Try being at least a little honest. You make it sound like IBM, out of the clear blue, sent a letter to someone stating they were infringing their patents and if they didn't stop they would be sued. Of course, that didn't happen at all. What REALLY happened was that TurboHercules sent a letter to IBM asking IBM to license IBM software for running on a TurboHercules product. IBM responded, declining to do it. They gave their reasons for declining: there is nothing innovative in what you are doing, it provides no benefit to IBM, and IBM is not going to license it's software to run on something that IBM feels infringes their IP. At that point, TurboHercules sent another letter, with the laughably absurd position that they didn't think IBM had any IP relating to it's flagship mainframes. IBM responded to that stupid position with a (partial) list of patents that it holds regarding the mainframe. Nowhere in either of the two letters does IBM demand that Hercules stop producing their emulator or be sued. The ONLY action they took was to deny licensing their own software for use on it.
Note that this series of letters is almost 2 years old. Who, exactly, has IBM sued?
Except of course that IBM never launched a lawsuit against a company for providing support of TurboHercules software. First, TurboHercules is a company, not software (the software is just Hercules). Second, IBM has not launched any lawsuits against anyone for supporting Hercules, they just declined to SUPPORT or license their software for use on Hercules. One of the reasons they gave for not supporting Hercules was that they feel Hercules infringes on their patents, but that is far different from suing someone. The only ones spreading FUD are the people like you claiming IBM took actions they never took or threatened to take.
I did not paste the entire law, I assumed people would be smart enough to look it up on their own. The phrase 'not interfere with standard technical measures' is defined in the law as:
Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works
It has nothing to do with NAT. Also, I did not say you couldn't use NAT, I said it would be stupid (because it substantially harms your ability to identify the infringer - see below).
There is another whole section of the law (h) that deals with the service providers responsibility to disclose to the copyright holder information that can be used to identify the infringer when subpoenaed . If you have a way to identify the infringer that does not involve keeping logs, good for you. However "must have been some unknown person using my open wifi" is not going to go very far in giving you safe harbor.
Lastly, yeah, moving to a new address is exactly the same as creating a new dummy user id.
I see. So your bright idea to supporting this on an 'open wifi' is to make the wifi not open (if you require userids and passwords it isn't open, regardless of what the actual over-the-air protocol is doing).
Next, I assume this is present day we are talking about, so IPV4 is still what is being used. You do own the block of addresses you are handing out to your users, and you are logging who was using what address when, right? I mean, you're not so dumb as to be using NAT are you (because that makes all traffic look like it belongs to you, not your 'users')? If you are using NAT, you're logging who you gave an address to, and what activity they had on that address, right?
So someone sends you a DMCA notice and says at such-and-such a date on such-and-such a time copyright infringement was occurring on your addresses you own. You do have the proper procedures in place to identify who was generating the traffic they are complaining about, and you can properly notify that person, and after multiple occurrences you can cut them (and only them) off (and make sure they don't just 'make up' another id), right?
No, it is not interesting. You can get the same protections by following the same laws as the ISPs (Section 512 of USC 17):
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
Now, if you you can show how you notify and cut off users of your open wifi network, you get the same protections.
Where does it say the student will be a greater risk of liability? The screen shot says 'others may share illegal material through your router giving the appearance that you are the guilty party'. This is 100% true. If you get to the point where you have to use an open router as a defense it is because it did, in fact, appear that you were the guilty party, and you are now going through the expense and hassle of defending yourself in court. If you didn't have the open wifi you wouldn't BE in court defending yourself (unless you were the one doing the sharing). Advising anyone that running an open wifi in any way reduces their liability is just plain stupid.
106, the one that says the copyright owner has exclusive rights to create copies. Note also that 117 specifically says that you may make backups of computer programs, but there is no such statement for music.
Uh, yeah. There is no EULA, there is a law. And the specific law is USC 17 Section 106 which says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
So this law quite plainly says that ONLY the owner of the copyright may make copies or to authorize same. You, the individual non-copyright-holder have no such right.
