Yes. Case one is trespassing and espionage. Case two is "soandso told me this". You didn't do anything illegal retelling something someone else told you, but you did when you trespassed and directly disseminated secret information.
But it doesn't get in your face about it. Or are you one of the Slashdot horde that thinks that it's all bad no matter how unobtrusive it is? Newsflash: the world is not perfect.
And it's certainly a valid complaint to say "well, they're a nice service, but they don't have what I want" if it's true in your case, or mine, or anyone's.
Selling something that people want to buy doesn't make you corrupt. In fact, I think there would be a lot of relief if emusic started offering more mainstream stuff, using their current format, judging from the amount of grousing I see around here about the iTunes Store, even though I don't see that many complaints about people actually having that many problems.
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic, only crippled?"
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like emusic, only with the stuff I've actually heard of and want to listen to?"
Don't get me wrong -- I want to try emusic (but I can't figure out how to see what is available prior to signing up) but face it, there are many people out there who will find that emusic doesn't have the kind of music (namely, the artists they like) they want to hear.
Until emusic fixes this, they will not go fully mainstream.
Is there a way to browse their catalog prior to subscribing? I'd like to see what they have available. But all I can find is their "25 free tracks! OMG!!!!!" offer. Yes, I might be interested -- but I want to browse first.
As far as I can tell right now, their site is like the idiotic car dealer who refuses to let you test drive before buying (and yes, I have heard of this happening. If it ever happens to me I'll be reporting that to the carmaker. It's unacceptable there and unacceptable here).
Oh yeah, those ads often sure are scum. Punch the monkey? Give me a break. (That one is a lot of why I, too, block ads. They had their chance and blew it. I'm scum for giving people chances and then giving them second chances and then saying "OK, you're dead to me now"?
I'll continue surfing in peace, thanks. Have fun living Minority Report.
Wouldn't Google have to do this to comply with the Eolas patent?
Google doesn't provide the browser; they're just providing the media. The patent covers how the browser handles the display, not what is being displayed.
Having to click the ad to play will only dampen appeal to some advertisers.
Or maybe not. Angering potential buyers doesn't do much to make your product/service any more appealing. I personally cannot stand ads with sound, especially with voice tracks, because I'm hearing impaired, have no directional hearing, and when I'm at home late at night and I hear a strange voice talking, I worry that someone has broken into the house. (I'm serious...)
If I'm at work and I get unexpected noise, it bothers other people plus I could get in trouble depending on what the ad is for.
I guess that's why I block just about all ads -- but I know the hazards of not blocking them because I'm the only one in the lab who knows much about ad blockers.
It sounds like Schroedinger's Cat to me. You don't know until you look. But the fact of the matter is that it's not legal to look without a search warrant, and that makes it government wrongdoing, and anyone who blows the whistle on the government's wrongdoing is covered under whistleblowing laws.
Just because the government is the government doesn't mean they have any more cause or reason or excuse to violate the law.
No, it isn't, because plagiarism requires that you claim material as your own, which citation is done to avoid. Read it in the dictionary sometime. It takes what, five seconds to look it up online?
There's a huge difference, you know, between doing something that immediately threatens someone's life and doing something that exposes government wrongdoing and/or abuse.
Shutting down someone who isn't aware that they are pwned is just going to piss them off, and they'll go with someone who doesn't have such a policy. Especially if you do this to them multiple times.
And the alternative is what, exactly? If I want to change ISPs I have to get a fucking phone line even though I don't need one. My ISP knows I don't have anywhere to go and if it wanted to screw me, it could. No, block 'em, They won't have anyone to run to.
That's when you tell them that if they don't fix it themselves (here's instructions) they can just not have teh intarweb. We got along fine without it for years, didn't we?
Don't waste time on people who can't fix their own problems. If they can't be bothered, they can deal with the consequences.
There's this little case called the "Betamax Case" that affirmed the rights of the public to record broadcasts for later listening. Perhaps you have heard of it? It gets discussed a lot on Slashdot.
Oh boo hoo hoo, cry me a river. RIAA, not everything has to give you money. Not everything is GOING to give you money. Give it a rest.
