treble Pronunciation Key (trbl) adj. Triple: "treble reason for loving as well as working while it is day" (George Eliot). Music. Relating to or having the highest part, voice, or range. High-pitched; shrill.
If Sun wins the suit, they stand to get treble damages, because MS has already been found guilty of abusing a monopoly.
Frankly, it's this type of stuff that's really going to put a serious drag on MS.
I do wish the JD and GWB would actually DO somthing about MS, but it appears that they won't. Hopefully the states will be able to continue. The reason I want this, is it seems, well unseemly, that Sun et. al. use this forum to get MS. Sure, MS deserves it, but it's not like Sun wouldn't be doing the same thing, should they be in MS's position.
It just seems better for the Gvmt to strike MS, and split the company. They should also levy massive fines, as the value of competing companies could have been very large - but instead they're bankrupt or playing the small time. (Think of DR-Dos, OS/2, Netscape, WordPerfect, Novell etc.)
Why do I think splitting the co is the right action? Well, that way the Gvmt doesn't have to be invloved in the day-to-day activites of the company. The problem now, is that what benefits MS's is often not what benefits the customers. It's better for MS to keep the client locked to Windows, and locked to Office, as well as all the other "tightly-integrated" MS apps - think tightly-insecure!
If the Office group were a separate company, then they wouldn't care who used office. Any copy sold was a buck in their pocket. So, port it anywhere it could sell decently. But right now, it's to their benefit (high stock-price, better profit sharing etc) to help sell Windows the OS. More Windows, more bucks. Don't sell office on other platforms that threaten Windows, because it cuts into your pay.
By breaking the company into smaller function specific pieces, we can align the best interest of the company with those of the consumer. Ala - a MARKET based solution - stemming from necessasary Gvmt intervention. That's the way it should be.
But, if our good old DOJ can't do it's job properly, I guess we'll just have to settle for a box or rats all biting each other to cut MS back to size. It's sure not pretty, but it'll probably help. I guess the guilty verdict is the the good thing to come out of this so far...
Well, the RIAA doesn't seem to care about sharing tapes. Ok, you'll say...Oh, that's digital, and that's different. Sure, it is a little. But not by too much.
As for sharing songs via AIM, it's probably take a judge to review what's fair use and what's not. In the case this article is about, it probably isn't. When you share a few songs with someone you know, it probably isn't. But you probably already knew that.
Notice that your citation isn't all inclusive. It's just a list of things that PROBABLY are fair use. but even then, might not be.
Lets not fix the money problem because there are other problems with 3rd party cadidates?
Sheesh!
Sure, I'd love to have a 3rd party. In fact, I'd love instant run-off elections. In fact, I've voted for 3rd party candidates two or the last three Pres election cycles. (It would have been three, but I caved and voted for a major party candidate this time.)
But fixing the money system is a very important detail. We can use that victory to attack other problems. If you refuse to fix the money problem, at least in the McCain Finegold way, then how are you going to do it?
I also notice that you don't answer the money problem at all. Unlimited campaign contributions are not FREE SPEECH. Even the Supremes, as whacko as the Right Wing is won't find that limits on contributions is unconstitutional. They might stike some parts of MF, but I'll bet a bunch of it survives.
So what's your soluion. Does it have a prayer of getting into legislation? How about doing something that can get somewhere. That's useful. Just bashing idea's isn't.
If you would agree that Government should get out of being a massive millitary power, I might agree with you.
Frankly there ARE useful things that the Government does. The downside, is that government doesn't represent us anymore.
Congress isn't stealing any more than you're stealing from your employer by getting a salary. Government gives us services - many of them. Now, if you want to complain that Gvmt offers too much in the way of benefits/services, then so be it. They're not stealing.
Frankly, MS needs to have Gvmt regulation. Sure, the market might take care of the problem, but only after MS mangles countless competitors, and screws the consumers over and over and over.
What I'd like to hear you come up with, is some practical, realistic way that government could become smaller without leaving some massive power vaccum that wouldn't be quickly filled by the massive corporate interests in this country.
The end result, would be a TOTALLY unelected force (large corporations) that ruled the lives of the people. With bigger and bigger corps, the ability to have choice, is seriously limited. You can buy your stuff that you need to live from Massive Corp A, a wholly owned sub of Corp A or from Massive Corp B.
Corp A & B both keep any competition from exiting, either by buying or running into the ground said competitors. Without Gvmt to help regulate, it'd be worse than it already is.