Now, there are limitations on the exclusive rights granted to the copyright owner, and in those cases you DO have some rights to make copies. For instance, section 117 says that the owner of the copyright can not prevent you from making a copy of a computer program for backup - that is a right you have.
So I ask again, which section of copyright law restricts the owner from preventing you making copies for different devices or for backup? In other words, which section of copyright law gives you the right to do that?
Where does it say anything about daily (or otherwise) blood tests? It specifically says they want to analyze available information, like claims data. So if they get a claim for diagnostic code x for someone, then months later get a claim for code y, then code z, they want to be able to analyze that and recommend some preventative measures so the person does not wind up hospitalized. Yes, this is the sort of thing a doctor would normally do, but many people go to different doctors for different conditions, and don't always keep their primary care physician up-to-date.
Ever hear of the Bill of Rights (particularly the 4th amendment)?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Your (frankly quite stupid) idea guts this, and replaces it with "You, your house, papers, and effects may be searched for any reason at any time, and anything and everything found will be used against you. Maybe the person who did the searching will be charged with and convicted of a crime, unless he isn't".
Here's the problem with your example. A prosecutor does not get to present a 'theory'. A prosecutor asks questions. So in this case, he is going to ask whoever the witness is how long something takes to fall. The witness gives his answer (right or wrong). Then the DEFENSE attorney gets to ask the witness how he knows how long something takes to fall, can he cite any sources for such information, etc. Then the defense attorney gets to present his OWN witness to say how long something takes to fall, and the prosecutor gets to cross examine him. When the exchange is complete the ENTIRE JURY will have heard the prosecution assert one thing, with nothing to back it up, and the defense asserts something else, with citations from reputable sources. There is no need for the jury to look anything up on their own.
I hate to break it to you, but everyone in the US is your peer. We don't have nobility or social castes. We sure as hell don't have some 'technical elite'. Your peers are people of all ages, races, sexes, religions, education levels, jobs, and any other stupid qualifier you want to choose.
Technical people are not excluded because they are knowledgable, they are excused because they are prejudiced. There is a huge difference between those two. When someone with your level of arrogance and I-already-know-everything attitude shows up it is a pretty good indication that they are not willing to impartially listen to both sides of the case. Plenty of technical people who do not have such awful attitudes serve on juries.
Likewise, lawyers are not excused because they are part of some elite group, they are excused because they tend to know the people involved in the trial (judge, other lawyers, police, etc), and they have their own theories about how cases should be tried and the laws involved, and thus have their own set of prejudices.
BTW - if you ever DO find yourself in front of a jury, you may want to dial down the 'I am so superior to you' attitude. It really doesn't go over well with juries.
It is not just about bias though. It is about fairness. Each side is supposed to have the opportunity to present their case and rebut what the other guy said. If, after hearing them present their cases, you are still left wanting for more information then the correct thing for a jury to do is to consider that point not proved. It is not the jury's job (and would be a very bad thing) to make either side's case for them.
OK, so the police violate your rights and search your house illegally. They find evidence that you committed a crime (maybe even one they hadn't previously known about). This gets used at your trial, and you are convicted and sitting in jail. Meanwhile, the cop who violated your rights is on trial, and his jury uses your wonderful jury nullification idea and decides that since you were such a scumbag your rights didn't count anyway, and they let him off.
There is no other way to look at your ideas than you are willingly giving up your rights and getting nothing at all in return (except for not having that 'elitist judge' protect them). No thanks.
What would be the point of asking such a question? Obviously, if the defendant was seen walking around with a gun, and the evidence was legal and reliable, the prosecution would have mentioned it. So that leaves a few choices: the defendant was not seen with a gun - you can assume that is the case because the prosecution didn't say otherwise. Or someone claimed they saw the defendant with a gun, and told the news that, but turned out to be a not credible witness, so the prosecution didn't use them. Or the police browbeat the witness until they said they saw a gun, and the judge disallowed the testimony.
