I defy you, or anyone else, to estimate you distance, get out your stupid eyeglass scredriver, ajust your back site, and get a round off.
I dont even know if the back site ajusts to be useful at more than 600 yards.
What Sized Target were you hitting at 500 yards? A body? A head? I mean, at 250 yards, (when you know it is 250 yards. Again. Unless you are carrying around a rangefinder, how do you know you are at 500 yards, and not 450? Because the marker on the shooting range says so? I mean, with the iron sites, it is HARD to estimate distance. Even with the scope where you can see how much between the ticks 2 peoples heads are. Its still a crapshoot) Fully happy. At 500 yards? With an M-16? Your sites are going to be so far off you wont be able to hit anything close to you.
Again. At 500 yards, you are at apprecialbe parts of a second. M-16 are hella light, it has past that funny place where it flips, and the wind is already doing funny things to it. At that range use a friggin M-24. Bigger bullet. Spins Faster (greater Stability). Moving faster.
Ok Ok. ON a shooting range, you can handle distance, and get good numbers for how far it is falling. I guess if you are on a ship, that is good enough.
But if you are moving? Use the right tool, in the right place. 500 yards? I am inclined to belive you, cause who wants to call you a liar.
1000 yards? With an m-16? Anyone who told you that is either doing their shootin in an aiplane hanger (little wind), with a range-finder, and a really accurate drop table. Or just lying. I mean, at that range, your m-16 is acting more like a Mortar. Can people shoot Mortars accurately? Sure, you Navy boys do it all the time. As Does Artillery.
Touching a man sized target, that isnt moving, that you know is at 500 yards, is VERY differentt then hitting somone, whose distance is vaguley estimated.
How well can you estimate distance? can you really tell distance, at even medium range, to within 20%?
Lets say you can. Lets give you the benifit of the doubt, and give you a scope (which will help you estimate range). So I will give you 10% accuracy. So you guess right, to within 50 Yards.
So you are between 450, and 550 yards. Now, just some rough (ROUGH) numbers. Using regular bullets (not the heavier, more accurate, less common green bullets) the speed of the damn thing is ~990 yards/sec, exiting the breech. At over 100 yards, it has already slowed below 930. At 500 yards, it is reasnoble (I dont know the numbers on this) that it will be going slower than 700 yards/second.
Average speed: roughly 850.
So at 500 yards, it will have been in the air 5/8.5 seconds. Meaning it has fallen a total of 9.4 feet.
(roughly)
how far will the bullet have fallen at 450 yards?
4.5/8.5 (not really cause the closer you are the faster the average speed)
very roughly 8.5 feet (ok, so I was wrong with the 3 feet in myGP post. I havent done this in YEARS).
at 550 yards? probably about 10.6 feet.
So, with only a 10% screw up in range estmation, you are typically going to be off by about a foot (up or down). This doenst take into account the effects of wind (at 500 yards, your bullet has been in the air for most of a second, the wind WILL be affecting it).
With the Iron Sites, (and no help and range estimation) I dobut very much that you are going to have that much accuracy.
Look, the M-16 is a great rifle. But Past 200 yards without a site, you are asking for trouble.
At 1000 yards?
the bullet has been in the air almost a second and a half (by then it is moving well under 500 yards/second). Meaning you have to aim 27? feet above your target (even with a scope. I havent seen ajustable scopes on an m-16. Not saying they dont exist, just I havent seen em. Wouldnt make so much sense at any rate.). So you will have issues putting the "cross hairs" (or line up of the pin between the two bars (sorry I dont know the english terminology for the parts of an m-16)) well above your target. So you will be aiming in the air. and your target will be blocked by the barrel of your Rifle. You likely wont even be able to SEE it. How are you going to get anything close to a lateral pin on it, when you are looking above your target, in the air?
500 yards, Where you know the range, Possible. Hard. But Possible (I never had to hit anything with an m-16 at more than 300 yards, and without a scope, THAT is a bitch).
Clearly the people Modding the parent have never Shot an M-16. Please Mod Parent, And me, only if you know what you are talking about.
