I know, it's the author's living. But Why don't they try a little rebellion? Musicians, stop selling through riaa. Authors, just reject these contracts and insist on your own. Try self-publishing. Start your own record label or publishing house. Put your Music and your Books on a website, free for download by all. They can screw you, but you can screw them as well. What will they sell if you do not write or compose for them? I know, it is easier said than done, but the only solution is to fight. If people sit around and accept whatever contract is forced down their throat, then that will not help solve anything.
IN your example, the gilmore person would be the rock thrower, and the T1 would be the bus service. The T1 is not to blame, but the person running the open relay. There is NO justification for open relays. None. Zero. Nada. Keine. Null. He can use SMTP Authentication or have his relay taken down. Everything else is just sick.
This really shows that you cannot be paranoid enough. That's it, I am ordering my tinfoil hat today.
Seriously, who would've thought about this? Certainly not me. I'd never thought that an LED might actually represent the state - I merely figured it's activity in general.
"And that's the problem. As I know I'm using up my ad-free page views - even though I paid only to support/. - I find myself surfing less and less to slashdot."
Maybe THAT is the plan - reduce bandwith usage and thus lower the cost of operating slashdot. It isn't about the $5 - that's just a side benefit.
"They aren't saying that they can not create a new OS without an embedded browser - they are saying that they can not remove the already embedded browser (Internet Explorer) from their current OS's without breaking them to the point where they would no longer function. That's a big difference, and whether or not you believe them is up to you."
Who cares whether this breaks anything? Look, it's supposed to be punishment for criminal behaviour. No-one said it ought to be convenient for Microsoft. What would the point be of that?
Actually there are international treaties that cover copyright, afaik. The DMCA is different though, as it goes further and covers "circumvention" devices.
Owning a press is not illegal, reprinting copyrighted works with it is. (In sane countries, that is.)
"They are sending goods to the US. There is information being distributed by their servers onto US soil."
An electronic product, not a packaged good as far as I know. You (as the information provider) cannot know the final destination of an electronic transfer.
"If yahoo was selling goods to French people in France which are against French law then the company can and should be tried in a French court of law."
Ah, but they were dragged to court by merely listing Nazi memorabilia on their website. They didn't even do the actual sale. This is illegal in France (as it would be in Germany afaik). A US court decided that French law does not apply to Yahoo as an american company in America.
I think there are relevant parallels here.
I agree that Elcomsoft argues over the top, but their basic approach is very valid. IANAL of course.
Each ought to be responsible to their own local laws. If it's illegal for person (A) to provide the information in his jurisdiction, send him to jail! If it's illegal for person (B) to request the information, send him to jail too! But don't send person (A) to jail because person (B)'s jurisdiction dislikes the information.
Yes, I realize this has the implication of moving illegal content "off shroe". But this sure beats having all 200+ jurisdictions of this world apply EVERYWHERE on the planet. It's just not workable. It would be the death of the internet. Do I want to be treid under chinese or iraqi laws? Heck no. Do I want to be tried under US laws? Heck no.
>To concede this is to concede that the courts (of >which the Judge is a representative) have no >jurisdiction over companies doing business in the >United States unless they have a physical >presence in the US.
>No sane educated person would even begin to >believe the court would self-sacrifice like that.
No US court would admit this. But unless the company actually sent goods to the US on its own, I fail to see how they're liable. If the product was ordered online by an US citizen, this US citizen should be guilty for importing such a software. If the mere fact of offering a product online makes one liable to proesecution under US law, why then is yahoo for example not liable to prosecution under french law?
Simple answer: You cannot force the laws of 200 countries on everybody. That just won't work. No sane, intelligent person could think otherwise. Or can they?
In your example, YOU send kiddy porn from finland to the US. This could be viewed as a deliberate act. It's illegal in both countries, so your example is not a good one. Let's tweak it. You have a photo of a nude woman on your web page. It's not even a hardcore pr0n photo. Just a nude woman. Someone in, say, a islamic country takes offense. The photo he just downloaded from your website violates his local law. On your next trip to eastern Africa, you are arrested and flogged in public.
