No matter how many times you repeat that the FCC and government bodies don't have the right to regulate this particular capitalist money machine, they clearly do.
You mean, of course, besides the appeals court decision (FCC v. Comcast) where they were actually explicitly told by the court that they *don't* have the right to tell an ISP what to do with their network?
That would, for the record, be the only standing case-law on the topic at the moment, and it's a big sack of "no authority" for the FCC.
Capitalism as we know it can ONLY exist courtesy of governmental support
Well, see, that's where the statists have fooled you. True capitalism needs no government support at all.
How do you figure that backbone providers are "clear natural monopolies".. there's dozens of them, it's probably one of the most competitive markets out there. Good luck finding anyone with any grasp of economics who agrees with that assessment.
And be cautious about making ludicrous demands of carriers and expecting them to put up or shut up. Telco geeks from the 90s will remind you of how California almost legislated itself into the dark ages when PacBell and GTE both gave notice to the CPUC that they were going to pull out of California and take their copper outside plant and central-office equipment with them, all over ludicrous Caller ID regulation (which pretty much got changed overnight). That's a high-stakes game of chicken you're playing there and you might not like the way the other guy drives his particular tractor.
Your lawmakers didn't put any conditions on those subsidies that allow you to dictate terms. They received those subsidies for large numbers of reasons including but not limited to national infrastructure, job creation, kickbacks, and lawmakers wanting to seem tech-friendly come election time. But, at the end of they day, the subsidies didn't come with codified "and you'll use it how we say" clauses so you don't get to change the rules now.
I hate to break it to the entitlement-crowd, but those corporations built those networks with their own money, and own it outright, and as such, they get to be the supreme authority on what data traverses those networks, who pays how much to connect to any part of that network (as an end-user, a peer, or as a content-provider).
If you want to say "The government paid for ARPAnet", you fail, and get to have a 128kbps US-only backbone.
If you want to say "The government gives the network providers all sorts of tax-breaks and subsidies, so we get to have a say in how it's run", you fail, because your lawmakers didn't tie those sorts of conditions into those subsidies and tax-breaks, and you don't get to play Darth Vader and "alter the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" down the road.
If you don't like your ISP's business practices, find a new one.
If there isn't another, and you think there's like-minded folks out there, find yourself some investors, and build your own ISP. It's actually somewhat trivial to do.
If your local municipality has locked out competition via a "Franchise Agreement", well, now is an excellent time to vote those bastards out of office, or start getting involved in local politics.
The problem isn't that "ISPs are filtering/packet-shaping/blocking traffic", it's that your local governments have been propping up a monopoly. Voting against "net neutrality" is voting for the rights of property holders to do what they want with the property they have paid good money for.
Can you name some of these places where the gov't actually paid to lay the cable or did it themselves?
Incentivized others to do it? Sure, but I'm not aware of many, if any, places where the gov't itself actually owned or directly paid for the outside plant.
Look, I don't disagree with you, which is why (if you go back to my original post), I mentioned that bonus points for being a gov't employee who can actually punish "the right person". I'm not ADVOCATING for suing private employers, only that it's not inconceivable that an employer, so sued, might be found liable. (Except inasmuch as I'd like to see a couple people sue their employers to create the necessary uproar).
You're absolutely right about the issues involved (intercontinental travel, etc. etc.), and there are work-arounds (telepresence equipment, etc.) but as someone who sits in a telepresence suite twice a week, it's definitely not the same thing.
Sure, and as it seems, your employer has devious plans spelled out for you. Words of a youngster that found a glitch in "the system" and is making a point ad absurdum, truly believing in a certain conspiracy.
A "youngster"? That's just funny. Most days I feel like one of the oldest people reading slashdot. I've probably been reading slashdot since before you even heard about it.:-)
OK, say you have a business in CA and you need occasional presence in ME. Try getting there without a plane. Amtrak? Greyhound? Forget both. Maybe driving over 2 days non stop? Sure. And when you get back you will put more shit on your employer for being deprived from sleeping.
This is a problem for your employer to sort out. Is your TIME more valuable to them? In which case, they should be paying for a charter flight (which doesn't use the TSA at all amusingly). Is THRIFT more important to them? In which case, they should be paying for Amtrak or the like.
You sound like one of the many pathetic women on Oprah, discussing some non-problem and expecting the panel and the audience to nod in sympathy. The difference is that a woman's problem is solved by care and sympathy but the travelling salesman problem needs actual action.
Who the hell modded you up in the first place?
People who apparently have a clue how the legal system works, perhaps?
