The quote at the end, "I have a book on my bookshelf that I've never read, but that has a great title..." is from Larry Wall's keynote address to the Perl Conference in 1997. The full text of the address may be found here.
This litigious culture is largely the result, not of over-zealous individuals, but of a political system unwilling or unable to directly regulate the conduct of corporations. To use one of your examples: the states sued the tobacco companies because, even though smoking causes epidemic-level health problems, Congress was so compromised by Big Tobacco money that the only viable option was to sue.
Social policy today is set in courts, not in congress. If you are unhappy with this, don't just blame people suing. Blame a system of representation that is largely broken, broken by corporate money. Not suing people is not going to help much, but working to change the system of representation, and electing people willing to change it, will.
Having spent *cough* years playing in a league in Pittsburgh, the Steel City Pinball Association, participated in tournaments in the past few years, and against other leagues, I think that, from the standpoint of players, pinball is not dead. From an industry standpoint, there have been some major gaffes (notably, the introduction of the Pinball 2000 system that killed Williams/Bally dead), but I can hardly imagine no new pins ever, even if they are made by small companies.
To see a living pinball community, come to Pittsburgh, PA to compete at Pinburgh 2000 June 23 through 25. Top prize is $2000. You need not be a "wizard" to play, there are multiple skill-divisions.
[This is in response to MattBaggins, Chas and Steve]
MattBaggins: I'm not so clear on the subject as you, regarding where jurisdiction lies, or more importantly, should lie. After all, the rightfully elected representative government of the people of France decided that it was in the best interests of France to prevent the display or sale of Nazi items. Nevertheless, I can walk into an apartment in Paris, and call up an auction of Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo! This seems to me a problem, and one that can be addressed largely through technical means.
As for the French being the only ones responsible, that is possible. Beyond the fact that there may be extradition treaties handling this, France could build packet filters to shut off, or at least throttle, Yahoo! if Yahoo! failed to comply.
Chas: you say "Banning sales of things, simply because they evoke emotional response from someone is ridiculous. That leaves EVERTHING open to banning." I would counter that I, too, could use the logic of the slippery slope could also be used to say "If we don't build an infrastructure that allows for the rule of law to be respected, then there will be no laws whatsoever!".
Regardless, you seem to assume that the US Constitution applies here. I am not so clear on that point (see above).
Steve: I see what you mean, but the "leaving one place and going to another" metaphor is, in most ways at least, only a metaphor. At no point in the transaction does your body leave the country.
Yes, it may be the responsibility of the French to police incoming materials (see above). But my guess is that the French want a system that allows them to exercise their political will, and Yahoo! a method of appeasing the French government.
Such a proposal wouldn't require that every web server in the world replace its TCP stack, I think.
For one thing, the handling of options is required by RFC 791:
The options may appear or not in datagrams. They must be implemented by all IP modules (host and gateways). What is optional is their transmission in any particular datagram, not their implementation.
France can't easily regulate the technical implementation of every web server in France. However, my guess is that the French could require that all telecoms (and I think there is only one in France) that provide internet access, add a location code to the options section of the packet at some point in the routing process.
What this would set up would be a reasonable method, built on current technologies, of marking packets as coming from a particular place. From that point on, then, there would be no "we have no way of determining where users are from" argument. Furthermore, the implementation burden would be placed on entities that clearly fall under French jurisdiction.
Okay, maybe I'm dumb, or missing something, but couldn't a country-of-origin code be embedded in the options section of the IP packet header? I believe that there is a state telecom monopoly in France, so...
Couldn't the French government mandate that country-identifying data be added to every packet leaving Franch? Then, they could say to Yahoo, "You have the ability to discern French visitors from non-French. Comply, or ______" where _______ is probably a whoppingly large amount of money. At that point, it would be a reasonable request, and probably legally enforceable.
I suppose such a system could be easily extended to any other country that has a state telecom monopoly--which is just about every country in the world, I think--though I don't know if it would be a better world.
Please tell me if I'm wrong here. But if I'm not, please consider solutions of this type before you type, yet again, that the Internet is naturally borderless, or whatever.
Change in policy for /. coverage?
on
Boo No More
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so a month ago, the bottom drops out of the linux market. Andover, VA Linux, etc. get wallopped, and hard. Slashdot is silent on the issue. Finally, after diligent work by flamers and trolls, a single article is posted on this. And posted reluctantly, with CmdrTaco indicating clearly that he believes stories on the stock market to belong on CNNfn or CNBC.
Now, a month later, this is posted, about a poorly-implemented, over-marketed, high-profile failure of a web site. Why? I have to agree with CmdrTaco, that the stock market and money games are pretty well-covered in other outlets.
