Actually, to the average person who is ignorant of the nuances of copyright law, I can fully understand the connection being made between file sharing and public libraries. What, that download was a lost sale? How wasn't it a lost sale when I checked the book/movie/game out of the library and read/watched/played it?
EFF posted an article about full-disk encryption (FDE) in Ubuntu 12.10 and how easy it is to set up through ubiquity, the application used to install Ubuntu. The article also mentions that the next version of Mint, which is based on Ubuntu and therefore uses ubiquity for installation, should have the same easy FDE option.
FDE is good for privacy and security; as EFF's article notes, having it be as simple as possible to set up can only be a good thing. If this new version of Linux Mint features this FDE option, I will strongly consider switching to it, and will certainly try it out at the very least.
I've never heard of this guy until now, and the post is written like it's meant to glorify him as the third coming of Jesus -- implying, of course, that Steve Jobs was the second coming.
The problem is not that people read the Koran. The problem is that people read the Koran, take it seriously, and then decide to live their lives violently enforcing its bigoted dogma.
I don't buy that. The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech. It's not my problem if Muslim extremists (and even some non-extremists) are insane enough to react violently to something that offends their religious belief. They wouldn't get away with it here in the US, so don't try to excuse it elsewhere.
My Logitech Illuminated Keyboard is wonderful, but it has a few keys that have mysteriously stopped working. Google has thoroughly failed me in diagnosing the issue, and because of how the keyboard is built, I can't take it apart or take any keys off without risking damage.
It has made me rather unhappy with Logitech. My next keyboard might be a different brand.
Erm, the person who posted the message is not as important as the message's content. In fact, the identity of the poster is almost completely irrelevant.
> It's not like running thousands of Tor nodes could help you spy on Tor users or anything, right?
Actually, it really wouldn't. Snooping on the traffic that runs through your exit node doesn't help you identify its source, as all you'll see is the IP address of the relay node that delivered the traffic to you. You would have to control every node in a chain, or at least a great deal of them, in order to begin to have a chance of identifying a Tor user, and since each chain of nodes is randomized for each connection, I highly doubt any organization in the world could pull this off.
Tom Petty's 2002 album, The Last DJ, is partially a stab at the greed and evil of the recording industry. Particularly, the tracks The Last DJ, Money Becomes King, Joe, and Can't Stop The Sun.
Ever since they stopped filing mass lawsuits against music sharers, public hatred for the RIAA has dropped a bit. Yes, they're still doing evil things behind the scenes, like pushing for "three strikes" and supporting ACTA, but those acts aren't publicized as well as the mass lawsuits were.
By contrast, the MPAA is constantly in the news about the latest evil thing it's been doing. The same goes for similar organizations like the BSA, IFPI, and AFACT.
I think the RIAA is yearning for the days when they were the most hated copyright organization, even if they don't consciously realize it. This is one of their attempts to get back in the game and earn some well-deserved public enmity.
You're right. Let's allow big corporations to do whatever they want, and let the free market decide. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. Sure, we'll end up with one massive carrier with absolutely horrid service and no competition, but it came about because of the free market, so that makes it okay, right?
Remind me again which part of "promoting the general welfare" that falls under.
Correction: Those are the laws the sites are alleged to have violated. No court has yet ruled that Rojadirecta broke any laws.
Anyway, I would contest your implied assertion that linking is copyright infringement. Rojadirecta does not host copyrighted content, it links to sites that may do so.
> So we shouldn't have any laws then because they *might* be unjust or because law enforcement could potentially overstep their authority?
We shouldn't have unjust laws. We should have measures in place to prevent and punish abuse of power by the government.
> This site broke the law.
Which law?
> They got shut down.
No, they didn't. The site isn't hosted in the US, and is legal in the country in which it's hosted. The US domain registrars revoked their.com and.org domains.
> They happened to have a forum. If you have a church in a meth lab you can't claim freedom of religion when the building is seized.
Feel free to tell us which law Rojadirecta breaks when they link to other sites. Then feel free to tell us why US laws should apply to a Spanish website.
Rojadirecta does not host copyrighted content. It links to other sites that may do so. If you believe that linking to sites that may host copyrighted material is illegal, then you can introduce some support for this position. Otherwise, this is most definitely a First Amendment issue because the government denied Rojadirecta an avenue for expressing itself.
> The motivation for seizing the domain was not speech.
Of course it was. Rojadirecta does not host any copyrighted content; it merely links to other sites that do. Until a court ruling explicitly says otherwise, linking is protected speech. By seizing its domain names, the US government was preventing people from accessing Rojadirecta's website, and therefore denying Rojadirecta their right to free speech.
The fact that you can get information via a second route does not mean that there is no speech problem with shutting down the first one. In a 1939 case, Schneider v. New Jersey, for example, the Supreme Court held that
one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised elsewhere.
It repeated this basic tenet some forty years later in Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.:
We are aware of no general principle that freedom of speech may be abridged when the speakerâ(TM)s listeners could come by his message by some other means....
I'm glad I'm not the only one who believes that this ruling is questionable, and is one step closer to a World Wide Web that is completely at the mercy of copyright holders.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't a recent Canadian law make DRM circumvention illegal? And isn't it illegal in the US, except in certain circumstances?
Actually, to the average person who is ignorant of the nuances of copyright law, I can fully understand the connection being made between file sharing and public libraries. What, that download was a lost sale? How wasn't it a lost sale when I checked the book/movie/game out of the library and read/watched/played it?
EFF posted an article about full-disk encryption (FDE) in Ubuntu 12.10 and how easy it is to set up through ubiquity, the application used to install Ubuntu. The article also mentions that the next version of Mint, which is based on Ubuntu and therefore uses ubiquity for installation, should have the same easy FDE option.