Virtaully No-one could hit ANYTHING with an m-16 at 1000 yards. I dont even know what the drop on that is, but the difference between 1000, and 1050 yards is going to be hella Signifigant. (the Difference between 300, and 350 yards is like 3 feet). I mean, Shooting off your whole clip (not on automatic, thank you, the pull will kill any ability you have to aim) will not really help. If you have to hit ANYTHING past 300 yards, you need a different Rifle. I mean, with a Scope, MAYBE you can press to 450 (I never trained on the M-16 with a scope.) I find it hard to believe the parent, talking about ranges of 1000 yards with an M-16 EVER fired one.
All The Facts? can there ever be a collection of "All The Facts?" I am reminded of "prak" from The Hitchikers Guide to the galaxy. You cant EVER have "ALL" the facts. And As soon as you start picking which ones you have, you are GOING to have some biased view.
Does Anyone else feel like, merely having which letters he italicized, if it is really sternographically encoded shouldnt help SO much, that you would also need the position of each letter, and well, context?
LOL!!! Better Be Mayan! WAY too many people (myself included) are functionally literate in Aramaic (the basic document of Orthodox Jewish Law, the Gemara, is written in Aramaic. Most Boys who have gone through a Orthodox Jewish Day School, will be able to decifer, if not flat out read, anything written in Aramaic).
Too bad you just published it (the IP) in an online Journal. Makes it Prior Art. And (to you) unpatentable. Now, unless somone has already had the Idea and is working on implementing it (in the US, where date of inventionis what is important) or has already filed a provisional patent (in the rest of the world, where date of file is what is key) the idea is unpatetable.
No. Your Code, is concievably, right. That is,it depends on what "GetRadarInfo()" returns. His Code, is wrong. Because an assignment operator returns what was assigned.
so if(status = 1) in his code is always true. In your code, not neccesarily. Hence, his is a bug. And funny.
I was a moderator. Apparently I modded this "troll" when I thought I modded it "insightful". Can I change that somewhere? Tell somone I goofed? Ah. Apparently by comenting in A article, my mods are undone. Good to know...
If you senator is on the list of 20, call and write them. If you truly care about this issue, CALL AND WRITE YOUR SENATOR. If you want to jerk off and whine and complain, fine, do it here. Talk about how corrupt government is. If you want to CHANGE things, this is your chance.
Go to the US House Of Reps. Website(http://www.house.gov/) find your representative, call and write him.
Then, call and write BOTH your senators (http://senate.gov/).
Garnted, what is going on is going on in comittee, so if your senator isnt on the right comittee, it wont much matter. Still, it is importatant to let your congressmen know how you feel
I am puzzeled and troubled, both by your comments, and how it got moderated. A supermarket may choose to give you free samples. It is theirs to give. But you cannot make the argument, "well, because the supermaret gives free samples, I am entitled to take free cheese, even when they are not giving out free samples."
It is the supermakets property, and their choice, how they wish to advertise. Similarly, the series "Rome" belongs to HBO (or whoever the relavant copyright holder is). It is not correct to say "it would be good marketing for them to give this away, therefore it is legitamate for me to take some" any more that you could say "it wasnt shoplifting, when I unwrapped the cheese, they regularly give the stuff away". It is THEIR choice, not yours. If you dont want to buy it because they wont give you a free sample, that is your choice. But that doesnt legitamize people who want to download, against the will of HBO. Their marketing descisions are not the same as your entitlment.
How is somone merely being deragatory, even remotely "intersting". If he had said "clearly you dont undrestand the technology, look they are poisoning a trusted system blah blah blah" or "clearly you dont understand the technology, a decent torrent client will, after recieving 2-5 corrupt chunks blacklist the sender of bad chunks and simply move alone" or something else, you know, INFORMATIVE, I could see it rating an informative or interesting.
But merely "ehh you dont know what you are talking about" how does that get modded up? What did he have two accounts and mod himself? Or does some moderator really thing that somone saying "heh, you dont know what you are talking about" is in some way, interesting?
You say it like HBO is doing something Evil. I would agree, if they were messing up the protocol, across the board, but, from the article, they are doing this to downloads of their copyrighted material (specificaly, the show ROME).