Furthermore, regarding high-profile failures--they often do not indicate the failure of an entire sector. Here are some random examples:
RKO
Dumont
Delorean
Hechinger's
As far as I know, people still watch movies and television, and buy cars and hardware. And plenty of money is made providing these things.
Have you ever used Napster, or Gnutella? The IP addresses are right there, out in the open. By fetching the file you are, by definition, contacting a particular host with a particular IP address. And for proof, at least in the case of MP3s, just play it!
As for proving that a particular IP address offered a particular file at a particular time, how about something like: The RIAA hires three firms, each independent of the other. The RIAA asks that each of these firms generate evidence of copyright infringement, perhaps within a small set of parameters. For example, they might say, "for the next week, download every Radiohead song you can, and log every one you see." And then the RIAA leaves them to the task.
A week later, three independent reports are delivered to the RIAA, including IP addresses and confirmation of infringement (i.e., the files have been downloaded and listened to). These are cross-referenced, and those appearing as offering a file on all three lists, and confirmed to have been offering an illegal file, are pursued.
As for finding the specific user involved, my guess is that it doesn't matter that much. If it is somebody hard to find, just give up. Nine out of ten infringers will be really easy to find, and easily shaken up by a threatening letter. After a couple of people get fired or expelled, and it is plastered all over the NY Times, most of the damage will be accomplished.
Until recently, I've shared your belief that distributed solutions like Gnutella are essentially lawsuit-proof. How can hey (whether the MPAA, RIAA or whomever) sue everyone?
Well, they don't have to. Let's take a look at Gnutella. I run a client and lo and behold, a whole bunch of IP addresses. If I want to take the time, I can trace some, lets say 100. Some portion of these will be traceable to universities, some from businesses, and some from home users.
Take each one of those addresses, and contact the appropriate administrative person that owns that block of addresses. Shake your saber, and say, "we have a documented case of copyright infringement. if you do not banish and punish the user responsible, we will crush you."
Some percentage of these people will be non-responsive, but most will try to comply. This will mean altering the terms of service, or more agressively monitoring usage, or firing employees or expelling students. Very quickly, the lawyers for lots of institutions say "Don't forget to take measures to prevent copyright infringement."
Even without %100 compliance, the effect will drastically reduce the user base for these services. Nobody but nerds will be capable enough to use them. And this will be a tolerable situation for the RIAA and MPAA. They don't care about the outliers, they just want to make sure the mainstream plays by their rules. I'll repeat this, in bold.
The RIAA and MPAA only really care about the mainstream.
It is an oversimplification to argue, as many here have, that the following two sequences are essentially equivalent:
Purchase a CD
Rip CD, producing MP3's.
Upload MP3's to a remote server.
Download MP3's for playing.
and
Purchase a CD.
Download MP3's of songs on CD for playing.
The second process probably takes literally hours less time than the first, and much less effort. It is incorrect to argue that just because the outcome of both processes is the same, that both processes, as wholes, are identical.
The legality of the CD-to-MP3 path is not a state function. It is very much path-dependent.
Actually, there are a number of meaningful measures to the quality of a piece of code. First of all, if a programmer sits down to read some code and says "this is crap" because she can't understand it, and assuming this is a competent programmer, then the code is crap. That is, code should be written for an audience, not just a compiler (through comments, good variable naming, program structure).
Personally, I think that one of the best metrics for software quality assessment is the "bad fix probability." That is, for a particular module or program, determine the odds that fixing a defect will introduce a new defect. You can be almost certain that well-written code will have a low bad fix probability, and poorly-written code a high one.
You're probably right, though, that many programmers are too likelt to bad-mouth other programmers code. Usually, these are incompetents who use such statements as an excuse for why they aren't getting any actual useful work done. But, sometimes, they are valid. I would advise managers to take such statements with a grain of salt, and ask for numbers or concrete evidence of the problem.
I can see where you are coming from. It doesn't seem fair, and probably on some level isn't. I'm not a lawyer, but there are legitimate arguments against even this system:
First, the system, though it might "bend over backwards", can't determine whether the possessor of a particular CD is the rightful owner of that CD. It has been pointed out in other posts that all the scan shows is that at one moment you had a CD--it could have been yours, but it could also have been your friend's, or a library's, and so on.
Second, it's not clear that when you bought a CD you bought the right to alternate representations of the data on it. Those MP3's that they are distributing are not CD images, they are derived works. To make a somewhat strained analogy: Suppose I own a copy of The Gulag Archipelago in the original Russian. Do I have the right to receive, with no payment to the author, a translation of the same book into English? Do I have the right to distribute, with no payment to the author, such a translation? Do I have such a right, as part of a commercial venture?
