Hunh? The RCMP are federal, in teh sense that they are a nationally organized police force. MANY MANY jurisdictions use RCMP. Only a handful of cities don't, actually.
Vancouver (not greater vancouver, just vancouver) has the vancouver city cops.. the rest of greater van and BC has rcmp. Calgary has city cops, I'm not sure about edmonton, but the rest of alberta has rcmp. In fact.. almost all of canada uses RCMP.
People should remember one thing when discussing copyright law. Copyright law exists for the benefit of society as a whole, as do *all* laws. This is the primary purpose for the creation of laws. The purpose of law is *NOT* strictly to 'keep musicians in business' or to 'keep the industry going'.
IF it turns out that a large percentage, say, over 50% of the music buying crowd stops buying music and starts trading it 'illegally', would 50% of society end up in court? no.. as if it is literally half of society that is infringing, then it is the LAW that needs changing, as the law exists to better society.
No. But you won't be able to produce tennis balls, or perhaps other tennis equipment, or other sporting equipment (soccer balls, etc) that have the same smell. They are basically saying that the 'smell' is a trademark. It identifies their product.
Sounds reasonable.
Remember, they can't lay claim to all instances of the smell (like other companies do with words) unless it is already a major trademark, that the whole world recognizes (aka xerox)
He's not as illiterate as it seems. That is a transcribed audio inteview. Were I to interview you the same way, your speech would no doubt come out exactly the same way.
Copying tapes from friends is illegal still? is it? Really? I mean... it's not commercial, and it's not really wide distribution. There *IS* a legal difference between giving out a cople copies of music and giving out billions.
THE LAW is not software, it is not pure logic. It is fuzzy and open to interpretation. No artist cares if a few people give copies to their friends, but when one person gives copies to 100,000 people in a weekend, that is totally different.
Hey... in some cities, cops don't prosecute and imprison people for minor posession of marijuana, but if you have a truckload you are fucked. Oh.. but by your logic, both are totally illegal, so both should be prosecuted.
And dude, protecting works that you have a legal right to protect is *NOT* censorship.
Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with the napster/music/mp3/copyright issue. NOTHING.
Bands who 'GPL' their music? But they DONT gpl their music. Should they be able to use napster like services? Sure... but napster DOESN'T cater to these people. It helps you find things you already know exist. It is 99.99% piracy.
I agree with your comparison on a purely technical level. Dont' shoot the messenger.
But instead of a subway, think 'trucking company'.
Now.. some drug baron uses this trucking company to transport drugs. Is the company at fault? No...
But let's say that the trucking company was started because the owners KNEW there was a huge market for smuggling drugs, even if they don't precisely know which shipments have drugs in them. Let's say that they are aware that the vast bulk of their shipping time is being taken up by drugs, but they don't actually *ask* what is in each shipment, and pretend not to know. now this 'trucking company' is very blatantly doing something illegal. Their business is based on the tranport of illicit drugs.
Napster is making money (or at least, trying to) based on the fact that they know their service will be popular because people want to pirate music. Period. And this is illegal.
I'm not arguing that napster and mp3 doesn't impact record sales... (and if it did, mp3 itself would impact far more than just napster... people share in many ways, especially when connected over high-speed)
The stats interpretation is screwed up.
They say 'record sales are down 4% over 2 years near this university' and 'this university has people using napster' and 'these other universities, that had real napster problems, have had 7% drops in the area near the university for record sales'.
Both of these facts simply show that two phenomenon are tied together geographically. Although it may seem logical that napster is the cause of the drop in record sales, it really isn't.
Perhaps students have better things to spend their money on now? Perhaps the record stores are not carrying the proper music anymore? Perhaps students just order shit online more?
At any rate.. if people aren't shopping at your store anymore, perhaps you don't have a product that interests them. If music can be had for free, because it costs *nothing* to distribute... then why do you think you can be in business?
Uhh... they could run most of those too.. for years now......
Oh. Did you miss the fact that Mac OS-X *IS* macOS and *IS* Unix, at the same time? Oh...
Let me tell you.. if windows was a) built on top of a unix kernel, with real normal gnu userland tools, and source and b) had a proprietary windows interface on top of it, that was also x compliant, and supported win32... the world would be in trouble.
