> As long as it applies to any "copyright holder" then it will pass muster. The trick would be to then see to it that the RIAA or MPAA ends up illegally distributing some kiddies' copyrighted work, at which point that particular kiddie could DDOS the hell out of either organization.
Better than that, even.
So long as no actual damage to those RIAA and MPAA computers/networks is done, anything you might happen to download from their computers would be fair game. No harm/LITERALLY no foul.
Have you ever wondered what kinds of internal emails or other docs might be avaiable to bolster cases of fraud, restraint of trade, etc. Now's your chance to find out, free of charge(s).
Sorry, I'm too worried your AC post was never gonna get seen. This is exactly correct. When you decide to attack someone, you must simply *notify* the Attorney General. They can only stop you if you've got a *pattern* of infringing attacks. In order to prove that someone made an infringing attack, you must show that they *both* caused $250 damage, *and* had no reason to believe you were sharing files.
This means, yes, fair game. Notify the AG's office, hack the RIAA, and as long as the damage you cause is under $250, they have no recourse. You even get to do it again. As often as you like. Now, they might suggest that it cost them $50,000 in consultants fees to close up the back door you might have used, but then again, so could their victims.
Lets find out exactly the methods they intend to use so that we can't be liable for anything that they aren't liable for.
Collateral damage is prohibited. Haven't finished reading the bill, but they're not supposed to effect anyone but the owner. Dunno what the penalties are.
If they're wrong about hacking you, you have to prove that they had no reason to believe you were distributing their file. That is considerably beyond simply requiring that you prove you were not distributing the file. Also, you must prove that $250 damage was done to you. That's a little unbelievable. They could DDoS your whole ISP and then come up with some horribly lame explanation of why they suspected *all* the users of sharing files illegally.
Mark, until it's ALL open, don't waste your breath. Until I am free to decode and listen to a.ra stream without using that Real crap it's not open at all.
Seems that "Open" is just another label dot-commers want you to believe but not think about. We're supposed to believe in a couple of new licenses cooked up by Real? Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of licenses they could have used.
Be fair. Practically every successful politician walking pulled that shazz. I hated Reagan as much as the next liberal, but Gore made a whole lot more grievous lies before he became veep. Helms was another massive offender in that regard.
"In my great state, there's a plumber named Egbert Hershog who lost his home to ravenous man-eating spiders. This never would have happened if we had passed bill #234423..." etc. Lies, lies, lies.
Keep in mind that without irrational exuberance, there's no reason why we have to have booms and busts. If investors had never gone stupid, we might have never seen a dotcom bubble, just solid growth. Perhaps we'll learn from this mistake and we'll do it right once this whole thing levels out.
Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.
Same as all concepts of physical or intellectual property, right? You even need coercion to enforce contract law, although I wouldn't suggest that contract law is derived from coercion. 'Cause you entered a contract willingly.
Oh, wait... maybe all us Californians could enter into a contract together! Our contract will say that we'll elect representatives to make laws for us. We'll require all future californians to agree to the contract as well! If they don't like it, that's too bad: We own the state!
Ok, so, tell me, once you subtract all forms of coercion, what is left? I'm asking seriously, because I really don't get it. Of course Libertarians believe in coercion. They just want *less* of it, right?
Wear one condom. Wear the 2nd one outside the first one. Have sex with 1st woman.
Remove the 2nd, outer condom, have sex with the 2nd one with just one condom (the 1st one).
Fold the just removed condom inside out and wear it over the 1st one. Have fun with the last woman.
Who says that you can't use "Economic engineering" knowledge on bed,:-)
If this is the correct answer, then I would be at an unfair disadvantage answering this question. Because I *listened* in sex ed when they said that using two condoms at the same time was dangerous. It's too likely that air will get caught between the condoms. Some parts will stick and some parts will stretch, leading to two broken condoms.
Hacking isn't necessarily victimless. In a physical sense.
And, keep in mind, I'm not saying anyone should go to prison for accessing a web site. None of the laws that we are discussing make that illegal. Including the one in China. The Italian citizen got locked up for content creation and publishing, and I'm suggesting the cops should be locked up for hacking. The content creation occured, physically, in Italy. Their hacking occured, physically, in the US.
