There is proof that humans are contributing. I never claimed that humans are solely to blame. I appologize for continuing to use a word ("fault") which I should have realized was unclear.
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.
"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"
To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"
The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."
---
The above quote shows that they're different. They think differently. If there was no truth to the observation that different disciplines think differently, there would be absolutely no humor in that joke.
Which came first, the sailboat or the mathematics of fluid dynamics? People who use the scientific method do quite well in an imperfect world, thank you. That's because science is based on physical evidence in the observable world. Do you have any idea how long people were doing chemistry before they knew what an atom or a molecule were? How did they do that? By forming "idiotic presuppositions" again and again and again, until they happened to find one that wasn't so idiotic.
Can't you see that the process of starting from physical evidence is different from starting from axioms? (Or being able to create axioms willy-nilly, and imagining the worlds that would result.) That a theory which is always disprovable is different from a proof which is, well, never disprovable as long as the axioms are true in the system (a tautology)?
Play nice with others and don't insult people just because they disagree with you.
However, there is another more liberal use of the phrase to claim that humans are at fault for the world getting warmer. That is lacking in proof.
You do actually read Slashdot don't you?
The fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. AND NOT A SINGLE PAPER ASSERTED OTHERWISE.
You're not a very knowledgeable roulette player, are you?
1) Read the other responses to my post to see that we were talking about European roulette. The grandparent poster started it, and I responded in kind.
2) European odds are better than American odds - who's the better player?
1 - Greedy company. Well, Blizzard is refunding days when their servers are crapping all over the place. They're actually giving up money, when they do a poor job.
Every game ever is a "grind" game, when you come down to it. Frogger - you had to keep making this frog jump across a street. Pac Man - keep making this weird yellow circle eat these dots. Doom 3 - keep opening doors and shooting zombies. The whole point is: is it fun? If you're having fun, then play the game - if you're not, then don't. I think as the sophistication of gamers goes up, they recognize more and more that a game doesn't really become fun again, once it becomes boring to them. So, they migrate to a new game (or maybe make a new character.)
Tell me what life is like for a professional football player. Practice, practice, practice, right? Well, I suspect that a lot of them still love the game. Why? Because they don't mind the things they have to do to play it, and they love parts of what they get to do.
2 - Players. This is kind of like blaming ping pong for the fact that most of the players don't speak English and it's hard to chat with them. Or blaming checkers for the fact that most of the players are not smart enough to play chess.
Yes - there are idiots who like to play games. Maybe the lesson to learn is that if you were smart, you wouldn't waste time with games. Maybe another lesson to learn is - is it possible you're an idiot, too?
I'm still having fun at World of Warcraft - and I don't believe I'm harming anyone to do it. In fact, I stopped watching my new Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - Extended Edition DVD a few nights ago, because I felt like I'd rather play in a mythical world than passively watch one. I think that says volumes about how much fun I'm having. I also don't remember any executives from Blizzard pounding their shoes on the table at the U.N. and screaming something about "we will bury City of Heroes!"
I also find it kind of amusing that you're attacking communism - but then also attacking people who compete in World of Warcraft. Why is it bad to rush to the highest level? Why is it bad to compete with tradeskills in a game? And, just like a democracy, why is it bad that people vent their frustrations about how stupid everyone is being?
In short - if you don't like it, find something better to do with your time.
Perhaps the plan in the parent post could be modified to have English sessions and Japanese sessions...
Sounds good.
Half-hour in Japanese, half-hour in English. Strictly enforced on both sides. The following week, do it first in English then in Japanese.
The point I was trying to make is that speaking with natives is absolutely the best way to immerse yourself in a language, which is the best way to learn the language. The extreme liklihood of a similar classroom existing halfway around the globe, but trying to learn English, should be taken advantage of, and it's very easy to envision a mutually-beneficial trade. And the cost is trivial.
About 3,000 people lost their lives, and an estimated 1,000,000 Americans lost their jobs.
I wasn't aware that Dr. Phil was critical of the victims on 9/11, or of people who are harmed by financial loss. Can you point me to an article where he bashes widows and people on unemployment?
Or where he calls for illegal retribution and vigilante justice? Actually, I think that as a licensed psychologist, he is required by law to report to the legal authorities any time that a patient of his indicates that they are going to break the law.
