Mailbombing the ISP is not going to get the fundamental legal issues changed. UK (or English?) law holds a printer as responsible for libel as the author. The ISP is arguably analogous to a printer and has a huge potential liability out there. If I were an ISP facing this kind of liability, I might want to take similar steps to limit my liability.
As it is, the magazine has the means to host their content anywhere in the world, they should avail themselves of it. When enough UK ISPs find their web hosting business going offshore, maybe they will join the fight to get rational libel laws passed in England (Ha! Good luck, I understand that the legal profession has just as big a stranglehold on the legislative process as they do here in the US.)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
In this case, the paper has remedies. They can have their content hosted in one of dozens of countries in the world that don't have laws and legal precedents making hosts liable for content.
Save the Slashdot effect for important battles.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Problem is that the DMCA makes it so that there a[re] no non-infringing uses of a program designed to break copy protection, even when there are non-infringing uses for the results.
I think you are missing the point of this thread. Section 1201 Paragraph 1 says that you can use such a program if your use is a "fair use" but section 1201 Paragraph 2 makes it illegal to distribute such a program whether or not is has fair uses. I.e. if you can write it yourself, you may use it, but you can't give it to any others.
This (Sec. 1201 Para. 2)is where I find that the DCMA is in conflict with Supreme Court precedent and I hope that a court will so rule.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The MPAA v. Goldstein et al case was based on this very paragraph of the DMCA. The judge wouldn't listen to "fair use" arguments in the preliminary hearing because "fair use" is a defense to copyright infringement and the defendants were accused of distributing means to bypass controls not copyright infringement.
The answer to this is the Sony Betamax case (sorry, I don't have a proper citation) in it the Supreme Court held that if there are non-infringing uses to a technology, it can not be held to violate copyright to distribute it. Essentially, the EFF needs to get someone to declare at least this paragraph of the DMCA unconstitutional.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
First, buggy and incomplete support is worse than no support. The court can not make Microsoft make a quality Linux product if they don't want to.
Second, surprise! Microsoft already publishes its file formats. The problem with the file formats is that they are expressed in terms of OLE containers. You need to fully implement OLE on Linux before you can make use of the file formats.
Third, moving products around within MS will not accomplish anything if Ballmer and Gates are there to ensure that the entire team is pulling together to maintain the MS Monopoly.
Fourth, judges have real work to do. Their job is not to babysit Microsoft and no one judge can effectively babysit such a huge company without a huge staff. Regulation is a non-starter.
Breakup is the only viable solution.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
First, it wasn't my claim that IE was in the NT kernel, but I was replying to the preceeding message which claimed that IE in the kernel was no different than httpd in the Linux kernel. Do try to keep up.
But, if IE is not in the NT kernel, how does it manage to write outside of its assigned window on my Windows NT system? It shouldn't be able to do that.
Furthermore, the Rich Text control in Windows has a buffer overrun exploit that can run arbitrary code. Oops!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
But, Section 1201, Paragraph 2 has no such fair use exemption. It may be fair use to use DeCSS on a copy that you have purchased, but Paragraph 2 makes it illegal for anyone to distribute a means to accomplish your fair use. Of what good is the fair use right to decrypt your DVD or your CyberPatrol list if you have to get an advanced degree in cryptoanalysis to do it?
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
A minimal http daemon (static files only, no CGI) is vastly different than a complex HTML rendering engine that needs to process poorly validated and nonstandard HTML. You can put the first into a kernel without much change of kernel instability, but not the latter.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Expeditedd Appeals to the Supreme Court
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Some of us can also buy local phone service from competitive carriers. There are several local phone companies competing in the New York City metropolitan area.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Microsoft can and will keep this crap up as long as their lawyers have breath in their lungs and ink in their pens.
That's why the law provides for expedited appeals directly to the Supreme Court in the case of antitrust cases. There will be some delay in the appeal, but it won't be more than 12 months.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Yeah, let's just reformat our root partitions and install Microsoft Operating Systems. Everyone else does. Why should be all be freaks who use an OS that requires a pocket protector to install?
