Well, first of all Microsoft doesn't make a browser. They make an OS named "Windows" one of its features is an icon called "Internet Explorer." That feature isn't free, you have to fork over cold, hard cash for a Windows license.
I don't know if you are aware that you can download and run Internet Explorer 6 under Wine or Crossover Office - and you don't need to have Windows to do that. So, from a technical perspective, they do make a browser that's a separate product from the OS. Now, if you are talking legally, then I don't know, and I don't know if anybody cares - including the "Justice" Department.
Stop twisting people's words to make your stupid argument. We are all saying "There is an X" and you are saying "There's no such Y!".
Actually, the original post I replied to said "profit" and I repeated that word - I didn't twist it into anything else, if that's what you mean.
Basic contract law disagrees with you. If I sell my mowing services for $30 and you receive benefit of that by having your lawn mowed by me, I damned well have the right to receive payment from you.
Actually, basic contract law disagrees with you in this case. If you do sell your service at $30 a pop, and you have no contract with me to do my lawn, but you mow it anyway, you can't demand that I pay you anyway. It makes sense. Unfortunately, copyright law often doesn't make the same sense as the contract law; but that's another topic altogether.
Rockstar is selling entertainment in the form of GTA:SA. If you receive benefit of that by playing the game, Rockstar has the right to be paid for it.
Well, not exactly, but I am not arguing this point either. Meaning I can still play the game at my friend's place without paying Rockstar anything and it wouldn't have anything to do with copyright at all. But I imagine that's not what you had in mind when you wrote this - you probably meant when you buy or otherwise acquire the game from a "pirate shop" or something similar.
Again, I have nothing against Rockstar - they may be a perfect company to work for and deal with - I don't know - and none of my comments may be applicable to them. My original post was simply replying to its parent's general statements.
In this case, I invite you not to pay your power bill. Call your power company up and tell them they have no right or guarantee of payment. I urge you. Please do that.
Again, this has nothing to do with copyrights as they work differently and are separate from contract law altogether. I have a contract with the power company, and if I didn't want to pay them I guess I could cancel their service - this has nothing to do with copyrights at all.
The point that I did try to make that somehow went into this was different, though. I don't think that people (i.e. media, legislators, etc.) are viewing the situation fairly. They usually compare unauthorized copying of copyrighted content to stealing; and that's fine - as long as that goes both ways. If a P2P user that downloads a copyrighted song without authorization is a thief, then so is the cartel of corporations that's illegally price-fixing, restricting trades, etc. Consumers have just as much right to keep their money/income and not be illegally taken away by such actions. So, if you want to compare P2P sharing of unauthorized content to stealing goods from a store, then also compare illegal price-fixing to taking people's valuables from their homes without their consent.
This doesn't mean that it's OK to violate law or "steal" from someone if they steal from you, but it does call for a more fair view of what's really going on.
He said "the profit*s* (noun, plural) they have a right to" as in the "right to actually receive full payment for a product they are selling from those who are receiving that product".
There is no such right! The copyright grants exclusive right to make and distribute copies of copyrighted works. There is no such right to (or guarantee of) payment or much less "profit" of any kind!
Furthermore, the grandparent was right. Corporations and individuals both have a right to the profits they are entitled to -- by definition. Those entitlements are granted by all kinds of laws including copyright, trademark, anti-theft, and anti-piracy laws.
And where does it say in the copyright law that anyone is entitled to profits, or has a right to profits? The contracts you make to sell your works are of your own doing, and if nobody pays for your product, then you are not entitled to anything.
But I guess if you trust the entertainment cartel, they do have a right to profit even though they don't sell anything - look at how recordable media and equipment is taxed - percentage of sales proceeds directly to the cartel. So, yes, you are right in that sense.
Umm, IANAL, but isn't the whole point of "copyright" to grant the copyright holder an exclusive right to copy their work so that they can PROFIT from it?
So, the exclusive right is to copy and distribute, *not* to profit! Whether they profit or not depends on many other things like whether anyone wants to actually buy the product. There is no right to profit anywhere.