Murdering someone is against the law. Declaring that you wish to murder someone (directly or indirectly) is a clear indication of your intent to break the law. I'm quite confident that Dr. Phil would not approve. But I guess I honestly don't know that for sure.
How on earth can *you* determine that "no", he was not criminally negligent?
It's completely valid to say that you believe that he was not criminally negligent.
But that's not up for you or me to decide. It's up for a court of law to decide, and people in this argument are saying that he should not even be tried. That's a ridiculous assertion.
That's like saying that O.J. Simpson is guilty of criminal homicide in the first degree. Uh, actually, no. You may believe that, but that doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it true in fact, and it certainly doesn't make it true in our legal system.
You are confusing opinion with fact, and you are also confusing opinion with the verdict of a jury.
Hell, I don't even know for sure that India uses a jury - but by whatever system they use, you do not know right now what the outcome would be.
You are confusing "They want to try him for murder" with "They have already convicted him of murder, without collecting any evidence, or giving him a fair and impartial trial."
Now, if you want to state that you do not completely trust the courts of India to make that distinction, then I can go along with you on that one.
But they have *every right* to try him for murder.
This is a non-statement, in the purely logical sense; and as you pointed out in another article on Slashdot, "the law is precise". I don't personally believe that, but that's no excuse for not striving to be as accurate as we can be.
I think that more than 10% of P2P users have shared more than $1000 of copyrighted material in a 180 period.
I also believe that over 99% of P2P users have violated copyright law. (Civil.) (By the way, just so you know I'm not completely against you, I *absolutely* think that P2P software should be legal, since there are legal uses.)
I think that closer to 50% of people who attend LAN parties have shared more than $1000 of copyrighted material in a 180 period.
I admit that the "value of 1 song" is difficult to assess, since those things aren't generally offered for retail - but 50 MP3s shared with 20 people doesn't seem at all unlikely to me, in 180 days - possibly 2 or maybe even 3 LAN parties.
I am saying that the FBI should (under current law) expend effort to investiage copyright violations.
A court of law will determine if they are criminal copyright violations.
I absolutely agree that the FBI should *try as hard as it can* to focus only on investigating cases which are extremely likely to result in criminal copyright violation, but I think it's clear that the FBI has no way of knowing if it will be criminal or not, without gathering that evidence in the first place.
If the FBI has conducted a fully legal investigation, and has uncovered evidence of copyright violations that are actionable in a civil case - I think it's not unreasonable that they would give the evidence to the copyright holder. I know that you and I have a difference of opinion here, but that's what I think.
I fully recognize your concern that this situation would be abused in a Big Brother sense. Keep in mind, we are talking about people who have willfully disregarded copyright law, here. But I did frame my opinion as: "the FBI should *try as hard as it can* to focus only on investigating cases which are extremely likely to result in criminal copyright violation", and I mean that. I really do.
If you think the laws should be changed, to make that "try as hard as it can" part more strict, then I'm open to that. I don't think it makes sense to convene a grand jury before they act at all - but I think that oversight is fantastic, and I love checks and balances.
Please point out again which statements are false staments I made.
Many of your general statements were false, because they were too general.
Sharing a single file or program once (presuming it is a "normal" file or program) is not criminal.
Sharing a single $1000 program once is criminal. Your statement is too general. This entire argument, I have labored to correct your over-general (false) statements. By demonstrating a counter-example (a single $1000 program), which fulfills all of the characteristics of your over-general statement, I prove that your statement is false. I recognize the intent of your statement, but it is over-general (false).
Stop making over-generalizations, and we can end this argument and all go home a lot sooner.
I did make some general comments, maybe some that said "file sharing is not illegal." I believe that to be a true statement.
Yes, it is literally true that "file sharing is not illegal," right up until the file is a copyrighted work that you do not own, or have permission to share. Then it is against the law to do it (civil law). In fact, in some instances ($1000, yadda yadda), it is even criminal.
I don't recall explicitly stating that it can never be illegal to share a file an unlimited number of times.
I pointed out 10,000 *simultaneous* downloads of Doom 3, and you generalized that there was no criminal copyright violation. That's awfully close to you explicitly stating that it can never be criminal to share a file an unlimited number of times. (10,000 being a rather larger number.) Later, you told me that you thought there was probably a 1:100 ratio of criminal to civil violations.
Let me be explicit.
