I don't see how what a blogger posts could be any different from a person who posts a web-page discussing their personal beliefs or opinions. You find hateful slanderous material all over the internet, and your gonna crack down on people that keep what amounts to a journal online for expressing themselves? Gimme a break.
Well, actually, the standard in the US for a defamation suit against a media defendant is somewhat MORE stringent than for one against a private individual. This is because the US Supreme Court is VERY protective of Freedom of the Press. If I were to be sued for libelling Hillary Rosen in my weblog, I'd MUCH rather be judged by the standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964) (because Hillary seeks SO much news coverage that she MUST be considered a public figure) than by the standards of Texas tort law (which is, for the MOST part, quite pro-plaintiff).
The question here is whether states can impede legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement. The answer is (now) no.
The local resolutions being passed by the cities do not instruct local law enforcement to impede federal law enforcement. They merely instruct local law enforcement not to ASSIST... this is a different thing entirely.
On the subject of "legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement" please explain to me WHERE in the constitution the federal government is given ANY police power. Is it in Article I? (The legislative branch)... no... is it in Article II? (The Executive Branch)... no... well, maybe it's in Article III (the Judiciary)... well, no... it's not there either. Well, gee, the FBI, BATF, Coast Guard, and Secret Service seem to LACK any Constitutional basis for existing beyond enforcement of laws enacted under the Commerce Clause or some OTHER area like counterfeiting where the federal government has a specific power to enforce a narrow set of laws. Get the message?? The Federal Government has NO general police power!
They have significance via the 10th A., and certain federal efforts to regulate have been deemed too intrusive, but the states are in no position to impose a stricter version of the 4th A. than the federal constitution already has.
Actually, you are wrong on that... there are NUMEROUS cases in which the Supreme Court has held that the Federal standard for enforcement of the 4th Amendment is the MINIMUM standard the States may adopt. The States are perfectly free to be MORE protective of their citizens' rights than the federal standard, if they desire, but they CANNOT be LESS protective.
You are wrong. Federal law only preempts state law IF it is manifestly clear in the federal legislation that it was Congress's intent to "occupy the entire field" of endeavor that is the subject matter of the statute. And there is one other LITTLE flaw in your analysis.
You see your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause fails because it has YET to be settled whether the PATRIOT Act is one of those "laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;", or is, in fact, unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional it not only does NOT qualify as "the supreme law of the land" the unconstitutional parts are null and void.
Re:What about "chat" and "talk"?
on
AOL Patents IM
·
· Score: 2
Errrrmmm... and who OWNS ICQ? That's right, AOL does. Of course talk vastly pre-dates ICQ...
Re:Where are the $*#&@!!! real financials?
on
Mandrake News
·
· Score: 2
The final thing needed is solid development efforts by manufacturers to support hardware in Linux.
I think it will be a pretty cold day in hell before you see every piece of consumer hardware come with Linux drivers as well as Windows drivers.
I think you are missing the point here... the Microsoft monopoly FORCES hardware manufacturers to deliver their goods with Windows drivers. Does anyone other than me remember the days when you bought hardware based on whether the manufacturer supported your bus/OS??? Does anybody remember when Mac boards wouldn't plug in to, much less work with, MS-DOS machines?
One company having 90+% penetration of the personal computer market space GUARANTEES that new hardware will ship with drivers for that OS (they may be pre-alpha quality, but what the heck?)... if the h/w manufacturer didn't support Windows they'd be out of business within a week...
the beauty that is occurring now is that SOME (re: Nvidia) manufacturers are actively supporting Linux... but more importantly... a LOT of them are releasing documentation to the community that allows truly free drivers to be developed OUTSIDE the manufacturing world.
Mandrake 1.0 was the first Linux distro I ever installed... I've staggered up the food chain (or is that "learning curve"?) from there since 1997, but my point is this... Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian and Slackware (and the other "old school" distros (sorry SuSE, your licensing requirements disqualify you from the "old school" grouping)) seem to pour their work product back into the community, while those who've jumped on the bandwagon in the last 2-3 years all seem to want to lead the Microsofting of Linux.
My feeling is this... give to those who give back!
Before I get into WHY I say that, allow me to comment that I cannot envision ANY company the size of yours being run by people who are so goddamned bone-headed.
Ask your General Counsel if he would be happy to have each and every one of your company's business records rendered inadmissible in court if the company gets sued or sues someone else.
