Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.
For reference, it was between 1776 (When America was declared independent) and 1790 when America introduced their first copyright laws.
Beyond the basic facts of history, one could easily argue the time period was quite a bit larger than that, as the first copyright bill to appear similar to what we have, though a lot more limited, was not formed until the 1830's. Since then it has mostly been extended, or expanded by signing treaties with others.
Your other points are right on, even if worded in a needlessly angry way:P
In the grand scheme of things, the GP may have a point... But definitely not a point aided by this particular court decision.
is a jelly-like substance made up of 95% water along with two grams of clay and a small amount of organic materials.
Then:
because it's made of water, poses no harm to people
That's about as reassuring as saying "This 95% water and 5% deadly deadly poison solution will be completely safe to inject directly into your bloodstream, since it is made completely out of water!"
The "Making Ofs" for Tron and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, regardless of your opinions on the movies themselves, are actually interesting because they faced challenges that normal people could understand and met them with answers normal people can understand.
Ok, as an avid trek fan, and a person whos first dual monitor wallpaper was trons bit in both yes (left) and no (right) forms, I felt ashamed at not knowing such making of videos existed.
This prompted me to find these, and I wanted to share with the others
We'll have "personal docking stations" in the cubicles and those will have larger screens, and storage devices, optical drives, and faster processors for graphics and applications. Why, with your brand new PDS, you won't even miss your PC.
Your "PDS" sounds exactly like a PC.
No no, a personal docking station is envisioned as more like a chair with a connector firmly planted upon it, to match the human plug reception, which will interface you to all of those devices and resources.
It's only a minor change to our current setups really, so it only makes sense!
I wonder how far off shore one would need to place a floating nuclear plant so that it is far enough away.
Assuming the worst devastation in the worst case scenario, how far would the damage go, and thus how far it would need to be out at sea to not affect the coast.
It's a crappy thing to do to the ocean, but still.
Another downside is that after a certain distance out, it is no longer US soil. While I have no doubt at all that if our navy wanted to 'own' a small patch of ocean to park a plant on, they have enough ships to maintain it 24/7/365.. but at a huge cost.
Perhaps I'm exposing my own ignorance (because I've never felt the need to use Tor myself) but that strikes me as surprising if it's true. And something that even savvy internet users might not think about.
The best way to picture it is a man wanting to go outside anonymously, so he dresses in a full solid color suit, gloves, face mask, etc etc so you can't tell who it is. Then when he gets outside, he starts screaming his name at the top of his lungs:P
Using tor, the source IP that the server sees is the tor exit node, not you. But if your application spams out the IP it thinks you have (be it from your network interface, or router IP with nat discovery) to the end points, your app effectively just signed your name to your anonymous otherwise untraceable letter.
The state started a criminal trial (Keep in mind no one has to ask them to do this, they do it on their own. Even if you specifically DON'T want them pressing criminal charges against someone that did a crime to you, they can NOT stop the charges at your request)
The thing to do between when charges are brought, and no evidence is in hand, is to get a warrant to search for said evidence.
100% of the conditions for a warrant are in place and OK.
So where is the issue? Nothing else has even happened yet for the order of events to be messed up! Warrants are step 2.. charges being pressed are step 1, and if you think that hasn't happened yet, then you are very very behind the facts on this story.
I'm ignoring the link to the criminals website, and I will equally ignore any links directly to Apple on the subject for a similar reason. Both have been instructed by lawyers what to say, and what that is is NOT the truth.
The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that. The asshole lost it.
California law states you are incorrect.
There is no such thing as 'lost' property to the law. If it is lost, the law calls that stolen.
There is also an entire checklist of things one can do to avoid 'being in possession of stolen property' while he had possession of the lost phone, and did not do them.
Sure some people say he might have tried returning it to Apple, but the laws don't list trying to return it as a condition of the lost property to not be considered stolen. So who cares?
I understand you don't WANT the law to say that, but god damn man, you are arguing that gravity does not exist or that the sun never shines or pick your own plainly-obvious-it-is-happening-and-true example.