Republican Sen. John "20% of the Keating Five" McCain, and several of his cohorts in the Democratic Party
John apologized on national TV for his misjudgements in the S&L scandal. He also had little do to with leaning on any regulators to let the S&L's do as they wished.
Next JM is a Republican. I'm sure you are too, and find that JM's ability to do as he sees fit, rather than tow the party line annoys you.
I disagree with your view of campaign finance reform, but so be it. BUT when people think that spending unlimited amounts of money running adverts to elect our officials is a RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, I just want to throw up. It's not!
A reasonable limitation, and clear lines of who the donors are, are reasonable restrictions.
Free speech advocates would be better served to find a reasonable limitation to campaign contributions, and defend that. Instead they defend the outrageous status quo, and have no meaningful reform that can or will pass.
Well, lets ask ourselves...Why "Bush really does believe letting big businesses do whatever they want without any interference from the government"?
I can almost certainly state that he loves big business, because big business loves him.
GWB likes being in power. He knows that BB put him in power (paid his way) for a return. He knows that he better provide a good return for BB or else they'll find someone else who provides better return.
Now what GWB _believes_ he's doing may be another thing. But I can't help him with his self deception.
Lady Liberty might as well have a sign on her butt that reads - "This space for rent - best offer."
That may be true, but I'll almost guarantee that virtually nobody will pay for that service.
So, you may be technically right, but the outcome is that it won't fly socially.
End result? Crash and Burn!
Cheers!
Re:Why did it take so many posts?
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
a_n_d_e_r_s is dependant on too few brain cells - and he seams to miss that...
Your grammer and spelling suck. How about opening up your word processor and spell checking at least a few of those larger words BEFORE posting.
Reading it before posting too...
I'm guilty of my share of typo's etc. but this is ridiculous.
Now, on to a bit ofre on topic stuff.
>Sorry but open source coders would not get the propriatory code in 7 years
True, but in seven years, you couldn't continue to use copyright to protect your exclusive right to sell the program. If someone leaked the code, the company wouldn't have any recourse etc. Sure, we might not get source, but that's fine. The basic principal, is that it forces the creator's of works to continue to be creative. Not sit idlely by and milk their one good idea. That might not help OSS, but it sure does help the rest of the world.
Finally, you would reverse compile the software (provided I don't know how useful this might be...) and the ex-copyright holder again would have no recourse.
I don't generally complain about such things, but how about you use your "preview" button and read what you post, BEFORE YOU POST IT!
You are incoherent, use poor grammer, mix their with there (and probably would have used they're incorrectly too if you could have) and to top that all off, your spelling sucks too.
If it wasn't for Mosaic microsoft nor netscape would have done much
I think you mean neither MS or NS...
i could care less about netscape That means you care at least a little...what I think you mean is "You couldn't care less"
Had netscape used there IPO How about their - the personal pronoun I think. Not there as in the money is over there...
netscape when from rags to ritches and didn't know how to cope and plummeted Here, I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but it sure was garbled.
ABCNEWS.com Feb. 5 -- Microsoft admitted on Thursday that its videotaped demonstration of a browser-less Windows 98 -- a key piece of evidence in its defense against antitrust charges -- did not depict an actual test, but rather a simulation...
From Google, becaues CNet expired the article Judge: Video discrepancy "very troubling"
By Bloomberg News Special to CNET News.com February 3, 1999, 3:50 PM PT
WASHINGTON--The judge in Microsoft's antitrust trial today said today that discrepancies in a video demonstration played by the software giant in court were "very troubling" and raised questions about its reliability as evidence.
Microsoft trips on video evidence
By Bloomberg News Special to CNET News.com February 2, 1999, 5:05 PM PT
update Microsoft's expert technical witness was tripped up at the company's antitrust trial, forced to acknowledge inaccuracies in a videotaped presentation that Microsoft's lawyers played in court.
While I can't find confirmation that MS did pull the video evidence (I am sure they did), it's clear what they presented wasn't correct, and that it was in error was KNOWN!
>>"he admits that the demonstration in court which showed this crippling was in fact rigged" >Gee does he? I must have missed where in the article he actually said that.
I can't cite a web page, but Allchin did in fact appear to be a deer in the headlights when the government questioned him about the inconsistancies of the referenced video evidence. On further questioning, he basically stated that the system must have been setup wrong. He then stated that MS would redo the test, and it would be re-submitted as evidence.
