Yeah. So it would be alright if I issued a take down order claiming to represent myself, and claiming that something someone else wrote was stolen? That's what this is asserting.
Here's the cool part: You could send a cease-and-desist letter on your own behalf. The ISP takes down the web site for a day or two to review the allegation. They find it not true and restore the site. You then send the letter again (or arrange someone else to do the same). The site comes down. You can keep doing this indefinitely, since there are no penalties for the false claims.
Either the ISP keeps taking the site down (knocking that person off the Net) or they run a legal risk of losing their safe harbor protection (which their lawyers probably won't let them do).
This is a consequence of the "common law" system inherited by much of the world from England. In the common law, it is accepted that disputes will arise that fall outside the language of a statute. Therefore it is accepted that statutes passed by legislatures (Parliament or Congress) and executives (be they Kings or Presidents) can never on their own create a fully effective legal system.
Is this just a sociological statement of Godel's Theorem?:)
The people who are invoking the civil rights movement, or for that matter, the Boston Tea Party, are missing the point of the original post (IMHO). Laws should be disobeyed when they are in fact wrong. Fine. The poster was trying to make the entirely reasonable point that "I want the latest Brittany Spears album" is not -- in and of itself -- enough to make copyright law wrong.
The other bit of civil disobedience that people conveniently forget is this: You are supposed to get caught and punished. It is exactly the publicity and immorality of the punishment -- out on the front pages where it can't be ignored -- that is supposed to spark the moral shift necessary to fix the law. So don't use an alias, a proxy server, and an anonymizer, and then try to BS that you're just executing civil disobedience. If the issue is rights that matter to you, take your lumps.
That said, you are very astute to pick out their abuse of terms like "piracy". The RIAA, MPAA and BSA have done such a good job of making copyright a one-way agenda (protecting property, rather than protecting a system that can be of huge benefit to society) that the first struggle is to redefine the terms in their original forms.
The whole "pirate" thing bothers me, too, but you have to understand: That term for copyright infringement is not due to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. It goes back at least as far as 1830. It's been sued for nearly two centuries now. And like it or not, it is a legally recognized synonym for "copyright infringement".
All that aside, those of us fighting the good fight should still content the use of "pirate" whenever it's used.
Copy right was intended as a tool to achieve a goal. The explicit goal was to encourage creators to make their work available to the public, by allowing them to profit from it. The profit is the tool, not the goal.
I understand your point, but you have to be fair: It is not the job of the DoJ to weight policy issues. They enforce the law. The law is written by the Congress. And to put the blame one step back, the Congress is elected by us.
Re:Liberal/Convervative mumbo jumbo
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Blockquoth the poster:
In two words: blame conservatives.
Well, for what's it's worth, it's the conservatives in the ascendancy in the US right now. If you have the power, you get the blame...
Re:Dean for President
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Blockquoth the poster:
This was part of what the internet was all about: democratizing the ability of an individual outside the established powers to enter into competition or publication or public recognition.
Dear God you're stupid. The Internet was about building a very large network that could withstand physical attack.
There are few amusements as reliably entertaining as reading slashdot and seeing someone call someone else "stupid", then immediately following that with a statement now known to be false. Let's go over it again: The Internet was not designed to "withstand physical attack" (nuclear or otherwise).
The Internet (well, ARPAnet) was designed to -- hold onto your hats -- connect computers. The main "anti-nuke" technology quoted by everyone is usually packet-switching. But that was invented to avoid the issue (from dedicated phone lines) of one circuit, one call. For voice transmission, it makes sense that you hold a line open for the duration of a conversation. For data transmission, less so.
The whole nuclear war thing is just an urban legend. Read Where Wizards Stay Up Late for more.
If I give you the binary and source code to a program I wrote, and it contains a copryright notice, you have NO RIGHT to distribute or disclose that source NOR it's binary to third parties.
Actually, there's no need for a "copyright notice". Under the Berne Convention everything is automatically copyrighted at creation. If you want to collect maximum damages, you'll need a copyright notice (and a filing with the Registrar of Copyright), but its absence doesn't negate your copyright. It sounds like SCO might be shooting themselves in the foot on this...
Given the MS Licensing policy, they probably have to buy new copies of Windows to run in VMWare anyway, since the licenses are non-transferable (and all that).
Of course a lot depends on the license agreement that they've signed/agreed to/clicked through. But generally "non-transferable" means that you can assign the rights of the license to another person, not that you can't transfer the software to another machine (or the same machine under an OS simulator). As long as the first copy is destroyed, it's OK to move it.
