Stories about long-time trusted employees who embezzle a few hundred thousand dollars are so common that they usually wind up on page 7 of the Metro section.
No, I think his comment is fair. Simply because kazaa, morpheus, audiogalaxy, and gnutella were not going strong immediately after napster died. With Napster, people like my mom were tempted by how easy stealing music was. There were a good few months where people like my geeky roommates were totally unsure of the best way to steal music. Gnutella was *way* not up to snuff.
So sure, maybe now there are the same number of P2P users as there were with Napster's heyday. But when sales started declining, there weren't. Right? Iduno, I could be wrong.
That's why I never use eBay, and I use Craigslist _all_ the time. With Craigslist, there's no shipping, and since responses to ads are only socially binding, you get plenty of takers. The best part is... when you're doing a transfer, the buyer examines the goods. In person. Then the buyer hands cash to the seller. If it turns out that the goods were somehow defective... the buyer knows where the seller lives. No one gets fucked. Brilliant.
Of course, it's not the same thing. The most obscure items on eBay need a national auction. When I'm buying a sofa, though...
Iduno, some of the Nigeria spams I get are very well written. Some of them are semi-innovative, too. Maybe the escrow scammers need to hire some nigerians.
Do you feel that comparing software to drugs (who are illegal almost everywhere) is a balanced comparison ? Let's turn the coin 180, let's say the US of A had death penalty for trafficing in this type of software and the US of A vere pressing for the death penalty for Sklyarov. Do you still think peole would see it "your way" ?? (And there would be no reaction)
You are confusing two separate issues. Of course, what you are describing would be incredibly immoral and wrong of the US gov't. NOT BECAUSE OF JURISDICTION. It would be immoral and wrong to kill someone for something that logically should not be illegal at all.
This is why the distinction is so important. The DMCA is a horrendously bad law. We need to change it. That is why Dmitri/Elcomsoft got fucked. They did business in the United States. There was no jurisdictional question.
You suggest that comparing the DMCA to Singapore's drug laws is unfair for some reason. I am not making the comparison to attempt to shed a negative light on what Dmitri has done. As I keep repeating, Dmitri has done nothing that is morally wrong, in my opinion. I am making the comparison because it shows that if you send contraband to a foreign nation, you have violated that nation's laws. This is independent of the moral value of the law. If you can't see this analogy, I don't really think you'll be able to see my point of view without getting confused.
Do you seriously want to constantly have to worry about what country's laws you might be braking ??
Well, that's the way it works, has worked, and will work. If you want to do business in a nation, travel to that nation, and interact with people in that nation, then there are a number of laws in that nation that you need to follow. This makes perfect sense to me. Doesn't seem too complicated. If you don't travel to, do business in, or interact with a nation, then you don't have to worry about breaking their laws. Salman Rushdie is a great example. If he flew to Iran, he'd be an idiot, and he'd be executed. So he's not going to fly to Iran.
I just want people to focus on the more important issue of defeating the DMCA.
However you would like to define the location is interesting. It's also irrelevant, since that's not how anyone in the legal community, US or otherwise, defines the location. It is illegal to distribute this particular type of contraband to the USA, or from the USA.
If someone shipped drugs to Singapore via postal mail, then flew there, they'd get executed just like anyone else. Even if they were a US citizen, and did their crime (which occured in Singapore) while sitting in the USA. The US government would certainly not intervene.
I totally understand your point. I feel like you're choosing not to see it my way because you don't like the implications in this one case. If you considered the implications in all other cases, you might see how this is a requirement of the proper function of international law.
I'm at work. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
No, he shouldn't have been accused of committing a crime. The DMCA is a horrible perversion of justice. But it's not a question of jurisdiction. It's a question of free speech.
I, like many other/.ers, care a lot about this issue. This is why it upsets me so when I see other people, that have their hearts in the right place, get upset over the wrong thing. The problem is an unjust law. Not jurisdiction. It's simply embarassing that the first person to get this horrible law applied to them was a foreigner in our nation, and such a nice one at that.