Derived from solaris? Where did you get that crazy idea?
SunOS in the pre-solaris days (before 5.0) was BSD flavoured. It was derived from BSD. BSD predates it. When sun started calling it solaris (SunOS 5.x + Xsun +Openwin) SunOS was sysv.
BSD (Berkeley) is a traditional flavour of linux. SYSV (System 5) is the other traditional flavour. (AT&T)
So... Linux is a hybrid of both. Solaris is SYSV. Old SunOS4.0 was BSD. All the freeBSD's are BSD. And...
The new Mac OS-X is built on top of a BSD kernel. (Note, saying it's BSD doesn't mean it's the exact same code, just that it's descended from BSD)
So.. the reason OSX is a *big* deal is because it *IS* unix, with a Mac desktop, that can run Mac apps. And also.. unix apps. And they open sourced their kernel...
For the record, he's not' GPLing his patent' or 'licensing it under GPL'. It's a PATENT. He's granting a license to use his patents when the software using the patent is licensed under GPL.
As for changing a license.. if I write code, license it under GPL, and distribute it, I cannot 'revoke' that license. i can, however, license it under whatever other terms I want, so if I want to fork off a proprietary closed version, I am free to. It is *MY* Code.
Sure. You do that. Then you sell me your product. In order for your 'product' to qualify as 'gpl'd software', you have to TELL me it's GPL'd. If it's GPL'd, you are *required* to give me source. Period.
You can't simply 'not copyright' something.
To put it differntly, if copyright is released, and it goes public domain, you *can't* make it GPL, as you no longer have the rights to assign license to it.
If this is important enough to require high availability, and you are forking out the dough for all the cisco gear...
what other software are you using, and why are you cheaping out to use linux?
I mean, look.. I love linux... don't get me wrong. And linux *can* do this, but it'll take work.
But if you want something that already does it, and considering the money being spent.. why not go with what the consultant said and pick up the suns he recomments and the failover gear he recommends?
Sheesh. I wanna use linux at work too, but when it comes to a platform for a $60,000 piece of sofwtare, it sure didn't make much sense to argue that linux was 'cheaper' than solaris..
No.. THIS is the wrong question.
on
Linux Failover?
·
· Score: 2
Well.. if you say "Here's what the consultant told us was the solution to our problem".. where's the solution? Was he just speaking theoretically?
A dual port nic sounds strange, especially with this behavior. From a networking point of view, this makes sense.
Sure, a dual port nic will help you, *if* it's set up to get arond transciever failure by bringing up the other port.
Two nic's would be better, where the box itself could attempt to configure and use the other nic if it loses network connectivity.
An even better (and more obvious?) solution is to have two computers..... complete redundancy.
Linux seems strange to some because windows (or perhaps the mac) is the *only* thing they have ever known. Some of the concepts involved are completely alien (like.. partitioning...)
I find it strange that people can be sysadmins, be responsible for million dollar budgets, tons of computers, yet not understand what partitioning really is. It makes me damn ANGRY!
Actually.. TCO *IS* well understood in companies. Believe it or not, most cfo's and finance types, ceo's, upper management *WILL* hear a different solution, other than windows, based on TCO. They understand these financial terms better than the technical ones. Usually, I find the argumen thinges on two key points.
1) What is the TCO according to the IT dept. analysis? 2) Is your IT dept. competent enough to handle the scope of the switchover?
#2 is by far the biggest. I mean.. heck.. I sit in a company. I *know* that in the long run, a linux/solaris mix (solaris for those engineering apps that aren't 'ported' (recompiled) for linux yet) may cost more in initial setup and outlay, and appear to do less, but cost out over the next 3 years, it more than pays for itself in reliabilty alone, nevermind the way cool integrated IT environment you could build out of it. My problem is putting it down on paper, in terms that beancounters can understand. You have to be very thorough with these guys... VERY thorough. It's big business. There can be no doubt as to your numbers.
If an IT professional took a week to install corel linux, he should go learn some basic computing theory.
Why does linux have to 'decide'? Linux just does it's own thing. The fact that one camp wants it on the desktop, and another on the server doesn't mean it can't do both. Sheesh. linux wasn't invented to take on windows. Linux was invented Just Because.