What you said is mostly true - but you're leaving out the most important part:
"by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000"
In other words, someone merely has to share, say, 50 DVDs in a 180-day period. That's really, really not that hard to imagine, AK Marc. In fact, I'm certain that criminal copyright violation happens in significant (thousands) of offenses per year, through BitTorrent alone. I base that on the fact that BitTorrent Accounts for 35% of all Traffic on the Internet.
Oh, and if I'm wrong, I'm not lying (since you seem to be throwing that word around willy-nilly).
You started with the word "lying," and that's what got me so super agitated. I brought up DeCSS, and you claimed it was either a lie (because you thought that I indicated that you brought it up), or a non sequitur. We're still talking about it, so I think it's a tautology that it wasn't a non sequitur.
At worst I'm mistaken, so you should learn what words mean before throwing them around.
See, and we were doing so well - almost having a civil conversation - right up until you said I don't know what words mean.
Again:
You keep making general statements which are too general. They are over-general. They are false. I have repeatedly demonstrated to you, again, and again, and again, that your statements are over-general, and yet you keep saying them again, and again, and again. I have pointed out to you that you are mistaken, and you have even acknowledged that you were mistaken, but then gone on to again restate your general statement. Knowingly making a false statement is a lie.
I know what the word lie means.
You are communicating with an anal-retentive computer programmer who takes words very seriously.
You are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture and taking it
It's actually much closer to 50 gigs, in order to upload 20 copies of Doom 3, thus exceeding $1000 of total retail value.
the vast majority of sharers
That's a completely different song than the one you were singing earlier.
You made absolute statements that were false, in an attempt to strengthen your argument.
I called you for it.
My assertion is that the number of criminals is exceedingly small
Actually, your earlier assertion was that there were no criminals. In fact, you made that assertion many times in this conversation.
But getting back to what you just said, "the number of criminals is exceedingly small"... But you acknowledge that for every criminal, there are 100 people who id has a legitimate civil action against? That those 100 people have substantively harmed id, in such a way that if id were merely able to collect the evidence, a jury of their peers would find beyond a reasonable doubt that they had caused harm which warrants financial restitution, and possibly even punitive damages under tort law for egregious conduct in the form of a willful disregard for the rights of others?
That, if the FBI was succesful in tracking down just that 1 criminal, they would undoubtedly uncover records of the actions of several of the 100 people who id has civil cause against?
So, we're talking about potentially 99 cases of criminal wrongdoing, and 9,901 cases of something that is arguably egregious conduct under our legal definitions - all happening in a SINGLE INSTANT ("10,000 *simultaneous* downloads"), for one piece of software... and you think companies are greedy and lazy when they point out that they're being fucked, and asking hey, maybe the FBI could help us out?
Help us track down the criminals, and give us what information you can find on the civil copyright violators?
Well, you're probably right; the FBI is probably not the right branch of the government for them to turn to. There should probably be a new group inside the Department of Justice. Possibly something like a Cybercrime section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
So, you were right. I misspoke when I invoked the name of the FBI earlier in the conversation. They should only investigate the 99 people who in a single instant violated federal criminal law.
Somebody else should go after the other 9,901 dickheads.
Your example of the phone is a *perfect* example of how wrong you are.
I am not reading any of the HTML commands (and HTTP, and TCP, and UDP, and Ethernet packets, or fiber packets, or cellular packets, or...) that will be translated when I read what you wrote in my web browser window. They're all *completely transparent* to me.
Just as in the phone example, what you say into the receiver is (in your words) "essentially the same" as what comes out the speaker at the other end. (Is that a legal definition, by the way? "Essentially the same"?) There is quite a bit of extra information that goes along for the ride. In fact, the phone conversation can go over the same Internet Protocol (I have a Cisco IP Phone on my desk) that your email does. But all of that extra information is *completely transparent* to the person who hears what comes out of the speaker.
Just as, the HTML commands that you apparently think make this a *completely different situation* are *completely transparent* to me when I read your web posting. And the SMTP information is completely transparent when I open up my Eudora to read what you typed in your Eudora.
The phone receiver as an audio sampling device is a perfect analog for the keboard as a text sampling device, and everything else follows accordingly. How I wiggle my fingers, and how I modulate my vocal chords is no business of the government's, and it's no business of some third party who has some fancy electronic equipment.