Right. And if you're sitting in the US of A, and that's where they send your copy, then the sale was in the USA.
This is against US law. Just like if they sent a mailbomb. Or a rocket. The only difference is that it's unlikely that Russia would extradite anyone over the DMCA, so Elcomsoft could tell the US DoJ to go fuck itself: Except that they would like to continue doing business here.
The point of buying was definitely in the US. The sale happened in the US. This is against US law. Every single nation on the planet has laws just like this. It isn't even complicated.
Isn't the DMCA a USA law ??? Sklyarov did all his programming in Russia..
Right, but Elcomsoft did all their *selling* in the USA. And Elcomsoft is the one on Trial. Sklyarov isn't accused of a crime anymore. The charge that was dropped was due to his presentation at a convention in the USA.
I wish people could wrap their heads around this concept. It's not complicated.
Hmmm... Are you sure about that ratio statistic? Somehow I understood that there was some documentary or something about butterflies that was made for $27,000 and sold for $1,000,000.
Grandparent didn't complain. He said, "Would they try to get the US Government to extradite me? Sure, it might just prevent me from ever visiting Australia, but I don't see how they could get someone over there to trial."
You are making exactly the wrong comment. Dmitri is accused of violating a US law in the US. Just as if he had sent a bomb here in the mail. Since the DMCA is a flagrant violation of all kinds of essential human rights, there is no way Russia would have extradited him. So, instead, they waited until he flew here on his own, and arrested him on US soil.
There is zero "jurisdiction" question here at all. A US law was violated in the US. The dude who they think did it came to the US. They arrested him in the US. Nothing relevant to the case occured outside US borders.
Similarly, Dow Jones committed a crime in Australia. Since they're already in Australia, some Australians are taking them to court in Australia. Again, no jurisdiction question at all. It's just interesting because it raises the point that if certain speech is illegal in any nation, making that speech on the internet violates law in that nation.
Grandparent poster asked, "What if I never went to Australia?" and that's an interesting question. Not a complaint. Jesus.
I keep having to reiterate this: The problem with Skyalarov's case is that he did not violate the DMCA, and the DMCA is an unjust law. There is no jurisdictional question.
Yeah, that's a great example of a biased source. You might very well be correct, I just don't trust reason.com to give me the full story.
I'm *completely* on the fence on gun control. I like the arguments from both sides. How about the point that despite these rising vs. falling crime rates in the UK and in the US, US still has a much much higher violent crime rate than the UK?
That point could also be completely meaningless, if crime rates will continue to change as you describe. We don't have this guarantee. Even if we did, I need to hear it from someone who isn't ideologically married to the concept of "more guns == less crime".
sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal
We deal. You're right, they were Christians and Deists. This is well known. Anyone who says different is selling something. I'm an athiest. No one I know has ever said differently. I'm not really sure why you felt like mentioning it.
No, that's the point. Gore never claimed that he invented the internet. He was quoted out of context. Legislation that he passed that funded the researchers was totally crucial. No one else was going to do it. That's all he claimed to have done.
So, at best, Mr. Gore did exactly what Farber said. Which also happened to be what Mr. Gore said. He passed laws that made researchers able to do this kind of work, and get paid for it. That's kindof cool.
I spoke to David Farber a little after that whole thing got started. Dave Farber was involved in the invention of ethernet, and a number of other key technologies. He's been a well connected, well known geek for a very, very long time. I asked him what he thought of Gore's claim that he invented the internet, expecting to get a chuckle out of him, because he knew many of the people that might have actually been able to make that kind of claim.
Instead, he got kindof serious, and said, "Well, no, he didn't create the internet, and I think he's been quoted out of context, but he was absolutely responsible for creating the legislative environment that allowed that type of research to be done, and lead to the creation of the internet."
Great. So all the spammers will send all their email through China, while the Church of Scientology will just censor usenet speech through Canada. Either that or we'll have to partition usenet from Canadian hosts.