Perhaps "HBO using technology to counter Copyright Infringment". I mean, really, downloading Rome cant be particularly leagal. It is theirs. Surely this is a good thing. I mean, entities have to be able to protect their property. Argue what you will about the terms of copyright (I would agree they are ridiculous). But this is somone trying to protect something which is currently making them money. And they arent suing anyone, either (yet). I for one, hope they can find a technological way to stop people from using BitTorrent to illeagly download theiri intellectual property, as I tend to prefer those solutions to the far nastier ones that are available (see the RIAA).
You need to update your understanding of US copyright law, then.
The reason schools, librarys (in the US at least, I really know very little about UK law) have signs "dont copy the whole book" is that the fair use test does consider how much of a thing you use. However, it is only one factor. So a school, for instance, cant copy an article or chapter for educational purposes, without paying royalties, while the same school may publish a heavily edited article, containing much or all of the same article, where the article is used as a point of discussion.
Fair use stays intentionally vague about what exactly _IS_ fair use, in much the same way the courts stay vague on what is "obscene" (you are still not allowed to publish "obscene" material in the US, but the deffinition of "obscene" is all but non-existant). So, while I couldnt tell you how the courts WILL decide, the issues that I raised in my above post are some of the questions (and likely issues that google would use in its deffense) which would be raised at a trial.
Robots.txt is a Courtesy. Much like the The Opt Out. Google is claiming that indexing is fair use. They will remove you from the index, if you ask, not because they are REQUIRED to, but because, you asked. There is a case law supporting the Notion that an Index, even a complete Index, is still within the scope of fair use.
Yes. They have. Go on and read the article linked to google's article. The Idea is that google's USE is transformative. They arent merely copying it. They are doing something with it.
Under Fair Use, the Idea is that you are allowed to copy things to DO something with it. In general the idea is that if you are copying the whole thing, then you arent doing something with the work, but are merely using the work, and dont fall into fair use. However, there are cases, where even copying of an entire work, if the use of that entire work is sufficiently transformative, is fair use.
So for instance, I am allowed to incorporate a picture of a copyrighted picture in my artwork. Evev if the picture I am using is a full copy, provided that my use is transformative. If google's use of the entire book is not to have the book, but a substantive transformation (and an index has been held to be sufficiently transformative before), then it may well be protected under Fair Use. Even if they are copying the whole thing.
Actually, my understanding of what Google is claiming: A. Under Fair Use, we have the right to display exerpts of ANY book, copyright or no.
If they dont copy the whole book, but rather, store the book as an index, they are on (from my little understanding of the law) fairly solid ground here. If they store the book, in a serially readable fasion, they might have some greater issues with the scanning. But if they never actually store the book in a serially readable manner, and merely make trees out of the book, they really dont need an authors permission at all.
IANAL but Google scanning and indexing of the books has some case law behind it, as being leagle, also. If you read the linked article (http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pd f) you will see an argument that the storing of the books, totally, with the use of only providing exerpts of the book is also leagle.
So what google is saying is "look, I can do this one way or the other, with out without your permission. However, if you REALLY dont want to be included, then hey, no big deal, I will respect your wishes. I dont have to, but I like being polite."
So Google basically it doesnt have to be opt in or out. But Google is being polite in letting you opt out.
It is interesting to me that on slashdot people are so "Screw the man" when it comes to the RIAA defending itself from people copying copyrighted works. But they feel that a corporation should not be able to use principles of fair use. Consider the priciples, not who is invoking them.
"These mom suck."
I agree with evertyhing you say up to that point. Do you know the cases intimately? Do you know if they are actually guilty? Perhaps it _WAS_ the babystier, or somones high school friend. Do _YOU_ know? I sure dont.
Look if you stealing online or in a store or wheever, and get causght, I have sympathy for you. But I have a hard time defending you. However, if you are ACCUSED of stealing, and you havent. I have an easy time defending you. Not being TERRIBLY familiar with the case, I find it hard to defend or condemn anyone. Until the last three words, you might qualify as interesting. After them, it is hard to see you as anything but flamebait.
I dunno. I mean, well. We, the people, have defined rights. Some of those rights are property rights. I mean, there is no INTRINSIC ownership, past, I am bigger and stronger and can TAKE this/keep you from taking it. Society, civilization creates rights. It creates property rights amongst others. It defines those rights in Law.