Well, by comparison against a charter jet, it's thrifty. That's what I meant. If you're trying to stay "cost-effective" a train works as opposed to a charter-jet.:-)
If you tell your employer "being subjected to groping or being seen naked makes me uncomfortable", then they are knowingly sending you into a hostile work environment, plain and simple.
It may not be "their fault" that the TSA is making that portion of your work-day hostile, but they are still knowingly sending you off into the hostile environment, and there are alternatives an employer can undertake NOT to do so.
Are you implying the US Gov't would run false flag operations? That would never happen, sir, and I challenge you to retract your implication or back it up with facts.:)
Does your job require you to travel cross-country?
If so, your employer, as part of your work function is forcing you to subject yourself to either [a] "being seen naked by a stranger", or [b] "being groped by a stranger".
Either way, it seems like a perfect test-case for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. There are alternate forms of transportation that don't require being forced to make the decision above (if speed is important, you spend more money and charter a jet, if thrift is important, you spend more time and take a train). So if your employer requires that you fly commercial, it seems that you have an excellent cause of action under existing Sexual Harassment law.
Bonus points if you actually work for the gov't so you can avoid suing someone who didn't have a lot of say in the rules in the first place.
They'll sell your E-Tickets (ie, when you get a PDF that you're supposed to print out as a ticket to bring with you) but with paperless tickets, there's nothing for you to give stubhub to use to sell the ticket. No barcode numbers, nothing.
The point of paying for a service is so that the rightsholders make enough money to keep making the programming you seem to enjoy. If they have to make money from two revenue streams -- ad-buys and subscriptions -- to be profitable enough for it to be worth their time, then that's what it takes.
And I'll call bullshit on this, because I get caller name information, from people on the other side of the country, all the friggin' time. And it's not people who are "in my phone" or crap like that. Because my desk phone is a simple, basic, PHONE, without a lot of bells and whistles.
That's not to say it's UNIVERSALLY transported between carriers, but blanket statements like this one are just factually inaccurate.
I really don't know how this happens, to be honest. I've had domains (I own about two dozen) registered with my personal contact info, completely legitimate and valid, since....
Created On:16-Jul-1996 04:00:00 UTC
and I have yet to get a single cold-call on my personal phone number (listed in the WHOIS database).
I'm not going so far as to say "you haven't", but my personal experiences owning my domain for 14 years do not match up with your fear.
"The district court correctly found that Harper infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights by downloading the 37 audio files at issue." (p.11)
Point the second:
I'm not claiming "anyone who does it afterwards is free and clear". That's not what I said at all. What I said was, the DOWNLOADER is not liable (or should not from a plain-text reading of the Copyright code) in any downloading scenario, as they do not have an "original" copy which they are duplicating, nor are they distributing it to other people.
Once a downloader, though, tries to distribute, absolutely they fall into violation by virtue of not being granted the right to distribute the copyrighted work.
In all of those cases on p.7, they're referring to bi-directional P2P sites (where "to download" you are also "uploading").
So I stand by my "she should have hired an attorney who would have appealed the finding that she infringed by downloading", because that would have been her strongest defense.
I've asked the Copyright Office a number of times now to point me to the specific section of USC that "downloading" violates, and have never received any response from them other than "they're researching my answer".:-)
True... and it's interesting that the Appeals court gets it completely wrong, because in their summary they *DO* say they're finding her guilty of downloading tracks (based on the principle that she "duplicated" the tracks, a violation of the Copyright), but duplication requires access to source material, and she did not have that, only the "sender" did.
So basically, she's getting screwed three ways 'til Sunday, mostly because she doesn't have an Attorney worth a damn.
She was not busted for making unauthorized downloads of the tunes. She was busted for making those files available for other people to download. She was distributing and that was the crime.
Because, as we know, downloading tracks is not, itself, a violation of any section of the Copyright law.
Also, while we're rattling off the factual errors, she's no longer the Director of Citizen Participation. She moved to a position in the State Department a couple months ago.
The only laws regarding SSNs pertain to GOVERNMENT requests for it. Private companies and corporations are free to set whatever policies they see fit. And you, as a consumer, are free to not give those companies your business if you don't like their policies.
There are restrictions on companies "using" your SSN, insofar as, in some jurisdictions, they can't print it on ID cards, or things they send you in the mail, but there are no restrictions on their collecting it from you, and no legal obligation to provide you services if you choose not to give it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how many times you repeat that the FCC and government bodies don't have the right to regulate this particular capitalist money machine, they clearly do.
You mean, of course, besides the appeals court decision (FCC v. Comcast) where they were actually explicitly told by the court that they *don't* have the right to tell an ISP what to do with their network?
That would, for the record, be the only standing case-law on the topic at the moment, and it's a big sack of "no authority" for the FCC.