What's that? Not cancel moose? Oh. Nevermind.
Re: Skip to the last page for the most interesting
on
AMD's 64-bit Plot
·
· Score: 2
Craig Mundie (perhaps a different MS PR Rep) said in an interview that he felt the GPL was unamerican, and suggested it might be something that congress should "look into". Dunno if MS has actually done anything about it, but comments like that plus campaign contributions might be all that's feasible. Don't want to go googling for links right now, sorry...
Intel has done no such thing, of course. I don't know what the hell the troll meant by saying that they were "backing" orgs trying to destroy OSS.
Yeah. That's what I meant. All your upmodded stuff tends to be crap. I mean... Also, wtf is the origin of the IN SOVIET RUSSIA joke? It's funny as hell. It's up there with my favorite joke of all:
The other genius move that marketters have made is lifestyle advertisement.
It's not Budweiser gets you Girls. It's There is a better class of people. Innovative, fun, engaging. They have girls. Sometimes they even drink Budweiser.
That way the audience is left to decide... hey, my life isn't that great. I wish my life were like that... it might not seem very different, but is. For reference, check those Intel "Can a new computer change your life?" ads. Those things are fucking brilliant. Really.
Oooh. Also good are the Hyundai ads: "When you start ignoring trends..." blah blah blah. The down economy only applies to the suits on Wall St. Regular people can still buy a car on credit. C'mon. It'll be ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Stories about long-time trusted employees who embezzle a few hundred thousand dollars are so common that they usually wind up on page 7 of the Metro section.
And that's the ones that are caught.
No, I think his comment is fair. Simply because kazaa, morpheus, audiogalaxy, and gnutella were not going strong immediately after napster died. With Napster, people like my mom were tempted by how easy stealing music was. There were a good few months where people like my geeky roommates were totally unsure of the best way to steal music. Gnutella was *way* not up to snuff.
So sure, maybe now there are the same number of P2P users as there were with Napster's heyday. But when sales started declining, there weren't. Right? Iduno, I could be wrong.
That's why I never use eBay, and I use Craigslist _all_ the time. With Craigslist, there's no shipping, and since responses to ads are only socially binding, you get plenty of takers. The best part is... when you're doing a transfer, the buyer examines the goods. In person. Then the buyer hands cash to the seller. If it turns out that the goods were somehow defective... the buyer knows where the seller lives. No one gets fucked. Brilliant.
Of course, it's not the same thing. The most obscure items on eBay need a national auction. When I'm buying a sofa, though...
Iduno, some of the Nigeria spams I get are very well written. Some of them are semi-innovative, too. Maybe the escrow scammers need to hire some nigerians.
Sure, but it may fail in that most of the companies betting on it are going to lose money due to the slippage.
Do you feel that comparing software to drugs (who are illegal almost everywhere) is a balanced comparison ? Let's turn the coin 180, let's say the US of A had death penalty for trafficing in this type of software and the US of A vere pressing for the death penalty for Sklyarov. Do you still think peole would see it "your way" ?? (And there would be no reaction)
You are confusing two separate issues. Of course, what you are describing would be incredibly immoral and wrong of the US gov't. NOT BECAUSE OF JURISDICTION. It would be immoral and wrong to kill someone for something that logically should not be illegal at all.
This is why the distinction is so important. The DMCA is a horrendously bad law. We need to change it. That is why Dmitri/Elcomsoft got fucked. They did business in the United States. There was no jurisdictional question.
You suggest that comparing the DMCA to Singapore's drug laws is unfair for some reason. I am not making the comparison to attempt to shed a negative light on what Dmitri has done. As I keep repeating, Dmitri has done nothing that is morally wrong, in my opinion. I am making the comparison because it shows that if you send contraband to a foreign nation, you have violated that nation's laws. This is independent of the moral value of the law. If you can't see this analogy, I don't really think you'll be able to see my point of view without getting confused.
