He STOLE someone elses property FOR MONEY. Criminal punishment is not at all inappropriate. I can't distinguish him from a burglar or a shoplifter. How can you?
Why not have a portable reader that you can carry around with you. When you enter the room, you can get a printout of all the stuff in the room. If the printout does not correspond with your organizational directives--that's what kids are for!
Our customs control is a GOOD thing, brother. Customs keeps lots of bad stuff out of the US. If you have a gripe, deal with it politically. As for me, I'll take the good with the bad right now.
Your "Orwellian dystopia" is very real in many of the other countries on this Earth. Many customs guards won't think twice about ransacking your stuff and detaining you indefinitely (unless you bribe them appropriately, of course).
A country can even shoot people for making maps disapproved by the ruling regime (if they can obtain jurisdiction). That's sovereignty for you!
How far will Google go in its quest for the almighty dollar (or yuan, or whatever)?
I'm evil (not really).
Please tell me how to do the same stuff you're telling the parent. I PROMISE, PROMISE I'll only do good things with it.
Sincerely,
Script Kiddie
Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 1
As Sam Kinison once said to Rodney Dangerfield: "I like the way you think!"
From looking at what looks like the email notice of order, it appears that the blogger may have represented herself. That is simply great.
Reference to the order also implies that the lawyer seriously overstepped the rules by issuing a subpoena to a nonparty without court approval. I would expect sanctions in such a context. If the blogger gets serious, she can maximize sanctions if she can demonstrate a pattern or practice of similar such abuse.
I wish her good luck.
Lawyers should not use the term "clearly." If their position is valid and well supported it adds nothing to the discussion. Otherwise, it indicates that the lawyer has no authority for the proposition. Now, go back and study some more.
The term "criminal" itself is so imprecise . ... What does it mean? A person who does criminal acts? A person who is convicted of committing a criminal act? None of those definitions make any sense.
The determination of criminal behavior has a huge subjective element. What is today a crime may be socially encouraged tomorrow. What is perceived as a crime by one juror (or judge) may not be perceived as a crime by another. Of course there can be widespread agreement as to whether certain conduct is criminal or whether certain behavior constitutes criminal conduct--but when you're talking about intellectual property and the internet, the frontier is not drawn in discriminate black and white tones.
The other idea--the idea of the criminal--is useless. That concept just boils down to stigma. Some individuals get the criminal stigma, others don't. Stigma has never been (and cannot be) fairly and uniformly dispensed--and it certainly is subjectively applied. I would argue that Jean Valjean was not a criminal. Javert would beg to differ with me.
The term "criminal" has its purpose, just like any other epithet has its purpose. Just don't pretend that you can logically demonstrate that someone is a criminal.
The attachment of criminal stigma or not is also so sugge Defining crime as the commission of a criminal act
American standards shall rule the internet. It shall be so decreed. Infringement of American Internet Control Standards shall be an act of war!
Yeah, right, whatever.
I agree with your point. So much business is like musical chairs. When the music stops, accountability begins--and those who are still with the company get stuck with the responsibility.
Either work for a shop where craftsmanship matters, or be the smart rat that leaves before the ship sinks.
Lawyers are very much like football coaches in at least one respect. When one thing works, everybody copies it to death. If the RIAA gets slammed for abusive discovery processes in Maine, other lawyers will try to play the same game elsewhere.
Rule 11 means that the abusive litigant (or their lawyer) has to pay money - - sometimes LOTS of money. Rule 11 sanctions have the power to strike fear into the heart of lawyers.
The RIAA will have to change their game if they lose. I can't imagine Congress wading in to help them because the procedural rules represent a careful balancing of competing considerations--twisting them up to help one particular kind of litigant in one particular kind of case would really upset the applecart.
The music 'industry' is very much geared toward the distribution of a narrow spectrum of 'big score' products as opposed to the distribution of a broad spectrum of 'lesser score' products.
I suspect that the industry is just giving the people what they want.
When I pay money to participate in a game, I pay to participate on a level playing field. I don't want to be required to pay MORE money to keep the playing field level. Playing against bot-aided players diminishes MY playing experience and diminishes my desire to play the game. The short answer is: I care. FRY the cheaters.
But only if the Microsoft-drafted 'contract of adhesion' license permits mixing MS components with other components.
This discussion, in general, seems rather silly. If GREAT GAMES are ported to LINUX, then real movement will occur. It will be all over when first class apps (REALLY first class apps) for video, music, photography/drawing, spreadsheet, wordprocessor, and database come online.
It is the applications, PERIOD. I'm convinced that LINUX is way better, but so long as Windows has a monopoly on the good applications (as compared to Linux), then I can't go there (as much as I long to . ..).
And don't talk about that monopolistic-monster-in-waiting, Apple Computer. They want to be as nasty as Microsoft, but they don't yet have the market share.
Slashdot Mirror
He took an intangible right. You cannot dismiss that so easily. Many property rights (including real property rights) are intangible. Theft is theft.
He STOLE someone elses property FOR MONEY. Criminal punishment is not at all inappropriate. I can't distinguish him from a burglar or a shoplifter. How can you?
This will increase tax revenue (by catching the cheaters) and will save the law abiding people money. I think this is wonderful.
Take the time and use it for study and professional enrichment.