There are problems with this analogy, but the core thing problem is the same: in both the case of the book and MyMP3, one might argue that the "translation" is the same as the original, but one might equally argue that they are not the same. And I think the law will favor the holder of the copyright in cases like this.
The tricky thing about so many of these arguments is that this is not simply the case of people being prevented from making "fair use" of their CDs. The RIAA is not suing people for making MP3's for their own use. This is about a company selling a service that produces derived content from the intellectual property of others, without their consent.
If you want to trade pirated MP3's, sure, use Gnutella. But, if you want to make the notion of pirated MP3's a thing of the past, support artists and companies that are embracing new technologies and business models. As a start, try going to MP3.com, instead of MyMP3, and support the artists there. At least, until MP3.com is bankrupted by this lawsuit.
1. You wish to sell a t-shirt that you produced, with a picture of Mickey Mouse on it.
2. You produce your own edition of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and wish to sell it.
3. You take a photograph of a painting hanging in the National Gallery of Art, make a poster of it, and wish to sell it.
I'm no lawyer, but one useful distinction is that between an application of intellectual property that you have already purchased the use of, and an application that you have yourself produced. For example, if you bought that Mickey Mouse t-shirt at Sears and then sold it at a flea market, that's most likely fair use--Disney got paid when you bought the shirt. If you produced it, they legally retain the right to prevent you from selling it, but they may not prevent you, if you give them some "consideration" (money, usually) in return.
I'm probably going to sound like a troll here, but this decision is proper. I am not saying that the relatively free distribution of music over networks is wrong. I am all for businesses and individuals coming up with viable alternatives to the current system.
MyMP3 was not providing a viable alternative, nor is Napster. These are business that are building their models around the existence of old-style music production companies. Both companies success hinges on the existence of a large source of heavily marketed music. That is, these companies require that all the members of the dread RIAA continue their existence, that they continue to spend millions on marketing and production.
If people want a world where music flows freely, they will have to put their support--their monetary support--behind companies that develop new business models, that can come up with distribution and payment systems that do not, fairly flagrantly, violate the law. Are people willing to do this? NFC.
Either that, or individuals are going to have to push for legal reform. But let's face it, do many people really care enough about the ability to trade music over the internet to do much about it, except perhaps post comments on a forum, or send their congressman an e-mail some staffer will ignore? Is there enough money out there interested in fighting the incredibly long legal battle? Again, NFC.
I hate to complain, but this is the second article based on bad science to appear on/. today. The other being "IBM And Mind Input Devices."
A social scientist from the Institute of Education, declares that pollution lowers your intelligence, and nary a biologist, physician, epidemiologist, chemist, biochemist or anybody else with a degree in a hard science is quoted.
A generally ridiculed Professor Emeritus at Princeton who lost his marbles in 1976 declares that he can make an input device based on the principles of ESP.
I hate to sound like an intellectual bigot, but these articles really belong on some New Age Granola Cruncher web site, not one billing itself as "News For Nerds".
That statement also strikes me as being a bit disingenuous, but only to a point. He is trying to make the point that there is nothing natural, and probably something unethical, about treating every e-mail address one receives as a simple commodity.
He is making the point that he engaged in specific transactions with specific companies -- he registered his copy of OpenLinux, and registered his Sony VAIO. And then, without notification, his address was used for purposes outside the realm of these specific transactions.
I think that legislation might not be necessary, at least in the case of well-established companies. Sony generally doesn't send out junk mail, or use telemarketers, so once they figure out that spam e-mail is just as annoying to its customers, it will find more effective means of using network technologies to enhance customer relationships, and drive new sales. Or, more likely, the other way around--companies will figure out better methods, and the crude mass-mailing will be a thing of the past.
I also have to wonder how angry Mr. Garfinkle would have been regarding the Caldera message if it read more like:
Dear Mr. Garfinkle:
As a registered user of OpenLinux 2.3, we thought you might be interested to know that a new version of OpenLinux, version 2.4, has been released. You may visit www.calderasystems.com for more information on new features, and on upgrading.
Thank you for your time, and for using OpenLinux, The Caldera Team
I have never seen such a thing, but how about having an introduction to the software, but through more interesting writing techniques, and on non-traditional manual subjects?
How about an extended interview with the chief software architect, or with pre-release users? How about a high-level discussion of what it is your software does, and why and how it does it? How about a discussion of technologies related to your software (for example, an HTML editor could include discussions of HTML, XML, HTTP and so on)?
What I'm driving at is, it would be possible, I think, to produce documentation that would be about the software, would provide very useful high-level information to any users, would engage, entertain and enlighten, and would be only appropriate as a print book. I could see printing such a manual as a cheap pocket-sized paperback, FWIW, which would be especially friendly to the transportation and cost issues.
