They need a disclaimer that the employer (or university) doesn't own the code, not a copyright assignment. They want the latter mostly so they can initiate legal action for copyright infringement.
Wireless TCP/IP networks might be one of the last things left standing.
Also, TCP/IP networks with too many users will give slow service (until it gets so slow it breaks), whereas phones will completely block any calls above 100% load.
On the flip side, if you have a phone connection and the switches/lines aren't damaged and you aren't preempted (which GETS doesn't do, although it probably should *) you have a much more reliable connection than you would on a TCP/IP network.
*) If all circuits are busy, a GETS call won't get through until someone terminates one of their calls. Granted call terminations happen very often (whenever anyone on or through that switch hangs up) on a large switch - but it is still a delay.
And if the employee doesn't have the copyright any assignment of copyright that he or she makes is invalid.
On the other hand, if an employee gets a statement from the employer stating the employee owns his or her own work on the project, the copyright assignment is superflous.
I.e. if the employee can't prove it wasn't using company resources/time, but the company can't prove it was - does the company win the lawsuit and the employee lose? If so the USA has totally become fascist. Just like the Taliban.
Even in civil cases, the plaintiff usually needs a preponderance of the evidence. (*)
(*) Patents seem to be treated differently. If the challenge is against the validity of a patent in an infringement action - the defendant has the burden of proof (this may be due to the fact that the gov't itself grants the patent and that is prima facie evidence of its validity).
Any lawyers care to comment?
Of course, even outside of legal issues (which are expensive to fight and extremely expensive if you lose and are assessed monetary damages!) they can always fire and blacklist you.
And this is something we really SHOULD implement, and I am very pro-freedom, skeptical of government, etc.
But if a tornado, or epidemic or something really bad hit - I'd want something like this - it could save lives.
GETS is a good idea, the Internet equivalent is also.
Emergency communications SHOUD take priority over your Quake session or FTP of the latest kernel or whatever.
The purpose of this is for emergencies, not so they can make fast Internet a perk for gov't employees.
There is the chance the gov't packets could actually be slowed down - if the priority system uses enough resources - they'd just get slowed down less than the rest of us.:)
One should ALWAYS be blocking packets that are coming on the wrong interface.
Failing to do so if you are an ISP is quite possibly negligent, and is certainly not being a good net.citizen.
If a packet whose IP belongs to one interface comes in via another - something bad is happening, and it is extremely likely to be spoofing.
Preventing that can prevent many types of attacks and make attacks much easier to trace (since the IP addresses will have to be appropriate for EVERY interface it passes through).
The idea of a quota of high priority packets per unit time is good. I'd set it for all my telnet connections and none of my FTPs, so FTP wouldn't make my telnet sessions lag (telnet is low bandwidth but wants low latency - FTP is high bandwidth but can deal with high latency).
If the ISPs are going to be given the responsibilities of common carriers then they need to be given the rights of common carriers (such as protection from lawsuits, etc) too.
The war on spam is necessary. My Earthlink email account was overrun by spam before I gave out or used my email address anywhere. Only my ISP (Earthlink) knew it.
How'd that happen? I have my suspicions...
Anyway, not only stopping spam, but DoS attacks, evil "hackers", etc has led to implementation of firewalls, router blackhole lists and the like.
Well the US could always use smart bombs and extraterritorial arrests (like Noriega).
Also, we could have anyone involved in those sites subject to immediate arrest if they visit the US or any country with which we have an extradition treaty.
If the US wants a site down badly enough, it will find a way.
I am not saying it is right or wrong (I'll let someone else get in that flamewar), just that it is possible.
CD's are not in contact with the read head or anywhere close. They use lasers, not magnetic fields so they can be a safe distance away from the CD surface.
One CD player I had to you see the read assembly (including lens) was recessed, so it would be even harder for anything to crash into it.
Do you REALLY think the average American could be made to understand just how bad the DMCA and SSSCA are?
Or would they just say, "Jack Valenti says only criminals/hackers are upset about it - so it must be good"?
The system is broke, I admit that. Why was it able to break? Because the people are stupid. If the people had a clue, we wouldn't BE where we are now.
Re:My letter-to-the-editor to Salon.
on
Chained Melodies
·
· Score: 2
How about:
3) The protection system can not prevent ANY fair use - or else circumvention is legal.