MS later completely withdrew its' video testimony completely. That may not be a blatant confession, but it does say a couple of things to me.
Either:
A) At best, MS couldn't design a decent test, using the same software engineers who designed the product.
Or
B) At worst, MS blantantly rigged the evidence and attempted to willfully mislead the court.
If you were betting $1000, which choice would you bet on? Me, I'd pick B. But silly me, I'm probably just stupid.
Any way you look at it, it's scary. It either means you can't trust any of MS's testimony, because they couldn't find their butts with both hands, or you can't trust any of MS's testimony, because they refuse to be honest.
Either way, it amazes me that anyone believes ANYTHING that MS says. Clearly, at best they simply don't know anything.
You only rip the idea of the CD when you pirate music
Do you know what prior restraint is? We prevent you from saying something, because we believe that what you MIGHT say might be illegal. Do you know that the courts are VERY loathe to grant such restrictions, and for good reasons. (We're not talking about free-speech directly, but some might argue that the software to rip CD's is a form of speech...but I digress)
The ripping of the CD doesn't in itself produce an illegal act. Ripping a CD has perfectly legitimate uses. Posting the CD in its' entireity on the net probably is a copyright violation. But you're exerting prior restraint to then ban ripping, because it COULD lead to an illegal act. Courts want to see the illegal act first, or at least a credible attempt at an illegal act before restraining an entity. Does that make more sense? The very basis of the US Constitution is that government shouldn't act to restrict the actions of people, unless you could show that they were in imminent danger of breaking the law. You're getting closer...
. It's illegal to drive with an open container of alcohol
Well, is there a LEGAL, good use of an open alcohol container in a moving vechicle? (Ignore the "legal" word as that could lead to a bunch of gyrations)
I can't think of any REAL use for an open alcohol container in a moving vehicle, that isn't a problem. (I guess you could pee in it or something, though it probably wouldn't have alcohol in it then either.)
So, again, we don't have prior restraint of an action that has perfectly legitimate and legal uses, but that a following action would not have legitimate and legal actions.
Someone talked about a bomb/explosives. Still, a hard strech. What are the legal, legitimate uses of the material? And the explosives argument doesn't really apply. If you have legitimate uses, you get a license to have explosives. You probably couldn't store them in a residential area etc, but you could have them.
So, did Adobe & Herr Ashcroft sue in Russia, where Elcomshot is located? Hmmm...I guess not!Will this judegement have an effect on Elcomsoft - most certainly.
The sad part is that the US is the 600 lb. gorilla, that goes about terrorizing the rest of the world. Since we're an economic super-power, the rest of the world has no choice but to acquiese, or get a proverbial load of cold water dumped on their economy.
Look at Pakistan. Frankly, most of the population doesn't really care for the US, and in fact, many activly hate us. But (Dictator Musharraf - GWB's best friend nudge-nudge wink-wink) knows that the US will crush him unless he prostrates himself and his country to the demands. If he whores himself to the US, he gets economic aid, and lots of goodies, plus the US will ignore how he obtained and maintains his power/position.
I guess we need to get used to the US taking a "screw the rest of the world" position. It's not new, and it's not going away anytime soon. I, being a beneficiary (sort-of) of this behavior, have a very hard time accepting that I can't get my government to treat other nations with the respect and dignity that we expect from them.
Elcomsoft's dead and lifeless body will probably be the result. It's probably not fair. We (the US) would certainly be offended to be treated equally, but that won't help.
The difference is that this is "friend-to-friend" sharing. (Follow the thread.)
The circle wouldn't be very wide, thus no real difference between digital and analog. (Sure, there is a small difference, but would that difference really make any difference to the sharing parties - I don't think so.)
Frankly, quality (or lack thereof) really never hurt the friend-to-friend sharing stuff anyhow IMHO.
If we're talking about sharing via napster, NNTP or something similar, I would agree. Small circles of friends sharing music is not as you would portray. (i.e. Rip your friends disc...Borrow, rip, burn or Rip, burn, share.)
He spammed to trap the spaming bitches covered in his huge posting
Whoa nellie... Have you been smoking something, or are you always this incoherent?
If you think Mark Rice is the "anti-spammer" perhaps you could go freshen up your memory again. Mark Rice was the beneficiary of the spam. Ms. Garst was the spammer.
