I get the picture. This is the same reason why one guy can march down the street with a political sign, but if he gets ten thousand of his closest friends to do it with him, he'll go to jail. Oh wait, no, that's a violation of our constitutional rights too.
it's really a question of vandalism than anything else.
Not at all. It's a question of selective enforcement. If everybody who wrote on the sidewalk got arrested, there would be no outcry. The problem here is that the police may be selectively enforcing the law to stop a political statement, where a non-political statement would have been ignored.
Hint: if you have to think about whether you're acting like an individual, you're not being one. Only a person who truly is aloof of all social worries is a complete freethinker. Which is why they're all weirdo assholes.
Fuck you!
By the way, have you considered the advantages of joining an anarcho-capitalist commune?
Reproducing bits WITHIN the NIC, as well as to the hard drive, RAM, cache, procesor, etc. are all reproductions capable of infringment. It's a bizarre result, but that's what the law is right now. Please read through those cases and you'll see this.
I'll take your word for it; I don't really understand legalese. Anyway, doesn't this mean that, even if you buy legitimate material (like from iTMS or wherever), every router that it passes through infringes?
How does this all work with fair use? It seems very odd to me that copying a DVD bought from one store is perfectly legal, while copying an identical DVD bought from a different store (which makes its own unlicensed copies in the back) makes you infringe. Of course, as you've shown, the law is often very odd. I guess it boils down to the whole "ignorance is no excuse" thing.
Has it actually been decided what the legal definition of reproduction is? When I download, the only reproduction I perform is copying bits from the network card to the hard drive.
If you are correct, it seems unfortunate and wrong to put the burden on downloaders. Do I really need to thoroughly check out every place I download something from to ensure that they (and therefore I) have the right to make that copy? Of course, people on P2P networks have no expectation of legitimacy, but there are plenty of (imaginary) situations that do.
Is it then legal to buy a fake DVD from a street vendor, yet illegal to download that same DVD from a pirate internet site?
I would go so far as to suggest that most downloaders will probably buy the occasional CD.
Who's right, you or me? We both gave equal amounts of evidence (i.e. none).
Before you jump in with the "my version is more plausible" argument, consider this: lots and lots of people, myself included, have water on tap that is basically free, and yet we still sometimes buy bottled water that is the same or even worse quality than the water that comes out of our faucets. There is plenty of evidence that people will pay for things they can get for free. Whether they do this for music is still up in the air, but I don't think that we should assume the answer is "no".
I think that the cases here are for people sharing music, not the ones downloading, that is relatively easier to find than people downloading.
I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that simply downloading is not illegal per se. Copyright covers distribution, and downloaders are not distributing the songs, people who share are the distributors here. Of course, with most modern P2P programs practically mandating uploading along with downloading, this distinction gets pretty blurry.
Also, I think that this is how things should work, at the very least. This way, compliance with the law is in the hands of the distributor, who is in the best position to make sure everything is in order. Imagine if everybody who downloaded from a shady but legitimate-looking music store could get hit with a copyright infringement suit!
Yes, but they don't want to deliver content. They want to receive money. The fact that they have to deliver content in order to receive money is just a side issue for the modern RIAA.
Versiontracker is a horrible-looking pile. It is fairly popular, but I find that the majority of my downloads come from MacUpdate, which also has the virtue of being a lot easier to use and a lot nicer to look at. That said, both places are very important for Mac software.
Yes. In fact, a worm that spread almost exclusively by CD, the AutoStart 9805 Worm, was basically the only real worm threat on the Mac for that particular year, and IIRC even managed to get onto a couple of magazne CDs.
Yeah, they took care of their people so well that they built their nuclear reactors without containment structures, and then blew one of them up in an ill-conceived test.
Encryption is a bit overrated since it's pratically impossible to snoop into a tcp connection on the real internet. And when it's possible, it still has to be done. By someone who gives a damn (eg. not a professional sysadmin). Heck, with all those exploits in openssh, telnet may be the safer option.
It really depends on where you are. If you're at home, you're probably ok, if you trust your ISP, the ISP at the other end, and every ISP in between. (I don't.) However, there are lots of broadcast networks out there. My college dorm used a broadcast network when I was there, and sniffing passwords from POP or telnet sessions was trivial.
Regarding openssh versus telnet, it's not like there have never been any telnetd vulnerabilities before.
I agree completely. My mind saw "programmers" and just totally glossed over it, because I thought nobody would be so stupid as to think it was the responsibility of programmers to get this stuff right. This is obviously a management fuckup. Programmers are most likely not drawing maps or recording chants to begin with.
It's supposed to help by prompting them to say, "Hey, Taiwan is a rather sensitive area of the world, maybe we should call in an expert to make sure we're not offending anybody in our treatment of this area before we ship."
The problem is not that of not knowing enough, the problem is that they didn't even know that they needed more information.
"The report you keep talking about?" Are you unfamiliar with it? It's, you know, important. One would think you'd at least have heard of it.
It's a common construct in English, referring to something by several names to avoid monotony. Are you not familiar with this idea?