If they don't have outlook, the virus can no longer spread. So in a sense, they would be an endpoint for the virus. The virus uses mapi calls to outlook to replicate.
And yes, any windows version with WSH installed is vulnerable (well.. vulnerable is a shitty word. Of course any windows machien with WSH installed can run scripts...)
Man. I should write a program in C that formats your HD after mailing itself to everyone in your outlook address book, and then I could be a famous virus writer too!
They don't bother us in the slightest, other than the fact that we have to read the stupid news articles. These virii are incapable of bothering us. In fact.. they aren't even really virii. They require the manual intervention of a user to consciously run them.
Do I think that the age of copyright as we know it, as applied to recorded music is going to have to change? yes. Do I hate record companies? Yes.
Do I think that people have a right to share music? Kind of.. but I also think artists themselves have a right to their material.
Let's face something here. 1) Pirating music is *ILLEGAL*. It doesn't take any bending or twisting of the law to make it illegal..it's plain and simple. This fact may change in the future, as technology changes... but right now, the law is very clear. It is ILLEGAL.
2) Two things really bother me here in this lawsuit, and they contradict one another if not seen in the right light. Look at it this way.
a) Firstly, as probably many others feel, I am angry that napster is being prosecuted based on technology. I see it as technology being prosecuted.. because to those of us in-the-know... ftp servers as well as napster. Irc. Everything else.. the net already allows us to transfer data around.. napster is just one way of organizing that data for retrieval. So from a pure technology point of view... well.. law has no place in pure technology!
b) From another point of view though... consider napster again. These people, napster, have tried to get FAMOUS and SUPER POPULAR, and to make MONEY (well.. they are a corporation, no? it must be in the plan somewhere) by starting napster, a tool that they KNEW DAMN WELL would only be popular because it empowered people to PIRATE MUSIC. Please. Spare the tripe about legal music. yes. I agree. TEchnically napster can be used for trading legal music. The fact is.. these poeple tried to become famous (and have succeeded) by helping people break the law. Period. Crappy software. Shitty interface. not really very sophisticated at all...
if I contrast this to gnutella.. the principle is different. Gnutella is not designed specifically to share music.. but it'smore than that. What they were trying to do was create a flexible way to share and search data that would be free of censorship, period. Yes, the undertones are that it is for doing illegal things.. but the principle is different, more noble. Gnutella tried to give people freedom. Napster tries to help people steal music.
Yes.. those old games are still assetts to the company that owns them. Technically, someone else shouldn't be able to make money off them. The problem, of course, is that us geeks view our own 'culture' as first, and the 'corporation' as secondary. Even in our youth.. we pirated. The fact that some company actually made the game was only an afterthought. And you know the wierd thing? I have great respect for the game companies that I 'pirated' from. I really do! I 100% appreciate what they did, as a piece of art. I just.. didn't pay for it.
Nowadays though... YOu know what? I *LOVE* my c64 emulator. Hey.. if you want me to spend money, show me a fully vintage, but in brand new condition c64, and show me vintage software! on real c64 floppies! and cartridges! oh.. but wait... you better give me some kind modern CDRom with the software on it from which I can make disk images.... cuase those disks will corrupt eventually...
Seriously. If companies were to offer 'retro packs', ie: emulators coupled with massive archives of out of print games.. I would *gladly* buy it, if it's fairly priced.
Let's face it though. To me, and I'm sure, to many of you, the games of old, and the computers of old.. the whole computer/video game culture was *art*. It was art, pure and simple.. a subculture unlike any other. Hell.. I'd still love to open an arcade...
And just because the CRTC isn't going to regulate it, doesn't mean sites can't be regulated. There is a difference between laws and regulation. Regulation serves to make sure something stays usable and good for all people (ie: without telco regulation.. telco's would NEVER have been where they are today.) With Internet, there is not need to regulate.
If you use your site to do something illegal, it *can* be shut down. It is merely an insturment of your own actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Hunh? The RCMP are federal, in teh sense that they are a nationally organized police force. MANY MANY jurisdictions use RCMP. Only a handful of cities don't, actually.
Vancouver (not greater vancouver, just vancouver) has the vancouver city cops.. the rest of greater van and BC has rcmp. Calgary has city cops, I'm not sure about edmonton, but the rest of alberta has rcmp.
