Even the GPL doesn't let you avoid giving proper credit to authors. Free as in beer, anonymous linux would be an interesting distro. I bet it would be fast too, 'cause it wouldn't have the bloat of giving everything proper credit where credit is do. Smaller file size=Efficient. It would be hard to track down all the source authors to make sure that they didn't mind that they were going to be anoymous, and since it would be too hard, we just won't do it at all (to protect them from being harassed by the man like jon johansen [sorry if i cant spell names-- It would be much easier to refer to him anonymously: "the anon decss patriot."]) But THAT wouldn't be legal because source code is not the same thing as readible text -- except that we keep wanting it to be the same thing so that it is legally protected by copywrite not patent. Credit dows not equal money. And 'we did it to protect underage posters' (to protect the children-- that old familiar line) doesn't work for me
Ok, enough of my bellyaching. IMHO/. should never have said that the poster own's hir comments. period. ever./IMHO
1) most of the stuff here is about open source, GPL, free as in beer, free as in speech, etc. So why not have the tag line say that all comments are licensed under the GPL including anonymous comments (which are normally given credit as --anon)(what was that GPL equivalent for normal text?), Or add that the site constitutes a public forum, or include a choice when posting similar to 'post anonymously' called 'post public domain' (default on)
By/.'s definition of a public forum, I can grep the/. archives for troll, flame, anonymous, and jonkatz; format it a bit and sell it for profit. Just sounds a bit unethical, personally
The definition of a 'public forum' is that comments are not controlled and edited [460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983)]. I don't think moderation counts because the editing and control are done by the public, and not by the site's owner. The main posts are controlled and edited, and thus would have to be quoted.
Damn I spent too too too long as an English major, but if you quote, you have to give credit unless you are quoteing from a public forum. Everything else IS plagarism. You can use the tag name not a real name (not Sam Clemens), and you don't have to fill the book with anotations, just a list of contributors at the front or back.
And for the record, I hereby give permission to use anything I say for anything without naming me as long as you take it with a grain of salt.
And please change that line at the bottom to reflect that/. is a public forum for comments and not that the authors of comments retain their ownership. At best, it is misleading.
"Congress intended it to protect Net access providers like America Online, AT&T WorldNet and MCI Worldcom, definitely not companies like Napster." I love this quote. What is this guy saying, that because congress intentionally shield the ISPs from liability, other 'internet service providing' companies that just dont happen to be traditional ISPs are protected. (I'm laughing because it also implies, that if AOL wanted to distribute mp3s to it's subscribers, it could because it is a big media company not a little pirate napster warez thing. --gales of derisive laughter, bruce)
and remember, according to Vallenti, they would have made another 2.5 billion if DeCSS hadn't let so many people pirate so many DVDs: "According to the MPAA, the pirating of DVDs poses a "serious threat" and costs the organization $2.5 billion per year." -- http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35394,00 .html
For a policeman to kick in your door and search your house it takes a court order from a judge (a professional decider of who can search what)(I am not arguing that they are any good at this, but at least they are professionals).
It only takes a middle manager with a hair up their butt to have fluids drawn from your body to find out if you've been using drugs. Daily. And, remember that you had to agree to let them do this in order to get hired.
I should ad that the question was phrased: should eq be allowed to check players machines for cheat utilities yes/no.
you cannot choose to choose later on these questions
no definition of what they concider 'cheating'... apparently sniffing the ip packets is cheating? I mean come on, I didn't download the util, but I've been sniffing them throu my 'free-pc is now a debian workstation' box.
and I've been meaning to set up a dual boot on my main box and try running eq through wine or Freemware or vmware. I haven't heard anything from the game makers, but other players keep telling me that they'll boot you if they find out
apparently this would be cheating. like watching a dvd is 'pirating'?
but the question was so insidieous. It didn't promise aninomity or that they wouldn't track those that said no. It implies that they are protecting the players who aren't cheating from those that are by checking everyone.
and I just have to reitterate that the question did not define cheating or let you answer at another time.