Only a few years ago, before the birth of the web, there was a commonplace that public pornography or warez sites (FTP sites, back then) could never survive, because the crush of traffic would surely overwhelm any particular server. A few years later, and nobody would argue that porn and warez are hard to find. This was because, in any particular instance, the logic of "it can't happen" worked, but when spread over multiple instances, it failed. Why bring this up? Because in this decision, along with the recent decision in England, the anti-DVD campaign, the arrest of "mafiaboy", etc., one can see an analogous movement in the realm of regulation of the internet. Whether or not this particular decision stands, or the decision of the British courts is reversed, or the RIAA somehow loses, and so on, it is quite clear that the internet can no longer be seen as naturally free from oversight. Governments, elected and corporate, want control, and the multifront erosion of freedom seems nearly inevitable.
Then 2600 could post a list of sites that provide lists of sites that distribute the source code. If this is found improper as well, then they could post a list of sites that provide lists of sites that provide lists of sites that distribute the source code. And so on.
As soon as 2600 was ordered to stop linking to lists of lists, then that would mean that any site linking to 2600 now (for example, Yahoo! or Slashdot) would also be in violation of the law.
[I have a lot of questions here, and they're not very well organized, for which I apologize in advance.]
There has been plenty of debate on/. regarding the usefulness of the AC (Anonymous Coward) persona. It seems that one of the general consensuses (consensi?) is that the AC allows truly free debate, but with the cost of lots of garbage posting: trolling, flaming and so on. At/., this is acceptible. This is because (a) good posts have a high value, because they improve the quality of debate for all and (b) bad posts can simply be ignored and are moderated down, and have little bad effect.
Is Pinkerton wagering that this balance will be similar for the use of an anonymous tips line? Has Pinkerton produced an analysis that shows that the cost of reviewing the number of mistaken, trumped up, and blatantly false accusations is less than the benefit of having more accusations in total? This is not a question of the cost on the falsely accused, but to the company and the program itself. What effect will intervention on the basis of false accusations have on the credibility of the program as a whole? If the/. experience is at all indicative, there will be a large number of lies coming through online and over the phone, from vindictive students, from political activists, and from normal vandals; I am not at all clear how the WAVE system will be able to deal with these.
Also what is the legal status of these accusations? Assume that I don't like Pat. Pat is a quiet person who sits in the back of the room, and who looked at me funny once. So I call the anonymous tip line and say that I saw Pat torturing a rabbit in his backyard, and then muttering "In only three weeks, they will all pay like you did, Mr. Bunny" Which is blatantly, patently false. Have I committed a crime? If so, what? What is Pinkerton going to do about prosecuting people giving them false tips? What if I made up entirely the existence of Pat, and am not even a high school student? Is this illegal? What recourse does Pinkerton have? What if I live in another country and submit an accusation over the web?
Finally, what is done with the records of accusations? Who owns these records? If an accusation is proven false, is it destroyed? Do records have an expiration date, such as the date that the accused turns 18? Can students request copies of the records stored by WAVE?
I know, I am asking to be flamed here, but I think that Clemson, or any university, has perfectly legitimate rights in dictating proper and improper uses of the university network. Even to the extent that this means giving them the tools to wield monopolistic powers. After all, they own the cables, they pay the carriers, they staff the support centers, and so on.
I think it is easy to forget that students living in dormitories effectively lose certain rights, that people living in the real world keep; but they get certain privileges that us outworlders don't have. I don't have to show an ID to get into my apartment, nor am I prevented from smoking or drinking, nor am I prevented from having my girlfriend over. On the other hand, I don't have a guaranteed place to live, I don't have a cafeteria in my basement, and I don't have free or nearly-free high-bandwidth internet access. It is perfectly consistent for limitations to be placed on access through the university network.
This is probably a bad analogy, but here goes anyway: The university library contains a "special collections" department, that is only open during the day, where rare and fragile books are kept. They are open to the university population, but under specific use and access guidelines. Is this censorship because it prevents, for example, a student from picking up a draft copy of "Ulysses", walking out with it and making paper airplanes?
Unless Clemson advertised "unrestricted internet use" in brochures for prospective students, or included such language in their residency-hall agreements, they are completely within their rights. Perhaps they are acting foolishly (which is probably true), but not badly.
The Higgs theory is an attempt to understand how particles have mass, by postulating the existence of a particle/field that interacts with particles, giving them mass.
I'm no physicist, so I would recommend taking a look at a few good, brief and easy-to-read essays, written by real physicists, on the Higgs theory here. I would especially recommend the essay Politics, Solid State and the Higgs, if only for its humourous content.
Okay, substitute the word "older" for "old". The point is, that there weren't recent credit cards (otherwise, there would have been expiration dates further in the future.)
