So please moderate this up to +5, this is another Slashdot tempest in a teacup. If they have your dissertation, somewhere along the line *you* gave permission for it to be used.
No offense, but this is naive. I first saw this site discussed on a freelance writers group - the kind of people who know exactly what rights they have and haven't given. And while some of their work that people found they had signed "electronic rights" to someone who then passed them along, other work they knew for a fact that they had sold only "first serial".
To assume that because some people have sold rights to their dissertation, all dissertations there are legal is just silly, especially considering the other copyright violations on the same site.
So, the poster is wrong. He did give permission, many years ago when he signed a bunch of papers. I'm not sure if he can rescind permission now, but UMI would be the folks to contact about that one.
Actually, I saw this discussed on a writing group a little bit ago and and it was clear that while some of the work was there from that sort of "he said they could reproduce it and then they said these other guys could too" other work was there that they had absolutely no rights to. They are stealing work, not just of phd students or whathaveyou but of freelance writers and others.
Cool. I wasn't sure if my numberous bouts of pre-marital sex, use of contreception, support for gay rights and regular mocking of Jack Chick was enough to truely earn eternal damnation. I was a afraid that God might have finally taken some prozac and worked out his anger issues with Adam in therapy and be ready to let people out of hell after a light "tough love" toasting. But now I know what it takes for real damnation.
But what if I end up going with Nadar? Nader actually supports same-sex marriage, so will he get me into hell just as well, or will it count as a protest vote and not be damned. I need to know this from a spiritual expert such as yourself.
I feel more comfortable with a conservative justice that interprets the Constitution according to its plain reading,
Unfortunately, a "plain reading" of the constitution contains the statement that listing out certain rights doesn't deny or disparage other rights. That means that the liberal tradition of protecting more rights than those spelled out is in fact constitutional. You cannot be fully conservative in interpreting a document that is liberal with itself.
So, like his much publicised "attack" on Clinton, followed by voting to fuggetaboutit, Lieberman says one thing and does another.
As I understand it, his attack was on Clinton's personal moral behaviour. His vote was on whether certain legal charges related to depositions on that behaviour fit the consitutional requirements of High Crimes and Misdemeanors for impeachement. It is hardly hypocritical to have a different opinion on those two very different questions.
But on the Abortion question, what recent comments has Liberman made that conflict with a pro-choice voting record? Or do you fall for the lie that people of faith have to be pro-life anti-gay zealots?
Liberman is in favor of a missle "defense system", he's anti abortion,
I have read that Liberman has over a 90% positive voting record according to Planned Parenthood, and under 10% according to a pro life group. He may have been anti-abortion-rights in the past, but it seems his modern stance is fairly pro-choice at least legislatively.
Those people obviously have no chance of winning (simple math; no state has enough electoral votes), and can be safely discounted from major consideration. Anyone who can attract enough attention to have a theoretical chance of winning (ie. registered in enough states) should be included in things like the big televised debates, however. Right now, there's really only four parties that qualify (Repubs, Dems, Greens, and Libertarians; maybe one of the two Reform parties, we'll have to see)
I've been thinking about this, and it makes me wonder if the term "third party" is really sufficient any more. Clearly there's a difference between a national third party with a numerical chance of winning or a shot at enough of the popular votes to get matching funds, and a third party with a candidate on the ballot of a couple of districts in one state. Perhaps the latter should be refered to as "fourth parties" or maybe "vanity parties" or somesuch. Something to indicate the quantitative difference between them and the Greens and Libs or Reform.
I think you're right that the two parties have converged economicly and in terms of international policy. They do still differ in ways that I find crucial, largly in social issues such as reproductive freedom and GLBT rights. And while 3rd parties may differ on economic issues, they tend to differ even more radically on the socail issues.
What does this mean? "geeks" at this point is still a largly economic lable. "geek politics" can be linked almost directly to their econmoic status (both the amount of money made and how they make it) and certain international and trade issues. On the social issues that most divide the two major parties and in some ways polarize 3rd parties, geeks have no consensus that I have ever noticed. There is a good libertarian streak, but there are plenty of xtian geeks, gay geeks, pro choice geeks, pro life geeks, pro or anti dealth penalty and geeks of every other stripe. Note the Greens vs Libs arguements we have had here already, with both being touted as a "geek" party.
So, we will vote as voters, just as diverse as if we were a writers forum or a mothers forum. But the political sniping that is sure to emerge from this thread despite all hope will be fun to watch.