(i ran into that with the last question, which in order to answer you had to go read up about it on the website, which if you did, the question wasn't there anymore)
If I was an evil MPAA techno-thug... mirror the code on a whole lot of servers (1% of $2.5 billion = 25 million @ $2000 per server = 12,500 mirrors). on each one they respond to requests from www.2600.com with the correct (or a couple of typos) code. to everyone else they don't respond very well, and can't seem to serve the pages damnit. and there is nothing 2600 can do about it, because it is my right to control access to my computers, and they cannot be responsible in anyway for my bad content.
excerpt from World Book 2700. MPAA: the first ones put to the wall when the internet revolution came. see also RIAA
The issue being decided was whether content providers who hold copyrights to material had the right to control the path consumers use to access that material by forcing them to...
isn't this exactly the same issue?
The issue being decided was whether the MPAA who hold copyrights to DVD movies had the right to control the path linux users use to access that material by forcing them to support the MSopoly
I think that it is a good thing to link to sites with kiddie porn. Really (not trolling here). Why?
1. kiddie porn sites are (and should be) illegal and all that.
2. keeping your website obscure so that the authorities don't find out about it allows the kiddie porn to propogate.
3. then someone points it out on/. with a deep link to the hidden files on a non-descript webserver.
4. slashdot effect on the site, and more importantly.
5. the gov will find out about it easier and can go after it.
addendum: not doing so would be somewhat akin to making all discussion of kiddie porn illegal and thereby as no one talks about it, it is allowed to propogate
art is protected by the first amendment because it is the expression of an idea and therefore is a means of communication. The old saying of a picture being worth a 1000 words implies that the same idea can be communicated in a variety of ways, and each way is protected.
wrapping a letter in an envelope provides the same security as wrapping a file in encryption-- encryption prevents unauthorized access as the post office tampering laws do (I know this is different, but they engender the same level of protection).
Ok now an example without a prior idea of how this thought will turn out: a picture is art. a photo of that picture contains much of the same information as the original piece (i am assuming public domain art, or art you are authorized to have, such as purchasing the artwork and then releasing the photos of it), but the photo is smaller maybe more consise and yet can still impart much the same information...
source code is art. compiled source code is legally in question...
your program, ran by the person you have communicated your art to, will perform your set of functions and create something that is rendered by your instructions that the end user can see and interact with.
*sheet music vs the performance
*source vs the program
*a book on how to write vs a written work (i think im reaching here)
I guess what I am getting at is the idea of what the first amendment is about: the right to communicate your ideas in such a manner that those who choose to can hear your communications. This fits the actuallity of when it is legal and not legal to yell fire in the theatre, so it works for me.
my point is, when does the source stop being protected if both the source and the final program can communicate to the end user information? The ruling seems to imply that the binary may not be protected.
It is legal to reverse engineer a book (it's called critism, and not the 'I didn't like it because sort of critism, but the 'according to jungian analysis this work represents the authors...") ie the subtle difference between critisizing and actually using tools (ex. deconstrutionist critism) to critisize. The same would hold true of 'cybersitter is blocking access to these sites 'cause i can't get there etc... and using a tool to find out what is blocked.
how does this ramble fit together? When does art end? Is an image of the mona lisa art? If it is not art, then does it violate a copywrite? What am I purchasing when I buy a music cd: a copywritted performance of a copywritten source on a distribution media. If the distributor says that I am not allowed to view the art that I purchased other than in a prescribed manner, they may not be obviously restricting the first amendment rights of the artists, but they are restricting the method of communication and the rights of the purchaser. Maybe the RIAA et al would prefer that the market move to a pay-per-view system like going to a museum and paying an entrance fee, but if they previously released other exact copies (unnumbered prints) and I purchase the print do I have the right to scan the print enlarge it by many order's of magnitide, use that to determine what tools the artist used to create it, and use that as a lesson on how to paint? Or to publish on the web my extreme closeups of brush strokes that an artist did, saying hey this is what I figured out, you can use this hack utility called mspaint.exe to do it yourself (ok, not paint, that would be just plain silly to even try)? What if i publish what color's of paint that Andy used on the cambells soup can so everyone can make their own?
If the painting is purchased inside a locked case and I am given the key to open the case (and am not told that the key will not work in Japan or Europe), am I legally required by the DMCA to not disable the lock and make the art more accessable. Am I legally only able to view my print through the special window in the locked case?
What if I just don't like using the key everytime I want to view the art? What if I just don't like waiting for the DVD splash screen etc and want to go directly to the movie? A book doesn't require me to wait till the copywrite page scrolls past on its own.