This is not a complicated concept. You keep acting like I'm proposing thought crimes or something. I'm just saying that if some nation makes a law against a crime, and you make that crime occur in that nation, then perhaps you might be extradited. It doesn't necessarily matter where you're sitting when you cause that crime to occur in another nation. The *crime* occured within US jurisdiction.
Right. So if they got a court order from a judge in the state that the computers resided in, the Italian cops would be fine. I don't understand what is so complicated about this.
Yes, your country should extradite you if they have an extradition treaty with the US and expect the US to honor it in return.
If I shoot a Michigander while standing in Canada, the Canadians better well ship me off to the US when they come calling. The Italians committed a crime physically in the United States by wired control. This isn't an obscure law. The Italian cops hacked into an American computer and destroyed intellectual property. String them up by their toenails.
Yeah, no. Maybe that's the way it should be (I don't think so) but it's way way not the way it is. If it's illegal to *produce* fake kiddie porn in the US, and you use your computer to make some 3D Studio Max animations of toddlers gyrating together, then publish it in Russia, they're still gonna lock you up. If it were only illegal to *publish* fake kiddie porn, then you'd be right. But the US, and Italy, can make whatever laws they want about what can happen in their borders.
So. This Italian fellow should go to prison for blasphemy, and the Italian police officers that hacked his site should be extradited to the US to face their terrorism/hacking charges. Blasphemy was committed in Italy, and hacking was committed in the US.
Just because someone has your ID and password doesn't make it legally authorized access. Many ISPs say that the only person authorized to use an account is the person paying the bill. The ISP is the party that gets to choose who is authorized on their system, not the end user. The Blue Mountain guy quoted in the article should put his money where his mouth is and go after the Italian cops under international anti-terrorism/hacking laws. That'd be a blast.
- doesn't Real makes it's money off of it's encoder and serving software? If they were to release the source to the RealMedia encoder and serving software, wouldn't they be kissing their revenue stream goodbye? Really, is there any reason to believe that if the source to their codec were available, Microsoft and Apple wouldn't include working RealMedia codecs in their own software as quickly as possible?
Under their current license, this would mean that Apple and Microsoft would have to release their software as OSS as well, but give Real special rights to distribute their clients as closed source. That's probably not Real's biggest concern.
According to Bruce's post, under the current plan, yes and no. They could take it and release it in a closed source license, but you would still be able to distribute the modifications you made as OSS. They would not be able to take your rights away, they would just have special rights with your modifications.
Of course, he also pointed out that their license has not been given careful review, and could change for better or worse before release of any software.
'10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music.' Richard Menta over at MP3 Newswire noted that this also means 90% of file traders are buying music,
Ok, someone correct me please, but...
Based on the two given distinctions, there are four groups of people:
12-17 year olds downloading and not buying. 12-17 year olds downloading and buying. 12-17 year olds not downloading but buying. 12-17 year olds not downloading and not buying.
The research shows that the first group is 10.1% of 12-17 year olds. Is Richard Menta saying that that means 89.9% of downloaders buy music? That's what the topic indicates, and there are about ten different really absurd assumptions that would be necessary to make that conclusion. I'm not particularly interested in reading the article, but the way it's presented in the topic is braindead. Hopefully Richard Menta had different reasoning.
As a beautiful example of your point, look at the moderation done to our brief conversation.
Moderating an off topic item down to zero... ok, maybe. Marking it as flamebait? What? And I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of us got moderated to -1. That's some BS. We're already marking the "No +1 Score Bonus" so that people wading in at 2 don't have to see us.
Hehe... um, I'm glad you weren't trolling, but I think you're still a little wrong. The civil rights act is what allows civil rights lawsuits, and not any right prescribed by the constitution. The reason it's a constitutional issue is that the limitations placed on corporations and individuals by the civil rights act could be considered to violate the right of free association, etc. (That is, some people don't want to associate with members of certain races or religions.)
If I'm not mistaken, the way that the feds make the civil rights act constitutional is by calling it the regulation of interstate trade. My favorite thing about this little stretch is how angry it makes educated racists.
