Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Archives, Leak, Fanfilm

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including word from the worlds of corporate patent lawsuits, secretive publishers vs. inquisitive readers in Canada, and the pitiful teachers versus the splendid kids in Pennsylvania. Read on for the details. Sir, this sentence mangling machine is Pl88^74djliivc33mq again! I posted a story earlier this week which scrambled in its summary the facts of the matter. My post, as reader Raymond Fingas points out, said that the "Internet archive ... has been sued by the firm Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey." Fingas was one of several readers (thanks to all!) to correct me on this, writing "According to the linked article that isn't the case; instead they are being sued by Healthcare Advocates, represented by the firm McCarter & English. Further, the article says that Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey is actually being sued along with the Internet Archive.."

Alacritech settles litigation with MSFT and BRCM An anonymous reader writes "Alacritech, Microsoft Corporation and Broadcom Corporation today announced that they have entered into agreements that settle all outstanding disputes between Alacritech and Microsoft, as well as provide Microsoft and Broadcom access to Alacritech's patent portfolio relating to scalable networking. (Previously mentioned on Slashdot here and here.)"

Sir, you have no right to read about your rights. Hobart writes "Richard Stallman has just posted on his personal website a request for his readers to 'Don't Buy Harry Potter Books,' and offered to leak the plot - in protest of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling forbidding the purchasers from reading the books they paid for. A memorable quote in the Times article says '...There is no human right to read.'"

Don'tcha think felony is a bit strong for a few button presses? ZombyHero writes "In a follow-up to a previous story, the 13 high school students from Kutztown, PA charged with felony computer trespassing for violating district usage policy are fighting back. They've hired lawyers have begun talking with the Assistant DA. As a former student of the school, I know that the district is used to getting its way. Hopefully this will knock them down a few notches."

Starship Exeter flies again! An anonymous reader writes "There's a new episode of Starship Exeter, a fan-made feature set in the original series Star Trek universe. The new episode, The Tressaurian Intersection, follows on from The Savage Empire, which was featured on Slashdot before. This time it's better than ever... better than the original series, in fact! You can watch the entire episode online."

Treasure hunts, commence. We've posted quite a few interesting applications for Google's mapping service; now phauly writes "I created an Animated Google Map (with some gnus and mozillas attacking Microsoft office) using Google Maps API. I think it would be easy to create real playable Games on Google Maps. For sharing ideas (and implementations!) I created the Games on Google Maps wiki page. For now some ideas are: risk, freeciv, freecraft, car races on real maps! Feel free to edit the page suggesting/revising/implementing ideas."

16 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. brings some corrections, clarifications...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't that what dupes are for?

  2. Linux Desktop of the Future Follow Up Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The author of the controversial Linux Desktop of the Future essay has posted a follow up article containing clarifications and defying misconceptions.

  3. Re:Oh Gno! by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Funny
    Too bad all you Slashbots won't be reading Harry Potter due to your god's utterences. I'm sure he probably has some nice poetry or something on his site to ease the pain.

    No, but he does have quite the "mad prophet in the desert" hair and beard.

    - G

  4. Taking over the world...One ZIP Code at a time! by MindNumbingOblivion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I have yet to RTFL, but using the Google Map API to write Risk or Civ style games sounds like a wonderful (and just a little scary) application for megalomaniacs like myself.

    Imagine the complexity one could introduce to the game...Maybe not use individual troops, but use something similar to Axis and Allies, where each piece represents approximately one division/squadron/task force (maybe ships only represent one ship... has been awhile). Lay siege to your hometown, and animate peasants running through the streets.

    Then again, maybe we can adapt Trogdor to play out against SCO's offices...

    --
    #define CLUE 0
  5. When someone puts up a website... by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That is their property. Nobody has a right to take a snapshot of it, store it, or recreate it.

    Or do we need patents on website content? Copywrites? Or can we trust people to not steal?

    For example, say there is a college kid who really likes beer and porn. He likes it so much, he sets up a website that becomes popular, it lists different beers, and reviews porn. One drunken night, this college kid uses his cell phone to take a couple low resolution pictures of himself having sex, and he puts it up.

    A few years pass, somehow he graduates and starts looking for work. Someone tells him that his website comes up when googled, and that might not be the best thing when it comes for finding work.

    So the guy pulls the plug. beerandporn dot com dies. Or did it? It seems others liked his hobby as well, and downloaded all the content, and started hosting it. Problem is, google now links to these new sites, with his face and work for the world to see.

    Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?

    I'll give one more example. A woman who is 26 years old has 2 kids, and no skills. She got knocked up by a bum. Now she is working in a grocery store, as a check out clerk for $7 an hour, not enough to feed and cloth her family.

    She starts up a website where she gets naked. She is making good money, and she manages to make enough to get a nicer place to live, feed her kids, and go to college. A couple years later, she takes down the website. She has a good job. But someone decides to put the content back up. Her kids are now 13 years old. Her employeer also knows how to use google. Should people judge her based on who she used to be, what she did to survive within a specific context of existance?

    If someone wants to put up a website, they have that right. But it appears that people don't have a right to remove their content from circulation. That is the problem.

    The great thing about life is people can change, they can move away to a new community, they can start over. The internet in some ways is making that impossible. It is like jobs that do credit checks, to work as a secretary they want to know how much money you owe, and if you paid it off on time.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:When someone puts up a website... by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?

