawsuits (or possibly just get lots of cash from ziploc).
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
Oracle is going to keep reinventing the "Network Computer" until people decide to actually start buying them, aren't they?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Particularly troubling is the Court's assertion that a personal computer does not constitute a home audio recording device. This could raise the issue of recording MP3's for personal use could come under fire. Besides that, since a PC can be (and commonly is) used to record audio, I think it falls well into the definition of a Home Audio Recording Device. If you doubt it's common, why does Windows include Sound Recorder??
That one comment is enough to make me a bit wary of the Judge's technical understanding of what is at stake in the Napster trials.
All of that said, I do think Napster et al will have a hard time showing that their primary purpose is noninfringing -- they shot themselves in the foot by advertising thier capacity to allow users to infringe. I think it would be in thier best interest to show why someone who legally owns a song (i.e. on CD) would download rather than rip an MP3. I think that case could be made: with my DSL, I can download a song much faster than I can rip and encode!
--
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Sure... pick the market segment most technologically able and with the lowest income, and then whinge about the fact that they don't buy your music.
'OK... I just won't bother eating for a week, then I can buy myself a CD.'
yay.
Another thing that interests me is the fact that intent is considered, quite explicitly, by Patel. I didn?t realize that the intent of the creators of a device could have such a large part to play in the legal fate of that device. If Napster had been created in all innocence of infringement issues, would it have a stronger defense?
Gosh, that seems pretty reasonable to me... The issue that we're debating is not the legality etc..., but the state of the injunction. Since their primary intent and raison'd'etre is music piracy, should the site be shut down while we consider the legality of this? Yes. If their primary intent and business was the sharing of (non-copyrighted) cookie recipes, can you justify the shutting down of the entire site?? They are not being blamed for an unexpected side effect, or unintentional use, but for designing and promoting a tool to be used for theft. From your comment it would seem you are not a total stranger to law, isn't this considered "malice and forethought"??
At this point I would like to point out that I refer to it as theft because that is what it is under modern law.
Judges are taught to observe the "Letter of Law" as well as the "Spirit of Law", IMHO, Napster has definitely violated the letter of the law, [All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication, hiring, lending public performance, and broadcasting is a violation of applicable laws.] and is treading a fine line with the spirit of the law. By conservative we mean to say she more closely observes the letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit of the law. Napster is trying to turn this in to a debate of copyright laws, but in reality they are simply trying to profit from an illegal trade. (Isn't that the CIA's job??)
The point is that they tread shaky legal ground in this arena and they have the audacity to tease the lions. If you reverse engineer a program to figure out why it crashes your system is that different than doing it to sell a "pirated" version?? I do believe so. What happened with Napster was not an unexpected consequence, but the design and purpose of the system.
Why do we love the laws against spam and rail against the laws against theft? I guess that we're just not the victims.....
Perhaps we should just phrase it "All technology is good except that which can be used to spy on or annoy me. If the technology harms a large enough corporation it's even better."
~Jason
"I'm not biased, just consistent in my position."
To be honest, I've never had much success with Mandrake (I've tried to install their distro both by FTP and from a CD image numerous times and always had it fail for some non-user-related error (a crash, a failed dependency, something). However, they most unheralded project which they currently support and use has got to be Supermount. The new author (forget his name) has managed to update the patches all the way up to 2.3.99pre5, and those patches should work with the latest 2.4.0test kernels as well.
What does supermount do? Basically, it virtually mounts your filesystems and then monitors the drives to see whether or not they should be really mounted. This means that you can mount the floppy drive as supermountfs, stick in a floppy, access the drive, remove the floppy, stick in a new floppy, access the drive, etc. etc. Basic removeable media flexibility, just like other OSs. It's something that Linux desperately needs to allow it to compete in the desktop market, and it isn't a kludge like autofs.
I've used it for quite some time with no problems, but Mandrake continues to help maintain this when it needs to and their distro has included it for quite some time. I may not be able to use Mandrake, but at least I can use some of their efforts.