Capitalism as we know it can ONLY exist courtesy of governmental support
Well, see, that's where the statists have fooled you. True capitalism needs no government support at all.
How do you figure that backbone providers are "clear natural monopolies" .. there's dozens of them, it's probably one of the most competitive markets out there. Good luck finding anyone with any grasp of economics who agrees with that assessment.
And be cautious about making ludicrous demands of carriers and expecting them to put up or shut up. Telco geeks from the 90s will remind you of how California almost legislated itself into the dark ages when PacBell and GTE both gave notice to the CPUC that they were going to pull out of California and take their copper outside plant and central-office equipment with them, all over ludicrous Caller ID regulation (which pretty much got changed overnight). That's a high-stakes game of chicken you're playing there and you might not like the way the other guy drives his particular tractor.
Thanks for not reading my post. You fail.
Your lawmakers didn't put any conditions on those subsidies that allow you to dictate terms. They received those subsidies for large numbers of reasons including but not limited to national infrastructure, job creation, kickbacks, and lawmakers wanting to seem tech-friendly come election time. But, at the end of they day, the subsidies didn't come with codified "and you'll use it how we say" clauses so you don't get to change the rules now.
kthxbye.
I hate to break it to the entitlement-crowd, but those corporations built those networks with their own money, and own it outright, and as such, they get to be the supreme authority on what data traverses those networks, who pays how much to connect to any part of that network (as an end-user, a peer, or as a content-provider).
If you want to say "The government paid for ARPAnet", you fail, and get to have a 128kbps US-only backbone.
If you want to say "The government gives the network providers all sorts of tax-breaks and subsidies, so we get to have a say in how it's run", you fail, because your lawmakers didn't tie those sorts of conditions into those subsidies and tax-breaks, and you don't get to play Darth Vader and "alter the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" down the road.
If you don't like your ISP's business practices, find a new one.
If there isn't another, and you think there's like-minded folks out there, find yourself some investors, and build your own ISP. It's actually somewhat trivial to do.
If your local municipality has locked out competition via a "Franchise Agreement", well, now is an excellent time to vote those bastards out of office, or start getting involved in local politics.
The problem isn't that "ISPs are filtering/packet-shaping/blocking traffic", it's that your local governments have been propping up a monopoly. Voting against "net neutrality" is voting for the rights of property holders to do what they want with the property they have paid good money for.
Can you name some of these places where the gov't actually paid to lay the cable or did it themselves?
Incentivized others to do it? Sure, but I'm not aware of many, if any, places where the gov't itself actually owned or directly paid for the outside plant.
Look, I don't disagree with you, which is why (if you go back to my original post), I mentioned that bonus points for being a gov't employee who can actually punish "the right person". I'm not ADVOCATING for suing private employers, only that it's not inconceivable that an employer, so sued, might be found liable. (Except inasmuch as I'd like to see a couple people sue their employers to create the necessary uproar).
You're absolutely right about the issues involved (intercontinental travel, etc. etc.), and there are work-arounds (telepresence equipment, etc.) but as someone who sits in a telepresence suite twice a week, it's definitely not the same thing.
Sure, and as it seems, your employer has devious plans spelled out for you. Words of a youngster that found a glitch in "the system" and is making a point ad absurdum, truly believing in a certain conspiracy.
A "youngster"? That's just funny. Most days I feel like one of the oldest people reading slashdot. I've probably been reading slashdot since before you even heard about it. :-)
OK, say you have a business in CA and you need occasional presence in ME. Try getting there without a plane. Amtrak? Greyhound? Forget both. Maybe driving over 2 days non stop? Sure. And when you get back you will put more shit on your employer for being deprived from sleeping.
This is a problem for your employer to sort out. Is your TIME more valuable to them? In which case, they should be paying for a charter flight (which doesn't use the TSA at all amusingly). Is THRIFT more important to them? In which case, they should be paying for Amtrak or the like.
You sound like one of the many pathetic women on Oprah, discussing some non-problem and expecting the panel and the audience to nod in sympathy. The difference is that a woman's problem is solved by care and sympathy but the travelling salesman problem needs actual action.
Who the hell modded you up in the first place?
People who apparently have a clue how the legal system works, perhaps?
Well, by comparison against a charter jet, it's thrifty. That's what I meant. If you're trying to stay "cost-effective" a train works as opposed to a charter-jet. :-)
If you tell your employer "being subjected to groping or being seen naked makes me uncomfortable", then they are knowingly sending you into a hostile work environment, plain and simple.
It may not be "their fault" that the TSA is making that portion of your work-day hostile, but they are still knowingly sending you off into the hostile environment, and there are alternatives an employer can undertake NOT to do so.
