They might do that, but they might also try another tactic: Most of the root servers are not run by Verisign. Most of them are also run by folks who object to how Verisign has handled this. Having declared Verisign in breach of contract, ICANN can instruct those root server operators to take action directly and they likely will. The shoe would then be on the other foot, with Verisign having to seek an injunction against ICANN's actions with all the associated delays.
If they approached you, then they already have a pretty good idea how much money they're willing to spend on this project. So, start there. Find out what they're willing to spend, and then negotiate how much work and what kind of work you're prepared to do for that compensation.
Re:Wonder if they used this?
on
SCO's Plan Examined
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
SCO's graph asserts that the Linux codebase evolved out of Minix. That's where the dotted green line becomes a solid green line.
Unfortunately for SCO, that's not correct. Linus used Minix as his operating system during some of the early work on Linux and he even used some of their file structures, but none of the Minix codebase was incorporated into Linux.
The UNIX History graph that's based on does not show a strict flow of property nor even a comprehensive flow of ideas. It merely shows the general direction that the development of unix-related systems took.
That's what I figured. Renders the whole discussion moot; with the P2P server, the owner infringed the copyright by granting access to the computer containing the copy of the song to someone other than himself. Every action beyond that point expanded the infringement. To avoid infringement, the P2P server would have to have possessed an original, owned copy.
If I understand you right: 1. You have some customers to which you sell services such as email and web space. 2. Some of these customers contracted this monitoring service to watch the servers. 3. The monitoring service caused problems with your servers.
And the answer is:
Correct your hosting contract. Your hosting contract should include provisions for how much usage is reasonable and how the situation will be handled when the customer's usage exceeds those parameters. If the customer insists on doing something stupid which brings the server to its knees, then the customer should pay you enough for you to be able to afford a seperate server for them.
If the sales force insisted that they'd lose sales by bothering the customer with such notions, now would be an excellent time to point out that they just lost sales because they didn't.
As to how much monitoring is too much, the answer is simple: anything the customer is willing to pay for is fine. Anything more is too much.
You'd want to couch this in some sort of ideological theme. "I don't believe in privacy, so I leave my entire computer open in a read-only mode to everyone on the Internet."
Or maybe something simpler. "I leave that computer open in read-only mode to everybody as an example of how to correctly set up a so-and-so system. I invite anonymous guest users to log on a give it a spin so long as they don't do anything illegal."
because the fire alarms don't go off the fire gets too big and burns down your neighbors house [...] Are you still guilty of actionable negligence?
Only if they can prove that:
A) Your fire alarms going off would have made a difference. I don't know about your fire alarms, but mine are only audible indoors when the windows are closed. They make a difference only to the escape of folks within the house. B) You knew or should have known that your fire alarms were not in working order. "Why yes your honor, I test them at least once a year. They worked the last time I tested them."
If you're looking for a tricky example, go for the classic attractive nuisance: the backyard swimming pool. If the neighbor's kid drowns in your pool while its unattended, you're going to get nailed for wrongful death unless you bent over backwards to prevent him from swimming in it. Even with a lock, a fence and barbed wire, its no sure thing you'll beat the lawsuit.
This is getting far afield of the topic though. We were talking about when you are or are not responsible for what your computer does.
intent is not at issue in a civil copyright action
Intent can be a deciding factor in virtually every form of litigation. You just have to find the right angle.
Take an obvious example: A red-light camera caught a snapshot of your car, proving that you ran a red light. What factors could cancel this? "Gee your Honor, I was just trying to get out of the way of that ambulance behind me as required by law." Your intent voids what would have been a violation.
the test is simply a statutory violation on the balance of probabilites.
I think you mean balance of the evidence, also referred to as the preponderance of the evidence. Probabilities are something better left to mathematicians than lawyers.
The thing you're missing is that Intent is a part of that balance. There is often no disagreement on the forms of intent that could be relevant to the case, but its there behind the scenes even then.
Now here's a random thought: In Canada, your friend is allowed to lend you a CD, and once in possession of it you're allowed to make a copy for personal enjoyment. But are you allowed to lend that copy to a different friend? Does that second-hand lending still constitute "private use," or is lending a copied CD infringement?
Good Lord, that's insidious. Don't suggest it where a Verizon bigwig might hear you. They've already implemented non-optional extended area dialing where you get dinged cents per minute even though you didn't "dial 1." Hell, they'd probably play up the angle that it helps cut down on the telemarketing calls by making it difficult for the machines to recognize an invalid number.
what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing.