It's also far easier to get forgiveness than permission from any company. Companies don't want to get involved in lawsuits. Well, some do. But most see it as a huge expense they'd rather avoid.
On the other hand, getting permission requires legal effort and decisions on the company's part. And companies are populated by folks who don't want to make decisions...
Not to be simplisticly moralistic, but doing the right thing is often harder. And don't underestimate the difficulties one could have hunting down permission for a book. Small presses go out of business, authors use pseudonymes, move to different cities, etc.
An honest site trying to "provide a service" would check to see if a piece of software was truely abandoned (is it avalible in a compilation or re-release, if so post a link to the provider) and ask permission of those that were. When the owners were not providing the software and said no to the abandonware site, the site could keep track of requests and periodicly report the consumer demand and ask again. It would be more work. But providing a service is usually work.
One could compare this to a situation with out of print books. There is a definite owner of the IP, (s)he is still alive and owns the copyright, but the work is no longer commercially available. If there was a surge of interest in such a book, and I had a copy, I would never consider it acceptable to just scan it in and let people read it without asking the writer.
Thats the problem. Calling it "abandonware" makes it sound like a little lost puppy that you can't find its owner. They know who the owners are. Why not (scarey thought coming) ask them? The guy profiled in the article has ad revenue coming into his site. He is likely making money off of other people's IP. Why not send a form letter stating the purpose of the site, what titles they would like to feature and offering a profit share based on downloads?
In most services, requiring an "opt out" rather than "opt in" is considered predatory marketing. In a situation where the legal lines are so well drawn, simply offering to remove is not enough. There are ways to do this right, and making money off of doing it wrong is not aulteristic, no matter how you try to spin it.
hang on, looking like Batman is bad? I mean, I though that was the entire point!
I work in an business wear office and wear a blazer most days. My PalmVx slips into the inside pocket with nary a bulge. If I don't have a blazer, it will fit comfortably in the pocket of most dress pants. If you get to wear jeans to work, I cannot pity you the Batman Factor.
Unfortunately "good faith effort" does NOT cut it when you are under a court injunction. If Napster's filter missed even 5% of songs, people could end up in JAIL. Think hard about that before calling them "immature".
The injunction occured in the first place because there was no effort of any sort, good faith or not. Their entire business plan was based arround letting and helping people trade copyright infringing works. Now, they may well be screwed, if your comments are correct. (since they didn't even try to conform to the injunction, we have no idea how a good faith effort would have been received had they presented one.) But they had plenty of warnings and plenty of time before the injunction to show good faith, and they simply didn't bother, so why cry for them now?
PS since the injunction is against a company and not an individual, I really doubt anyone would actually go to jail. And if the corporate veil didn't protect people just this once? [sarcastic comment deleted].
My previous example was indeed a bad one, so I will make a better one. A user creates a web-page of file aliases. He then posts random_file_00416.mp3, adds 5-10s of buffer whitespace to throw off file size checkers, and lists on the webpage that random_file_00416 is indeed a metallica mp3. Once again, the actual name means nothing. Give it a little more time, and a Napster client clone might even incorporate such alising and make it transparent.
Thank you, this is a different issue and somewhat more relevant. The first question seemed to be "What if the filters accidentally block 'legitamate' content?" Which seemed to me to actually be deliberately misleading content, and thus not legitamate. The second question is "what about people getting arround the filter to still post illegitamate content?" The answer is the three simple words that make or break a company in terms of liability:
GOOD FAITH EFFORT
Contrary to what some Napster supporters would have you believe, they do not need to prevent anyone from ever using their product or service for piracy. What they must do is make a good faith effort at prevention and reduce the piracy use. Instead, they seemed to do everything they could to encourage illegitimate use of the service as part of their business model. This is why they're in trouble. (Its also why the Salon article was so silly, but thats another part of the thread.)
A service of that size can't reasonably be required to verify more than the filename or link name within their web page or servers.
Very true, though they could also de-annonymize it to the extent that when illegitamate use is demonstrated they can kick the violaters off and have it mean something. But those efforts combined would show enough good faith to get them mostly out of the hot water they've dunked themselves in, even if it doesn't eliminate all illegitimate use.
The liability world is all about good faith efforts. This is why an anti-harrassment program will reduce a company's liability if harrassment does occurs. Its not useful to ask "can they ever stop all illegitimate use of their service?" You have to ask "Are they making a good faith effort to reduce such use?" On this point Napster fails, and if we focus on that failure we can make sure that an artist centered venture suceeds.
