And I feel you have struck upon an important point - the mental process and work environment that best fosters creativity and insight does not fit in with the "work ethic" most business operations are comfortable with. Nor does it fit in with billing/pricing systems which are typically worked out to reward size, scope and complexity rather than elegance. So the Ingrid Insightfuls at any operation are often perversely penalized for the gifts they bring to the team. Or I should say, since I find it rare that anyone operates as Ingrid all the time, the person who comes up with the current creative/insightful but labor-saving solution is penalized. There is a certain inevitable resentment from team members who doggedly worked their butts off on the more traditional approach, and it always catches up with Ingrid in the end.
Actually, I attach the disclaimer to my post because of the canons of professional responsibility, which restrict lawyers to practicing law only in the jurisdictions where they are admitted. I am admitted only in California, but my posts can be read in any US jurisdiction and elsewhere. Also, I encourage readers of/. to seek appropriate legal counsel when making important business or personal decisions - I would not want anyone to rely on my comments as a substitute for that advice, nor would I want anyone to wrongly believe that the opinions expressed in my posts offer them any protection from adverse parties, prosecution, etc.
The fact that you have seized upon my disclaimer as an excuse to hurl a cheap insult says nothing about my profession or myself. Rather, it speaks volumes about your own character.
YOU are apparently the only person in this thread who clued into the suspicious fact that a normal employee does not run up $350,000 in unpaid salary and expenses - he/she can't afford to. My first thought when I saw this figure is "this is more than likely the upper management who ran the company into the ground, while soaking it of its cash, making one last greedy grab for more cash in the bankruptcy (or manufacturing a phony "debt" to offset the $$$ he looted from the company, which the bankruptcy trustee is going to try to recover for the legitimate creditors' benefit.)"
No, I have no specific information about Loki, and I have no idea whether this is actually the case. But it happens all the time in bankruptcy cases, so I would definitely be surprised if this huge sum is actually owed to a poor exploited code warrior . ..
as has been the somewhat sheeplike assumption of everyone in this thread other than you and me, apparently.
Re:Foregone conclusions
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I disagree that the "tech industry" can make just as much money with Hollywood-enforced crippleware on their hardware, as without.
People won't run out to buy the newest, fastest, $$-est CD or DVD-burning drive (or the newest, fastest, $$-est "rip, mix and burn"ing, IPod-loading G4 for you wholistic Mac folks)if it is no longer possible to use them for that purpose. People won't surf the net so much anymore, because everytime their mouse brushes over some link that isn't encrypted with the Hollywood seal of approval, their computers will be hardwired to lock up and submit their email address to the FBI. In fact, people won't spend nearly as much time staring at their monitors because of all they won't be able to do on them, so they won't go out and buy flat panels for their vert-sync-shot eyes.
And ultimately, the more control Hollywood is able to assert, the computer itself ceases to be perceived as the omnifunctional entertainment platform the "tech industry" has gotten rich selling to the general public. That is exactly what Hollywood does want and the "tech industry" does not want: the public shutting off their computers and flocking back to their insipid radio and TV fare in droves. Make no mistake: the interests of the tech industry are diametrically opposed to Big Movie and Big Music. The internet is the worst thing that ever happened to these industries, which (prior to the internet) made endless money selling you 100 flavors and colors of crap because they control all the distribution channels and you won't know any better. Big Movie and Big Music don't really want to offer their content "securely" on the internet - that's just a temporary measure until they figure out how to kill the computer/internet phenomenon entirely. It's their biggest competitor.
So regardless of whether the entire "tech industry" is motivated by corporate greed (OK, it probably is), I have reason to think that its greed will motivate it to undermine DRM. Yes, they're asking for "self policed" DRM, but that is just a PR thing, like Microsoft asking for a "self policed" penalty (which would be no penalty at all).
I don't know that much about other states' professional responsibility law, but in California you can unwittingly get into an attorney-client relationship without a retainer letter, or any agreement to pay fees. I don't have the exact words of the standard at hand, but basically if a person knows you are a lawyer, and you know that person is seeking legal advice, and you provide it to them, and they come away with the understanding that they can rely on your advice, the relationship is established. The lawyer's "common sense" doesn't necessarily prevail - attorney-client relationships have been deemed created at restaurants, cocktail parties, etc. because the court found that it was reasonable for the layperson to believe he was receiving legal advice from a lawyer under the particular circumstances present.
I agree that anyone who thinks they are my client because I post something on the Internet is probably a "butthead." But I'm not sure all courts would agree, particularly because the context of/. is that one person states a position, and then others reply to it. Unlike generalized internet posting (e.g., on my own web site, addressed to no one in particular), I can't see that a "reply" to a particular individual's comment is categorically different from other informal discussions where atty-client relationships have been found. So I don't feel insulated from "buttheads" without the disclaimer, and we all know there are lots of "buttheads" around. (Maintaining strict anonymity and declining to post any email address, even an anonymous one, increases my comfort level also. If someone really wanted to consult me as their attorney based on what I've said on/., how would they ever find me? Even the "reasonable butthead person" probably wouldn't be justified in assuming they have an attorney-client relationship with an anonymous, unreachable creature known only as "raresilk.")
Although I don't know of cases where individuals have sued an attorney based on legal advice posted on a web site, I am aware that many state bar organizations are cracking down on what they view as unauthorized practice of law over the internet. Again, I see nothing about posting to a web site that makes it categorically different from other printed legal materials, all of which must conform with applicable state law rules on admission to practice. Although I make specific disclaimers in my posts where appropriate (e.g., I haven't read the court's opinion yet, I'm most familiar with California law, I'm not an expert in trade mark law, you should consult your own lawyer before making any important business decisions, blah, blah), I feel more comfortable with a general disclaimer that plainly indicates I do not intend to practice law or give legal advice anywhere I'm not authorized to practice.