The Crux of this argument revolves around a simple question: Who is operating the computer?
Possible Answer #1: The owner of the computer is operating it. Even if he does not explicitly review and authorize each operation that the computer performs, the owner still dictated the paramaters under which the computer would make those decisions. As a result, the computer copying and sending the music file is identical in every respect to the owner copying and sending the file... a clear copyright violation.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." The friend then burns you a copy of the CD and gives it to you, a clear violation.
Possible Answer #2: The remote individual is teleoperating the computer. The owner has permitted some limited form of teleoperation, but each action the computer takes is at the behest of that remote individual. Since the non-owner individual is running the remote computer, its actions in making a copy for that individual's personal use are reasonable and completely legal.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." You then take it off the shelf and copy it using your friend's computer while he stands by and watches. Legal in Canada.
Possible Answer #3: The computer is operating itself. Soon it will take over the world. Muahaha. We'll relegate this answer to science fiction where it belongs.
The current caselaw is varied and confusing. Generally though, the following theme has developed: INTENT. If the owner knew and expected the computer to be used for a specific purpose, then when the computer does its as if the owner did that same action himself, regardless of who actually instigated the action. If the owner did not know and should not reasonably have known that the computer could perform such an action, then whoever actually induced it to perform that action is the guilty party.
Lets set up exteme hypotheticals to illustrate that theme:
Example #1: You rig an electric chair to a computer and a modem so that the next time a telemarketer calls, the chair will electrocute its occupant. A telemarketer calls. Who is guilty of murder, you or the telemarketer? Duh. You of course.
Example #2: Your Windows laptop gets a worm on it. You don't know it. You carry it to work behind the corporate firewall where it runs rampant, deletes everything and ruins the company. Are you guilty of destroying the company or is it entirely the worm author's fault? You're absolved; its entirely the worm author's fault.
So, how does all this help with the question of who's running the computer as it makes and sends the copy of the song? Well, it doesn't really. You could make a powerful argument that running a P2P server is no different than inviting the public at large to use your computer. You could strongly counter that by specifically setting up the computer to copy those particular songs, you and not the stranger are the agent of its copying. You could argue that its no different than radio, deliberately putting specific songs into the ether where any stranger can record them.
In fact, you can argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations. Before the matter is settled, you can expect the courts to argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations, ruling both ways while they seek the right balance.
So basically, the short answer is:
If you want to try to prove a point, go ahead but beware: Folks who want to live don't jump in front of trucks and epect them to stop, and the courts are behaving like a drunk drivers. Your best bet for longevity is not to play in the street.
And not to be outdone by Verisign, Google has added a default route to the global BGP table which brings any formerly unroutable web traffic to their search engine.
Dude, while we're at it, lets reprogram the routers so that if the IP address seems wrong for that web packet, it'll change the IP address to its best guess as to which one is correct, or even route it to a search engine web server!
Clever solution. They rigged it so that you can declare the.com zone as "delegation only." If you do, then your name server will only accept referrals from the.com servers (NS records and any associated glue).
So, if BIND makes a non-recursive query for www.verisign-is-really-bad.com from a server authorative for.com and it gets back an A record for 10.0.0.1 instead of an NS record for ns.verisign-is-really-bad.com, it responds to the host querying it with NXDOMAIN instead of the A record.
Verisign could work around this by replacing the A record with a wildcard NS record pointing to ns.sitefinder.verisign.com or some such, and then having that new name server return an IP address for any query made of it.
The question is: is Verisign willing to escalate the matter or will they back off?
If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.
Until the courts actually interpret it that way, better watch your backside. That you've given permission for someone to teleoperate your computer is a clever notion, but at the moment it lacks a stable legal precedent.
What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?
That goes to the old joke about the psychic who helps police solve cases by "seeing" information about the crime. There is, of course, no exhibition of special powers. The policeman can't credit the information to his unlawful source, so he arranges for Miss Esmerelda to come up with it instead.
what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?
Its like the difference between Junk Mail and Spam.
It costs quite a bit of money to send junk mail, so there is a natural limiter on how much is sent. Moreover, its traceable so folks sending junk mail don't get too egregious with fraud.
Spam on the other hand, is mostly fraudulent and because its cheap to generate, it arrives in an unmanageable deluge.