Security features like (DUH!) forgettable passwords allow you to PROVE who has accessed the documents and databases on your network. This is why MOST company's make it a termination offense to reveal your username and password to anyone else, employee or not.
Without secure logins, documents and business records can be tracelessly forged or falsified. The ONLY reason business records are admissible in evidence over a hearsay objection is because normal record-keeping practices TEND to cause them to be more reliable than other hearsay evidence. A soon as these records can be accessed by multiple persons without being able to prove WHO actually accessed them they become worthless.
If this is a publicly-owned company, PLEASE let us know which one it is so we can divest ourselves of its stock BEFORE they do something this outrageously STUPID!
This is very do-able (with a little work)
on
Free Books on CD?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Between Project Gutenberg, the MIT Internet Classics Archive and various other sources available online what I'd like to know is why didn't someone at St. John's think of doing this before now?
While I haven't tried the WHOLE book list yet, I have built up a collection of ALL the first-year booklist in less than one and a half hours usuing ONLY PG and classics.mit.edu. Every title that was NOT available at PG was available at the MIT site and it was all HTML to boot (which in my mind, at least, is vastly preferable for reading than plain ASCII text).
A collection of prices could be seen as a "creative expression" in much the same way a battle plan is a carefully designed, very creative strategic document.<SNIP the poster's drivel referring to Dessert Storm>
Copyright exists to protect creative works that are intended for publication. NO responsible military commander would DREAM of asserting copyright for a battle plan or strategic planning document, they just stamp them "TOP SECRET" and send anyone who leaks them to Leavenworth for ten years to life.The same thing applies to corporate strategies, although enforcement is through the civil courts rather than criminal courts-martial. Asserting copyright against one who publishes something that can only properly be protected as a trade secret is frivolous and abusive of the system, and I have a funny feeling that the next person who informs Wal-Mart of that fact is going to be a federal judge.
The situation here is simple. Wal-Mart's shyster lawyers saw how easily the MPAA used DMCA to get what they wanted out of 2600, how the RIAA handily pounded Napster into the dust and how Adobe had Dmitry locked up for MONTHS and said "These are easy to win... this is a GOOD THING."
The quotes from Megan Gray and Deirdre Mulligan state the true matter of the case.
Not in the United States (see the earlier poster's remarks about the telephone directory cases).
It would suck to be a dictionary company...
A dictionary is not a collection of facts. It (if prepared properly) is a work of MAJOR scolarly research in language, linguistic, epistemology and sociology, which is wht the new edition of the OED may NEVER be finished.
The only possible way I could see these companies having a case is if the price data was not yet public. If it's not announced, and the prices are not yet current, then it's not factual data yet. It's a statement of intent (and something similar to a trade secret) at that point, in the form of a price. I can see how someone might consider that to be copyrightable.
Trade secret maybe... copyrightable, NEVER. Prices (actual or proposed) are facts (real or potential facts, that is) and therefore they are not amenable to copyright protection. Which just goes to show you. If you are trying to surprise your competitors with a sale featuring wild deeply discounted pricing, you'd better have an in-house print shop to make at least the printing plates for your advertising flyers because a secret known by more than one person is no longer secret.
IIRC, the 45 byte programming example in the tutorial only output 2 bytes, while the winner had to output 55 bytes. Offhand, I'd say that would give an apparent THEORETICAL minimum size for the contest program of somewhere on the order of 97 bytes for an ELF binary with header. Given that the winner got within 5 bytes of the theoretical minimum size I think I'd still call it an impressive achievement.
Well, in the 5 years I practiced law before I decided I shoulda stayed a techie-type, I never heard of a real lawyer sending out correspondence like this without signing his/her name to it... so I seriously doubt that it's even FROM a lawyer.
First, I would write back to "Legalservicesdp@aol.com" and call their bluff. Tell them that you will not even CONSIDER honoring their request until you receive their request by Certified Mail on firm letterhead.
Second, I would forward the e-mail to abuse@aol.com on the basis that whoever this is seems to be trying to represent themselves as a service provided by AOL to their members. If that's really what is going on, it could cost "Legalservicesdp" their AOL account.
Third, IF you receive a certified letter from someone that you can v</Disclaimer>erifiy is really a lawyer, I'd write back to them asserting that your use of the spam on your website constitutes public comment of an educational nature on the content of the document in question and is, therefore, protected under the doctrine of "fair use."