So what do you hope to gain by asking such a question? Do you want to trample the defendants rights by allowing in testimony that should have been excluded? Do you want to bring in hearsay to the trial, again trampling the defendants rights?
It seems to me that what you really want to accomplish is mob justice, with no pretense of rights.
Oh, I agree. But the post I was responding to didn't say 'potential jurors' or 'people in the courthouse', he said jury, which to my mind means people that are actively serving on a trial.
How can it be less clear? The whole point of a trial is that the jury does NOT have unfettered access to information.
First and most obvious are the rules of evidence - if you are on trial, do you want the jury to have access to the results of an illegal search that just happened to be 'leaked'? Do you want the jury to search the papers and find that you have been charged with the same type of offense before?
Next is the constitutional right to confront your accuser. A juror looking up information on his own is not giving the defense a chance to rebut the information. Also, the defense (or even the prosecution) would not have prior knowledge of what things a juror was looking up, so they would not have time to prepare a proper rebuttal (get expert witnesses, etc).
Giving jurors access to information outside the courtroom is just an awful idea.
You don't have to track anyone else's licenses. All you need to do is write into your contract with the supplier that they are not to use pirated software, and if they do and you get sued for it, they are on the hook for the damages.
First, they don't need the money right now (even the Red Cross says that). Dropping a billion dollars on Japan is not magically going to make housing and food appear. There has been no indication that a shortage of money is causing problems in Japan.
Next, did you even read the summary? The money is not 'sitting in mGives bank account'. mGive does not have the money, because the carriers don't give it to them until 30-90 days later. Aha! It is the greedy carriers fault then! Well no. When you 'text a donation', all you are doing is asking the carrier to bill you $10 on your next bill (which, depending on your plan, will be in 30 to 90 days), and when you pay your bill, send that money to mGive. Guess how long that takes? 30-90 days. Weird, huh.
The only problem here is morons that think sending a text magically causes some food to instantly appear in Japan. It does not. It just allows the Red Cross to restock the supplies of food, cash, whatever, so they are ready for the NEXT disaster.
Vending machines have nothing to do with it. What makes you think the owner of the vending machine gets paid any quicker than 30-90 days? In the case of vending machines, the owners business model is selling stuff now and collecting the money for it later, and the costs associated with that (plus profit) are baked into the price you pay.
The 'delay' seems to be the time between someone texting a donation, and the time the carriers give the money to mGive. The guy from mGive says that is 30 days. Are you suggesting that the carriers are earning interest on a text message? Until you pay your bill the carrier does not have the money, so they are not earning interest. It seems like what you really expect is the carriers to make an interest-free loan to mGive on your behalf, until such time as you get around to paying your bill. If you want to send money to someone in a hurry, texting is a pretty dumb way to do it. Fortunately, Japan does not need the money in a hurry (they need lots of help, but lack of immediate funds are not the problem).
You have a rather poor understanding of what the word free means. Free means you are not paying for something. Free does not mean that something is not listed as a line-item on a bill. If you want to delude yourself into thinking things are free just because they are not billed separately, go ahead, but the rest of us are not so deluded. The rest of your analogy is equally as bad: do you really want your ISP acting like a cable company? That is deciding which web sites you are allowed to use, and paying the web sites on your behalf (and subsequently raising your bill, even though you consider that free)? Your cable provider is a retailer, your ISP is a delivery company. They are not interchangeable.
You're missing the key point of the GPL, which is that anything you create using GPL stuff must also be open source and licensed under the GPL. That is what is lost when the work enters the public domain. Sure, the original work remains available, but newly created stuff can be closed source. In effect you have converted the GPL license to a BSD type license.