Tailing someone is expensive. You have to have an officer or two in their own vehicle. You also can't do a whole lot of it... Its conspicuous. Folks notice, wonder what the cops are up to, and start asking questions.
The GPS device is comparativly cheap. Once installed, you can passively watch a person's comings and goings for months. And it doesn't stick out like a cop car does. If they don't need a warrant, what's to stop them from tracking every person who looks at them cross-eyed? And if you seem to spend time at an odd location, well, that's a place the cops should check out, now isn't it?
The caselaw has a more pragmatic viewpoint: without a warrant, look but don't touch. The moment you want to attach or open or do anything like that, you need a warrant.
Sadly, this means that the automated floating police cameras from the sci fi movies would be A-OK for use without a warrant.
The RFC mandates a reply to the envelope sender, not the From header. You can generally find the envelope sender in the Return-Path header. Sending to the From header is broken behavior.
If you can't deliver to the listed recipient for any reason, the RFC states that you MUST return a message to the envelope sender. Just in case there is anything unclear about the word MUST, they go on to explain that MUST means that EVERY correctly written email software package will do so.
Does the virus problem indicate the need for a change to the standards? Perhaps. But until the standards are changed they remain the standards and any program which doesn't perform to the standards remains broken.
The mail filters that send out a message for each virus message received are not the problem. Indeed, they're just following the basic requirements for bounced messages listed in RFC 2822.
THE problem is the mail filters which also send a second message to postmaster@whatever domain. Whatever brainiac thought that one up should be shot.
Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.
Er... What does the Santa Cruz Operation have to do with any of this? The SCO Group is the former Caldera. They bought SCO Unix from the Santa Cruz Operation, but they did not buy the Santa Cruz Operation itself. Thus current employees of Tarantella (formerly known as the Santa Cruz Operation) have nothing to with the SCO Group's mess.
Slashdot Mirror
use hardware which isn't completely outdated.
Low-end machines are an excellent choice for performing benchmarks. Why? Because the various activities tend to take long enough to be measurable.
On a higher-end machine, the relative difference is still there but its generally a lot harder to measure.
They might do that, but they might also try another tactic: Most of the root servers are not run by Verisign. Most of them are also run by folks who object to how Verisign has handled this. Having declared Verisign in breach of contract, ICANN can instruct those root server operators to take action directly and they likely will. The shoe would then be on the other foot, with Verisign having to seek an injunction against ICANN's actions with all the associated delays.
If they approached you, then they already have a pretty good idea how much money they're willing to spend on this project. So, start there. Find out what they're willing to spend, and then negotiate how much work and what kind of work you're prepared to do for that compensation.
SCO's graph asserts that the Linux codebase evolved out of Minix. That's where the dotted green line becomes a solid green line.
Unfortunately for SCO, that's not correct. Linus used Minix as his operating system during some of the early work on Linux and he even used some of their file structures, but none of the Minix codebase was incorporated into Linux.
The UNIX History graph that's based on does not show a strict flow of property nor even a comprehensive flow of ideas. It merely shows the general direction that the development of unix-related systems took.
government mandate that tech companies have to use binary SI prefixes on labels.
;)
Not likely. Most human beings count in 10s. Only technogeeks like us count in 2s. If the government standardized on anything, it'd be powers of 10.
Which means we'd all get to buy 1074 megabyte sticks of ram instead of 1 gigabyte sticks. Hey, how about that! An extra 74 megs for free.
That's what I figured. Renders the whole discussion moot; with the P2P server, the owner infringed the copyright by granting access to the computer containing the copy of the song to someone other than himself. Every action beyond that point expanded the infringement. To avoid infringement, the P2P server would have to have possessed an original, owned copy.
are only audible indoors when the windows are closed.
Allow me to rephrase that: when the windows are closed, are audible only indoors.
Better?
If I understand you right:
1. You have some customers to which you sell services such as email and web space.
2. Some of these customers contracted this monitoring service to watch the servers.
3. The monitoring service caused problems with your servers.
And the answer is:
Correct your hosting contract. Your hosting contract should include provisions for how much usage is reasonable and how the situation will be handled when the customer's usage exceeds those parameters. If the customer insists on doing something stupid which brings the server to its knees, then the customer should pay you enough for you to be able to afford a seperate server for them.
If the sales force insisted that they'd lose sales by bothering the customer with such notions, now would be an excellent time to point out that they just lost sales because they didn't.
As to how much monitoring is too much, the answer is simple: anything the customer is willing to pay for is fine. Anything more is too much.