In fact, you can probably guess exactly how I'm "wiggling my finger" right now, because this specific judge was a fossil. The next judge will be better, and the one after that will be better. There will be setbacks, but I'm essentially right - and you're essentially wrong: a phone call is *identical* to an email, in terms of understanding what an "interstate communication" is.
I illustrated a specific instance where a keylogger would literally, and by the precise legal definitions that you cling to (ignoring the spirit of the law, and the way that future courts are likely to interpret the law), be intercepting a communication over an interstate network.
Step one, acknowledge that the example that I gave meets the exact and specific letter of the "precise law".
Step two, we can bitch and argue about the rest of it.
Until you acknowledge that the example I gave satisfies your every requirement, it's pointless to continue this conversation.
And by the way - no, the law is not precise. It is, by definition, a human endeavor - and humans are fallible. That is exactly why we have judges who interpret the law. You're probably a constructionist though, so I probably can't convince you on this one.
One person would have to upload about 20 copies before it becomes criminal.
You know for a fact that no one did this? This seems to be the fundamental basis of your entire argument.
Just re-read your statement: Regarding copyright law only, there is no criminal act.
Actually, in copyright law, if you 1) do it for private financial gain, or 2) do it for more than $1,000 retail, IT IS a criminal act.
I am violently disagreeing with you.
Way, way back I asked: How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?
And you answered: I don't care.
Apparently the new answer is 20.
It is not a criminal violation of copyright law.
And let me fill in the blank which makes your false statement into a true statement...
IF THE TOTAL RETAIL VALUE IS UNDER $1,000.
That's a really freaking important part, and yet you insist on leaving that part out, even in the same post where you quote the law that I pointed out to you.
The software I work on costs over $1,000 per copy, thanks. So, when I work on preventing piracy through software security, I'm actually helping the FBI out. Because I'm making it harder for someone to criminally infringe copyright law, and I make it less likely that the FBI will have to investigate. As an added benefit, I stop people from civil copyright infringement.
You know, the one where I'm personally harmed.
You know, the one that you were complaining about at the beginning of this whole argument.
The one where I have every legal right to offer to the market software which has security in it, and yet you bitched and moaned about the fact that I'm doing everything I can to protect myself from asshole warez sites, and simple casual criminal intent.
And then you logged on to Slashdot and blasted me for creating secure software in the first place. Thanks. That's nice of you.
Keys pressed are not connected to sending the email.
Wow. You are just a serious fucking moron out to pick a fight wherever you can find one.
For one, I can use a simple telnet application to send email, simply by connecting to the SMTP port, and saying "HELO". Every character I type is directly transmitted. THE KEYS PRESSED ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO SENDING THE EMAIL.
Now, somehow, because there's a character buffer in my email program, you think it's not wiretaping?
Because there's a packet buffer in my router, you think it's not wiretaping?
Because there's a fiberoptic connection, you think it's not wiretaping?
Because there's a pigeon who physically carries a bunch of packets for an early part of the journey, you think it's not wiretaping?
By your definition, it's only wiretaping if it physically happens PRECISELY AT THE STATE BORDER. Not one angstrom to the left or to the right.
Or, if I'm going to be generous to your crazy argument, then it's only wiretaping if it literally happens to a wire which geographically crosses over a state border, uninterrupted by any mediating or signal-enhancing device. In other words, one strand of physical wire. Uh, no. Nothing works that way any more. Not even phones - there are fewer and fewer POTS anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
We're disagreeing on the term "at fault."
You seem to think it means "solely to blame."
I think it means "are contributing."
There is proof that humans are contributing. I never claimed that humans are solely to blame. I appologize for continuing to use a word ("fault") which I should have realized was unclear.
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.
"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"
To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"
The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."
---
The above quote shows that they're different. They think differently. If there was no truth to the observation that different disciplines think differently, there would be absolutely no humor in that joke.
Which came first, the sailboat or the mathematics of fluid dynamics? People who use the scientific method do quite well in an imperfect world, thank you. That's because science is based on physical evidence in the observable world. Do you have any idea how long people were doing chemistry before they knew what an atom or a molecule were? How did they do that? By forming "idiotic presuppositions" again and again and again, until they happened to find one that wasn't so idiotic.
Can't you see that the process of starting from physical evidence is different from starting from axioms? (Or being able to create axioms willy-nilly, and imagining the worlds that would result.) That a theory which is always disprovable is different from a proof which is, well, never disprovable as long as the axioms are true in the system (a tautology)?