(case in point: a tiny bit of grime on my dvd caused the entire picture to scramble up blocks of the image like one of those old grid/slide the block puzzles. I put forth that if I had a version without the encryption, the grime ould have had a marginal barely noticeable effect-- that the encryption algorithim multiplies the error)
is it legal for a publisher to inhibit my access to the artwork becuase the artists signed away his soul to get published? If I pay the publisher's distribution fee (of which the artists gets a tiny cut per the contract) can I make a tape and play it? then go down to the park and play if for free to an audience?
It seems to me that the important factor of fair use is that if I make a profit from someone elses work, they should get a cut.
on a side note, that valencia guy said in the 2600 article that they must stop the spread of decss 'cause it affects a 2.5 billion dollar industry. In a free-market economy is it the role of government to step in and say that a better distribution method must be stopped because it hurts an entrenched industry that is refusing to update itself? I mean, if I managed to invent a food replicator, could the American Farmer Content Controll Association block its distrubition because it will put them all out of business (ala napster)?
The Ruling Only Limits Linux | grep for capitol letters=TROLL. I think he got you. That and my machine shows that he submitted the post from a Debian box.
ps. me too, of course I did even worse than buying TNT2 from nvidia, lol. I bought Diamond (ahck!). It's collecting dust and Im running an old 3d2000 + voodoo1 as it performs way way better. Next week, I'm buying a new card-- the GeForce looked very promising, but without dri / xfree4.0 support and a decent driver (not a lackluster,closed source one), I'm buying the Matrox g400. Ditto on compatability for everything I purchase for my office. ps. i emailed this to nvidia as an FYI subject and attached this slashdot discussion, as it reads sort of like an instant petition.:--) Kel H Webmaster State Controller's Office
Ok, so i read through the whole long rambleing judjement with ends finding that the original domain holder was acting in 'bad faith' and awarded the name to the plaintiff. Ignoring for the moment that the original domain holder had registered the name well prior to the plaintiff registering their service mark, I noticed that the whole process only involved contact from the original domain holder in two, early in the process, emails. In both emails the guy is quoted as stating that the registration is in error, and he's been trying to get his name off of it for over a year. I just started a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring new and novel uses for the slash and the dot keys on keyboards. I have my new service mark for 'slashdot' and have filed a petition to have 'slashdot.org' which appears to have been taken by a cyber-squatter, turned over to me. Precident says that Rob is acting in bad faith? Both of this guy's email requests specifically ask that they remove him from this domain, then they refuse, and move the whole thing through an moderation process to a judgement of 'bad faith,' against him. Why pages of legal mumbo jumbo instead of just fixing the error for the defendant, telling the plaintiff that there is no longer a problem, and go out for beers?
last year at the public library I found a reprint of a ~13th century map of viking trade routes which shows the middle east, greenland, and vinland down to about new york (they didn't sail to the middle east, they hiked across europe). Also note that Colombus was in norway studying something a few years prior to his expedition circa 1488. Also note that if you examine the routes of his four voyages, you will note that the only time he landed on the contenent was during the third voyage when he hit the Yucatan. And speaking of historical inaccuracies: the only war I can remember being fought over slavery was the battle of the alamo-- texas succeeded from mexico to compete with the south-- mexico had outlawed slavery. Lincoln didn't free only the northern slaves until the fourth year of the war despite his abolitionist leanings. The civil war was about the states right to succeed from the union, a right they gained when states agreed to ratify the constitution and abandon the underpowered articles of confederacy (after 8 years and 8 "presidents of the united states" starting with John Hanson). The holocaust didn't start in this century, remember the US Army sending blankets with smallpox to the native tribes. And if you dont believe we could do this, read the journals of some of the early 16th century spanish explorers. One pair traveled from mexico to florida and never saw a day where they didn't walk into a village. Under current law, George Washingto would be serving a maniditory minimum sentence for owning a hemp plantation. Although, he'd get grandfather rights, since it wasn't made illegal until prohibition. And always remember that history is written by the winners. No matter how horrific the Nazi Holocaust was, they did execute people for a crime (having the wrong religion). It is now illegal to do alot of things (DMCA vs DeCSS; victimless crimes; ). And until Custer is brought up post-humously for war crimes, history remains written by the winner. America is #1! (not for human rights-- we're way down on that list); we keep the highest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on the planet, and over half of them our in there for crime without a victim other than 'society in general'.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that you can have it both ways.