That fact alone is probably going to be the key to what legal actions get taken where. (hope he recorded the call or something of the like)
The law even specifically states you do not have to even attempt to return it to the owner. There are provisions for protecting you if you are in posession of the stolen property WHILE trying to return it to the owner, but the only requirement is turning the property into the police.
Gizmodo is NOT the police, so he didn't obide by the law.
Hint: Returning it to the owner is not part of what makes it legal or not.
If the actual owner of the item denies it's theirs, that makes it impossible to return to the owner, which would seem to satisfy the requirements before taking ownership of lost property?
He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.
So not only did you show he did not even try to return it to the owner, but instead tried to return it to the company that made the product, but on top of that, neither of those two actions make what he did legal or illegal.
Not giving it to the police is what made it illegal.
Personally, before doing something, my line of thought is along: "Hmm I think this might be illegal, and I don't wanna deal with the repercussions of that if so, so I'm just not gunna do it..."
Do you commonly instead think: "Well this might or might not be illegal, but feck it, a Judge will agree it was OK no matter what the law actually says, so lets move forward with this plan!" ???
but without applying the common sense that a judge and jury will likely use (or not, you never know with some people).
A judge won't apply any sense, common or otherwise. They just gather facts if any are in dispute, and apply the existing law (law that the Judge most likely had nothing to do with the writing of) If a law flat out says something is illegal, a Judge must state it is illegal. No room for anything else
This is Also a literal interpretation of the law, and probably the only interpretation that even matters.
As for a jury, well yea I agree with you there. Juries are not really supposed to uphold any laws, only what they feel is right based on the incomplete and pre-chewed facts they are allowed to see. Don't forget that REAL evidence proving things beyond any doubt can Easily be barred from being shown to a Jury. If any Jury member figures it out, they will be thrown off the Jury.
Juries are rigged to view the world through the purposely incorrect picture the prosecutor allows them to see, and any true facts in the way may or may not be allowed for them to base any decision on.
There have been more than one cases where a murderer got off with no charges because the video showing him actually beating a person to death was barred from evidence. How the hell THAT is right/moral/legal is beyond me, but that is how it is.
In office politics, the "right thing" is not what the book says, it's what the paymaster says. The Golden Rule: Whosoever Has The Gold Makes The Rules.
Or in Terry's case, follow the rules and get 5 years in jail, or don't follow the rules and get 20 years in prison.
You can't easily upgrade an OS out from under itself.
You must not be a Debian user;}
System installed as Debian potato (v2.2) and currently running the almost newest lenny (5.0) through 4 major version releases without any reinstall.
After etch (v4.0) I think it was, you can even upgrade your kernel while it is running, with no reboots.
Not to mention this is something even Debian only started about a decade ago, and has been standard practice in the mini and main frame worlds, and almost as long of a practice in the embedded controller world (Which until recently, pretty much all cell phones fell into)
If that isn't considered upgrading an OS from under itself, I don't know what is.
Heh as funny as that is, actually yea such a recording would go FAR to absolving the original seller from any crime of theft, at which point they couldn't charge gizmodo for knowingly buying stolen goods.
Is it stealing if you return a lost item to the owner before said owner reports it stolen? Because that's exactly what happened here.
Yes:/
And it's sorta a worse stealing. At least as far as the court goes.
If they didn't return it before it was reported as stolen, it probably would have been a civil case from Apple, if anything (It would depend on Apple's wants, unlike now)
Once it is reported, then anything since it was reported that the act happened (IE the night the phone was lost) is taken into consideration by the state.
Following the phone, it appears a money transaction has been made with stolen property since before it was claimed.
So, the state has to press a criminal case against the person who stole it, with charges of the original theft, as well as the fencing of stolen property.
It sounds backwards, but the fencing is the main catalyst, and at the time that act happened, the phone was in a stolen state (Between when Apple recovered it, and when Apple reported it missing. The time the report was filed does not matter)
Being a criminal charge, all sorts of federal laws that were enacted for big time operations processing massive amounts of stolen goods, will all apply to this one guy.