Currently, our laws provide for physical property laws, and intellectual property laws. You want to crusade to change the IP laws? Great. I dont think most people who want to do away with IP laws have really thought it through carefully. But that is beside the point.
Under our current laws, the RIAA is using the law to protect its Intellectual property. I know I know, lots of people think you should be able to "share" music online, cause it isnt hurting anyone. However, the LAW says, in fact, you are not allows to arbitrarily "share" music. You are allowed to make mix tapes for yourself and friends. The law lets you. But it doesnt let you arbitrarily copy music.
Do I dislike how the RIAA is handling itself? Yes. I find it revolting. Is it within their rights? Almost certainly. Make the distinction. 1. I dont like it 2. I think it is WRONG (moral claim) 3. They are doing something ILLEAGLE / What I am doing is perfectly justified/legal.
Just cause you dont think something isnt WRONG doesnt make it leagle. Our IP law actually makes it illeagle to share music online.
Now, the question of did these ladies (and now man) actually share the music? Hey, if only 6 out of 14k stand up and say "no it was a mistake". Then it looks like the RIAA is doing a pretty good job of getting people who have, in fact, had their computers used for file-"sharing". Look if you put something out there you want shared. Good for your. However our leagle system allows protections for somone who puts stuff out there and DOESNT want it shared. Just because you dont LIKE that we (society) provide that protection doesnt mean it isnt there.
I mean, suing someone, even suing lots of people it leagle. There is virtually no punishment for "frivolous lawsuits." And if the majority of people are settling rather than go to court, then you would be hard pressed to claim that these suits are "frivolous". As much as you hate them, thr RIAA still have rights.
Do you like those rights? Probably not so much. Do _I_ like those rights? Certainly not. I try to write to my senators every 3 months or so, and tell them I object to various elements of IP law. What have you dont other than rant and say "they are bad, they are wrong I hate them" on slashdot?
Just sticking your head under a rock and saying BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD is pointless. Merely saying "they are bad and shold be prosecuted" when they are very clearly legally in the right is useless. Write your congressman. See if you can get the Number of Signatures to get a measure in your state (though that is hard as Copyright is exclusively (IANAL) Under Federal Law). But Just saying they are bad, Yay women, way to stand up to the MAN.
Look if you keep using the Catch-All phrase "Computer Security" to cover distinct problems, no-one will ever get smart about the differences. This is about a buffer overflow.....
Would you complain if the blurb were: Microsoft is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to have been harmed by the Security Issues in its Windows Operating system. Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients, argues that it used Windows in May 2002 and was harmed.
How is IP not the correct term here? Are you saying that the BLURB in Slashdot is Poorly Worded? Meh. Yea. It could be more specific. But it isnt incorrect. If you bother to read the article, it is perfectly clear what is going on. I mean the Editors dont really EDIT the blurbs Somone submits them, and they put them in or not. The Category (YRO) is about right. What other IP is involved in G-MAIL (well probably a lot. Like attaching advertising to the content of email. Who wants to bet there is a patent filed on that. And the ever growing inbox is probably also IP. But I digress)?
Saying: " Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights"
Is very much like saying: "surely this is just a problem of buffer overflow. The summary seems to infer that general security issues are involved, rather than just a buffer overflow."
I dont know if you speak out of ignorance, or an attempt at FUD. But well. A trademark _IS_ IP.
IP Breaks down into 3 Major Categories: 1. Patents 2. Copyright 3. Tradmarks
Why do you think it is called the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office)? Copyright is left out, because for the most part Copyright is implicit, and you dont need to register it (although you can, and doing so gives you greater ability to file punitice damages in infringement cases). I mean, in a certain way, it doesnt bother me so much that you Just wanted to talk out of your ass, this is slashdot. But sheesh. How do you get Modded UP for being stupid. These are legal terms. The guy is using them completely correctly. There is no attempt to confuse the issue. The fact that YOU dont know what the terms mean doesnt mean the guy in the article is trying to obfuscate. Just that you are ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
I defy you, or anyone else, to estimate you distance, get out your stupid eyeglass scredriver, ajust your back site, and get a round off.
I dont even know if the back site ajusts to be useful at more than 600 yards.
