It depends on which position of theirs you listen to. One of the trained sharks...er...attorneys they have retained has actually claimed that the GPL is invalid. Of course, this would mean they were using copyrighted code without permission. Hell of a dilemma....
You don't listen to idiots, I don't listen to pompous elitist twits whose ego is only dwarfed by their ignorance. I find it interesting that you dismiss her on the basis of petty grammatical insults, yet offer no intelligent disagreement with any of her positions. It seems that people only fall to this level of pettiness in a debate when they are incapable of forming a real argument.
4. I'm afraid a 300 minute plan wouldn't last me a week, and most of my calls are to landlines, not mobiles. Sprint has so-so rates, but excellant flat rate pricing on internet service through the phone, and AT&T has really good deals for people that use 2000+ minutes with ease.
5. I stand humbly corrected.
6. I'm still not thrilled that major opposition was their first reflex. Too many companies seem to initiate legal action first, then look at their market position and whether something is good or bad for them. I'm glad Verizon is a decent fit for you, but at least for really high usage and special features, they really lag behind from what I've been offered for my business.
4. Charges outrageous rates (I'm on them, and can't wait to switch in November). 5. Doesn't charge for number portability because they don't offer it, and are fighting in court the possibility of having to. 6. As seen in this, will fight in court having to do anything that might benefit the consumer.
Just using a computer at home does not mean you are a "home user" in the way the term is used in this field. You set up your own mail server, and you think you are a home user? You are a power user or an admin, and in such a vanishingly small minority that Microsoft does not much care what you would like.
The only thing that is relevant is how many were sold as a percentage of board member holdings. SCO stock is almost entirely owned by the Canopy Group, a firm famous for stock trades and purchasing companies for litigation rights. Oh, and entirely coincidentally, the Canopy Group just used a large amount of vastly overpriced SCO stock to purchase Vultus, a web services provider. The execs cash out for money, and the parent cashes out for a target they may really want to hold on to, and they get a chance at the lawsuit lottery grand prize!
Oh, and how is it less of a cash out by executives if they own a smaller portion of all outstanding stock? It would seem percentages of personal holdings are all that matter.
Any chance you had of making a useful point...wait, you never had one!
And it amazes me that someone would think that some barely-above-minimum-wage flunky straight out of college, typically with minimal experience in the field they are evaluating, is qualified to judge what is legitimate or non-obvious in a field.
I always feel silling replying twice, but I was in a bit too much of a hurry when I wrote my first response.
In summary though, the only protection provided under the AHRA is copying between two devices that will not allow a second generation copy to be made, using devices with the protections required under the AHRA, and using media following those rules (you cannot use regular CD/R's, you have to use the more expensive but technologically identical audio versions). All these also require the manufacturers (or you since they probably pass the cost to the consumer) to pay a tax/royalty to the recording industry. If you follow all these requirements you are only given immunity from prosecution under this particular law. This does not convey a right to do something, and does not give the right to make a copy outside of these _very_ narrow constraints, it merely gives you a pass under that special set of circumstances.
That said, I believe that archival copies will be allowed given the conclusion in the similar Sony vs Betamax decision, and that format shifting will be allowed given the very similar Diamond Multimedia vs RIAA decision, so you are substantially correct in final result, just not in exactly how it is now.
"Why then is it called the Audio Home Recording Act?"
That would be relevant, if the title of a law had any bearing at all on its contents. Try actually reading the entire law.
"Here is the link to 17 U.S.C. 1008. Key quote: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright . . . based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of [specified devices] for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings"."
The part you dotted out completely negates your claim. It states 'based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or'. This law only limits suits _under this law_ (so suits may be brought under copyright law) alleging infringement of companies who produce or distribute digital or analog audio recording devices or media. This makes no reference at all to personal archival copies.
The AHRA allows the use of players with certain technology who have paid a RIAA tax to be allowed to use them. Nowhere does it allow for any personal archival copy, nor will you find anywhere in statutory law or case law where the courts have found the right for backup copies of format shifting to be covered under law or the fair use doctrine. The consensus opinion, based on the favorable view the justices took in the Diamond case, is that the courts will allow backups, and likely will allow format shifting, but this is up to their interpretation unless congress passes a law covering either.