OpenGL support is improving. The support for DirectX has always been a front burner issue for HW manufacturers, but I don't know that I'd say that most buggy implications are necessarially *better*.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
There have been several proposals made and not all of them are OS/Apps/Other. Here's a November 1999 New York Times article with that break up option plus the "Baby Bill" option where several companies would all inherit MSs rights in Windows.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
But I think breaking up a company that large has repurcussions nobody can predict, and I'm sure the judge is more than a little wary of undertaking something like that.
Actually, there's a fair amount of precident. Standard Oil was a huge company that was broken up. The result was more competition and lower prices for consumers.
AT&T was another huge company that was broken up. That ushered in the era of competition in Long Distance services. Local serivce is attempting to reestablish it's national monopoly, but the FCC is demanding acces to the local loop for competitors.
If we break up Microsoft, I think that you will see increased innovation (real innovation not Microsoft's idea of "innovation") and a virtual explosion of computer products.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
MS may make products you personally feel are rip-offs, but the entire reason they're so successful is that the vast majority of computer users *don't* feel that way. Otherwise, why would they buy the software licenses at all?
The equating of business success and quality products is specious. There are several reasons that Microsoft product dominate several categories and the reason "Because consumers like the products" is not among them except, perhaps, in the case of browsers where Microsoft buried their only viable competitor so that they could not afford to keep up with browser development.
Reasons such as bundling, illegal coersion of vendors selling multiple operating systems to sell only Microsoft, price fixind and pure, unadulterated FUD are the reasons that these products dominate, not that consumers all love them.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Investment theory says that the inherent worth of any business proposition is the present value of cash flows discounted at an interest rate appropriate to the risk of the business.
If you take in as much as you spend, over the long run, the site is worthless even though you may have sunk millions of dollars into developing and promoting it. Some ventures are worth more if they are ended and the assets sold for their scrap value.
You may be able to get more or less than this inherent value depending on how the market for web sites is. If someone needs an established website quickly, they may be willing to pay a premium because they can't wait to have it developed.
Any business plan venture needs to show pro forma income statements on a likely outcome basis to be taken seriously by any serious investor. What is the likely revenue? What are the likely expenses? What are the characteristics of the risk (i.e. ad values drop to nil) and how are you adjusting the US Treasury rate (a risk free rate) to represent the risk of the investment. The potential acquirer may very well take your pro formas, replace your risk-adjusted rate with their own hurdle rate (the return they desire on investment) and calculate their own value to decide if the proposition is more or less valuable to them than it is to you.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Now, I think that it is the key issue. As a user of GPLed software, I want to be able to rely on the promise that the right to use and redistribute it will not be revoked at a future date. But if the GPL is not a contract because of lack of consideration, I can't enforce that promise in court.
Consideration can take any number of forms. The lawyer's contingency fee is consideration as is the promise of an insurer to pay benefits if an insured event occurs. The presence of a contingency dosn't make the promise devoid of value even if the chance of it being fufilled is remote. The alien example was concocted because I wanted some kind of promise which could plausably be given. The remoteness of the event is not the issue.
The question still remains what form does the consideration for the author of GPLed software take. Good feelings are probably too intangible to count. I think that the old BSD Advertising clause probably would count as consideration as would the requirement in some licenses that modifications be sent back to the author. But I'm failing to find consideration in the GPL.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
According to this, maybe the GPL is not a contract, but a gift. Does that make any difference? Aren't gifts protected by law too?
Some are. But the gift of a promise is not generally enforcable. If I freely promise to give you my car in 12 months in exchange for no consideration (i.e. a gift and not a contract), you can't take me to court to make me life up to the promise. Similarly, if I promise never to revoke a gift of free software and I later change my mind, you can't sue me to live up to my promise if that promise is a gift and not a contract.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm just babbling. No one reads these things after a few days anyway.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Mailbombing the ISP is not going to get the fundamental legal issues changed. UK (or English?) law holds a printer as responsible for libel as the author. The ISP is arguably analogous to a printer and has a huge potential liability out there. If I were an ISP facing this kind of liability, I might want to take similar steps to limit my liability.