Having said that, the media cartel wants to make you think that they have a right to "profit" - well, revenue, even if nobody wants to buy their product. In fact, they have convinced the legislation in many countries to enact laws exactly for that purpose. Example - everyone is paying taxes to the entertainment cartel by simply purchasing recordable devices or media like blank tapes, CD-R drives/media, etc.
I'm no corporate sympathizer, but I think your rant is misplaced here. This is not about corporations -- it's about copyright. And, for the most part, Rockstar Games has been a pretty good corporate citizen anyway. It's unfair to compare them to the likes of *AA/Disney.
And, if you read my post, that's why I pointed out at the end that I was not claiming that this stuff applies in this case to Rockstar - I was simply replying to the poster who made some general statements with regard to "stealing" and "piracy."
But you are arguing that since they broke the law, you have the right to break the law.
Not at all. And I didn't say that or imply that anywhere. All I am saying is that most media coverage and legislators' attention is one-sided, like the comment I replied to. That only makes sense since most of the mainstream media are the same companies in the entertainment industry and the entertainment cartel; and also those companies are the ones making huge campaign contributions to legislators. The situation only fuels the differences between public interest and the interests of the cartel and, legislation that's supposed to represent the public, being one-sided (read: bought out by the cartel), is no help in the matter.
Now, if you want to express only a one-sided view of how 25 million (or whatever number) people in the U.S. and hundreds of millions worldwide are criminals outright, then go ahead. But don't forget the other side of the story as well - the cartel is illegally "stealing" from you too. And they will continue to do so; and there's no realistic solution in sight; and, most of all, nobody cares or wants to care about it.
So, I guess you can welcome DMCA, CBDTPA (or whatever the spelling), INDUCE ACT, and rest of the anti-common-sense everyone-is-a-criminal legislation as your new overlords. And don't forget to pay the entertainment cartel tax when you buy a CD-R drive or media either... err... you don't have to remember - it's automatically paid out of your pocket for your convenience.
Chevron spilled a bunch of oil off Alaska several years ago, they broke the law! That gives me the right to go to any Chevron station and take all the gas I want! They broke the law first!
And that has to do what with what I said? Can you make a copy of the liquid gas fuel from your neighbor without taking anything from or going to the gas station? If yes, then you wouldn't be stealing from the gas station; if not, then the comparison is invalid.
Finally, and again, I didn't say breaking the law was OK anywhere. However, if the entertainment cartel gets its way and outlaws common sense, it will be hard for people not to use it.
You are denying them the profit they have a right to.
Great - another corporations-have-a-right-to-profit thinker. Corporations don't have a right to profit; they have a right to do business but whether they make profit depends on how they do it - it's not their guaranteed right that they will! They don't have a right to any sales revenue either if people decide not to buy their products.
This whole theft/copyright infringment argument is tiring, because the end result is that people are breaking the law.
So are the corporations. Who makes non-compete agreements? Enforces illegal trade restrictions? Lies with creative accounting practices to avoid paying equal share of taxes? Is a member of a cartel, and engages in price-fixing taking customers' money by illegal means?
How many times have those corporations' actions been discussed in the news recently compared to the mp3 music "thieves" and "pirates?" How many times has Congress proposed any legislation recently to combat the situation compared to what they have proposed and enacted to combat the "pirates?"
Gimme a break - next thing you'll tell me is that corporations have a right to break the law. Because we already know they have a right to bribe the Congress to enact new ones, making common sense illegal.
Theft is not the wrong word to use, it's just that the definition of the word is dated.
OK, maybe "theft" is the right word to use. After all, corporations in the entertainment industry alone have stolen 100s of millions if not billions in U.S. dollars over time from consumers using illegal means.
Look, I am no "piracy shop" supporter, and I don't know much about the Rockstar and its products or how all this applies in this case, but, for a general statement that you are making, having a one-sided view as if corporations' "rights" to profit are being violated is very ignorant of the whole situation.
A quick, easy, and usually painless solution to this is just to bring the tab with the active javascript into focus.