Slashdot Mirror
Try being at least a little honest. You make it sound like IBM, out of the clear blue, sent a letter to someone stating they were infringing their patents and if they didn't stop they would be sued. Of course, that didn't happen at all. What REALLY happened was that TurboHercules sent a letter to IBM asking IBM to license IBM software for running on a TurboHercules product. IBM responded, declining to do it. They gave their reasons for declining: there is nothing innovative in what you are doing, it provides no benefit to IBM, and IBM is not going to license it's software to run on something that IBM feels infringes their IP. At that point, TurboHercules sent another letter, with the laughably absurd position that they didn't think IBM had any IP relating to it's flagship mainframes. IBM responded to that stupid position with a (partial) list of patents that it holds regarding the mainframe. Nowhere in either of the two letters does IBM demand that Hercules stop producing their emulator or be sued. The ONLY action they took was to deny licensing their own software for use on it.
Note that this series of letters is almost 2 years old. Who, exactly, has IBM sued?
Except of course that IBM never launched a lawsuit against a company for providing support of TurboHercules software. First, TurboHercules is a company, not software (the software is just Hercules). Second, IBM has not launched any lawsuits against anyone for supporting Hercules, they just declined to SUPPORT or license their software for use on Hercules. One of the reasons they gave for not supporting Hercules was that they feel Hercules infringes on their patents, but that is far different from suing someone. The only ones spreading FUD are the people like you claiming IBM took actions they never took or threatened to take.
I did not paste the entire law, I assumed people would be smart enough to look it up on their own. The phrase 'not interfere with standard technical measures' is defined in the law as:
Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works
It has nothing to do with NAT. Also, I did not say you couldn't use NAT, I said it would be stupid (because it substantially harms your ability to identify the infringer - see below).
There is another whole section of the law (h) that deals with the service providers responsibility to disclose to the copyright holder information that can be used to identify the infringer when subpoenaed . If you have a way to identify the infringer that does not involve keeping logs, good for you. However "must have been some unknown person using my open wifi" is not going to go very far in giving you safe harbor.
Lastly, yeah, moving to a new address is exactly the same as creating a new dummy user id.
I see. So your bright idea to supporting this on an 'open wifi' is to make the wifi not open (if you require userids and passwords it isn't open, regardless of what the actual over-the-air protocol is doing).
Next, I assume this is present day we are talking about, so IPV4 is still what is being used. You do own the block of addresses you are handing out to your users, and you are logging who was using what address when, right? I mean, you're not so dumb as to be using NAT are you (because that makes all traffic look like it belongs to you, not your 'users')? If you are using NAT, you're logging who you gave an address to, and what activity they had on that address, right?
So someone sends you a DMCA notice and says at such-and-such a date on such-and-such a time copyright infringement was occurring on your addresses you own. You do have the proper procedures in place to identify who was generating the traffic they are complaining about, and you can properly notify that person, and after multiple occurrences you can cut them (and only them) off (and make sure they don't just 'make up' another id), right?
No, it is not interesting. You can get the same protections by following the same laws as the ISPs (Section 512 of USC 17):
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
Now, if you you can show how you notify and cut off users of your open wifi network, you get the same protections.
Where does it say the student will be a greater risk of liability? The screen shot says 'others may share illegal material through your router giving the appearance that you are the guilty party'. This is 100% true. If you get to the point where you have to use an open router as a defense it is because it did, in fact, appear that you were the guilty party, and you are now going through the expense and hassle of defending yourself in court. If you didn't have the open wifi you wouldn't BE in court defending yourself (unless you were the one doing the sharing). Advising anyone that running an open wifi in any way reduces their liability is just plain stupid.
106, the one that says the copyright owner has exclusive rights to create copies. Note also that 117 specifically says that you may make backups of computer programs, but there is no such statement for music.
Uh, yeah. There is no EULA, there is a law. And the specific law is USC 17 Section 106 which says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
So this law quite plainly says that ONLY the owner of the copyright may make copies or to authorize same. You, the individual non-copyright-holder have no such right.