Indeed, I believe that even the "no transfer to another person" thing is legally dubious and unsustained in court. At least in the US we have this thing called Doctrine of First Sale, which says that the rights of the copyright owner end at the first sale (except for the right to restrict copies, but not transfers). German law is of course different and I have no idea in what way. But I don't expect that their existing licenses can be twisted to be valid only on native-Window boxes.
And of course, even if the poster had used the proper spelling "consensus", it would still have been wrong. You can't come to a consensus by yourself (barring multiple personality disorder, I suppose).
The worst part is that I tried to downgrade to a cheaper shaver. It seems that they not as good and do not hold as long...
The funny thing is, this is preceded by
It is totally outrageous. Talk about a monopoly!
Of course, these statements are essentially contradictory. Obviously Gillette does not have a monopoly, because there exist alternatives. They apparently offer a superior product, but at a higher cost. The whole point of the free market is, you get to choose what you pay for. If the cheaper blades were as good, people would move to that system and Gillette's price would come down.
Are you alleging that Gillette somehow uses its market presence to squeeze out the other players?
Not every high price indicates the boogey-man of "monopoly". Higher quality sometimes demands higher price.
Wow. That was a downer screed! Blockquoth the poster:
The public will generally not raise an upcry AT ALL any more... but when they do, it inevitably surrounds a "they're trying to take away my money, and I don't want them to" sort of issue.
Not entirely true. The Do Not Call list passed without any direct measurable fiduciary benefit to the public. Of course it's more convenient (or less inconvenient) for people, so they gained. But it wasn't motivated by a strict dollar decision.
Don't you ever forget, Windows got the Internet out of the little Telnet, Gopher and FTP land that it used to be and made it one of the most valuable resources created, ever.
I am not usually one for profanity, but... bullshit!! The "thing" that made the Net take off was email, and that dates back to 1963. It is still the #1 reason people want to get on the Net -- ask anyone who's done so recently. As for making the Internet popular, well, I was there at the time, sonny, and it was NCSA Mosaic, followed by Netscape Navigator, that made the Net accessible to the average Joe. Microsoft was way, way, way behind the curve and only got into the Internet when its explosive growth (and Netscape's cross-platform plans) revealed it to be a threat.
MS DOS did help make computers cheaper and more accessible -- though all the evidence indicates that, if not Microsoft, some other OS would have done the same. The opening of the IBM PC architecture and the march of technology made computers cheap and prevalent... Microsoft just rode that wave.
On the other hand, by illegally suppressing its competition, Microsoft help freeze OS technology into its late-1980s mold and so stifled innovation. Despite the claims of their flacks, much of Microsoft's latest "innovation" is playing catch-up with alternatives already out there. It's time people grew up: The strength of Microsoft lies not in their research division, nor their management division. It's all in the PR division. They grab mindshare better than anyone, with validity less than anyone.
I am never sure whether to be amused or disgusted when I see somebody hold up Michael Chricton for his "insight" when he has, essentially, just ripped off well-known -- and better developed -- ideas from real science fiction writers. He's a hack, he doesn't get the science even remotely correct, and he doesn't make up for it in dialog or plot.
If they were forced to read EVERYTHING they probably got a lot of it from angry individuals and spam bots. I bet they weren't even legally allowed to try to block spam.
OK, so that explains the need for a confirming email. Now explain the 9 pages you have to flip through, the need for my (required!) postal address, and of course, the need to pigeonhole all comments into one of the predetermined "important issues".
And let's think some about whether it is really a good idea that all email is automatically sorted into "agrees with"/"disagrees with". I'm so sure that both sets will be weighed equally...
Now with the new system they can have some DBA write script to pump out statistics on what kind of feedback/problems/etc most people are writing about.
... at least, the ones that fit into the boxes that they've come up with. Otherwise you get routed to the email box they admit won't always be read. And having gone through the system to register a comment, I felt the categories came along the line of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" -- no good answer exists.
In an administration that hadn't made an art form of obfuscation, that didn't believe that the public is to be used, not served -- in that kind of administration, perhaps I'd have the trust to give them the benefit of the doubt. As it is, this is just symptomatic of the disdain in which this presidency holds democracy.
This is the sort of thing for which I exorciate my senior-year students in high school:
From the early 1950's until 1991, copyright registrations rise exponentially. In fact, a simple quadratic fit shows an Rsquare of over.99.
OK, class, repeat after me: "Quadratic" is not an example of "exponential".
But, teacher, isn't a quadratic a curve with an exponent of two?
