What pisses me off is that they're going after a school district - and school districts don't generally have much money. Individuals may be violating copyright, but a policy of going after school districts seems to put the burden on those who don't have much and who we want to protect (school districts) to benefit the RIAA. How many children will be left behind because of this policy?
It's not completely clear from the article what actually happens here, but it seems like an interesting business model for the music industry: tie music downloads in with products. Could this reduce music down to the level of a cereal box toy? (For example, enter the product code into a website and get a specific song downloaded)? This seems to be a valuable promotional tool for artists (at least the ones the music industry wants to promote) and business alike.
It's very interesting to think about how the law of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions (International Humanitarian Law, I'll call it IHL) fit into this. It's also somewhat frightening. IHL regulations will cover this sort of thing somewhat - for example, using computers to direct attacks toward the civilian population is directly forbidden.
The problem is, a lot of this law is not fully developed. I went to a talk 2 months ago about "Cyberspace and the Law of Armed Conflict." The person giving the talk is a head lawyer for the Red Cross's IHL division. He said that talk was about the first given on that topic; it is a very new issue of international law. The problem with new issues is they tend to be developed as they play out - so the loudest voice will often make the law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Most of what I know about IHL comes from the Red Cross, whose purpose is to preserve international humanitarian law (according to the Geneva Conventions).
The thing most people fail to understand is that just because information can cheaply be reproduced, it does not follow that it was cheap to create. Whether you're talking a few million dollars to write a piece of software, or a few hundreds of millions to develop a new drug, it's the same: in the US, people can spend money to create knowledge, because the US will protect their opportunity to earn a return on their investment.
There are two sides to this argument: one is that the US needs strong protection to insure investment, and the other side is that the protection cannot be so strong as to allow frivolous or otherwise unethical patents. These need to be balanced, and right now, the US seems to be leaning towards protection, without paying as much attention to protecting rights of people who are not investing. Groups like EFF and IP Justice will work to swing the scale the other way, but the result (if they are successful) is that legislation will be more balanced toward protecting the rights of all sides.
No, not except for the packet of 4 box-top license cases our prof gave us along with a memo describing them. OTOH have done more with the UCC in the last 2 days than the whole semester in class. Never know what he's going to ask in 50 multiple choice questions.
The problem with software is that it's goods (covered by the UCC) as well as services, so it's still (to some extent) not decided exactly which law covers it.
Disclaimer: IANAL. I am a first-year law student studying for my Contracts exam (tomorrow. I really shouldn't be reading/. now.) But this is not legal advice. I also haven't read my EULA for a while, but on basic contract concepts:
If OEMs do not honor the EULA, then the OEM is breaching the contract, not M$. M$ has a contract with the OEM, and the OEM has a contract with the buyer (you) - so if you take the software back, as allowed for in the contract (even in the EULA, since the OEM should have accepted those terms), then you no longer have a contract with the OEM for the software, and the OEM should give your money back for it.
Note that you have to return the software back within a reasonable time. If you've had it longer than a couple weeks (a month, max), then you have probably implicitly "accepted" the terms of the contract and cannot return this. The EULA or other contract agreements may give you longer than this, but I doubt that.
I didn't use my Handspring for a while because I just didn't need it - I was doing tech support, and really had no need to keep track of anything more than I could write down on a wall calendar.
Now I'm in grad school and use it all the time, mostly for to-do lists and to keep track of class changes. I find myself using the Palm Desktop software on my laptop more than the actual Handspring, though. The Handspring screen is too small to look at everything I need to look at for scheduling - although it's still good when I don't have my laptop on.
I expect both of these cases will be appealed and the appeals court judge will overrule one of them (since Georgia and Florida are both in the 11th circuit).
However, there is another minor difference. Brent Reynolds couldn't get any bus schedules from Marta (except for very specific route information from the phone system). The customer in Southwest didn't complain about that, rather that he couldn't get access to the website. It seems like a minor point, but it can be a major legal distinction.
A lot of the posts I see advocate going to college, and seem to imply you should go soon. I think a college degree is a good thing, and would recommend it to anyone, but definitely not right out of high school.
I started college with a dual-major in physics and German. After a year I changed from physics to math. Soon after I wanted to change from math to CS, but wanted to graduate within 4 years so I just got a CS minor (stuck with the German though, it was easy). I programmed for a year, quit because I really didn't like it. Now I'm doing helpdesk work, and hate it.