"As for not liking people making backup copies, you obviously have never heard of the Audio Home Recording Act, which allows people to make copies of recordings. They agreed to that law."
This is a common misconception, which needs to be corrected. The AHRA allows you to make backup copies of software only, that particular law does not extend that right to music. People are hoping that fair use will allow backup copies, but there is no law that does.
I have one of the TI's you would program with little gum sized magnetic strips that would feed through a slot in the calculator. I'll have to see what year those came out in. You could even remove the battery pack and fit it to a base that provided AC power, oversized keypad, and a printer. Pretty cool little machine.
What's wrong with PocketPC? I actually tried using one, for a calculator as well as in general, and the answer is that a lot is wrong. The big issue is, of course, no keypad. Fast, efficiant data entry is impossible on the very tiny PPC screen tapping with a stylus. A calculator that takes two hands and visual focus on the screen (instead of the information you are entering) to use is virtually useless for many applications.
The PPC also has issues of reliability with fairly delicate hardware contrasted with much tougher (mainly due to simplicity) calculators. The calc is instant on, and never requires closing apps to free enough memory or even the 3 seconds to switch to the calculator app. Battery life is another issue. Most PPCs will only give you around 4 hours of heavy use, and with the models I have been issued can be an optomistic estimate. They also require frequent charging. When you use a calc a lot, you can't wait a few hours for charging after you've been using it a while.
For a person who uses a calculator a couple of times a month, there are excellant emulators on the PPC (and one on PalmOS, where someone could get a faster seeming, sturdier device with much longer battery life to run it) that could substitute. For anyone who uses a calculator for serious work in school or in their job, it just isn't up to the job.
Oh, and it is profitable. The HP12C is the standard calculator in the financial industry (though TI is making inroads, finally), sells for $70, and the design hasn't changed since 1981. They make stacks of money off that one. Calculator hardware can be profitable, it just has to be the perfect tool for the job.
There is a difference between choosing to ignore technical infractions and violating the fundamental rights of others. Violating copyright is like speeding on an empty highway at 3 in the morning. It is technically illegal, but only in the sense that you have violated an arbitrarily assigned limit. Killing someone is like reckless endangerment, you have not just committed a technical infraction, but have actually taken actions that would be likely to cause harm to another. Not particularly similar at all.
""It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment" - Many Slashdot posters, explaing that nothing is actually being taken from copyright holders
All of the above are what my grandparents called Splitting Hairs; the act of using subtlety of language to mask a true act or intention. Bottom line, you know what you really did, no matter what language you use to explain it with."
Actually, I think the phrase you're looking for to describe your statement is "being a damn fool".
There is a fundamental and massive difference between stealing and copyright infringement. They both may be illegal, but that is where any similarity ends.
Say you just wrote the Great American Novel. If I break into your house and take it away forever, I have stolen it. I have posession, you do not. You can't make copies, you can't sell it, etc. It is gone. If I make a photocopy of your book for my personal reading and do not attempt to sell it as my own work, I have infringed your copyright rights. I have committed a technical infraction of the law, but have not affected your ownership or posession of your book in any way whatsoever. You still have it, can read sell or burn it as you choose, since nothing at all has been taken from you. Infringement and theft are two completely different beasts, and all the flawed analogies and cute folksy sayings in the world won't change that.
Geez, with a boss like that, I'm amazed one of those "thermal" printers didn't suddenly burst into flame, amazingly at the same time as the spontaneous combustion of said BMW...
Actually, the most common procedure is to make you give it to your manager, who I'm sure will do the ethical thing and destroy it like they claim they will, of course...
"Not just "anyone" can subpoena your surfing habits, they need to get a court to agree that you need that info for a legitimate reason (i.e. a lawsuit that they believe has some merit)."