Yes, welcome to KDE 3.3.1 - it's already fixed that way in Konqueror. In addition, Konqueror's pop-up dialog also displays the domain name of the website that initiated the pop-up in its window title bar.
Why was the parent comment modded a troll? This will be an interesting race to watch.
Many people didn't pay attention to what these bugs are and the submitter didn't categorize them correctly either. First of all, the spoof popup issue has already been fixed in KDE 3.3.1 and Konqueror that comes with it, so the "race" has already been won.
Second, the vulnerability in Mozilla is a little more serious than the issue (since it's not really a vulnerability) in Konqueror. If you read and test Mozilla, it will allow a textbox in a background tab to keep focus even when you are viewing another tab. So, if you are browsing some spy-phishing-website.com and then open a new tab and access your bank login page, click on username field and start blindly typing [your username]-[tab key]-[your password], like many people do, the keyboard input will actually appear in the background tab's form; and easily become transmitted to spy-phishing-website.com database without user knowing anything - other than that their keyboard stopped working or they mistyped the login info.
Also, people should realize that the multi browser vulnerability page on secunia.com displays different content depending on the browser you use to access it.
Motorola has more up its sleeve. It looks to me like the A768i is a reworked A760, which was for Asia only and didn't work in the U.S.
A780 is a flip-phone, just like A76x, that also has real buttons.
But a real nice one is E680 that's also capable of MPEG-4 encoding and decoding, can carry up to 1GB SD card, and much more. Check it out.
Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin
on
The Empires Strike Back
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think it is a little premature to suggest that the internet is doomed because of the Indymedia fiasco.
It is, but you also have to consider not only Indymedia, but other cases as well.
In the Indymedia case it is interesting how Swiss (or Italian or whatever else) governments can simply go to any MLAT partner and seize anything they want for their "investigation." Were Indymedia or Rackspace in violation of the U.S. or U.K laws? I don't know, but it doesn't look that way since neither British law enforcement, nor FBI initiated this action. So, by the magic of the MLAT, you, as an online service provider or entity, are subject to the laws of other countries where you don't even operate or have anything to do with. Want to express your frustration with EU, World Bank, WTO, etc.? It only has to be "illegal" in one country, and your speech will be suppressed for all the rest.
The practice is becoming increasingly common - Yahoo! cannot list Nazi memorabilia in its auctions (the burden is on Yahoo! to make sure the French don't have access to them), Google cannot return advertisements for the words/phrases that are trademarked in the U.S., etc. So, the trend is that once you are online, you are subject to laws of all the nations that could potentially have access to your content or services.
I think it is premature to say that the Internet is doomed, but the beginning of this trend is troubling.
The "FBI" did not physically "seize" the drives, since the FBI does not have jurisdiction in the UK, though it appears that Rackspace voluntarily responded to the US subpoena, which was generated as a matter of course under the MLA treaty.
I don't get the logic in this. I have 2 particular issues:
1. So what if Rackspace is a U.S. company? If they are doing business in the U.K. they have to obey the laws in that country. Why didn't Italian and Swiss law enforcement agencies contact their counterparts in the U.K. and other listed countries instead? I'm sure the British police could easily seize those hard drives under the British court order.
What does the FBI have to do with this? Is it because the FBI has more pull now and it's easier to violate people's rights in the U.S. as long as you utter the word "terrorism" or am I overreacting?
2. As I understand, whatever was on those hard drives belongs to Indymedia. So, doesn't the FBI need to serve the court order to Indymedia directly (instead of or in addition to Rackspace)? Imagine if you are leasing a car from your local dealership and police get a warrant to retrieve an audio/video CD that they believe you are keeping in your car. Can the police serve the warrant to the dealership and then help themselves to your car without letting you know? Wouldn't they have to serve you with the warrant?
IANAL, are there any lawyers who can verify if these things are legal and if law enforcement does indeed possess such powers?
I will admit I didn't expect them to actually answer the question, but I am still angry that they didn't.