Interesting.
You'd want to couch this in some sort of ideological theme. "I don't believe in privacy, so I leave my entire computer open in a read-only mode to everyone on the Internet."
Or maybe something simpler. "I leave that computer open in read-only mode to everybody as an example of how to correctly set up a so-and-so system. I invite anonymous guest users to log on a give it a spin so long as they don't do anything illegal."
Interesting.
because the fire alarms don't go off the fire gets too big and burns down your neighbors house [...] Are you still guilty of actionable negligence?
Only if they can prove that:
A) Your fire alarms going off would have made a difference. I don't know about your fire alarms, but mine are only audible indoors when the windows are closed. They make a difference only to the escape of folks within the house.
B) You knew or should have known that your fire alarms were not in working order. "Why yes your honor, I test them at least once a year. They worked the last time I tested them."
If you're looking for a tricky example, go for the classic attractive nuisance: the backyard swimming pool. If the neighbor's kid drowns in your pool while its unattended, you're going to get nailed for wrongful death unless you bent over backwards to prevent him from swimming in it. Even with a lock, a fence and barbed wire, its no sure thing you'll beat the lawsuit.
This is getting far afield of the topic though. We were talking about when you are or are not responsible for what your computer does.
intent is not at issue in a civil copyright action
Intent can be a deciding factor in virtually every form of litigation. You just have to find the right angle.
Take an obvious example: A red-light camera caught a snapshot of your car, proving that you ran a red light. What factors could cancel this? "Gee your Honor, I was just trying to get out of the way of that ambulance behind me as required by law." Your intent voids what would have been a violation.
the test is simply a statutory violation on the balance of probabilites.
I think you mean balance of the evidence, also referred to as the preponderance of the evidence. Probabilities are something better left to mathematicians than lawyers.
The thing you're missing is that Intent is a part of that balance. There is often no disagreement on the forms of intent that could be relevant to the case, but its there behind the scenes even then.
Now here's a random thought: In Canada, your friend is allowed to lend you a CD, and once in possession of it you're allowed to make a copy for personal enjoyment. But are you allowed to lend that copy to a different friend? Does that second-hand lending still constitute "private use," or is lending a copied CD infringement?
Good Lord, that's insidious. Don't suggest it where a Verizon bigwig might hear you. They've already implemented non-optional extended area dialing where you get dinged cents per minute even though you didn't "dial 1." Hell, they'd probably play up the angle that it helps cut down on the telemarketing calls by making it difficult for the machines to recognize an invalid number.
what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing.
The Crux of this argument revolves around a simple question: Who is operating the computer?
Possible Answer #1: The owner of the computer is operating it. Even if he does not explicitly review and authorize each operation that the computer performs, the owner still dictated the paramaters under which the computer would make those decisions. As a result, the computer copying and sending the music file is identical in every respect to the owner copying and sending the file... a clear copyright violation.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." The friend then burns you a copy of the CD and gives it to you, a clear violation.
Possible Answer #2: The remote individual is teleoperating the computer. The owner has permitted some limited form of teleoperation, but each action the computer takes is at the behest of that remote individual. Since the non-owner individual is running the remote computer, its actions in making a copy for that individual's personal use are reasonable and completely legal.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." You then take it off the shelf and copy it using your friend's computer while he stands by and watches. Legal in Canada.
Possible Answer #3: The computer is operating itself. Soon it will take over the world. Muahaha. We'll relegate this answer to science fiction where it belongs.
The current caselaw is varied and confusing. Generally though, the following theme has developed: INTENT. If the owner knew and expected the computer to be used for a specific purpose, then when the computer does its as if the owner did that same action himself, regardless of who actually instigated the action. If the owner did not know and should not reasonably have known that the computer could perform such an action, then whoever actually induced it to perform that action is the guilty party.
Lets set up exteme hypotheticals to illustrate that theme:
Example #1: You rig an electric chair to a computer and a modem so that the next time a telemarketer calls, the chair will electrocute its occupant. A telemarketer calls. Who is guilty of murder, you or the telemarketer? Duh. You of course.
Example #2: Your Windows laptop gets a worm on it. You don't know it. You carry it to work behind the corporate firewall where it runs rampant, deletes everything and ruins the company. Are you guilty of destroying the company or is it entirely the worm author's fault? You're absolved; its entirely the worm author's fault.
