D'oh - lack of sleep (2-month old baby) and the east coast heat wave have apparently finally gotten to me... I somehow swapped 'millons' with 'thousands' and went from there... *hang head in shame*
"There are likely hundreds of thousands of potential patients in the US alone"
Um, last I checked there were only ~300,000 people in the US, and I doubt that the vast majority of them are suffering from AMD. Yes, theoretically everyone is a potential patient I suppose, but that's still taking it a bit too far...
If you're not strong enough in your convictions to be willing to stand up and face the consequences of supporting them, maybe there's a reason you shouldn't be supporting them. While I don't agree with death threats and the like, if you're going to campaign to take away other peoples' rights, you damn well better do it publicly and in full view of everyone else (which includes knowing who you are).
If the government tried to take away your rights in secret, you'd be up in arms about that. Just look at/.'s reaction to ACTA. Well, in case you hadn't noticed, petitions are the peoples' way of acting as the government - thus they too should be transparent and not allow for "shadowy masses" to make the rules.
Also, if someone's truly a wacko who's going to cause problems for you for signing a petition, I've got news for you - they're going to cause trouble whether or not you sign the petition; maybe to someone else instead, but again, that's where the strength of your convictions comes in. It all comes back to that - stand up and announce your position to the world, or SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
Rockstar would of course countersue them as soon as they came out and claimed it, but I fail to see why the pirates don't get the same protections as everyone else.
Actually, this is probably one case where someone NEEDs to do something about this, because it would highlight the absurdity of the entire system. Think about it:
1) Company A releases software product (in this case, a game) controlled by DRM measures. 2) Outside group B releases a software product (in this case, the crack) that allows people to circumvent the DRM - right now, this is probably protected under fair use for the people who developed it to use, but not for them to distribute. 3) Company A stops supporting product, and DRM effectively cripples it in some way for the people who legally purchased it (not sure if it was a CD or online protection scheme, but either way it's possible that people had legal copies installed that they couldn't play for one reason or another) - at this point, the crack becomes a way for people with legally purchased copies to use the software, and that goes a long way towards demonstrating non-infringing use. 4) Company A wants to sell the product again without the DRM, and uses the outside group's product to do so - this has one or more of 3 major implications that need to be addressed:
a) Company A is illegally using group B's product and distributing it - if upheld, this would probably be the best result as it would set precedent that big media companies can be held liable for using other peoples' stuff improperly, and the floodgates might well open in the opposite direction as various groups started digging into the improper use of things by various companies.
b) Group B's product is LEGAL, as Company A has officially sanctioned it, and no action can be taken against Group B - highly unlikely, but if it was upheld it would guarantee that companies would stop using cracks as the official DRM-removal system.
c) Company A is allowed to use Group B's crack legally, but has to give them credit for it - this might make them think twice not only about using cracks to remove their own self-imposed DRM, but about using DRM in the first place.
In any case, this is a perfect test-case for the courts of both Law and Public Opinion. And even if Rockstar comes out on top legally, the publicity about what happened should help increase the whole public conversation about the pitfalls of DRM and its long-term difficulties...
That depends on why they request that the payment be returned. If they wait until the conviction and fine are (hopefully) overturned, then the payment was indeed in error and they have every right to request a refund.
I do agree that this is a rather underhanded thing to do, but at the same time the contrarian in me thinks it's ingenious:)
So you think that a search warrant should be granted on the basis of non-substantiated rumor from someone who doesn't like you? OK, give me your name and address and I'll call the cops and tell them to get a search warrant based on the fact that you refuse to use a "normal" computer operating system and that it can therefore be used to cover up your illegal activity. Maybe I'll throw in the fact that I think you're a jerk as well just to give them a little more probable cause.
The whole reason for probable cause is so that J. Random Person can't just go up to the cops and say "so and so is doing something illegal - go search his house" without actually providing some evidence as to what he's doing AND that he's doing it in his house.