They answered the question by not answering it, meaning Bush and Kerry have NO plan whatsoever for creating a truly multi-party (and independent) democratic system and elections. They are happy as is - sucking millions of dollars out of corporations and labor unions and returning favors manyfold at the expense of the public and the voters once elected.
I think my downloading and posession of SNES roms for which I own the cartridge and CDs for which I own copies of is defendable in court, but IANAL.
I don't know about the downloader in that case, but it is likely to be illegal for the sharer to share the ROM without authorization. So an "illegal" act would still be committed on one part (if not both). IANAL.
I don't think the judge would see it your way, as the manual stated that making copies for backup or archival purposes is illegal.
A judge may rule that making some copies of a game is illegal, but it won't be based on anything that a manual says - because manual is not law, it's not even a contract.
Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal.
Playing devil's advocate here but RIAA would say that most knives are not used to murder people, while most P2P apps are used to share copyrighted works without permission - just like most cars are used to violate speed limits and other laws - so it's the auto manufacturers that should also be put out of business.
Before anyone messes it up, AAC is an open format, while the Fairplay DRM standard is not.
I don't know what "open" means in this case, but AAC is patent-encumbered. If you want to distribute an encoder or a decoder you have to license those patents:
Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?
An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are provided directly to end-users.
+$2.91 shipping = $28.86. Cheaper at bamm.com with free shipping. $27.99 if you are not a club member, $25.19 if you are. And no, you don't need to accept cookies to order a book.
So, I can hardly blame someone for not following AOL's low-key reversal on future versions of Netscape.
I wouldn't expect a Joe Sixpack to follow, but I would expect it from an author discussing alternative web browsers to get important publicly available facts right. Either that or the article is dated wrong.
Netscape also offers 7.1 of its venerable browser based on Mozilla code. It's available from www.netscape.com, but you'd better hurry: It'll be the last Netscape-branded browser AOL produces.
Actually, if you "hurry" to www.netscape.com, you will see right on the front page they advertise Netscape 7.2. The article claims to have been written in October, when, in fact, Netscape 7.2 was released in August, and AOL announced they would make that release back in March; also stating that:
there will be future versions of Netscape that are essentially repackaged upgrades of Mozilla.
This is a direct challenge to Novell/SuSE and Novell Directory Services [or eDirectory, or whatever they're calling it this week].
When I used NES (not Nintendo!) on Netware it worked great with NDS. My first thought when reading this was it would have been a better fit for Novell. And that was before MS did the same with IIS/AD.
Jem then argues that the "competitor" was in the process of "reverse engineering." However, reverse engineering would still require the permission of the copyright holder.
Let me start at the middle, because that's where I think I didn't express myself clearly:
It's really hard to argue that it is not a derivative work because the result... the compiled executable... is utterly unatainable without the original work from which it derives. The derivative code, without the original work is useless and nonsensical.
What I am wondering, or having doubts about is not the binaries but whether the source of such a "derivative work" GPL claim would be backed by the copyright law or not; just like your example of source kernel modules. If a "derivative work" - like a module (as an example) - that is 100% written by its author and does not include anybody else's copyrighted/GPLed/etc. works, then what effect does the GPLed original work have on that new module source code in terms of copyright law?
Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL, how much protection does copyright law offer to back up the GPL restrictions? If you argue that, in a pure copyright sense, since you wrote the whole module source code and did not use anybody else's copyrighted code in it - hence, it's copyright by you, the author, then the copyright holders of the original works should not have any interest, influence or power over how you redistribute your own copyrighted source code; never mind that the module source code is useless without the original work - I don't think copyright law would differentiate whether it's "useful" on its own or not on that basis.
So, if you agree to this that what is 100% your code (even what GPL may call a "derivative" work) should be copyright by you, and by distributing it - the source code - you are not violating anybody's copyrights, then you can make a case that, in effect, the GPL restrictions on those types of works cannot be based on copyright law. They would be based purely on contract law.