I agree. However, when these smaller screens have better resolution than the larger screens, it becomes a trade off more than a loss.
I can watch Eyes Wide Shut on my iBook, and put the screen two feet from my head. It's a hell of a lot prettier than my 512x384 pixel TV. At least I imagine it is:) Of course it's only going to be recorded at the lower resolution, but I wont get the same kind of distortion from a curved screen, and the image won't run off the edges, etc. As long as the image is high enough resolution, I don't think the experience will be that bad.
If employees of Acme came into your house and went through your shazz, those employees would go to prison for breaking and entering. Not for violations of the constitution. You are exactly wrong. Name a single occurence where a completely private entity was limited in it's behavior by the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. You can't think of one because it's never happened.
There are laws required by other portions of the constitution, for example, the illegalization of slavery. If you tried to hold a slave, the reason you would go to prison would be a state law passed by your local legislature regarding unlawful detainment, or the feds regarding kidnapping. The constitution would not be directly involved in your trial.
There are occurences of semi-private entities being limited, I know, but that's only when they're taking federal/state dollars. Man, if you were trolling, you got me hook, line, and sinker.
Several times I've received telemarketting calls, and after I said, "Please add me to your do-not-call list," the telemarketer told me, "Sure. Would you please tell me your name and phone number so that I may add you to that list."
I'm *incredibly* skittish about doing that. Often, I've cut them off before they've even told me what sort of a service they offer. I worry that they somehow use the recording to indicate that I requested service from them. Think I should give them my name and number in that situation? (Although from now on I'll be giving them my mailing addy for the no-call policy).
Yeah, that's a great example of why you shouldn't believe marketing. The tendency of people to blindly think that new => good seems practically nonexistent. Iduno, maybe it's pretty prevalent among five year olds.
Slashdot Mirror
> As long as it applies to any "copyright holder" then it will pass muster. The trick would be to then see to it that the RIAA or MPAA ends up illegally distributing some kiddies' copyrighted work, at which point that particular kiddie could DDOS the hell out of either organization.
Better than that, even.
So long as no actual damage to those RIAA and MPAA computers/networks is done, anything you might happen to download from their computers would be fair game. No harm/LITERALLY no foul.
Have you ever wondered what kinds of internal emails or other docs might be avaiable to bolster cases of fraud, restraint of trade, etc. Now's your chance to find out, free of charge(s).
Sorry, I'm too worried your AC post was never gonna get seen. This is exactly correct. When you decide to attack someone, you must simply *notify* the Attorney General. They can only stop you if you've got a *pattern* of infringing attacks. In order to prove that someone made an infringing attack, you must show that they *both* caused $250 damage, *and* had no reason to believe you were sharing files.
This means, yes, fair game. Notify the AG's office, hack the RIAA, and as long as the damage you cause is under $250, they have no recourse. You even get to do it again. As often as you like. Now, they might suggest that it cost them $50,000 in consultants fees to close up the back door you might have used, but then again, so could their victims.
Lets find out exactly the methods they intend to use so that we can't be liable for anything that they aren't liable for.
Collateral damage is prohibited. Haven't finished reading the bill, but they're not supposed to effect anyone but the owner. Dunno what the penalties are.
If they're wrong about hacking you, you have to prove that they had no reason to believe you were distributing their file. That is considerably beyond simply requiring that you prove you were not distributing the file. Also, you must prove that $250 damage was done to you. That's a little unbelievable. They could DDoS your whole ISP and then come up with some horribly lame explanation of why they suspected *all* the users of sharing files illegally.
Mark, until it's ALL open, don't waste your breath. Until I am free to decode and listen to a .ra stream without using that Real crap it's not open at all.
Seems that "Open" is just another label dot-commers want you to believe but not think about. We're supposed to believe in a couple of new licenses cooked up by Real? Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of licenses they could have used.
Welcome to Slashdot, Mark.
Be fair. Practically every successful politician walking pulled that shazz. I hated Reagan as much as the next liberal, but Gore made a whole lot more grievous lies before he became veep. Helms was another massive offender in that regard.
"In my great state, there's a plumber named Egbert Hershog who lost his home to ravenous man-eating spiders. This never would have happened if we had passed bill #234423..." etc. Lies, lies, lies.