Fourth, if they sue for copyright infringement, have your lawyer move for sanctions under federal rule of civil procedure 11, because it is my opinion that this is indeed fair use. It is roughly the equivalent of making a single copy of the "work" and posting it in a public place. After you bring to their attention your intention to defend on that basis I think any lawsuit they might file would be easily deemed frivolous.
<Disclaimer> I am not currently engaged in the practice of law and my license is not currently active. I do not claim any special expertise in the area of intellectual property law.
Accept any advice you receive from me or from anyone else claiming to be a lawyer in this forum at your own risk. The only way to be sure you are receiving high-quality legal advice is to consult with an attorney in active practice in the jurisdiction where you reside.</Disclaimer>
You are completely and utterly incorrect. Property rights can and do expire. For example, I can grant you real estate in perpetuity ("fee simple"), or I can grant you a life estate. Or an estate for a certain length of time.
All but the first two sentences are one hundred percent correct with respect to "real property" (land). As anyone who survives the first year of law school can tell you an estate in property is not a property right. A property right is one of the "bundle of sticks" that make up ownership of the property. An estate arises from the exercise of those rights. The primary property "rights" are the right to exclude others, and the right of alienation (basically the right to sell the property or give it away). Other rights derive from these two but SOMEONE owns those rights as part of a "fee simple" estate in the property that is perpetual because it arises from a perpetual grant by the sovereign and most states have abandoned escheat by now.
The concept of an "estate" in personal property (which includes the property-like aspects of a copyright) has no legal meaning. Copyrights are licensed (and the license may or may not expire), tangible goods are rented or leased, but there is no such thing as an "life or term estate in personalty".
Yes. Different types of property can be treated differently in different circumstances.
No. different types of property are treated differently in ALL circumstances. There are only two types of true property, realty (land) and personalty (all other things that CAN be owned). To the extent that copyrights are treated as property under the law, they are personalty. However, please remember that copyrights don't even exist absent a statutory enactment, whereas other types of personalty have a physical existence. Because of this copyrights are only a low-grade type of personalty and have 1) lesser protection than tangible personal property, and 2) a limited existence AS property.
They didn't want copyrights treated as physical property. They wanted them treated as intellectual property.
A more accurate statement is that the "content companies" want intellectual property treated like it was physical property. They seek to fulfill the remark attributed to Sonny Bono by his wife... "Sonny believed that copyrights should be perpetual." In short, they want to create derivative works based on public property and have their exclusive right to those works last forever, essentially taking from the public domain (since it's free) and not giving back.
See, uh, that's why they put it in the Constitution [cornell.edu] ("To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;")
The exclusive right for a limited time is unquestionably, without any doubt whatsoever, a property right.
Actually, no. The existence of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution does NOT create a property right. It creates the power in Congress to create a property right. Congress could just have well said, "Uhhhh... no." when the first Copyright Act was presented for its consideration. Had Congress enacted the Copyright Act in the absence of the Copyright Clause I have no doubt that Mr. Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court would have struck it down as being unconstitutional because the concept of a limited federal government was still very much alive then.
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and, later, the Fourteenth) recognize true (natural law) property rights, and they have nothing to say about copyrights, so please lose the idea that "intellectual property rights" stand in equal dignity to real property rights and an owner's rights in tangible personal property.
Most DSL ISPs that I'm familiar with cap data rates in their Redback routers rather than in the modem, which puts it safely (for them) beyond the customer's reach.
This is true and makes the situation all the more problematic. If the two were equivalent we'd no not to EVER believe them. It is not, so, sadly, we don't know when they are or are not lying.
I also think they should link users to free programs to help them get started protecting their machines. Instead of just pointing out the flaw in their systems, tell them a handfull of programs they could use and cost of purchase for such programs. It would at least make the article seem helpful instead of just revealing the security flaw.
Bugtraq is not intended for end-users, which is why it's a mailing list instead of a website. It's a resource for security professionals and system administrators.
It is unfortunate but true that a significant number of bugtraq's subscribers fall in the dark-gray-to-black-hat end of the security spectrum. This is unavoidable when one offers a free and public service. However, you can rest assured that this exploit was "in the wild" among the "bad guys" for some time before it showed up on the list. Word of a new 'sploit, WITH working code, spreads faster among those guys than the newest Brittney "hit" spreads on Kazaa.