Rice has consented to the entry of an order that would enjoin him from future violations of the foregoing provisions
Could someone explain...it appears that Rice has agreed not to break the laws he already broke?! Damn... "I promise not to rape, pillage and plunder any more!"
It looks like a panty-waist settlement. Does anyone know the punitive damages etc the FTC is asking for? This looks like a PR move, but no real action.
Wow, I guess you're consistant - but DAMN do you ever scare me.
I thouht GWB sucked. You would suck lots worse IMHO - but on the flip side, you probably wouldn't be the whore of giant corporate america either... [Grin] (I'm really not trashing you, just pointing out that we disagree - MASSIVELY!)
Thanks for the discussion, though it's obvious that we won't come to terms.
Clearly, it verges towards a copyright infringement. But since copyright is so hard to define, it probably would have to go to court, and a judge would decide, based on the particular facts of the circumstance.
But it has generally been allowed, or at least uncontested by the RIAA that sharing tapes of copyrighted material isn't objectionable. I would suspect that they don't feel it cuts into their profits, and probably encourages people to but their own copies... Thus, it seems somewhat hypocritical to then claim that ripping disks from friends is HORRIBLE, sa least from the position of the RIAA/Music Industry.
So, technically, it may be copyright infringement, though it's VERY difficult to define, but the music industry generally has not contested those who share music between a few friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Just mosey over to your dictionary.com
treble Pronunciation Key (trbl)
adj.
Triple: "treble reason for loving as well as working while it is day" (George Eliot).
Music. Relating to or having the highest part, voice, or range.
High-pitched; shrill.
Cheers! [Moron]
For all those of you just tuning in...
If Sun wins the suit, they stand to get treble damages, because MS has already been found guilty of abusing a monopoly.
Frankly, it's this type of stuff that's really going to put a serious drag on MS.
I do wish the JD and GWB would actually DO somthing about MS, but it appears that they won't. Hopefully the states will be able to continue. The reason I want this, is it seems, well unseemly, that Sun et. al. use this forum to get MS. Sure, MS deserves it, but it's not like Sun wouldn't be doing the same thing, should they be in MS's position.
It just seems better for the Gvmt to strike MS, and split the company. They should also levy massive fines, as the value of competing companies could have been very large - but instead they're bankrupt or playing the small time. (Think of DR-Dos, OS/2, Netscape, WordPerfect, Novell etc.)
Why do I think splitting the co is the right action? Well, that way the Gvmt doesn't have to be invloved in the day-to-day activites of the company. The problem now, is that what benefits MS's is often not what benefits the customers. It's better for MS to keep the client locked to Windows, and locked to Office, as well as all the other "tightly-integrated" MS apps - think tightly-insecure!
If the Office group were a separate company, then they wouldn't care who used office. Any copy sold was a buck in their pocket. So, port it anywhere it could sell decently. But right now, it's to their benefit (high stock-price, better profit sharing etc) to help sell Windows the OS. More Windows, more bucks. Don't sell office on other platforms that threaten Windows, because it cuts into your pay.
By breaking the company into smaller function specific pieces, we can align the best interest of the company with those of the consumer. Ala - a MARKET based solution - stemming from necessasary Gvmt intervention. That's the way it should be.
But, if our good old DOJ can't do it's job properly, I guess we'll just have to settle for a box or rats all biting each other to cut MS back to size. It's sure not pretty, but it'll probably help. I guess the guilty verdict is the the good thing to come out of this so far...
Cheers!
Well, the RIAA doesn't seem to care about sharing tapes. Ok, you'll say...Oh, that's digital, and that's different. Sure, it is a little. But not by too much.
As for sharing songs via AIM, it's probably take a judge to review what's fair use and what's not. In the case this article is about, it probably isn't. When you share a few songs with someone you know, it probably isn't. But you probably already knew that.
Notice that your citation isn't all inclusive. It's just a list of things that PROBABLY are fair use. but even then, might not be.
Cheers!
So Sherlock...
Lets not fix the money problem because there are other problems with 3rd party cadidates?
Sheesh!
Sure, I'd love to have a 3rd party. In fact, I'd love instant run-off elections. In fact, I've voted for 3rd party candidates two or the last three Pres election cycles. (It would have been three, but I caved and voted for a major party candidate this time.)
But fixing the money system is a very important detail. We can use that victory to attack other problems. If you refuse to fix the money problem, at least in the McCain Finegold way, then how are you going to do it?