IMHO, it is the Napster advocates who are endangering the use of the net as a promotional tool for unsigned artists. By claiming that Napster cannot prevent illegitimate use, they are handing the RIAA the amuntion it would need to shut down a service meant to promote artists (who want to be promoted). After all "even advocates of on-line music admit that nothing can be done to prevent infringing use of such a service". If we focus instead on good faith efforts, it leaves Napster screwed (which they are anyway) but leaves the door open for legitimate ventures to promote music on the net. Just a thought.
OK, I can think of one source of legitamate confusion, and that would be covers. I do not know what the legal copyright status is of, say, the Beelzebubs accapella cover of "Major Tom / A space oddity", whether they can choose to release it whereever, or if their rights to it are tied to the orriginal song. If the latter, there really isn't a problem, but in the former case they would need to think about how to lable it honestly and non-confusingly. Maybe "A space accapella". But this seems like a lesser problem, and I have faith in Napster to work out such grey areas if they really wanted to.
Kahuna Burger
Some maturity would solve the "Problem"
on
Hacker Crackdown?
·
· Score: 2
We've already estblished filename means absolutley nothing. "A rose by any other name..." I can send a number of "This_is_not_a_metallica_song.mp3", which might indeed be picked up by a metallica filter.
And the problem with this would be? "Oh no, I created a file with a name meant to confuse the filters and it caught it, woe is me....."
People who want to post non-copyrighted work and have it get through would be fully capable of it. People who choose to disguize non-infringing work as infringing work just to whine aren't contributing anything useful to the service, so why should we care if they get shut out?
Two simple rules : track titles should accurately describe the content in a way that is computer-searchable. (Everyone knows "not metalica" will show up on a metalica search, misleading track names are chaff in the service and the service provider can ban them.) Second rule, infringing tracks (and any intentional attempts to mimic an infringing track) will lead to the removal of the user.
"Hey I carried a model of a bomb through customs and they harrassed me even though it wasn't really an explosive! there's nothing illegal about strapping wires and silly putty to your chest! They're infringing on my rights for no reason! WAAHHHHHHH!"
Expecting broken software (I have yet to see filter software work on anything beyond a list of banned domains. Further, random things like media sources being banned out of spit is just a little to common. Its like finding the 'A' encyclopedia missing because it has 'ass' in it. I hear working software exists, but...) to come to a partial cooperation, to shut itself off for mature users, and then turn back on again seems a bit silly to me.
Well, I'm not a programmer, so if you tell me its silly to think that you guys can create a fairly simple working program, I'll take your word for it. Admittedly, I was basing my tentitive idea on finding compentent programmers.
PS, a program using a strategy you don't aprove of is not "broken", it works fine to do something you don't like. This was why I advocated people looking for a better implementation for their philosophies.
Don't take it the wrong way. I respect Nader and I'll probably vote for him if the polls show my state is going to Gore anyway*. But I have realized what stops third parties from being respected - they always run the same person.
Think about it. The Reform party lost face when Perot ran for the second time. It made it "Perot's party". Buccannan may turn the party into a farce, or if it keeps the matching funds, it could become a viable third party instead of a egomaniac's machine. But who was suprised at the green candidate this year? Or for that matter, the libertarians? They run the same bloody figurehead every year, and it makes it seem like there's no other point to the party.
I dunno, maybe I'm just paranoid, but it seems to me that a viable third party is one that can't just re-use the 1996 bumper stickers as long as they don't have the year printed on them. Then again, it took a figurehead like Perot to get the matching funds that made the reform nomination worth fighting for. If Nader gets enough of the popular vote to get matching funds, he can use them in the next cycle to promote state and local Green party growth. (read that somewhere about the reform party options). That sort of investment could create a viable third party who nomination might actually mean something.
*my logic on the Gore/Nader thing: I like the idea of a third party, and I'm not super psyched abput Gore (voted bradley in the primary) but after two supreme court voted came out on issues I care about in the same day, one to my side and one against, both 5 to 4, I knew I might have to hold my nose and vote Gore. Anti-abortion rights bills that Clinton has vetoed and Gore likely would, Bush will likely throw a party about signing. Theres an excellent chance that a high court jurist will retire or kick off in the next four years, and I've had too much of Clarence to see another Bush appointing anyone else. So, yeah, dems and reps may be the same money grubbing whores 90% of the time, but that other 10% (or less) is pretty fundemental as far as I'm concerned.
I'll just have to vote in the evening so I can wash the slime off.