FDE is good for privacy and security; as EFF's article notes, having it be as simple as possible to set up can only be a good thing. If this new version of Linux Mint features this FDE option, I will strongly consider switching to it, and will certainly try it out at the very least.
I've never heard of this guy until now, and the post is written like it's meant to glorify him as the third coming of Jesus -- implying, of course, that Steve Jobs was the second coming.
I wonder who got paid for this submission.
"You're going to need one pretty soon when they start ramping down the amount of electricity you're 'allowed' to use."
Will that be before or after the lizard men activate the mind control chips that we all got with our flu shots?
Or do you actually have electricity rationing in Australia?
The problem is not that people read the Koran. The problem is that people read the Koran, take it seriously, and then decide to live their lives violently enforcing its bigoted dogma.
I don't buy that. The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech. It's not my problem if Muslim extremists (and even some non-extremists) are insane enough to react violently to something that offends their religious belief. They wouldn't get away with it here in the US, so don't try to excuse it elsewhere.
Amusingly, criminals grasp what large corporations can't: Long-term profits > short-term profits.
My Logitech Illuminated Keyboard is wonderful, but it has a few keys that have mysteriously stopped working. Google has thoroughly failed me in diagnosing the issue, and because of how the keyboard is built, I can't take it apart or take any keys off without risking damage.
It has made me rather unhappy with Logitech. My next keyboard might be a different brand.
Yes, just like browsing through Linx is stealing.
Or browsing with NoScript.
Or browsing without Flash or Javascript.
Or getting up and making a sandwich during the commercial break.
I think there's a good reason you posted this as AC.
Only on Slashdot does ad hominem earn +5 insightful.
If Google (or any private entity) really has this much power over the Internet, I have concerns much greater than whether or not to block ads.
Erm, the person who posted the message is not as important as the message's content. In fact, the identity of the poster is almost completely irrelevant.
> It's not like running thousands of Tor nodes could help you spy on Tor users or anything, right?
Actually, it really wouldn't. Snooping on the traffic that runs through your exit node doesn't help you identify its source, as all you'll see is the IP address of the relay node that delivered the traffic to you. You would have to control every node in a chain, or at least a great deal of them, in order to begin to have a chance of identifying a Tor user, and since each chain of nodes is randomized for each connection, I highly doubt any organization in the world could pull this off.
Tom Petty's 2002 album, The Last DJ, is partially a stab at the greed and evil of the recording industry. Particularly, the tracks The Last DJ, Money Becomes King, Joe, and Can't Stop The Sun.
Ever since they stopped filing mass lawsuits against music sharers, public hatred for the RIAA has dropped a bit. Yes, they're still doing evil things behind the scenes, like pushing for "three strikes" and supporting ACTA, but those acts aren't publicized as well as the mass lawsuits were.
By contrast, the MPAA is constantly in the news about the latest evil thing it's been doing. The same goes for similar organizations like the BSA, IFPI, and AFACT.
I think the RIAA is yearning for the days when they were the most hated copyright organization, even if they don't consciously realize it. This is one of their attempts to get back in the game and earn some well-deserved public enmity.
You're right. Let's allow big corporations to do whatever they want, and let the free market decide. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. Sure, we'll end up with one massive carrier with absolutely horrid service and no competition, but it came about because of the free market, so that makes it okay, right?
Remind me again which part of "promoting the general welfare" that falls under.
Correction: Those are the laws the sites are alleged to have violated. No court has yet ruled that Rojadirecta broke any laws.
Anyway, I would contest your implied assertion that linking is copyright infringement. Rojadirecta does not host copyrighted content, it links to sites that may do so.
> So we shouldn't have any laws then because they *might* be unjust or because law enforcement could potentially overstep their authority?
We shouldn't have unjust laws. We should have measures in place to prevent and punish abuse of power by the government.
> This site broke the law.
Which law?
> They got shut down.
No, they didn't. The site isn't hosted in the US, and is legal in the country in which it's hosted. The US domain registrars revoked their .com and .org domains.
> They happened to have a forum. If you have a church in a meth lab you can't claim freedom of religion when the building is seized.
Feel free to tell us which law Rojadirecta breaks when they link to other sites. Then feel free to tell us why US laws should apply to a Spanish website.
Welp, there's another reason to hate the DMCA. Thanks for that.
Rojadirecta does not host copyrighted content. It links to other sites that may do so. If you believe that linking to sites that may host copyrighted material is illegal, then you can introduce some support for this position. Otherwise, this is most definitely a First Amendment issue because the government denied Rojadirecta an avenue for expressing itself.
> This perp did a crime
Feel free to tell us which US law Rojadirecta breaks when it links to other sites.
Feel free to tell us which law Rojadirecta breaks when they link to other websites.
> The motivation for seizing the domain was not speech.
Of course it was. Rojadirecta does not host any copyrighted content; it merely links to other sites that do. Until a court ruling explicitly says otherwise, linking is protected speech. By seizing its domain names, the US government was preventing people from accessing Rojadirecta's website, and therefore denying Rojadirecta their right to free speech.
The fact that you can get information via a second route does not mean that there is no speech problem with shutting down the first one. In a 1939 case, Schneider v. New Jersey, for example, the Supreme Court held that
one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised elsewhere.
It repeated this basic tenet some forty years later in Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.:
We are aware of no general principle that freedom of speech may be abridged when the speakerâ(TM)s listeners could come by his message by some other means....
I'm glad I'm not the only one who believes that this ruling is questionable, and is one step closer to a World Wide Web that is completely at the mercy of copyright holders.