Now, there are limitations on the exclusive rights granted to the copyright owner, and in those cases you DO have some rights to make copies. For instance, section 117 says that the owner of the copyright can not prevent you from making a copy of a computer program for backup - that is a right you have.
So I ask again, which section of copyright law restricts the owner from preventing you making copies for different devices or for backup? In other words, which section of copyright law gives you the right to do that?
What section of copyright law gives you the right to 'transfer to any devices you own' or 'make a thousand personal backup copies'?
Where does it say anything about daily (or otherwise) blood tests? It specifically says they want to analyze available information, like claims data. So if they get a claim for diagnostic code x for someone, then months later get a claim for code y, then code z, they want to be able to analyze that and recommend some preventative measures so the person does not wind up hospitalized. Yes, this is the sort of thing a doctor would normally do, but many people go to different doctors for different conditions, and don't always keep their primary care physician up-to-date.
Ever hear of the Bill of Rights (particularly the 4th amendment)?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Your (frankly quite stupid) idea guts this, and replaces it with "You, your house, papers, and effects may be searched for any reason at any time, and anything and everything found will be used against you. Maybe the person who did the searching will be charged with and convicted of a crime, unless he isn't".
Here's the problem with your example. A prosecutor does not get to present a 'theory'. A prosecutor asks questions. So in this case, he is going to ask whoever the witness is how long something takes to fall. The witness gives his answer (right or wrong). Then the DEFENSE attorney gets to ask the witness how he knows how long something takes to fall, can he cite any sources for such information, etc. Then the defense attorney gets to present his OWN witness to say how long something takes to fall, and the prosecutor gets to cross examine him. When the exchange is complete the ENTIRE JURY will have heard the prosecution assert one thing, with nothing to back it up, and the defense asserts something else, with citations from reputable sources. There is no need for the jury to look anything up on their own.
I hate to break it to you, but everyone in the US is your peer. We don't have nobility or social castes. We sure as hell don't have some 'technical elite'. Your peers are people of all ages, races, sexes, religions, education levels, jobs, and any other stupid qualifier you want to choose.
Technical people are not excluded because they are knowledgable, they are excused because they are prejudiced. There is a huge difference between those two. When someone with your level of arrogance and I-already-know-everything attitude shows up it is a pretty good indication that they are not willing to impartially listen to both sides of the case. Plenty of technical people who do not have such awful attitudes serve on juries.
Likewise, lawyers are not excused because they are part of some elite group, they are excused because they tend to know the people involved in the trial (judge, other lawyers, police, etc), and they have their own theories about how cases should be tried and the laws involved, and thus have their own set of prejudices.
BTW - if you ever DO find yourself in front of a jury, you may want to dial down the 'I am so superior to you' attitude. It really doesn't go over well with juries.
It is not just about bias though. It is about fairness. Each side is supposed to have the opportunity to present their case and rebut what the other guy said. If, after hearing them present their cases, you are still left wanting for more information then the correct thing for a jury to do is to consider that point not proved. It is not the jury's job (and would be a very bad thing) to make either side's case for them.
OK, so the police violate your rights and search your house illegally. They find evidence that you committed a crime (maybe even one they hadn't previously known about). This gets used at your trial, and you are convicted and sitting in jail. Meanwhile, the cop who violated your rights is on trial, and his jury uses your wonderful jury nullification idea and decides that since you were such a scumbag your rights didn't count anyway, and they let him off.
There is no other way to look at your ideas than you are willingly giving up your rights and getting nothing at all in return (except for not having that 'elitist judge' protect them). No thanks.
What would be the point of asking such a question? Obviously, if the defendant was seen walking around with a gun, and the evidence was legal and reliable, the prosecution would have mentioned it. So that leaves a few choices: the defendant was not seen with a gun - you can assume that is the case because the prosecution didn't say otherwise. Or someone claimed they saw the defendant with a gun, and told the news that, but turned out to be a not credible witness, so the prosecution didn't use them. Or the police browbeat the witness until they said they saw a gun, and the judge disallowed the testimony.