I know the guy fucked up and most likely knew what he was doing, even if not how bad it would be for doing it... But I honestly feel bad for him now
What kind of asshole reports a lost item as stolen after he gets it back?
That's the only way to get AT&T to honor the equipment replacement insurance;P
There are actually quite a few stories on Gizmodo about this entire chain of events and I would invite you to read them. The person who found the phone tried to return it to Apple. Twice. And was rebuffed both times.
So? The law does not require you to attempt to return it to the owner. If he did or did not try, it does not matter.
Then he gave it to Gizmodo in exchange for the bounty and the story was published.
And that is where he broke the law.
The law is pretty clear, there are at least one and at most two steps here when finding something that doesn't belong to you.
Optional step 1 - Try to return it to the owners. This step can be ignored to remain legal, its just not nice. Required step 2 - Turn it over to the police
Since step 1 is optional, you don't need to argue over it. Just say you are right, and I will agree. Whatever that happens to be.
He did not do step 2, thus broke the law.
Do you have any other evidence that he attempted to give it to the police? Now THAT would be new, and useful (VERY useful) in proving this person is not a criminal...
Please reply with suggetsions on reading that our fellow scientists should watch when they are not busy playing God (in the figurative sense.)
How about the emergency room documents, or doctors statements, or police reports of serious accident victims. I'm sure those people would have a thing or two to say about the morality of repairing the human body in ways nature did not provide for us.
Personally I would rather the scientists keep playing God instead, as most of our medical advancements like soap and antiseptics, surgery, anesthetics, models and predictions of the results of diet, cleanliness, diseases, etc etc...
ALL of which are playing God. And I for one and very thankful for it.
Worse is the fact that not a single one of those three degrees even closely matches anything this guy did:/
I'm honestly shocked and surprised they didn't add 'resisting arrest' as a charge.
Though at this point, there really is no different between this and charging him with terrorism or 1st degree murder of an entire swat team.
The person that takes a joke literally is doing FAR FAR more harm to humanity than this guy.
In fact, even if he DID try to sell his children for real, at least that's only two lives being harmed. The person pressing these baseless charges has just helped in destroying the entire concept of 'law and order', bringing the entire nation one step closer to chaos without law, and helping to further ruin the public trust of our police force.
If Americans are screaming to have accused terrorists shot on sight for killing a few thousand people, what sort of punishment could possibly be in league for a person destroying the entire legal force of a country?
Your link does not support your claims, in fact it proves you wrong.
ClamAV didn't fuckup anything, all those old clamscan engines shutting down was 100% the goal, and it 100% worked as planned.
McAfee admits it was not on purpose and was a mistake. Of course if it WAS on purpose they would say the same thing, but I haven't seen any reasons to think it would be on purpose, as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
To be fair, your troll mod should be flamebait instead, lacking a "-1 factually incorrect, but posted just to anger others" option
Ahh... But someone within Google probably COULD misuse that info.
The point was Google doesn't, and there are three or four other companies doing the same thing that DOES.
So what you are saying is, you only have a problem with American companies that COULD \maybe\ do something to violate your privacy but doesn't... But when they cross the line and finally DO something to violate privacy, then you are perfectly OK with it?
So Google just needs to sell your routers physical location to anyone on the internet, and you should be happy!
Slashdot Mirror
Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.
For reference, it was between 1776 (When America was declared independent) and 1790 when America introduced their first copyright laws.
Beyond the basic facts of history, one could easily argue the time period was quite a bit larger than that, as the first copyright bill to appear similar to what we have, though a lot more limited, was not formed until the 1830's.
Since then it has mostly been extended, or expanded by signing treaties with others.
Your other points are right on, even if worded in a needlessly angry way :P
In the grand scheme of things, the GP may have a point... But definitely not a point aided by this particular court decision.
First:
is a jelly-like substance made up of 95% water along with two grams of clay and a small amount of organic materials.
Then:
because it's made of water, poses no harm to people
That's about as reassuring as saying "This 95% water and 5% deadly deadly poison solution will be completely safe to inject directly into your bloodstream, since it is made completely out of water!"