What Sized Target were you hitting at 500 yards? A body? A head? I mean, at 250 yards, (when you know it is 250 yards. Again. Unless you are carrying around a rangefinder, how do you know you are at 500 yards, and not 450? Because the marker on the shooting range says so? I mean, with the iron sites, it is HARD to estimate distance. Even with the scope where you can see how much between the ticks 2 peoples heads are. Its still a crapshoot) Fully happy. At 500 yards? With an M-16? Your sites are going to be so far off you wont be able to hit anything close to you.
Again. At 500 yards, you are at apprecialbe parts of a second. M-16 are hella light, it has past that funny place where it flips, and the wind is already doing funny things to it. At that range use a friggin M-24. Bigger bullet. Spins Faster (greater Stability). Moving faster.
Ok Ok. ON a shooting range, you can handle distance, and get good numbers for how far it is falling. I guess if you are on a ship, that is good enough.
But if you are moving? Use the right tool, in the right place. 500 yards? I am inclined to belive you, cause who wants to call you a liar.
1000 yards? With an m-16? Anyone who told you that is either doing their shootin in an aiplane hanger (little wind), with a range-finder, and a really accurate drop table. Or just lying. I mean, at that range, your m-16 is acting more like a Mortar. Can people shoot Mortars accurately? Sure, you Navy boys do it all the time. As Does Artillery.
Is that what an M-16 DOES? no
Touching a man sized target, that isnt moving, that you know is at 500 yards, is VERY differentt then hitting somone, whose distance is vaguley estimated.
How well can you estimate distance? can you really tell distance, at even medium range, to within 20%?
Lets say you can. Lets give you the benifit of the doubt, and give you a scope (which will help you estimate range). So I will give you 10% accuracy. So you guess right, to within 50 Yards.
So you are between 450, and 550 yards. Now, just some rough (ROUGH) numbers. Using regular bullets (not the heavier, more accurate, less common green bullets) the speed of the damn thing is ~990 yards/sec, exiting the breech. At over 100 yards, it has already slowed below 930. At 500 yards, it is reasnoble (I dont know the numbers on this) that it will be going slower than 700 yards/second.
Average speed: roughly 850.
So at 500 yards, it will have been in the air 5/8.5 seconds. Meaning it has fallen a total of 9.4 feet.
(roughly)
how far will the bullet have fallen at 450 yards?
4.5/8.5 (not really cause the closer you are the faster the average speed)
very roughly 8.5 feet (ok, so I was wrong with the 3 feet in myGP post. I havent done this in YEARS).
at 550 yards? probably about 10.6 feet.
So, with only a 10% screw up in range estmation, you are typically going to be off by about a foot (up or down). This doenst take into account the effects of wind (at 500 yards, your bullet has been in the air for most of a second, the wind WILL be affecting it).
With the Iron Sites, (and no help and range estimation) I dobut very much that you are going to have that much accuracy.
Look, the M-16 is a great rifle. But Past 200 yards without a site, you are asking for trouble.
At 1000 yards?
the bullet has been in the air almost a second and a half (by then it is moving well under 500 yards/second). Meaning you have to aim 27? feet above your target (even with a scope. I havent seen ajustable scopes on an m-16. Not saying they dont exist, just I havent seen em. Wouldnt make so much sense at any rate.). So you will have issues putting the "cross hairs" (or line up of the pin between the two bars (sorry I dont know the english terminology for the parts of an m-16)) well above your target. So you will be aiming in the air. and your target will be blocked by the barrel of your Rifle. You likely wont even be able to SEE it. How are you going to get anything close to a lateral pin on it, when you are looking above your target, in the air?
500 yards, Where you know the range, Possible. Hard. But Possible (I never had to hit anything with an m-16 at more than 300 yards, and without a scope, THAT is a bitch).
1000 yards? The guy hasnt fired an M-16.
Clearly the people Modding the parent have never Shot an M-16. Please Mod Parent, And me, only if you know what you are talking about.
Virtaully No-one could hit ANYTHING with an m-16 at 1000 yards. I dont even know what the drop on that is, but the difference between 1000, and 1050 yards is going to be hella Signifigant. (the Difference between 300, and 350 yards is like 3 feet). I mean, Shooting off your whole clip (not on automatic, thank you, the pull will kill any ability you have to aim) will not really help. If you have to hit ANYTHING past 300 yards, you need a different Rifle. I mean, with a Scope, MAYBE you can press to 450 (I never trained on the M-16 with a scope.) I find it hard to believe the parent, talking about ranges of 1000 yards with an M-16 EVER fired one.