In fact.. almost all of canada uses RCMP.
People should remember one thing when discussing copyright law.
Copyright law exists for the benefit of society as a whole, as do *all* laws. This is the primary purpose for the creation of laws. The purpose of law is *NOT* strictly to 'keep musicians in business' or to 'keep the industry going'.
IF it turns out that a large percentage, say, over 50% of the music buying crowd stops buying music and starts trading it 'illegally', would 50% of society end up in court? no.. as if it is literally half of society that is infringing, then it is the LAW that needs changing, as the law exists to better society.
No. But you won't be able to produce tennis balls, or perhaps other tennis equipment, or other sporting equipment (soccer balls, etc) that have the same smell. They are basically saying that the 'smell' is a trademark. It identifies their product.
Sounds reasonable.
Remember, they can't lay claim to all instances of the smell (like other companies do with words) unless it is already a major trademark, that the whole world recognizes (aka xerox)
He's not as illiterate as it seems. That is a transcribed audio inteview. Were I to interview you the same way, your speech would no doubt come out exactly the same way.
Copying tapes from friends is illegal still? is it? Really? I mean... it's not commercial, and it's not really wide distribution. There *IS* a legal difference between giving out a cople copies of music and giving out billions.
THE LAW is not software, it is not pure logic. It is fuzzy and open to interpretation.
No artist cares if a few people give copies to their friends, but when one person gives copies to 100,000 people in a weekend, that is totally different.
Hey... in some cities, cops don't prosecute and imprison people for minor posession of marijuana, but if you have a truckload you are fucked. Oh.. but by your logic, both are totally illegal, so both should be prosecuted.
And dude, protecting works that you have a legal right to protect is *NOT* censorship.
Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with the napster/music/mp3/copyright issue. NOTHING.
Bands who 'GPL' their music? But they DONT gpl their music. Should they be able to use napster like services? Sure... but napster DOESN'T cater to these people. It helps you find things you already know exist. It is 99.99% piracy.
I agree with your comparison on a purely technical level. Dont' shoot the messenger.
But instead of a subway, think 'trucking company'.
Now.. some drug baron uses this trucking company to transport drugs. Is the company at fault? No...
But let's say that the trucking company was started because the owners KNEW there was a huge market for smuggling drugs, even if they don't precisely know which shipments have drugs in them.
Let's say that they are aware that the vast bulk of their shipping time is being taken up by drugs, but they don't actually *ask* what is in each shipment, and pretend not to know. now this 'trucking company' is very blatantly doing something illegal. Their business is based on the tranport of illicit drugs.
Napster is making money (or at least, trying to) based on the fact that they know their service will be popular because people want to pirate music. Period. And this is illegal.
What did you expect? Do you have some illusion that all big 'artists' are highly educated, perfectly articulate public speakers?
Most people I know would speak about the same way.
I'm quite HAPPY that we didn't get an edited-by-five-publicists review.... we got it from Lars' mouth.
And he has a point. Regardless of where future technology is, napster is making money by helping people pirate music. Plain and simple.
I'm not arguing that napster and mp3 doesn't impact record sales... (and if it did, mp3 itself would impact far more than just napster... people share in many ways, especially when connected over high-speed)
The stats interpretation is screwed up.
They say 'record sales are down 4% over 2 years near this university' and 'this university has people using napster' and 'these other universities, that had real napster problems, have had 7% drops in the area near the university for record sales'.
Both of these facts simply show that two phenomenon are tied together geographically. Although it may seem logical that napster is the cause of the drop in record sales, it really isn't.
Perhaps students have better things to spend their money on now? Perhaps the record stores are not carrying the proper music anymore? Perhaps students just order shit online more?
At any rate.. if people aren't shopping at your store anymore, perhaps you don't have a product that interests them. If music can be had for free, because it costs *nothing* to distribute... then why do you think you can be in business?
Uhh... they could run most of those too.. for years now......
Oh. Did you miss the fact that Mac OS-X *IS* macOS and *IS* Unix, at the same time? Oh...
Let me tell you.. if windows was a) built on top of a unix kernel, with real normal gnu userland tools, and source and b) had a proprietary windows interface on top of it, that was also x compliant, and supported win32... the world would be in trouble.