To the poster I'm responding to: yes, I thought of that; a lot of radios out there can record from radio to tape, or maybe some can record to hard drive (like the RadioShark) or to removable media of some kind. But if being able to store part of the broadcast is a bad thing, as said... why didn't the RIAA sue decades ago?
I think it's because they know the suit is baseless. It was ruled legal decades ago to timeshift, after all, and being able to record broadcasts for later playback is nothing more than that.
The RIAA is just trying to capitalize on the technical illiteracy (overall) of judges and juries, I think.
Hey, can I start suing random companies now because their business models don't involve giving me money?
if Apple has infringed on Creative then real harm might have been dealt to Creative.
So if you use an obvious method (for it to have been developed so similarly in two independent places, it must have been obvious to programmers and/or designers!) to design your widget and someone else can also deduct the obvious, that's "real harm" to you? No, it just means that you used a good idea that someone else also thought of, and also thought it was a good idea.
And isn't it a good thing to have standardization that makes it easier for users to use whatever brand of device they want? After all, cars use the same basic control scheme no matter who makes them and you don't hear carmakers screaming about harm having been done to them if someone else makes a car with a steering wheel, control stalks coming out of the steering column, and two or three control pedals depending on what kind of transmission is installed. In fact, if you make a car with non-standard controls, you'll get griped at by customers and in the automotive press for doing something different.
And don't get me started on non-standard file formats that keep me from using word processor X with files generated by word processor Y.
I was simply annoyed that people call things "bugs" that aren't bugs, when they don't like the setup. As said before, if it wasn't you that did that, and I accidentally responded to the wrong comment, then please, don't take it as being aimed at you.
It is a real issue, and not one that should be dismissed by blaming the user for not (in this case) disabling a hidden setting.
I know someone somewhere claimed it was a bug? Maybe that wasn't you; if so, sorry about the confusion.
As for the pref -- you can't have a UI for everything (though perhaps someone could make an extension for some of the more esoteric stuff like this to add to the prefpanes) but if it becomes enough of a problem for enough people the default might be changed. It's a good thing to think about in terms of maybe filing a bug in bugzilla and voting for it.
I can honestly say that I had a big impact on FF2 in terms of the search engine management -- bug 232272 ("buran" wouldn't work in gmail, dangit) as I reported that enhancement request. It was pretty cool to see it specifically mentioned in that review article -- so the bugzilla enhancement/bug fix process really does work.
If there is any meat to this report, you can bet that the democrats will demand hearings. Then we'll have something to talk about.
In case you hadn't noticed, Congress is in the President's back pocket. There have been calls for hearings on a wide variety of things, including the first revelations of wiretapping.
I haven't heard of any hearings taking place. Have you?
I'd rather not hold my breath waiting for this "do-nothing Congress" to get off its asses and do what's right instead of marching in lockstep with our non-self-appointed ruler.
It isn't legal, since it violates the security clearance they were granted, but it IS whisteblowing.
The thing that gets me about all the people that scream that in this case going public is wrong... are probably the same people who cheer when corporate whistleblowers step forward to speak up about corporate abuse.
You see... the information that those people reveal is also technically protected by law (trade secrets, things like that). And yet, sometimes it is revealed in order to serve the greater good.
You can't hide behind a "well, the law says you can't tell the public that!" if the people who reveal the information do so out of a moral obligation to serve the greater good.
So everyone needs to decide if they think we all should blindly listen to "you aren't supposed to tell anyone about this" and let people get hurt, or are we willing to step forward and say "No more!" when the time comes?
Me, I know which side I'm on. I'd want someone to step forward, reputation be damned (whether theirs or someone who tries to keep the secret in order to save their own face/ass) if my life was in danger, so I'd step up to help someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Case one is trespassing and espionage. Case two is "soandso told me this". You didn't do anything illegal retelling something someone else told you, but you did when you trespassed and directly disseminated secret information.
ITMS certainly isn't DRM-free
But it doesn't get in your face about it. Or are you one of the Slashdot horde that thinks that it's all bad no matter how unobtrusive it is? Newsflash: the world is not perfect.