Keep in mind that without irrational exuberance, there's no reason why we have to have booms and busts. If investors had never gone stupid, we might have never seen a dotcom bubble, just solid growth. Perhaps we'll learn from this mistake and we'll do it right once this whole thing levels out.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but...
Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.
Same as all concepts of physical or intellectual property, right? You even need coercion to enforce contract law, although I wouldn't suggest that contract law is derived from coercion. 'Cause you entered a contract willingly.
Oh, wait... maybe all us Californians could enter into a contract together! Our contract will say that we'll elect representatives to make laws for us. We'll require all future californians to agree to the contract as well! If they don't like it, that's too bad: We own the state!
Ok, so, tell me, once you subtract all forms of coercion, what is left? I'm asking seriously, because I really don't get it. Of course Libertarians believe in coercion. They just want *less* of it, right?
No, it isn't. Not at all. I guess yanal.
Wear one condom. Wear the 2nd one outside the first one. Have sex with 1st woman.
:-)
Remove the 2nd, outer condom, have sex with the 2nd one with just one condom (the 1st one).
Fold the just removed condom inside out and wear it over the 1st one. Have fun with the last woman.
Who says that you can't use "Economic engineering" knowledge on bed,
If this is the correct answer, then I would be at an unfair disadvantage answering this question. Because I *listened* in sex ed when they said that using two condoms at the same time was dangerous. It's too likely that air will get caught between the condoms. Some parts will stick and some parts will stretch, leading to two broken condoms.
Hacking isn't necessarily victimless. In a physical sense.
And, keep in mind, I'm not saying anyone should go to prison for accessing a web site. None of the laws that we are discussing make that illegal. Including the one in China. The Italian citizen got locked up for content creation and publishing, and I'm suggesting the cops should be locked up for hacking. The content creation occured, physically, in Italy. Their hacking occured, physically, in the US.
This is not a complicated concept. You keep acting like I'm proposing thought crimes or something. I'm just saying that if some nation makes a law against a crime, and you make that crime occur in that nation, then perhaps you might be extradited. It doesn't necessarily matter where you're sitting when you cause that crime to occur in another nation. The *crime* occured within US jurisdiction.
Right. So if they got a court order from a judge in the state that the computers resided in, the Italian cops would be fine. I don't understand what is so complicated about this.
Yes, your country should extradite you if they have an extradition treaty with the US and expect the US to honor it in return.
If I shoot a Michigander while standing in Canada, the Canadians better well ship me off to the US when they come calling. The Italians committed a crime physically in the United States by wired control. This isn't an obscure law. The Italian cops hacked into an American computer and destroyed intellectual property. String them up by their toenails.
I tread on the dirt, just like you.
Yeah, no. Maybe that's the way it should be (I don't think so) but it's way way not the way it is. If it's illegal to *produce* fake kiddie porn in the US, and you use your computer to make some 3D Studio Max animations of toddlers gyrating together, then publish it in Russia, they're still gonna lock you up. If it were only illegal to *publish* fake kiddie porn, then you'd be right. But the US, and Italy, can make whatever laws they want about what can happen in their borders.
So. This Italian fellow should go to prison for blasphemy, and the Italian police officers that hacked his site should be extradited to the US to face their terrorism/hacking charges. Blasphemy was committed in Italy, and hacking was committed in the US.
Just because someone has your ID and password doesn't make it legally authorized access. Many ISPs say that the only person authorized to use an account is the person paying the bill. The ISP is the party that gets to choose who is authorized on their system, not the end user. The Blue Mountain guy quoted in the article should put his money where his mouth is and go after the Italian cops under international anti-terrorism/hacking laws. That'd be a blast.
- doesn't Real makes it's money off of it's encoder and serving software? If they were to release the source to the RealMedia encoder and serving software, wouldn't they be kissing their revenue stream goodbye? Really, is there any reason to believe that if the source to their codec were available, Microsoft and Apple wouldn't include working RealMedia codecs in their own software as quickly as possible?
Under their current license, this would mean that Apple and Microsoft would have to release their software as OSS as well, but give Real special rights to distribute their clients as closed source. That's probably not Real's biggest concern.