      Not any more. Semantics aside, it was publicly broadcast at the time. The world doesn't work like Outlook and its "Recall Message" feature, as much as you would appear to wish it did. People create history as they go through life.... or would you prefer some 1984-esque alternative?

      Perhaps he should have lived by the old axiom of "Never say something that you wouldn't want repeated in court."

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:When someone puts up a website... by booyabazooka · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When you release something to the public, you DON'T have a right to take it out of circulation. To use an analogy-

      You're viewing a website like a poster that you put up on your front door. Of course, a year later you have the right to take that down, and no one should be allowed to forcably place that back on your door.

      But the web doesn't work that way. When I put up a website, I'm not putting up a poster; I'm setting up a news stand and handing out copies to everyone who walks by. Do I have a right to take back all of those papers I handed out, and disallow every person who took one from showing it to somebody else?

    3. Re:When someone puts up a website... by mc_barron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's the fundamental problem to all of your anecdotes: they involve someone who regrets a past decision. The results of their decision was willingly made publically available. Now they regret their actiona. Two words: tough shit. Everyone has a history, everything must be viewed in context.

      Here's an example: presidential candidate was a member of the KKK in his early years, but has since disassociated himself from the klan. Now he wants to make it illegal for the newspaper to publish his old rantings on race.

      I don't know about you, but I sure as HELL want the REAL history of people I know/employ/vote for, not some crazy hazy version that they molded themselves. The ability to change history is the ability to lie...and people don't have the right to lie.

    4. Re:When someone puts up a website... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For example, say there is a college kid who really likes beer and porn. He likes it so much, he sets up a website that becomes popular, it lists different beers, and reviews porn. One drunken night, this college kid uses his cell phone to take a couple low resolution pictures of himself having sex, and he puts it up.

      A few years pass, somehow he graduates and starts looking for work. Someone tells him that his website comes up when googled, and that might not be the best thing when it comes for finding work.

      So the guy pulls the plug. beerandporn dot com dies. Or did it? It seems others liked his hobby as well, and downloaded all the content, and started hosting it. Problem is, google now links to these new sites, with his face and work for the world to see.

      Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?


      No, he shouldn't. If we're ever going to get over judging each other for such stupid bullshit when most of us have done something comperable or worse, the first thing we need is to have them all out in the open.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  6. Berks county, home of illiterates by gkuz · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Berks County newspaper that writes about this comes out looking mighty fine, with a spelling mistake in the f'ing HEADLINE of the article, and at least three more in the article itself.

    Maybe the damn editor should go back to high school.

  7. Re:Exeter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To make a quick correction to the Slashback, you can't yet watch the whole 2nd Starship Exeter film online; they are releasing it one act a week starting with the teaser two weeks ago, and both last weeks and this weeks this weekend (due to some lost footage).

    Anways, judging from the teaser, Exeter has improved by leaps and bounds from episode one. Being frank, the it takes great effort for me sit through episode one of Starship Exeter (or the first episode of New Voyages for that matter). However, this episode is written by Dennis Bailey, who wrote an episode of The Next Generation (Tin Man, with Gumtu the space snail), and has actual CG effects (as opposed to an AMT model and horrendously bad play-dough dinosaur, not to mention the acting greatly improving.

    And I guess I'll throw in a plug for my other favourite TOS fan film. The next Star Trek: New Voyages episodes will be written by two Deep Space Nine writers (Jack Trevino and Ethan Calk), and the one after that by D.C. Fontana, who wrote 11 original series episodes, six Next Generations, not to mention a load of other great TV show episodes. The fourth episode will also guest star Walter Koenig, whose name is very familier to anybody who has read this far.

    I predict the next few years will see a load of flood of fan films on the net, with some of them possibly even being good.

    -Clinton

  8. You can't erase your past by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Forget the digital age -- authors have never been able to unpublish their books, nor models their images.

    This is not a new problem.

  9. Canadian Supreme Court by JohnWiney · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was not the "Canadian Supreme Court" that made this ruling, it was the Supreme Court of British Columbia, according to the link new report. I know foreign geography is tough for Americans. It does make a difference - I am virtually certain that the injunction would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada if it was ever taken that far.

  10. No human right to read by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember that phrase, you're going to hear it a lot.

    The crime that was committed was unauthorized distribution by the store selling the books. Copyright owners do not have any authority over you reading a book, only copying it. But they want that authority. And "no right to read" is the phrase they will use to get it.

    I think I liked the old universe better. You know, the one where Richard Stallman seemed like a nut with crazy predictions of the future?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  11. Wrong Supreme Courg by darkonc · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's not The Supreme Court of Canada, It's the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The later is more like a State Superior Court in the US. It can be overruled by the BC Court of Appeals which can then be overruled by the SCC. It's a little bit confusing, but -- hey! It's law.

    The Pecking Order for BC:

    1. Supreme Court of Canada Court of last resort
    2. BC Court of Appeals Normally sits as 3 judges but can reconsider it's own rullings with a bank of 5 or 7
    3. BC Supreme Court Civil court, major felonies and appeals of lower courts
    4. BC Provincial Court non-indictable crimes
    Somewhere about the provincial court level you can also throw in family and small claims court.

    BTW: The injunction is probably unconstitutional, but I can't see anybody appealing it.. By the time the appeal went thru, the book would be released. I'm guessing that the judge who issued it just didn't want to face down his/her kids for not protecting 'ol Harry.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.