And it's certainly a valid complaint to say "well, they're a nice service, but they don't have what I want" if it's true in your case, or mine, or anyone's.
Selling something that people want to buy doesn't make you corrupt. In fact, I think there would be a lot of relief if emusic started offering more mainstream stuff, using their current format, judging from the amount of grousing I see around here about the iTunes Store, even though I don't see that many complaints about people actually having that many problems.
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic, only crippled?"
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like emusic, only with the stuff I've actually heard of and want to listen to?"
Don't get me wrong -- I want to try emusic (but I can't figure out how to see what is available prior to signing up) but face it, there are many people out there who will find that emusic doesn't have the kind of music (namely, the artists they like) they want to hear.
Until emusic fixes this, they will not go fully mainstream.
Is there a way to browse their catalog prior to subscribing? I'd like to see what they have available. But all I can find is their "25 free tracks! OMG!!!!!" offer. Yes, I might be interested -- but I want to browse first.
As far as I can tell right now, their site is like the idiotic car dealer who refuses to let you test drive before buying (and yes, I have heard of this happening. If it ever happens to me I'll be reporting that to the carmaker. It's unacceptable there and unacceptable here).
Scum.
Oh yeah, those ads often sure are scum. Punch the monkey? Give me a break. (That one is a lot of why I, too, block ads. They had their chance and blew it. I'm scum for giving people chances and then giving them second chances and then saying "OK, you're dead to me now"?
I'll continue surfing in peace, thanks. Have fun living Minority Report.
I swear, slashdotters will look straight past the facts if they have an opportunity to complain.
Wouldn't be Slashdot without those people and the ones who don't even bother to read the article before whining.
Wouldn't Google have to do this to comply with the Eolas patent?
Google doesn't provide the browser; they're just providing the media. The patent covers how the browser handles the display, not what is being displayed.
Having to click the ad to play will only dampen appeal to some advertisers.
Or maybe not. Angering potential buyers doesn't do much to make your product/service any more appealing. I personally cannot stand ads with sound, especially with voice tracks, because I'm hearing impaired, have no directional hearing, and when I'm at home late at night and I hear a strange voice talking, I worry that someone has broken into the house. (I'm serious...)
If I'm at work and I get unexpected noise, it bothers other people plus I could get in trouble depending on what the ad is for.
I guess that's why I block just about all ads -- but I know the hazards of not blocking them because I'm the only one in the lab who knows much about ad blockers.
It sounds like Schroedinger's Cat to me. You don't know until you look. But the fact of the matter is that it's not legal to look without a search warrant, and that makes it government wrongdoing, and anyone who blows the whistle on the government's wrongdoing is covered under whistleblowing laws.
Just because the government is the government doesn't mean they have any more cause or reason or excuse to violate the law.
That's plagiarism, whether cited it or not.
No, it isn't, because plagiarism requires that you claim material as your own, which citation is done to avoid. Read it in the dictionary sometime. It takes what, five seconds to look it up online?
There's a huge difference, you know, between doing something that immediately threatens someone's life and doing something that exposes government wrongdoing and/or abuse.
I don't think the common ancestor exists either.
The hard evidence disagrees with you. Too bad, so sad.
And your situation is the general case? I don't think so.
Ahhhhh, denial. Denial of the fact that regional phone companies and cable services are local monopolies. Gotta love it.
Shutting down someone who isn't aware that they are pwned is just going to piss them off, and they'll go with someone who doesn't have such a policy. Especially if you do this to them multiple times.
And the alternative is what, exactly? If I want to change ISPs I have to get a fucking phone line even though I don't need one. My ISP knows I don't have anywhere to go and if it wanted to screw me, it could. No, block 'em, They won't have anyone to run to.
That's when you tell them that if they don't fix it themselves (here's instructions) they can just not have teh intarweb. We got along fine without it for years, didn't we?
Don't waste time on people who can't fix their own problems. If they can't be bothered, they can deal with the consequences.
Can you back that up?
There's this little case called the "Betamax Case" that affirmed the rights of the public to record broadcasts for later listening. Perhaps you have heard of it? It gets discussed a lot on Slashdot.