Play nice with others and don't insult people just because they disagree with you.
However, there is another more liberal use of the phrase to claim that humans are at fault for the world getting warmer. That is lacking in proof.
0 2/1686
You do actually read Slashdot don't you?
The fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. AND NOT A SINGLE PAPER ASSERTED OTHERWISE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57
Where are the screaming barbarian hordes of Libertarians when you need them?
What's in your wallet? (Capitalism!)
Although, honestly, eminent domain for public benefit probably doesn't make the horde any happier, I suppose. Bummer.
You're assuming that the Americans take home as much money as the Europeans.
How much do you want to bet that's not true?
You're not a very knowledgeable roulette player, are you?
1) Read the other responses to my post to see that we were talking about European roulette. The grandparent poster started it, and I responded in kind.
2) European odds are better than American odds - who's the better player?
What exactly would you like the Return on your Investment to be?
The Return - all life on earth is not destroyed.
How much are you willing to Invest?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
1 in 37! Nice. =)
(Roulette has 18 black, 18 red, and 1 green for those not in the know.)
And for those people, I argue that this game is far better than any previous MMORPG.
Which one do you think is better than World of Warcraft?
Nice try.
1 - Greedy company. Well, Blizzard is refunding days when their servers are crapping all over the place. They're actually giving up money, when they do a poor job.
Every game ever is a "grind" game, when you come down to it. Frogger - you had to keep making this frog jump across a street. Pac Man - keep making this weird yellow circle eat these dots. Doom 3 - keep opening doors and shooting zombies. The whole point is: is it fun? If you're having fun, then play the game - if you're not, then don't. I think as the sophistication of gamers goes up, they recognize more and more that a game doesn't really become fun again, once it becomes boring to them. So, they migrate to a new game (or maybe make a new character.)
Tell me what life is like for a professional football player. Practice, practice, practice, right? Well, I suspect that a lot of them still love the game. Why? Because they don't mind the things they have to do to play it, and they love parts of what they get to do.
2 - Players. This is kind of like blaming ping pong for the fact that most of the players don't speak English and it's hard to chat with them. Or blaming checkers for the fact that most of the players are not smart enough to play chess.
Yes - there are idiots who like to play games. Maybe the lesson to learn is that if you were smart, you wouldn't waste time with games. Maybe another lesson to learn is - is it possible you're an idiot, too?
I'm still having fun at World of Warcraft - and I don't believe I'm harming anyone to do it. In fact, I stopped watching my new Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - Extended Edition DVD a few nights ago, because I felt like I'd rather play in a mythical world than passively watch one. I think that says volumes about how much fun I'm having. I also don't remember any executives from Blizzard pounding their shoes on the table at the U.N. and screaming something about "we will bury City of Heroes!"
I also find it kind of amusing that you're attacking communism - but then also attacking people who compete in World of Warcraft. Why is it bad to rush to the highest level? Why is it bad to compete with tradeskills in a game? And, just like a democracy, why is it bad that people vent their frustrations about how stupid everyone is being?
In short - if you don't like it, find something better to do with your time.
WoW - love it or leave it.
Perhaps the plan in the parent post could be modified to have English sessions and Japanese sessions...
Sounds good.
Half-hour in Japanese, half-hour in English. Strictly enforced on both sides. The following week, do it first in English then in Japanese.
The point I was trying to make is that speaking with natives is absolutely the best way to immerse yourself in a language, which is the best way to learn the language. The extreme liklihood of a similar classroom existing halfway around the globe, but trying to learn English, should be taken advantage of, and it's very easy to envision a mutually-beneficial trade. And the cost is trivial.
By the way, I'm in Minnesota and it's about 4:00 PM Friday here, and it's about 7:00 AM Saturday in Tokyo.
So it might be slightly difficult to coordinate schedules for an hour of conversation - but not impossible.
How about a broadband connection to a computer in Japan where there are people in a similar age-group who are trying to learn English?
Microphones and webcams are pretty cheap. Yahoo Instant Messenger is probably more than adequate for your communication needs.
Have the Japanese-speaking people speak as much English as they can, and have the English-speaking people speak as much Japanese as they can.
Nothing beats talking to a real human.