Combine this fact with this part of the "FAQ" on Maxus' site (mirrored here)
Q2: Why expiration date is 02/00-04/00?
A2: Why not?
In other words, all he got were rather old credit cards. One might surmise that CDUniverse updated their CyberCash software, but failed to delete the log file you mention.
Slashdot Mirror
The quote at the end, "I have a book on my bookshelf that I've never read, but that has a great title..." is from Larry Wall's keynote address to the Perl Conference in 1997. The full text of the address may be found here.
This litigious culture is largely the result, not of over-zealous individuals, but of a political system unwilling or unable to directly regulate the conduct of corporations. To use one of your examples: the states sued the tobacco companies because, even though smoking causes epidemic-level health problems, Congress was so compromised by Big Tobacco money that the only viable option was to sue.
Social policy today is set in courts, not in congress. If you are unhappy with this, don't just blame people suing. Blame a system of representation that is largely broken, broken by corporate money. Not suing people is not going to help much, but working to change the system of representation, and electing people willing to change it, will.
Having spent *cough* years playing in a league in Pittsburgh, the Steel City Pinball Association, participated in tournaments in the past few years, and against other leagues, I think that, from the standpoint of players, pinball is not dead. From an industry standpoint, there have been some major gaffes (notably, the introduction of the Pinball 2000 system that killed Williams/Bally dead), but I can hardly imagine no new pins ever, even if they are made by small companies.
To see a living pinball community, come to Pittsburgh, PA to compete at Pinburgh 2000 June 23 through 25. Top prize is $2000. You need not be a "wizard" to play, there are multiple skill-divisions.
[This is in response to MattBaggins, Chas and Steve]
MattBaggins: I'm not so clear on the subject as you, regarding where jurisdiction lies, or more importantly, should lie. After all, the rightfully elected representative government of the people of France decided that it was in the best interests of France to prevent the display or sale of Nazi items. Nevertheless, I can walk into an apartment in Paris, and call up an auction of Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo! This seems to me a problem, and one that can be addressed largely through technical means.
As for the French being the only ones responsible, that is possible. Beyond the fact that there may be extradition treaties handling this, France could build packet filters to shut off, or at least throttle, Yahoo! if Yahoo! failed to comply.
Chas: you say "Banning sales of things, simply because they evoke emotional response from someone is ridiculous. That leaves EVERTHING open to banning." I would counter that I, too, could use the logic of the slippery slope could also be used to say "If we don't build an infrastructure that allows for the rule of law to be respected, then there will be no laws whatsoever!".
Regardless, you seem to assume that the US Constitution applies here. I am not so clear on that point (see above).
Steve: I see what you mean, but the "leaving one place and going to another" metaphor is, in most ways at least, only a metaphor. At no point in the transaction does your body leave the country.
Yes, it may be the responsibility of the French to police incoming materials (see above). But my guess is that the French want a system that allows them to exercise their political will, and Yahoo! a method of appeasing the French government.
Such a proposal wouldn't require that every web server in the world replace its TCP stack, I think.
For one thing, the handling of options is required by RFC 791:
France can't easily regulate the technical implementation of every web server in France. However, my guess is that the French could require that all telecoms (and I think there is only one in France) that provide internet access, add a location code to the options section of the packet at some point in the routing process.
What this would set up would be a reasonable method, built on current technologies, of marking packets as coming from a particular place. From that point on, then, there would be no "we have no way of determining where users are from" argument. Furthermore, the implementation burden would be placed on entities that clearly fall under French jurisdiction.
Oops. By "Franch" I mean "France".
Okay, maybe I'm dumb, or missing something, but couldn't a country-of-origin code be embedded in the options section of the IP packet header? I believe that there is a state telecom monopoly in France, so...
Couldn't the French government mandate that country-identifying data be added to every packet leaving Franch? Then, they could say to Yahoo, "You have the ability to discern French visitors from non-French. Comply, or ______" where _______ is probably a whoppingly large amount of money. At that point, it would be a reasonable request, and probably legally enforceable.
I suppose such a system could be easily extended to any other country that has a state telecom monopoly--which is just about every country in the world, I think--though I don't know if it would be a better world.
Please tell me if I'm wrong here. But if I'm not, please consider solutions of this type before you type, yet again, that the Internet is naturally borderless, or whatever.
Okay, so a month ago, the bottom drops out of the linux market. Andover, VA Linux, etc. get wallopped, and hard. Slashdot is silent on the issue. Finally, after diligent work by flamers and trolls, a single article is posted on this. And posted reluctantly, with CmdrTaco indicating clearly that he believes stories on the stock market to belong on CNNfn or CNBC.