According to Bruce's post, under the current plan, yes and no. They could take it and release it in a closed source license, but you would still be able to distribute the modifications you made as OSS. They would not be able to take your rights away, they would just have special rights with your modifications.
Of course, he also pointed out that their license has not been given careful review, and could change for better or worse before release of any software.
'10.1% of 12-17s are actively downloading/not purchasing music.' Richard Menta over at MP3 Newswire noted that this also means 90% of file traders are buying music,
Ok, someone correct me please, but...
Based on the two given distinctions, there are four groups of people:
12-17 year olds downloading and not buying.
12-17 year olds downloading and buying.
12-17 year olds not downloading but buying.
12-17 year olds not downloading and not buying.
The research shows that the first group is 10.1% of 12-17 year olds. Is Richard Menta saying that that means 89.9% of downloaders buy music? That's what the topic indicates, and there are about ten different really absurd assumptions that would be necessary to make that conclusion. I'm not particularly interested in reading the article, but the way it's presented in the topic is braindead. Hopefully Richard Menta had different reasoning.
As a beautiful example of your point, look at the moderation done to our brief conversation.
Moderating an off topic item down to zero... ok, maybe. Marking it as flamebait? What? And I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of us got moderated to -1. That's some BS. We're already marking the "No +1 Score Bonus" so that people wading in at 2 don't have to see us.
Regarding your sig...
I totally agree. Except. If everyone did that and there were no negative mods, goatse.cx and porn posters could mod themselves up too effectively.
I'm happy that I don't see that shazz when I wade in at level 3.
Hehe... um, I'm glad you weren't trolling, but I think you're still a little wrong. The civil rights act is what allows civil rights lawsuits, and not any right prescribed by the constitution. The reason it's a constitutional issue is that the limitations placed on corporations and individuals by the civil rights act could be considered to violate the right of free association, etc. (That is, some people don't want to associate with members of certain races or religions.)
If I'm not mistaken, the way that the feds make the civil rights act constitutional is by calling it the regulation of interstate trade. My favorite thing about this little stretch is how angry it makes educated racists.
I agree. However, when these smaller screens have better resolution than the larger screens, it becomes a trade off more than a loss.
:) Of course it's only going to be recorded at the lower resolution, but I wont get the same kind of distortion from a curved screen, and the image won't run off the edges, etc. As long as the image is high enough resolution, I don't think the experience will be that bad.
I can watch Eyes Wide Shut on my iBook, and put the screen two feet from my head. It's a hell of a lot prettier than my 512x384 pixel TV. At least I imagine it is
Uh... name one.
If employees of Acme came into your house and went through your shazz, those employees would go to prison for breaking and entering. Not for violations of the constitution. You are exactly wrong. Name a single occurence where a completely private entity was limited in it's behavior by the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. You can't think of one because it's never happened.
There are laws required by other portions of the constitution, for example, the illegalization of slavery. If you tried to hold a slave, the reason you would go to prison would be a state law passed by your local legislature regarding unlawful detainment, or the feds regarding kidnapping. The constitution would not be directly involved in your trial.
There are occurences of semi-private entities being limited, I know, but that's only when they're taking federal/state dollars. Man, if you were trolling, you got me hook, line, and sinker.
Several times I've received telemarketting calls, and after I said, "Please add me to your do-not-call list," the telemarketer told me, "Sure. Would you please tell me your name and phone number so that I may add you to that list."
I'm *incredibly* skittish about doing that. Often, I've cut them off before they've even told me what sort of a service they offer. I worry that they somehow use the recording to indicate that I requested service from them. Think I should give them my name and number in that situation? (Although from now on I'll be giving them my mailing addy for the no-call policy).
Anyway. Thanks for that suggestion. Very handy.
Yeah, that's a great example of why you shouldn't believe marketing. The tendency of people to blindly think that new => good seems practically nonexistent. Iduno, maybe it's pretty prevalent among five year olds.
Good technology isn't worshiped, it's used.
Aaaagghh. Curses. ihbt.ihl.hand.
Technology can be a great thing, but it shouldn't be worshipped without skepticism.
I hate it when people say crap like that. What the *&%$ does that mean?