Yeah, I know. And honestly I kind of feel the same way you do.
*Someone* needs to be accountable for these deaths, since it was clearly no mere accident.
9/11 worked just horribly for me, actually.
About 3,000 people lost their lives, and an estimated 1,000,000 Americans lost their jobs.
I wasn't aware that Dr. Phil was critical of the victims on 9/11, or of people who are harmed by financial loss. Can you point me to an article where he bashes widows and people on unemployment?
Or where he calls for illegal retribution and vigilante justice? Actually, I think that as a licensed psychologist, he is required by law to report to the legal authorities any time that a patient of his indicates that they are going to break the law.
Murdering someone is against the law. Declaring that you wish to murder someone (directly or indirectly) is a clear indication of your intent to break the law. I'm quite confident that Dr. Phil would not approve. But I guess I honestly don't know that for sure.
I am *not* confusing those things.
How on earth can *you* determine that "no", he was not criminally negligent?
It's completely valid to say that you believe that he was not criminally negligent.
But that's not up for you or me to decide. It's up for a court of law to decide, and people in this argument are saying that he should not even be tried. That's a ridiculous assertion.
That's like saying that O.J. Simpson is guilty of criminal homicide in the first degree. Uh, actually, no. You may believe that, but that doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it true in fact, and it certainly doesn't make it true in our legal system.
You are confusing opinion with fact, and you are also confusing opinion with the verdict of a jury.
Hell, I don't even know for sure that India uses a jury - but by whatever system they use, you do not know right now what the outcome would be.
Uh no. 9/11 was just such an example of vigilante "justice".
They should do everything within their power to force the laws of their country to be fully and impartially executed.
You are confusing "They want to try him for murder" with "They have already convicted him of murder, without collecting any evidence, or giving him a fair and impartial trial."
Now, if you want to state that you do not completely trust the courts of India to make that distinction, then I can go along with you on that one.
But they have *every right* to try him for murder.
mod parent up
"DMCA" by the way.
They are correct more than they are false.
This is a non-statement, in the purely logical sense; and as you pointed out in another article on Slashdot, "the law is precise". I don't personally believe that, but that's no excuse for not striving to be as accurate as we can be.
I think that more than 10% of P2P users have shared more than $1000 of copyrighted material in a 180 period.
I also believe that over 99% of P2P users have violated copyright law. (Civil.) (By the way, just so you know I'm not completely against you, I *absolutely* think that P2P software should be legal, since there are legal uses.)
I think that closer to 50% of people who attend LAN parties have shared more than $1000 of copyrighted material in a 180 period.
I admit that the "value of 1 song" is difficult to assess, since those things aren't generally offered for retail - but 50 MP3s shared with 20 people doesn't seem at all unlikely to me, in 180 days - possibly 2 or maybe even 3 LAN parties.
I am saying that the FBI should (under current law) expend effort to investiage copyright violations.
A court of law will determine if they are criminal copyright violations.
I absolutely agree that the FBI should *try as hard as it can* to focus only on investigating cases which are extremely likely to result in criminal copyright violation, but I think it's clear that the FBI has no way of knowing if it will be criminal or not, without gathering that evidence in the first place.
If the FBI has conducted a fully legal investigation, and has uncovered evidence of copyright violations that are actionable in a civil case - I think it's not unreasonable that they would give the evidence to the copyright holder. I know that you and I have a difference of opinion here, but that's what I think.
I fully recognize your concern that this situation would be abused in a Big Brother sense. Keep in mind, we are talking about people who have willfully disregarded copyright law, here. But I did frame my opinion as: "the FBI should *try as hard as it can* to focus only on investigating cases which are extremely likely to result in criminal copyright violation", and I mean that. I really do.
If you think the laws should be changed, to make that "try as hard as it can" part more strict, then I'm open to that. I don't think it makes sense to convene a grand jury before they act at all - but I think that oversight is fantastic, and I love checks and balances.
Please point out again which statements are false staments I made.
Many of your general statements were false, because they were too general.
Sharing a single file or program once (presuming it is a "normal" file or program) is not criminal.
Sharing a single $1000 program once is criminal. Your statement is too general. This entire argument, I have labored to correct your over-general (false) statements. By demonstrating a counter-example (a single $1000 program), which fulfills all of the characteristics of your over-general statement, I prove that your statement is false. I recognize the intent of your statement, but it is over-general (false).
