Napster said that if Metallic provided them with names of infringing people, that napster would ban them (as per the napster usage agreement and other things on the site, as well as a letter right from naspter's lawyers to metallica's lawyers). Metallica did just that. They are not suing users, they are not planning on suing users.. they are simply making napster do what it said it would do. Whether it is admissible in court is irrelevant. Napster said 'give us names, we will act accordingly'.
It is legal for you to COPY the CDs you have. Presumably, nobody would try to sue you for copying them from somewhere else, if you have the originals already.
What is at issue is the fact that the other person does NOT have the right to GIVE those copies to you in the first place, and as you are receiving information they are giving you illegally, the information itself is illegal.
They dont' have to. THey aren't taking you to court.
Odds are if you are using napster, and sharing a file called 'metallica-black.mp3' that it is in fact, Black, by Metallica, and music. They are asking napster to ban the users, as napster said they would.
If you get beyond the actual technologies involved for a second, and look at it from a product driven point of view...
Napster is popular. Napster is a company. Napster's popularity could transalte into $$$ for napster. Napster drives it's popularity from it's ability to assist users in sharing mp3. Napster knows damn well that it is popular because it helps people find pirated music. Without the pirated music, napster would be nothing. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE. Now, I don't debate that mp3 is legal, that there is lots of good, freely available legal music as well.. just that Napster drives it's popularity from helping people do something illegal.
If FTP was just like naspter, why isn't it being sued? Hey.. why isn't gnutella being sued? Simple. Napster is a company that is profiting from piracy. Period.
Okay. From my ignorant techie point of view, and yes, I'm ignoringa luser psychology here....
This virus was a human-readable vbscript (.vbs), mailed as an attachment. It didn't run on it's own, it required the user to do that. It's not like it hid itself inside another program like virii of old, either.. really, it's a worm, not a virus. Viruses hide within something. This thing just exists on it's own.
So.. if I write a perl script that, when run, mails itself to every email address on the system, then does a rm -rf/, and post it to usenet, am I guilty if some half-wit runs it?
He/she didn't ask if the virus could use those resources, but he/she didn't RUN the virus, and ditn' even ASK for it to be run. Of course, he did say 'please read the attached loveletter'.. but gee.. billy.. even the ICON is totally different!
This was not due to any bug. It was straight, clean vbscript (analogous to mailing a perl script) It did not execute automatically, unless users had their machines configured very strangely.
I could mail you a perl script as attachemnt that did the exact same thing. The only reason it wouldn't work is because you would be smart enough not to run it.
So. Blame the stupid users who, even though it's repeated over and over again, execute email attachments without thinking about it first.
This copyright assignment has nothing to do with the GPL, or your ability to modify and distribute modified code based on FSF software. All they are saying is, if you want to be part of GNU EMACS, distributed by the FSF, then you have to assign your patches to the FSF. If you want to fork, and do your own, you are more than welcome to.
Worse. Much worse. Especially if it was as virulent as his original worm (ie: if similar security holes were available today). Unlike the speed of ILOVEYOU (which spread mostly due to user stupidity, yet still managed to make front page news the world over in less than 24 hours and cause lots of damage), morris worm would have taken much less time, and been much harder to get rid of.
Although, the morris worm couldn't have been written by a 12 year old.. it was actually REALLY COOL.
Well.. I can attest to the fact that Xing is one of the crappier encoders. It does fine for low bitrate.. and it is very fast.. but the copies of lame I see floating around tend to work superbly.
I think lame is juts a front end.. however there are copies of it floating around with the codec attached.... faunhoffer reference code I believe..
But only if a violation is occurring! And PARODY and SATIRE are NOT violations, and their lawyers should damn well know this! Therefore, there is nothing requiring defending.
Right. But to imply that it is a 'blatant infringement' when satire and parody are CLEARLY NOT INFRINGEMENTS is almost bullying. They are required to defend their trademark WHEN IT IS BEING INFRINGED UPON. IT CLEARLY IS NOT.
Seriously. vbscript in windows is NO DIFFERENT than perl script. We aren't talking about something embedded in HTML here. We aren't talking about something that needs a good security model. We are talking about something that is NO DIFFERNT than perl, or bash, or anything else. IT WAS A RAW SCRIPT, NO DIFFERENT THAN IF I MAIL YOU A PERL SCRIPT AND TELL YOU TO RUN IT.