Oh boo hoo hoo, cry me a river. RIAA, not everything has to give you money. Not everything is GOING to give you money. Give it a rest.
... why didn't the RIAA sue decades ago?
To the poster I'm responding to: yes, I thought of that; a lot of radios out there can record from radio to tape, or maybe some can record to hard drive (like the RadioShark) or to removable media of some kind. But if being able to store part of the broadcast is a bad thing, as said
I think it's because they know the suit is baseless. It was ruled legal decades ago to timeshift, after all, and being able to record broadcasts for later playback is nothing more than that.
The RIAA is just trying to capitalize on the technical illiteracy (overall) of judges and juries, I think.
Hey, can I start suing random companies now because their business models don't involve giving me money?
So why aren't they suing every radio station in the country, and why haven't they been doing this for decades?
Digital = terrorist?
If your brother patented something already being made, then isn't it true that the patent was invalid?
if Apple has infringed on Creative then real harm might have been dealt to Creative.
So if you use an obvious method (for it to have been developed so similarly in two independent places, it must have been obvious to programmers and/or designers!) to design your widget and someone else can also deduct the obvious, that's "real harm" to you? No, it just means that you used a good idea that someone else also thought of, and also thought it was a good idea.
And isn't it a good thing to have standardization that makes it easier for users to use whatever brand of device they want? After all, cars use the same basic control scheme no matter who makes them and you don't hear carmakers screaming about harm having been done to them if someone else makes a car with a steering wheel, control stalks coming out of the steering column, and two or three control pedals depending on what kind of transmission is installed. In fact, if you make a car with non-standard controls, you'll get griped at by customers and in the automotive press for doing something different.
And don't get me started on non-standard file formats that keep me from using word processor X with files generated by word processor Y.
I was simply annoyed that people call things "bugs" that aren't bugs, when they don't like the setup. As said before, if it wasn't you that did that, and I accidentally responded to the wrong comment, then please, don't take it as being aimed at you.
It is a real issue, and not one that should be dismissed by blaming the user for not (in this case) disabling a hidden setting.
I know someone somewhere claimed it was a bug? Maybe that wasn't you; if so, sorry about the confusion.
As for the pref -- you can't have a UI for everything (though perhaps someone could make an extension for some of the more esoteric stuff like this to add to the prefpanes) but if it becomes enough of a problem for enough people the default might be changed. It's a good thing to think about in terms of maybe filing a bug in bugzilla and voting for it.
I can honestly say that I had a big impact on FF2 in terms of the search engine management -- bug 232272 ("buran" wouldn't work in gmail, dangit) as I reported that enhancement request. It was pretty cool to see it specifically mentioned in that review article -- so the bugzilla enhancement/bug fix process really does work.
If there is any meat to this report, you can bet that the democrats will demand hearings.
Then we'll have something to talk about.
In case you hadn't noticed, Congress is in the President's back pocket. There have been calls for hearings on a wide variety of things, including the first revelations of wiretapping.
I haven't heard of any hearings taking place. Have you?
I'd rather not hold my breath waiting for this "do-nothing Congress" to get off its asses and do what's right instead of marching in lockstep with our non-self-appointed ruler.
It isn't legal, since it violates the security clearance they were granted, but it IS whisteblowing.
... are probably the same people who cheer when corporate whistleblowers step forward to speak up about corporate abuse.
... the information that those people reveal is also technically protected by law (trade secrets, things like that). And yet, sometimes it is revealed in order to serve the greater good.
The thing that gets me about all the people that scream that in this case going public is wrong
You see
You can't hide behind a "well, the law says you can't tell the public that!" if the people who reveal the information do so out of a moral obligation to serve the greater good.
So everyone needs to decide if they think we all should blindly listen to "you aren't supposed to tell anyone about this" and let people get hurt, or are we willing to step forward and say "No more!" when the time comes?
Me, I know which side I'm on. I'd want someone to step forward, reputation be damned (whether theirs or someone who tries to keep the secret in order to save their own face/ass) if my life was in danger, so I'd step up to help someone else.