The "Making Ofs" for Tron and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, regardless of your opinions on the movies themselves, are actually interesting because they faced challenges that normal people could understand and met them with answers normal people can understand.
Ok, as an avid trek fan, and a person whos first dual monitor wallpaper was trons bit in both yes (left) and no (right) forms, I felt ashamed at not knowing such making of videos existed.
This prompted me to find these, and I wanted to share with the others
http://videosift.com/video/1982-Behind-the-Scenes-in-the-making-of-TRON
and
Star Trek the Motion Picture - Vintage Featurette Reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYPvH6LW_uY
The predictions of CGI in movies of the future towards the end of the tron video are so accurate its almost funny
Thank you good sir!
We'll have "personal docking stations" in the cubicles and those will have larger screens, and storage devices, optical drives, and faster processors for graphics and applications. Why, with your brand new PDS, you won't even miss your PC.
Your "PDS" sounds exactly like a PC.
No no, a personal docking station is envisioned as more like a chair with a connector firmly planted upon it, to match the human plug reception, which will interface you to all of those devices and resources.
It's only a minor change to our current setups really, so it only makes sense!
You are not factoring in human nature.
That's OK, because you are not factoring in human humor, so it all balances out in the end
I wonder how far off shore one would need to place a floating nuclear plant so that it is far enough away.
Assuming the worst devastation in the worst case scenario, how far would the damage go, and thus how far it would need to be out at sea to not affect the coast.
It's a crappy thing to do to the ocean, but still.
Another downside is that after a certain distance out, it is no longer US soil.
While I have no doubt at all that if our navy wanted to 'own' a small patch of ocean to park a plant on, they have enough ships to maintain it 24/7/365.. but at a huge cost.
Better us than them? Or very bad idea?
Perhaps I'm exposing my own ignorance (because I've never felt the need to use Tor myself) but that strikes me as surprising if it's true. And something that even savvy internet users might not think about.
The best way to picture it is a man wanting to go outside anonymously, so he dresses in a full solid color suit, gloves, face mask, etc etc so you can't tell who it is. :P
Then when he gets outside, he starts screaming his name at the top of his lungs
Using tor, the source IP that the server sees is the tor exit node, not you.
But if your application spams out the IP it thinks you have (be it from your network interface, or router IP with nat discovery) to the end points, your app effectively just signed your name to your anonymous otherwise untraceable letter.
What causes you to say it was an illegal warrant?
The state started a criminal trial (Keep in mind no one has to ask them to do this, they do it on their own. Even if you specifically DON'T want them pressing criminal charges against someone that did a crime to you, they can NOT stop the charges at your request)
The thing to do between when charges are brought, and no evidence is in hand, is to get a warrant to search for said evidence.
100% of the conditions for a warrant are in place and OK.
So where is the issue? Nothing else has even happened yet for the order of events to be messed up!
Warrants are step 2.. charges being pressed are step 1, and if you think that hasn't happened yet, then you are very very behind the facts on this story.
I'm ignoring the link to the criminals website, and I will equally ignore any links directly to Apple on the subject for a similar reason. Both have been instructed by lawyers what to say, and what that is is NOT the truth.
The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that. The asshole lost it.
California law states you are incorrect.
There is no such thing as 'lost' property to the law. If it is lost, the law calls that stolen.
There is also an entire checklist of things one can do to avoid 'being in possession of stolen property' while he had possession of the lost phone, and did not do them.
Sure some people say he might have tried returning it to Apple, but the laws don't list trying to return it as a condition of the lost property to not be considered stolen. So who cares?
I understand you don't WANT the law to say that, but god damn man, you are arguing that gravity does not exist or that the sun never shines or pick your own plainly-obvious-it-is-happening-and-true example.
That fact alone is probably going to be the key to what legal actions get taken where. (hope he recorded the call or something of the like)
The law even specifically states you do not have to even attempt to return it to the owner. There are provisions for protecting you if you are in posession of the stolen property WHILE trying to return it to the owner, but the only requirement is turning the property into the police.
Gizmodo is NOT the police, so he didn't obide by the law.
Hint: Returning it to the owner is not part of what makes it legal or not.
If the actual owner of the item denies it's theirs, that makes it impossible to return to the owner, which would seem to satisfy the requirements before taking ownership of lost property?
He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.
So not only did you show he did not even try to return it to the owner, but instead tried to return it to the company that made the product, but on top of that, neither of those two actions make what he did legal or illegal.
Not giving it to the police is what made it illegal.
You are taking the law quite literally,
Uh, well yea :} Why how do you take it?
Personally, before doing something, my line of thought is along:
"Hmm I think this might be illegal, and I don't wanna deal with the repercussions of that if so, so I'm just not gunna do it..."
Do you commonly instead think: "Well this might or might not be illegal, but feck it, a Judge will agree it was OK no matter what the law actually says, so lets move forward with this plan!" ???
but without applying the common sense that a judge and jury will likely use (or not, you never know with some people).
A judge won't apply any sense, common or otherwise. They just gather facts if any are in dispute, and apply the existing law (law that the Judge most likely had nothing to do with the writing of)
If a law flat out says something is illegal, a Judge must state it is illegal. No room for anything else
This is Also a literal interpretation of the law, and probably the only interpretation that even matters.
As for a jury, well yea I agree with you there. Juries are not really supposed to uphold any laws, only what they feel is right based on the incomplete and pre-chewed facts they are allowed to see.
Don't forget that REAL evidence proving things beyond any doubt can Easily be barred from being shown to a Jury. If any Jury member figures it out, they will be thrown off the Jury.
Juries are rigged to view the world through the purposely incorrect picture the prosecutor allows them to see, and any true facts in the way may or may not be allowed for them to base any decision on.
There have been more than one cases where a murderer got off with no charges because the video showing him actually beating a person to death was barred from evidence. How the hell THAT is right/moral/legal is beyond me, but that is how it is.
In office politics, the "right thing" is not what the book says, it's what the paymaster says. The Golden Rule: Whosoever Has The Gold Makes The Rules.
Or in Terry's case, follow the rules and get 5 years in jail, or don't follow the rules and get 20 years in prison.
You can't easily upgrade an OS out from under itself.
You must not be a Debian user ;}
System installed as Debian potato (v2.2) and currently running the almost newest lenny (5.0) through 4 major version releases without any reinstall.
After etch (v4.0) I think it was, you can even upgrade your kernel while it is running, with no reboots.
Not to mention this is something even Debian only started about a decade ago, and has been standard practice in the mini and main frame worlds, and almost as long of a practice in the embedded controller world (Which until recently, pretty much all cell phones fell into)
If that isn't considered upgrading an OS from under itself, I don't know what is.
wtf "stolen"? The guy CALLED apple.
Well how about I TAKE a million of your dollars, and I will CALL you so you have it back.
Heh as funny as that is, actually yea such a recording would go FAR to absolving the original seller from any crime of theft, at which point they couldn't charge gizmodo for knowingly buying stolen goods.
Wonder if they still have the call tapes...
Is it stealing if you return a lost item to the owner before said owner reports it stolen?
Because that's exactly what happened here.
Yes :/
And it's sorta a worse stealing. At least as far as the court goes.
If they didn't return it before it was reported as stolen, it probably would have been a civil case from Apple, if anything (It would depend on Apple's wants, unlike now)
Once it is reported, then anything since it was reported that the act happened (IE the night the phone was lost) is taken into consideration by the state.
Following the phone, it appears a money transaction has been made with stolen property since before it was claimed.
So, the state has to press a criminal case against the person who stole it, with charges of the original theft, as well as the fencing of stolen property.
It sounds backwards, but the fencing is the main catalyst, and at the time that act happened, the phone was in a stolen state (Between when Apple recovered it, and when Apple reported it missing. The time the report was filed does not matter)
Being a criminal charge, all sorts of federal laws that were enacted for big time operations processing massive amounts of stolen goods, will all apply to this one guy.
I know the guy fucked up and most likely knew what he was doing, even if not how bad it would be for doing it... But I honestly feel bad for him now
What kind of asshole reports a lost item as stolen after he gets it back?