Is this fair? Certainly not! Of course the internet is not a "palce" devoid of any laws. The tough nut is: Whose laws apply? The only sane solution is that the laws of each individual's location apply to this individual. The internet cannot make a user liable under the laws of all 200 something nations on this planet. That's just insane.
So barring any international treaties (of which I am not aware), the DMCA has absolutely no effect on what goes on in Germany, Russia, or Republic of Madagascar. The US is free to make up their own laws, but please don't push them down the throats of everybody else.
>...that as much as you might joke that spammers >should be lined up and shot, that gets a lot >less funny when you're dealing with the Chinese >government.
Well, if they were obtained by login or just by turning on the computer instead, I'd still hope police would need a warrant for that. They need a warrant to carry off my paper correspondence.
Of course it's all moot if the documents were made available voluntarily. IANAL.
Wouldn't it make MORE sense to try and find out what's causing the sudden and obviously unexpected BW usage?
I mean, surely they have ruled out file-sharing services etc. They wouldn't overlook something so simple. (slight sarcasm intended.) Data isn't something that leaks out of Ethernet wire, it has to go SOMEWHERE. At worst, it's a bug that needs fixing.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, it's the author's living. But Why don't they try a little rebellion? Musicians, stop selling through riaa. Authors, just reject these contracts and insist on your own. Try self-publishing. Start your own record label or publishing house. Put your Music and your Books on a website, free for download by all. They can screw you, but you can screw them as well. What will they sell if you do not write or compose for them?
I know, it is easier said than done, but the only solution is to fight. If people sit around and accept whatever contract is forced down their throat, then that will not help solve anything.
IN your example, the gilmore person would be the rock thrower, and the T1 would be the bus service. The T1 is not to blame, but the person running the open relay. There is NO justification for open relays. None. Zero. Nada. Keine. Null. He can use SMTP Authentication or have his relay taken down. Everything else is just sick.
This really shows that you cannot be paranoid enough. That's it, I am ordering my tinfoil hat today.
Seriously, who would've thought about this? Certainly not me. I'd never thought that an LED might actually represent the state - I merely figured it's activity in general.
"And that's the problem. As I know I'm using up my ad-free page views - even though I paid only to support /. - I find myself surfing less and less to slashdot."
Maybe THAT is the plan - reduce bandwith usage and thus lower the cost of operating slashdot. It isn't about the $5 - that's just a side benefit.
;-)
"They aren't saying that they can not create a new OS without an embedded browser - they are saying that they can not remove the already embedded browser (Internet Explorer) from their current OS's without breaking them to the point where they would no longer function. That's a big difference, and whether or not you believe them is up to you."
Who cares whether this breaks anything? Look, it's supposed to be punishment for criminal behaviour. No-one said it ought to be convenient for Microsoft. What would the point be of that?
Actually there are international treaties that cover copyright, afaik. The DMCA is different though, as it goes further and covers "circumvention" devices.
Owning a press is not illegal, reprinting copyrighted works with it is. (In sane countries, that is.)
As always, IANAL.
Well for those who don't know sarcasm... Of course capital punishment is not reasonable for spamming. For repeat offenders maybe.
Seriously, a long term imprisonment might even be a harsher punishment. Depends on where you are jailed. Bend over please.
"They are sending goods to the US. There is information being distributed by their servers onto US soil."
An electronic product, not a packaged good as far as I know. You (as the information provider) cannot know the final destination of an electronic transfer.
"If yahoo was selling goods to French people in France which are against French law then the company can and should be tried in a French court of law."
Ah, but they were dragged to court by merely listing Nazi memorabilia on their website. They didn't even do the actual sale. This is illegal in France (as it would be in Germany afaik). A US court decided that French law does not apply to Yahoo as an american company in America.
I think there are relevant parallels here.
I agree that Elcomsoft argues over the top, but their basic approach is very valid. IANAL of course.