Same thing, under the DMCA, there are no checks and balances at all. Thats right, _none_ at all. The copyright holder hands a paper to a clerk and presto, instant subpeona. The same wonderful congresscritters that brought you this gem actually discussed allowing private corporations to damage or destroy your computer if they beleive you to be violating copyright, again, just by filing a notice with the DA. No review, no due process, no court, no proof. Vigilante justice at its worst.
"If the court has need of this information, then you need to give it, the privacy matter is moot, because it has been decided there is at least a good chance they have broken the law"
But the court doesn't need it, and it has not decided anything. These are not "real" subpeonas, issued by a judge as part of a real case. All that a copyright holder has to do under the DMCA is file a paper with a clerk, and a subpeona is issued. No probable cause, no requirement to show _any_ cause actually, let alone actual evidence. That is the problem with this, that your private information can be gathered under force of law merely because a corporation wishes to have it, with no evidence or due process required.
"No one can claim by his own authority, a right to the property of others."
Then why do you claim to support libertarianism? What is the modern absentee ownership of land but a moment of time, frozen in law, where those who had stolen each piece of land owned by the citizens of the country, and converted it to the sole use of the stealer without any compensation? Because the state grants a piece of paper saying the theft is now recognized by law makes it just?
"But just because a product is NOT open source, should it be criticized?"
If this product is produced by companies heavliy influenced by one party or the other, with the power to alter the political landscape of the United States, and the ability to destroy the accuracy of voting which is the cornerstone of democracy, then the answer must be yes. The microcode for your toaster oven may be whatever it wants, but elections are no place for closed source private industry created solutions.
Unfortunately, the issue is not if it is bug free, the issue is transparency in such a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. Transparency that will never exist with a hidden source privately developed system.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on which position of theirs you listen to. One of the trained sharks...er...attorneys they have retained has actually claimed that the GPL is invalid. Of course, this would mean they were using copyrighted code without permission. Hell of a dilemma....
You don't listen to idiots, I don't listen to pompous elitist twits whose ego is only dwarfed by their ignorance. I find it interesting that you dismiss her on the basis of petty grammatical insults, yet offer no intelligent disagreement with any of her positions. It seems that people only fall to this level of pettiness in a debate when they are incapable of forming a real argument.
I don't know, I can sympathize with dselect. That goes beyond an unfriendly and not particularly useful interface straight to actively user hostile :)
4. I'm afraid a 300 minute plan wouldn't last me a week, and most of my calls are to landlines, not mobiles. Sprint has so-so rates, but excellant flat rate pricing on internet service through the phone, and AT&T has really good deals for people that use 2000+ minutes with ease.
5. I stand humbly corrected.
6. I'm still not thrilled that major opposition was their first reflex. Too many companies seem to initiate legal action first, then look at their market position and whether something is good or bad for them. I'm glad Verizon is a decent fit for you, but at least for really high usage and special features, they really lag behind from what I've been offered for my business.
4. Charges outrageous rates (I'm on them, and can't wait to switch in November).
5. Doesn't charge for number portability because they don't offer it, and are fighting in court the possibility of having to.
6. As seen in this, will fight in court having to do anything that might benefit the consumer.
Just using a computer at home does not mean you are a "home user" in the way the term is used in this field. You set up your own mail server, and you think you are a home user? You are a power user or an admin, and in such a vanishingly small minority that Microsoft does not much care what you would like.
The only thing that is relevant is how many were sold as a percentage of board member holdings. SCO stock is almost entirely owned by the Canopy Group, a firm famous for stock trades and purchasing companies for litigation rights. Oh, and entirely coincidentally, the Canopy Group just used a large amount of vastly overpriced SCO stock to purchase Vultus, a web services provider. The execs cash out for money, and the parent cashes out for a target they may really want to hold on to, and they get a chance at the lawsuit lottery grand prize!
Oh, and how is it less of a cash out by executives if they own a smaller portion of all outstanding stock? It would seem percentages of personal holdings are all that matter.
Any chance you had of making a useful point...wait, you never had one!
And it amazes me that someone would think that some barely-above-minimum-wage flunky straight out of college, typically with minimal experience in the field they are evaluating, is qualified to judge what is legitimate or non-obvious in a field.