The only difference is the users. If I mail you a perl script, and tell you to run it, you will chekc it out first. Windows users do not have this instinct.
THIS DOES *NOT* RUN AUTOMATICALLY! THE ILOVEYOU CRAP *ONLY* SPREADS BECAUSE *IDIOT RETARD USERS* RUN IT!
There is a big difference here. Whether it ran automatically, I don't know.. but the ILOVEYOU virus only affected OUTLOOK, *NOT* outlook express. It made mapi calls to outlook..... ONLY outlook, not outlook express.
And remember, outlook and outlook express are completely different beasts. You can't assume things about one from the behavior of the other.
Someone please show me where the bug is. I don't get it.
I can write a shell script that sends out billions of messages too, if you run it. I can make it attach itself to email addresses, and I can make it do it using your pine address book. Where is the bug?
The only bug is the idiot moronic users who run attachments without knowing what they are.
Remember, ILOVEYOU does *NOT* spread on it's own, and does NOT execute automatically, and contrary to what this article says, is NOT an 'outlook macro' virus. It's just some vbscript, in a.vbs (analogous to a perl script or a shell script). It must be run manually in order to do anything.
Radio stations pay royalties every time they play music on the air. In exchange for this, they are granted certain leeway.
The *copies* mp3.com made may be legal. They would be legal if mp3.com didn't use them for illegal acts.
mp3.com does not have the right to distribute the music. Period. Copy it all they want.. they can't *PROFIT* from that copying.
Would the judge consider a radio station pre-taping the show a violation? No.. because the radio station already has the legal right to do what they do. There are already agreements in place with the music industry. mp3.com has *no* agreements with the industry.
Although ethically, it seems right.. it's bad for this reason:
mp3.com does not have distribution rights. Just because you have the CD does not give them these rights. They are profiting by reproducing the artist's copyrighted works. Period. All other facts are irrelevant. They are profiting by distributing works they do not have the right to distribute. Period.
where did you get that? The DHRA specifically says that you can not be prosecuted for making copies of *any* music to *any* media so long as it is for noncommercial, personal use.
Also, the serial-copy protection mechanism (part of dhra?) EXPLICITILY exempts computer's and their peripherals from the act.
This is more like the controvercial database-copyright laws. The work itself is not original, but as a collection.. it kind of is. This is a different issue. You do not own the copyright on your name and address, and your name and address are not 'original works' of the phone company, but the compilation itself is.
The problem, and it might seem like nit-picking, but in a way, it's very legitimate, is this:
Yes, you have the right to your backup copy. Yes, mp3.com has the right to their backup copy.
NEITHER of these rights, however, has anything to do with your right to profit from sharing these copies with others (whether by copying, streaming, etc...). It is a completely separate issue.
From an overall point of view, mp3.com is making money (hits==money), and increasing it's business, by distributing copies of music that they DO NOT HAVE LICENSE TO DISTRIBUTE. The fact that you already own the CD is completely irrelevant. The fact that they check to see if you own it is also completely irrelevant. They THEMSELVES made the copies of the music, and THEY THEMSELVES are distributing it to people, without license. Read: They are profiting by distributing copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder.
Now.. if they had a service where *you* compressed your own music, uploaded it, and then they made use of an elaborate caching mechanism in order to not duplicate data, they might have a case... *might*
Really. Seriously. CGI stands for 'Common Gateway Interface'. It defines the INTERFACE between the web server and the 'CGI application' (meaning, an application using the CGI interface).
I'm SOOOOO tired of hearing about 'cgi languages' and 'cgi this' or 'can you write cgi scripts?'
Hey. I bet a lot of people who write 'cgi scripts' use a pre-built library to actually implement CGI, and couldn't actually write the CGI parser if they had to. (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit.. but hey...)
In other words.. there is no such thing as a 'cgi language', only software that implements the CGI interface spec.
Slashdot Mirror
They provided usernames. Not IP addresses. No identities.
hey don't have to prove it in court.
Napster said that if Metallic provided them with names of infringing people, that napster would ban them (as per the napster usage agreement and other things on the site, as well as a letter right from naspter's lawyers to metallica's lawyers). Metallica did just that. They are not suing users, they are not planning on suing users.. they are simply making napster do what it said it would do. Whether it is admissible in court is irrelevant. Napster said 'give us names, we will act accordingly'.