Stop making over-generalizations, and we can end this argument and all go home a lot sooner.
I did make some general comments, maybe some that said "file sharing is not illegal." I believe that to be a true statement.
Yes, it is literally true that "file sharing is not illegal," right up until the file is a copyrighted work that you do not own, or have permission to share. Then it is against the law to do it (civil law). In fact, in some instances ($1000, yadda yadda), it is even criminal.
I don't recall explicitly stating that it can never be illegal to share a file an unlimited number of times.
I pointed out 10,000 *simultaneous* downloads of Doom 3, and you generalized that there was no criminal copyright violation. That's awfully close to you explicitly stating that it can never be criminal to share a file an unlimited number of times. (10,000 being a rather larger number.) Later, you told me that you thought there was probably a 1:100 ratio of criminal to civil violations.
Let me be explicit.
What you said is mostly true - but you're leaving out the most important part:
"by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000"
And here again is the point in the law.
In other words, someone merely has to share, say, 50 DVDs in a 180-day period. That's really, really not that hard to imagine, AK Marc. In fact, I'm certain that criminal copyright violation happens in significant (thousands) of offenses per year, through BitTorrent alone. I base that on the fact that BitTorrent Accounts for 35% of all Traffic on the Internet.
Oh, and if I'm wrong, I'm not lying (since you seem to be throwing that word around willy-nilly).
You started with the word "lying," and that's what got me so super agitated. I brought up DeCSS, and you claimed it was either a lie (because you thought that I indicated that you brought it up), or a non sequitur. We're still talking about it, so I think it's a tautology that it wasn't a non sequitur.
At worst I'm mistaken, so you should learn what words mean before throwing them around.
See, and we were doing so well - almost having a civil conversation - right up until you said I don't know what words mean.
Again:
You keep making general statements which are too general. They are over-general. They are false. I have repeatedly demonstrated to you, again, and again, and again, that your statements are over-general, and yet you keep saying them again, and again, and again. I have pointed out to you that you are mistaken, and you have even acknowledged that you were mistaken, but then gone on to again restate your general statement. Knowingly making a false statement is a lie.
I know what the word lie means.
You are communicating with an anal-retentive computer programmer who takes words very seriously.
You are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture and taking it
It's actually much closer to 50 gigs, in order to upload 20 copies of Doom 3, thus exceeding $1000 of total retail value.
the vast majority of sharers
That's a completely different song than the one you were singing earlier.
You made absolute statements that were false, in an attempt to strengthen your argument.
I called you for it.
My assertion is that the number of criminals is exceedingly small
Actually, your earlier assertion was that there were no criminals. In fact, you made that assertion many times in this conversation.
But getting back to what you just said, "the number of criminals is exceedingly small"... But you acknowledge that for every criminal, there are 100 people who id has a legitimate civil action against? That those 100 people have substantively harmed id, in such a way that if id were merely able to collect the evidence, a jury of their peers would find beyond a reasonable doubt that they had caused harm which warrants financial restitution, and possibly even punitive damages under tort law for egregious conduct in the form of a willful disregard for the rights of others?
That, if the FBI was succesful in tracking down just that 1 criminal, they would undoubtedly uncover records of the actions of several of the 100 people who id has civil cause against?
So, we're talking about potentially 99 cases of criminal wrongdoing, and 9,901 cases of something that is arguably egregious conduct under our legal definitions - all happening in a SINGLE INSTANT ("10,000 *simultaneous* downloads"), for one piece of software... and you think companies are greedy and lazy when they point out that they're being fucked, and asking hey, maybe the FBI could help us out?
Help us track down the criminals, and give us what information you can find on the civil copyright violators?
Well, you're probably right; the FBI is probably not the right branch of the government for them to turn to. There should probably be a new group inside the Department of Justice. Possibly something like a Cybercrime section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
So, you were right. I misspoke when I invoked the name of the FBI earlier in the conversation. They should only investigate the 99 people who in a single instant violated federal criminal law.
Somebody else should go after the other 9,901 dickheads.
Your example of the phone is a *perfect* example of how wrong you are.
I am not reading any of the HTML commands (and HTTP, and TCP, and UDP, and Ethernet packets, or fiber packets, or cellular packets, or...) that will be translated when I read what you wrote in my web browser window. They're all *completely transparent* to me.
