I had skipped over your post the first time I saw it. However, after some reflection, I came back and read it. You make many good points. I believe that any number of them could be valid cases. However, I believe you've missed one of the most simple ones. (Simple to understand and difficult to defend.)
You state: SCO's license is actually no license at all, and it is fraud for SCO to be claiming it has a right to offer a binary-only license. If anyone tries to add additional restrictions to code that is covered by the GPL, they lose the privileges the GPL granted them.
If this is the case (and I believe that it is), then SCO is violating the copyrights of thousands of developers around the world who have code (contributed under the GPL) in Caldera's current version of their OpenLinux. Caldera no longer has premission to copy the software and they still are:
(From ftp.caldera.com: The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers.).
This makes it a simple Copyright Infringement case, which everyone understands.
As an added benefit, if the pressure actually forces SCO to pull the Linux distribution from their site, it seems that they will be in violation of service contracts with existing customers. This would provide a nice basis of a class action suit from thier customers. Since all this was started over contract violations, this seems a fitting end to the farse.
Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association
Post Office Box 9014
Farmingdale, New York 11735-9014
The above is a 'one time' deal. The NoCall lists are usually only for a year or two. We wrote to the above address and signed up for the Georgia NoCall list and have recieved almost no marketing calls over the last year.
As a bonus, if you sign up for the Georgia NoCall list, each Telemarketing call you recieve subjects them to a $2000 fine.:)
Yes. There is a contract. The employeement offer guarantees that employee certain compensation per hour/year/check, etc. However, there is not a guarantee that the company will continue to employee the person. That's why these are usually "voluntary". If you don't volunteer, you are fired. That's what's called at-will employeement. (*which may or may not be the case in your own state, but is in many). I'm sure they could still find a reason to let you go, however, if you don't agree to their demands.
I hate to say it, but it's most likely time for you to start looking for a new job. I've seen this type of behavior before, and it's usually a sign of even more bleak times to come. Becides, would your company settle for the same thing? "Hey boss, I'm only going to work 50% of the time this month because I need some time with my family."
I used to work for a larger startup company which shall remain nameless. They started these type of "cost cutting" measures. They killed our bonuses, preformed several rounds of layoffs, and killed employee perks. We gladly endured "for the sake of the company". We all thought that times would get better and even offered more to help "the company". Of course, when the company looked our way with $$ in their eyes, they had no problem sending us on our way ("we" being an entire office of e-commerce employees, who had previously carried the company during the previous months).
While it seems like you are helping out "your company" and building something for the future, these measures almost always end up hurting the company. First off, your brightest employees (in theory) are the ones who make more. So you are taking money from your brightest employees. It also hapens that these same people are the ones who will get a new job faster than lower paid ones (in theory again). Remember, you are one signature away from the unemployeement line. And with a job market such as it is now, you should get a jump on your co-workers.
Anyway, remember that employee loyalty is a myth. I don't see how companies expect loyalty from employees when they have absolutely none in return. You could stick around if you want, but what's to keep them from implementing reduction again? You may find yourself in the same boat again in a month or two. Or prehaps layoffs will be next. Or even bankruptcy. Remember, your managers will say what ever it takes to keep you around ("We made deeper cuts than we had to so we wouldn't have to do it again" -said between 2 rounds of layoffs). You have to look after yourself.
Ok.. Not to support this one way or another, but logic is EXTREMELY flawed. NO ONE is trying to take burned cd's that are current hits (A papers) and trying to get a record deal (an A for themselves). That's just ridicules.
The logic should be: If you wrote an A paper and everyone passed it around and enjoyed it, would that bother you. But there's no bite to that, because I don't think that would care anyone. In fact, most people would probably be so proud that their paper was enjoyed, that they'd encourage sharing it.
Oh... and everyone look closely! This may be the only time you'll ever see "sex appeal" and "Sheryl Crow" in the same sentence!
The problem isn't with Apple. It's with the US legal system. I've never been a fan of Apple but don't punish them for something that isn't their fault. Instead of griping to Apple, gripe to your congressional representatives on how current laws are stifling our countries competitiveness on a global scale.