Of course, to make it possible for librarians to make sure underaged individuals didnt use the full strength machine, it was located right next to the help desk. No seating was provided as the monitor was positioned high enough for a desk attendant to see it without much of a strain. If the machine was down, try again later. Wheel chair restricted? We're sorry. Forgot your drivers license/no DL/ the old spinster behind the desk thinks everyone under 60 is a youngin'? Too bad.
Aside from the wheelchair accesable part, I don't really see your point here. If you're at the library, you should have your library card. Adult card = adult machines, no problem with denial of service. As for having to stand, get real. My library has six machines, and everytime I'm there there are 6 machines taken and between 5 and 15 people waiting. Making people stand forces them to do things that need to be done and get out of people's way. I would never spend my afternoon at the library reading/. but if there's something I need to find out, I can.
Have you ever actually seen a wheelchair restricted person ask the librarian about use of the computer? If so, what happened?
Another idea apart from physically restricting computers would be to have the filterware suspended by a valid adult library card number. An even better idea would be for the tech types who care so much about this issue:
1) Stop screaming "luddite" and "censorware" for a moment.
2) Listen to the actual mainstream concerns that are being eased by this "solution".
3) Come up with a technological solution which addresses these concerns while reducing or eliminating the problems with current filterware models.
4) Present your model to the moderates on both sides of the issue. (And while/. tends to flame moderates as though they were the thralls of the other side, I think you will find many moderates on this issue out in the real world.)
5) Smile at a job well done.
Of course for this to work, you would need to find people who can program or at least direct other programmers intelligently, who care about this issue but are not fanatical. If any such people exist, let me know and I will give my preliminary thoughts on an effective "librarynet".
And if you don't think that the spirit of the law as written is important, I give you up.
Will you give me up to a reputable breed rescue, or just drop me off at the pound? When you do give me up, you should at least talk to the workers and tell them what the reasons were so they won't place me in another inapropriate home.
As for the spirit of the law, I certainly agree that it is important, but I'm not sure it can be judged by the words of the "foudning fathers". They were, in large part, slave owners. They did not say "all men are created equal" as a more poetic way of saying "all people", and they really weren't thinking of men outside their own demographic. I do not ask myself WWFD? when confronted with a legal, ethical or constitutional question. I think that the founders' best work went into the constitution itself, and that document plus the supream court case law that interprets it, are the best source of the "spirit" of our laws, not the contextless quotes of famous men.
*laugh* only on/. could someone consider a retorical response to retoric the same as a retorical response to a violent threat.
"Book learning" as you describe an actual attempt to think about buzzphrases, may never save me from a mugger, but it has saved me multiple times from the shoddy thinking I see here.
Absolutely right. In the first place, there is no known reason that the FBI needs to place their black box on an ISP's network, since the ISP's themselves are quite capable of pulling copies of any and all e-mail traffic passing through their systems. Why does the FBI need to "do it themselves"? Don't they trust the ISP's?
Why should they? Yeah, they let the phone companies do the wire taps, but last time I checked, 1) there are a lot more ISPs than phone companies, 2) they tend to be smaller, and thus 3) there is a greater chance that the employees of the ISP who are trusted with the tapping have some personal knowledge or opinion of the person being tapped. This is called a conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed in an investigation.
Also, I would think the ISPs would like it better the FBI's way. Which would you rather say to your customers?
"If presented with a proper court order, we are required to allow the FBI to attach a device to our feed to monitor an unknown customer."
Or,
"We will personally forward your mail to the cops if they ask."
Or, of course,
"If asked to forward you mail to the cops we will first refuse, then tell you, then send them hashed messages and prentend they are yours encrypted, then..." Which of course is what the FBI is trying to avoid by making compliance a simple "yes the machine is there" or "no its not" matter to enforce.
When you call someone, or mail something,you make perceptible contact outside of your own home. When using the interenet, and most functions thereof, there is a perceived privacy.
This makes no sense. Sending someone an email is no more a private act than calling someone on the phone. Either way there is an assumption that you and the other person are the only ones involved, either way an intelligent person is aware of the possibility that others could somehow be listening in. There are public phones, and there are terminals in libraries.
I actually consider phoning someone more private than sending an email because its much easier for me personally to call someone annonymously (just enter the "don't let caller ID see me" code before dialing) than to send someone an annonymous email. (I don't have an annonymous account and would have to do a web search to find a remailer.)
So can you say anything to actually support this assertion, or can anyone else weigh in on their particular assumptions about privacy in the two venues?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Why do people keep quoting a line that when misquoted is moronic and when correctly quoted is a tautology?