That's why we need to start committing crimes left and right and encouraging others to do the same until the cops are motivated enough.
Actually, I interpret it more like "We need to expose just how easy it is to commit these crimes until we motivate the public to demand some fundamental changes among the people whose JOB it is to prevent them."
The "cops" won't EVER be motivated by anything but bad publicity and public outcry. As an earlier poster said, this hole has been known for at LEAST a couple of weeks (who knows how long it's REALLY been known in the black-hat community).
Symantec is, in my experience, a fairly responsible corporation that produces fairly high-quality products. Although they didn't reveal the information in the bugtraq post, I'm reasonably sure they disclosed this to Microsoft well before they published it on bugtraq. That being said, who is REALLY the irresponsible party, Symantec or Microsoft? Hmmm?
> Many, many students will never program anything > in their lives.
But it is not the school system's place to PREVENT them from learning to do so... that wierd kid with the three earrings and rave-green hair just MIGHT be the next Dennis Ritchie or Nicholas Wirth.
> They'll never want to, and they'll never need > to.
But, unless you are prescient, you'll not be able to know which will and which won't... that's sorta like telling Albert Schweitzer that he can't go to Med School because there are so many doctors that he'll never NEED to practice medicine...
> They need word processing.
WP takes about three months worth of daily use to learn as well as 99% of the people need to know it. Most K-12 kids learn so quickly that they will have adequate WP skills to last most of their lives after writing two ten-page reports.
> They might need graphics tools.
Oh... but there is a VERY limited job market for web designers and graphic artists, so they probably won't. Let's not offer them.
> The vast majority do NOT need compilers, huge > bloated developing environments, or editors > with obscure keystrokes.
And since only a few might benefit from them, NOBODY can have them? I'm certainly glad my children did not attend schools you administer.
Then, my points:
Kids need to be challenged, pushed beyond the limits they impose upon themselves, forced out of their "intellectual comfort zones." I sort of halfway agree that programming and systems administration aren't really appropriate core subjects in the "mainstream" curriculum of the public schools, but consider this... very few subjects make a better tool for teaching critical and/or analytical thinking, as well as project planning skills and attention to detail.
Programming and/or system administration suck as subjects taught for the subject matter skills they provide. Those skills become obsolete VERY quickly. However, as a vehicle for developing the mental skills that form the core of intellectual power, they are hard to beat.
What the hell "technical measure protect content" did these guys "circumvent" in order to run afoul of the DMCA... opening Wal-Mart.com with a web browser is legally the equivalent of opening a newspaper to page 6A... and republishing prices is legally the same as gossip!
Sounds to me like somebody needs to tell these retailers to piss uphill and then, if they get sued, move for sanctions against the retailers' lawyers.
Damn-fool insurance lackies wail and moan about "frivolous personal injury lawsuits"... THIS (if it wound up in court) is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
Just because the first amedment says the gov't can't do it, doesn't mean that anyone else can.
Look at THAT... WRONG in ONE!
A non-governmental entity can impose any restriction on speech that they want to at their private functions/on their private property/on their private gaming network...
Write this on the back of your hand so you don't lose it... the Constitution ONLY restricts the power of the US Government and the governments of the several States... it haqs NO power over private entities.
Also, you can bring machines closer to the admins w/o IRIX experience. Some people are scared to learn, you know...
Sssssh... don't tell anybody this... but a competent Linux admin can probably get up to speed on Irix in about one day... well... maybe not on hardware like the Origin 3000, but on SGI workstations the system layout is so similar it's scary...
To be fair, if you don't need this machine.. don't buy it or think about it. SGI is a dying company and in the long term you'll get better support elsewhere.
SGI, like Cray, wandered away from doing what made the company special (godawful high performance computing) and both of them suffered the consequences. Cray has moved back to it's roots (cost-be-damned-make-it-FAST one-off boxes for government-sponsored research projects) and has returned to the land of the living. SGI is turning that corner now... I think I'll give them a few years before I write them off completely.
The poster continues:
I trust HP and Sun to be around longer than SGI though, and they won't fuck you over like SGI will.