I also notice that you don't answer the money problem at all. Unlimited campaign contributions are not FREE SPEECH. Even the Supremes, as whacko as the Right Wing is won't find that limits on contributions is unconstitutional. They might stike some parts of MF, but I'll bet a bunch of it survives.
So what's your soluion. Does it have a prayer of getting into legislation? How about doing something that can get somewhere. That's useful. Just bashing idea's isn't.
Cheers!
If you would agree that Government should get out of being a massive millitary power, I might agree with you.
Frankly there ARE useful things that the Government does. The downside, is that government doesn't represent us anymore.
Congress isn't stealing any more than you're stealing from your employer by getting a salary. Government gives us services - many of them. Now, if you want to complain that Gvmt offers too much in the way of benefits/services, then so be it. They're not stealing.
Frankly, MS needs to have Gvmt regulation. Sure, the market might take care of the problem, but only after MS mangles countless competitors, and screws the consumers over and over and over.
What I'd like to hear you come up with, is some practical, realistic way that government could become smaller without leaving some massive power vaccum that wouldn't be quickly filled by the massive corporate interests in this country.
The end result, would be a TOTALLY unelected force (large corporations) that ruled the lives of the people. With bigger and bigger corps, the ability to have choice, is seriously limited. You can buy your stuff that you need to live from Massive Corp A, a wholly owned sub of Corp A or from Massive Corp B.
Corp A & B both keep any competition from exiting, either by buying or running into the ground said competitors. Without Gvmt to help regulate, it'd be worse than it already is.
Cheers!
Republican Sen. John "20% of the Keating Five" McCain, and several of his cohorts in the Democratic Party
John apologized on national TV for his misjudgements in the S&L scandal. He also had little do to with leaning on any regulators to let the S&L's do as they wished.
Next JM is a Republican. I'm sure you are too, and find that JM's ability to do as he sees fit, rather than tow the party line annoys you.
I disagree with your view of campaign finance reform, but so be it. BUT when people think that spending unlimited amounts of money running adverts to elect our officials is a RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, I just want to throw up. It's not!
A reasonable limitation, and clear lines of who the donors are, are reasonable restrictions.
Free speech advocates would be better served to find a reasonable limitation to campaign contributions, and defend that. Instead they defend the outrageous status quo, and have no meaningful reform that can or will pass.
Cheers!
Well, lets ask ourselves...Why "Bush really does believe letting big businesses do whatever they want without any interference from the government"?
I can almost certainly state that he loves big business, because big business loves him.
GWB likes being in power. He knows that BB put him in power (paid his way) for a return. He knows that he better provide a good return for BB or else they'll find someone else who provides better return.
Now what GWB _believes_ he's doing may be another thing. But I can't help him with his self deception.
Lady Liberty might as well have a sign on her butt that reads - "This space for rent - best offer."
Cheers!
In the crude but seemly true words of another poster...
Whore out Lady Liberty to corporate America. I mean hey, we've got the best elected officials that money can buy.
So just shut-up and take it like a good consumer!
Cheers!
Oops...
Pot, meet Kettle!
[Grin]
Thanks!
Cheers!
>You're paying for the service.
That may be true, but I'll almost guarantee that virtually nobody will pay for that service.
So, you may be technically right, but the outcome is that it won't fly socially.
End result? Crash and Burn!
Cheers!
a_n_d_e_r_s is dependant on too few brain cells - and he seams to miss that...
Your grammer and spelling suck. How about opening up your word processor and spell checking at least a few of those larger words BEFORE posting.
Reading it before posting too...
I'm guilty of my share of typo's etc. but this is ridiculous.
Now, on to a bit ofre on topic stuff.
>Sorry but open source coders would not get the propriatory code in 7 years
True, but in seven years, you couldn't continue to use copyright to protect your exclusive right to sell the program. If someone leaked the code, the company wouldn't have any recourse etc. Sure, we might not get source, but that's fine. The basic principal, is that it forces the creator's of works to continue to be creative. Not sit idlely by and milk their one good idea. That might not help OSS, but it sure does help the rest of the world.
Finally, you would reverse compile the software (provided I don't know how useful this might be...) and the ex-copyright holder again would have no recourse.
Cheers!
I don't generally complain about such things, but how about you use your "preview" button and read what you post, BEFORE YOU POST IT!
