Sure, they can enforce it. They may not want to spend time and money chasing down Swedish kids who casually share files, but this law would give Swedish authorities clear grounds to prosecute commercial-scale operations.
In the U.S.,if you create it, it's copyrighted. So, assume that whatever you're downloading is copyrighted. The key factor is not the copyright, but the copyright owner's permission to download.
The purpose of law is not to eliminate crime, but to regulate society, which includes removing from society people whose action society deems criminal. The analogy about prohibition in the U.S. is pointless.
If you already own the mp3, why would you want to download it?
Oh, I see...you think that buying a CD means you own every other digitized instance of the music on that CD. Sorry. You own the CD and the bits that are on it. You don't own the music.
I suspect you won't agree, so think about this: If you buy a book, does that give you rights to "download" the same book from any bookstore you happen to walk into? Of course not. Music and CD's differ only in the delivery mechanism.
As for poor Bob, I imagine the law and the courts would take his forgetfulness into account, in the same way that you aren't likely to be prosecuted for crawling through a basement window of your house because you forgot your keys.
I think you need to have enough technical savvy to know what a kernel is and is not, what source code is and how it is different from the programs that run on PC's, but that's about all. These things can, and will, be explained ad nauseum by lawyers for both sides if/when this thing gets into court.
The question at issue -- Is there proprietary Unix code in Linux? -- could be answered by completely non-technical people who carefully review the evidence SCO (presumably) produces in court. If non-trivial portions of code from SCO and Linux are absolutely identical, that seems to me to wrap it up. If portions are not identical, but differ only in choice of variable names, style, and the like, then it will depend on IBM's ability to convince the court that it's a coincidence.
I agree, and hope, that developers would raise a flag about potential proprietary code, but what SCO has now done is cast Linus as someone who doesn't care enough about the issue to institutue a formal review process. Suppose Linus is called to give evidence and is asked to describe the procedures he has put in place to ensure no migration of Unix code into Linux takes place. I think SCO is counting on an answer that says no process is in place, other than trusting the good intentions of Linux developers.
Not quite. SCO does seem intent on dancing on the thin edge, but their strategy appears to be placing Linux and IBM on the defensive, i.e., making the Linux community prove it didn't steal code. In this instance, SCO is positioning itself to assert that someone could easily slip proprietary code into Linux because no one is checking to make sure they don't. To bolster that assertion, they can produce Linus' statement counseling contributors to avoid reviewing patents. Can the Linux community show a court anything to the contrary?
Knowledge of the technical issues isn't required of the court. Knowledge of patent law is required. If SCO does, in fact, show a court proprietary code copied into Linux, IBM and the Linux community will need good lawyers, not more assertions that the openness of their development process keeps people honest.
It only takes one dishonest developer to make SCO right.
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
Well, I think it's more than just Apple exercising "due diligence" per law. Their interest in signing that contrat, we have to assume, is to increase their revenue. You may disagree with Apple's approach to maximizing revenue, but, in the end, it's their call.
I'm not sure, either, that Apple has intentionally created an "artificial hardware shortage". They've protected their brand and their right to be the sole source of their products (you don't expect Pepsi to sell you Coke?). Yes, that does focus demand, which means Apple hardware sells at higher prices than generic PC hardware. But the demand would dwindle if people didn't want to buy Apples.
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
What's unethical about Apple enforcing a contract that another party entered into deliberately and, presumably, with legal counsel?
I don't understand where so many people here get off thinking the moral thing for Apple to do is to ignore contract violations, reduce their own sales, and produce financial damage for Apple stockholders.
Remind me to never sign a contract with a good portion of the Slashdot crowd. They seem to think that it's moral to change your mind about what you signed when a chance to make some money comes along.
So, I guess that means you're OK with me writing lies about you and posting them to a weblog and any other Internet site I can access? And that you'd be OK with a system that prohibited you from taking any legal action against me, even if those lies got you fired, effectively keep you from being working in your profession, and cost you your house?
Your point that no one is forced to read something is irrelevant. The point is knowingly publishing lies about someone is illegal. You seem to want to give Internet publishers free rein to avoid responsibility for publishing libel and slander.
When you've finished stomping your feet, maybe you might explain how and why the Internet is so "different".
Meanwhile, consider this: If I knowingly publish a lie about you in my newspaper, you have recourse to the courts to collect damages and compel me to retract the lie. If I publish the same lie in a media outlet that happens to be a web site, why should you not have recourse to the same rights and legal protections?
By the same token, if a country already has laws about the right to reply, why should people not enjoy the protection of those laws simply because the medium in question is the Internet?
The Internet isn't all that new, but even if it was created yesterday it's newness wouldn't absolve the people using it of responsibility for their words.
If you don't want to be held accountable for your words, don't put them on the Internet for everyone to read. When you put your words on an Internet site, that's publishing. If you want it to be private communications, send an email.
And, by the way, Slashdot is nothing special. Just a few people picking news items written by other people, posting them somewhere, and inviting comment. It's an old idea and it predates the Internet.
Again, the technology is not relevant. It's the words that count.
If you operate a newspaper, own your own printing and distributing operation, and pay the salaries of all your employees, I have every right to reply to remarks about me printed in your newspaper and you have an obligation to publish them. The same applies if you are printing a one-page mimeographed handout in your parent's basment. Ditto for radio and television. In all instances you bear the responsibilities that go along with operating a public media outlet.
I can think of no reason why an Internet publication should expect to be treated in a different manner. It is not a matter of whether or not a particular media outlet can bear the cost of running a reply. If an outlet, no matter how big or how small, can afford to publish remarks about someone, they can certainly afford to publish that person's reply. So, yes, I would expect you to bear the costs of publishing my response. That is part of the responsibility you assumed when you began to publish. (And consider, publishing my reply is very likely to be much, much less costly than responding to any lawsuit I might file.)
The key notion is that the technology used to publish is not relevant to this issue. An Internet resource that is available to the public -- such as Slashdot and all the posts on it -- is as much a public medium as any other, and should be expected to adhere to the same legalities.
Media is media. This won't have a "chilling effect" on Internet communications because any publically available Internet publication is not private communication, but a public medium. If a nation enforces right to reply in regard to media such as newspapers, radio and television, why should it not also enforce right to reply in other media?
Internet publications should not draw a pass simply because they use a different technology. Nor should weblogs, mailing lists, etc., expect an exemption because they are "personal" or often operated by only one person.
If you want what you say to be considered private communications, you wouldn't print it in a newspaper or broadcast it on radio or TV. Likewise, if you want what you write to be seen as private communications, don't put it on the Internet.
And just assume that there's a "Play Me Loudly" label on the Mahavishnu CD. Great stuff: electronic keyboards, dual-necked guitar, bass and violin. The guitarist is John McLaughlin, who's been cranking out good electric and accoustic stuff for years.
Nice. You'd think if someone was going to hype his own review to/. he'd at least manage to use an email address that didn't identify him as the review's author.
>>....this is one of the worst and least informative reviews of anything I have read...
Just wait....Reviews are getting progressively worse around here.
Readers deserve reviewers who are literate, who place their review in context (is the reviewer an adolescent gamer or a corporate exec?) and actually demonstrate enough competence to warrant our time and attention.
People and cultures who can be corrupted by fictional screenplays are people and cultures who lack faith in themselves. If they didn't think the world depicted on screen was superior to theirs, they wouldn't try to emulate it.
That said, as an American who has lived on 4 continents, it is clear to me that many, many people believe that the TV we export accurately and honestly portrays ordinary life in the U.S. That's a very sad state of affairs. (It's analagous to Americans believing the UK is just like what we see on those Brit imports PBS runs.)
My argument is simply that solar sails have not been proven an effective way to move humans and cargo across interplanetary distances. Rockets have proven that they can do that. Today's chemical-powered rockets lack the velocity to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. They also lack the ability to generate significant thrust for the duration of a mission. By using nuclear resources to generate propulsion, we are addressing both those issues. Solar sails will require months, perhaps years, to get up to speed, and we really have no clue if they'll work at all in the outer Solar System.
Solar sails have a nice romantic feel, and it is easy just to say "use the most appropriate technology" without asking what "appropriate for what?", but I doubt they will be used for serious space transportation anymore than sailing ships are used for serious sea-going transportation here on Earth. We moved on as soon as we had better propulsion technology.
>>...could be hard to get permision to actually launch the vehicle.Couldn't they look more into the use of solar sails rather than possibly polluting space?
Space (i.e., all that exists) is full of radiation. That's how the stars work. Some of the radiation happens to kills humans, some of it happens to keep us warm. The universe doesn't care one way or the other.
Altough a private venture says they will launch a very small sail into orbit this year, they remain untested. We have no hard proof that sails would be an effective way to travel in space. (It's worth noting that no one on Earth is using big kites as a mode of transportation.)
What if your car blows up? What if an airplane falls out of the sky above your house? What if a train goes off the track and kills you while your walking alongside?
The world is full of risk. The only way to avoid risk is to not be alive. Since we are alive, our role is to explore and learn and manage, not retreat to the cave in shame at our presence on the otherwise "pristine" earth.
Slashdot Mirror
>> (1) People/companies who are afraid that others might steal their copyrighted materials should just not put them up on the net.
And what about all those happy people ripping and "sharing" CD's with a world of complete strangers?
I think you're not seeing something...
Sure, they can enforce it. They may not want to spend time and money chasing down Swedish kids who casually share files, but this law would give Swedish authorities clear grounds to prosecute commercial-scale operations.
In the U.S.,if you create it, it's copyrighted. So, assume that whatever you're downloading is copyrighted. The key factor is not the copyright, but the copyright owner's permission to download.
The purpose of law is not to eliminate crime, but to regulate society, which includes removing from society people whose action society deems criminal. The analogy about prohibition in the U.S. is pointless.
If you already own the mp3, why would you want to download it?
Oh, I see...you think that buying a CD means you own every other digitized instance of the music on that CD. Sorry. You own the CD and the bits that are on it. You don't own the music.
I suspect you won't agree, so think about this: If you buy a book, does that give you rights to "download" the same book from any bookstore you happen to walk into? Of course not. Music and CD's differ only in the delivery mechanism.
As for poor Bob, I imagine the law and the courts would take his forgetfulness into account, in the same way that you aren't likely to be prosecuted for crawling through a basement window of your house because you forgot your keys.
No, not at all, and I shold have said as much. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the same chunks of venerable BSD code in both SCO and Linux.
If that's the case, I'm sure IBM will point it out, if/when they need to.
I think you need to have enough technical savvy to know what a kernel is and is not, what source code is and how it is different from the programs that run on PC's, but that's about all. These things can, and will, be explained ad nauseum by lawyers for both sides if/when this thing gets into court.
The question at issue -- Is there proprietary Unix code in Linux? -- could be answered by completely non-technical people who carefully review the evidence SCO (presumably) produces in court. If non-trivial portions of code from SCO and Linux are absolutely identical, that seems to me to wrap it up. If portions are not identical, but differ only in choice of variable names, style, and the like, then it will depend on IBM's ability to convince the court that it's a coincidence.
I agree, and hope, that developers would raise a flag about potential proprietary code, but what SCO has now done is cast Linus as someone who doesn't care enough about the issue to institutue a formal review process. Suppose Linus is called to give evidence and is asked to describe the procedures he has put in place to ensure no migration of Unix code into Linux takes place. I think SCO is counting on an answer that says no process is in place, other than trusting the good intentions of Linux developers.
Not quite. SCO does seem intent on dancing on the thin edge, but their strategy appears to be placing Linux and IBM on the defensive, i.e., making the Linux community prove it didn't steal code. In this instance, SCO is positioning itself to assert that someone could easily slip proprietary code into Linux because no one is checking to make sure they don't. To bolster that assertion, they can produce Linus' statement counseling contributors to avoid reviewing patents. Can the Linux community show a court anything to the contrary?
Knowledge of the technical issues isn't required of the court. Knowledge of patent law is required. If SCO does, in fact, show a court proprietary code copied into Linux, IBM and the Linux community will need good lawyers, not more assertions that the openness of their development process keeps people honest.
It only takes one dishonest developer to make SCO right.
Well, I think it's more than just Apple exercising "due diligence" per law. Their interest in signing that contrat, we have to assume, is to increase their revenue. You may disagree with Apple's approach to maximizing revenue, but, in the end, it's their call.
I'm not sure, either, that Apple has intentionally created an "artificial hardware shortage". They've protected their brand and their right to be the sole source of their products (you don't expect Pepsi to sell you Coke?). Yes, that does focus demand, which means Apple hardware sells at higher prices than generic PC hardware. But the demand would dwindle if people didn't want to buy Apples.
What's unethical about Apple enforcing a contract that another party entered into deliberately and, presumably, with legal counsel?
I don't understand where so many people here get off thinking the moral thing for Apple to do is to ignore contract violations, reduce their own sales, and produce financial damage for Apple stockholders.
Remind me to never sign a contract with a good portion of the Slashdot crowd. They seem to think that it's moral to change your mind about what you signed when a chance to make some money comes along.
Nice litany of insults. Have you noticed, yet, that poeple ignore what you say?
So, I guess that means you're OK with me writing lies about you and posting them to a weblog and any other Internet site I can access? And that you'd be OK with a system that prohibited you from taking any legal action against me, even if those lies got you fired, effectively keep you from being working in your profession, and cost you your house?
Your point that no one is forced to read something is irrelevant. The point is knowingly publishing lies about someone is illegal. You seem to want to give Internet publishers free rein to avoid responsibility for publishing libel and slander.
When you've finished stomping your feet, maybe you might explain how and why the Internet is so "different".
Meanwhile, consider this: If I knowingly publish a lie about you in my newspaper, you have recourse to the courts to collect damages and compel me to retract the lie. If I publish the same lie in a media outlet that happens to be a web site, why should you not have recourse to the same rights and legal protections?
By the same token, if a country already has laws about the right to reply, why should people not enjoy the protection of those laws simply because the medium in question is the Internet?
The Internet isn't all that new, but even if it was created yesterday it's newness wouldn't absolve the people using it of responsibility for their words.