HP probably... if they don't get too Compaqted... Sun's a little iffier... with the demise of the PA-Risc and Alpha, and with SGI looking more and more toward the Itanium, Sun, Apple and IBM will probably be the last producers of non-Intel-processor machines that one could call "personal computers"... Apple's volume and IBM's economies of scale are keeping the PPC afloat for now... but Sun stands alone behind the SPARC. Don't get me wrong... I love my Ultra10, but I also have my doubts... . Also, I've never had any experience with HP support, but I have NO complaints about either Sun OR SGI's willingness and ability to help a customer in any way they can.
and... oh yeah? Penguin colors??? Every Origin 3000 series machine I've EVER seen was black and purple... and I've NEVER seen a penguin in THAT color scheme...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually, the standard in the US for a defamation suit against a media defendant is somewhat MORE stringent than for one against a private individual. This is because the US Supreme Court is VERY protective of Freedom of the Press. If I were to be sued for libelling Hillary Rosen in my weblog, I'd MUCH rather be judged by the standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964) (because Hillary seeks SO much news coverage that she MUST be considered a public figure) than by the standards of Texas tort law (which is, for the MOST part, quite pro-plaintiff).
Somebody mod THIS one up again with an "Insightful" ... this is EXACTLY the point of the article ...
The local resolutions being passed by the cities do not instruct local law enforcement to impede federal law enforcement. They merely instruct local law enforcement not to ASSIST
On the subject of "legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement" please explain to me WHERE in the constitution the federal government is given ANY police power. Is it in Article I? (The legislative branch)
Actually, you are wrong on that
Oh, yes
You are wrong. Federal law only preempts state law IF it is manifestly clear in the federal legislation that it was Congress's intent to "occupy the entire field" of endeavor that is the subject matter of the statute. And there is one other LITTLE flaw in your analysis.
You see your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause fails because it has YET to be settled whether the PATRIOT Act is one of those "laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;", or is, in fact, unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional it not only does NOT qualify as "the supreme law of the land" the unconstitutional parts are null and void.
Errrrmmm ... and who OWNS ICQ? That's right, AOL does. Of course talk vastly pre-dates ICQ ...
Buy their stock if you want the details.
I think you are missing the point here
One company having 90+% penetration of the personal computer market space GUARANTEES that new hardware will ship with drivers for that OS (they may be pre-alpha quality, but what the heck?)
the beauty that is occurring now is that SOME (re: Nvidia) manufacturers are actively supporting Linux
just my US$0.02
Mandrake 1.0 was the first Linux distro I ever installed ... I've staggered up the food chain (or is that "learning curve"?) from there since 1997, but my point is this ... Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian and Slackware (and the other "old school" distros (sorry SuSE, your licensing requirements disqualify you from the "old school" grouping)) seem to pour their work product back into the community, while those who've jumped on the bandwagon in the last 2-3 years all seem to want to lead the Microsofting of Linux.
... give to those who give back!
My feeling is this
Before I get into WHY I say that, allow me to comment that I cannot envision ANY company the size of yours being run by people who are so goddamned bone-headed.
Ask your General Counsel if he would be happy to have each and every one of your company's business records rendered inadmissible in court if the company gets sued or sues someone else.
Security features like (DUH!) forgettable passwords allow you to PROVE who has accessed the documents and databases on your network. This is why MOST company's make it a termination offense to reveal your username and password to anyone else, employee or not.
Without secure logins, documents and business records can be tracelessly forged or falsified. The ONLY reason business records are admissible in evidence over a hearsay objection is because normal record-keeping practices TEND to cause them to be more reliable than other hearsay evidence. A soon as these records can be accessed by multiple persons without being able to prove WHO actually accessed them they become worthless.
If this is a publicly-owned company, PLEASE let us know which one it is so we can divest ourselves of its stock BEFORE they do something this outrageously STUPID!
Between Project Gutenberg, the MIT Internet Classics Archive and various other sources available online what I'd like to know is why didn't someone at St. John's think of doing this before now?
While I haven't tried the WHOLE book list yet, I have built up a collection of ALL the first-year booklist in less than one and a half hours usuing ONLY PG and classics.mit.edu. Every title that was NOT available at PG was available at the MIT site and it was all HTML to boot (which in my mind, at least, is vastly preferable for reading than plain ASCII text).