Only about half the people I work with have college degrees, and most of them (myself included) had no idea what they wanted to do while in college. It has taken a few years of "real world" experience to figure it out, and some serious thinking. After taking some classes at the community college and spending several months thinking about what I like, I am preparing to start law school this fall. I am happy with my decision. However, I would have chosen classes differently and focused on different areas if I had been planning for a career in law rather than in {german,math,physics,programming}.
Bottom line is, college is important, but know what you want to do first. Even if you think you know now, take a few years to work (you have job offers!) before you make a commitment in college. Figure out your own path, get certifications as needed, and go to college when you think it is time, not when people tell you to do it.
The difference is that people learn to use matches at an early age, and are taught young not to play with them.
There is not the same kind of social conditioning to "not play with unknown attachments". The problem here is not entirely trust, it is also an issue of education.
Why don't they just legislate.kids or.notpron, and simply permit no conent unsuitable for children on sites with that domain
I really like this idea. For one, it will make it easier for schools etc. to give children acces to websites appropriate for them. (That is, of course, provided that all material on the.kids site is appropriate for children.) I think this needs to be regulated through incentives such as advertising and a large target audience, rather than through legislation. US legislation is not effective in other countries!
Finally, the real reason not to have a.prn domain is that would be a target for kids who want to see the "adult world" (virtually all kids). Middle-school kids come home from school and are alone for hours and are presented with a wealth of "forbidden" destinations. Most of these kids will know how to hack the Nanny software on the PCs better than their parents can patch it. How is this regulation?
This rather stinks, but I'll try to be understanding about needing revenue from advertisers. Do you have any more details on the policy? Will these be notated differently so we can choose not to read them, even if we don't have the option to not display these? What type of advertising/paid submissions would (and would not) be allowed?
This said, I still hope this is an April Fools' joke.
The endorsement factor is valid only because Gateway sells Microsoft and no other OS's. If the grocery store sold only Pepsi and no Coke, that would appear to me (the consumer) that they endorse Pepsi and not Coke. There could be a completely differnent reason (for example, Pepsi's contract with the grocery store forbids them from selling Coke), but as a consumer, I do not know this.
It works the same way with operating systems. Many consumers will look at Gateway selling only Microsoft operating systems and believe Gateway made a decision not to sell any other operating systems. This gives Microsoft a competitive (although stronghanded) advantage.
I used to work for a small software company that claims that most of the money on products is made from supporting (read: fixing bugs) the software it sold. This is a definite market force in preventing them from releasing correct software. Although it would be better as a whole for the company to release bug-free software, the company had little incentive to do so. During the last project I worked on, the client asked for help developing an extensive testing plan for testing the software before it was released. I was lucky my team lead had previously worked for a military contractor, because there were very few people in my company who were experienced at developing good test plans.
Regulation of the software industry would stop this and many similar companies from selling poorly-written software. This is not to say there would be no more bugs, but I'm sure they would be quickly reduced. If a company has to release a service pack on the day it's major software product is released (Windows XP), this is definitely a flaw in the overall system.
That's true. I frequently go to my private mail account or read (gasp) Slashdot to have something else to think about for a minute.
The problem, from an IT perspective, is users who don't know the difference between a diversion and potentially destructive software. We have many instances where computers have had to be rebuilt because programs downloaded conflict with office productivity software. It is unfortunate, and something you would hope could be resolved with some education. However, after seeing enough of these, I almost sympathize with people who want to completely restrict internet access for users!
A lot of Sun's complaint now is aimed toward Microsoft's illegal monopoly of the web browser and operating system markets. This should be easier for Sun because the DOJ has already proven this claim. There is really nothing substantial in this specific lawsuit (there was in previous lawsuits, such as from last year) pertaining to Java.
It is an interesting case, but I think the issue here is not exactly about wiretapping. According to the article:
Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.
E-mail falls under Internet communication and thus requires monitoring consent of the 15 year old (or her parents) AND the police officer. Having a reasonable expectation that communication will be recorded is different from consenting to monitoring. It will be interesting to see wether the courts accept this.
Man is arrogant if he thinks his actions do nothing to the environment. It may be less than the pollution Mother Nature causes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility for our actions.