Even the GPL doesn't let you avoid giving proper credit to authors. Free as in beer, anonymous linux would be an interesting distro. I bet it would be fast too, 'cause it wouldn't have the bloat of giving everything proper credit where credit is do. Smaller file size=Efficient. It would be hard to track down all the source authors to make sure that they didn't mind that they were going to be anoymous, and since it would be too hard, we just won't do it at all (to protect them from being harassed by the man like jon johansen [sorry if i cant spell names-- It would be much easier to refer to him anonymously: "the anon decss patriot."]) But THAT wouldn't be legal because source code is not the same thing as readible text -- except that we keep wanting it to be the same thing so that it is legally protected by copywrite not patent. Credit dows not equal money. And 'we did it to protect underage posters' (to protect the children-- that old familiar line) doesn't work for me
Ok, enough of my bellyaching. IMHO /. should never have said that the poster own's hir comments. period. ever./IMHO
1) most of the stuff here is about open source, GPL, free as in beer, free as in speech, etc. So why not have the tag line say that all comments are licensed under the GPL including anonymous comments (which are normally given credit as --anon)(what was that GPL equivalent for normal text?), Or add that the site constitutes a public forum, or include a choice when posting similar to 'post anonymously' called 'post public domain' (default on)
By /.'s definition of a public forum, I can grep the /. archives for troll, flame, anonymous, and jonkatz; format it a bit and sell it for profit. Just sounds a bit unethical, personally
The definition of a 'public forum' is that comments are not controlled and edited [460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983)]. I don't think moderation counts because the editing and control are done by the public, and not by the site's owner. The main posts are controlled and edited, and thus would have to be quoted.
Damn I spent too too too long as an English major, but if you quote, you have to give credit unless you are quoteing from a public forum. Everything else IS plagarism. You can use the tag name not a real name (not Sam Clemens), and you don't have to fill the book with anotations, just a list of contributors at the front or back.
And for the record, I hereby give permission to use anything I say for anything without naming me as long as you take it with a grain of salt.
And please change that line at the bottom to reflect that /. is a public forum for comments and not that the authors of comments retain their ownership. At best, it is misleading.
Beowulf is also a character in "Grendel" by John Garner (Gardner-- sic), a modern retelling of the medieval epic poem of "Beowulf"
"Congress intended it to protect Net access providers like America Online, AT&T WorldNet and MCI Worldcom, definitely not companies like Napster." I love this quote. What is this guy saying, that because congress intentionally shield the ISPs from liability, other 'internet service providing' companies that just dont happen to be traditional ISPs are protected. (I'm laughing because it also implies, that if AOL wanted to distribute mp3s to it's subscribers, it could because it is a big media company not a little pirate napster warez thing. --gales of derisive laughter, bruce)
and remember, according to Vallenti, they would have made another 2.5 billion if DeCSS hadn't let so many people pirate so many DVDs: "According to the MPAA, the pirating of DVDs poses a "serious threat" and costs the organization $2.5 billion per year." -- http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35394,00 .html
It only takes a middle manager with a hair up their butt to have fluids drawn from your body to find out if you've been using drugs. Daily. And, remember that you had to agree to let them do this in order to get hired.
you cannot choose to choose later on these questions
no definition of what they concider 'cheating'... apparently sniffing the ip packets is cheating? I mean come on, I didn't download the util, but I've been sniffing them throu my 'free-pc is now a debian workstation' box.
and I've been meaning to set up a dual boot on my main box and try running eq through wine or Freemware or vmware. I haven't heard anything from the game makers, but other players keep telling me that they'll boot you if they find out
apparently this would be cheating. like watching a dvd is 'pirating'?
but the question was so insidieous. It didn't promise aninomity or that they wouldn't track those that said no. It implies that they are protecting the players who aren't cheating from those that are by checking everyone.
and I just have to reitterate that the question did not define cheating or let you answer at another time.
(i ran into that with the last question, which in order to answer you had to go read up about it on the website, which if you did, the question wasn't there anymore)
my2 cents
excerpt from World Book 2700. MPAA: the first ones put to the wall when the internet revolution came. see also RIAA
isn't this exactly the same issue?