Quoth the poster:
Copyright exists to protect creative works that are intended for publication . NO responsible military commander would DREAM of asserting copyright for a battle plan or strategic planning document, they just stamp them "TOP SECRET" and send anyone who leaks them to Leavenworth for ten years to life.The same thing applies to corporate strategies, although enforcement is through the civil courts rather than criminal courts-martial. Asserting copyright against one who publishes something that can only properly be protected as a trade secret is frivolous and abusive of the system, and I have a funny feeling that the next person who informs Wal-Mart of that fact is going to be a federal judge.
The situation here is simple. Wal-Mart's shyster lawyers saw how easily the MPAA used DMCA to get what they wanted out of 2600, how the RIAA handily pounded Napster into the dust and how Adobe had Dmitry locked up for MONTHS and said "These are easy to win
The quotes from Megan Gray and Deirdre Mulligan state the true matter of the case.
Not in the United States (see the earlier poster's remarks about the telephone directory cases).
A dictionary is not a collection of facts. It (if prepared properly) is a work of MAJOR scolarly research in language, linguistic, epistemology and sociology, which is wht the new edition of the OED may NEVER be finished.
Trade secret maybe
IIRC, the 45 byte programming example in the tutorial only output 2 bytes, while the winner had to output 55 bytes. Offhand, I'd say that would give an apparent THEORETICAL minimum size for the contest program of somewhere on the order of 97 bytes for an ELF binary with header. Given that the winner got within 5 bytes of the theoretical minimum size I think I'd still call it an impressive achievement.
Well, in the 5 years I practiced law before I decided I shoulda stayed a techie-type, I never heard of a real lawyer sending out correspondence like this without signing his/her name to it ... so I seriously doubt that it's even FROM a lawyer.
First, I would write back to "Legalservicesdp@aol.com" and call their bluff. Tell them that you will not even CONSIDER honoring their request until you receive their request by Certified Mail on firm letterhead.
Second, I would forward the e-mail to abuse@aol.com on the basis that whoever this is seems to be trying to represent themselves as a service provided by AOL to their members. If that's really what is going on, it could cost "Legalservicesdp" their AOL account.
Third, IF you receive a certified letter from someone that you can v</Disclaimer>erifiy is really a lawyer, I'd write back to them asserting that your use of the spam on your website constitutes public comment of an educational nature on the content of the document in question and is, therefore, protected under the doctrine of "fair use."
Fourth, if they sue for copyright infringement, have your lawyer move for sanctions under federal rule of civil procedure 11, because it is my opinion that this is indeed fair use. It is roughly the equivalent of making a single copy of the "work" and posting it in a public place. After you bring to their attention your intention to defend on that basis I think any lawsuit they might file would be easily deemed frivolous.
<Disclaimer> I am not currently engaged in the practice of law and my license is not currently active. I do not claim any special expertise in the area of intellectual property law.
Accept any advice you receive from me or from anyone else claiming to be a lawyer in this forum at your own risk. The only way to be sure you are receiving high-quality legal advice is to consult with an attorney in active practice in the jurisdiction where you reside.</Disclaimer>
All but the first two sentences are one hundred percent correct with respect to "real property" (land). As anyone who survives the first year of law school can tell you an estate in property is not a property right. A property right is one of the "bundle of sticks" that make up ownership of the property. An estate arises from the exercise of those rights. The primary property "rights" are the right to exclude others, and the right of alienation (basically the right to sell the property or give it away). Other rights derive from these two but SOMEONE owns those rights as part of a "fee simple" estate in the property that is perpetual because it arises from a perpetual grant by the sovereign and most states have abandoned escheat by now.
The concept of an "estate" in personal property (which includes the property-like aspects of a copyright) has no legal meaning. Copyrights are licensed (and the license may or may not expire), tangible goods are rented or leased, but there is no such thing as an "life or term estate in personalty".
No. different types of property are treated differently in ALL circumstances. There are only two types of true property, realty (land) and personalty (all other things that CAN be owned). To the extent that copyrights are treated as property under the law, they are personalty. However, please remember that copyrights don't even exist absent a statutory enactment, whereas other types of personalty have a physical existence. Because of this copyrights are only a low-grade type of personalty and have 1) lesser protection than tangible personal property, and 2) a limited existence AS property.
A more accurate statement is that the "content companies" want intellectual property treated like it was physical property. They seek to fulfill the remark attributed to Sonny Bono by his wife
Actually, no. The existence of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution does NOT create a property right. It creates the power in Congress to create a property right. Congress could just have well said, "Uhhhh
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and, later, the Fourteenth) recognize true (natural law) property rights, and they have nothing to say about copyrights, so please lose the idea that "intellectual property rights" stand in equal dignity to real property rights and an owner's rights in tangible personal property.