I believe that Finlay isn't a resident of the US. How does that factor into all of this? I'm sure in some countries the contract age varries. If your local country's law said you had to be 21 to agree to contracts and Apple let an 18 year old from that country develop, wouldn't they have the same problems? And some contries wouldn't even honor any contracts in the US. Will we next be seeing articles that US companies won't let non-US citizens work on their open source projects?
Any international contracts lawyers have any insight into this?
Like I said... I do understand. Photoshop is a great tool and I don't have the money to buy it (;-))
However, the point I was making is that the argument itself is not a good one. There are tools available for cheap or free that will preform all of the actions on a photo (or money conversions, etc.) that most amateurs could want. If you only need a Buick, don't buy an Ferrari.
The point is your argument is not a good one. A Farrari is a cool toy, but I'm just going to have to go without. I understand that it is cool, for example, for my Mom to have a "Copy" photoshop to tuch-up her photos. However, that doesn't make it legal. And if that's the only argument, I don't believe it should be legal. The point is there are alternatives to everything, including going without. If the only cars in the world were Farrari's, I would ride a bike or walk.
As an aside, it may not hurt Adobe (because she would never buy a copy), but it could hurt, say MGI who's PhotoSuite4 may be perfect for her and affordable.
Having your live in the open has worked so well in the past. Let's see....
I'm sure that your discenting political opinion was a great thing to share in communist Russia.
And it was such a relief for Christians not to have to keep their religion private in ancient Rome.
And I'm sure the Jewish people loved not having to keep their very race in Nazi Germany. In fact, let's ask them how good of an idea national registration with ID cards is.
Not having privacy puts way too much trust in others agreeing with your every viewpoint and action.
I must disagree. Artists that we are speaking of (the ones who care about "losing" money) have only agreed to preform thir music in exchange for your money. Otherwise, they would love to have their music shared.
According to your argument, it is ok to agree to have someone preform a service for you and refuse payment. Just because the artists can preform many services at once does not make it right.
I would agree that there are better ways to distribute music than the way we currently do, but I don't believe that your argument is correct. The absense of a gain CAN be a loss. We should raise our kids to pay for what they use, or do without. (Sometimes living without something is not a bad thing. Necessity it the mother of invention, or so I've heard.)
It's not like using a copied piece of software, in which case many people possessing an illegal copy wouldn't have bought the original anyway...
If the person wouldn't have bought the software, why does that person feel the need to posess a copy of it? Not that I don't understand mind you, but the argument holds no inherient value.
Actually, that's an easy question (at least in the spirit of the law).:)
'Copyright infringing' starts with the line:
"Actually I have it here on my compuyter, I could..."
The reason here is up to that point, the first person is willing to relate the story in his/her own words (more or less). Once you start distributing exact copies of the origional is where you get into trouble.
Not that any of it makes the law right. But since you asked...
Bravo pubjames. Thank you for a brilliant and well thought-out argument. However, I believe there is a flaw in your argument.
The problem is there is not as big a difference in sharing physical and non-physical things a most of us slashdotters would like to believe. For example, your quote from Mr. Shaw points out that if two people share ideas, then both of their knowledge is increased. However, think about the following. Two people agree to exchange ideas. The first person relates his/her idea. The second person, after hearing the first person's idea, decides not to share his. Now one person has two ideas and the second person only has his origional. While the second person hasn't "lost" anything in the sense of "taking someone's TV" (as is often the argument on slashdot), he/she is still lacking.
This second person is the artist in our debate today. There is a basic (if unsaid) understanding that an artist enters into with the public when that artist releases his material for sale. The artist is willing to exchange his/her "ideas" (music, preforming arts, etc) for some effort from you (money). By not providing your money to the artist, the artist is lacking on his side. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why can't you live without it?
A much closer comparason of "file" sharing (I hate that phrase) than anything I've heard on slashdot is sneaking into a NOT FULL theater or concert. Would that be stealing? Before you answer, however, what if everyone snuck in? Eventually you start cutting into the money the theater needs to survive.