All The Facts?
can there ever be a collection of "All The Facts?" I am reminded of "prak" from The Hitchikers Guide to the galaxy. You cant EVER have "ALL" the facts. And As soon as you start picking which ones you have, you are GOING to have some biased view.
Does Anyone else feel like, merely having which letters he italicized, if it is really sternographically encoded shouldnt help SO much, that you would also need the position of each letter, and well, context?
LOL!!! Better Be Mayan! WAY too many people (myself included) are functionally literate in Aramaic (the basic document of Orthodox Jewish Law, the Gemara, is written in Aramaic. Most Boys who have gone through a Orthodox Jewish Day School, will be able to decifer, if not flat out read, anything written in Aramaic).
Of Course, a particular IMPLEMENTATION of the idea, might still be patentable. Like doing it using a particular API....
Too bad you just published it (the IP) in an online Journal. Makes it Prior Art. And (to you) unpatentable. Now, unless somone has already had the Idea and is working on implementing it (in the US, where date of inventionis what is important) or has already filed a provisional patent (in the rest of the world, where date of file is what is key) the idea is unpatetable.
Oh Man! I dont even know where to begin. D'OH!
No. Your Code, is concievably, right. That is ,it depends on what "GetRadarInfo()" returns. His Code, is wrong. Because an assignment operator returns what was assigned.
so if(status = 1) in his code is always true. In your code, not neccesarily. Hence, his is a bug. And funny.
I LOVE THAT CLIP!!! I wish I had mod points to use on you. Got a link? Moderators, mod parent "FUNNY".
N NNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
and shouldnt it be LEERROYYYYY
JENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNN
I was a moderator. Apparently I modded this "troll" when I thought I modded it "insightful". Can I change that somewhere? Tell somone I goofed? Ah. Apparently by comenting in A article, my mods are undone. Good to know...
If you senator is on the list of 20, call and write them. If you truly care about this issue, CALL AND WRITE YOUR SENATOR. If you want to jerk off and whine and complain, fine, do it here. Talk about how corrupt government is. If you want to CHANGE things, this is your chance.
Go to the US House Of Reps. Website(http://www.house.gov/) find your representative, call and write him.
Then, call and write BOTH your senators (http://senate.gov/).
Garnted, what is going on is going on in comittee, so if your senator isnt on the right comittee, it wont much matter. Still, it is importatant to let your congressmen know how you feel
I am puzzeled and troubled, both by your comments, and how it got moderated. A supermarket may choose to give you free samples. It is theirs to give. But you cannot make the argument, "well, because the supermaret gives free samples, I am entitled to take free cheese, even when they are not giving out free samples."
It is the supermakets property, and their choice, how they wish to advertise. Similarly, the series "Rome" belongs to HBO (or whoever the relavant copyright holder is). It is not correct to say "it would be good marketing for them to give this away, therefore it is legitamate for me to take some" any more that you could say "it wasnt shoplifting, when I unwrapped the cheese, they regularly give the stuff away". It is THEIR choice, not yours. If you dont want to buy it because they wont give you a free sample, that is your choice. But that doesnt legitamize people who want to download, against the will of HBO. Their marketing descisions are not the same as your entitlment.
How is somone merely being deragatory, even remotely "intersting". If he had said "clearly you dont undrestand the technology, look they are poisoning a trusted system blah blah blah" or "clearly you dont understand the technology, a decent torrent client will, after recieving 2-5 corrupt chunks blacklist the sender of bad chunks and simply move alone" or something else, you know, INFORMATIVE, I could see it rating an informative or interesting.
But merely "ehh you dont know what you are talking about" how does that get modded up? What did he have two accounts and mod himself? Or does some moderator really thing that somone saying "heh, you dont know what you are talking about" is in some way, interesting?
You say it like HBO is doing something Evil. I would agree, if they were messing up the protocol, across the board, but, from the article, they are doing this to downloads of their copyrighted material (specificaly, the show ROME).
