I would be in favor of three strikes as long as the first two strikes are always correct.
If the third strike is automatic, and worse, probably unappealable, then I simply don't trust anyone NOT to railroad the poor schmuck who was genuinely innocent on one of the first two strikes, but simply didn't have the resources to fight the charges.
Bringing a gigantic lawfirm into the picture to grind you down into submission is one thing. Using that "surrender" as an excuse to give someone the hangman's noose later is another.
Google isn't "against" human rights by complying with chinese censorship laws.
If chinese "orwellian police" are out in full force, what can google do about it?
If google turns their back on china (and in the process leaves billions of chinese citizens without another search alternative), then someone else with *purely* a profit motive would step in anyway.
At least this way, google is providing competition in the area and not letting other search engines (or worse, a state run search engine) have a possible monopoly.
Google had 3 choices here
1. Stay out and let the state-strangled chinese market fend for itself 2. Go in handcuffed and brown-nosed and give the people SOME freedom 3. Go in full blast and get arrested and expropriated by a very pissed off chinese government.
Choice 1 is bad. Choice 3 is also bad because it would eventually lead to case 1, plus some collateral damage against google. Choice 2 is the best of the worst.
Bottom line, we are better off WITH google in china than we are WITHOUT.
As a case in point wrt. google's "goodness", I checked the adsense TOS and a clause there permits google to give unclaimed revenue to charity. Since "fine print" usually includes clauses that favor the company, I find this to be, well, noteworthy.
This is exactly the sort of "it's not what the law says, it's what the judge says" argument I used before.
I hope that TorrentSpy appeals.
If not, then
The only way I could see TorrentSpy in this case (posting links) being liable is if they were co-conspirators.
I suppose that the MPAA might have a point in "recruiting" copyright cops by threatening with the "aiding and abetting" charge ala "whoever is not for us is against us". But then again, don't we have POLICE for actively investigating crimes?
Someone goes around -1 flamebait stamping everyone and I only find out AFTER I've replied to another post in this thread and then gotten mod points.
Seriously, there are artists who deserve to be paid for their work.
Naturally, I hate the RIAA, and most likely, the record companies behind the RIAA. However, the artists themselves I don't mind.
I'm all for screwing corporate bastards. But I'm not going to rape any artists in the process. I'm so disgusted with the whole situation I stay out of music completely, pirated or otherwise.
Someone should look into whether or not these artists have signed non-compete clauses that forbid them from doing direct selling. If not, then we can give the artists the money they deserve without lining the pockets of greedy middlemen.
And if I ever get a chance, I'm metamodding the above as unfair.
If you consider the judge to be a wooden door, then throwing an axe at it not only caused the reinforcing rods to bounce the axe back, but an electric current even manages to jump to the axe and zap you down.
That electric current is the judge's temper, and you, having already sustained shock damage, are more apt to get a jolt through the heart if you keep chopping.
And that functionality is conveniently enough the perfect excuse to require internet access and then piggy back on top of that functionality some crappy DRM.
Player created monsters could be downloaded separately as files. But noOOOOoo, they'd rather borrow the player-content-sharing internet connection for piggy-backed DRM.
Funny thing is that college students are likely to be subject to an "at will" clause of sorts that specifically gives the university the right to revoke anyone's internet access at any time for any or no reason.
Case in point: My own college. The EUP (Electronic Use Policy) specifically states that I can be asked to leave at any time by staff.
Maybe if it took place as a fulfillment of the http://en.wikipedia.com/Felony Murder if someone wound up killed over it.
Let's say a spammer was selling ads for a potentially dangerous brand of a viagra work-alike. And, the company that was sleazy enough to hire a spammer to push it's product was also sleazy enough to skip clinical trials and other safeguards, and now they are selling a deadly poison.
Let's also say that Joe Sixpack was desperate enough to buy the stuff.
Now, he dies.
First of all, the company that sold the drug is almost certainly liable for wrongful death.
But here's the juicy part.
The spammer, and most likely, the botnet operator, have both committed theft, probably on a felony scale, of thousands of computer systems, and as a consequence of their actions, someone died.
Any judge would hopefully consider that selling your services to the highest bidder is not quite in line with being prudent, which includes selling ads for dangerous products.
In this case, I would support the death penalty according to the Felony Murder rule, which elevates the death of anyone not involved in the commission of a felony, anywhere from tortious wrongful death to manslaughter, to murder.