Are you implying the US Gov't would run false flag operations? That would never happen, sir, and I challenge you to retract your implication or back it up with facts. :)
(sarcasm, for the impaired)
Does your job require you to travel cross-country?
If so, your employer, as part of your work function is forcing you to subject yourself to either [a] "being seen naked by a stranger", or [b] "being groped by a stranger".
Either way, it seems like a perfect test-case for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. There are alternate forms of transportation that don't require being forced to make the decision above (if speed is important, you spend more money and charter a jet, if thrift is important, you spend more time and take a train). So if your employer requires that you fly commercial, it seems that you have an excellent cause of action under existing Sexual Harassment law.
Bonus points if you actually work for the gov't so you can avoid suing someone who didn't have a lot of say in the rules in the first place.
People are greedy. Where there's disgruntled customers to be had, someone will try to get money out of them. :-)
The answer to THAT is to end the franchise monopoly system, and allow real competition in the local last-mile marketplace. Free-markets for the win.
They'll sell your E-Tickets (ie, when you get a PDF that you're supposed to print out as a ticket to bring with you) but with paperless tickets, there's nothing for you to give stubhub to use to sell the ticket. No barcode numbers, nothing.
The point of paying for a service is so that the rightsholders make enough money to keep making the programming you seem to enjoy. If they have to make money from two revenue streams -- ad-buys and subscriptions -- to be profitable enough for it to be worth their time, then that's what it takes.
It's not HIPPA, it's HIPAA, the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act".
Look it up, because seriously, as someone who worked in healthcare IT for a while, people who insist on saying HIPPA annoy the piss out of me.
CallerID between telco does not support name.
And I'll call bullshit on this, because I get caller name information, from people on the other side of the country, all the friggin' time. And it's not people who are "in my phone" or crap like that. Because my desk phone is a simple, basic, PHONE, without a lot of bells and whistles.
That's not to say it's UNIVERSALLY transported between carriers, but blanket statements like this one are just factually inaccurate.
I think you mean "CNID" (Calling Number Identification).
I have no idea what "CLID" is, but it's not a telco term, to the best of my knowledge.
I really don't know how this happens, to be honest. I've had domains (I own about two dozen) registered with my personal contact info, completely legitimate and valid, since....
Created On:16-Jul-1996 04:00:00 UTC
and I have yet to get a single cold-call on my personal phone number (listed in the WHOIS database).
I'm not going so far as to say "you haven't", but my personal experiences owning my domain for 14 years do not match up with your fear.
Two things:
Point the first:
"The district court correctly found that Harper infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights by downloading the 37 audio files at issue." (p.11)
Point the second:
I'm not claiming "anyone who does it afterwards is free and clear". That's not what I said at all. What I said was, the DOWNLOADER is not liable (or should not from a plain-text reading of the Copyright code) in any downloading scenario, as they do not have an "original" copy which they are duplicating, nor are they distributing it to other people.
Once a downloader, though, tries to distribute, absolutely they fall into violation by virtue of not being granted the right to distribute the copyrighted work.
In all of those cases on p.7, they're referring to bi-directional P2P sites (where "to download" you are also "uploading").
So I stand by my "she should have hired an attorney who would have appealed the finding that she infringed by downloading", because that would have been her strongest defense.
I've asked the Copyright Office a number of times now to point me to the specific section of USC that "downloading" violates, and have never received any response from them other than "they're researching my answer". :-)
True... and it's interesting that the Appeals court gets it completely wrong, because in their summary they *DO* say they're finding her guilty of downloading tracks (based on the principle that she "duplicated" the tracks, a violation of the Copyright), but duplication requires access to source material, and she did not have that, only the "sender" did.
So basically, she's getting screwed three ways 'til Sunday, mostly because she doesn't have an Attorney worth a damn.
She was not busted for making unauthorized downloads of the tunes. She was busted for making those files available for other people to download. She was distributing and that was the crime.
Because, as we know, downloading tracks is not, itself, a violation of any section of the Copyright law.
Also, while we're rattling off the factual errors, she's no longer the Director of Citizen Participation. She moved to a position in the State Department a couple months ago.
The only laws regarding SSNs pertain to GOVERNMENT requests for it. Private companies and corporations are free to set whatever policies they see fit. And you, as a consumer, are free to not give those companies your business if you don't like their policies.
There are restrictions on companies "using" your SSN, insofar as, in some jurisdictions, they can't print it on ID cards, or things they send you in the mail, but there are no restrictions on their collecting it from you, and no legal obligation to provide you services if you choose not to give it to them.