One could say it is impossible for a program to know what is legal fair use.
True.
That is a good argument for why we shouldn't give computer programs legal powers (as the DMCA does in regard to "protection" [restriction] devices) since they can't deal with the subtleties of what is legal and what isn't.
Giving a computer program the legal right to decide what is illegal is an improper and harmful (and likely unconstitutional) delegation of power from the courts and legislatures. The courts will just enforce the "decisions" of the code - see the DeCSS case - fair use wasn't allowed as a defense - the mere fact DeCSS did what the CSS code tried to forbid made it "illegal" (at least in Judge Kaplan's eyes)
Why they just don't try to get elected based on doing what their constituents want I do not know.
It is because the average constituent is way too stupid to vote based on the issues, instead constituents to a great extent vote for those who are familiar to them. Ads buy familiarity. Those that aren't influenced by the ads are often hardcore Republicans or Democrats, who also don't really vote based on the issues. And what makes people hardcore Republicans or Democrats? Well, to a great extent the parties themselves - which get money from contributions.
Proof the people are stupid: Notice how commercials (in general) appear to be targetted at people with an IQ barely above that of a rock? Gimmicks, singing and dancing, and often no mention of anything about the product except its name (jeans ads are really bad).
Now consider, these ads are designed to make money, and hence need to be effective.
Ads are targetted to stupid people because that is the most economically advantageous way to do it.
Because the people are stupid.
Until the people get a clue, the system will be as bad as it is now.
Slashdot Mirror
They need a disclaimer that the employer (or university) doesn't own the code, not a copyright assignment. They want the latter mostly so they can initiate legal action for copyright infringement.
How about mirroring on Sourceforge?
Umm he got convicted of a felony!
Much, much, much worse.
You use whatever is handy (and working).
Wireless TCP/IP networks might be one of the last things left standing.
Also, TCP/IP networks with too many users will give slow service (until it gets so slow it breaks), whereas phones will completely block any calls above 100% load.
On the flip side, if you have a phone connection and the switches/lines aren't damaged and you aren't preempted (which GETS doesn't do, although it probably should *) you have a much more reliable connection than you would on a TCP/IP network.
*) If all circuits are busy, a GETS call won't get through until someone terminates one of their calls. Granted call terminations happen very often (whenever anyone on or through that switch hangs up) on a large switch - but it is still a delay.
Umm they can subpoena the IP logs from Slashdot and your ISP and get you that way.
No one is untouchable, except maybe the NSA and Bill Gates.
Doesn't the creditor have to ask for it during the bankruptcy? They may overlook them or not realize they even exist. What happens then?
If none of the creditors stake a claim to an asset, what do the courts do with it?
And if the employee doesn't have the copyright any assignment of copyright that he or she makes is invalid.
On the other hand, if an employee gets a statement from the employer stating the employee owns his or her own work on the project, the copyright assignment is superflous.
Ask a lawyer for legal advice.
And demanding that you never give any recipies to anyone else or cook for anyone else either.
Doesn't the plaintiff have to prove their case?
I.e. if the employee can't prove it wasn't using company resources/time, but the company can't prove it was - does the company win the lawsuit and the employee lose? If so the USA has totally become fascist. Just like the Taliban.
Even in civil cases, the plaintiff usually needs a preponderance of the evidence. (*)
(*) Patents seem to be treated differently. If the challenge is against the validity of a patent in an infringement action - the defendant has the burden of proof (this may be due to the fact that the gov't itself grants the patent and that is prima facie evidence of its validity).
Any lawyers care to comment?
Of course, even outside of legal issues (which are expensive to fight and extremely expensive if you lose and are assessed monetary damages!) they can always fire and blacklist you.
And this is something we really SHOULD implement, and I am very pro-freedom, skeptical of government, etc.
:)
But if a tornado, or epidemic or something really bad hit - I'd want something like this - it could save lives.
GETS is a good idea, the Internet equivalent is also.
Emergency communications SHOUD take priority over your Quake session or FTP of the latest kernel or whatever.
The purpose of this is for emergencies, not so they can make fast Internet a perk for gov't employees.
There is the chance the gov't packets could actually be slowed down - if the priority system uses enough resources - they'd just get slowed down less than the rest of us.
Of course, that would be bad.
One should ALWAYS be blocking packets that are coming on the wrong interface.