So, how does all this help with the question of who's running the computer as it makes and sends the copy of the song? Well, it doesn't really. You could make a powerful argument that running a P2P server is no different than inviting the public at large to use your computer. You could strongly counter that by specifically setting up the computer to copy those particular songs, you and not the stranger are the agent of its copying. You could argue that its no different than radio, deliberately putting specific songs into the ether where any stranger can record them.
In fact, you can argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations. Before the matter is settled, you can expect the courts to argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations, ruling both ways while they seek the right balance.
So basically, the short answer is:
If you want to try to prove a point, go ahead but beware: Folks who want to live don't jump in front of trucks and epect them to stop, and the courts are behaving like a drunk drivers. Your best bet for longevity is not to play in the street.
And not to be outdone by Verisign, Google has added a default route to the global BGP table which brings any formerly unroutable web traffic to their search engine.
NOT!
Dude, while we're at it, lets reprogram the routers so that if the IP address seems wrong for that web packet, it'll change the IP address to its best guess as to which one is correct, or even route it to a search engine web server!
That's the one.
.com zone as "delegation only." If you do, then your name server will only accept referrals from the .com servers (NS records and any associated glue).
.com and it gets back an A record for 10.0.0.1 instead of an NS record for ns.verisign-is-really-bad.com, it responds to the host querying it with NXDOMAIN instead of the A record.
Clever solution. They rigged it so that you can declare the
So, if BIND makes a non-recursive query for www.verisign-is-really-bad.com from a server authorative for
Verisign could work around this by replacing the A record with a wildcard NS record pointing to ns.sitefinder.verisign.com or some such, and then having that new name server return an IP address for any query made of it.
The question is: is Verisign willing to escalate the matter or will they back off?
If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.
Until the courts actually interpret it that way, better watch your backside. That you've given permission for someone to teleoperate your computer is a clever notion, but at the moment it lacks a stable legal precedent.
What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?
That goes to the old joke about the psychic who helps police solve cases by "seeing" information about the crime. There is, of course, no exhibition of special powers. The policeman can't credit the information to his unlawful source, so he arranges for Miss Esmerelda to come up with it instead.
what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?
Its like the difference between Junk Mail and Spam.
It costs quite a bit of money to send junk mail, so there is a natural limiter on how much is sent. Moreover, its traceable so folks sending junk mail don't get too egregious with fraud.
Spam on the other hand, is mostly fraudulent and because its cheap to generate, it arrives in an unmanageable deluge.
Tailing someone is expensive. You have to have an officer or two in their own vehicle. You also can't do a whole lot of it... Its conspicuous. Folks notice, wonder what the cops are up to, and start asking questions.
The GPS device is comparativly cheap. Once installed, you can passively watch a person's comings and goings for months. And it doesn't stick out like a cop car does. If they don't need a warrant, what's to stop them from tracking every person who looks at them cross-eyed? And if you seem to spend time at an odd location, well, that's a place the cops should check out, now isn't it?
The caselaw has a more pragmatic viewpoint: without a warrant, look but don't touch. The moment you want to attach or open or do anything like that, you need a warrant.
Sadly, this means that the automated floating police cameras from the sci fi movies would be A-OK for use without a warrant.
The RFC mandates a reply to the envelope sender, not the From header. You can generally find the envelope sender in the Return-Path header. Sending to the From header is broken behavior.
If you can't deliver to the listed recipient for any reason, the RFC states that you MUST return a message to the envelope sender. Just in case there is anything unclear about the word MUST, they go on to explain that MUST means that EVERY correctly written email software package will do so.
Does the virus problem indicate the need for a change to the standards? Perhaps. But until the standards are changed they remain the standards and any program which doesn't perform to the standards remains broken.
The mail filters that send out a message for each virus message received are not the problem. Indeed, they're just following the basic requirements for bounced messages listed in RFC 2822.
THE problem is the mail filters which also send a second message to postmaster@whatever domain. Whatever brainiac thought that one up should be shot.
Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.
Er... What does the Santa Cruz Operation have to do with any of this? The SCO Group is the former Caldera. They bought SCO Unix from the Santa Cruz Operation, but they did not buy the Santa Cruz Operation itself. Thus current employees of Tarantella (formerly known as the Santa Cruz Operation) have nothing to with the SCO Group's mess.
Without copyright, there would have never been any need for the GPL in the first place.
Without copyright, you'd be stuck with the license terms without any recourse, and they're a lot more draconian.