Too many people see the "evil corporate empire" instead of the people behind it. However, I would agree that the system is flawed and needs changing. I would agree that the debates should be "What would be the best for mankind?". However, I think the artists need to be having the debate, not the public. How can we inspire artists to have that debate? Instead of further spreading the popular music, support local artists and preformers. Spend your time finding bands that don't sign with the "evil" mpaa corporations and show the ones who do that it isn't in thier best interest to distribute their music with that method!
I totally disagree with your comments. Amateur radio still provides a usefull service in more ways than one.
First of all, the amateur radio operators compose a network of communications that the most completely decentralized form of communication available. While cell phones, satalites, and internet connections are all very hi-tech, they all have central points for failure. It is virtually impossible to knock out amateur communications without killing almost every operator! One or two switching stations or a satallite and cell phones are dead.
Secondly, many of the 'ham-nerds' you speak of are some of the most brilliant electircal engineering type people I have ever met. Many technologies that we use today can be attributed to amateur radio, including the roots for wireless connectivity such as 802.11 (ever heard of packet radio?). You can also find the roots of cell phones in amateur radio.
Not to point out the obvious...
on
Hacker U.
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
but this would be considered a Cracking school, not a Hacking school. A Hacking school would teach logic, problem solving, and finding unusual solutions to everyday problems. If we expect the public to differentiate the two, we have to lead by example.
Furthermore, I find this article to be full of horrible and misleading information.
At the end, they hope to have improved their "white hat" or good pirate - skills.
Ok... What exactly is a 'good pirate'? For that matter, how does piracy (or hacking for that matter) even enter into this article.
...which teaches you, amongst other things, how to invent false credit card details and fiddle your mobile phone bills.
Nevertheless, "Clad" is adamant that he teaches only ethical hacking skills. Umm... Yeah. Right. There are perfectly ethical reasons to do these things.
"For me", he says, "it is enough to know I can break into a system, without crossing the line into illegality." Breaking into a system is illegal. Even if it's not in the country where you live, there is no way that it's ethical. But at least the article presents a consenting view on this.
Hacking is illegal. That's like saying thinking is illegal.
"I teach them ethical values," Clad Strife told me. "It's not my responsibility if they use my information to do something illegal at home. I disagree. If you teach a trade that is very likely to be used for malice, it is your responsibility to make sure that you teach it to people who will not misuse it. For example, in the U.S. military, there are weeks of training in which discipline is taught. We don't just give anyone machine guns and send them off. If you were teaching bomb making to your neighbors, you would be a bit more caring to make sure that they behave responsible!
"[Cracking] is not fundamentally illegal. After all, when you're driving a car, you can knock someone over and kill them, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to have driving lessons, does it?" Umm... No. Your argument does not hold up. Using the logic in reverse you see the flaws. "Hitting people with cars is not fundamentally illegal. After all, when you surf the internet, you might break into someone's computer. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be taught to use the computer, does it?" That's just rediculous.
...if you want to pay by credit card, do it over the phone. Anyone sending these KIDS their credit card numbers has more to worry about than whether the internet or phone is more secure.
As the school's website says, paying over the internet isn't secure. Yeah. You wouldn't want the wrong people to have your credit card number! ROFLMAO.
What really scares me is that this Mattel issue is not only against the free speech by the "letter-of-the-law", it is against it in _SPIRIT_, which is often something we overlook as being important. Imagine, for a second, what it is free speech is supposed to protect us Americans from in the first place:
"So all I have to do is issue an injunction banning the distribution of this 'CPHack' and you will ban all sights that oppose my run for president?"
I don't see how any one could even THINK of purchasing software that conseals the sites it bans from the consumer. Becides, if it bans them, why is giving out these urls so bad? There blocked, right?
The problem with this is I agreed to no license when I purchaced my new DVD. I agreed to nothing when I opened my DVD. And I agreed to nothing when I played my DVD. SOMEWHERE I would have to agree to the "license" in order for it to have any affect what-so-ever. If there is a license, I should be able to return an opened DVD because "I did not agree with the license." Try that and see what hapens.
Slashdot Mirror
I had skipped over your post the first time I saw it. However, after some reflection, I came back and read it. You make many good points. I believe that any number of them could be valid cases. However, I believe you've missed one of the most simple ones. (Simple to understand and difficult to defend.)