So what do you hope to gain by asking such a question? Do you want to trample the defendants rights by allowing in testimony that should have been excluded? Do you want to bring in hearsay to the trial, again trampling the defendants rights?
It seems to me that what you really want to accomplish is mob justice, with no pretense of rights.
Oh, I agree. But the post I was responding to didn't say 'potential jurors' or 'people in the courthouse', he said jury, which to my mind means people that are actively serving on a trial.
How can it be less clear? The whole point of a trial is that the jury does NOT have unfettered access to information.
First and most obvious are the rules of evidence - if you are on trial, do you want the jury to have access to the results of an illegal search that just happened to be 'leaked'? Do you want the jury to search the papers and find that you have been charged with the same type of offense before?
Next is the constitutional right to confront your accuser. A juror looking up information on his own is not giving the defense a chance to rebut the information. Also, the defense (or even the prosecution) would not have prior knowledge of what things a juror was looking up, so they would not have time to prepare a proper rebuttal (get expert witnesses, etc).
Giving jurors access to information outside the courtroom is just an awful idea.
You don't have to track anyone else's licenses. All you need to do is write into your contract with the supplier that they are not to use pirated software, and if they do and you get sued for it, they are on the hook for the damages.
First, they don't need the money right now (even the Red Cross says that). Dropping a billion dollars on Japan is not magically going to make housing and food appear. There has been no indication that a shortage of money is causing problems in Japan.
Next, did you even read the summary? The money is not 'sitting in mGives bank account'. mGive does not have the money, because the carriers don't give it to them until 30-90 days later. Aha! It is the greedy carriers fault then! Well no. When you 'text a donation', all you are doing is asking the carrier to bill you $10 on your next bill (which, depending on your plan, will be in 30 to 90 days), and when you pay your bill, send that money to mGive. Guess how long that takes? 30-90 days. Weird, huh.
The only problem here is morons that think sending a text magically causes some food to instantly appear in Japan. It does not. It just allows the Red Cross to restock the supplies of food, cash, whatever, so they are ready for the NEXT disaster.
Vending machines have nothing to do with it. What makes you think the owner of the vending machine gets paid any quicker than 30-90 days? In the case of vending machines, the owners business model is selling stuff now and collecting the money for it later, and the costs associated with that (plus profit) are baked into the price you pay.
The 'delay' seems to be the time between someone texting a donation, and the time the carriers give the money to mGive. The guy from mGive says that is 30 days. Are you suggesting that the carriers are earning interest on a text message? Until you pay your bill the carrier does not have the money, so they are not earning interest. It seems like what you really expect is the carriers to make an interest-free loan to mGive on your behalf, until such time as you get around to paying your bill. If you want to send money to someone in a hurry, texting is a pretty dumb way to do it. Fortunately, Japan does not need the money in a hurry (they need lots of help, but lack of immediate funds are not the problem).
You have a rather poor understanding of what the word free means. Free means you are not paying for something. Free does not mean that something is not listed as a line-item on a bill. If you want to delude yourself into thinking things are free just because they are not billed separately, go ahead, but the rest of us are not so deluded. The rest of your analogy is equally as bad: do you really want your ISP acting like a cable company? That is deciding which web sites you are allowed to use, and paying the web sites on your behalf (and subsequently raising your bill, even though you consider that free)? Your cable provider is a retailer, your ISP is a delivery company. They are not interchangeable.
You're missing the key point of the GPL, which is that anything you create using GPL stuff must also be open source and licensed under the GPL. That is what is lost when the work enters the public domain. Sure, the original work remains available, but newly created stuff can be closed source. In effect you have converted the GPL license to a BSD type license.
Because it is a class action, and he feels the members of the class are getting hosed.