Just as in the phone example, what you say into the receiver is (in your words) "essentially the same" as what comes out the speaker at the other end. (Is that a legal definition, by the way? "Essentially the same"?) There is quite a bit of extra information that goes along for the ride. In fact, the phone conversation can go over the same Internet Protocol (I have a Cisco IP Phone on my desk) that your email does. But all of that extra information is *completely transparent* to the person who hears what comes out of the speaker.
Just as, the HTML commands that you apparently think make this a *completely different situation* are *completely transparent* to me when I read your web posting. And the SMTP information is completely transparent when I open up my Eudora to read what you typed in your Eudora.
The phone receiver as an audio sampling device is a perfect analog for the keboard as a text sampling device, and everything else follows accordingly. How I wiggle my fingers, and how I modulate my vocal chords is no business of the government's, and it's no business of some third party who has some fancy electronic equipment.
In fact, you can probably guess exactly how I'm "wiggling my finger" right now, because this specific judge was a fossil. The next judge will be better, and the one after that will be better. There will be setbacks, but I'm essentially right - and you're essentially wrong: a phone call is *identical* to an email, in terms of understanding what an "interstate communication" is.
I illustrated a specific instance where a keylogger would literally, and by the precise legal definitions that you cling to (ignoring the spirit of the law, and the way that future courts are likely to interpret the law), be intercepting a communication over an interstate network.
Step one, acknowledge that the example that I gave meets the exact and specific letter of the "precise law".
Step two, we can bitch and argue about the rest of it.
Until you acknowledge that the example I gave satisfies your every requirement, it's pointless to continue this conversation.
And by the way - no, the law is not precise. It is, by definition, a human endeavor - and humans are fallible. That is exactly why we have judges who interpret the law. You're probably a constructionist though, so I probably can't convince you on this one.
One person would have to upload about 20 copies before it becomes criminal.
You know for a fact that no one did this? This seems to be the fundamental basis of your entire argument.
Just re-read your statement: Regarding copyright law only, there is no criminal act.
Actually, in copyright law, if you 1) do it for private financial gain, or 2) do it for more than $1,000 retail, IT IS a criminal act.
I am violently disagreeing with you.
Way, way back I asked: How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?
And you answered: I don't care.
Apparently the new answer is 20.
It is not a criminal violation of copyright law.
And let me fill in the blank which makes your false statement into a true statement...
IF THE TOTAL RETAIL VALUE IS UNDER $1,000.
That's a really freaking important part, and yet you insist on leaving that part out, even in the same post where you quote the law that I pointed out to you.
The software I work on costs over $1,000 per copy, thanks. So, when I work on preventing piracy through software security, I'm actually helping the FBI out. Because I'm making it harder for someone to criminally infringe copyright law, and I make it less likely that the FBI will have to investigate. As an added benefit, I stop people from civil copyright infringement.
You know, the one where I'm personally harmed.
You know, the one that you were complaining about at the beginning of this whole argument.
The one where I have every legal right to offer to the market software which has security in it, and yet you bitched and moaned about the fact that I'm doing everything I can to protect myself from asshole warez sites, and simple casual criminal intent.
And then you logged on to Slashdot and blasted me for creating secure software in the first place. Thanks. That's nice of you.
Keys pressed are not connected to sending the email.
Wow. You are just a serious fucking moron out to pick a fight wherever you can find one.
For one, I can use a simple telnet application to send email, simply by connecting to the SMTP port, and saying "HELO". Every character I type is directly transmitted. THE KEYS PRESSED ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO SENDING THE EMAIL.
Now, somehow, because there's a character buffer in my email program, you think it's not wiretaping?
Because there's a packet buffer in my router, you think it's not wiretaping?
Because there's a fiberoptic connection, you think it's not wiretaping?
Because there's a pigeon who physically carries a bunch of packets for an early part of the journey, you think it's not wiretaping?
By your definition, it's only wiretaping if it physically happens PRECISELY AT THE STATE BORDER. Not one angstrom to the left or to the right.
Or, if I'm going to be generous to your crazy argument, then it's only wiretaping if it literally happens to a wire which geographically crosses over a state border, uninterrupted by any mediating or signal-enhancing device. In other words, one strand of physical wire. Uh, no. Nothing works that way any more. Not even phones - there are fewer and fewer POTS anymore.