Now, a month later, this is posted, about a poorly-implemented, over-marketed, high-profile failure of a web site. Why? I have to agree with CmdrTaco, that the stock market and money games are pretty well-covered in other outlets.
Furthermore, regarding high-profile failures--they often do not indicate the failure of an entire sector. Here are some random examples:
As far as I know, people still watch movies and television, and buy cars and hardware. And plenty of money is made providing these things.
Have you ever used Napster, or Gnutella? The IP addresses are right there, out in the open. By fetching the file you are, by definition, contacting a particular host with a particular IP address. And for proof, at least in the case of MP3s, just play it!
As for proving that a particular IP address offered a particular file at a particular time, how about something like: The RIAA hires three firms, each independent of the other. The RIAA asks that each of these firms generate evidence of copyright infringement, perhaps within a small set of parameters. For example, they might say, "for the next week, download every Radiohead song you can, and log every one you see." And then the RIAA leaves them to the task.
A week later, three independent reports are delivered to the RIAA, including IP addresses and confirmation of infringement (i.e., the files have been downloaded and listened to). These are cross-referenced, and those appearing as offering a file on all three lists, and confirmed to have been offering an illegal file, are pursued.
As for finding the specific user involved, my guess is that it doesn't matter that much. If it is somebody hard to find, just give up. Nine out of ten infringers will be really easy to find, and easily shaken up by a threatening letter. After a couple of people get fired or expelled, and it is plastered all over the NY Times, most of the damage will be accomplished.
Until recently, I've shared your belief that distributed solutions like Gnutella are essentially lawsuit-proof. How can hey (whether the MPAA, RIAA or whomever) sue everyone?
Well, they don't have to. Let's take a look at Gnutella. I run a client and lo and behold, a whole bunch of IP addresses. If I want to take the time, I can trace some, lets say 100. Some portion of these will be traceable to universities, some from businesses, and some from home users.
Take each one of those addresses, and contact the appropriate administrative person that owns that block of addresses. Shake your saber, and say, "we have a documented case of copyright infringement. if you do not banish and punish the user responsible, we will crush you."
Some percentage of these people will be non-responsive, but most will try to comply. This will mean altering the terms of service, or more agressively monitoring usage, or firing employees or expelling students. Very quickly, the lawyers for lots of institutions say "Don't forget to take measures to prevent copyright infringement."
Even without %100 compliance, the effect will drastically reduce the user base for these services. Nobody but nerds will be capable enough to use them. And this will be a tolerable situation for the RIAA and MPAA. They don't care about the outliers, they just want to make sure the mainstream plays by their rules. I'll repeat this, in bold.
The RIAA and MPAA only really care about the mainstream.
It is an oversimplification to argue, as many here have, that the following two sequences are essentially equivalent:
- Purchase a CD
- Rip CD, producing MP3's.
- Upload MP3's to a remote server.
- Download MP3's for playing.
andThe second process probably takes literally hours less time than the first, and much less effort. It is incorrect to argue that just because the outcome of both processes is the same, that both processes, as wholes, are identical.
The legality of the CD-to-MP3 path is not a state function. It is very much path-dependent.
Actually, there are a number of meaningful measures to the quality of a piece of code. First of all, if a programmer sits down to read some code and says "this is crap" because she can't understand it, and assuming this is a competent programmer, then the code is crap. That is, code should be written for an audience, not just a compiler (through comments, good variable naming, program structure).
Personally, I think that one of the best metrics for software quality assessment is the "bad fix probability." That is, for a particular module or program, determine the odds that fixing a defect will introduce a new defect. You can be almost certain that well-written code will have a low bad fix probability, and poorly-written code a high one.
You're probably right, though, that many programmers are too likelt to bad-mouth other programmers code. Usually, these are incompetents who use such statements as an excuse for why they aren't getting any actual useful work done. But, sometimes, they are valid. I would advise managers to take such statements with a grain of salt, and ask for numbers or concrete evidence of the problem.
I can see where you are coming from. It doesn't seem fair, and probably on some level isn't. I'm not a lawyer, but there are legitimate arguments against even this system:
First, the system, though it might "bend over backwards", can't determine whether the possessor of a particular CD is the rightful owner of that CD. It has been pointed out in other posts that all the scan shows is that at one moment you had a CD--it could have been yours, but it could also have been your friend's, or a library's, and so on.
Second, it's not clear that when you bought a CD you bought the right to alternate representations of the data on it. Those MP3's that they are distributing are not CD images, they are derived works. To make a somewhat strained analogy: Suppose I own a copy of The Gulag Archipelago in the original Russian. Do I have the right to receive, with no payment to the author, a translation of the same book into English? Do I have the right to distribute, with no payment to the author, such a translation? Do I have such a right, as part of a commercial venture?