As it is, the magazine has the means to host their content anywhere in the world, they should avail themselves of it. When enough UK ISPs find their web hosting business going offshore, maybe they will join the fight to get rational libel laws passed in England (Ha! Good luck, I understand that the legal profession has just as big a stranglehold on the legislative process as they do here in the US.)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
In this case, the paper has remedies. They can have their content hosted in one of dozens of countries in the world that don't have laws and legal precedents making hosts liable for content.
Save the Slashdot effect for important battles.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Problem is that the DMCA makes it so that there a[re] no non-infringing uses of a program designed to break copy protection, even when there are non-infringing uses for the results.
I think you are missing the point of this thread. Section 1201 Paragraph 1 says that you can use such a program if your use is a "fair use" but section 1201 Paragraph 2 makes it illegal to distribute such a program whether or not is has fair uses. I.e. if you can write it yourself, you may use it, but you can't give it to any others.
This (Sec. 1201 Para. 2)is where I find that the DCMA is in conflict with Supreme Court precedent and I hope that a court will so rule.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The MPAA v. Goldstein et al case was based on this very paragraph of the DMCA. The judge wouldn't listen to "fair use" arguments in the preliminary hearing because "fair use" is a defense to copyright infringement and the defendants were accused of distributing means to bypass controls not copyright infringement.
The answer to this is the Sony Betamax case (sorry, I don't have a proper citation) in it the Supreme Court held that if there are non-infringing uses to a technology, it can not be held to violate copyright to distribute it. Essentially, the EFF needs to get someone to declare at least this paragraph of the DMCA unconstitutional.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
First, buggy and incomplete support is worse than no support. The court can not make Microsoft make a quality Linux product if they don't want to.
Second, surprise! Microsoft already publishes its file formats. The problem with the file formats is that they are expressed in terms of OLE containers. You need to fully implement OLE on Linux before you can make use of the file formats.
Third, moving products around within MS will not accomplish anything if Ballmer and Gates are there to ensure that the entire team is pulling together to maintain the MS Monopoly.
Fourth, judges have real work to do. Their job is not to babysit Microsoft and no one judge can effectively babysit such a huge company without a huge staff. Regulation is a non-starter.
Breakup is the only viable solution.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
First, it wasn't my claim that IE was in the NT kernel, but I was replying to the preceeding message which claimed that IE in the kernel was no different than httpd in the Linux kernel. Do try to keep up.
But, if IE is not in the NT kernel, how does it manage to write outside of its assigned window on my Windows NT system? It shouldn't be able to do that.
Furthermore, the Rich Text control in Windows has a buffer overrun exploit that can run arbitrary code. Oops!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I suggest that we plan to conduct a letter writing campaign to promote Lawrence Lessig as a candidate for the next open seat on the Supreme Court.
Lessig: He Gets It.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
A minimal http daemon (static files only, no CGI) is vastly different than a complex HTML rendering engine that needs to process poorly validated and nonstandard HTML. You can put the first into a kernel without much change of kernel instability, but not the latter.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The link is here.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
On archived articles, you can jump directly to post 101 by appending #101 to the URL.
/00/02/18/205232.shtml#101
Try http://slashdot.org/articles
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Some of us can also buy local phone service from competitive carriers. There are several local phone companies competing in the New York City metropolitan area.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Microsoft can and will keep this crap up as long as their lawyers have breath in their lungs and ink in their pens.
That's why the law provides for expedited appeals directly to the Supreme Court in the case of antitrust cases. There will be some delay in the appeal, but it won't be more than 12 months.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Who was RTMFD again?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Yeah, let's just reformat our root partitions and install Microsoft Operating Systems. Everyone else does. Why should be all be freaks who use an OS that requires a pocket protector to install?
OpenGL support is improving. The support for DirectX has always been a front burner issue for HW manufacturers, but I don't know that I'd say that most buggy implications are necessarially *better*.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Do you think they would PAY for DirectX if it was not any good?
Yep, if that's where the market for games software is. It's either pay or have a product with poor performance compared with the competition.