My time isn't free.
And yet you have no problem finding plenty of time to post here. Funny, huh?
Stop trying to hide behind "eeh, I'm busy, eeh." Drop the façade and speak the truth: that you just can't be bothered to give a damn.
Why should I give a damn about what is most likely an incredibly boring and mostly irrelevant government report about an incident that happened almost three years ago? Obviously you can't be bothered to give me any reasons to read it.
I just realized that you're named after a troll.
Jesus Christ. With a user ID like 13204, you'd think you'd have been paying attention for, oh, the past two years or so.
Man, what a gigantic ego you have. Just because I don't remember your UID out of the nearly one million UIDs on slashdot, I'm suddenly not paying attention. Why should I remember yours out of all the people on here? Because you're such a jerk?
I have many better things to do than to read the report you keep talking about. My time isn't free.
I just realized that you're named after a troll. Unfortunately, you're a much better troll than your namesake, and unfortunately your trolling doesn't contain the kernel of truth, as your namesake's trolling did. What a waste of a good slashdot ID.
You don't need an airliner to kill a couple of hundred people. A truck filled with ammonium nitrate does just fine.
Which is why you have to present ID to rent a truck. Can we shut the fuck up now, please?
Of course, how foolish of me to not realize that the only way to get ahold of such a truck is by renting it.
It's funny that you didn't bring up the fact that it's hard to get ahold of such a quantity of ammonium nitrate for nefarious purposes. The controls on fertilizer are much more strict than the controls on trucks.
It's also nice to see that the tradition of "You're an idiot so you shouldn't even speak, shut the fuck up" is alive and well. Thanks so much for reaffirming my lack of faith in humanity.
And before you jump in with the "almost 3000" figure from 9/11, that was a one-time event. Airline passengers are never going to sit still for a hijacking again.
Have you not read the 9/11 Commission report? You are suffering from a failure of imagination.
Nope, I haven't read it. Could you enlighten me? I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of pages of incredibly boring government report to find the places where it describes how you can kill more than a few hundred people with an airliner, now that it's been proven that airline passengers no longer go into sheep mode when presented with a threat?
You can't get a driver's license anonymously. Some people can't get them at all.
Trains have the same problem now, IIRC. Not to mention that Amtrak is a festering pile of crap everywhere but the northeast. Buses are probably still ok, but they don't go everywhere.
If you can tell me how to get from Florida to Hawaii without showing ID, I'd love to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting twice, damn.
Are you nuts? I finally got the page loaded, and they only have one bike! I don't see how that qualifies as "MASSIVE".
I get the picture. This is the same reason why one guy can march down the street with a political sign, but if he gets ten thousand of his closest friends to do it with him, he'll go to jail. Oh wait, no, that's a violation of our constitutional rights too.
it's really a question of vandalism than anything else.
Not at all. It's a question of selective enforcement. If everybody who wrote on the sidewalk got arrested, there would be no outcry. The problem here is that the police may be selectively enforcing the law to stop a political statement, where a non-political statement would have been ignored.
For being dead, Apple sure is a big company. Huge market share isn't the only measure of success.
Hint: if you have to think about whether you're acting like an individual, you're not being one. Only a person who truly is aloof of all social worries is a complete freethinker. Which is why they're all weirdo assholes.
Fuck you!
By the way, have you considered the advantages of joining an anarcho-capitalist commune?
(Asshole, check. Weirdo, check. My work is done.)
I think I'm out of questions.
Thank you very much for responding to all of the stuff I asked.
Reproducing bits WITHIN the NIC, as well as to the hard drive, RAM, cache, procesor, etc. are all reproductions capable of infringment. It's a bizarre result, but that's what the law is right now. Please read through those cases and you'll see this.
I'll take your word for it; I don't really understand legalese. Anyway, doesn't this mean that, even if you buy legitimate material (like from iTMS or wherever), every router that it passes through infringes?
How does this all work with fair use? It seems very odd to me that copying a DVD bought from one store is perfectly legal, while copying an identical DVD bought from a different store (which makes its own unlicensed copies in the back) makes you infringe. Of course, as you've shown, the law is often very odd. I guess it boils down to the whole "ignorance is no excuse" thing.
Has it actually been decided what the legal definition of reproduction is? When I download, the only reproduction I perform is copying bits from the network card to the hard drive.
If you are correct, it seems unfortunate and wrong to put the burden on downloaders. Do I really need to thoroughly check out every place I download something from to ensure that they (and therefore I) have the right to make that copy? Of course, people on P2P networks have no expectation of legitimacy, but there are plenty of (imaginary) situations that do.
Is it then legal to buy a fake DVD from a street vendor, yet illegal to download that same DVD from a pirate internet site?
I would go so far as to suggest that most downloaders will probably buy the occasional CD.
Who's right, you or me? We both gave equal amounts of evidence (i.e. none).
Before you jump in with the "my version is more plausible" argument, consider this: lots and lots of people, myself included, have water on tap that is basically free, and yet we still sometimes buy bottled water that is the same or even worse quality than the water that comes out of our faucets. There is plenty of evidence that people will pay for things they can get for free. Whether they do this for music is still up in the air, but I don't think that we should assume the answer is "no".