You are incoherent, use poor grammer, mix their with there (and probably would have used they're incorrectly too if you could have) and to top that all off, your spelling sucks too.
If it wasn't for Mosaic microsoft nor netscape would have done much
I think you mean neither MS or NS...
i could care less about netscape
That means you care at least a little...what I think you mean is "You couldn't care less"
Had netscape used there IPO
How about their - the personal pronoun I think.
Not there as in the money is over there...
netscape when from rags to ritches and didn't know how to cope and plummeted
Here, I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but it sure was garbled.
Cheers!
I hate to beat a dead horse...
No, actually I kind of enjoy it here...[grin]
Microsoft trial: Second bad video airs in courtroom
Here's a little follow-up
ABCNEWS.com
Feb. 5 -- Microsoft admitted on Thursday that its videotaped demonstration of a browser-less Windows 98 -- a key piece of evidence in its defense against antitrust charges -- did not depict an actual test, but rather a simulation...
From Google, becaues CNet expired the article
Judge: Video discrepancy "very troubling"
By Bloomberg News
Special to CNET News.com
February 3, 1999, 3:50 PM PT
WASHINGTON--The judge in Microsoft's antitrust trial today said today that discrepancies in a video demonstration played by the software giant in court were "very troubling" and raised questions about its reliability as evidence.
Microsoft trips on video evidence
By Bloomberg News
Special to CNET News.com
February 2, 1999, 5:05 PM PT
update Microsoft's expert technical witness was tripped up at the company's antitrust trial, forced to acknowledge inaccuracies in a videotaped presentation that Microsoft's lawyers played in court.
While I can't find confirmation that MS did pull the video evidence (I am sure they did), it's clear what they presented wasn't correct, and that it was in error was KNOWN!
It may be biased, but it's factual!
Cheers!
>>"he admits that the demonstration in court which showed this crippling was in fact rigged"
>Gee does he? I must have missed where in the article he actually said that.
I can't cite a web page, but Allchin did in fact appear to be a deer in the headlights when the government questioned him about the inconsistancies of the referenced video evidence. On further questioning, he basically stated that the system must have been setup wrong. He then stated that MS would redo the test, and it would be re-submitted as evidence.
MS later completely withdrew its' video testimony completely. That may not be a blatant confession, but it does say a couple of things to me.
Either:
A) At best, MS couldn't design a decent test, using the same software engineers who designed the product.
Or
B) At worst, MS blantantly rigged the evidence and attempted to willfully mislead the court.
If you were betting $1000, which choice would you bet on? Me, I'd pick B. But silly me, I'm probably just stupid.
Any way you look at it, it's scary. It either means you can't trust any of MS's testimony, because they couldn't find their butts with both hands, or you can't trust any of MS's testimony, because they refuse to be honest.
Either way, it amazes me that anyone believes ANYTHING that MS says. Clearly, at best they simply don't know anything.
Cheers!
You only rip the idea of the CD when you pirate music
Do you know what prior restraint is? We prevent you from saying something, because we believe that what you MIGHT say might be illegal. Do you know that the courts are VERY loathe to grant such restrictions, and for good reasons. (We're not talking about free-speech directly, but some might argue that the software to rip CD's is a form of speech...but I digress)
The ripping of the CD doesn't in itself produce an illegal act. Ripping a CD has perfectly legitimate uses. Posting the CD in its' entireity on the net probably is a copyright violation. But you're exerting prior restraint to then ban ripping, because it COULD lead to an illegal act. Courts want to see the illegal act first, or at least a credible attempt at an illegal act before restraining an entity. Does that make more sense? The very basis of the US Constitution is that government shouldn't act to restrict the actions of people, unless you could show that they were in imminent danger of breaking the law. You're getting closer...
. It's illegal to drive with an open container of alcohol
Well, is there a LEGAL, good use of an open alcohol container in a moving vechicle? (Ignore the "legal" word as that could lead to a bunch of gyrations)
I can't think of any REAL use for an open alcohol container in a moving vehicle, that isn't a problem. (I guess you could pee in it or something, though it probably wouldn't have alcohol in it then either.)
So, again, we don't have prior restraint of an action that has perfectly legitimate and legal uses, but that a following action would not have legitimate and legal actions.
Someone talked about a bomb/explosives. Still, a hard strech. What are the legal, legitimate uses of the material? And the explosives argument doesn't really apply. If you have legitimate uses, you get a license to have explosives. You probably couldn't store them in a residential area etc, but you could have them.