The issue being decided was whether the MPAA who hold copyrights to DVD movies had the right to control the path linux users use to access that material by forcing them to support the MSopoly
1. kiddie porn sites are (and should be) illegal and all that.
2. keeping your website obscure so that the authorities don't find out about it allows the kiddie porn to propogate.
3. then someone points it out on /. with a deep link to the hidden files on a non-descript webserver.
4. slashdot effect on the site, and more importantly.
5. the gov will find out about it easier and can go after it.
addendum: not doing so would be somewhat akin to making all discussion of kiddie porn illegal and thereby as no one talks about it, it is allowed to propogate
just a thought
wrapping a letter in an envelope provides the same security as wrapping a file in encryption-- encryption prevents unauthorized access as the post office tampering laws do (I know this is different, but they engender the same level of protection).
Ok now an example without a prior idea of how this thought will turn out: a picture is art. a photo of that picture contains much of the same information as the original piece (i am assuming public domain art, or art you are authorized to have, such as purchasing the artwork and then releasing the photos of it), but the photo is smaller maybe more consise and yet can still impart much the same information...
source code is art. compiled source code is legally in question...
your program, ran by the person you have communicated your art to, will perform your set of functions and create something that is rendered by your instructions that the end user can see and interact with.
*sheet music vs the performance
*source vs the program
*a book on how to write vs a written work (i think im reaching here)
I guess what I am getting at is the idea of what the first amendment is about: the right to communicate your ideas in such a manner that those who choose to can hear your communications. This fits the actuallity of when it is legal and not legal to yell fire in the theatre, so it works for me.
my point is, when does the source stop being protected if both the source and the final program can communicate to the end user information? The ruling seems to imply that the binary may not be protected.
It is legal to reverse engineer a book (it's called critism, and not the 'I didn't like it because sort of critism, but the 'according to jungian analysis this work represents the authors...") ie the subtle difference between critisizing and actually using tools (ex. deconstrutionist critism) to critisize. The same would hold true of 'cybersitter is blocking access to these sites 'cause i can't get there etc... and using a tool to find out what is blocked.
how does this ramble fit together? When does art end? Is an image of the mona lisa art? If it is not art, then does it violate a copywrite?
What am I purchasing when I buy a music cd: a copywritted performance of a copywritten source on a distribution media. If the distributor says that I am not allowed to view the art that I purchased other than in a prescribed manner, they may not be obviously restricting the first amendment rights of the artists, but they are restricting the method of communication and the rights of the purchaser. Maybe the RIAA et al would prefer that the market move to a pay-per-view system like going to a museum and paying an entrance fee, but if they previously released other exact copies (unnumbered prints) and I purchase the print do I have the right to scan the print enlarge it by many order's of magnitide, use that to determine what tools the artist used to create it, and use that as a lesson on how to paint? Or to publish on the web my extreme closeups of brush strokes that an artist did, saying hey this is what I figured out, you can use this hack utility called mspaint.exe to do it yourself (ok, not paint, that would be just plain silly to even try)? What if i publish what color's of paint that Andy used on the cambells soup can so everyone can make their own?
If the painting is purchased inside a locked case and I am given the key to open the case (and am not told that the key will not work in Japan or Europe), am I legally required by the DMCA to not disable the lock and make the art more accessable. Am I legally only able to view my print through the special window in the locked case?
What if I just don't like using the key everytime I want to view the art? What if I just don't like waiting for the DVD splash screen etc and want to go directly to the movie? A book doesn't require me to wait till the copywrite page scrolls past on its own.
(case in point: a tiny bit of grime on my dvd caused the entire picture to scramble up blocks of the image like one of those old grid/slide the block puzzles. I put forth that if I had a version without the encryption, the grime ould have had a marginal barely noticeable effect-- that the encryption algorithim multiplies the error)
is it legal for a publisher to inhibit my access to the artwork becuase the artists signed away his soul to get published? If I pay the publisher's distribution fee (of which the artists gets a tiny cut per the contract) can I make a tape and play it? then go down to the park and play if for free to an audience?
