Better yet, as I'm a Brit I can make a killing buying these chips and sellng them on to countries that my government doesn't have silly rules against.
That's certainly not what happened the last time round this loop, back in the days of the ITAR. Instead, the USA... persuaded... other governments to criminalise export of even software for use on anything moderately high power by the standard of the day.
The result was that Brits couldn't buy any nice toys from the USA without promising in blood not to sell them on to the Evil Empire, and faced arrest and imprisonment if they did. Some people did go to jail for (if I recall correctly) diverting some low-end Vaxen. We're not talking supercomputers, here. And, yes, this applied to chips as well as built systems: there was a hokey formula you could run to find out if your processor was too fast. I seem to remember that it was to be found in the chapter immediately following the one on "Military Pyrotechnics".
I know you're joking, OK, but hypothetically if something like this came back my suggestion for anyone running an import/export business along the lines you outline would be not to plan on any holidays in the USA for the rest of their lives... or indeed anywhere the USA has an extradition treaty with.
What happened to that proposal to add records (as comments, so the DNS protocol wasn't broken) to the DNS saying that a domain was authoratative for the envelope 'From ' header?
It is still an internet-draft. I think the URL for the current version is here.
That sounded like a good idea, so long as the MTA's took it up...
Yes, unless a really high proportion of the people who send you mail made these records available, you couldn't block mail that didn't have it. It might work as a "probably not spam" indicator in things like SpamAssassin at some lower level, though.
I think most people will agree that 80% having less than 50 songs is not an accurate representation of the file-sharing population.
Probably not. On the other hand, it might be a more or less accurate representation of the population of consumers who deleted files, which is all that they seem to be claiming.
On the other hand, statistics about the population of "people who don't think they are doing something illegal and are prepared to be monitored, but then jump like a startled rabbit when they hear the RIAA get heavy with the lawsuits" (which is what this seems to be) are actually pretty uninteresting overall.
I've had all my numbers registered with the TPS for years, and it does not prevent people from calling me. The rules are such that great swathes of people are legitimately allowed to ignore TPS, for example "marketing" as opposed to "selling". So firms feel they can call to tell you that "one of our representatives will be in your area" without crossing the line. Ho hum.
New regulations come into force later this year that include a new approach to this amongst other things. I blogged some links and comments on this subject a little while back for anyone who is desperately interested.
What stops Microsoft putting any old rubbish into their EULA? Nothing at all, and you hear about some irritating new MS EULA clause here every few months as a result.
What stops Microsoft enforcing any old rubbish they put into their EULA? In most places, I'm glad to say, the law does; contract terms that are "unfair" are of no effect. (IANAL, take legal advice before embarking on a course of action, etc.)
Just because you put something in an EULA and the customer buys your product, doesn't mean they are bound by every term in your EULA. Otherwise, some clever software vendor would already have laid claim to your every word, thought and deed on the basis that you signed up to their on-line service.
Slashdot Mirror
That's certainly not what happened the last time round this loop, back in the days of the ITAR. Instead, the USA... persuaded... other governments to criminalise export of even software for use on anything moderately high power by the standard of the day.
The result was that Brits couldn't buy any nice toys from the USA without promising in blood not to sell them on to the Evil Empire, and faced arrest and imprisonment if they did. Some people did go to jail for (if I recall correctly) diverting some low-end Vaxen. We're not talking supercomputers, here. And, yes, this applied to chips as well as built systems: there was a hokey formula you could run to find out if your processor was too fast. I seem to remember that it was to be found in the chapter immediately following the one on "Military Pyrotechnics".
I know you're joking, OK, but hypothetically if something like this came back my suggestion for anyone running an import/export business along the lines you outline would be not to plan on any holidays in the USA for the rest of their lives... or indeed anywhere the USA has an extradition treaty with.
It is still an internet-draft. I think the URL for the current version is here.
Yes, unless a really high proportion of the people who send you mail made these records available, you couldn't block mail that didn't have it. It might work as a "probably not spam" indicator in things like SpamAssassin at some lower level, though.
Probably not. On the other hand, it might be a more or less accurate representation of the population of consumers who deleted files, which is all that they seem to be claiming.
On the other hand, statistics about the population of "people who don't think they are doing something illegal and are prepared to be monitored, but then jump like a startled rabbit when they hear the RIAA get heavy with the lawsuits" (which is what this seems to be) are actually pretty uninteresting overall.
What made you think that the machine sending the pop-ups would have that service enabled on their machine?
I've had all my numbers registered with the TPS for years, and it does not prevent people from calling me. The rules are such that great swathes of people are legitimately allowed to ignore TPS, for example "marketing" as opposed to "selling". So firms feel they can call to tell you that "one of our representatives will be in your area" without crossing the line. Ho hum.
New regulations come into force later this year that include a new approach to this amongst other things. I blogged some links and comments on this subject a little while back for anyone who is desperately interested.
What stops Microsoft putting any old rubbish into their EULA? Nothing at all, and you hear about some irritating new MS EULA clause here every few months as a result.
What stops Microsoft enforcing any old rubbish they put into their EULA? In most places, I'm glad to say, the law does; contract terms that are "unfair" are of no effect. (IANAL, take legal advice before embarking on a course of action, etc.)
Just because you put something in an EULA and the customer buys your product, doesn't mean they are bound by every term in your EULA. Otherwise, some clever software vendor would already have laid claim to your every word, thought and deed on the basis that you signed up to their on-line service.
No, wait, that's already happened...