You state:
SCO's license is actually no license at all, and it is fraud for SCO to be claiming it has a right to offer a binary-only license. If anyone tries to add additional restrictions to code that is covered by the GPL, they lose the privileges the GPL granted them.
If this is the case (and I believe that it is), then SCO is violating the copyrights of thousands of developers around the world who have code (contributed under the GPL) in Caldera's current version of their OpenLinux. Caldera no longer has premission to copy the software and they still are: (From ftp.caldera.com: The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers.).
This makes it a simple Copyright Infringement case, which everyone understands.
As an added benefit, if the pressure actually forces SCO to pull the Linux distribution from their site, it seems that they will be in violation of service contracts with existing customers. This would provide a nice basis of a class action suit from thier customers. Since all this was started over contract violations, this seems a fitting end to the farse.
-J
"To reduce the number of telemarketing calls you receive from national companies, you can write a letter to the following association and request the removal of your number from their list." (Also lists several states no-call lists).
:)
Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association
Post Office Box 9014
Farmingdale, New York 11735-9014
The above is a 'one time' deal. The NoCall lists are usually only for a year or two. We wrote to the above address and signed up for the Georgia NoCall list and have recieved almost no marketing calls over the last year.
As a bonus, if you sign up for the Georgia NoCall list, each Telemarketing call you recieve subjects them to a $2000 fine.
Get a new word. Fungible doesn't quite fit. Try consumable
Yes. There is a contract. The employeement offer guarantees that employee certain compensation per hour/year/check, etc. However, there is not a guarantee that the company will continue to employee the person. That's why these are usually "voluntary". If you don't volunteer, you are fired. That's what's called at-will employeement. (*which may or may not be the case in your own state, but is in many).
I'm sure they could still find a reason to let you go, however, if you don't agree to their demands.
I hate to say it, but it's most likely time for you to start looking for a new job. I've seen this type of behavior before, and it's usually a sign of even more bleak times to come. Becides, would your company settle for the same thing? "Hey boss, I'm only going to work 50% of the time this month because I need some time with my family."
I used to work for a larger startup company which shall remain nameless. They started these type of "cost cutting" measures. They killed our bonuses, preformed several rounds of layoffs, and killed employee perks. We gladly endured "for the sake of the company". We all thought that times would get better and even offered more to help "the company". Of course, when the company looked our way with $$ in their eyes, they had no problem sending us on our way ("we" being an entire office of e-commerce employees, who had previously carried the company during the previous months).
While it seems like you are helping out "your company" and building something for the future, these measures almost always end up hurting the company. First off, your brightest employees (in theory) are the ones who make more. So you are taking money from your brightest employees. It also hapens that these same people are the ones who will get a new job faster than lower paid ones (in theory again). Remember, you are one signature away from the unemployeement line. And with a job market such as it is now, you should get a jump on your co-workers.
Anyway, remember that employee loyalty is a myth. I don't see how companies expect loyalty from employees when they have absolutely none in return. You could stick around if you want, but what's to keep them from implementing reduction again? You may find yourself in the same boat again in a month or two. Or prehaps layoffs will be next. Or even bankruptcy. Remember, your managers will say what ever it takes to keep you around ("We made deeper cuts than we had to so we wouldn't have to do it again" -said between 2 rounds of layoffs). You have to look after yourself.
Ok.. Not to support this one way or another, but logic is EXTREMELY flawed. NO ONE is trying to take burned cd's that are current hits (A papers) and trying to get a record deal (an A for themselves). That's just ridicules.
The logic should be: If you wrote an A paper and everyone passed it around and enjoyed it, would that bother you. But there's no bite to that, because I don't think that would care anyone. In fact, most people would probably be so proud that their paper was enjoyed, that they'd encourage sharing it.
Oh... and everyone look closely! This may be the only time you'll ever see "sex appeal" and "Sheryl Crow" in the same sentence!
That thump you heard was me falling out of my chair and lmao.
The problem isn't with Apple. It's with the US legal system. I've never been a fan of Apple but don't punish them for something that isn't their fault. Instead of griping to Apple, gripe to your congressional representatives on how current laws are stifling our countries competitiveness on a global scale.
I believe that Finlay isn't a resident of the US. How does that factor into all of this? I'm sure in some countries the contract age varries. If your local country's law said you had to be 21 to agree to contracts and Apple let an 18 year old from that country develop, wouldn't they have the same problems? And some contries wouldn't even honor any contracts in the US. Will we next be seeing articles that US companies won't let non-US citizens work on their open source projects?
Any international contracts lawyers have any insight into this?
Like I said... I do understand. Photoshop is a great tool and I don't have the money to buy it (;-))
However, the point I was making is that the argument itself is not a good one. There are tools available for cheap or free that will preform all of the actions on a photo (or money conversions, etc.) that most amateurs could want. If you only need a Buick, don't buy an Ferrari.
The point is your argument is not a good one. A Farrari is a cool toy, but I'm just going to have to go without. I understand that it is cool, for example, for my Mom to have a "Copy" photoshop to tuch-up her photos. However, that doesn't make it legal. And if that's the only argument, I don't believe it should be legal. The point is there are alternatives to everything, including going without. If the only cars in the world were Farrari's, I would ride a bike or walk.
As an aside, it may not hurt Adobe (because she would never buy a copy), but it could hurt, say MGI who's PhotoSuite4 may be perfect for her and affordable.
Having your live in the open has worked so well in the past. Let's see....
I'm sure that your discenting political opinion was a great thing to share in communist Russia.
And it was such a relief for Christians not to have to keep their religion private in ancient Rome.
And I'm sure the Jewish people loved not having to keep their very race in Nazi Germany. In fact, let's ask them how good of an idea national registration with ID cards is.
Not having privacy puts way too much trust in others agreeing with your every viewpoint and action.
I must disagree. Artists that we are speaking of (the ones who care about "losing" money) have only agreed to preform thir music in exchange for your money. Otherwise, they would love to have their music shared.
According to your argument, it is ok to agree to have someone preform a service for you and refuse payment. Just because the artists can preform many services at once does not make it right.
I would agree that there are better ways to distribute music than the way we currently do, but I don't believe that your argument is correct. The absense of a gain CAN be a loss. We should raise our kids to pay for what they use, or do without. (Sometimes living without something is not a bad thing. Necessity it the mother of invention, or so I've heard.)
I must say this doesn't make any sense.
It's not like using a copied piece of software, in which case many people possessing an illegal copy wouldn't have bought the original anyway...
If the person wouldn't have bought the software, why does that person feel the need to posess a copy of it? Not that I don't understand mind you, but the argument holds no inherient value.
Actually, that's an easy question (at least in the spirit of the law). :)
..."
'Copyright infringing' starts with the line:
"Actually I have it here on my compuyter, I could
The reason here is up to that point, the first person is willing to relate the story in his/her own words (more or less). Once you start distributing exact copies of the origional is where you get into trouble.
Not that any of it makes the law right. But since you asked...
Bravo pubjames. Thank you for a brilliant and well thought-out argument. However, I believe there is a flaw in your argument.
The problem is there is not as big a difference in sharing physical and non-physical things a most of us slashdotters would like to believe. For example, your quote from Mr. Shaw points out that if two people share ideas, then both of their knowledge is increased. However, think about the following. Two people agree to exchange ideas. The first person relates his/her idea. The second person, after hearing the first person's idea, decides not to share his. Now one person has two ideas and the second person only has his origional. While the second person hasn't "lost" anything in the sense of "taking someone's TV" (as is often the argument on slashdot), he/she is still lacking.
This second person is the artist in our debate today. There is a basic (if unsaid) understanding that an artist enters into with the public when that artist releases his material for sale. The artist is willing to exchange his/her "ideas" (music, preforming arts, etc) for some effort from you (money). By not providing your money to the artist, the artist is lacking on his side. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why can't you live without it?
A much closer comparason of "file" sharing (I hate that phrase) than anything I've heard on slashdot is sneaking into a NOT FULL theater or concert. Would that be stealing? Before you answer, however, what if everyone snuck in? Eventually you start cutting into the money the theater needs to survive.