Yes, but that is not an exponential curve. It is a polynomial curve -- a curve wherein the function depends only on integer powers of the variable. So x^2, x^3, or x^15-x^7 are polynomial. An exponential curve is one wherein the variable appears in the exponent. Examples are e^x, (1/2)^(x/3), and so on.
I have to admit, fair or not, once I hit that mistake I stopped paying attention...
Most people offer up the John Henry story as a testament to the indominitable will of Man in the face of dehumanizing machinery. For example, this site says
According to some accounts, on hearing of the machine, John Henry challenged the steam drill to a contest. He won, but died of exhaustion, his life cut short by his own superhuman effort.
which seems, to me, to be praising Henry instead of pointing out how useless this sacrifice was... especially since, even if he "won", you can be sure that the next iteration of the machine would have beat him.
and lastly, once a site requires registration, even if free, Copyright ptohibits [sic] quoting entire articles on the web.
Actually, registration is not required to protect a work. Creating a work automatically protects it under copyright law -- no need for registration, user fees, or that little (c) thingy. At least in countries respecting the Berne Convention.
(a) Another BIG proponent of the Steady State universe is Fred Hoyle.(While we are at it, let's throw in that Hoyle also supported life from space rocks theory). Is he a quack? No. He has good arguments.
I'm sorry, but no. I've not read Gold's work or even heard of him, but I read a number of Hoyle's papers. In the early 1950s, steady state was a perfectly respectable theory with a few minor bumps from observations (such as the Hubble expansion). In the subsequent 50 years, the observations have gotten much more rigorous, much more extensive, and much more valid. They have also become much, much, much more difficult to explain via steady state. Fred Hoyle -- admittedly once a great astronomer -- has become increasingly shrill and outlandish in his theoretical constructs designed to explain the "illusion" of the cosmic background radiation.
You're entirely right that the merits of a scientific position ought not be dismissed due to the personalities of the people who hold it. But equally true is the statement that no scientific position ought to be elevated merely because some proponents once did good work, in a different subdiscipline.
But he is also famous for seminal work on the steady-state theory of the universe
Though no idea should be dismissed a priori in science, this alone calls into question Dr. Gold's ability. Unless they're using "steady state" in a manner unconnected to its traditional usage, Dr. Gold is on the side of a theory that has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Excluding the increasingly, um, eccentric Fred Hoyle, there are no real leaders among the handful of proponents of steady state.
Here's a hypothetical. Let's say Alice writes a book and gives it away -- but publishes it in code. She then sells a sheet of paper with the code on it. Under the DMCA how do the following play out?
Bob buys a copy of the codesheet. He then photocopies it and distributes it to 10 of his closest friends.
Bob buys a copy of the codesheet. He then sells it to Charlene. He does not copy the sheet nor does he himself read the book.
Bob takes a copy of the book. Without ever looking at the codesheet he figures out the code, using frequency analysis, etc. He then (a) reads the book; (b) tells Charlene about the book; or (c) tells Charlene about the code.
Bob takes a copy of the book but does not buy the codesheet. He tears out the pages of the book and uses them to line his birdcage.
I think it's pretty clear that only the very first usage is contrary to traditional conceptions of copyright. Note that Microsoft is essentially arguing that that last use would be illegal -- he is using the product in a way not intended and he is "circumventing" (literally, going around) the encryption device. Sure, he doesn't need the encryption device because he doesn't use the intellectual content of the book. But apparently the publisher gets to say what uses he makes of the book.
By the way, since Bob could simply take the book and burn it -- not buying the codesheet -- he has the potential to undermine Alice's business model. Therefore, matches are circumvention devices and must be banned. It does not matter that matches have many other uses; it does not matter that most books don't use an encryption sheet (or this silly business model). Under the arguments for the DMCA, any potential infringement of any single work is sufficient to block a device.
In other words, we've handed corporations a blank check to invent poor business models and then force us to pay when someone takes advantage.
Domesday Book, vellum and ink, still readable after 900 years.
Domesday Book II, Laser disks and computer files, in need of rescue after 17 years.
I know what you mean. But please -- only 900 years? I say, everything should have to be wiritten on stone tablets... they can last thousands of years...
The argument is specious because the kinds, amounts, and breadth of data is vastly different between the two. And, of course, the original Domesday Book probably isn't sitting on someone's desk; it's being maintained in a carefully-controlled environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the cool part: You could send a cease-and-desist letter on your own behalf. The ISP takes down the web site for a day or two to review the allegation. They find it not true and restore the site. You then send the letter again (or arrange someone else to do the same). The site comes down. You can keep doing this indefinitely, since there are no penalties for the false claims.