Perhaps "HBO using technology to counter Copyright Infringment". I mean, really, downloading Rome cant be particularly leagal. It is theirs. Surely this is a good thing. I mean, entities have to be able to protect their property. Argue what you will about the terms of copyright (I would agree they are ridiculous). But this is somone trying to protect something which is currently making them money. And they arent suing anyone, either (yet). I for one, hope they can find a technological way to stop people from using BitTorrent to illeagly download theiri intellectual property, as I tend to prefer those solutions to the far nastier ones that are available (see the RIAA).
You need to update your understanding of US copyright law, then. The reason schools, librarys (in the US at least, I really know very little about UK law) have signs "dont copy the whole book" is that the fair use test does consider how much of a thing you use. However, it is only one factor. So a school, for instance, cant copy an article or chapter for educational purposes, without paying royalties, while the same school may publish a heavily edited article, containing much or all of the same article, where the article is used as a point of discussion. Fair use stays intentionally vague about what exactly _IS_ fair use, in much the same way the courts stay vague on what is "obscene" (you are still not allowed to publish "obscene" material in the US, but the deffinition of "obscene" is all but non-existant). So, while I couldnt tell you how the courts WILL decide, the issues that I raised in my above post are some of the questions (and likely issues that google would use in its deffense) which would be raised at a trial.
Robots.txt is a Courtesy. Much like the The Opt Out. Google is claiming that indexing is fair use. They will remove you from the index, if you ask, not because they are REQUIRED to, but because, you asked. There is a case law supporting the Notion that an Index, even a complete Index, is still within the scope of fair use.
Yes. They have. Go on and read the article linked to google's article. The Idea is that google's USE is transformative. They arent merely copying it. They are doing something with it.
Under Fair Use, the Idea is that you are allowed to copy things to DO something with it. In general the idea is that if you are copying the whole thing, then you arent doing something with the work, but are merely using the work, and dont fall into fair use. However, there are cases, where even copying of an entire work, if the use of that entire work is sufficiently transformative, is fair use.
So for instance, I am allowed to incorporate a picture of a copyrighted picture in my artwork. Evev if the picture I am using is a full copy, provided that my use is transformative. If google's use of the entire book is not to have the book, but a substantive transformation (and an index has been held to be sufficiently transformative before), then it may well be protected under Fair Use. Even if they are copying the whole thing.
Actually, my understanding of what Google is claiming:
d f)
A. Under Fair Use, we have the right to display exerpts of ANY book, copyright or no.
If they dont copy the whole book, but rather, store the book as an index, they are on (from my little understanding of the law) fairly solid ground here. If they store the book, in a serially readable fasion, they might have some greater issues with the scanning. But if they never actually store the book in a serially readable manner, and merely make trees out of the book, they really dont need an authors permission at all.
IANAL but Google scanning and indexing of the books has some case law behind it, as being leagle, also. If you read the linked article (http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.p
you will see an argument that the storing of the books, totally, with the use of only providing exerpts of the book is also leagle.
So what google is saying is "look, I can do this one way or the other, with out without your permission. However, if you REALLY dont want to be included, then hey, no big deal, I will respect your wishes. I dont have to, but I like being polite."
So Google basically it doesnt have to be opt in or out. But Google is being polite in letting you opt out.
It is interesting to me that on slashdot people are so "Screw the man" when it comes to the RIAA defending itself from people copying copyrighted works. But they feel that a corporation should not be able to use principles of fair use. Consider the priciples, not who is invoking them.
My post is a response to a Guy who is saying "yay women, Prosecute the RIAA under rico."
"These mom suck." I agree with evertyhing you say up to that point. Do you know the cases intimately? Do you know if they are actually guilty? Perhaps it _WAS_ the babystier, or somones high school friend. Do _YOU_ know? I sure dont. Look if you stealing online or in a store or wheever, and get causght, I have sympathy for you. But I have a hard time defending you. However, if you are ACCUSED of stealing, and you havent. I have an easy time defending you. Not being TERRIBLY familiar with the case, I find it hard to defend or condemn anyone. Until the last three words, you might qualify as interesting. After them, it is hard to see you as anything but flamebait.