If MS did this.. WHOAH!
Derived from solaris? Where did you get that crazy idea?
SunOS in the pre-solaris days (before 5.0) was BSD flavoured. It was derived from BSD. BSD predates it.
When sun started calling it solaris (SunOS 5.x + Xsun +Openwin) SunOS was sysv.
BSD was absolutely not derived from solaris....
BSD (Berkeley) is a traditional flavour of linux.
SYSV (System 5) is the other traditional flavour. (AT&T)
So... Linux is a hybrid of both. Solaris is SYSV. Old SunOS4.0 was BSD. All the freeBSD's are BSD.
And...
The new Mac OS-X is built on top of a BSD kernel. (Note, saying it's BSD doesn't mean it's the exact same code, just that it's descended from BSD)
So.. the reason OSX is a *big* deal is because it *IS* unix, with a Mac desktop, that can run Mac apps. And also.. unix apps. And they open sourced their kernel...
For the record, he's not' GPLing his patent' or 'licensing it under GPL'. It's a PATENT.
He's granting a license to use his patents when the software using the patent is licensed under GPL.
As for changing a license.. if I write code, license it under GPL, and distribute it, I cannot 'revoke' that license.
i can, however, license it under whatever other terms I want, so if I want to fork off a proprietary closed version, I am free to. It is *MY* Code.
Sure. You do that. Then you sell me your product.
In order for your 'product' to qualify as 'gpl'd software', you have to TELL me it's GPL'd.
If it's GPL'd, you are *required* to give me source. Period.
You can't simply 'not copyright' something.
To put it differntly, if copyright is released, and it goes public domain, you *can't* make it GPL, as you no longer have the rights to assign license to it.
And the chinese government *can* keep the internet under control. They *can* control the information infrastructure of the country. And they DO.
Yes.. there is internet in China.. and only those providers who comply with strict regulations can provide it.
If this is important enough to require high availability, and you are forking out the dough for all the cisco gear...
what other software are you using, and why are you cheaping out to use linux?
I mean, look.. I love linux... don't get me wrong. And linux *can* do this, but it'll take work.
But if you want something that already does it, and considering the money being spent.. why not go with what the consultant said and pick up the suns he recomments and the failover gear he recommends?
Sheesh. I wanna use linux at work too, but when it comes to a platform for a $60,000 piece of sofwtare, it sure didn't make much sense to argue that linux was 'cheaper' than solaris..
Well.. if you say "Here's what the consultant told us was the solution to our problem"..
where's the solution? Was he just speaking theoretically?
A dual port nic sounds strange, especially with this behavior. From a networking point of view, this makes sense.
Sure, a dual port nic will help you, *if* it's set up to get arond transciever failure by bringing up the other port.
Two nic's would be better, where the box itself could attempt to configure and use the other nic if it loses network connectivity.
An even better (and more obvious?) solution is to have two computers..... complete redundancy.
Linux seems strange to some because windows (or perhaps the mac) is the *only* thing they have ever known. Some of the concepts involved are completely alien (like.. partitioning...)
I find it strange that people can be sysadmins, be responsible for million dollar budgets, tons of computers, yet not understand what partitioning really is. It makes me damn ANGRY!
Actually.. TCO *IS* well understood in companies. Believe it or not, most cfo's and finance types, ceo's, upper management *WILL* hear a different solution, other than windows, based on TCO. They understand these financial terms better than the technical ones. Usually, I find the argumen thinges on two key points.
1) What is the TCO according to the IT dept. analysis?
2) Is your IT dept. competent enough to handle the scope of the switchover?
#2 is by far the biggest.
I mean.. heck.. I sit in a company. I *know* that in the long run, a linux/solaris mix (solaris for those engineering apps that aren't 'ported' (recompiled) for linux yet) may cost more in initial setup and outlay, and appear to do less, but cost out over the next 3 years, it more than pays for itself in reliabilty alone, nevermind the way cool integrated IT environment you could build out of it.
My problem is putting it down on paper, in terms that beancounters can understand. You have to be very thorough with these guys... VERY thorough. It's big business. There can be no doubt as to your numbers.
If an IT professional took a week to install corel linux, he should go learn some basic computing theory.