Agreed - and it's refreshing to hear someone on/. (besides me) recommending that people consult a lawyer before making decisions that may have long-standing repercussions. A hour or so of legal advice may seem like a waste of money up front, but it is a lot less expensive than charging forward blindly can be. Even if the site is only up for a while, I hope it encourages the technologically-minded to consider the advantages of consulting counsel before the shit hits the fan. If prompt, intelligent, legally informed responses to these C&D letters were the norm, I'm sure it would operate as a deterrent.
cperciva meant to be funny, I think, but this issue could actually be a concern. Posting legal advice on the internet is a very touchy thing, because no lawyer I've ever known is licensed to practice in every US jurisdiction in which the postings could be read. (Hence, e.g., my disclaimer.) I suspect that's the reason the site is set up to allow only comments from law students rather than lawyers. Couching it as a community-service-based educational project for law students (who by definition are not practicing law yet) might help the site avoid such attacks.
That being said, I wholeheartedly wish this site the best: a little knowledge about the law can go a long way in shielding oneself from abusive practices. I'm pleasantly surprised, also, to see that/.ers are not flaming the hell out of the idea, given the prevailing "why should I need a professional to explain my legal rights to me - life is supposed be simple, obvious and unfailingly fair" world view often expressed here.
Although you may be right about Judge Patel's motives, I disagree that her decision has any possibility of being "airtight." Fair use and antitrust issues in the electronic music distribution arena are too novel for any judge to presume that her decision could avoid review by a higher court.
Every time music IP rights come up in discussion, I notice that most of the posts fall into two categories:
(1) those who admit they download or rip music, but claim they either own all the CDs they rip, and/or that they buy more CDs, or more diverse CDs, as a result of downloading; and
(2) those who claim they never download or rip music, but insist that those who do are simply opportunistic freeloading teens downloading or copying Britney/N'Sync, and deny that category (1) exists.
What is striking about this duality is that the people who actually do rip/download would seem to be in a better position to report why they are doing it, as compared to those who have never opened a Gnutella window or ripped a CD. Personally, my girlfriend and I exemplify both classes of category (1) very clearly - she rips our CDs so she can make us mix CDs for the car/gym; I try out mp3s of new music, and buy the CD if I like it; we both rip some CDs so that we can play the tracks on our computers with visual displays such as I Tunes and Winamp plugins. And we would jump at the chance to convert our large (approx. 3000 CD and 500 LP) music collection to a high fidelity, all digital format that could be databased, searched, and easily played on our audio gear as well as the computer. Ironically, although such capability would enable us to buy even more CDs than we already do (we are running out of CD room in the house - seriously), the music industry seems determined to ensure that this never can happen.
Isn't there some way to obtain empirical data to determine whether (1) or (2) is the most valid world view? For example, could a program be devised to crawl out over Gnutella and track and compile download frequency data of file names, to see whether most downloading is focused on the big money pop groups as the industry claims? If that's too scary, could some university department with expertise in such things conduct a reliable blinded survey, or arrange a study of this behavior? When the two sides of the debate have such different perceptions about what is actually occuring, it's difficult to see how progress can ever be made.
And if I'm right (as I suspect) that category (1) users actually predominate, and that many category (1) users are actually serious music buffs like us (and are the industry's best customers, I would think), it is possible that the RIAA and its government backers would be given pause. I mean, I was a teenager once, and how much music could I afford to buy then? None. I admit that in those days I shoplifted a few 45s and LPs I desperately wanted and couldn't hear on the radio, and even though I would gladly have paid if I'd had the money, it still wasn't right. But I have paid that back with thousands of legitimate purchases as an adult. One would think that the music distributors would look at downloading the same way - it is the soil in which their best future customers grow. I find it hard to believe that teens who get their jollies downloading Britney (or other such slop) and copying it for their school clique are ever destined to become music nuts such as myself. The industry would be better worrying less about squeezing the last penny out of Britney drones who will probably never buy a single piece of music after they leave college, and worrying more about how much money they'll lose when people who purchase hundreds of CDs every year swear off Universal and other labels that cripple our music. My girlfriend and I have already done so.
Someone on/. (other than a lawyer) acknowledging that a bit of legal advice and knowledge might enhance their efforts to protect intellectual freedom? No way. ..
Well, I guess your own ignorant bleating makes you 13 years old, then. Lawyers such as myself who take time away from their revenue-producing work to discuss legal issues FOR FREE (as in beer) to/. readers, are not attempting to be "witty" when we post disclaimers. The disclaimers are required by law, for several reasons:
At least in the US, attorneys are restricted to practicing law in states where they are admitted to the bar. For example, I am admitted only to the California bar, and cannot practice in any other US jurisdiction without a court's express permission. If I were to post a legal opinion on/., and someone in Montana followed my advice in a personal matter without consulting a Montana lawyer, I might be exposed to the accusation of practicing law without a license.
Nor is the risk only to myself. Although it is appropriate for purposes of the discussions we have on/. to articulate legal principles in general terms, I would never dream of making a recommendation in a particular case without an in-depth interview with the client, an analysis of the facts and circumstances presented, and legal research focused on that specific scenario. Without knowledge of the nuances, laypersons would be susceptible to misapplication of the general principles articulated in my posts, and might be tempted to charge forward into a touchy legal situation without proper counsel because "I already know the answer from a lawyer on Slashdot." Thus, it is appropriate for me to caution readers that my posts are not legal advice and do not establish an attorney-client relationship, discouraging them from such inappropriate individual reliance.
I have posted to a number of/. legal issue threads. I do not do this to get people to "Put Me On Retainer" - if you'll notice, I don't even publish my email address here, so how would anyone do that? Instead, my usual purpose is to dispel misconceptions about the law that circulate so widely on/. as to acquire the status of "urban legend" -- something everyone believes because it happened to their sister's husband's friend's employee, but doesn't actually have a grain of truth. I do so despite the virulent anti-lawyer atmosphere that prevails here - that attitude in itself shows the need for my continued contributions.
I think we're finally getting to the real point - context. Taking images publicly displayed in a particular context on someone's site, and inlining them (not linking, inlining) them into a different context ought to be held wrongful, and I don't think it has anything to do with copyright ownership or the "theft" analogy some posts are using.