Each ought to be responsible to their own local laws. If it's illegal for person (A) to provide the information in his jurisdiction, send him to jail! If it's illegal for person (B) to request the information, send him to jail too! But don't send person (A) to jail because person (B)'s jurisdiction dislikes the information.
Yes, I realize this has the implication of moving illegal content "off shroe". But this sure beats having all 200+ jurisdictions of this world apply EVERYWHERE on the planet. It's just not workable. It would be the death of the internet. Do I want to be treid under chinese or iraqi laws? Heck no. Do I want to be tried under US laws? Heck no.
>To concede this is to concede that the courts (of >which the Judge is a representative) have no >jurisdiction over companies doing business in the >United States unless they have a physical >presence in the US.
>No sane educated person would even begin to >believe the court would self-sacrifice like that.
No US court would admit this. But unless the company actually sent goods to the US on its own, I fail to see how they're liable. If the product was ordered online by an US citizen, this US citizen should be guilty for importing such a software. If the mere fact of offering a product online makes one liable to proesecution under US law, why then is yahoo for example not liable to prosecution under french law?
Simple answer: You cannot force the laws of 200 countries on everybody. That just won't work. No sane, intelligent person could think otherwise. Or can they?
IANAL. This is my opinion only.
In your example, YOU send kiddy porn from finland to the US. This could be viewed as a deliberate act. It's illegal in both countries, so your example is not a good one. Let's tweak it. You have a photo of a nude woman on your web page. It's not even a hardcore pr0n photo. Just a nude woman. Someone in, say, a islamic country takes offense. The photo he just downloaded from your website violates his local law. On your next trip to eastern Africa, you are arrested and flogged in public.
Is this fair? Certainly not! Of course the internet is not a "palce" devoid of any laws. The tough nut is: Whose laws apply? The only sane solution is that the laws of each individual's location apply to this individual. The internet cannot make a user liable under the laws of all 200 something nations on this planet. That's just insane.
So barring any international treaties (of which I am not aware), the DMCA has absolutely no effect on what goes on in Germany, Russia, or Republic of Madagascar. The US is free to make up their own laws, but please don't push them down the throats of everybody else.
>...that as much as you might joke that spammers >should be lined up and shot, that gets a lot >less funny when you're dealing with the Chinese >government.
I did not think that that was a joke at all.
Not to nitpick, but:
.es
.gov is for US Government only.
The TLD for Spain is
You can read up on country TLDs here.
The difference is that the barrier of entry for web content is MUCH lower than for providing cable TV.
"hung jury n. slang for a hopelessly deadlocked jury in a criminal case, in which neither side is able to prevail."
Eh...
And you don't think they could naturalize a foreigner if they wanted to hire them?
>the state of california for allowing some >miscreant to supply me power to run my computer
I thought they stopped that last summer.
Why not just increase taxes paid for the cars by car owners?
Ah, yes, I forgot, it isn't *really* about the *money*....
Carpet bombing, that's America's solution to everything nowadays! Whatever happened to some well-placed strategic nuclear strikes?
Sigh!
Can't trust anybody these days.
Ehm, you can play, say, Diablo2 on a LAN without battlenet, too.
Well, if they were obtained by login or just by turning on the computer instead, I'd still hope police would need a warrant for that. They need a warrant to carry off my paper correspondence.
Of course it's all moot if the documents were made available voluntarily. IANAL.
The "Author" field isn't auto-updated. You have to manually change it - someone in the EU Commission seems to have forgotten to do this, seemingly.
Learn Braille, use braille terminal. No tempest danger there, or is there?
Wouldn't it make MORE sense to try and find out what's causing the sudden and obviously unexpected BW usage?
I mean, surely they have ruled out file-sharing services etc. They wouldn't overlook something so simple. (slight sarcasm intended.) Data isn't something that leaks out of Ethernet wire, it has to go SOMEWHERE. At worst, it's a bug that needs fixing.
Real anime junkies don't need RC free players in Europe, because Japan and Europe are both RC2 afaik.