The more important point is, that this is totally reprehensible behavior.
I suppose that you feel this way, but I would have loved to hear you say it.
The US needs to remember the golden rule. Sure, it sounds cheezy, but it's true.
Do to others as you would have then do to you.
It's sad how far we've "come" from the ideals and principles in our constitution and founding principles.
Cheers!
So, did Adobe & Herr Ashcroft sue in Russia, where Elcomshot is located? Hmmm...I guess not!Will this judegement have an effect on Elcomsoft - most certainly.
The sad part is that the US is the 600 lb. gorilla, that goes about terrorizing the rest of the world. Since we're an economic super-power, the rest of the world has no choice but to acquiese, or get a proverbial load of cold water dumped on their economy.
Look at Pakistan. Frankly, most of the population doesn't really care for the US, and in fact, many activly hate us. But (Dictator Musharraf - GWB's best friend nudge-nudge wink-wink) knows that the US will crush him unless he prostrates himself and his country to the demands. If he whores himself to the US, he gets economic aid, and lots of goodies, plus the US will ignore how he obtained and maintains his power/position.
I guess we need to get used to the US taking a "screw the rest of the world" position. It's not new, and it's not going away anytime soon. I, being a beneficiary (sort-of) of this behavior, have a very hard time accepting that I can't get my government to treat other nations with the respect and dignity that we expect from them.
Elcomsoft's dead and lifeless body will probably be the result. It's probably not fair. We (the US) would certainly be offended to be treated equally, but that won't help.
[Hangs head dejectedly and sighs]
The difference is that this is "friend-to-friend" sharing. (Follow the thread.)
The circle wouldn't be very wide, thus no real difference between digital and analog. (Sure, there is a small difference, but would that difference really make any difference to the sharing parties - I don't think so.)
Frankly, quality (or lack thereof) really never hurt the friend-to-friend sharing stuff anyhow IMHO.
If we're talking about sharing via napster, NNTP or something similar, I would agree. Small circles of friends sharing music is not as you would portray. (i.e. Rip your friends disc...Borrow, rip, burn or Rip, burn, share.)
Cheers!
Let me get this straight!
He spammed to trap the spaming bitches covered in his huge posting
Whoa nellie...
Have you been smoking something, or are you always this incoherent?
If you think Mark Rice is the "anti-spammer" perhaps you could go freshen up your memory again. Mark Rice was the beneficiary of the spam. Ms. Garst was the spammer.
Cheers!
Fine, Ill say it again!
Actually, metamod won't fix this. (At least not the meta-mod I know)
It might have been a correct +3 insightful, but not +5.
So, meta-mod might fix it if it wasn't insightful at all, but not if it's just alot more insightful than it really was.
Cheers!
Rice has consented to the entry of an order that would enjoin him from future violations of the foregoing provisions
Could someone explain...it appears that Rice has agreed not to break the laws he already broke?! Damn... "I promise not to rape, pillage and plunder any more!"
It looks like a panty-waist settlement. Does anyone know the punitive damages etc the FTC is asking for? This looks like a PR move, but no real action.
Cheers
Wow, I guess you're consistant - but DAMN do you ever scare me.
I thouht GWB sucked. You would suck lots worse IMHO - but on the flip side, you probably wouldn't be the whore of giant corporate america either... [Grin] (I'm really not trashing you, just pointing out that we disagree - MASSIVELY!)
Thanks for the discussion, though it's obvious that we won't come to terms.
Cheers!
This is grey area...
Clearly, it verges towards a copyright infringement. But since copyright is so hard to define, it probably would have to go to court, and a judge would decide, based on the particular facts of the circumstance.
But it has generally been allowed, or at least uncontested by the RIAA that sharing tapes of copyrighted material isn't objectionable. I would suspect that they don't feel it cuts into their profits, and probably encourages people to but their own copies... Thus, it seems somewhat hypocritical to then claim that ripping disks from friends is HORRIBLE, sa least from the position of the RIAA/Music Industry.
So, technically, it may be copyright infringement, though it's VERY difficult to define, but the music industry generally has not contested those who share music between a few friends.
Cheers!
Actually, metamod won't fix this. (At least not the meta-mod I know)
It might have been a correct +3 insightful, but not +5.
So, meta-mod might fix it if it wasn't insightful at all, but not if it's just alot more insightful than it really was.
Cheers!