It is legal for you to COPY the CDs you have.
Presumably, nobody would try to sue you for copying them from somewhere else, if you have the originals already.
What is at issue is the fact that the other person does NOT have the right to GIVE those copies to you in the first place, and as you are receiving information they are giving you illegally, the information itself is illegal.
They dont' have to. THey aren't taking you to court.
Odds are if you are using napster, and sharing a file called 'metallica-black.mp3' that it is in fact, Black, by Metallica, and music. They are asking napster to ban the users, as napster said they would.
If you get beyond the actual technologies involved for a second, and look at it from a product driven point of view...
Napster is popular.
Napster is a company.
Napster's popularity could transalte into $$$ for napster.
Napster drives it's popularity from it's ability to assist users in sharing mp3.
Napster knows damn well that it is popular because it helps people find pirated music. Without the pirated music, napster would be nothing. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE.
Now, I don't debate that mp3 is legal, that there is lots of good, freely available legal music as well.. just that Napster drives it's popularity from helping people do something illegal.
If FTP was just like naspter, why isn't it being sued? Hey.. why isn't gnutella being sued? Simple. Napster is a company that is profiting from piracy. Period.
Embedded? It was embedded? No.. it was just an attachment!
Which opening is this? The one that let's users manually run a program that was mailed as an attachment? How is that something new?
Okay.
/, and post it to usenet, am I guilty if some half-wit runs it?
From my ignorant techie point of view, and yes, I'm ignoringa luser psychology here....
This virus was a human-readable vbscript (.vbs), mailed as an attachment. It didn't run on it's own, it required the user to do that. It's not like it hid itself inside another program like virii of old, either.. really, it's a worm, not a virus. Viruses hide within something. This thing just exists on it's own.
So.. if I write a perl script that, when run, mails itself to every email address on the system, then does a rm -rf
He/she didn't ask if the virus could use those resources, but he/she didn't RUN the virus, and ditn' even ASK for it to be run. Of course, he did say 'please read the attached loveletter'.. but gee.. billy.. even the ICON is totally different!
Okay. Please explain why it's microsoft's fault.
This was not due to any bug. It was straight, clean vbscript (analogous to mailing a perl script)
It did not execute automatically, unless users had their machines configured very strangely.
I could mail you a perl script as attachemnt that did the exact same thing. The only reason it wouldn't work is because you would be smart enough not to run it.
So. Blame the stupid users who, even though it's repeated over and over again, execute email attachments without thinking about it first.
Umm... because they aren't a public company? Because they didn't NEED investors? Perhaps?
This copyright assignment has nothing to do with the GPL, or your ability to modify and distribute modified code based on FSF software.
All they are saying is, if you want to be part of GNU EMACS, distributed by the FSF, then you have to assign your patches to the FSF. If you want to fork, and do your own, you are more than welcome to.
Worse. Much worse. Especially if it was as virulent as his original worm (ie: if similar security holes were available today).
Unlike the speed of ILOVEYOU (which spread mostly due to user stupidity, yet still managed to make front page news the world over in less than 24 hours and cause lots of damage), morris worm would have taken much less time, and been much harder to get rid of.
Although, the morris worm couldn't have been written by a 12 year old.. it was actually REALLY COOL.
Well.. I can attest to the fact that Xing is one of the crappier encoders. It does fine for low bitrate.. and it is very fast.. but the copies of lame I see floating around tend to work superbly.
I think lame is juts a front end.. however there are copies of it floating around with the codec attached.... faunhoffer reference code I believe..
But only if a violation is occurring! And PARODY and SATIRE are NOT violations, and their lawyers should damn well know this! Therefore, there is nothing requiring defending.
Right. But to imply that it is a 'blatant infringement' when satire and parody are CLEARLY NOT INFRINGEMENTS is almost bullying.
They are required to defend their trademark WHEN IT IS BEING INFRINGED UPON. IT CLEARLY IS NOT.
Seriously.
vbscript in windows is NO DIFFERENT than perl script.
We aren't talking about something embedded in HTML here. We aren't talking about something that needs a good security model. We are talking about something that is NO DIFFERNT than perl, or bash, or anything else.