The misquote is just saying "liberty for safety". But the very existance of society is a trade of liberty for safety. There are times when I would love it if (as they joke about Texas) "he needed killing" was a valid defense. But I would never actually choose to live somewhere where it was, because there are undoubtably people who think I need killing for various reasons. If Ben Franklin had believed the misquote of his words, he would have encouraged that the colonies all disband and leave the new land in anarchy.
But the true quote "essential liberty for saftey" is really no more meaningful. Well, of course if I consider a liberty "essential", I too would be unwilling to trade it. And if I support this particular trade, I simply say "well, yes you're right sweetie, but do you really think that this particular liberty is essential?" Thus the line becomes a tautology.
Which, of course, is just another name for retoric. Franklin was a "statesman" which is what they called politicians back then. Nothing more. He made some grandly eloquent, but ultimately meaningless statement while debating over something he wanted or didn't want, and it sounded cool enough to be repeated. But sounding cool doesn't make something relevant. Being orriginally said by a famous person doesn't make something right. Just repeating a this one tired quote doesn't make any point except that you don't take the time to orriginally express your own opinions.
So when you are tempted to quote, try expressing your own take on the philosophy and how it specificly applies to this situation instead. Or save space and just write "Franklin says no", which is about as relevant as this quote.
I don't get your argument. Current copyright laws are something different than the founders intended? So what? Civil rights laws are different also. Should we re-establish slavery because the founders were slave owners?
Hear hear. I get sick of people who think that ethical thought begins and ends with one well intentioned but reactionary document. Its also funny how the same people who babble on about the "new economy" and how "old ideas of copyright can't be applied" then appeal to 200 year old ideas as the true meaning.
I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said about IP. I really don't. He isn't here now, he had no idea where publishing, music recording or any of the oter technologies that make up our world would go, he has no relevant opinion on how modern producers of IP should be compensated for their work.
The bit about shakespeare is really interesting, I didn't know that. Looks like that "work for hire" evil we heard about recently is just a throwback from our briefly enlightened age.:)
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but this is naive. I first saw this site discussed on a freelance writers group - the kind of people who know exactly what rights they have and haven't given. And while some of their work that people found they had signed "electronic rights" to someone who then passed them along, other work they knew for a fact that they had sold only "first serial".
To assume that because some people have sold rights to their dissertation, all dissertations there are legal is just silly, especially considering the other copyright violations on the same site.
-Kahuna Burger
Actually, I saw this discussed on a writing group a little bit ago and and it was clear that while some of the work was there from that sort of "he said they could reproduce it and then they said these other guys could too" other work was there that they had absolutely no rights to. They are stealing work, not just of phd students or whathaveyou but of freelance writers and others.
-Kahuna Burger
But what if I end up going with Nadar? Nader actually supports same-sex marriage, so will he get me into hell just as well, or will it count as a protest vote and not be damned. I need to know this from a spiritual expert such as yourself.
-Kahuna Burger
Unfortunately, a "plain reading" of the constitution contains the statement that listing out certain rights doesn't deny or disparage other rights. That means that the liberal tradition of protecting more rights than those spelled out is in fact constitutional. You cannot be fully conservative in interpreting a document that is liberal with itself.
-Kahuna Burger
As I understand it, his attack was on Clinton's personal moral behaviour. His vote was on whether certain legal charges related to depositions on that behaviour fit the consitutional requirements of High Crimes and Misdemeanors for impeachement. It is hardly hypocritical to have a different opinion on those two very different questions.
But on the Abortion question, what recent comments has Liberman made that conflict with a pro-choice voting record? Or do you fall for the lie that people of faith have to be pro-life anti-gay zealots?
-Kahuna Burger
I have read that Liberman has over a 90% positive voting record according to Planned Parenthood, and under 10% according to a pro life group. He may have been anti-abortion-rights in the past, but it seems his modern stance is fairly pro-choice at least legislatively.
Kahuna Burger
I've been thinking about this, and it makes me wonder if the term "third party" is really sufficient any more. Clearly there's a difference between a national third party with a numerical chance of winning or a shot at enough of the popular votes to get matching funds, and a third party with a candidate on the ballot of a couple of districts in one state. Perhaps the latter should be refered to as "fourth parties" or maybe "vanity parties" or somesuch. Something to indicate the quantitative difference between them and the Greens and Libs or Reform.