Too many people see the "evil corporate empire" instead of the people behind it. However, I would agree that the system is flawed and needs changing. I would agree that the debates should be "What would be the best for mankind?". However, I think the artists need to be having the debate, not the public. How can we inspire artists to have that debate? Instead of further spreading the popular music, support local artists and preformers. Spend your time finding bands that don't sign with the "evil" mpaa corporations and show the ones who do that it isn't in thier best interest to distribute their music with that method!
Anyway, just my $0.02.
If you've got a perfectly good working PC, why you would go through the angst of replacing it?
All right! Where can I get one of those?
I totally disagree with your comments. Amateur radio still provides a usefull service in more ways than one.
First of all, the amateur radio operators compose a network of communications that the most completely decentralized form of communication available. While cell phones, satalites, and internet connections are all very hi-tech, they all have central points for failure. It is virtually impossible to knock out amateur communications without killing almost every operator! One or two switching stations or a satallite and cell phones are dead.
Secondly, many of the 'ham-nerds' you speak of are some of the most brilliant electircal engineering type people I have ever met. Many technologies that we use today can be attributed to amateur radio, including the roots for wireless connectivity such as 802.11 (ever heard of packet radio?). You can also find the roots of cell phones in amateur radio.
Thirdly, amateur radio operators provide many valuable services to the community including community service, education, and Disaster Relief (WTC).
but this would be considered a Cracking school, not a Hacking school. A Hacking school would teach logic, problem solving, and finding unusual solutions to everyday problems. If we expect the public to differentiate the two, we have to lead by example.
...which teaches you, amongst other things, how to invent false credit card details and fiddle your mobile phone bills.
...if you want to pay by credit card, do it over the phone.
Furthermore, I find this article to be full of horrible and misleading information.
At the end, they hope to have improved their "white hat" or good pirate - skills.
Ok... What exactly is a 'good pirate'? For that matter, how does piracy (or hacking for that matter) even enter into this article.
Nevertheless, "Clad" is adamant that he teaches only ethical hacking skills.
Umm... Yeah. Right. There are perfectly ethical reasons to do these things.
"For me", he says, "it is enough to know I can break into a system, without crossing the line into illegality."
Breaking into a system is illegal. Even if it's not in the country where you live, there is no way that it's ethical. But at least the article presents a consenting view on this.
Hacking is illegal.
That's like saying thinking is illegal.
"I teach them ethical values," Clad Strife told me. "It's not my responsibility if they use my information to do something illegal at home.
I disagree. If you teach a trade that is very likely to be used for malice, it is your responsibility to make sure that you teach it to people who will not misuse it. For example, in the U.S. military, there are weeks of training in which discipline is taught. We don't just give anyone machine guns and send them off. If you were teaching bomb making to your neighbors, you would be a bit more caring to make sure that they behave responsible!
"[Cracking] is not fundamentally illegal. After all, when you're driving a car, you can knock someone over and kill them, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to have driving lessons, does it?"
Umm... No. Your argument does not hold up. Using the logic in reverse you see the flaws. "Hitting people with cars is not fundamentally illegal. After all, when you surf the internet, you might break into someone's computer. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be taught to use the computer, does it?" That's just rediculous.
Anyone sending these KIDS their credit card numbers has more to worry about than whether the internet or phone is more secure.
As the school's website says, paying over the internet isn't secure.
Yeah. You wouldn't want the wrong people to have your credit card number! ROFLMAO.
"So all I have to do is issue an injunction banning the distribution of this 'CPHack' and you will ban all sights that oppose my run for president?"
I don't see how any one could even THINK of purchasing software that conseals the sites it bans from the consumer. Becides, if it bans them, why is giving out these urls so bad? There blocked, right?The problem with this is I agreed to no license when I purchaced my new DVD. I agreed to nothing when I opened my DVD. And I agreed to nothing when I played my DVD. SOMEWHERE I would have to agree to the "license" in order for it to have any affect what-so-ever. If there is a license, I should be able to return an opened DVD because "I did not agree with the license." Try that and see what hapens.