Now, if that's the case, you don't need to agree to the GPL contract if you are not distributing anybody else's GPLed works. You would only be distributing 100% your own copyrighted code. So, it could potentially open up a scenario for a malicious contributor to [hire someone to] inject their patent-encumbered code.
And now in the beginning you said:
The fellow who incorporated the code, "B" would be on the hook for violating the GPL... it doesn't say you have to know about the patented code(!)
Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B, which could be conveniently "settled" out of court. The seemingly innocent developers and users would still be open for patent lawsuits from party A.
You can't put the code back into the source tree without agreeing to the GPL... that's distributing your modification.
OK, IANAL, but I think that's a gray area for GPL.
For example, if you add a module to a GPLed program that the program didn't have before, that would be the code that you added and not modified - copyright by you. So, for GPL to "work" in such circumstances where, most or all of the code is added and not modified, it has to rely on contract law and not copyright law.
To make the case more complicated, you don't necessarily need to redistribute others' copyrighted code to *add* yours - you can simply contribute only your additions to a GPLed project. By doing so, and if you acknowledge that in this case the GPL has no copyright backing, you - the contributor - may avoid the [general public] license of the original program altogether. Now, the question is - what happens if such contributed code is patented? Can GPL make you implicitly license your patent? Is that legal, or does a patent license require explicit written agreement between the parties?
If an explicit written agreement is required, then you could imagine a scenario when a malicious party A, that holds a patent on function X, hires party B to inject X into a GPLed project; wait until the said project becomes popular; then A could claim patent infringement; "settle" out of court with B; and sue all distributors and users of that patent.
Just to expand a little more, why do many states have separate requirements for "parties" and a separate, often much more stringent requirements for independent candidates? Voters, after all, do not vote for parties during presidential elections, they vote for individual candidates for the president of the country. All candidates should be able follow the same fair rules for being listed on the ballot without any party associations. Find out how your state discriminates for the good of the 2-party system.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you are aware that you can download and run Internet Explorer 6 under Wine or Crossover Office - and you don't need to have Windows to do that. So, from a technical perspective, they do make a browser that's a separate product from the OS. Now, if you are talking legally, then I don't know, and I don't know if anybody cares - including the "Justice" Department.
Actually, the original post I replied to said "profit" and I repeated that word - I didn't twist it into anything else, if that's what you mean.
Actually, basic contract law disagrees with you in this case. If you do sell your service at $30 a pop, and you have no contract with me to do my lawn, but you mow it anyway, you can't demand that I pay you anyway. It makes sense. Unfortunately, copyright law often doesn't make the same sense as the contract law; but that's another topic altogether.
Well, not exactly, but I am not arguing this point either. Meaning I can still play the game at my friend's place without paying Rockstar anything and it wouldn't have anything to do with copyright at all. But I imagine that's not what you had in mind when you wrote this - you probably meant when you buy or otherwise acquire the game from a "pirate shop" or something similar.
Again, I have nothing against Rockstar - they may be a perfect company to work for and deal with - I don't know - and none of my comments may be applicable to them. My original post was simply replying to its parent's general statements.
Again, this has nothing to do with copyrights as they work differently and are separate from contract law altogether. I have a contract with the power company, and if I didn't want to pay them I guess I could cancel their service - this has nothing to do with copyrights at all.
The point that I did try to make that somehow went into this was different, though. I don't think that people (i.e. media, legislators, etc.) are viewing the situation fairly. They usually compare unauthorized copying of copyrighted content to stealing; and that's fine - as long as that goes both ways. If a P2P user that downloads a copyrighted song without authorization is a thief, then so is the cartel of corporations that's illegally price-fixing, restricting trades, etc. Consumers have just as much right to keep their money/income and not be illegally taken away by such actions. So, if you want to compare P2P sharing of unauthorized content to stealing goods from a store, then also compare illegal price-fixing to taking people's valuables from their homes without their consent.
This doesn't mean that it's OK to violate law or "steal" from someone if they steal from you, but it does call for a more fair view of what's really going on.
There is no such right! The copyright grants exclusive right to make and distribute copies of copyrighted works. There is no such right to (or guarantee of) payment or much less "profit" of any kind!