Either the ISP keeps taking the site down (knocking that person off the Net) or they run a legal risk of losing their safe harbor protection (which their lawyers probably won't let them do).
Poor man's censorship. Yay.
Is this just a sociological statement of Godel's Theorem?
The other bit of civil disobedience that people conveniently forget is this: You are supposed to get caught and punished. It is exactly the publicity and immorality of the punishment -- out on the front pages where it can't be ignored -- that is supposed to spark the moral shift necessary to fix the law. So don't use an alias, a proxy server, and an anonymizer, and then try to BS that you're just executing civil disobedience. If the issue is rights that matter to you, take your lumps.
The whole "pirate" thing bothers me, too, but you have to understand: That term for copyright infringement is not due to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. It goes back at least as far as 1830. It's been sued for nearly two centuries now. And like it or not, it is a legally recognized synonym for "copyright infringement".
All that aside, those of us fighting the good fight should still content the use of "pirate" whenever it's used.
I understand your point, but you have to be fair: It is not the job of the DoJ to weight policy issues. They enforce the law. The law is written by the Congress. And to put the blame one step back, the Congress is elected by us.
Well, for what's it's worth, it's the conservatives in the ascendancy in the US right now. If you have the power, you get the blame...
There are few amusements as reliably entertaining as reading slashdot and seeing someone call someone else "stupid", then immediately following that with a statement now known to be false. Let's go over it again:
The Internet was not designed to "withstand physical attack" (nuclear or otherwise).
The Internet (well, ARPAnet) was designed to -- hold onto your hats -- connect computers. The main "anti-nuke" technology quoted by everyone is usually packet-switching. But that was invented to avoid the issue (from dedicated phone lines) of one circuit, one call. For voice transmission, it makes sense that you hold a line open for the duration of a conversation. For data transmission, less so.
The whole nuclear war thing is just an urban legend. Read Where Wizards Stay Up Late for more.
Actually, there's no need for a "copyright notice". Under the Berne Convention everything is automatically copyrighted at creation. If you want to collect maximum damages, you'll need a copyright notice (and a filing with the Registrar of Copyright), but its absence doesn't negate your copyright. It sounds like SCO might be shooting themselves in the foot on this...
Of course a lot depends on the license agreement that they've signed/agreed to/clicked through. But generally "non-transferable" means that you can assign the rights of the license to another person, not that you can't transfer the software to another machine (or the same machine under an OS simulator). As long as the first copy is destroyed, it's OK to move it.
Indeed, I believe that even the "no transfer to another person" thing is legally dubious and unsustained in court. At least in the US we have this thing called Doctrine of First Sale, which says that the rights of the copyright owner end at the first sale (except for the right to restrict copies, but not transfers). German law is of course different and I have no idea in what way. But I don't expect that their existing licenses can be twisted to be valid only on native-Window boxes.
And of course, even if the poster had used the proper spelling "consensus", it would still have been wrong. You can't come to a consensus by yourself (barring multiple personality disorder, I suppose).
The funny thing is, this is preceded by
Of course, these statements are essentially contradictory. Obviously Gillette does not have a monopoly, because there exist alternatives. They apparently offer a superior product, but at a higher cost. The whole point of the free market is, you get to choose what you pay for. If the cheaper blades were as good, people would move to that system and Gillette's price would come down.
Are you alleging that Gillette somehow uses its market presence to squeeze out the other players?
Not every high price indicates the boogey-man of "monopoly". Higher quality sometimes demands higher price.
Not entirely true. The Do Not Call list passed without any direct measurable fiduciary benefit to the public. Of course it's more convenient (or less inconvenient) for people, so they gained. But it wasn't motivated by a strict dollar decision.
I am not usually one for profanity, but... bullshit !! The "thing" that made the Net take off was email, and that dates back to 1963. It is still the #1 reason people want to get on the Net -- ask anyone who's done so recently. As for making the Internet popular, well, I was there at the time, sonny, and it was NCSA Mosaic, followed by Netscape Navigator, that made the Net accessible to the average Joe. Microsoft was way, way, way behind the curve and only got into the Internet when its explosive growth (and Netscape's cross-platform plans) revealed it to be a threat.
MS DOS did help make computers cheaper and more accessible -- though all the evidence indicates that, if not Microsoft, some other OS would have done the same. The opening of the IBM PC architecture and the march of technology made computers cheap and prevalent
On the other hand, by illegally suppressing its competition, Microsoft help freeze OS technology into its late-1980s mold and so stifled innovation. Despite the claims of their flacks, much of Microsoft's latest "innovation" is playing catch-up with alternatives already out there. It's time people grew up: The strength of Microsoft lies not in their research division, nor their management division. It's all in the PR division. They grab mindshare better than anyone, with validity less than anyone.