There is a legal cause of action (at least in the USA) similar to slander and libel, called "false light." An example would be: you're a celebrity, and a newspaper snaps a photo of you attending a public event. But rather than printing your photo in a story about the event, they print it in a story about the local prostitution problem. Even though the paper would have been within its rights to use the photo without your permission (celebrities are public figures, the event is public), if the placement of the photo led readers to believe you were involved in prostitution, you would have a valid suit for "false light."
I haven't read the court's opinion yet, but it seems that the "false light" concept ought to apply here. If I inlined some poor bozo's online resume photo so that it displayed in my pr0n collection page, that should not be OK because it puts the image in a "false light." But Google's inlining would be OK, as you say, because the original context is clearly presented. Make sense? And to use an example which might be closer to the real world cases, if I inline the resume photo into my "best resume photos on the web" page, that ought to be OK too, because even if I don't show the original context, my new context of the photo is not so different from the original context as to place it in a "false light."
HP's effort to acquire Compaq has been a front page story for weeks, if not months. What Compaq does is make PCs. So I don't see how HP is "cutting loose" from PCs.
Of course, you're right that legal "boilerplate" doesn't get initially created by accident. But it's not "boilerplate" when it's initially created. It's widespread adoption of the same language in contract after contract, license after license, that gives it the status of "boilerplate." And because there are probably as many ignorant lazy lawyers who like to cut and paste somebody else's stuff, as there are ignorant lazy coders who like to cut and paste somebody else's stuff (see "cheating detection" thread this date), boilerplate often gets copied and pasted into contexts where it's completely absurd.
But that does not mean that there is no good reason for legal boilerplate to exist. Note that not all boilerplate is obnoxious nonsense like breaking into someone's house, waiving constitutional rights, etc. Boilerplate can often be a clause that is placed in a contract to protect your rights, and a good lawyer will copy certain clauses exactly from other contracts, not out of laziness, but because courts have previously analyzed the effect of that language in judicial opinions.
This lends some additional predictability to the contract. It's like calling a library, or re-using some functional code that you've previously tested in another project. Sure, you could come up with a fresh way to do the same thing, but how do you know it would work? Lawyers are motivated to re-use contractual language that has previously held up in court -- it's already been "debugged." Boilerplate therefore proliferates.
Yes, or the industry could push for an "all CDs assume piracy and have a royalty" model (like cassette tape has been for years.) So that there would be no "data CD" alternative. Philips should have no objection to that, since it doesn't impede the usefulness of their equipment. I suppose that the marginal increase in CD costs might be seen as a deterrent to users, but as many have pointed out, Philips' CD patent is expiring in a couple of years. Presumably, at that point it would cost less for the CD-R makers to make each CD-R media, because they no longer owe Philips a royalty on the CD patent. So it's conceivable that the manufacturers offset this decrease against the additional royalty cost, which could equal "no increased cost to consumer."
From a broader perspective, the universal royalty model is the only way this whole music-copying morass is ever going to get settled. I'm not saying I prefer this model, I'm just saying that once the courts and legislatures get their heads on straight, they're going to realize how unworkable the DMCA-DIVX-crippled-media model is, and how nice and easy it would be to let everyone do whatever they want with the music they buy, and give the RIAA their 50 cents per media or whatever to shut them up.
Not quite right on product liability law, folks. (At least in the USA.) A purchaser of a defective product has a direct right of action against the manufacturer of the defective product. You can sue the distributor too, if you want, but you don't have to do so. Think about it - that giant billion-dollar verdict for exploding fuel tanks (or something) wasn't against "Joe Ford Dealer." It was against Ford. And Ford was sued by the people who bought the vehicle, not the dealer.
There simply is no such "lawsuits must crawl slowly up the food chain" rule. I know it's well-meant, but I wish people would try harder to make sure they've got the law right before presenting this type of misinformation as factual dogma.
Seriously, though, I have felt for a long time that the real way to combat the prevailing industry practices is through antitrust rather than copyright. The antitrust argument is stronger, more easily understood by non-technically-literate judges, and some successes in the antitrust milieu could pull the copyright jurisprudence along in its wake. But no one, or few laypersons, really get antitrust law, so it's not a highly popular argument.
This allows a company to sell products to a customer, then if the customer decides to obtain that product from a competitor instead (switch to a competing download service), the company can destroy all the products the customer ever bought. That's like Microsoft putting a clause in its license that says it can render all my Microsoft software inoperable if I decide to buy a Mac.
I would think that this scheme merits an antitrust challenge, not only by companies that want to offer competing download services, but from record stores of both the online and brick/mortar variety. Suppose a customer does this for a year, decides the downloading is too much hassle and decides to buy their future music at Tower Records because it's a great store. The penalty hanging over their head for switching (destruction of what they've already downloaded) makes it far more costly to switch to Tower, even if Tower's service, product selection, etc. is more appealing to the consumer. That's a classic anticompetitive practice.
I now see that you are one of those foolish college kids who believes that he/she knows more than researchers, political or social scientists, military strategists, or diplomat who have spent their whole lives studying the nation(s) to which you apply the reductionist label of "third world," simply because you packed up your little backpack and hitchhiked around "seeing things for yourself."
However, since I consider those other sources I mentioned far more reliable than you, I believe there's no point continuing the discussion.
PS - I'm posting without the bonus because this is getting substantially offtopic.)
My chosen aid organizations are too "political," eh? Name me an international aid organization that is feeding people for some reason other than to fulfill a policy goal. Get real -- even the vague intent to "end hunger" can be characterized as a political one, and often is by the extreme right who believe that the poor exist only as a resource to be exploited, and characterize any form of aid as incipient communism. Sounds like that's where you're coming from . ..