And where does it say in the copyright law that anyone is entitled to profits, or has a right to profits? The contracts you make to sell your works are of your own doing, and if nobody pays for your product, then you are not entitled to anything.
But I guess if you trust the entertainment cartel, they do have a right to profit even though they don't sell anything - look at how recordable media and equipment is taxed - percentage of sales proceeds directly to the cartel. So, yes, you are right in that sense.
So, the exclusive right is to copy and distribute, *not* to profit! Whether they profit or not depends on many other things like whether anyone wants to actually buy the product. There is no right to profit anywhere.
Having said that, the media cartel wants to make you think that they have a right to "profit" - well, revenue, even if nobody wants to buy their product. In fact, they have convinced the legislation in many countries to enact laws exactly for that purpose. Example - everyone is paying taxes to the entertainment cartel by simply purchasing recordable devices or media like blank tapes, CD-R drives/media, etc.
And, if you read my post, that's why I pointed out at the end that I was not claiming that this stuff applies in this case to Rockstar - I was simply replying to the poster who made some general statements with regard to "stealing" and "piracy."
Not at all. And I didn't say that or imply that anywhere. All I am saying is that most media coverage and legislators' attention is one-sided, like the comment I replied to. That only makes sense since most of the mainstream media are the same companies in the entertainment industry and the entertainment cartel; and also those companies are the ones making huge campaign contributions to legislators. The situation only fuels the differences between public interest and the interests of the cartel and, legislation that's supposed to represent the public, being one-sided (read: bought out by the cartel), is no help in the matter.
Now, if you want to express only a one-sided view of how 25 million (or whatever number) people in the U.S. and hundreds of millions worldwide are criminals outright, then go ahead. But don't forget the other side of the story as well - the cartel is illegally "stealing" from you too. And they will continue to do so; and there's no realistic solution in sight; and, most of all, nobody cares or wants to care about it.
So, I guess you can welcome DMCA, CBDTPA (or whatever the spelling), INDUCE ACT, and rest of the anti-common-sense everyone-is-a-criminal legislation as your new overlords. And don't forget to pay the entertainment cartel tax when you buy a CD-R drive or media either... err... you don't have to remember - it's automatically paid out of your pocket for your convenience.
And that has to do what with what I said? Can you make a copy of the liquid gas fuel from your neighbor without taking anything from or going to the gas station? If yes, then you wouldn't be stealing from the gas station; if not, then the comparison is invalid.
Finally, and again, I didn't say breaking the law was OK anywhere. However, if the entertainment cartel gets its way and outlaws common sense, it will be hard for people not to use it.
Great - another corporations-have-a-right-to-profit thinker. Corporations don't have a right to profit; they have a right to do business but whether they make profit depends on how they do it - it's not their guaranteed right that they will! They don't have a right to any sales revenue either if people decide not to buy their products.
So are the corporations. Who makes non-compete agreements? Enforces illegal trade restrictions? Lies with creative accounting practices to avoid paying equal share of taxes? Is a member of a cartel, and engages in price-fixing taking customers' money by illegal means?
How many times have those corporations' actions been discussed in the news recently compared to the mp3 music "thieves" and "pirates?" How many times has Congress proposed any legislation recently to combat the situation compared to what they have proposed and enacted to combat the "pirates?"
Gimme a break - next thing you'll tell me is that corporations have a right to break the law. Because we already know they have a right to bribe the Congress to enact new ones, making common sense illegal.
OK, maybe "theft" is the right word to use. After all, corporations in the entertainment industry alone have stolen 100s of millions if not billions in U.S. dollars over time from consumers using illegal means.
Look, I am no "piracy shop" supporter, and I don't know much about the Rockstar and its products or how all this applies in this case, but, for a general statement that you are making, having a one-sided view as if corporations' "rights" to profit are being violated is very ignorant of the whole situation.
Yes, welcome to KDE 3.3.1 - it's already fixed that way in Konqueror. In addition, Konqueror's pop-up dialog also displays the domain name of the website that initiated the pop-up in its window title bar.