Microsoft, I'd bet.
I am never sure whether to be amused or disgusted when I see somebody hold up Michael Chricton for his "insight" when he has, essentially, just ripped off well-known -- and better developed -- ideas from real science fiction writers. He's a hack, he doesn't get the science even remotely correct, and he doesn't make up for it in dialog or plot.
OK, so that explains the need for a confirming email. Now explain the 9 pages you have to flip through, the need for my (required!) postal address, and of course, the need to pigeonhole all comments into one of the predetermined "important issues".
And let's think some about whether it is really a good idea that all email is automatically sorted into "agrees with"/"disagrees with". I'm so sure that both sets will be weighed equally...
OK, so I assume you disregard as "unsolicited" any email that comes from your bosses, too...
In an administration that hadn't made an art form of obfuscation, that didn't believe that the public is to be used, not served -- in that kind of administration, perhaps I'd have the trust to give them the benefit of the doubt. As it is, this is just symptomatic of the disdain in which this presidency holds democracy.
OK, class, repeat after me: "Quadratic" is not an example of "exponential".
But, teacher, isn't a quadratic a curve with an exponent of two?
Yes, but that is not an exponential curve. It is a polynomial curve -- a curve wherein the function depends only on integer powers of the variable. So x^2, x^3, or x^15-x^7 are polynomial. An exponential curve is one wherein the variable appears in the exponent. Examples are e^x, (1/2)^(x/3), and so on.
I have to admit, fair or not, once I hit that mistake I stopped paying attention...
which seems, to me, to be praising Henry instead of pointing out how useless this sacrifice was
Actually, registration is not required to protect a work. Creating a work automatically protects it under copyright law -- no need for registration, user fees, or that little (c) thingy. At least in countries respecting the Berne Convention.
I'm sorry, but no. I've not read Gold's work or even heard of him, but I read a number of Hoyle's papers. In the early 1950s, steady state was a perfectly respectable theory with a few minor bumps from observations (such as the Hubble expansion). In the subsequent 50 years, the observations have gotten much more rigorous, much more extensive, and much more valid. They have also become much, much, much more difficult to explain via steady state. Fred Hoyle -- admittedly once a great astronomer -- has become increasingly shrill and outlandish in his theoretical constructs designed to explain the "illusion" of the cosmic background radiation.
You're entirely right that the merits of a scientific position ought not be dismissed due to the personalities of the people who hold it. But equally true is the statement that no scientific position ought to be elevated merely because some proponents once did good work, in a different subdiscipline.
Though no idea should be dismissed a priori in science, this alone calls into question Dr. Gold's ability. Unless they're using "steady state" in a manner unconnected to its traditional usage, Dr. Gold is on the side of a theory that has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Excluding the increasingly, um, eccentric Fred Hoyle, there are no real leaders among the handful of proponents of steady state.
Bob buys a copy of the codesheet. He then photocopies it and distributes it to 10 of his closest friends.
Bob buys a copy of the codesheet. He then sells it to Charlene. He does not copy the sheet nor does he himself read the book.
Bob takes a copy of the book. Without ever looking at the codesheet he figures out the code, using frequency analysis, etc. He then (a) reads the book; (b) tells Charlene about the book; or (c) tells Charlene about the code.
Bob takes a copy of the book but does not buy the codesheet. He tears out the pages of the book and uses them to line his birdcage.
I think it's pretty clear that only the very first usage is contrary to traditional conceptions of copyright. Note that Microsoft is essentially arguing that that last use would be illegal -- he is using the product in a way not intended and he is "circumventing" (literally, going around) the encryption device. Sure, he doesn't need the encryption device because he doesn't use the intellectual content of the book. But apparently the publisher gets to say what uses he makes of the book.
By the way, since Bob could simply take the book and burn it -- not buying the codesheet -- he has the potential to undermine Alice's business model. Therefore, matches are circumvention devices and must be banned. It does not matter that matches have many other uses; it does not matter that most books don't use an encryption sheet (or this silly business model). Under the arguments for the DMCA, any potential infringement of any single work is sufficient to block a device.
In other words, we've handed corporations a blank check to invent poor business models and then force us to pay when someone takes advantage.
I know what you mean. But please -- only 900 years? I say, everything should have to be wiritten on stone tablets... they can last thousands of years...
The argument is specious because the kinds, amounts, and breadth of data is vastly different between the two. And, of course, the original Domesday Book probably isn't sitting on someone's desk; it's being maintained in a carefully-controlled environment.