It seems to me that the important factor of fair use is that if I make a profit from someone elses work, they should get a cut.
on a side note, that valencia guy said in the 2600 article that they must stop the spread of decss 'cause it affects a 2.5 billion dollar industry. In a free-market economy is it the role of government to step in and say that a better distribution method must be stopped because it hurts an entrenched industry that is refusing to update itself? I mean, if I managed to invent a food replicator, could the American Farmer Content Controll Association block its distrubition because it will put them all out of business (ala napster)?
oh well, end rant.
And speaking of Netscape's non-compliant blink tag, what about the marquee tag in IE?
The Ruling Only Limits Linux | grep for capitol letters=TROLL. I think he got you. That and my machine shows that he submitted the post from a Debian box.
If you have the commercial version... mount the cd... locate install.exe... and change to that directory.
type: wine -display localhost:0 -winver win95 install.exe
choose 'no' to install directx, other defaults are generally acceptable.
It only works in linux in 256 640x480.
To play: cd to the install directory and '
wine -display localhost:0 -winver win95 -depth 8 \ > -geom 640x480 Starcraft.exe
(it assumes your windows partion is mounted as /c) I don't have the game, so I havn't had a chance to try it, poor poor pitiful me
Oh great now someone has invented the Samba drinking game
ps. me too, of course I did even worse than buying TNT2 from nvidia, lol. I bought Diamond (ahck!). It's collecting dust and Im running an old 3d2000 + voodoo1 as it performs way way better. Next week, I'm buying a new card-- the GeForce looked very promising, but without dri / xfree4.0 support and a decent driver (not a lackluster,closed source one), I'm buying the Matrox g400. Ditto on compatability for everything I purchase for my office. ps. i emailed this to nvidia as an FYI subject and attached this slashdot discussion, as it reads sort of like an instant petition. :--) Kel H Webmaster State Controller's Office
Ok, so i read through the whole long rambleing judjement with ends finding that the original domain holder was acting in 'bad faith' and awarded the name to the plaintiff. Ignoring for the moment that the original domain holder had registered the name well prior to the plaintiff registering their service mark, I noticed that the whole process only involved contact from the original domain holder in two, early in the process, emails. In both emails the guy is quoted as stating that the registration is in error, and he's been trying to get his name off of it for over a year. I just started a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring new and novel uses for the slash and the dot keys on keyboards. I have my new service mark for 'slashdot' and have filed a petition to have 'slashdot.org' which appears to have been taken by a cyber-squatter, turned over to me. Precident says that Rob is acting in bad faith? Both of this guy's email requests specifically ask that they remove him from this domain, then they refuse, and move the whole thing through an moderation process to a judgement of 'bad faith,' against him. Why pages of legal mumbo jumbo instead of just fixing the error for the defendant, telling the plaintiff that there is no longer a problem, and go out for beers?
last year at the public library I found a reprint of a ~13th century map of viking trade routes which shows the middle east, greenland, and vinland down to about new york (they didn't sail to the middle east, they hiked across europe). Also note that Colombus was in norway studying something a few years prior to his expedition circa 1488. Also note that if you examine the routes of his four voyages, you will note that the only time he landed on the contenent was during the third voyage when he hit the Yucatan. And speaking of historical inaccuracies: the only war I can remember being fought over slavery was the battle of the alamo-- texas succeeded from mexico to compete with the south-- mexico had outlawed slavery. Lincoln didn't free only the northern slaves until the fourth year of the war despite his abolitionist leanings. The civil war was about the states right to succeed from the union, a right they gained when states agreed to ratify the constitution and abandon the underpowered articles of confederacy (after 8 years and 8 "presidents of the united states" starting with John Hanson). The holocaust didn't start in this century, remember the US Army sending blankets with smallpox to the native tribes. And if you dont believe we could do this, read the journals of some of the early 16th century spanish explorers. One pair traveled from mexico to florida and never saw a day where they didn't walk into a village. Under current law, George Washingto would be serving a maniditory minimum sentence for owning a hemp plantation. Although, he'd get grandfather rights, since it wasn't made illegal until prohibition. And always remember that history is written by the winners. No matter how horrific the Nazi Holocaust was, they did execute people for a crime (having the wrong religion). It is now illegal to do alot of things (DMCA vs DeCSS; victimless crimes; ). And until Custer is brought up post-humously for war crimes, history remains written by the winner. America is #1! (not for human rights-- we're way down on that list); we keep the highest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on the planet, and over half of them our in there for crime without a victim other than 'society in general'.