-Kahuna Burger
What does this mean? "geeks" at this point is still a largly economic lable. "geek politics" can be linked almost directly to their econmoic status (both the amount of money made and how they make it) and certain international and trade issues. On the social issues that most divide the two major parties and in some ways polarize 3rd parties, geeks have no consensus that I have ever noticed. There is a good libertarian streak, but there are plenty of xtian geeks, gay geeks, pro choice geeks, pro life geeks, pro or anti dealth penalty and geeks of every other stripe. Note the Greens vs Libs arguements we have had here already, with both being touted as a "geek" party.
So, we will vote as voters, just as diverse as if we were a writers forum or a mothers forum. But the political sniping that is sure to emerge from this thread despite all hope will be fun to watch.
- Kahuna Burger
On the other hand, getting permission requires legal effort and decisions on the company's part. And companies are populated by folks who don't want to make decisions...
Not to be simplisticly moralistic, but doing the right thing is often harder. And don't underestimate the difficulties one could have hunting down permission for a book. Small presses go out of business, authors use pseudonymes, move to different cities, etc.
An honest site trying to "provide a service" would check to see if a piece of software was truely abandoned (is it avalible in a compilation or re-release, if so post a link to the provider) and ask permission of those that were. When the owners were not providing the software and said no to the abandonware site, the site could keep track of requests and periodicly report the consumer demand and ask again. It would be more work. But providing a service is usually work.
-Kahuna Burger
Thats the problem. Calling it "abandonware" makes it sound like a little lost puppy that you can't find its owner. They know who the owners are. Why not (scarey thought coming) ask them? The guy profiled in the article has ad revenue coming into his site. He is likely making money off of other people's IP. Why not send a form letter stating the purpose of the site, what titles they would like to feature and offering a profit share based on downloads?
In most services, requiring an "opt out" rather than "opt in" is considered predatory marketing. In a situation where the legal lines are so well drawn, simply offering to remove is not enough. There are ways to do this right, and making money off of doing it wrong is not aulteristic, no matter how you try to spin it.
Kahuna Burger
I work in an business wear office and wear a blazer most days. My PalmVx slips into the inside pocket with nary a bulge. If I don't have a blazer, it will fit comfortably in the pocket of most dress pants. If you get to wear jeans to work, I cannot pity you the Batman Factor.
-Kahuna Burger
The injunction occured in the first place because there was no effort of any sort, good faith or not. Their entire business plan was based arround letting and helping people trade copyright infringing works. Now, they may well be screwed, if your comments are correct. (since they didn't even try to conform to the injunction, we have no idea how a good faith effort would have been received had they presented one.) But they had plenty of warnings and plenty of time before the injunction to show good faith, and they simply didn't bother, so why cry for them now?
PS since the injunction is against a company and not an individual, I really doubt anyone would actually go to jail. And if the corporate veil didn't protect people just this once? [sarcastic comment deleted].
Kahuna Burger
Thank you, this is a different issue and somewhat more relevant. The first question seemed to be "What if the filters accidentally block 'legitamate' content?" Which seemed to me to actually be deliberately misleading content, and thus not legitamate. The second question is "what about people getting arround the filter to still post illegitamate content?" The answer is the three simple words that make or break a company in terms of liability :
Contrary to what some Napster supporters would have you believe, they do not need to prevent anyone from ever using their product or service for piracy. What they must do is make a good faith effort at prevention and reduce the piracy use. Instead, they seemed to do everything they could to encourage illegitimate use of the service as part of their business model. This is why they're in trouble. (Its also why the Salon article was so silly, but thats another part of the thread.)
A service of that size can't reasonably be required to verify more than the filename or link name within their web page or servers.
Very true, though they could also de-annonymize it to the extent that when illegitamate use is demonstrated they can kick the violaters off and have it mean something. But those efforts combined would show enough good faith to get them mostly out of the hot water they've dunked themselves in, even if it doesn't eliminate all illegitimate use.
The liability world is all about good faith efforts. This is why an anti-harrassment program will reduce a company's liability if harrassment does occurs. Its not useful to ask "can they ever stop all illegitimate use of their service?" You have to ask "Are they making a good faith effort to reduce such use?" On this point Napster fails, and if we focus on that failure we can make sure that an artist centered venture suceeds.
IMHO, it is the Napster advocates who are endangering the use of the net as a promotional tool for unsigned artists. By claiming that Napster cannot prevent illegitimate use, they are handing the RIAA the amuntion it would need to shut down a service meant to promote artists (who want to be promoted). After all "even advocates of on-line music admit that nothing can be done to prevent infringing use of such a service". If we focus instead on good faith efforts, it leaves Napster screwed (which they are anyway) but leaves the door open for legitimate ventures to promote music on the net. Just a thought.