I dunno. I mean, well. We, the people, have defined rights. Some of those rights are property rights. I mean, there is no INTRINSIC ownership, past, I am bigger and stronger and can TAKE this/keep you from taking it. Society, civilization creates rights. It creates property rights amongst others. It defines those rights in Law.
Currently, our laws provide for physical property laws, and intellectual property laws. You want to crusade to change the IP laws? Great. I dont think most people who want to do away with IP laws have really thought it through carefully. But that is beside the point.
Under our current laws, the RIAA is using the law to protect its Intellectual property. I know I know, lots of people think you should be able to "share" music online, cause it isnt hurting anyone. However, the LAW says, in fact, you are not allows to arbitrarily "share" music. You are allowed to make mix tapes for yourself and friends. The law lets you. But it doesnt let you arbitrarily copy music.
Do I dislike how the RIAA is handling itself? Yes. I find it revolting. Is it within their rights? Almost certainly. Make the distinction.
1. I dont like it
2. I think it is WRONG (moral claim)
3. They are doing something ILLEAGLE / What I am doing is perfectly justified/legal.
Just cause you dont think something isnt WRONG doesnt make it leagle. Our IP law actually makes it illeagle to share music online.
Now, the question of did these ladies (and now man) actually share the music? Hey, if only 6 out of 14k stand up and say "no it was a mistake". Then it looks like the RIAA is doing a pretty good job of getting people who have, in fact, had their computers used for file-"sharing". Look if you put something out there you want shared. Good for your. However our leagle system allows protections for somone who puts stuff out there and DOESNT want it shared. Just because you dont LIKE that we (society) provide that protection doesnt mean it isnt there.
I mean, suing someone, even suing lots of people it leagle. There is virtually no punishment for "frivolous lawsuits." And if the majority of people are settling rather than go to court, then you would be hard pressed to claim that these suits are "frivolous". As much as you hate them, thr RIAA still have rights.
Do you like those rights? Probably not so much. Do _I_ like those rights? Certainly not. I try to write to my senators every 3 months or so, and tell them I object to various elements of IP law. What have you dont other than rant and say "they are bad, they are wrong I hate them" on slashdot?
Just sticking your head under a rock and saying BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD is pointless. Merely saying "they are bad and shold be prosecuted" when they are very clearly legally in the right is useless. Write your congressman. See if you can get the Number of Signatures to get a measure in your state (though that is hard as Copyright is exclusively (IANAL) Under Federal Law). But Just saying they are bad, Yay women, way to stand up to the MAN.
Is well. Silly
Look if you keep using the Catch-All phrase "Computer Security" to cover distinct problems, no-one will ever get smart about the differences. This is about a buffer overflow.....
Would you complain if the blurb were:
Microsoft is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to have been harmed by the Security Issues in its Windows Operating system. Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients, argues that it used Windows in May 2002 and was harmed.
How is IP not the correct term here? Are you saying that the BLURB in Slashdot is Poorly Worded? Meh. Yea. It could be more specific. But it isnt incorrect. If you bother to read the article, it is perfectly clear what is going on. I mean the Editors dont really EDIT the blurbs Somone submits them, and they put them in or not. The Category (YRO) is about right. What other IP is involved in G-MAIL (well probably a lot. Like attaching advertising to the content of email. Who wants to bet there is a patent filed on that. And the ever growing inbox is probably also IP. But I digress)?
Erk.
Saying:
" Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights"
Is very much like saying:
"surely this is just a problem of buffer overflow. The summary seems to infer that general security issues are involved, rather than just a buffer overflow."
I dont know if you speak out of ignorance, or an attempt at FUD. But well. A trademark _IS_ IP.
IP Breaks down into 3 Major Categories:
1. Patents
2. Copyright
3. Tradmarks
Why do you think it is called the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office)? Copyright is left out, because for the most part Copyright is implicit, and you dont need to register it (although you can, and doing so gives you greater ability to file punitice damages in infringement cases). I mean, in a certain way, it doesnt bother me so much that you Just wanted to talk out of your ass, this is slashdot. But sheesh. How do you get Modded UP for being stupid. These are legal terms. The guy is using them completely correctly. There is no attempt to confuse the issue. The fact that YOU dont know what the terms mean doesnt mean the guy in the article is trying to obfuscate. Just that you are ignorant.