Many people didn't pay attention to what these bugs are and the submitter didn't categorize them correctly either. First of all, the spoof popup issue has already been fixed in KDE 3.3.1 and Konqueror that comes with it, so the "race" has already been won.
Second, the vulnerability in Mozilla is a little more serious than the issue (since it's not really a vulnerability) in Konqueror. If you read and test Mozilla, it will allow a textbox in a background tab to keep focus even when you are viewing another tab. So, if you are browsing some spy-phishing-website.com and then open a new tab and access your bank login page, click on username field and start blindly typing [your username]-[tab key]-[your password], like many people do, the keyboard input will actually appear in the background tab's form; and easily become transmitted to spy-phishing-website.com database without user knowing anything - other than that their keyboard stopped working or they mistyped the login info.
Also, people should realize that the multi browser vulnerability page on secunia.com displays different content depending on the browser you use to access it.
Motorola has more up its sleeve. It looks to me like the A768i is a reworked A760, which was for Asia only and didn't work in the U.S.
A780 is a flip-phone, just like A76x, that also has real buttons.
But a real nice one is E680 that's also capable of MPEG-4 encoding and decoding, can carry up to 1GB SD card, and much more. Check it out.
It is, but you also have to consider not only Indymedia, but other cases as well.
In the Indymedia case it is interesting how Swiss (or Italian or whatever else) governments can simply go to any MLAT partner and seize anything they want for their "investigation." Were Indymedia or Rackspace in violation of the U.S. or U.K laws? I don't know, but it doesn't look that way since neither British law enforcement, nor FBI initiated this action. So, by the magic of the MLAT, you, as an online service provider or entity, are subject to the laws of other countries where you don't even operate or have anything to do with. Want to express your frustration with EU, World Bank, WTO, etc.? It only has to be "illegal" in one country, and your speech will be suppressed for all the rest.
The practice is becoming increasingly common - Yahoo! cannot list Nazi memorabilia in its auctions (the burden is on Yahoo! to make sure the French don't have access to them), Google cannot return advertisements for the words/phrases that are trademarked in the U.S., etc. So, the trend is that once you are online, you are subject to laws of all the nations that could potentially have access to your content or services.
I think it is premature to say that the Internet is doomed, but the beginning of this trend is troubling.
I don't get the logic in this. I have 2 particular issues:
1. So what if Rackspace is a U.S. company? If they are doing business in the U.K. they have to obey the laws in that country. Why didn't Italian and Swiss law enforcement agencies contact their counterparts in the U.K. and other listed countries instead? I'm sure the British police could easily seize those hard drives under the British court order.
What does the FBI have to do with this? Is it because the FBI has more pull now and it's easier to violate people's rights in the U.S. as long as you utter the word "terrorism" or am I overreacting?
2. As I understand, whatever was on those hard drives belongs to Indymedia. So, doesn't the FBI need to serve the court order to Indymedia directly (instead of or in addition to Rackspace)? Imagine if you are leasing a car from your local dealership and police get a warrant to retrieve an audio/video CD that they believe you are keeping in your car. Can the police serve the warrant to the dealership and then help themselves to your car without letting you know? Wouldn't they have to serve you with the warrant?
IANAL, are there any lawyers who can verify if these things are legal and if law enforcement does indeed possess such powers?
They answered the question by not answering it, meaning Bush and Kerry have NO plan whatsoever for creating a truly multi-party (and independent) democratic system and elections. They are happy as is - sucking millions of dollars out of corporations and labor unions and returning favors manyfold at the expense of the public and the voters once elected.
I don't know about the downloader in that case, but it is likely to be illegal for the sharer to share the ROM without authorization. So an "illegal" act would still be committed on one part (if not both). IANAL.
A judge may rule that making some copies of a game is illegal, but it won't be based on anything that a manual says - because manual is not law, it's not even a contract.