Kahuna Burger
Kahuna Burger
And the problem with this would be? "Oh no, I created a file with a name meant to confuse the filters and it caught it, woe is me....."
People who want to post non-copyrighted work and have it get through would be fully capable of it. People who choose to disguize non-infringing work as infringing work just to whine aren't contributing anything useful to the service, so why should we care if they get shut out?
Two simple rules : track titles should accurately describe the content in a way that is computer-searchable. (Everyone knows "not metalica" will show up on a metalica search, misleading track names are chaff in the service and the service provider can ban them.) Second rule, infringing tracks (and any intentional attempts to mimic an infringing track) will lead to the removal of the user.
"Hey I carried a model of a bomb through customs and they harrassed me even though it wasn't really an explosive! there's nothing illegal about strapping wires and silly putty to your chest! They're infringing on my rights for no reason! WAAHHHHHHH!"
Your example of "abuse" is about as mature.
-Kahuna Burger
Well, I'm not a programmer, so if you tell me its silly to think that you guys can create a fairly simple working program, I'll take your word for it. Admittedly, I was basing my tentitive idea on finding compentent programmers.
PS, a program using a strategy you don't aprove of is not "broken", it works fine to do something you don't like. This was why I advocated people looking for a better implementation for their philosophies.
Kahuna Burger
Think about it. The Reform party lost face when Perot ran for the second time. It made it "Perot's party". Buccannan may turn the party into a farce, or if it keeps the matching funds, it could become a viable third party instead of a egomaniac's machine. But who was suprised at the green candidate this year? Or for that matter, the libertarians? They run the same bloody figurehead every year, and it makes it seem like there's no other point to the party.
I dunno, maybe I'm just paranoid, but it seems to me that a viable third party is one that can't just re-use the 1996 bumper stickers as long as they don't have the year printed on them. Then again, it took a figurehead like Perot to get the matching funds that made the reform nomination worth fighting for. If Nader gets enough of the popular vote to get matching funds, he can use them in the next cycle to promote state and local Green party growth. (read that somewhere about the reform party options). That sort of investment could create a viable third party who nomination might actually mean something.
*my logic on the Gore/Nader thing: I like the idea of a third party, and I'm not super psyched abput Gore (voted bradley in the primary) but after two supreme court voted came out on issues I care about in the same day, one to my side and one against, both 5 to 4, I knew I might have to hold my nose and vote Gore. Anti-abortion rights bills that Clinton has vetoed and Gore likely would, Bush will likely throw a party about signing. Theres an excellent chance that a high court jurist will retire or kick off in the next four years, and I've had too much of Clarence to see another Bush appointing anyone else. So, yeah, dems and reps may be the same money grubbing whores 90% of the time, but that other 10% (or less) is pretty fundemental as far as I'm concerned.
I'll just have to vote in the evening so I can wash the slime off.
-Kahuna Burger
Aside from the wheelchair accesable part, I don't really see your point here. If you're at the library, you should have your library card. Adult card = adult machines, no problem with denial of service. As for having to stand, get real. My library has six machines, and everytime I'm there there are 6 machines taken and between 5 and 15 people waiting. Making people stand forces them to do things that need to be done and get out of people's way. I would never spend my afternoon at the library reading /. but if there's something I need to find out, I can.
Have you ever actually seen a wheelchair restricted person ask the librarian about use of the computer? If so, what happened?
Another idea apart from physically restricting computers would be to have the filterware suspended by a valid adult library card number. An even better idea would be for the tech types who care so much about this issue :
1) Stop screaming "luddite" and "censorware" for a moment.
2) Listen to the actual mainstream concerns that are being eased by this "solution".
3) Come up with a technological solution which addresses these concerns while reducing or eliminating the problems with current filterware models.
4) Present your model to the moderates on both sides of the issue. (And while /. tends to flame moderates as though they were the thralls of the other side, I think you will find many moderates on this issue out in the real world.)
5) Smile at a job well done.
Of course for this to work, you would need to find people who can program or at least direct other programmers intelligently, who care about this issue but are not fanatical. If any such people exist, let me know and I will give my preliminary thoughts on an effective "librarynet".
-Kahuna Burger
Will you give me up to a reputable breed rescue, or just drop me off at the pound? When you do give me up, you should at least talk to the workers and tell them what the reasons were so they won't place me in another inapropriate home.