Just wait for DirectX8 which includes VOXEL rendering.
Why? Since my last hard disk crash, I don't actually run any Microsoft Operating Systems anymore. Why should I even care?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
There have been several proposals made and not all of them are OS/Apps/Other. Here's a November 1999 New York Times article with that break up option plus the "Baby Bill" option where several companies would all inherit MSs rights in Windows.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Who on earth is Jon Katz and why do trolls keep on about him/her/it?
No one knows. It is one of the Mysteries of Slashdot.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
But I think breaking up a company that large has repurcussions nobody can predict, and I'm sure the judge is more than a little wary of undertaking something like that.
Actually, there's a fair amount of precident. Standard Oil was a huge company that was broken up. The result was more competition and lower prices for consumers.
AT&T was another huge company that was broken up. That ushered in the era of competition in Long Distance services. Local serivce is attempting to reestablish it's national monopoly, but the FCC is demanding acces to the local loop for competitors.
If we break up Microsoft, I think that you will see increased innovation (real innovation not Microsoft's idea of "innovation") and a virtual explosion of computer products.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
MS may make products you personally feel are rip-offs, but the entire reason they're so successful is that the vast majority of computer users *don't* feel that way. Otherwise, why would they buy the software licenses at all?
The equating of business success and quality products is specious. There are several reasons that Microsoft product dominate several categories and the reason "Because consumers like the products" is not among them except, perhaps, in the case of browsers where Microsoft buried their only viable competitor so that they could not afford to keep up with browser development.
Reasons such as bundling, illegal coersion of vendors selling multiple operating systems to sell only Microsoft, price fixind and pure, unadulterated FUD are the reasons that these products dominate, not that consumers all love them.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I really wish software companies would worry more about stability and less about cool new features.
Yeah! Features like conformity with W3C standards. Who needs em?!?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Investment theory says that the inherent worth of any business proposition is the present value of cash flows discounted at an interest rate appropriate to the risk of the business.
If you take in as much as you spend, over the long run, the site is worthless even though you may have sunk millions of dollars into developing and promoting it. Some ventures are worth more if they are ended and the assets sold for their scrap value.
You may be able to get more or less than this inherent value depending on how the market for web sites is. If someone needs an established website quickly, they may be willing to pay a premium because they can't wait to have it developed.
Any business plan venture needs to show pro forma income statements on a likely outcome basis to be taken seriously by any serious investor. What is the likely revenue? What are the likely expenses? What are the characteristics of the risk (i.e. ad values drop to nil) and how are you adjusting the US Treasury rate (a risk free rate) to represent the risk of the investment. The potential acquirer may very well take your pro formas, replace your risk-adjusted rate with their own hurdle rate (the return they desire on investment) and calculate their own value to decide if the proposition is more or less valuable to them than it is to you.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Now, I think that it is the key issue. As a user of GPLed software, I want to be able to rely on the promise that the right to use and redistribute it will not be revoked at a future date. But if the GPL is not a contract because of lack of consideration, I can't enforce that promise in court.
Consideration can take any number of forms. The lawyer's contingency fee is consideration as is the promise of an insurer to pay benefits if an insured event occurs. The presence of a contingency dosn't make the promise devoid of value even if the chance of it being fufilled is remote. The alien example was concocted because I wanted some kind of promise which could plausably be given. The remoteness of the event is not the issue.
The question still remains what form does the consideration for the author of GPLed software take. Good feelings are probably too intangible to count. I think that the old BSD Advertising clause probably would count as consideration as would the requirement in some licenses that modifications be sent back to the author. But I'm failing to find consideration in the GPL.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
According to this, maybe the GPL is not a contract, but a gift. Does that make any difference? Aren't gifts protected by law too?
Some are. But the gift of a promise is not generally enforcable. If I freely promise to give you my car in 12 months in exchange for no consideration (i.e. a gift and not a contract), you can't take me to court to make me life up to the promise. Similarly, if I promise never to revoke a gift of free software and I later change my mind, you can't sue me to live up to my promise if that promise is a gift and not a contract.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected