We have no responsibility for the behavior of our ancestors, only our own behavior.
Diplomacy will not always succeed because, one, we are an imperfect specis, and, two, many people and governments seek ends that cannot be achieved via diplomacy. If someone wishes yyou dead, or wants to occupy your house and your land, and acts on those desires by attacking, diplomacy will do you no good. Before the attack, diplomacy will typically be seen as a sign of weakness and will be manipulated accordingly.
The way to ensure greater peace in the world is to reduce the sovereignty of individual nations, convince individual people to abandon their atavistic feelings of nationalism and loyalty to mythic homelands, and give a democratically elected supranational body the legal and physical means to adjudicate disputes and enforce their resolution, by forcce of arms if needed.
Well, if you can't see the difference between the Soviets and the U.S., then you're beyond hope.
By the way, it was clearly impossible for any Soviet to live "as well" as I do in the States. No matter how much money they had. I'm free; they weren't.
I do not agree with or accept your interpreation of history, but, more importantly, I fail to see why our behavior today should be constrained because some people take exception to our behavior in the past. This is not an effort to make people like us.
So, you're telling me that no one had the right, today, to do what needs to be done because of something in their past? That their great-grandparents' behavior should have precluded American involvement in WW2?
I hear that alleged logic all the time. I simply do not understand it. We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors.
I hope I always see and recognize wrong whenever it exists. You, apparently, think no such thing exists, that the victims are to blame for havng enemies.
The Soviets were wrong. They should not have existed. They deserved to be destroyed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moral cripple.
Right. Those were Russians landing on Normandy and in Italy.
If not for the forces he needed in the West to counter the Allies, Hitler most likely would have taken Moscow. So much, then for the Soviet army. In other words, no American presence in the war, no Soviet presence. Hitler wins.
Now, go clear your mind, turn of your AM talk radio, and learn some history. Stop wasting both our time with his simplistic cant.
So? Are you actually claiming the moral equivalence of Nazism, Stalinism, and Western democracy? Are you seriously telling me that the Hitler's conquests, the Holecaust, Stalin's purges, the conquest of half of Europe, etc., etc., are fictional conquests perpetrated by the writers of history?
You show a lack of comprehension that qualifies you to bee a/. editor.
Look, hosting copyrighted files on the web for the purpose of allwoing them to be downloaded is a form of theft called copyright violation.
No one is talking about the absence of log entries to exonerate someone. it is not unreasonable to consider situations in which a corporation would be able to avoid prosecution or litigation by reference to what is, in fact, in their server logs. Arguing that such corporations should simply purge logs to aid and abet criminal activity is an act of blatant lunacy and moral bankruptcy.
I take it the word "Coward" in your byline has special meaning here, troll.
So, go do you own homework, you fatuous ass, and come back and tell the world about how the Americans killed millions of their own people on the whims of a psychopathic leader, how millions more were held in gulags, and how the Americans conquered half of Europe and annexed into their empire. Tell me how the people of Berlin tore down a wall built by Americans.
Is is a mark of how stupid some people deliberately allow themselves to become that you can makes such an absurd remark.
The Soviets were aggressive totalitarian conquerors with no respect for freedom or human rights. You are positing the disgusting hypothesis that there was no difference between the Soviets and the democratic West. A more credible comparison is between the Soviets and the Nazis, between Stalin and Hitler, both psychopaths who murdered millions of their own citizens.
The only thing that saved Europe from being fed into Nazi death camps was American blood. The only things that saved western Europe from being dragged into the gulag along with the east was American military might, the American nuclear umbrella, and American willingness to respond to an ayyack on Europe as an attack on the U.S. Without the American presence in Europe, Stalin would have marched to the Atlantic and across the Channel.
Perhaps you would have preferred the gulag. Grow up. Learn the difference between right and wrong. Acquire the guts to combat wrong, rather than prostitute yourself by cozying up to it.
I said the "I don't agree" argument is no defense in court. Regardless of what you might argue, that remains a fact.
What is God's name are "hoarders and speculators" of IP? No one is under any obligation to share any IP with anyone else. So, how can you be hoarding something or speculating with it when you have no obligation to do otherwise?
Dealing in conttaband takes at least two people, but it is still illegal. If something is illegal, it is irrelevant if the people engage in it consensually.
>> IP law is turning information into contraband that only certain people should be allowed to possess and share with others.
You have no right to any information I create unless I say so. Information does not want to be free. It is a commodity like any other.
When I make something, I own it and every benefit that may be derived from it. It is clearly impossible for you, or anyone else, to own something before I make it, i.e., before it exists. Because it is impossible for you to own something before I make it -- including the benefits to be derived from it -- the only way for you to acquire the original or any of its benefits -- including the right to make copies -- is from me. Beyond specious argument about gthe greater societal good, I've no seen a rational argument that explains how that ownership gets transferred without the owner's consent.
We had those enemies because rather a lot of people are power-hungry aggressors who believe people should be sacrificed for the benefit of the state.
Ready your history. And try figuring out the difference between right and wrong.
You're not one of those appeasement types who thinks the right way to get along with someone who wants to destroy you is to be ever so nice and accommodating?
So what? The law says copyright violation is illegal. Arguing in court that "not everybody" agrees is no defense. (Although it is common for posters here present some weird exception as if that nullifies the more general case.
>> The same can be said about IP squatters.
There's no similarity between sitting on a domain name and copyright violation. If you bought the domain name, you own it.
>> There are many reasons to protect "unauthorized" distributors. It's just another "prohibition", like drugs and alcohol.
I can think of no reason to protect copyright violators. You're assertion that banning illegal activity is just another "prohibition" doesn't make sense.
Here's the point: If I make something, you have not right to it unless I say so. You have no right to copy it, to borrow it, or to distribute it unless I say you do. If I sell the right to make and distribute copies to a single person, then that single person has those rights, not you or anyone else. This is fundamental common sense and logic. The law protects my exclusive ownership of what I make, but it does not establish it.
So, are you seriously claiming that because some pseudonymous person posts something hysterical on a rag liike/., prosecutors and litigation attornies are going to go after everyone with an exposed Windows directory?
Again, there is no comparison between exposed Windows directories and the deliberate hosting of copyrighted files on publicly accessible servers for the express purpose of encouraging and enabling them to be copied by anyone with net access. The former is unwitting use of a flaw in Windows. The latter is deliberate commission of an act of, at the least, questionable legality.
Wrong. If someone has reason to believe your servers are being used to illegally traffic files, the subpoena will arrive weeks or months beefore it goes to court.
It's got nothing to do with that. If you're sued -- it doesn't need to be about copyright -- and you need your logs to fight the suit, you're out of luck if they're gone.
That makes as much sense as a doctor routinely destroying his records because he's afraid a patient will sue for malpractice.
Yeah, I know that. But the weaknesses of Windows aren't much of a defense when you're hosting thousands of files on a Linux web server.
"I'm innocent because Windows has problems that other people don't understand"?? Right.
No one's anymore concerned about copyright violations caused by this kind of Windows visibility than they are about copyright violations caused by allowing your neighbors to see the books you own when they come over for dinner.
In all likelihood, you or your organization would be served with a subpoena blocking deletion or editing of evidence such as logs. The logs would be examined by someone working for the prosecutors.
No standard exists for purging paper transactions. If you send someone a letter, that letter is out of your control and might be retained for a few lifetimes.
Do you have any evidence that Google is the only business that's retaining this information?
Storage is cheap.
Ask your employer how long they retain your email. Ask you ISP how long they keep your email, etc. (I found out that mine -- a national provider -- keeps the accounts of ex-customers -- that's ex-customers -- active, retains their email and other files, for an indefinite period of time in case that customer wants to return (so they said).
Slashdot Mirror
We have no responsibility for the behavior of our ancestors, only our own behavior.
Diplomacy will not always succeed because, one, we are an imperfect specis, and, two, many people and governments seek ends that cannot be achieved via diplomacy. If someone wishes yyou dead, or wants to occupy your house and your land, and acts on those desires by attacking, diplomacy will do you no good. Before the attack, diplomacy will typically be seen as a sign of weakness and will be manipulated accordingly.
The way to ensure greater peace in the world is to reduce the sovereignty of individual nations, convince individual people to abandon their atavistic feelings of nationalism and loyalty to mythic homelands, and give a democratically elected supranational body the legal and physical means to adjudicate disputes and enforce their resolution, by forcce of arms if needed.
Well, if you can't see the difference between the Soviets and the U.S., then you're beyond hope.
By the way, it was clearly impossible for any Soviet to live "as well" as I do in the States. No matter how much money they had. I'm free; they weren't.
I do not agree with or accept your interpreation of history, but, more importantly, I fail to see why our behavior today should be constrained because some people take exception to our behavior in the past. This is not an effort to make people like us.
So, you're telling me that no one had the right, today, to do what needs to be done because of something in their past? That their great-grandparents' behavior should have precluded American involvement in WW2?
I hear that alleged logic all the time. I simply do not understand it. We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors.
I hope I always see and recognize wrong whenever it exists. You, apparently, think no such thing exists, that the victims are to blame for havng enemies.
The Soviets were wrong. They should not have existed. They deserved to be destroyed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moral cripple.
Sorry, was I talking about occupation?
Since you seem incapable of constructing a coherent sentence, it is no wonder your logic and poltical insight are so lame.
Right. Those were Russians landing on Normandy and in Italy.
If not for the forces he needed in the West to counter the Allies, Hitler most likely would have taken Moscow. So much, then for the Soviet army. In other words, no American presence in the war, no Soviet presence. Hitler wins.
Now, go clear your mind, turn of your AM talk radio, and learn some history. Stop wasting both our time with his simplistic cant.
Of course, there are always reasons. So what? Am I supposed to grieve the end of the Soviets because they had reasons?
You're confusing understanding with agreement and acceptance. There's an epidemic of it these days.
So? Are you actually claiming the moral equivalence of Nazism, Stalinism, and Western democracy? Are you seriously telling me that the Hitler's conquests, the Holecaust, Stalin's purges, the conquest of half of Europe, etc., etc., are fictional conquests perpetrated by the writers of history?
Disgusting,
You show a lack of comprehension that qualifies you to bee a /. editor.
Look, hosting copyrighted files on the web for the purpose of allwoing them to be downloaded is a form of theft called copyright violation.
No one is talking about the absence of log entries to exonerate someone. it is not unreasonable to consider situations in which a corporation would be able to avoid prosecution or litigation by reference to what is, in fact, in their server logs. Arguing that such corporations should simply purge logs to aid and abet criminal activity is an act of blatant lunacy and moral bankruptcy.
I take it the word "Coward" in your byline has special meaning here, troll.
So, go do you own homework, you fatuous ass, and come back and tell the world about how the Americans killed millions of their own people on the whims of a psychopathic leader, how millions more were held in gulags, and how the Americans conquered half of Europe and annexed into their empire. Tell me how the people of Berlin tore down a wall built by Americans.
moron. contemptible moron.
Is is a mark of how stupid some people deliberately allow themselves to become that you can makes such an absurd remark.
The Soviets were aggressive totalitarian conquerors with no respect for freedom or human rights. You are positing the disgusting hypothesis that there was no difference between the Soviets and the democratic West. A more credible comparison is between the Soviets and the Nazis, between Stalin and Hitler, both psychopaths who murdered millions of their own citizens.
The only thing that saved Europe from being fed into Nazi death camps was American blood. The only things that saved western Europe from being dragged into the gulag along with the east was American military might, the American nuclear umbrella, and American willingness to respond to an ayyack on Europe as an attack on the U.S. Without the American presence in Europe, Stalin would have marched to the Atlantic and across the Channel.
Perhaps you would have preferred the gulag. Grow up. Learn the difference between right and wrong. Acquire the guts to combat wrong, rather than prostitute yourself by cozying up to it.
More apples and oranges.
I said the "I don't agree" argument is no defense in court. Regardless of what you might argue, that remains a fact.
What is God's name are "hoarders and speculators" of IP? No one is under any obligation to share any IP with anyone else. So, how can you be hoarding something or speculating with it when you have no obligation to do otherwise?
Dealing in conttaband takes at least two people, but it is still illegal. If something is illegal, it is irrelevant if the people engage in it consensually.
>> IP law is turning information into contraband that only certain people should be allowed to possess and share with others.
You have no right to any information I create unless I say so. Information does not want to be free. It is a commodity like any other.
When I make something, I own it and every benefit that may be derived from it. It is clearly impossible for you, or anyone else, to own something before I make it, i.e., before it exists. Because it is impossible for you to own something before I make it -- including the benefits to be derived from it -- the only way for you to acquire the original or any of its benefits -- including the right to make copies -- is from me. Beyond specious argument about gthe greater societal good, I've no seen a rational argument that explains how that ownership gets transferred without the owner's consent.
We had those enemies because rather a lot of people are power-hungry aggressors who believe people should be sacrificed for the benefit of the state.
Ready your history. And try figuring out the difference between right and wrong.
You're not one of those appeasement types who thinks the right way to get along with someone who wants to destroy you is to be ever so nice and accommodating?
Except that the Dynasoar was about as big as a Volkswagen. No room for more than one pilot.
Being concerned because your enemies are aiming a few tens of thousand nukes at you is not paranoid.
>> Not everybody considers them to be theives.
So what? The law says copyright violation is illegal. Arguing in court that "not everybody" agrees is no defense. (Although it is common for posters here present some weird exception as if that nullifies the more general case.
>> The same can be said about IP squatters.
There's no similarity between sitting on a domain name and copyright violation. If you bought the domain name, you own it.
>> There are many reasons to protect "unauthorized" distributors. It's just another "prohibition", like drugs and alcohol.
I can think of no reason to protect copyright violators. You're assertion that banning illegal activity is just another "prohibition" doesn't make sense.
Here's the point: If I make something, you have not right to it unless I say so. You have no right to copy it, to borrow it, or to distribute it unless I say you do. If I sell the right to make and distribute copies to a single person, then that single person has those rights, not you or anyone else. This is fundamental common sense and logic. The law protects my exclusive ownership of what I make, but it does not establish it.
So, are you seriously claiming that because some pseudonymous person posts something hysterical on a rag liike /., prosecutors and litigation attornies are going to go after everyone with an exposed Windows directory?
Again, there is no comparison between exposed Windows directories and the deliberate hosting of copyrighted files on publicly accessible servers for the express purpose of encouraging and enabling them to be copied by anyone with net access. The former is unwitting use of a flaw in Windows. The latter is deliberate commission of an act of, at the least, questionable legality.
Wrong. If someone has reason to believe your servers are being used to illegally traffic files, the subpoena will arrive weeks or months beefore it goes to court.
Disobey the subpoena and go to jail.
Why bother with all that just to help thieves?
It's got nothing to do with that. If you're sued -- it doesn't need to be about copyright -- and you need your logs to fight the suit, you're out of luck if they're gone.
That makes as much sense as a doctor routinely destroying his records because he's afraid a patient will sue for malpractice.
Yeah, I know that. But the weaknesses of Windows aren't much of a defense when you're hosting thousands of files on a Linux web server.
"I'm innocent because Windows has problems that other people don't understand"?? Right.
No one's anymore concerned about copyright violations caused by this kind of Windows visibility than they are about copyright violations caused by allowing your neighbors to see the books you own when they come over for dinner.
In all likelihood, you or your organization would be served with a subpoena blocking deletion or editing of evidence such as logs. The logs would be examined by someone working for the prosecutors.
Putting a file in a publicly accessible directory on a publicly accessible server seems to be fairly simple to understand.
The flip side of purging logs is that you are unable to provide evidence that such-and-such activity did not occur on your servers.
In the end, the issue will be resolved via some sort of technology that prevents reading files not obtained from an authorized server.
No standard exists for purging paper transactions. If you send someone a letter, that letter is out of your control and might be retained for a few lifetimes.
Do you have any evidence that Google is the only business that's retaining this information?
Storage is cheap.
Ask your employer how long they retain your email. Ask you ISP how long they keep your email, etc. (I found out that mine -- a national provider -- keeps the accounts of ex-customers -- that's ex-customers -- active, retains their email and other files, for an indefinite period of time in case that customer wants to return (so they said).