If you don't want to be held accountable for your words, don't put them on the Internet for everyone to read. When you put your words on an Internet site, that's publishing. If you want it to be private communications, send an email.
And, by the way, Slashdot is nothing special. Just a few people picking news items written by other people, posting them somewhere, and inviting comment. It's an old idea and it predates the Internet.
Again, the technology is not relevant. It's the words that count.
If you operate a newspaper, own your own printing and distributing operation, and pay the salaries of all your employees, I have every right to reply to remarks about me printed in your newspaper and you have an obligation to publish them. The same applies if you are printing a one-page mimeographed handout in your parent's basment. Ditto for radio and television. In all instances you bear the responsibilities that go along with operating a public media outlet.
I can think of no reason why an Internet publication should expect to be treated in a different manner. It is not a matter of whether or not a particular media outlet can bear the cost of running a reply. If an outlet, no matter how big or how small, can afford to publish remarks about someone, they can certainly afford to publish that person's reply. So, yes, I would expect you to bear the costs of publishing my response. That is part of the responsibility you assumed when you began to publish. (And consider, publishing my reply is very likely to be much, much less costly than responding to any lawsuit I might file.)
The key notion is that the technology used to publish is not relevant to this issue. An Internet resource that is available to the public -- such as Slashdot and all the posts on it -- is as much a public medium as any other, and should be expected to adhere to the same legalities.
Media is media. This won't have a "chilling effect" on Internet communications because any publically available Internet publication is not private communication, but a public medium. If a nation enforces right to reply in regard to media such as newspapers, radio and television, why should it not also enforce right to reply in other media?
Internet publications should not draw a pass simply because they use a different technology. Nor should weblogs, mailing lists, etc., expect an exemption because they are "personal" or often operated by only one person.
If you want what you say to be considered private communications, you wouldn't print it in a newspaper or broadcast it on radio or TV. Likewise, if you want what you write to be seen as private communications, don't put it on the Internet.
Along the same lines, AskSam is a Windows product that's been around for years. Not cheap, but has a good rep.
And just assume that there's a "Play Me Loudly" label on the Mahavishnu CD. Great stuff: electronic keyboards, dual-necked guitar, bass and violin. The guitarist is John McLaughlin, who's been cranking out good electric and accoustic stuff for years.
Nice. You'd think if someone was going to hype his own review to /. he'd at least manage to use an email address that didn't identify him as the review's author.
>> ....this is one of the worst and least informative reviews of anything I have read...
Just wait....Reviews are getting progressively worse around here.
Readers deserve reviewers who are literate, who place their review in context (is the reviewer an adolescent gamer or a corporate exec?) and actually demonstrate enough competence to warrant our time and attention.
People and cultures who can be corrupted by fictional screenplays are people and cultures who lack faith in themselves. If they didn't think the world depicted on screen was superior to theirs, they wouldn't try to emulate it.
That said, as an American who has lived on 4 continents, it is clear to me that many, many people believe that the TV we export accurately and honestly portrays ordinary life in the U.S. That's a very sad state of affairs. (It's analagous to Americans believing the UK is just like what we see on those Brit imports PBS runs.)
There's a really good reason for this "anonymous reader" to stay anonymous.
My argument is simply that solar sails have not been proven an effective way to move humans and cargo across interplanetary distances. Rockets have proven that they can do that. Today's chemical-powered rockets lack the velocity to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. They also lack the ability to generate significant thrust for the duration of a mission. By using nuclear resources to generate propulsion, we are addressing both those issues. Solar sails will require months, perhaps years, to get up to speed, and we really have no clue if they'll work at all in the outer Solar System.
Solar sails have a nice romantic feel, and it is easy just to say "use the most appropriate technology" without asking what "appropriate for what?", but I doubt they will be used for serious space transportation anymore than sailing ships are used for serious sea-going transportation here on Earth. We moved on as soon as we had better propulsion technology.
>> ...could be hard to get permision to actually launch the vehicle.Couldn't they look more into the use of solar sails rather than possibly polluting space?
Space (i.e., all that exists) is full of radiation. That's how the stars work. Some of the radiation happens to kills humans, some of it happens to keep us warm. The universe doesn't care one way or the other.
Altough a private venture says they will launch a very small sail into orbit this year, they remain untested. We have no hard proof that sails would be an effective way to travel in space. (It's worth noting that no one on Earth is using big kites as a mode of transportation.)
Lots of spacecraft have been nuclear powered. This one will use nuclear energy to create propulsion. That's the new part.
What if your car blows up? What if an airplane falls out of the sky above your house? What if a train goes off the track and kills you while your walking alongside?
The world is full of risk. The only way to avoid risk is to not be alive. Since we are alive, our role is to explore and learn and manage, not retreat to the cave in shame at our presence on the otherwise "pristine" earth.