Probably not for awhile. In my college experience, good excuses like "I had to go to the hospital" are given about as much relevance, let alone credibility, as "My dog ate it".
Prof's these days just don't give a shit about your problems. They want their assignments done completely and on time come hell or high water and don't give a damn if something goes wrong even if it's not your fault, or worse, even if they themselves contributed to your misfortune. (yes, this happened to me. Prof took an 8 day vacation and then dished out a massive assignment that was due the next day).
Not much different from modern day bosses and executives. What has our greed ridden capitalist world come to?
Similiarly, I don't put it past people to take advantage of this both ways.
"Sorry, but I never agreed to that in writing" and "I did my job, so to hell with you if the writing's gone"
Slashdot Mirror
I would be in favor of three strikes as long as the first two strikes are always correct.
If the third strike is automatic, and worse, probably unappealable, then I simply don't trust anyone NOT to railroad the poor schmuck who was genuinely innocent on one of the first two strikes, but simply didn't have the resources to fight the charges.
Bringing a gigantic lawfirm into the picture to grind you down into submission is one thing. Using that "surrender" as an excuse to give someone the hangman's noose later is another.
So our Men In Uniform are buying bootleg DVD's?
I think that itself is more newsworthy than the virus bits.
What I'd like to know is how the US Soldier's computers are even getting the bad dvd's in the first place...
Stick with foreign entities.
And remember routing.
The "routing around damage" part of the internet makes it difficult to explicity (and more important, exclusively) target a single entity.
If there is a back door, then it's a pretty good one.
Last time I checked, the linux kernel is maintained in source form. Reviewed by MANY developers, rather than just mine truly.
And we are talking about an OS used by geeks all over the place.
If there was an NSA backdoor, we'd most likely have found it by now.
Google isn't "against" human rights by complying with chinese censorship laws.
If chinese "orwellian police" are out in full force, what can google do about it?
If google turns their back on china (and in the process leaves billions of chinese citizens without another search alternative), then someone else with *purely* a profit motive would step in anyway.
At least this way, google is providing competition in the area and not letting other search engines (or worse, a state run search engine) have a possible monopoly.
Google had 3 choices here
1. Stay out and let the state-strangled chinese market fend for itself
2. Go in handcuffed and brown-nosed and give the people SOME freedom
3. Go in full blast and get arrested and expropriated by a very pissed off chinese government.
Choice 1 is bad. Choice 3 is also bad because it would eventually lead to case 1, plus some collateral damage against google. Choice 2 is the best of the worst.
Bottom line, we are better off WITH google in china than we are WITHOUT.
As a case in point wrt. google's "goodness", I checked the adsense TOS and a clause there permits google to give unclaimed revenue to charity. Since "fine print" usually includes clauses that favor the company, I find this to be, well, noteworthy.
This is exactly the sort of "it's not what the law says, it's what the judge says" argument I used before.
I hope that TorrentSpy appeals.
If not, then
The only way I could see TorrentSpy in this case (posting links) being liable is if they were co-conspirators.
I suppose that the MPAA might have a point in "recruiting" copyright cops by threatening with the "aiding and abetting" charge ala "whoever is not for us is against us". But then again, don't we have POLICE for actively investigating crimes?
Wow, now Comspastic is going the way of the cell-phone plan market.
"Did you know you went over your macaroni minutes today?"
Strange...
Apart from memory constraints, why should there be a slowdown?
Aren't IP addresses a numeric type that can easily be looked up in a hash table or a balanced binary tree?
If the lookup algorithm is O(N) then I'm going to kill someone.
Depends on if you mean the v2 or v3 GPL
Someone goes around -1 flamebait stamping everyone and I only find out AFTER I've replied to another post in this thread and then gotten mod points.
Seriously, there are artists who deserve to be paid for their work.
Naturally, I hate the RIAA, and most likely, the record companies behind the RIAA. However, the artists themselves I don't mind.
I'm all for screwing corporate bastards. But I'm not going to rape any artists in the process. I'm so disgusted with the whole situation I stay out of music completely, pirated or otherwise.
Someone should look into whether or not these artists have signed non-compete clauses that forbid them from doing direct selling. If not, then we can give the artists the money they deserve without lining the pockets of greedy middlemen.
And if I ever get a chance, I'm metamodding the above as unfair.
Copyright infringement is still a federal offense even if you would not have otherwise bought it.