I think that the cases here are for people sharing music, not the ones downloading, that is relatively easier to find than people downloading.
I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that simply downloading is not illegal per se. Copyright covers distribution, and downloaders are not distributing the songs, people who share are the distributors here. Of course, with most modern P2P programs practically mandating uploading along with downloading, this distinction gets pretty blurry.
Also, I think that this is how things should work, at the very least. This way, compliance with the law is in the hands of the distributor, who is in the best position to make sure everything is in order. Imagine if everybody who downloaded from a shady but legitimate-looking music store could get hit with a copyright infringement suit!
Yes, but they don't want to deliver content. They want to receive money. The fact that they have to deliver content in order to receive money is just a side issue for the modern RIAA.
Some people simply fail to realize that all of the posts they read aren't written by the same person.
Versiontracker is a horrible-looking pile. It is fairly popular, but I find that the majority of my downloads come from MacUpdate, which also has the virtue of being a lot easier to use and a lot nicer to look at. That said, both places are very important for Mac software.
But he doesn't have to. Al asks first because he doesn't want to piss everybody off, not because he doesn't want to get sued.
Yes. In fact, a worm that spread almost exclusively by CD, the AutoStart 9805 Worm, was basically the only real worm threat on the Mac for that particular year, and IIRC even managed to get onto a couple of magazne CDs.
Yeah, they took care of their people so well that they built their nuclear reactors without containment structures, and then blew one of them up in an ill-conceived test.
I'll pass on that kind of "care".
Encryption is a bit overrated since it's pratically impossible to snoop into a tcp connection on the real internet. And when it's possible, it still has to be done. By someone who gives a damn (eg. not a professional sysadmin). Heck, with all those exploits in openssh, telnet may be the safer option.
It really depends on where you are. If you're at home, you're probably ok, if you trust your ISP, the ISP at the other end, and every ISP in between. (I don't.) However, there are lots of broadcast networks out there. My college dorm used a broadcast network when I was there, and sniffing passwords from POP or telnet sessions was trivial.
Regarding openssh versus telnet, it's not like there have never been any telnetd vulnerabilities before.
"Class of 2008" means the class that will graduate in the year 2008, which means the class that is beginning a four-year program this fall.
What monopoly? Apple doesn't have any monopolies.
I agree completely. My mind saw "programmers" and just totally glossed over it, because I thought nobody would be so stupid as to think it was the responsibility of programmers to get this stuff right. This is obviously a management fuckup. Programmers are most likely not drawing maps or recording chants to begin with.
It's supposed to help by prompting them to say, "Hey, Taiwan is a rather sensitive area of the world, maybe we should call in an expert to make sure we're not offending anybody in our treatment of this area before we ship."
The problem is not that of not knowing enough, the problem is that they didn't even know that they needed more information.
It's a common construct in English, referring to something by several names to avoid monotony. Are you not familiar with this idea?
And yet you have no problem finding plenty of time to post here. Funny, huh?
Stop trying to hide behind "eeh, I'm busy, eeh." Drop the façade and speak the truth: that you just can't be bothered to give a damn.
Why should I give a damn about what is most likely an incredibly boring and mostly irrelevant government report about an incident that happened almost three years ago? Obviously you can't be bothered to give me any reasons to read it.
Jesus Christ. With a user ID like 13204, you'd think you'd have been paying attention for, oh, the past two years or so.
Man, what a gigantic ego you have. Just because I don't remember your UID out of the nearly one million UIDs on slashdot, I'm suddenly not paying attention. Why should I remember yours out of all the people on here? Because you're such a jerk?
I have many better things to do than to read the report you keep talking about. My time isn't free.
I just realized that you're named after a troll. Unfortunately, you're a much better troll than your namesake, and unfortunately your trolling doesn't contain the kernel of truth, as your namesake's trolling did. What a waste of a good slashdot ID.
Of course, how foolish of me to not realize that the only way to get ahold of such a truck is by renting it.
It's funny that you didn't bring up the fact that it's hard to get ahold of such a quantity of ammonium nitrate for nefarious purposes. The controls on fertilizer are much more strict than the controls on trucks.
It's also nice to see that the tradition of "You're an idiot so you shouldn't even speak, shut the fuck up" is alive and well. Thanks so much for reaffirming my lack of faith in humanity.
Have you not read the 9/11 Commission report? You are suffering from a failure of imagination.
Nope, I haven't read it. Could you enlighten me? I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of pages of incredibly boring government report to find the places where it describes how you can kill more than a few hundred people with an airliner, now that it's been proven that airline passengers no longer go into sheep mode when presented with a threat?
You can't get a driver's license anonymously. Some people can't get them at all.
Trains have the same problem now, IIRC. Not to mention that Amtrak is a festering pile of crap everywhere but the northeast. Buses are probably still ok, but they don't go everywhere.
If you can tell me how to get from Florida to Hawaii without showing ID, I'd love to hear it.