Why does linux have to 'decide'? Linux just does it's own thing. The fact that one camp wants it on the desktop, and another on the server doesn't mean it can't do both. Sheesh.
linux wasn't invented to take on windows. Linux was invented Just Because.
Not macro. Just an attached vbscript.
If they don't have outlook, the virus can no longer spread. So in a sense, they would be an endpoint for the virus. The virus uses mapi calls to outlook to replicate.
And yes, any windows version with WSH installed is vulnerable (well.. vulnerable is a shitty word. Of course any windows machien with WSH installed can run scripts...)
Man. I should write a program in C that formats your HD after mailing itself to everyone in your outlook address book, and then I could be a famous virus writer too!
They don't bother us in the slightest, other than the fact that we have to read the stupid news articles. These virii are incapable of bothering us. In fact.. they aren't even really virii. They require the manual intervention of a user to consciously run them.
Do I think that the age of copyright as we know it, as applied to recorded music is going to have to change? yes. Do I hate record companies? Yes.
Do I think that people have a right to share music? Kind of.. but I also think artists themselves have a right to their material.
Let's face something here.
1) Pirating music is *ILLEGAL*. It doesn't take any bending or twisting of the law to make it illegal..it's plain and simple. This fact may change in the future, as technology changes... but right now, the law is very clear. It is ILLEGAL.
2) Two things really bother me here in this lawsuit, and they contradict one another if not seen in the right light. Look at it this way.
a) Firstly, as probably many others feel, I am angry that napster is being prosecuted based on technology. I see it as technology being prosecuted.. because to those of us in-the-know... ftp servers as well as napster. Irc. Everything else.. the net already allows us to transfer data around.. napster is just one way of organizing that data for retrieval. So from a pure technology point of view... well.. law has no place in pure technology!
b) From another point of view though... consider napster again. These people, napster, have tried to get FAMOUS and SUPER POPULAR, and to make MONEY (well.. they are a corporation, no? it must be in the plan somewhere) by starting napster, a tool that they KNEW DAMN WELL would only be popular because it empowered people to PIRATE MUSIC. Please. Spare the tripe about legal music. yes. I agree. TEchnically napster can be used for trading legal music. The fact is.. these poeple tried to become famous (and have succeeded) by helping people break the law. Period. Crappy software. Shitty interface. not really very sophisticated at all...
if I contrast this to gnutella.. the principle is different. Gnutella is not designed specifically to share music.. but it'smore than that. What they were trying to do was create a flexible way to share and search data that would be free of censorship, period. Yes, the undertones are that it is for doing illegal things.. but the principle is different, more noble. Gnutella tried to give people freedom. Napster tries to help people steal music.
Yes.. those old games are still assetts to the company that owns them. Technically, someone else shouldn't be able to make money off them. The problem, of course, is that us geeks view our own 'culture' as first, and the 'corporation' as secondary. Even in our youth.. we pirated. The fact that some company actually made the game was only an afterthought. And you know the wierd thing? I have great respect for the game companies that I 'pirated' from. I really do! I 100% appreciate what they did, as a piece of art. I just.. didn't pay for it.
Nowadays though... YOu know what? I *LOVE* my c64 emulator. Hey.. if you want me to spend money, show me a fully vintage, but in brand new condition c64, and show me vintage software! on real c64 floppies! and cartridges! oh.. but wait... you better give me some kind modern CDRom with the software on it from which I can make disk images.... cuase those disks will corrupt eventually...
Seriously. If companies were to offer 'retro packs', ie: emulators coupled with massive archives of out of print games.. I would *gladly* buy it, if it's fairly priced.
Let's face it though. To me, and I'm sure, to many of you, the games of old, and the computers of old.. the whole computer/video game culture was *art*. It was art, pure and simple.. a subculture unlike any other. Hell.. I'd still love to open an arcade...
Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission.
And just because the CRTC isn't going to regulate it, doesn't mean sites can't be regulated. There is a difference between laws and regulation.
Regulation serves to make sure something stays usable and good for all people (ie: without telco regulation.. telco's would NEVER have been where they are today.)
With Internet, there is not need to regulate.
If you use your site to do something illegal, it *can* be shut down. It is merely an insturment of your own actions.