If you read the affidavit, and more importantly the supporting declarations, you'll see that there's a) absolutely no evidence of a crime committed (the 2 statutes listed refer to defrauding a commercial service, of which BC's listserv, yahoo, gmail and the gay website are not, and unauthorized access which sending an email to a listserv certainly isn't), and more importantly b) the "informant", who is also the purported victim, has absolutely no credibility in his statements above and beyond an assumption that he's no lying, and provides absolutely no corroborating details with which a third party can verify any of the accusations.
Now, I will agree with you that the search warrant had nothing to do with Linux specifically, but would you issue a search warrant to seize someone's computer's if the only issue was that "it used a black and white text console to enter commands"? I seem to recall a recent story where a teacher told someone who was distributing linux that what he was doing was illegal; just because she said it didn't mean it was true, and clearly that holds in this case as well.
The cop in question overstepped his authority when he swore that the information provided was sufficient to suspect that a crime was committed, and the magistrate who granted the warrant was derelict in her duties as a judge in making sure that the warrant application was sufficient to grant the warrant. If it turns out that the guy did commit a crime and there's legally obtained evidence to prove it, let him serve his time. But an illegal search and seizure is not a valid way of doing it.
I would agree with that, but OTOH I think I could actually get my cat to agree to the EULA for me without any special devices or coercion. Since my cat likes to both walk across and lay on my laptop when I'm trying to use it, and routinely pushes buttons for me, I could carelessly leave the installation screen open and see what happens. After all, I can claim that I opened the installer, was reading the EULA, and then got distracted by the cat who rather insistently got between me and the screen. And when I finally got him to go away, the EULA had been agreed to and the software installed.
It might take a few dozen tries, but given that a previous cat one sent an email out that he accidentally created (managed to hit new, garbage in the to field and then send!), I expect my current ones should be able to do it:) But given that "typing" on my laptop (and occasional mouse clicking) is a natural behavior for my cats even when I DIScourage them, it's a lot more likely that I could make the claim with a straight face...
Slashdot Mirror
D'oh - lack of sleep (2-month old baby) and the east coast heat wave have apparently finally gotten to me... I somehow swapped 'millons' with 'thousands' and went from there... *hang head in shame*
"There are likely hundreds of thousands of potential patients in the US alone"
Um, last I checked there were only ~300,000 people in the US, and I doubt that the vast majority of them are suffering from AMD. Yes, theoretically everyone is a potential patient I suppose, but that's still taking it a bit too far...
If you're not strong enough in your convictions to be willing to stand up and face the consequences of supporting them, maybe there's a reason you shouldn't be supporting them. While I don't agree with death threats and the like, if you're going to campaign to take away other peoples' rights, you damn well better do it publicly and in full view of everyone else (which includes knowing who you are).
If the government tried to take away your rights in secret, you'd be up in arms about that. Just look at /.'s reaction to ACTA. Well, in case you hadn't noticed, petitions are the peoples' way of acting as the government - thus they too should be transparent and not allow for "shadowy masses" to make the rules.
Also, if someone's truly a wacko who's going to cause problems for you for signing a petition, I've got news for you - they're going to cause trouble whether or not you sign the petition; maybe to someone else instead, but again, that's where the strength of your convictions comes in. It all comes back to that - stand up and announce your position to the world, or SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
Actaully, it probably would work.
Rockstar would of course countersue them as soon as they came out and claimed it, but I fail to see why the pirates don't get the same protections as everyone else.
Actually, this is probably one case where someone NEEDs to do something about this, because it would highlight the absurdity of the entire system. Think about it:
1) Company A releases software product (in this case, a game) controlled by DRM measures.
2) Outside group B releases a software product (in this case, the crack) that allows people to circumvent the DRM - right now, this is probably protected under fair use for the people who developed it to use, but not for them to distribute.
3) Company A stops supporting product, and DRM effectively cripples it in some way for the people who legally purchased it (not sure if it was a CD or online protection scheme, but either way it's possible that people had legal copies installed that they couldn't play for one reason or another) - at this point, the crack becomes a way for people with legally purchased copies to use the software, and that goes a long way towards demonstrating non-infringing use.