That's the only way to get AT&T to honor the equipment replacement insurance ;P
There are actually quite a few stories on Gizmodo about this entire chain of events and I would invite you to read them. The person who found the phone tried to return it to Apple. Twice. And was rebuffed both times.
So? The law does not require you to attempt to return it to the owner.
If he did or did not try, it does not matter.
Then he gave it to Gizmodo in exchange for the bounty and the story was published.
And that is where he broke the law.
The law is pretty clear, there are at least one and at most two steps here when finding something that doesn't belong to you.
Optional step 1 - Try to return it to the owners. This step can be ignored to remain legal, its just not nice.
Required step 2 - Turn it over to the police
Since step 1 is optional, you don't need to argue over it. Just say you are right, and I will agree. Whatever that happens to be.
He did not do step 2, thus broke the law.
Do you have any other evidence that he attempted to give it to the police?
Now THAT would be new, and useful (VERY useful) in proving this person is not a criminal...
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
Your list does not contain the final act that is required for due dilligence (and to not be breaking the law), which is to give it to the police.
That is the ONLY acceptable step after attempting to return it, even if you skip attempting to return it.
If the final step is not returning it to the police, you committed a crime.
Crimes are indeed illegal there.
Please reply with suggetsions on reading that our fellow scientists should watch when they are not busy playing God (in the figurative sense.)
How about the emergency room documents, or doctors statements, or police reports of serious accident victims.
I'm sure those people would have a thing or two to say about the morality of repairing the human body in ways nature did not provide for us.
Personally I would rather the scientists keep playing God instead, as most of our medical advancements like soap and antiseptics, surgery, anesthetics, models and predictions of the results of diet, cleanliness, diseases, etc etc...
ALL of which are playing God. And I for one and very thankful for it.
Yeah, this is the first thing I thought: spray-paint a libelous message on the judge's house, then sue the judge for libel.
That is an excellent idea, except for the detail that this is a Judge, so is excluded from libel laws (Really all laws) so he wouldn't get in trouble.
So instead, such libelous messages should be spray-painted on his friends and families houses all in the same night!
That old British hippie is getting way too greedy.
They should offer him some compensation, but he has to fly there in one of his passenger jets through the ash to collect on it.
Worse is the fact that not a single one of those three degrees even closely matches anything this guy did :/
I'm honestly shocked and surprised they didn't add 'resisting arrest' as a charge.
Though at this point, there really is no different between this and charging him with terrorism or 1st degree murder of an entire swat team.
The person that takes a joke literally is doing FAR FAR more harm to humanity than this guy.
In fact, even if he DID try to sell his children for real, at least that's only two lives being harmed. The person pressing these baseless charges has just helped in destroying the entire concept of 'law and order', bringing the entire nation one step closer to chaos without law, and helping to further ruin the public trust of our police force.
If Americans are screaming to have accused terrorists shot on sight for killing a few thousand people, what sort of punishment could possibly be in league for a person destroying the entire legal force of a country?
Your link does not support your claims, in fact it proves you wrong.
ClamAV didn't fuckup anything, all those old clamscan engines shutting down was 100% the goal, and it 100% worked as planned.
McAfee admits it was not on purpose and was a mistake.
Of course if it WAS on purpose they would say the same thing, but I haven't seen any reasons to think it would be on purpose, as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
To be fair, your troll mod should be flamebait instead, lacking a "-1 factually incorrect, but posted just to anger others" option
Ahh... But someone within Google probably COULD misuse that info.
The point was Google doesn't, and there are three or four other companies doing the same thing that DOES.
So what you are saying is, you only have a problem with American companies that COULD \maybe\ do something to violate your privacy but doesn't... But when they cross the line and finally DO something to violate privacy, then you are perfectly OK with it?
So Google just needs to sell your routers physical location to anyone on the internet, and you should be happy!
The exact number of a non-terminating repeating decimal?
Nether the number 2 or the number 3 are non-terminating, nor repeating.
[total] * 2 / 3 = [needed]
^^^^^ why it is written 2/3 or 2/3rd's.