I have to agree with him. I first became aware of Linux when my dad installed it on our PC in about 1992. I have wanted to install it on my computer but have resisted because of the time and effort it takes. I think a lot of the Linux community believes it should take this much effort, and that is what makes it such a good OS. Unfortunately, many computer users who just want their computers for e-mail, Netscape and word processing don't want that much effort! They are afraid of it! Unless Linux can cater to these people, it won't become more popular than Win98.
I don't believe Linux will ever die though, the community cares about it too much to allow it to completely die. If it isn't easy for the common user, however, it may sink to the level it was at 5 years ago!
Slashdot Mirror
What pisses me off is that they're going after a school district - and school districts don't generally have much money. Individuals may be violating copyright, but a policy of going after school districts seems to put the burden on those who don't have much and who we want to protect (school districts) to benefit the RIAA. How many children will be left behind because of this policy?
It's not completely clear from the article what actually happens here, but it seems like an interesting business model for the music industry: tie music downloads in with products. Could this reduce music down to the level of a cereal box toy? (For example, enter the product code into a website and get a specific song downloaded)? This seems to be a valuable promotional tool for artists (at least the ones the music industry wants to promote) and business alike.
It's very interesting to think about how the law of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions (International Humanitarian Law, I'll call it IHL) fit into this. It's also somewhat frightening. IHL regulations will cover this sort of thing somewhat - for example, using computers to direct attacks toward the civilian population is directly forbidden.
The problem is, a lot of this law is not fully developed. I went to a talk 2 months ago about "Cyberspace and the Law of Armed Conflict." The person giving the talk is a head lawyer for the Red Cross's IHL division. He said that talk was about the first given on that topic; it is a very new issue of international law. The problem with new issues is they tend to be developed as they play out - so the loudest voice will often make the law.
Here is more information about IHL.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Most of what I know about IHL comes from the Red Cross, whose purpose is to preserve international humanitarian law (according to the Geneva Conventions).
The thing most people fail to understand is that just because information can cheaply be reproduced, it does not follow that it was cheap to create. Whether you're talking a few million dollars to write a piece of software, or a few hundreds of millions to develop a new drug, it's the same: in the US, people can spend money to create knowledge, because the US will protect their opportunity to earn a return on their investment.
There are two sides to this argument: one is that the US needs strong protection to insure investment, and the other side is that the protection cannot be so strong as to allow frivolous or otherwise unethical patents. These need to be balanced, and right now, the US seems to be leaning towards protection, without paying as much attention to protecting rights of people who are not investing. Groups like EFF and IP Justice will work to swing the scale the other way, but the result (if they are successful) is that legislation will be more balanced toward protecting the rights of all sides.
No, not except for the packet of 4 box-top license cases our prof gave us along with a memo describing them. OTOH have done more with the UCC in the last 2 days than the whole semester in class. Never know what he's going to ask in 50 multiple choice questions.
The problem with software is that it's goods (covered by the UCC) as well as services, so it's still (to some extent) not decided exactly which law covers it.
If OEMs do not honor the EULA, then the OEM is breaching the contract, not M$. M$ has a contract with the OEM, and the OEM has a contract with the buyer (you) - so if you take the software back, as allowed for in the contract (even in the EULA, since the OEM should have accepted those terms), then you no longer have a contract with the OEM for the software, and the OEM should give your money back for it.
Note that you have to return the software back within a reasonable time. If you've had it longer than a couple weeks (a month, max), then you have probably implicitly "accepted" the terms of the contract and cannot return this. The EULA or other contract agreements may give you longer than this, but I doubt that.
I didn't use my Handspring for a while because I just didn't need it - I was doing tech support, and really had no need to keep track of anything more than I could write down on a wall calendar.
Now I'm in grad school and use it all the time, mostly for to-do lists and to keep track of class changes. I find myself using the Palm Desktop software on my laptop more than the actual Handspring, though. The Handspring screen is too small to look at everything I need to look at for scheduling - although it's still good when I don't have my laptop on.
I expect both of these cases will be appealed and the appeals court judge will overrule one of them (since Georgia and Florida are both in the 11th circuit).
However, there is another minor difference. Brent Reynolds couldn't get any bus schedules from Marta (except for very specific route information from the phone system). The customer in Southwest didn't complain about that, rather that he couldn't get access to the website. It seems like a minor point, but it can be a major legal distinction.
I started college with a dual-major in physics and German. After a year I changed from physics to math. Soon after I wanted to change from math to CS, but wanted to graduate within 4 years so I just got a CS minor (stuck with the German though, it was easy). I programmed for a year, quit because I really didn't like it. Now I'm doing helpdesk work, and hate it.