No, I think when you get it down to two people, it goes from politics to a duel...
Really, does the government even bother with half truths these days? I thought they cut back to 1/4 truths to save money for tax cuts...
I always feel silling replying twice, but I was in a bit too much of a hurry when I wrote my first response.
In summary though, the only protection provided under the AHRA is copying between two devices that will not allow a second generation copy to be made, using devices with the protections required under the AHRA, and using media following those rules (you cannot use regular CD/R's, you have to use the more expensive but technologically identical audio versions). All these also require the manufacturers (or you since they probably pass the cost to the consumer) to pay a tax/royalty to the recording industry. If you follow all these requirements you are only given immunity from prosecution under this particular law. This does not convey a right to do something, and does not give the right to make a copy outside of these _very_ narrow constraints, it merely gives you a pass under that special set of circumstances.
That said, I believe that archival copies will be allowed given the conclusion in the similar Sony vs Betamax decision, and that format shifting will be allowed given the very similar Diamond Multimedia vs RIAA decision, so you are substantially correct in final result, just not in exactly how it is now.
"Why then is it called the Audio Home Recording Act?"
That would be relevant, if the title of a law had any bearing at all on its contents. Try actually reading the entire law.
"Here is the link to 17 U.S.C. 1008. Key quote: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright . . . based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of [specified devices] for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings"."
The part you dotted out completely negates your claim. It states 'based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or'. This law only limits suits _under this law_ (so suits may be brought under copyright law) alleging infringement of companies who produce or distribute digital or analog audio recording devices or media. This makes no reference at all to personal archival copies.
The AHRA allows the use of players with certain technology who have paid a RIAA tax to be allowed to use them. Nowhere does it allow for any personal archival copy, nor will you find anywhere in statutory law or case law where the courts have found the right for backup copies of format shifting to be covered under law or the fair use doctrine. The consensus opinion, based on the favorable view the justices took in the Diamond case, is that the courts will allow backups, and likely will allow format shifting, but this is up to their interpretation unless congress passes a law covering either.
"As for not liking people making backup copies, you obviously have never heard of the Audio Home Recording Act, which allows people to make copies of recordings. They agreed to that law."
This is a common misconception, which needs to be corrected. The AHRA allows you to make backup copies of software only, that particular law does not extend that right to music. People are hoping that fair use will allow backup copies, but there is no law that does.
I have one of the TI's you would program with little gum sized magnetic strips that would feed through a slot in the calculator. I'll have to see what year those came out in. You could even remove the battery pack and fit it to a base that provided AC power, oversized keypad, and a printer. Pretty cool little machine.
What's wrong with PocketPC? I actually tried using one, for a calculator as well as in general, and the answer is that a lot is wrong. The big issue is, of course, no keypad. Fast, efficiant data entry is impossible on the very tiny PPC screen tapping with a stylus. A calculator that takes two hands and visual focus on the screen (instead of the information you are entering) to use is virtually useless for many applications.
The PPC also has issues of reliability with fairly delicate hardware contrasted with much tougher (mainly due to simplicity) calculators. The calc is instant on, and never requires closing apps to free enough memory or even the 3 seconds to switch to the calculator app. Battery life is another issue. Most PPCs will only give you around 4 hours of heavy use, and with the models I have been issued can be an optomistic estimate. They also require frequent charging. When you use a calc a lot, you can't wait a few hours for charging after you've been using it a while.
For a person who uses a calculator a couple of times a month, there are excellant emulators on the PPC (and one on PalmOS, where someone could get a faster seeming, sturdier device with much longer battery life to run it) that could substitute. For anyone who uses a calculator for serious work in school or in their job, it just isn't up to the job.
Oh, and it is profitable. The HP12C is the standard calculator in the financial industry (though TI is making inroads, finally), sells for $70, and the design hasn't changed since 1981. They make stacks of money off that one. Calculator hardware can be profitable, it just has to be the perfect tool for the job.