There are problems with this analogy, but the core thing problem is the same: in both the case of the book and MyMP3, one might argue that the "translation" is the same as the original, but one might equally argue that they are not the same. And I think the law will favor the holder of the copyright in cases like this.
The tricky thing about so many of these arguments is that this is not simply the case of people being prevented from making "fair use" of their CDs. The RIAA is not suing people for making MP3's for their own use. This is about a company selling a service that produces derived content from the intellectual property of others, without their consent.
If you want to trade pirated MP3's, sure, use Gnutella. But, if you want to make the notion of pirated MP3's a thing of the past, support artists and companies that are embracing new technologies and business models. As a start, try going to MP3.com, instead of MyMP3, and support the artists there. At least, until MP3.com is bankrupted by this lawsuit.
Let's see:
1. You wish to sell a t-shirt that you produced, with a picture of Mickey Mouse on it.
2. You produce your own edition of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and wish to sell it.
3. You take a photograph of a painting hanging in the National Gallery of Art, make a poster of it, and wish to sell it.
I'm no lawyer, but one useful distinction is that between an application of intellectual property that you have already purchased the use of, and an application that you have yourself produced. For example, if you bought that Mickey Mouse t-shirt at Sears and then sold it at a flea market, that's most likely fair use--Disney got paid when you bought the shirt. If you produced it, they legally retain the right to prevent you from selling it, but they may not prevent you, if you give them some "consideration" (money, usually) in return.
I'm probably going to sound like a troll here, but this decision is proper. I am not saying that the relatively free distribution of music over networks is wrong. I am all for businesses and individuals coming up with viable alternatives to the current system.
MyMP3 was not providing a viable alternative, nor is Napster. These are business that are building their models around the existence of old-style music production companies. Both companies success hinges on the existence of a large source of heavily marketed music. That is, these companies require that all the members of the dread RIAA continue their existence, that they continue to spend millions on marketing and production.
If people want a world where music flows freely, they will have to put their support--their monetary support--behind companies that develop new business models, that can come up with distribution and payment systems that do not, fairly flagrantly, violate the law. Are people willing to do this? NFC.
Either that, or individuals are going to have to push for legal reform. But let's face it, do many people really care enough about the ability to trade music over the internet to do much about it, except perhaps post comments on a forum, or send their congressman an e-mail some staffer will ignore? Is there enough money out there interested in fighting the incredibly long legal battle? Again, NFC.
I hate to complain, but this is the second article based on bad science to appear on /. today. The other being "IBM And Mind Input Devices."
A social scientist from the Institute of Education, declares that pollution lowers your intelligence, and nary a biologist, physician, epidemiologist, chemist, biochemist or anybody else with a degree in a hard science is quoted.
A generally ridiculed Professor Emeritus at Princeton who lost his marbles in 1976 declares that he can make an input device based on the principles of ESP.
I hate to sound like an intellectual bigot, but these articles really belong on some New Age Granola Cruncher web site, not one billing itself as "News For Nerds".
That statement also strikes me as being a bit disingenuous, but only to a point. He is trying to make the point that there is nothing natural, and probably something unethical, about treating every e-mail address one receives as a simple commodity.
He is making the point that he engaged in specific transactions with specific companies -- he registered his copy of OpenLinux, and registered his Sony VAIO. And then, without notification, his address was used for purposes outside the realm of these specific transactions.
I think that legislation might not be necessary, at least in the case of well-established companies. Sony generally doesn't send out junk mail, or use telemarketers, so once they figure out that spam e-mail is just as annoying to its customers, it will find more effective means of using network technologies to enhance customer relationships, and drive new sales. Or, more likely, the other way around--companies will figure out better methods, and the crude mass-mailing will be a thing of the past.
I also have to wonder how angry Mr. Garfinkle would have been regarding the Caldera message if it read more like:
Instead of sending him some bs marketing hype.
I have never seen such a thing, but how about having an introduction to the software, but through more interesting writing techniques, and on non-traditional manual subjects?
How about an extended interview with the chief software architect, or with pre-release users? How about a high-level discussion of what it is your software does, and why and how it does it? How about a discussion of technologies related to your software (for example, an HTML editor could include discussions of HTML, XML, HTTP and so on)?
What I'm driving at is, it would be possible, I think, to produce documentation that would be about the software, would provide very useful high-level information to any users, would engage, entertain and enlighten, and would be only appropriate as a print book. I could see printing such a manual as a cheap pocket-sized paperback, FWIW, which would be especially friendly to the transportation and cost issues.
Only a few years ago, before the birth of the web, there was a commonplace that public pornography or warez sites (FTP sites, back then) could never survive, because the crush of traffic would surely overwhelm any particular server. A few years later, and nobody would argue that porn and warez are hard to find. This was because, in any particular instance, the logic of "it can't happen" worked, but when spread over multiple instances, it failed. Why bring this up? Because in this decision, along with the recent decision in England, the anti-DVD campaign, the arrest of "mafiaboy", etc., one can see an analogous movement in the realm of regulation of the internet. Whether or not this particular decision stands, or the decision of the British courts is reversed, or the RIAA somehow loses, and so on, it is quite clear that the internet can no longer be seen as naturally free from oversight. Governments, elected and corporate, want control, and the multifront erosion of freedom seems nearly inevitable.
Then 2600 could post a list of sites that provide lists of sites that distribute the source code.
If this is found improper as well, then they could post a list of sites that provide lists of sites that provide lists of sites that distribute the source code. And so on.
As soon as 2600 was ordered to stop linking to lists of lists, then that would mean that any site linking to 2600 now (for example, Yahoo! or Slashdot) would also be in violation of the law.
[I have a lot of questions here, and they're not very well organized, for which I apologize in advance.]
/. regarding the usefulness of the AC (Anonymous Coward) persona. It seems that one of the general consensuses (consensi?) is that the AC allows truly free debate, but with the cost of lots of garbage posting: trolling, flaming and so on. At /., this is acceptible. This is because (a) good posts have a high value, because they improve the quality of debate for all and (b) bad posts can simply be ignored and are moderated down, and have little bad effect.
/. experience is at all indicative, there will be a large number of lies coming through online and over the phone, from vindictive students, from political activists, and from normal vandals; I am not at all clear how the WAVE system will be able to deal with these.
There has been plenty of debate on
Is Pinkerton wagering that this balance will be similar for the use of an anonymous tips line? Has Pinkerton produced an analysis that shows that the cost of reviewing the number of mistaken, trumped up, and blatantly false accusations is less than the benefit of having more accusations in total? This is not a question of the cost on the falsely accused, but to the company and the program itself. What effect will intervention on the basis of false accusations have on the credibility of the program as a whole? If the
Also what is the legal status of these accusations? Assume that I don't like Pat. Pat is a quiet person who sits in the back of the room, and who looked at me funny once. So I call the anonymous tip line and say that I saw Pat torturing a rabbit in his backyard, and then muttering "In only three weeks, they will all pay like you did, Mr. Bunny" Which is blatantly, patently false. Have I committed a crime? If so, what? What is Pinkerton going to do about prosecuting people giving them false tips? What if I made up entirely the existence of Pat, and am not even a high school student? Is this illegal? What recourse does Pinkerton have? What if I live in another country and submit an accusation over the web?
Finally, what is done with the records of accusations? Who owns these records? If an accusation is proven false, is it destroyed? Do records have an expiration date, such as the date that the accused turns 18? Can students request copies of the records stored by WAVE?
I know, I am asking to be flamed here, but I think that Clemson, or any university, has perfectly legitimate rights in dictating proper and improper uses of the university network. Even to the extent that this means giving them the tools to wield monopolistic powers. After all, they own the cables, they pay the carriers, they staff the support centers, and so on.
I think it is easy to forget that students living in dormitories effectively lose certain rights, that people living in the real world keep; but they get certain privileges that us outworlders don't have. I don't have to show an ID to get into my apartment, nor am I prevented from smoking or drinking, nor am I prevented from having my girlfriend over. On the other hand, I don't have a guaranteed place to live, I don't have a cafeteria in my basement, and I don't have free or nearly-free high-bandwidth internet access. It is perfectly consistent for limitations to be placed on access through the university network.
This is probably a bad analogy, but here goes anyway: The university library contains a "special collections" department, that is only open during the day, where rare and fragile books are kept. They are open to the university population, but under specific use and access guidelines. Is this censorship because it prevents, for example, a student from picking up a draft copy of "Ulysses", walking out with it and making paper airplanes?
Unless Clemson advertised "unrestricted internet use" in brochures for prospective students, or included such language in their residency-hall agreements, they are completely within their rights. Perhaps they are acting foolishly (which is probably true), but not badly.
The Higgs theory is an attempt to understand how particles have mass, by postulating the existence of a particle/field that interacts with particles, giving them mass.
I'm no physicist, so I would recommend taking a look at a few good, brief and easy-to-read essays, written by real physicists, on the Higgs theory here. I would especially recommend the essay Politics, Solid State and the Higgs, if only for its humourous content.
Okay, substitute the word "older" for "old". The point is, that there weren't recent credit cards (otherwise, there would have been expiration dates further in the future.)
Combine this fact with this part of the "FAQ" on Maxus' site (mirrored here)
In other words, all he got were rather old credit cards. One might surmise that CDUniverse updated their CyberCash software, but failed to delete the log file you mention.