Only about half the people I work with have college degrees, and most of them (myself included) had no idea what they wanted to do while in college. It has taken a few years of "real world" experience to figure it out, and some serious thinking. After taking some classes at the community college and spending several months thinking about what I like, I am preparing to start law school this fall. I am happy with my decision. However, I would have chosen classes differently and focused on different areas if I had been planning for a career in law rather than in {german,math,physics,programming}.
Bottom line is, college is important, but know what you want to do first. Even if you think you know now, take a few years to work (you have job offers!) before you make a commitment in college. Figure out your own path, get certifications as needed, and go to college when you think it is time, not when people tell you to do it.
Good thing, since they advertise (and thus expect the viewer to consume) beer and caffinated drinks.
There is not the same kind of social conditioning to "not play with unknown attachments". The problem here is not entirely trust, it is also an issue of education.
Why don't they just legislate .kids or .notpron, and simply permit no conent unsuitable for children on sites with that domain
.kids site is appropriate for children.) I think this needs to be regulated through incentives such as advertising and a large target audience, rather than through legislation. US legislation is not effective in other countries!
.prn domain is that would be a target for kids who want to see the "adult world" (virtually all kids). Middle-school kids come home from school and are alone for hours and are presented with a wealth of "forbidden" destinations. Most of these kids will know how to hack the Nanny software on the PCs better than their parents can patch it. How is this regulation?
I really like this idea. For one, it will make it easier for schools etc. to give children acces to websites appropriate for them. (That is, of course, provided that all material on the
Finally, the real reason not to have a
This rather stinks, but I'll try to be understanding about needing revenue from advertisers. Do you have any more details on the policy? Will these be notated differently so we can choose not to read them, even if we don't have the option to not display these? What type of advertising/paid submissions would (and would not) be allowed?
This said, I still hope this is an April Fools' joke.
The endorsement factor is valid only because Gateway sells Microsoft and no other OS's. If the grocery store sold only Pepsi and no Coke, that would appear to me (the consumer) that they endorse Pepsi and not Coke. There could be a completely differnent reason (for example, Pepsi's contract with the grocery store forbids them from selling Coke), but as a consumer, I do not know this.
It works the same way with operating systems. Many consumers will look at Gateway selling only Microsoft operating systems and believe Gateway made a decision not to sell any other operating systems. This gives Microsoft a competitive (although stronghanded) advantage.
I used to work for a small software company that claims that most of the money on products is made from supporting (read: fixing bugs) the software it sold. This is a definite market force in preventing them from releasing correct software. Although it would be better as a whole for the company to release bug-free software, the company had little incentive to do so. During the last project I worked on, the client asked for help developing an extensive testing plan for testing the software before it was released. I was lucky my team lead had previously worked for a military contractor, because there were very few people in my company who were experienced at developing good test plans.
Regulation of the software industry would stop this and many similar companies from selling poorly-written software. This is not to say there would be no more bugs, but I'm sure they would be quickly reduced. If a company has to release a service pack on the day it's major software product is released (Windows XP), this is definitely a flaw in the overall system.
That's true. I frequently go to my private mail account or read (gasp) Slashdot to have something else to think about for a minute.
The problem, from an IT perspective, is users who don't know the difference between a diversion and potentially destructive software. We have many instances where computers have had to be rebuilt because programs downloaded conflict with office productivity software. It is unfortunate, and something you would hope could be resolved with some education. However, after seeing enough of these, I almost sympathize with people who want to completely restrict internet access for users!
A lot of Sun's complaint now is aimed toward Microsoft's illegal monopoly of the web browser and operating system markets. This should be easier for Sun because the DOJ has already proven this claim. There is really nothing substantial in this specific lawsuit (there was in previous lawsuits, such as from last year) pertaining to Java.
Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.
E-mail falls under Internet communication and thus requires monitoring consent of the 15 year old (or her parents) AND the police officer. Having a reasonable expectation that communication will be recorded is different from consenting to monitoring. It will be interesting to see wether the courts accept this.
Man is arrogant if he thinks his actions do nothing to the environment. It may be less than the pollution Mother Nature causes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility for our actions.
I don't believe Linux will ever die though, the community cares about it too much to allow it to completely die. If it isn't easy for the common user, however, it may sink to the level it was at 5 years ago!