Do you seriously want to constantly have to worry about what country's laws you might be braking ??
Well, that's the way it works, has worked, and will work. If you want to do business in a nation, travel to that nation, and interact with people in that nation, then there are a number of laws in that nation that you need to follow. This makes perfect sense to me. Doesn't seem too complicated. If you don't travel to, do business in, or interact with a nation, then you don't have to worry about breaking their laws. Salman Rushdie is a great example. If he flew to Iran, he'd be an idiot, and he'd be executed. So he's not going to fly to Iran.
I just want people to focus on the more important issue of defeating the DMCA.
However you would like to define the location is interesting. It's also irrelevant, since that's not how anyone in the legal community, US or otherwise, defines the location. It is illegal to distribute this particular type of contraband to the USA, or from the USA.
If someone shipped drugs to Singapore via postal mail, then flew there, they'd get executed just like anyone else. Even if they were a US citizen, and did their crime (which occured in Singapore) while sitting in the USA. The US government would certainly not intervene.
I totally understand your point. I feel like you're choosing not to see it my way because you don't like the implications in this one case. If you considered the implications in all other cases, you might see how this is a requirement of the proper function of international law.
I'm at work. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
No, he shouldn't have been accused of committing a crime. The DMCA is a horrible perversion of justice. But it's not a question of jurisdiction. It's a question of free speech.
/.ers, care a lot about this issue. This is why it upsets me so when I see other people, that have their hearts in the right place, get upset over the wrong thing. The problem is an unjust law. Not jurisdiction. It's simply embarassing that the first person to get this horrible law applied to them was a foreigner in our nation, and such a nice one at that.
I, like many other
Right. And if you're sitting in the US of A, and that's where they send your copy, then the sale was in the USA.
This is against US law. Just like if they sent a mailbomb. Or a rocket. The only difference is that it's unlikely that Russia would extradite anyone over the DMCA, so Elcomsoft could tell the US DoJ to go fuck itself: Except that they would like to continue doing business here.
The point of buying was definitely in the US. The sale happened in the US. This is against US law. Every single nation on the planet has laws just like this. It isn't even complicated.
Isn't the DMCA a USA law ??? Sklyarov did all his programming in Russia ..
Right, but Elcomsoft did all their *selling* in the USA. And Elcomsoft is the one on Trial. Sklyarov isn't accused of a crime anymore. The charge that was dropped was due to his presentation at a convention in the USA.
I wish people could wrap their heads around this concept. It's not complicated.
Hmmm... Are you sure about that ratio statistic? Somehow I understood that there was some documentary or something about butterflies that was made for $27,000 and sold for $1,000,000.
Iduno.
Grandparent didn't complain. He said, "Would they try to get the US Government to extradite me? Sure, it might just prevent me from ever visiting Australia, but I don't see how they could get someone over there to trial."
You are making exactly the wrong comment. Dmitri is accused of violating a US law in the US. Just as if he had sent a bomb here in the mail. Since the DMCA is a flagrant violation of all kinds of essential human rights, there is no way Russia would have extradited him. So, instead, they waited until he flew here on his own, and arrested him on US soil.
There is zero "jurisdiction" question here at all. A US law was violated in the US. The dude who they think did it came to the US. They arrested him in the US. Nothing relevant to the case occured outside US borders.
Similarly, Dow Jones committed a crime in Australia. Since they're already in Australia, some Australians are taking them to court in Australia. Again, no jurisdiction question at all. It's just interesting because it raises the point that if certain speech is illegal in any nation, making that speech on the internet violates law in that nation.
Grandparent poster asked, "What if I never went to Australia?" and that's an interesting question. Not a complaint. Jesus.
I keep having to reiterate this: The problem with Skyalarov's case is that he did not violate the DMCA, and the DMCA is an unjust law. There is no jurisdictional question.
I had no idea. Thanks.
Yeah, that's a great example of a biased source. You might very well be correct, I just don't trust reason.com to give me the full story.