Most DSL ISPs that I'm familiar with cap data rates in their Redback routers rather than in the modem, which puts it safely (for them) beyond the customer's reach.
This is true and makes the situation all the more problematic. If the two were equivalent we'd no not to EVER believe them. It is not, so, sadly, we don't know when they are or are not lying.
Bugtraq is not intended for end-users, which is why it's a mailing list instead of a website. It's a resource for security professionals and system administrators.
It is unfortunate but true that a significant number of bugtraq's subscribers fall in the dark-gray-to-black-hat end of the security spectrum. This is unavoidable when one offers a free and public service. However, you can rest assured that this exploit was "in the wild" among the "bad guys" for some time before it showed up on the list. Word of a new 'sploit, WITH working code, spreads faster among those guys than the newest Brittney "hit" spreads on Kazaa.
Actually, I interpret it more like "We need to expose just how easy it is to commit these crimes until we motivate the public to demand some fundamental changes among the people whose JOB it is to prevent them."
The "cops" won't EVER be motivated by anything but bad publicity and public outcry. As an earlier poster said, this hole has been known for at LEAST a couple of weeks (who knows how long it's REALLY been known in the black-hat community).
Symantec is, in my experience, a fairly responsible corporation that produces fairly high-quality products. Although they didn't reveal the information in the bugtraq post, I'm reasonably sure they disclosed this to Microsoft well before they published it on bugtraq. That being said, who is REALLY the irresponsible party, Symantec or Microsoft? Hmmm?
Regards,
First the rebuttal:
... that wierd kid with the three earrings and rave-green hair just MIGHT be the next Dennis Ritchie or Nicholas Wirth.
... that's sorta like telling Albert Schweitzer that he can't go to Med School because there are so many doctors that he'll never NEED to practice medicine ...
... but there is a VERY limited job market for web designers and graphic artists, so they probably won't. Let's not offer them.
... very few subjects make a better tool for teaching critical and/or analytical thinking, as well as project planning skills and attention to detail.
> Many, many students will never program anything
> in their lives.
But it is not the school system's place to PREVENT them from learning to do so
> They'll never want to, and they'll never need
> to.
But, unless you are prescient, you'll not be able to know which will and which won't
> They need word processing.
WP takes about three months worth of daily use to learn as well as 99% of the people need to know it. Most K-12 kids learn so quickly that they will have adequate WP skills to last most of their lives after writing two ten-page reports.
> They might need graphics tools.
Oh
> The vast majority do NOT need compilers, huge
> bloated developing environments, or editors
> with obscure keystrokes.
And since only a few might benefit from them, NOBODY can have them? I'm certainly glad my children did not attend schools you administer.
Then, my points:
Kids need to be challenged, pushed beyond the limits they impose upon themselves, forced out of their "intellectual comfort zones." I sort of halfway agree that programming and systems administration aren't really appropriate core subjects in the "mainstream" curriculum of the public schools, but consider this
Programming and/or system administration suck as subjects taught for the subject matter skills they provide. Those skills become obsolete VERY quickly. However, as a vehicle for developing the mental skills that form the core of intellectual power, they are hard to beat.
Regards,
What the hell "technical measure protect content" did these guys "circumvent" in order to run afoul of the DMCA ... opening Wal-Mart.com with a web browser is legally the equivalent of opening a newspaper to page 6A ... and republishing prices is legally the same as gossip!
... THIS (if it wound up in court) is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
Sounds to me like somebody needs to tell these retailers to piss uphill and then, if they get sued, move for sanctions against the retailers' lawyers.
Damn-fool insurance lackies wail and moan about "frivolous personal injury lawsuits"
Look at THAT
A non-governmental entity can impose any restriction on speech that they want to at their private functions/on their private property/on their private gaming network
Write this on the back of your hand so you don't lose it
BTW, IAAL
Sssssh
Oh
SGI, like Cray, wandered away from doing what made the company special (godawful high performance computing) and both of them suffered the consequences. Cray has moved back to it's roots (cost-be-damned-make-it-FAST one-off boxes for government-sponsored research projects) and has returned to the land of the living. SGI is turning that corner now
The poster continues:
HP probably
and