I wonder whether the guy would have a claim against Autodesk for improperly interfering with his contractual relationship with Ebay . . .
Why not have a portable reader that you can carry around with you. When you enter the room, you can get a printout of all the stuff in the room. If the printout does not correspond with your organizational directives--that's what kids are for!
Our customs control is a GOOD thing, brother. Customs keeps lots of bad stuff out of the US. If you have a gripe, deal with it politically. As for me, I'll take the good with the bad right now. Your "Orwellian dystopia" is very real in many of the other countries on this Earth. Many customs guards won't think twice about ransacking your stuff and detaining you indefinitely (unless you bribe them appropriately, of course).
A country can even shoot people for making maps disapproved by the ruling regime (if they can obtain jurisdiction). That's sovereignty for you! How far will Google go in its quest for the almighty dollar (or yuan, or whatever)?
I'm evil (not really). Please tell me how to do the same stuff you're telling the parent. I PROMISE, PROMISE I'll only do good things with it. Sincerely, Script Kiddie
As Sam Kinison once said to Rodney Dangerfield: "I like the way you think!"
From looking at what looks like the email notice of order, it appears that the blogger may have represented herself. That is simply great. Reference to the order also implies that the lawyer seriously overstepped the rules by issuing a subpoena to a nonparty without court approval. I would expect sanctions in such a context. If the blogger gets serious, she can maximize sanctions if she can demonstrate a pattern or practice of similar such abuse. I wish her good luck.
The journalist shouldn't be fired if people want to read him. The first amendment is a good thing.
Lawyers should not use the term "clearly." If their position is valid and well supported it adds nothing to the discussion. Otherwise, it indicates that the lawyer has no authority for the proposition. Now, go back and study some more. The term "criminal" itself is so imprecise . . .. What does it mean? A person who does criminal acts? A person who is convicted of committing a criminal act? None of those definitions make any sense.
The determination of criminal behavior has a huge subjective element. What is today a crime may be socially encouraged tomorrow. What is perceived as a crime by one juror (or judge) may not be perceived as a crime by another. Of course there can be widespread agreement as to whether certain conduct is criminal or whether certain behavior constitutes criminal conduct--but when you're talking about intellectual property and the internet, the frontier is not drawn in discriminate black and white tones.
The other idea--the idea of the criminal--is useless. That concept just boils down to stigma. Some individuals get the criminal stigma, others don't. Stigma has never been (and cannot be) fairly and uniformly dispensed--and it certainly is subjectively applied. I would argue that Jean Valjean was not a criminal. Javert would beg to differ with me.
The term "criminal" has its purpose, just like any other epithet has its purpose. Just don't pretend that you can logically demonstrate that someone is a criminal.
The attachment of criminal stigma or not is also so sugge Defining crime as the commission of a criminal act
American standards shall rule the internet. It shall be so decreed. Infringement of American Internet Control Standards shall be an act of war! Yeah, right, whatever.
Without compelling applications, Linux is just another Betamax. Better, but . . .
I agree with your point. So much business is like musical chairs. When the music stops, accountability begins--and those who are still with the company get stuck with the responsibility. Either work for a shop where craftsmanship matters, or be the smart rat that leaves before the ship sinks.
You say ASSHOLES, like they are a bad thing. Everybody needs an asshole. Maybe we should work together on improving our body-images!
Lawyers are very much like football coaches in at least one respect. When one thing works, everybody copies it to death. If the RIAA gets slammed for abusive discovery processes in Maine, other lawyers will try to play the same game elsewhere. Rule 11 means that the abusive litigant (or their lawyer) has to pay money - - sometimes LOTS of money. Rule 11 sanctions have the power to strike fear into the heart of lawyers. The RIAA will have to change their game if they lose. I can't imagine Congress wading in to help them because the procedural rules represent a careful balancing of competing considerations--twisting them up to help one particular kind of litigant in one particular kind of case would really upset the applecart.
It isn't lame. Vista is garbage.
The music 'industry' is very much geared toward the distribution of a narrow spectrum of 'big score' products as opposed to the distribution of a broad spectrum of 'lesser score' products. I suspect that the industry is just giving the people what they want.
When I pay money to participate in a game, I pay to participate on a level playing field. I don't want to be required to pay MORE money to keep the playing field level. Playing against bot-aided players diminishes MY playing experience and diminishes my desire to play the game. The short answer is: I care. FRY the cheaters.
Do you mean the "Bob Arctor" model for handling multiple threads?
But only if the Microsoft-drafted 'contract of adhesion' license permits mixing MS components with other components. This discussion, in general, seems rather silly. If GREAT GAMES are ported to LINUX, then real movement will occur. It will be all over when first class apps (REALLY first class apps) for video, music, photography/drawing, spreadsheet, wordprocessor, and database come online. It is the applications, PERIOD. I'm convinced that LINUX is way better, but so long as Windows has a monopoly on the good applications (as compared to Linux), then I can't go there (as much as I long to . . .).
And don't talk about that monopolistic-monster-in-waiting, Apple Computer. They want to be as nasty as Microsoft, but they don't yet have the market share.
Apple is just as anticompetitive as Microsoft. They just don't have the market share do bully.
I don't understand what you mean by "monopoly lock-in on DOS fonts." I would be interested in learning.