IT WAS A RAW SCRIPT, NO DIFFERENT THAN IF I MAIL YOU A PERL SCRIPT AND TELL YOU TO RUN IT.
The only difference is the users. If I mail you a perl script, and tell you to run it, you will chekc it out first. Windows users do not have this instinct.
THIS DOES *NOT* RUN AUTOMATICALLY! THE ILOVEYOU CRAP *ONLY* SPREADS BECAUSE *IDIOT RETARD USERS* RUN IT!
There is a big difference here. Whether it ran automatically, I don't know.. but the ILOVEYOU virus only affected OUTLOOK, *NOT* outlook express. It made mapi calls to outlook.....
ONLY outlook, not outlook express.
And remember, outlook and outlook express are completely different beasts. You can't assume things about one from the behavior of the other.
Someone please show me where the bug is. I don't get it.
.vbs (analogous to a perl script or a shell script). It must be run manually in order to do anything.
I can write a shell script that sends out billions of messages too, if you run it. I can make it attach itself to email addresses, and I can make it do it using your pine address book.
Where is the bug?
The only bug is the idiot moronic users who run attachments without knowing what they are.
Remember, ILOVEYOU does *NOT* spread on it's own, and does NOT execute automatically, and contrary to what this article says, is NOT an 'outlook macro' virus. It's just some vbscript, in a
Radio stations pay royalties every time they play music on the air. In exchange for this, they are granted certain leeway.
The *copies* mp3.com made may be legal. They would be legal if mp3.com didn't use them for illegal acts.
mp3.com does not have the right to distribute the music. Period. Copy it all they want.. they can't *PROFIT* from that copying.
Would the judge consider a radio station pre-taping the show a violation? No.. because the radio station already has the legal right to do what they do. There are already agreements in place with the music industry.
mp3.com has *no* agreements with the industry.
Although ethically, it seems right.. it's bad for this reason:
mp3.com does not have distribution rights. Just because you have the CD does not give them these rights. They are profiting by reproducing the artist's copyrighted works. Period. All other facts are irrelevant. They are profiting by distributing works they do not have the right to distribute. Period.
where did you get that?
The DHRA specifically says that you can not be prosecuted for making copies of *any* music to *any* media so long as it is for noncommercial, personal use.
Also, the serial-copy protection mechanism (part of dhra?) EXPLICITILY exempts computer's and their peripherals from the act.
This is more like the controvercial database-copyright laws. The work itself is not original, but as a collection.. it kind of is. This is a different issue.
You do not own the copyright on your name and address, and your name and address are not 'original works' of the phone company, but the compilation itself is.
The problem, and it might seem like nit-picking, but in a way, it's very legitimate, is this:
Yes, you have the right to your backup copy.
Yes, mp3.com has the right to their backup copy.
NEITHER of these rights, however, has anything to do with your right to profit from sharing these copies with others (whether by copying, streaming, etc...). It is a completely separate issue.
From an overall point of view, mp3.com is making money (hits==money), and increasing it's business, by distributing copies of music that they DO NOT HAVE LICENSE TO DISTRIBUTE. The fact that you already own the CD is completely irrelevant. The fact that they check to see if you own it is also completely irrelevant. They THEMSELVES made the copies of the music, and THEY THEMSELVES are distributing it to people, without license.
Read: They are profiting by distributing copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder.
Now.. if they had a service where *you* compressed your own music, uploaded it, and then they made use of an elaborate caching mechanism in order to not duplicate data, they might have a case... *might*
Quality? Uhh.. it's digital.... so it'll be much better than analog.
(yes, that sounds ignorant, but I'm just glossing over the details)
If they can get an adequate data density on the tape, it can easily surpass analog VHS
Really. Seriously.
CGI stands for 'Common Gateway Interface'.
It defines the INTERFACE between the web server and the 'CGI application' (meaning, an application using the CGI interface).
I'm SOOOOO tired of hearing about 'cgi languages' and 'cgi this' or 'can you write cgi scripts?'
Hey. I bet a lot of people who write 'cgi scripts' use a pre-built library to actually implement CGI, and couldn't actually write the CGI parser if they had to. (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit.. but hey...)
In other words.. there is no such thing as a 'cgi language', only software that implements the CGI interface spec.