The "would he have bought it anyway" argument only flies as a point in a CIVIL suit for damages. It is NOT a defense in a CRIMINAL case.
The GPL is very much a permissive and mandative license, not a prohibitive one.
It absolutely will NOT stifle competition, because anything you release can only help other companies if they decide to use it.
Which means...a restraint of trade can ONLY happen with the cooperation of the victim.
"You gotta give out the source code" does NOT mean "you can't use this".
The only case where the GPL "encumbers" anything is if there's a patent involved, in which case the encumberance is both legal AND preexisting anyway.
In principle, this, is complete bullshit.
In practice, I fear some judge might not see it that way, especially in this current plutocracy.
Uncle post mentions "monopoly"
Do you not know what that even means?
No, you cannot "always get another provider".
When dealing with a monopoly, you have 3 options
1. Bend over and let them screw you
2. Go without
3. Try to get the government pissed enough at them to act
Well so much for the "ping" radar...
If you consider the judge to be a wooden door, then throwing an axe at it not only caused the reinforcing rods to bounce the axe back, but an electric current even manages to jump to the axe and zap you down.
That electric current is the judge's temper, and you, having already sustained shock damage, are more apt to get a jolt through the heart if you keep chopping.
And that functionality is conveniently enough the perfect excuse to require internet access and then piggy back on top of that functionality some crappy DRM.
Player created monsters could be downloaded separately as files. But noOOOOoo, they'd rather borrow the player-content-sharing internet connection for piggy-backed DRM.
I prefer this:
1. Lawyer files frivolous 31 page claim
2. Judge dismisses and fines lawyers under rule 11
3. Client gets pissed, sues for malpractice
Funny thing is that college students are likely to be subject to an "at will" clause of sorts that specifically gives the university the right to revoke anyone's internet access at any time for any or no reason.
Case in point: My own college. The EUP (Electronic Use Policy) specifically states that I can be asked to leave at any time by staff.
I tried both ubuntu and fedora "hibernate" with cold poweroff (full BIOS routine on startup), and it worked flawlessly
It did go autopilot for awhile (probably a safety feature to prevent disturbance), and it was my first experience of ever getting a good suspend.
It permakilled my sound if I ever hibernated with active playback, but otherwise it was flawless.
At least the "Goog" took it down under protest, posted a link to chilling effects, and included a link on how to protect your rights.
Maybe if it took place as a fulfillment of the http://en.wikipedia.com/Felony Murder if someone wound up killed over it.
Let's say a spammer was selling ads for a potentially dangerous brand of a viagra work-alike. And, the company that was sleazy enough to hire a spammer to push it's product was also sleazy enough to skip clinical trials and other safeguards, and now they are selling a deadly poison.
Let's also say that Joe Sixpack was desperate enough to buy the stuff.
Now, he dies.
First of all, the company that sold the drug is almost certainly liable for wrongful death.
But here's the juicy part.
The spammer, and most likely, the botnet operator, have both committed theft, probably on a felony scale, of thousands of computer systems, and as a consequence of their actions, someone died.
Any judge would hopefully consider that selling your services to the highest bidder is not quite in line with being prudent, which includes selling ads for dangerous products.
In this case, I would support the death penalty according to the Felony Murder rule, which elevates the death of anyone not involved in the commission of a felony, anywhere from tortious wrongful death to manslaughter, to murder.
Mod parent up as "correct".
I'm glad to FINALLY see someone post sarcasm that passes XML syntax checking.
Probably not for awhile. In my college experience, good excuses like "I had to go to the hospital" are given about as much relevance, let alone credibility, as "My dog ate it".
Prof's these days just don't give a shit about your problems. They want their assignments done completely and on time come hell or high water and don't give a damn if something goes wrong even if it's not your fault, or worse, even if they themselves contributed to your misfortune. (yes, this happened to me. Prof took an 8 day vacation and then dished out a massive assignment that was due the next day).
Not much different from modern day bosses and executives. What has our greed ridden capitalist world come to?
Similiarly, I don't put it past people to take advantage of this both ways.
"Sorry, but I never agreed to that in writing"
and "I did my job, so to hell with you if the writing's gone"
I was referring to the TOS.
Which, if broken (say, by unconsented signup by a minor), is usually grounds for deletion.
I agree with great uncle post, that a subpoena is probably the best route.
Dog eats homework, blames aliens.