4) Company A wants to sell the product again without the DRM, and uses the outside group's product to do so - this has one or more of 3 major implications that need to be addressed:
a) Company A is illegally using group B's product and distributing it - if upheld, this would probably be the best result as it would set precedent that big media companies can be held liable for using other peoples' stuff improperly, and the floodgates might well open in the opposite direction as various groups started digging into the improper use of things by various companies.
b) Group B's product is LEGAL, as Company A has officially sanctioned it, and no action can be taken against Group B - highly unlikely, but if it was upheld it would guarantee that companies would stop using cracks as the official DRM-removal system.
c) Company A is allowed to use Group B's crack legally, but has to give them credit for it - this might make them think twice not only about using cracks to remove their own self-imposed DRM, but about using DRM in the first place.
In any case, this is a perfect test-case for the courts of both Law and Public Opinion. And even if Rockstar comes out on top legally, the publicity about what happened should help increase the whole public conversation about the pitfalls of DRM and its long-term difficulties...
That depends on why they request that the payment be returned. If they wait until the conviction and fine are (hopefully) overturned, then the payment was indeed in error and they have every right to request a refund.
I do agree that this is a rather underhanded thing to do, but at the same time the contrarian in me thinks it's ingenious :)
So you think that a search warrant should be granted on the basis of non-substantiated rumor from someone who doesn't like you? OK, give me your name and address and I'll call the cops and tell them to get a search warrant based on the fact that you refuse to use a "normal" computer operating system and that it can therefore be used to cover up your illegal activity. Maybe I'll throw in the fact that I think you're a jerk as well just to give them a little more probable cause.
The whole reason for probable cause is so that J. Random Person can't just go up to the cops and say "so and so is doing something illegal - go search his house" without actually providing some evidence as to what he's doing AND that he's doing it in his house.
If you read the affidavit, and more importantly the supporting declarations, you'll see that there's a) absolutely no evidence of a crime committed (the 2 statutes listed refer to defrauding a commercial service, of which BC's listserv, yahoo, gmail and the gay website are not, and unauthorized access which sending an email to a listserv certainly isn't), and more importantly b) the "informant", who is also the purported victim, has absolutely no credibility in his statements above and beyond an assumption that he's no lying, and provides absolutely no corroborating details with which a third party can verify any of the accusations.
Now, I will agree with you that the search warrant had nothing to do with Linux specifically, but would you issue a search warrant to seize someone's computer's if the only issue was that "it used a black and white text console to enter commands"? I seem to recall a recent story where a teacher told someone who was distributing linux that what he was doing was illegal; just because she said it didn't mean it was true, and clearly that holds in this case as well.
The cop in question overstepped his authority when he swore that the information provided was sufficient to suspect that a crime was committed, and the magistrate who granted the warrant was derelict in her duties as a judge in making sure that the warrant application was sufficient to grant the warrant. If it turns out that the guy did commit a crime and there's legally obtained evidence to prove it, let him serve his time. But an illegal search and seizure is not a valid way of doing it.
I would agree with that, but OTOH I think I could actually get my cat to agree to the EULA for me without any special devices or coercion. Since my cat likes to both walk across and lay on my laptop when I'm trying to use it, and routinely pushes buttons for me, I could carelessly leave the installation screen open and see what happens. After all, I can claim that I opened the installer, was reading the EULA, and then got distracted by the cat who rather insistently got between me and the screen. And when I finally got him to go away, the EULA had been agreed to and the software installed. It might take a few dozen tries, but given that a previous cat one sent an email out that he accidentally created (managed to hit new, garbage in the to field and then send!), I expect my current ones should be able to do it :) But given that "typing" on my laptop (and occasional mouse clicking) is a natural behavior for my cats even when I DIScourage them, it's a lot more likely that I could make the claim with a straight face...