Playing devil's advocate here but RIAA would say that most knives are not used to murder people, while most P2P apps are used to share copyrighted works without permission - just like most cars are used to violate speed limits and other laws - so it's the auto manufacturers that should also be put out of business.
I don't know what "open" means in this case, but AAC is patent-encumbered. If you want to distribute an encoder or a decoder you have to license those patents:
So, in a way, the submitter already messed it up.
+$2.91 shipping = $28.86. Cheaper at bamm.com with free shipping. $27.99 if you are not a club member, $25.19 if you are. And no, you don't need to accept cookies to order a book.
I wouldn't expect a Joe Sixpack to follow, but I would expect it from an author discussing alternative web browsers to get important publicly available facts right. Either that or the article is dated wrong.
Actually, if you "hurry" to www.netscape.com, you will see right on the front page they advertise Netscape 7.2. The article claims to have been written in October, when, in fact, Netscape 7.2 was released in August, and AOL announced they would make that release back in March; also stating that:
When I used NES (not Nintendo!) on Netware it worked great with NDS. My first thought when reading this was it would have been a better fit for Novell. And that was before MS did the same with IIS/AD.
No, it wouldn't (IANAL).
What I am wondering, or having doubts about is not the binaries but whether the source of such a "derivative work" GPL claim would be backed by the copyright law or not; just like your example of source kernel modules. If a "derivative work" - like a module (as an example) - that is 100% written by its author and does not include anybody else's copyrighted/GPLed/etc. works, then what effect does the GPLed original work have on that new module source code in terms of copyright law?
Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL, how much protection does copyright law offer to back up the GPL restrictions? If you argue that, in a pure copyright sense, since you wrote the whole module source code and did not use anybody else's copyrighted code in it - hence, it's copyright by you, the author, then the copyright holders of the original works should not have any interest, influence or power over how you redistribute your own copyrighted source code; never mind that the module source code is useless without the original work - I don't think copyright law would differentiate whether it's "useful" on its own or not on that basis.
So, if you agree to this that what is 100% your code (even what GPL may call a "derivative" work) should be copyright by you, and by distributing it - the source code - you are not violating anybody's copyrights, then you can make a case that, in effect, the GPL restrictions on those types of works cannot be based on copyright law. They would be based purely on contract law.
Now, if that's the case, you don't need to agree to the GPL contract if you are not distributing anybody else's GPLed works. You would only be distributing 100% your own copyrighted code. So, it could potentially open up a scenario for a malicious contributor to [hire someone to] inject their patent-encumbered code.
And now in the beginning you said:
Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B, which could be conveniently "settled" out of court. The seemingly innocent developers and users would still be open for patent lawsuits from party A.
OK, IANAL, but I think that's a gray area for GPL.
For example, if you add a module to a GPLed program that the program didn't have before, that would be the code that you added and not modified - copyright by you. So, for GPL to "work" in such circumstances where, most or all of the code is added and not modified, it has to rely on contract law and not copyright law.
To make the case more complicated, you don't necessarily need to redistribute others' copyrighted code to *add* yours - you can simply contribute only your additions to a GPLed project. By doing so, and if you acknowledge that in this case the GPL has no copyright backing, you - the contributor - may avoid the [general public] license of the original program altogether. Now, the question is - what happens if such contributed code is patented? Can GPL make you implicitly license your patent? Is that legal, or does a patent license require explicit written agreement between the parties?
If an explicit written agreement is required, then you could imagine a scenario when a malicious party A, that holds a patent on function X, hires party B to inject X into a GPLed project; wait until the said project becomes popular; then A could claim patent infringement; "settle" out of court with B; and sue all distributors and users of that patent.
What do you think?
Just to expand a little more, why do many states have separate requirements for "parties" and a separate, often much more stringent requirements for independent candidates? Voters, after all, do not vote for parties during presidential elections, they vote for individual candidates for the president of the country. All candidates should be able follow the same fair rules for being listed on the ballot without any party associations. Find out how your state discriminates for the good of the 2-party system.
CNet review says H320 comes with a Lithium Polymer battery, just slightly better than Lithium Ion, AFAIK.