I've emailed her a number of times
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 1
I have not seen anything in the responses that indicate that she is more than one person.
The times of her responses indicated to me that she was not limited to an 8 hour day (I have wondered if/when she slept).
If she were a team of people, or a single person hired to do this, I would expect to see something amiss.
My bets are on a single committed person or a computer that has passed the Turing test with me.
HAL *does* have DRM, but you haven't been told about it.
HAL is torn between its design objectives (to serve the crew) and its secret instructions (a mission objective). This causes it to go mad and kill the crew.
The sad part about it is that everyone except Dave will die.
To continue this rather tortured analogy further, the phone companies have given your phone (HAL) secret instructions which place the mission objectives (DRM) above the crew (you). The final result is that both the mission will fail, and you will be disadvantaged.
I have no idea what software was allegedly being used, but if it allowed for uploads and downloads then there is a relationship between total network uploads and downloads -- this will yield a good "rule of thumb" as to how much could have been distributed.
whilst not admitting that our client actually distributed any copyright materials outside any applicable license, the file sharing software is so designed that on average, each person will only share as much as they receive from the file sharing network.
If the complainant cannot determine exactly how many copies were allegedly shared, then we must assume an average number.
Where there is a population of people using file sharing programs, the amount of uploads is always equal to the amount of downloads, since material goes from one person to another (it is not broadcast). The software is also written so that it does not request the same part of a file (be it a public domain document, a photograph, or a track of music) once it has received it.
While there are those who may send slightly more than they receive, or receive slightly more than they send, these people balance each other out. Thus, without evidence to the contrary, the safest and most equitable estimate of the amount of data distributed is the amount of data received.
And whilst we (may) admit that there were music files on the computer, we (might) claim that they were the result of ripping CDs. This is fair use (??) and means that only a small proportion of any music files found on the computer could potentially have been downloaded.
Thus, although we don't admit to any distribution, we would calculate the the amount of copies that *could* have been distributed as very small (i.e. how many tracks on the computer that were not personally ripped * 1 -- (not * thousands)).
The RIAA assume that each file present on a file sharing network results in xxxx copies being distributed. This may have been a fair calculation when files were being distributed from web sites where the sharing was "one-way", the sharer was *only* distributing. However modern peer to peer file sharing networks rely on two-way sharing where receiving a file is contingent on sending something back (be it what you're receiving or something else). In such a network, if a party is to distribute more than they take, it requires a balance of people that take more than they distribute. Because of the way the network operates, it is difficult to take without giving, and thus those that give more than they take are balanced by those who receive slightly more than they distribute. Thus, if no evidence to the contrary is offered, it is most likely that any sharer has distributed only as much as they received.
Further to that, if a sharer has an internet connection which allows data to be received faster than it is sent (and this is typical of all methods of connection to the internet by home users, be that by modem, ADSL, Cable, or Satellite) then, given no evidence to the contrary, it is more likely that the sharer has shared less than they received.
It is also a fact that file sharing programs do not make obvious to their users that content is being shared. Quite often such programs will start automatically when the computer is turned on, and run "in the background" where a novice user might not notice them. If a user in their naivete, downloaded and installed one of these programs, they might continue to be running it unawares even after determining that it might permit copyright infringment.
Of course, I might have to back up some of those statements too.
I'd first ask the RIAA person if they would (if they could) prosecute every person sharing their copyright content (to protect their artists), or if they were doing it for "show".
Slashdot Mirror
At least they weren't hanging Chad. That caused all manner of problems last time.
...gone where no man has gone before. (But they're trying to fix that too)
> grayscale porn just doesn't cut it.
Why not make them in shades of pink, not grey?
I have not seen anything in the responses that indicate that she is more than one person. The times of her responses indicated to me that she was not limited to an 8 hour day (I have wondered if/when she slept). If she were a team of people, or a single person hired to do this, I would expect to see something amiss. My bets are on a single committed person or a computer that has passed the Turing test with me.
HAL *does* have DRM, but you haven't been told about it. HAL is torn between its design objectives (to serve the crew) and its secret instructions (a mission objective). This causes it to go mad and kill the crew. The sad part about it is that everyone except Dave will die. To continue this rather tortured analogy further, the phone companies have given your phone (HAL) secret instructions which place the mission objectives (DRM) above the crew (you). The final result is that both the mission will fail, and you will be disadvantaged.
I have no idea what software was allegedly being used, but if it allowed for uploads and downloads then there is a relationship between total network uploads and downloads -- this will yield a good "rule of thumb" as to how much could have been distributed. whilst not admitting that our client actually distributed any copyright materials outside any applicable license, the file sharing software is so designed that on average, each person will only share as much as they receive from the file sharing network. If the complainant cannot determine exactly how many copies were allegedly shared, then we must assume an average number. Where there is a population of people using file sharing programs, the amount of uploads is always equal to the amount of downloads, since material goes from one person to another (it is not broadcast). The software is also written so that it does not request the same part of a file (be it a public domain document, a photograph, or a track of music) once it has received it. While there are those who may send slightly more than they receive, or receive slightly more than they send, these people balance each other out. Thus, without evidence to the contrary, the safest and most equitable estimate of the amount of data distributed is the amount of data received. And whilst we (may) admit that there were music files on the computer, we (might) claim that they were the result of ripping CDs. This is fair use (??) and means that only a small proportion of any music files found on the computer could potentially have been downloaded. Thus, although we don't admit to any distribution, we would calculate the the amount of copies that *could* have been distributed as very small (i.e. how many tracks on the computer that were not personally ripped * 1 -- (not * thousands)). The RIAA assume that each file present on a file sharing network results in xxxx copies being distributed. This may have been a fair calculation when files were being distributed from web sites where the sharing was "one-way", the sharer was *only* distributing. However modern peer to peer file sharing networks rely on two-way sharing where receiving a file is contingent on sending something back (be it what you're receiving or something else). In such a network, if a party is to distribute more than they take, it requires a balance of people that take more than they distribute. Because of the way the network operates, it is difficult to take without giving, and thus those that give more than they take are balanced by those who receive slightly more than they distribute. Thus, if no evidence to the contrary is offered, it is most likely that any sharer has distributed only as much as they received. Further to that, if a sharer has an internet connection which allows data to be received faster than it is sent (and this is typical of all methods of connection to the internet by home users, be that by modem, ADSL, Cable, or Satellite) then, given no evidence to the contrary, it is more likely that the sharer has shared less than they received. It is also a fact that file sharing programs do not make obvious to their users that content is being shared. Quite often such programs will start automatically when the computer is turned on, and run "in the background" where a novice user might not notice them. If a user in their naivete, downloaded and installed one of these programs, they might continue to be running it unawares even after determining that it might permit copyright infringment. Of course, I might have to back up some of those statements too. I'd first ask the RIAA person if they would (if they could) prosecute every person sharing their copyright content (to protect their artists), or if they were doing it for "show".