I'm *completely* on the fence on gun control. I like the arguments from both sides. How about the point that despite these rising vs. falling crime rates in the UK and in the US, US still has a much much higher violent crime rate than the UK?
That point could also be completely meaningless, if crime rates will continue to change as you describe. We don't have this guarantee. Even if we did, I need to hear it from someone who isn't ideologically married to the concept of "more guns == less crime".
sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal
We deal. You're right, they were Christians and Deists. This is well known. Anyone who says different is selling something. I'm an athiest. No one I know has ever said differently. I'm not really sure why you felt like mentioning it.
Posting at 1. Please don't upmod me.
No, that's the point. Gore never claimed that he invented the internet. He was quoted out of context. Legislation that he passed that funded the researchers was totally crucial. No one else was going to do it. That's all he claimed to have done.
So, at best, Mr. Gore did exactly what Farber said. Which also happened to be what Mr. Gore said. He passed laws that made researchers able to do this kind of work, and get paid for it. That's kindof cool.
Yeah.
I spoke to David Farber a little after that whole thing got started. Dave Farber was involved in the invention of ethernet, and a number of other key technologies. He's been a well connected, well known geek for a very, very long time. I asked him what he thought of Gore's claim that he invented the internet, expecting to get a chuckle out of him, because he knew many of the people that might have actually been able to make that kind of claim.
Instead, he got kindof serious, and said, "Well, no, he didn't create the internet, and I think he's been quoted out of context, but he was absolutely responsible for creating the legislative environment that allowed that type of research to be done, and lead to the creation of the internet."
I felt like an idiot.
iirc, the only limitation on 2.4gHz/802.11b frequencies is that your transmitter can't be over a certain wattage and it has to accept interference.
that would mean at&t can do whatever they like, so long as they don't mind that my wireless phone stomps all over their customers.
Great. So all the spammers will send all their email through China, while the Church of Scientology will just censor usenet speech through Canada. Either that or we'll have to partition usenet from Canadian hosts.
What's that? Not cancel moose? Oh. Nevermind.
Craig Mundie (perhaps a different MS PR Rep) said in an interview that he felt the GPL was unamerican, and suggested it might be something that congress should "look into". Dunno if MS has actually done anything about it, but comments like that plus campaign contributions might be all that's feasible. Don't want to go googling for links right now, sorry...
Intel has done no such thing, of course. I don't know what the hell the troll meant by saying that they were "backing" orgs trying to destroy OSS.
"Wil" isn't the correct spelling either. Whil Wheaton has been misspelling his own name his whole life long. I should know. I'm his mother.
Yeah. That's what I meant. All your upmodded stuff tends to be crap. I mean... Also, wtf is the origin of the IN SOVIET RUSSIA joke? It's funny as hell. It's up there with my favorite joke of all:
"Why did the girl fall out of the swing?"
[pause]
"Because she didn't have any arms."
Go, team, go!
See, this is why modding down "trolls" is bad too.
/.
Sure, hasnoi was repeating oft-heard themes. Did his comment ruin anyone's day? No, and it's funnier than most of the (Score:5, funny) crap on
Somedays I wish I could serve it to all the idiot mods out there. Metamod doesn't give me nearly the outlet I desire.
Yes, posting at +2. Maybe that way someone will actually see my comment. If they pageview in the next two minutes.
The other genius move that marketters have made is lifestyle advertisement.
It's not Budweiser gets you Girls.
It's There is a better class of people. Innovative, fun, engaging. They have girls. Sometimes they even drink Budweiser.
That way the audience is left to decide... hey, my life isn't that great. I wish my life were like that... it might not seem very different, but is. For reference, check those Intel "Can a new computer change your life?" ads. Those things are fucking brilliant. Really.
Oooh. Also good are the Hyundai ads: "When you start ignoring trends..." blah blah blah. The down economy only applies to the suits on Wall St. Regular people can still buy a car on credit. C'mon. It'll be ok.
Thanks much for the correction.
Mod parent up fast as you can...