Failing to do so if you are an ISP is quite possibly negligent, and is certainly not being a good net.citizen.
If a packet whose IP belongs to one interface comes in via another - something bad is happening, and it is extremely likely to be spoofing.
Preventing that can prevent many types of attacks and make attacks much easier to trace (since the IP addresses will have to be appropriate for EVERY interface it passes through).
The idea of a quota of high priority packets per unit time is good. I'd set it for all my telnet connections and none of my FTPs, so FTP wouldn't make my telnet sessions lag (telnet is low bandwidth but wants low latency - FTP is high bandwidth but can deal with high latency).
How about a Trojan. That fits.
Also, is there any could we use the DMCA against this? Perhaps by saying they are getting access to data copyrighted by us?
The DMCA is an evil law - but perhaps it could be used for good.
Whatever happened to "social responsibility"?
If the ISPs are going to be given the responsibilities of common carriers then they need to be given the rights of common carriers (such as protection from lawsuits, etc) too.
That's only fair.
The war on spam is necessary. My Earthlink email account was overrun by spam before I gave out or used my email address anywhere. Only my ISP (Earthlink) knew it.
How'd that happen? I have my suspicions...
Anyway, not only stopping spam, but DoS attacks, evil "hackers", etc has led to implementation of firewalls, router blackhole lists and the like.
The war on spam is not 100% responsible.
Well the US could always use smart bombs and extraterritorial arrests (like Noriega).
Also, we could have anyone involved in those sites subject to immediate arrest if they visit the US or any country with which we have an extradition treaty.
If the US wants a site down badly enough, it will find a way.
I am not saying it is right or wrong (I'll let someone else get in that flamewar), just that it is possible.
Once AOL/Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, and all the other ISPs get bought by Microsoft, the gov't will only have to get filters installed at one place.
"One" is much simpler than "a few thousand".
I'd be surprised if the average legislator even knows what a web proxy is.
CD's are not in contact with the read head or anywhere close. They use lasers, not magnetic fields so they can be a safe distance away from the CD surface.
One CD player I had to you see the read assembly (including lens) was recessed, so it would be even harder for anything to crash into it.
Yeah, but Windows XP boxes should run pretty cool - the CPU isn't doing much after the system blue screens. :)
That's actually scary. Anything burn up?
I wish I could get a power supply with a fan monitoring lead - my motherboard and OS (linux) both support it - but only my CPU fan has the capability.
What if it's a server?
Do you REALLY think the average American could be made to understand just how bad the DMCA and SSSCA are?
Or would they just say, "Jack Valenti says only criminals/hackers are upset about it - so it must be good"?
The system is broke, I admit that. Why was it able to break? Because the people are stupid. If the people had a clue, we wouldn't BE where we are now.
How about:
3) The protection system can not prevent ANY fair use - or else circumvention is legal.
One could say it is impossible for a program to know what is legal fair use.
True.
That is a good argument for why we shouldn't give computer programs legal powers (as the DMCA does in regard to "protection" [restriction] devices) since they can't deal with the subtleties of what is legal and what isn't.
Giving a computer program the legal right to decide what is illegal is an improper and harmful (and likely unconstitutional) delegation of power from the courts and legislatures. The courts will just enforce the "decisions" of the code - see the DeCSS case - fair use wasn't allowed as a defense - the mere fact DeCSS did what the CSS code tried to forbid made it "illegal" (at least in Judge Kaplan's eyes)
Why they just don't try to get elected based on doing what their constituents want I do not know.
It is because the average constituent is way too stupid to vote based on the issues, instead constituents to a great extent vote for those who are familiar to them. Ads buy familiarity. Those that aren't influenced by the ads are often hardcore Republicans or Democrats, who also don't really vote based on the issues. And what makes people hardcore Republicans or Democrats? Well, to a great extent the parties themselves - which get money from contributions.
Proof the people are stupid: Notice how commercials (in general) appear to be targetted at people with an IQ barely above that of a rock? Gimmicks, singing and dancing, and often no mention of anything about the product except its name (jeans ads are really bad).
Now consider, these ads are designed to make money, and hence need to be effective.
Ads are targetted to stupid people because that is the most economically advantageous way to do it.
Because the people are stupid.
Until the people get a clue, the system will be as bad as it is now.