I also notice that, although you complain that Oxfam and Unicef have "awful delivery rates," you do not suggest any better-performing organizations, which one expects you would do if you were really concerned about the percentage of food that makes it to hungry mouths. Nonetheless, your assumption that I failed to do my homework is incorrect. Many NGOs achieve high "delivery rates" by indiscriminately handing off truckloads of aid to any handy "local leader," who may or may not have the interests of his community at heart. Often, this food and medicine winds up as a life support system for local warlords terrorizing the population (case in point - Somalia) Also, NGOs who function solely as delivery networks do not help the population become self-sustaining - it takes infrastructure projects to do that. I researched and chose the organizations I felt were most consistent with these concerns.
And, if anyone but you cares, which I doubt:
car - 1996 Honda Civic CX
TV - two, both 10+ years old.
stereo "specs" - it sounds good
Living a less-privileged lifestyle than one could otherwise afford comes with its own benefits. One of them is the ability to make substantial charitable donations. Your attempt to characterize charity as selfish hedonism overlooks a simple fact: if the "hugely privileged" do not provide the necessary assistance to poor countries, who will? Of course, you don't care about your illogic, because you're against the whole concept of privileged nations and people helping the less fortunate. Myself, I prefer the approach advocated by John F. Kennedy over 40 years ago:
To those people in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help themselves, for whatever period is required; not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
The abandonment of Kennedy's pledge by the US is in part responsible for the sociopolitical climate that feeds modern global terrorism and tyranny, as exemplified by the Taliban/bin Laden. No, I am not excusing them - regardless of how they became what they are, they are heinous murderers and they should all be executed. However, cleansing the wound of germs doesn't help if you just let it become re-infected. Looks like we failed to save more than a few who were rich on September 11. If I happen to be in the next target, I will fail to be saved no matter how many TVs I have. Yes, my freedom and happiness are enhanced by contributing to the freedom and happiness of others around the world. Only the most perverse and mean-spirited mind can characterize this sentiment as "smug."
My domestic partner and I decided to go the charitable route. We've talked about it on previous holidays, but never had enough motivation to actually do it until this year. We added up what we usually spend on our Christmas holiday giving and celebrating, for family, friends, and each other. We rounded it up to the nearest round number, and made a donation in that amount to the Afghanistan relief effort (1/2 to Unicef, 1/2 to Oxfam.)
Then we made a nice Christmas card with color photos of Afghanistan refugees receiving food relief, including one bearded guy with a sack of USA wheat on his back that sweetly reminded us of Santa. We explained our decision in the card, including the total amount of our contributions - not to brag about it, but so that it would be clear this was not just our cheap attempt to blow off gift-giving. We asked that the recipients consider making similar donations in lieu of their usual Christmas gifts to us. The cards went out Thanksgiving weekend.
We've received no negative reactions, and many positive ones to date. It remains to be seen whether anyone will take us up on our request to donate instead of a present, but honestly we're looking forward to a Christmas tree with absolutely zero gifts under it.
Do all of the things that uppity_frodo suggested, but also please:
VOTE!!!
Your representative has only two reasons to give a fat damn about your concerns: (1) he will lose campaign contributions because of them, or (2) he will lose votes because of them. Forget about #1 -- the RIAA has the clear capability to outspend concerned Slashdotters. But as pointed out nicely above, the Slashdotters have the RIAA overwhelmingly outvoted.
Wouldn't it be cool if the representatives who supported the DMCA, etc. all got hundreds of thousands of letters that said, not just "you really suck for supporting this bad law," but in addition, "and I vote in every single election, and I will vote for your opponent in the next one if you do not withdraw your support and fight against this law." And then we all actually voted instead of just running our ascii mouths? And not just for the guy/gal who promises the biggest tax cut, but for the one who promises intellectual property reform? And then there would be some chance of actually getting the DMCA repealed or sensibly amended in the legislature, instead of throwing pebbles at it in one court after another.
Don't get me wrong, litigation is fine and so are all the suggestions above. I merely submit that if the extremely large population that plays CDs on computers, makes mix CDs, file shares etc. continues to be perceived as a population that can't be bothered with voting, the other tactics will have a less potent effect.
It's the scary "ism" flavor of the month
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 2
I've observed, both in the real world and on/. now, that "globalism" seems to mean something different to almost everyone you ask. It's swiftly approaching the status of this decade's multi-purpose epithet, applied indiscriminately to describe whatever a particular pundit believes is unhealthy for society, the poor, etc.
At least in the USA, this rhetorical/political tradition goes back quite a ways. In the post-Civil-War era, all social ills were typically attributed to "industrialism." Then came WWI and WWII, and the things to hate and fear became "fascism" and "totalitarianism." Then the Cold War, and "communism" was demonized. Remember (if you are old enough) in the 60s, when the epithet of "communism" was applied to everything from smoking marijuana to rock music to war protesting, by those who considered themselves the protectors of American values? Of course, the counterculture came up with its own epithet -- "imperialism" -- which its proponents freely and profusely applied to everything from the Vietnam action (rightfully, I'd say, given the French empire roots of the government we chose to support) to the Iran and Somalia actions (questionable), and also to the multinational operations of corporations, primarily US corporations (nope).
The "globalism" epithet began to gain primacy after Russia capitulated as a global power, and the EU and Pacific Rim came more into their own as power centers. It didn't make sense any more to decry US multinational business efforts as US "imperialism" -- that is, an effort to build a world "empire" dominated solely by the US -- when the US government actually was trending toward withdrawal from global affairs, or at least indifference. Conversely, opponents of the EU, and of Japanese economic domination of the Pacific Rim, needed a buzz word that would apply to their situation, and presto! "Globalism" and "anti-globalism" were born.
OK, I know the thread is supposed to be about what "globalism" means, and I'm not suggesting it has no meaning at all when people say it. Personally, I determine what someone means by "globalism" by looking at what they propose instead. The Taliban/bin Laden? Instead of "globalism," they advocate rigid theocracy dictated by autocrats who order the slaughter of all infidels in holy war. So to them, "globalism" must mean "freedom of religion" and "democracy." Likewise, we have extreme right wing groups in the USA who are just as opposed to "globalism," but to combat it, these people want to foment their own holy war and supplant the US government with white-supremacist and male-supremacist Christian theocracy. So to these people, "globalism" must mean "a racially diverse society with equal rights for women."
Now, I have to wonder - would the far more typical left-wing "anti-globalists" in the movement be able to answer this question? I fear not. Although they typically attribute the same loose amalgamation of ills (environmental damage, poverty, child labor, loss of native culture, excessive influence of large corporations) to what they describe as "globalism," they cannot articulate a game plan or even a vision of how a "non-globalised" world would function; e.g., what business method would replace the corporation they decry? what system other than world trade would they advocate to developing countries, and how would it help their poor? how do they propose to monitor environmental abuses and child labor without "globalised" international cooperation?
I think this is a key failing and hazard of the current anti-globalism movement. Because its moderate and leftist components have no clear, united vision of their proposed non-globalised utopia, any success they may achieve in thwarting "globalisation" advances the goals of the pernicious elements of the movement, rather than their own. Developing countries with their population's voiceless necks in the grip of autocrats (the Fahd family pointedly not excluded) need more globalism, not less.
I think you're misreading my comments. I am not attributing Weisstein's predicament to any defect in US law. On the contrary, I believe existing US law would have protected Weisstein quite effectively, had he chosen to seek even a superficial understanding of that law and his rights prior to entering into the contract with CRC. Conversely, no law or regulation on earth can protect those who insist on remaining ignorant of their rights and duties under it.
Nor did I ever say that CRC's behavior was "perfectly legal." It may well be that CRC egregiously breached the contract -- there are two sides to every lawsuit story. However, the best way to prevent such disputes from arising is to obtain a clear understanding of contractual language and the rights and duties it imposes prior to binding oneself, clarify any ambiguities with the other party prior to binding oneself, and document that entire process in writing. There is nothing mystical about this method, and many people are able to handle it without legal advice.
For those who feel less confident, legal counsel is widely available and not as costly as one might think. (You notice I don't publish my real name or even my email address here, so this is absolutely not a plug for my individual services.) Most lawyers charge less per hour than the scientific and technical consultants we hire to assist in our cases. And guidance on a simple contract would likely take only two to three hours of work.
For example, say a client comes to me and asks "I'm interesting in publishing a book based on my web site. Here's my book contract. If I sign it, can I still do my web site?" I'd briefly review the contract, determine what clause covered the rights being purchased, and draft a brief letter to the publisher along the lines of: "My client has a website. I understand Clause X.2(b) to confer only rights of printed publication, and thus that my client will remain able to operate his website without any payment to you. Is that also your understanding? If not, please advise." Many people are suprised to learn that a court looks not only at the contractual language, but also the parties' communications about the contract, to figure out what the contract requires. And you want to get these things nailed down before signing anything, so they don't come back to bite you later. The cost of legal fees for a simple letter-swap of this nature, customary in all types of business transactions, is miniscule compared to the cost of litigation if you fail to perform it. And, like I said, an informed person can handle this without any legal help at all.
because there's no reliable way to tell the "20% who do" from the "80% who don't" when their staff are reviewing thousands of emails and snail mails from constitutents who say "yeah, go settlement, Microsoft rules" or conversely, "fuck the settlement, free/fair competition rules." The only reason the "power to contribute" has grown so disproportionate in giving political power is that the "power to vote" is so rarely exercised. And most of those who exercise it are the same ones who contribute their disproportionate bucks. The ones who feel most opposed to the government's decisions also consistenly fail to vote, thus ensuring their continued fate.
Slashdot Mirror
And I feel you have struck upon an important point - the mental process and work environment that best fosters creativity and insight does not fit in with the "work ethic" most business operations are comfortable with. Nor does it fit in with billing/pricing systems which are typically worked out to reward size, scope and complexity rather than elegance. So the Ingrid Insightfuls at any operation are often perversely penalized for the gifts they bring to the team. Or I should say, since I find it rare that anyone operates as Ingrid all the time, the person who comes up with the current creative/insightful but labor-saving solution is penalized. There is a certain inevitable resentment from team members who doggedly worked their butts off on the more traditional approach, and it always catches up with Ingrid in the end.
The fact that you have seized upon my disclaimer as an excuse to hurl a cheap insult says nothing about my profession or myself. Rather, it speaks volumes about your own character.
No, I have no specific information about Loki, and I have no idea whether this is actually the case. But it happens all the time in bankruptcy cases, so I would definitely be surprised if this huge sum is actually owed to a poor exploited code warrior . . .
as has been the somewhat sheeplike assumption of everyone in this thread other than you and me, apparently.
People won't run out to buy the newest, fastest, $$-est CD or DVD-burning drive (or the newest, fastest, $$-est "rip, mix and burn"ing, IPod-loading G4 for you wholistic Mac folks)if it is no longer possible to use them for that purpose. People won't surf the net so much anymore, because everytime their mouse brushes over some link that isn't encrypted with the Hollywood seal of approval, their computers will be hardwired to lock up and submit their email address to the FBI. In fact, people won't spend nearly as much time staring at their monitors because of all they won't be able to do on them, so they won't go out and buy flat panels for their vert-sync-shot eyes.
And ultimately, the more control Hollywood is able to assert, the computer itself ceases to be perceived as the omnifunctional entertainment platform the "tech industry" has gotten rich selling to the general public. That is exactly what Hollywood does want and the "tech industry" does not want: the public shutting off their computers and flocking back to their insipid radio and TV fare in droves. Make no mistake: the interests of the tech industry are diametrically opposed to Big Movie and Big Music. The internet is the worst thing that ever happened to these industries, which (prior to the internet) made endless money selling you 100 flavors and colors of crap because they control all the distribution channels and you won't know any better. Big Movie and Big Music don't really want to offer their content "securely" on the internet - that's just a temporary measure until they figure out how to kill the computer/internet phenomenon entirely. It's their biggest competitor.
So regardless of whether the entire "tech industry" is motivated by corporate greed (OK, it probably is), I have reason to think that its greed will motivate it to undermine DRM. Yes, they're asking for "self policed" DRM, but that is just a PR thing, like Microsoft asking for a "self policed" penalty (which would be no penalty at all).
I agree that anyone who thinks they are my client because I post something on the Internet is probably a "butthead." But I'm not sure all courts would agree, particularly because the context of /. is that one person states a position, and then others reply to it. Unlike generalized internet posting (e.g., on my own web site, addressed to no one in particular), I can't see that a "reply" to a particular individual's comment is categorically different from other informal discussions where atty-client relationships have been found. So I don't feel insulated from "buttheads" without the disclaimer, and we all know there are lots of "buttheads" around. (Maintaining strict anonymity and declining to post any email address, even an anonymous one, increases my comfort level also. If someone really wanted to consult me as their attorney based on what I've said on /., how would they ever find me? Even the "reasonable butthead person" probably wouldn't be justified in assuming they have an attorney-client relationship with an anonymous, unreachable creature known only as "raresilk.")
Although I don't know of cases where individuals have sued an attorney based on legal advice posted on a web site, I am aware that many state bar organizations are cracking down on what they view as unauthorized practice of law over the internet. Again, I see nothing about posting to a web site that makes it categorically different from other printed legal materials, all of which must conform with applicable state law rules on admission to practice. Although I make specific disclaimers in my posts where appropriate (e.g., I haven't read the court's opinion yet, I'm most familiar with California law, I'm not an expert in trade mark law, you should consult your own lawyer before making any important business decisions, blah, blah), I feel more comfortable with a general disclaimer that plainly indicates I do not intend to practice law or give legal advice anywhere I'm not authorized to practice.
That being said, I wholeheartedly wish this site the best: a little knowledge about the law can go a long way in shielding oneself from abusive practices. I'm pleasantly surprised, also, to see that /.ers are not flaming the hell out of the idea, given the prevailing "why should I need a professional to explain my legal rights to me - life is supposed be simple, obvious and unfailingly fair" world view often expressed here.
(1) those who admit they download or rip music, but claim they either own all the CDs they rip, and/or that they buy more CDs, or more diverse CDs, as a result of downloading; and
(2) those who claim they never download or rip music, but insist that those who do are simply opportunistic freeloading teens downloading or copying Britney/N'Sync, and deny that category (1) exists.
What is striking about this duality is that the people who actually do rip/download would seem to be in a better position to report why they are doing it, as compared to those who have never opened a Gnutella window or ripped a CD. Personally, my girlfriend and I exemplify both classes of category (1) very clearly - she rips our CDs so she can make us mix CDs for the car/gym; I try out mp3s of new music, and buy the CD if I like it; we both rip some CDs so that we can play the tracks on our computers with visual displays such as I Tunes and Winamp plugins. And we would jump at the chance to convert our large (approx. 3000 CD and 500 LP) music collection to a high fidelity, all digital format that could be databased, searched, and easily played on our audio gear as well as the computer. Ironically, although such capability would enable us to buy even more CDs than we already do (we are running out of CD room in the house - seriously), the music industry seems determined to ensure that this never can happen.
Isn't there some way to obtain empirical data to determine whether (1) or (2) is the most valid world view? For example, could a program be devised to crawl out over Gnutella and track and compile download frequency data of file names, to see whether most downloading is focused on the big money pop groups as the industry claims? If that's too scary, could some university department with expertise in such things conduct a reliable blinded survey, or arrange a study of this behavior? When the two sides of the debate have such different perceptions about what is actually occuring, it's difficult to see how progress can ever be made.
And if I'm right (as I suspect) that category (1) users actually predominate, and that many category (1) users are actually serious music buffs like us (and are the industry's best customers, I would think), it is possible that the RIAA and its government backers would be given pause. I mean, I was a teenager once, and how much music could I afford to buy then? None. I admit that in those days I shoplifted a few 45s and LPs I desperately wanted and couldn't hear on the radio, and even though I would gladly have paid if I'd had the money, it still wasn't right. But I have paid that back with thousands of legitimate purchases as an adult. One would think that the music distributors would look at downloading the same way - it is the soil in which their best future customers grow. I find it hard to believe that teens who get their jollies downloading Britney (or other such slop) and copying it for their school clique are ever destined to become music nuts such as myself. The industry would be better worrying less about squeezing the last penny out of Britney drones who will probably never buy a single piece of music after they leave college, and worrying more about how much money they'll lose when people who purchase hundreds of CDs every year swear off Universal and other labels that cripple our music. My girlfriend and I have already done so.
At least in the US, attorneys are restricted to practicing law in states where they are admitted to the bar. For example, I am admitted only to the California bar, and cannot practice in any other US jurisdiction without a court's express permission. If I were to post a legal opinion on /., and someone in Montana followed my advice in a personal matter without consulting a Montana lawyer, I might be exposed to the accusation of practicing law without a license.
Nor is the risk only to myself. Although it is appropriate for purposes of the discussions we have on /. to articulate legal principles in general terms, I would never dream of making a recommendation in a particular case without an in-depth interview with the client, an analysis of the facts and circumstances presented, and legal research focused on that specific scenario. Without knowledge of the nuances, laypersons would be susceptible to misapplication of the general principles articulated in my posts, and might be tempted to charge forward into a touchy legal situation without proper counsel because "I already know the answer from a lawyer on Slashdot." Thus, it is appropriate for me to caution readers that my posts are not legal advice and do not establish an attorney-client relationship, discouraging them from such inappropriate individual reliance.
I have posted to a number of /. legal issue threads. I do not do this to get people to "Put Me On Retainer" - if you'll notice, I don't even publish my email address here, so how would anyone do that? Instead, my usual purpose is to dispel misconceptions about the law that circulate so widely on /. as to acquire the status of "urban legend" -- something everyone believes because it happened to their sister's husband's friend's employee, but doesn't actually have a grain of truth. I do so despite the virulent anti-lawyer atmosphere that prevails here - that attitude in itself shows the need for my continued contributions.
And I bet I will last longer on /. than you . . .
There is a legal cause of action (at least in the USA) similar to slander and libel, called "false light." An example would be: you're a celebrity, and a newspaper snaps a photo of you attending a public event. But rather than printing your photo in a story about the event, they print it in a story about the local prostitution problem. Even though the paper would have been within its rights to use the photo without your permission (celebrities are public figures, the event is public), if the placement of the photo led readers to believe you were involved in prostitution, you would have a valid suit for "false light."
I haven't read the court's opinion yet, but it seems that the "false light" concept ought to apply here. If I inlined some poor bozo's online resume photo so that it displayed in my pr0n collection page, that should not be OK because it puts the image in a "false light." But Google's inlining would be OK, as you say, because the original context is clearly presented. Make sense? And to use an example which might be closer to the real world cases, if I inline the resume photo into my "best resume photos on the web" page, that ought to be OK too, because even if I don't show the original context, my new context of the photo is not so different from the original context as to place it in a "false light."
But that does not mean that there is no good reason for legal boilerplate to exist. Note that not all boilerplate is obnoxious nonsense like breaking into someone's house, waiving constitutional rights, etc. Boilerplate can often be a clause that is placed in a contract to protect your rights, and a good lawyer will copy certain clauses exactly from other contracts, not out of laziness, but because courts have previously analyzed the effect of that language in judicial opinions.
This lends some additional predictability to the contract. It's like calling a library, or re-using some functional code that you've previously tested in another project. Sure, you could come up with a fresh way to do the same thing, but how do you know it would work? Lawyers are motivated to re-use contractual language that has previously held up in court -- it's already been "debugged." Boilerplate therefore proliferates.
From a broader perspective, the universal royalty model is the only way this whole music-copying morass is ever going to get settled. I'm not saying I prefer this model, I'm just saying that once the courts and legislatures get their heads on straight, they're going to realize how unworkable the DMCA-DIVX-crippled-media model is, and how nice and easy it would be to let everyone do whatever they want with the music they buy, and give the RIAA their 50 cents per media or whatever to shut them up.
There simply is no such "lawsuits must crawl slowly up the food chain" rule. I know it's well-meant, but I wish people would try harder to make sure they've got the law right before presenting this type of misinformation as factual dogma.
Seriously, though, I have felt for a long time that the real way to combat the prevailing industry practices is through antitrust rather than copyright. The antitrust argument is stronger, more easily understood by non-technically-literate judges, and some successes in the antitrust milieu could pull the copyright jurisprudence along in its wake. But no one, or few laypersons, really get antitrust law, so it's not a highly popular argument.
I would think that this scheme merits an antitrust challenge, not only by companies that want to offer competing download services, but from record stores of both the online and brick/mortar variety. Suppose a customer does this for a year, decides the downloading is too much hassle and decides to buy their future music at Tower Records because it's a great store. The penalty hanging over their head for switching (destruction of what they've already downloaded) makes it far more costly to switch to Tower, even if Tower's service, product selection, etc. is more appealing to the consumer. That's a classic anticompetitive practice.
I now see that you are one of those foolish college kids who believes that he/she knows more than researchers, political or social scientists, military strategists, or diplomat who have spent their whole lives studying the nation(s) to which you apply the reductionist label of "third world," simply because you packed up your little backpack and hitchhiked around "seeing things for yourself."
However, since I consider those other sources I mentioned far more reliable than you, I believe there's no point continuing the discussion.
PS - I'm posting without the bonus because this is getting substantially offtopic.)
I also notice that, although you complain that Oxfam and Unicef have "awful delivery rates," you do not suggest any better-performing organizations, which one expects you would do if you were really concerned about the percentage of food that makes it to hungry mouths. Nonetheless, your assumption that I failed to do my homework is incorrect. Many NGOs achieve high "delivery rates" by indiscriminately handing off truckloads of aid to any handy "local leader," who may or may not have the interests of his community at heart. Often, this food and medicine winds up as a life support system for local warlords terrorizing the population (case in point - Somalia) Also, NGOs who function solely as delivery networks do not help the population become self-sustaining - it takes infrastructure projects to do that. I researched and chose the organizations I felt were most consistent with these concerns.
And, if anyone but you cares, which I doubt:
car - 1996 Honda Civic CX
TV - two, both 10+ years old.
stereo "specs" - it sounds good
Living a less-privileged lifestyle than one could otherwise afford comes with its own benefits. One of them is the ability to make substantial charitable donations. Your attempt to characterize charity as selfish hedonism overlooks a simple fact: if the "hugely privileged" do not provide the necessary assistance to poor countries, who will? Of course, you don't care about your illogic, because you're against the whole concept of privileged nations and people helping the less fortunate. Myself, I prefer the approach advocated by John F. Kennedy over 40 years ago:
To those people in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help themselves, for whatever period is required; not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
The abandonment of Kennedy's pledge by the US is in part responsible for the sociopolitical climate that feeds modern global terrorism and tyranny, as exemplified by the Taliban/bin Laden. No, I am not excusing them - regardless of how they became what they are, they are heinous murderers and they should all be executed. However, cleansing the wound of germs doesn't help if you just let it become re-infected. Looks like we failed to save more than a few who were rich on September 11. If I happen to be in the next target, I will fail to be saved no matter how many TVs I have. Yes, my freedom and happiness are enhanced by contributing to the freedom and happiness of others around the world. Only the most perverse and mean-spirited mind can characterize this sentiment as "smug."
Then we made a nice Christmas card with color photos of Afghanistan refugees receiving food relief, including one bearded guy with a sack of USA wheat on his back that sweetly reminded us of Santa. We explained our decision in the card, including the total amount of our contributions - not to brag about it, but so that it would be clear this was not just our cheap attempt to blow off gift-giving. We asked that the recipients consider making similar donations in lieu of their usual Christmas gifts to us. The cards went out Thanksgiving weekend.
We've received no negative reactions, and many positive ones to date. It remains to be seen whether anyone will take us up on our request to donate instead of a present, but honestly we're looking forward to a Christmas tree with absolutely zero gifts under it.
VOTE!!!
Your representative has only two reasons to give a fat damn about your concerns: (1) he will lose campaign contributions because of them, or (2) he will lose votes because of them. Forget about #1 -- the RIAA has the clear capability to outspend concerned Slashdotters. But as pointed out nicely above, the Slashdotters have the RIAA overwhelmingly outvoted.
Wouldn't it be cool if the representatives who supported the DMCA, etc. all got hundreds of thousands of letters that said, not just "you really suck for supporting this bad law," but in addition, "and I vote in every single election, and I will vote for your opponent in the next one if you do not withdraw your support and fight against this law." And then we all actually voted instead of just running our ascii mouths? And not just for the guy/gal who promises the biggest tax cut, but for the one who promises intellectual property reform? And then there would be some chance of actually getting the DMCA repealed or sensibly amended in the legislature, instead of throwing pebbles at it in one court after another.
Don't get me wrong, litigation is fine and so are all the suggestions above. I merely submit that if the extremely large population that plays CDs on computers, makes mix CDs, file shares etc. continues to be perceived as a population that can't be bothered with voting, the other tactics will have a less potent effect.
At least in the USA, this rhetorical/political tradition goes back quite a ways. In the post-Civil-War era, all social ills were typically attributed to "industrialism." Then came WWI and WWII, and the things to hate and fear became "fascism" and "totalitarianism." Then the Cold War, and "communism" was demonized. Remember (if you are old enough) in the 60s, when the epithet of "communism" was applied to everything from smoking marijuana to rock music to war protesting, by those who considered themselves the protectors of American values? Of course, the counterculture came up with its own epithet -- "imperialism" -- which its proponents freely and profusely applied to everything from the Vietnam action (rightfully, I'd say, given the French empire roots of the government we chose to support) to the Iran and Somalia actions (questionable), and also to the multinational operations of corporations, primarily US corporations (nope).
The "globalism" epithet began to gain primacy after Russia capitulated as a global power, and the EU and Pacific Rim came more into their own as power centers. It didn't make sense any more to decry US multinational business efforts as US "imperialism" -- that is, an effort to build a world "empire" dominated solely by the US -- when the US government actually was trending toward withdrawal from global affairs, or at least indifference. Conversely, opponents of the EU, and of Japanese economic domination of the Pacific Rim, needed a buzz word that would apply to their situation, and presto! "Globalism" and "anti-globalism" were born.
OK, I know the thread is supposed to be about what "globalism" means, and I'm not suggesting it has no meaning at all when people say it. Personally, I determine what someone means by "globalism" by looking at what they propose instead. The Taliban/bin Laden? Instead of "globalism," they advocate rigid theocracy dictated by autocrats who order the slaughter of all infidels in holy war. So to them, "globalism" must mean "freedom of religion" and "democracy." Likewise, we have extreme right wing groups in the USA who are just as opposed to "globalism," but to combat it, these people want to foment their own holy war and supplant the US government with white-supremacist and male-supremacist Christian theocracy. So to these people, "globalism" must mean "a racially diverse society with equal rights for women."
Now, I have to wonder - would the far more typical left-wing "anti-globalists" in the movement be able to answer this question? I fear not. Although they typically attribute the same loose amalgamation of ills (environmental damage, poverty, child labor, loss of native culture, excessive influence of large corporations) to what they describe as "globalism," they cannot articulate a game plan or even a vision of how a "non-globalised" world would function; e.g., what business method would replace the corporation they decry? what system other than world trade would they advocate to developing countries, and how would it help their poor? how do they propose to monitor environmental abuses and child labor without "globalised" international cooperation?
I think this is a key failing and hazard of the current anti-globalism movement. Because its moderate and leftist components have no clear, united vision of their proposed non-globalised utopia, any success they may achieve in thwarting "globalisation" advances the goals of the pernicious elements of the movement, rather than their own. Developing countries with their population's voiceless necks in the grip of autocrats (the Fahd family pointedly not excluded) need more globalism, not less.
Nor did I ever say that CRC's behavior was "perfectly legal." It may well be that CRC egregiously breached the contract -- there are two sides to every lawsuit story. However, the best way to prevent such disputes from arising is to obtain a clear understanding of contractual language and the rights and duties it imposes prior to binding oneself, clarify any ambiguities with the other party prior to binding oneself, and document that entire process in writing. There is nothing mystical about this method, and many people are able to handle it without legal advice.
For those who feel less confident, legal counsel is widely available and not as costly as one might think. (You notice I don't publish my real name or even my email address here, so this is absolutely not a plug for my individual services.) Most lawyers charge less per hour than the scientific and technical consultants we hire to assist in our cases. And guidance on a simple contract would likely take only two to three hours of work.
For example, say a client comes to me and asks "I'm interesting in publishing a book based on my web site. Here's my book contract. If I sign it, can I still do my web site?" I'd briefly review the contract, determine what clause covered the rights being purchased, and draft a brief letter to the publisher along the lines of: "My client has a website. I understand Clause X.2(b) to confer only rights of printed publication, and thus that my client will remain able to operate his website without any payment to you. Is that also your understanding? If not, please advise." Many people are suprised to learn that a court looks not only at the contractual language, but also the parties' communications about the contract, to figure out what the contract requires. And you want to get these things nailed down before signing anything, so they don't come back to bite you later. The cost of legal fees for a simple letter-swap of this nature, customary in all types of business transactions, is miniscule compared to the cost of litigation if you fail to perform it. And, like I said, an informed person can handle this without any legal help at all.
because there's no reliable way to tell the "20% who do" from the "80% who don't" when their staff are reviewing thousands of emails and snail mails from constitutents who say "yeah, go settlement, Microsoft rules" or conversely, "fuck the settlement, free/fair competition rules." The only reason the "power to contribute" has grown so disproportionate in giving political power is that the "power to vote" is so rarely exercised. And most of those who exercise it are the same ones who contribute their disproportionate bucks. The ones who feel most opposed to the government's decisions also consistenly fail to vote, thus ensuring their continued fate.