As for the spirit of the law, I certainly agree that it is important, but I'm not sure it can be judged by the words of the "foudning fathers". They were, in large part, slave owners. They did not say "all men are created equal" as a more poetic way of saying "all people", and they really weren't thinking of men outside their own demographic. I do not ask myself WWFD? when confronted with a legal, ethical or constitutional question. I think that the founders' best work went into the constitution itself, and that document plus the supream court case law that interprets it, are the best source of the "spirit" of our laws, not the contextless quotes of famous men.
-Kahuna Burger
I have the same birthday as the earth!! Awesome!
We were both born in the evening too. So cool. This is one they never mention in the "this day in history" column.
kahuna burger
*laugh* only on /. could someone consider a retorical response to retoric the same as a retorical response to a violent threat.
"Book learning" as you describe an actual attempt to think about buzzphrases, may never save me from a mugger, but it has saved me multiple times from the shoddy thinking I see here.
-Kahuna Burger
Why should they? Yeah, they let the phone companies do the wire taps, but last time I checked, 1) there are a lot more ISPs than phone companies, 2) they tend to be smaller, and thus 3) there is a greater chance that the employees of the ISP who are trusted with the tapping have some personal knowledge or opinion of the person being tapped. This is called a conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed in an investigation.
Also, I would think the ISPs would like it better the FBI's way. Which would you rather say to your customers?
"If presented with a proper court order, we are required to allow the FBI to attach a device to our feed to monitor an unknown customer."
Or,
"We will personally forward your mail to the cops if they ask."
Or, of course,
"If asked to forward you mail to the cops we will first refuse, then tell you, then send them hashed messages and prentend they are yours encrypted, then..." Which of course is what the FBI is trying to avoid by making compliance a simple "yes the machine is there" or "no its not" matter to enforce.
Kahuna Burger
This makes no sense. Sending someone an email is no more a private act than calling someone on the phone. Either way there is an assumption that you and the other person are the only ones involved, either way an intelligent person is aware of the possibility that others could somehow be listening in. There are public phones, and there are terminals in libraries.
I actually consider phoning someone more private than sending an email because its much easier for me personally to call someone annonymously (just enter the "don't let caller ID see me" code before dialing) than to send someone an annonymous email. (I don't have an annonymous account and would have to do a web search to find a remailer.)
So can you say anything to actually support this assertion, or can anyone else weigh in on their particular assumptions about privacy in the two venues?
Kahuna Burger
Why do people keep quoting a line that when misquoted is moronic and when correctly quoted is a tautology?
The misquote is just saying "liberty for safety". But the very existance of society is a trade of liberty for safety. There are times when I would love it if (as they joke about Texas) "he needed killing" was a valid defense. But I would never actually choose to live somewhere where it was, because there are undoubtably people who think I need killing for various reasons. If Ben Franklin had believed the misquote of his words, he would have encouraged that the colonies all disband and leave the new land in anarchy.
But the true quote "essential liberty for saftey" is really no more meaningful. Well, of course if I consider a liberty "essential", I too would be unwilling to trade it. And if I support this particular trade, I simply say "well, yes you're right sweetie, but do you really think that this particular liberty is essential?" Thus the line becomes a tautology.
Which, of course, is just another name for retoric. Franklin was a "statesman" which is what they called politicians back then. Nothing more. He made some grandly eloquent, but ultimately meaningless statement while debating over something he wanted or didn't want, and it sounded cool enough to be repeated. But sounding cool doesn't make something relevant. Being orriginally said by a famous person doesn't make something right. Just repeating a this one tired quote doesn't make any point except that you don't take the time to orriginally express your own opinions.
So when you are tempted to quote, try expressing your own take on the philosophy and how it specificly applies to this situation instead. Or save space and just write "Franklin says no", which is about as relevant as this quote.
Kahuna Burger
Hear hear. I get sick of people who think that ethical thought begins and ends with one well intentioned but reactionary document. Its also funny how the same people who babble on about the "new economy" and how "old ideas of copyright can't be applied" then appeal to 200 year old ideas as the true meaning.
I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said about IP. I really don't. He isn't here now, he had no idea where publishing, music recording or any of the oter technologies that make up our world would go, he has no relevant opinion on how modern producers of IP should be compensated for their work.
The bit about shakespeare is really interesting, I didn't know that. Looks like that "work for hire" evil we heard about recently is just a throwback from our briefly enlightened age. :)
-Kahuna Burger