There is a difference between choosing to ignore technical infractions and violating the fundamental rights of others. Violating copyright is like speeding on an empty highway at 3 in the morning. It is technically illegal, but only in the sense that you have violated an arbitrarily assigned limit. Killing someone is like reckless endangerment, you have not just committed a technical infraction, but have actually taken actions that would be likely to cause harm to another. Not particularly similar at all.
""It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment" - Many Slashdot posters, explaing that nothing is actually being taken from copyright holders
All of the above are what my grandparents called Splitting Hairs; the act of using subtlety of language to mask a true act or intention. Bottom line, you know what you really did, no matter what language you use to explain it with."
Actually, I think the phrase you're looking for to describe your statement is "being a damn fool".
There is a fundamental and massive difference between stealing and copyright infringement. They both may be illegal, but that is where any similarity ends.
Say you just wrote the Great American Novel. If I break into your house and take it away forever, I have stolen it. I have posession, you do not. You can't make copies, you can't sell it, etc. It is gone. If I make a photocopy of your book for my personal reading and do not attempt to sell it as my own work, I have infringed your copyright rights. I have committed a technical infraction of the law, but have not affected your ownership or posession of your book in any way whatsoever. You still have it, can read sell or burn it as you choose, since nothing at all has been taken from you. Infringement and theft are two completely different beasts, and all the flawed analogies and cute folksy sayings in the world won't change that.
Geez, with a boss like that, I'm amazed one of those "thermal" printers didn't suddenly burst into flame, amazingly at the same time as the spontaneous combustion of said BMW...
Actually, the most common procedure is to make you give it to your manager, who I'm sure will do the ethical thing and destroy it like they claim they will, of course...
"Not just "anyone" can subpoena your surfing habits, they need to get a court to agree that you need that info for a legitimate reason (i.e. a lawsuit that they believe has some merit)."
Same thing, under the DMCA, there are no checks and balances at all. Thats right, _none_ at all. The copyright holder hands a paper to a clerk and presto, instant subpeona. The same wonderful congresscritters that brought you this gem actually discussed allowing private corporations to damage or destroy your computer if they beleive you to be violating copyright, again, just by filing a notice with the DA. No review, no due process, no court, no proof. Vigilante justice at its worst.
"If the court has need of this information, then you need to give it, the privacy matter is moot, because it has been decided there is at least a good chance they have broken the law"
But the court doesn't need it, and it has not decided anything. These are not "real" subpeonas, issued by a judge as part of a real case. All that a copyright holder has to do under the DMCA is file a paper with a clerk, and a subpeona is issued. No probable cause, no requirement to show _any_ cause actually, let alone actual evidence. That is the problem with this, that your private information can be gathered under force of law merely because a corporation wishes to have it, with no evidence or due process required.
"No one can claim by his own authority, a right to the property of others."
Then why do you claim to support libertarianism? What is the modern absentee ownership of land but a moment of time, frozen in law, where those who had stolen each piece of land owned by the citizens of the country, and converted it to the sole use of the stealer without any compensation? Because the state grants a piece of paper saying the theft is now recognized by law makes it just?
"But just because a product is NOT open source, should it be criticized?"
If this product is produced by companies heavliy influenced by one party or the other, with the power to alter the political landscape of the United States, and the ability to destroy the accuracy of voting which is the cornerstone of democracy, then the answer must be yes. The microcode for your toaster oven may be whatever it wants, but elections are no place for closed source private industry created solutions.
Unfortunately, the issue is not if it is bug free, the issue is transparency in such a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. Transparency that will never exist with a hidden source privately developed system.
Oh, might as well include the simple version for any Linux 2.4 kernel with iptables:
# Block AIM/ICQ
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 5190 -j REJECT
iptables -A FORWARD -d login.oscar.aol.com -j REJECT
iptables -A FORWARD -d login.icq.com -j REJECT
# Block MSN
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 1863 -j REJECT
iptables -A FORWARD -d 64.4.13.0/24 -j REJECT
iptables -A FORWARD -d gateway.messenger.hotmail.com -j REJECT