They haven't, that's why you build a simulator.. to explore various ideas.
A flight simulator does not perfectly simulate flight, but it does let you see what effect different changes have based on your mathematical models. Same idea here..
That's a really good question, actually.. I've heard lots of comments, but never seen a real solid legal comment on that.
If someone reaches into your pocket and steals your drugs, you are not likely guitly of distribution. Mere possession was illegal, though. If we are talking legally prescribed pharmaceuticals, then someone stole them from you, you didn't distribute.
I would suspect that mere posession of copyrighted works is not illegal by itself. Copyright law covers the act of copying, not posession.
I suspect you are not. You are attempting to sell drugs, which is illegal. If you happen to be offering it to a cop, who busts you and searches you and find drugs, then it's possession with intent to sell.
TO actually get you for distributing it, they need actual proof that you sold drugs. Video evidence, undercover buy by law officers, eyewitness testimony, etc.
At any rate, that's a whole different ball game in this legal climate, drugs are a criminal issue, this is civil.
What if I left the file up on my webserver in a private location for only me, but someone found it by chance? Should I be guilty of distribution because it was potentially available to a billion people?
What if I leave my mac unlocked while I have guests over, and they could potentially go in and copy one of my CDs... should I be fined for not being responsible enough?
To fairly judge this, we need to know if a) distribution actually took place and b) If the distributor new about it, or was merely negligent. (not that negligence absolves you, but it changes things somewhat)
Without this requirement, a lot of bad things happen.
Distribution, yes, but just because ti was copied doens't make you guilty fo distribution. THere are still fair-use cases... hence the reason they want these guys to show evidence that actual distribution took place, not just an offer of a file. Otherwise a bad precedent is set, and you can never, ever leave any kind of copyrighted material where someone might get ahold of it, or you would be guilty of distribution.
Don't read too much in to this ruling. All it says is you can't prosecute for distribution if your only evidence is "we connected to X, and it said the files were available, and we tried it, and it worked".
They have to gather some evidence that shows the files were actually transferred. That doens't mean they have to have eyewitness evidence of every singe instance, just that they have to have some way to convince the court you really DID distribute the file to other people, and on what scale... they can't say "Well he had it shared, so OBVIOUSLY people grabbed it"
Regardless of this, you don't have a license to distribute it, and should not be offering it.
Entrapment only goes so far.. entrapment is when you are encouraged by law officers to commit a crime you would otherwise not have done. Undercover cops buying drugs from a drug dealer (who also sells to many others) is not entrapment. Likewise, downloading a file that is also being simultaneously offered to others is unlikely to be entrapment.
Entrapment would be if the RIAA guy, undercover, convinced you to set up a tracker and start seeding your mp3 collection.
The courts aren't saying sharing is okay, or allowed, they are just saying you can't prove distribution by simply showing the files were offered.. you have evidence to show that the content was actually distributed. In no way is this saying sharing is okay, or legal.. just setting the amount of evidence required to successfully prosecute.
The person who let you copy super mario did not have distribution rights, regardless of your own personal rights to own it. Though morally we could both agree that nobody has been deprived of anything, the law would disagree.
We need to get over the idea that someone is exempt from responsibility just because there is some technical obfuscation.
What this ruling is about is simply this:
You can't be charged with infringement just because you OFFERED some files.. they have to actually prove you distributed them, as well.
In the case of a bittorrent tracker, they may not be offering the files, but then, neither was napster... they were only facilitating the transaction (Contributory infringement).
On a more realistic note, legal wranglings aside:
If you run a tracker, and that tracker's primary purpose is to traffick in copyrighted material, and you damn well know it, it's absurd for you to pretend you did nothing wrong. In a lawful society responsible behavior is expected.
Simple answer: the same way traditional organized crime moves money around.
It's not like these guys are all on their own, two kids who think they can make money. Often these groups are backed by, or associate with, traditional organized crime. That's what organized crime means... criminals helping criminals. You want to do something and get away with it? You pay your bit and get some help from others who already know how to do this.
Re:I think it is a good idea not to update quickly
on
Debian 3.0r6 Released
·
· Score: 1
The "stable" in this case has nothing to do with uptime, and software not crashing. It's not like someone spend years making it not crash. The stability is package stability, and config file stability.. you know that when you add/remove a pcakge, you won't get broken dependencies on any support platform, and you know that when you apply updates, configuration file formats won't change, so your software will still work without reconfiguration. That's it.
In the case of Sarge, there are too many packages on too many platforms, that's why it's taking so long.
The previous Stable was good and stable also, but it didn't take 3 years to update. No matter how you slice it, and wahtever the reason, 3 years is too long in the linux world to go between stable releases.
As long as the source is open, I don't really care who is writing it or what their motivations are.
Companies "take without giving back?".. as long as they follow the license, that's fine.
Companies encouraging open source developers to write stuff because it's cheaper for them? Again, as long as everyone involved agrees to and abides by the licenses, who cares.
Re:A few things I hate about cubicle life.
on
Cubicle Privacy
·
· Score: 1
He's got a good, valid point. A simple "Hey, do you think you could leave your cellphone turned off please, and keep your phone turned down if you aren't here? It's very annoying trying to work with your phones ringing all day long.
As for people calling asking to leave messages for stuff you aren't involved in.. "No he's not here, let me transfer you to reception"
I think you missed my point. NEver did I say anything was infallable, infact I think I went out of my way to make sure I didn't say that.
An OSX user has all the access they need to trash their system, absolutely, I don't debate that.
What's interesting is that they very rarely end up actually trashing it; something that is quite common among windows users. The average OSX user I've seen has a cleaner, better functioning system than the average windows user. I'm not saying this is due to some technical reason, only that there is SOME combination of factors that leads to them keeping their systems cleaner.
Regarding the password prompting: Mandrake also had this years and years ago... but we aren't talking about linux here. There isn't a large enough desktop userbase using the same desktop setup to say "Yes it's better".
Yeah.. except you DO have access to your user files, and tons of application settings, and just about every computer resource needed to mess things up for you.
Sure, you can't erase the system files, perhaps, or some key software, but you can still mess up your own desktop environment completely.
Most mac users do have the admin password to their mac, and yet they still manage to not screw it up.
My theory on this is twofold: 1) The way admin passwords are asked for and handled is more sane. It will prompt you for it when needed, as opposed to asking you to sign out and log in and do things again (windows). I am not convinced this is that important.. but it plays a role.
2) More importnatly, the UI is more consistant, and users are generally fairly confident about how their computer should look, feel, and behave. Anything that changes that is instantly noticed.. In windows, people tend to accept change as a part of life; people EXPECT their computer to degrade in performance over time, eventually requiring a re-install or upgrade. My OS operates at precisely (as far as I can tell) the same speed as wehn I installed it, a couple years ago, and that's after two full OS version upgrades (not re-installs), and moving the drive between 3 different macs. By same speed, I mean adjusted for faster processors; The OS on the G4 1.4Ghz runs faster than the G3 800, by the expected amount.
When you use bittorrent, you aren't quoting or using a small piece.. you are knowingly and complicity participating in mass distribution of the work. The fact that you personally may have only transferred a few blocks is irrelevant.
The technical details are not as important as the end result. You WERE helping people copy that new starwars rip, and it's not your place to do so.
It's not a win for "file sharers". It's a win for everyone, as the court demonstrated and understanding of overall privacy issues in the internet age, and didn't allow one little thing to stomp all over that.
File sharers will still be prosecutable, those doing the prosecuting will simply have to do a bit more work in order to find out who they are, and this is GOOD.
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't, that's why you build a simulator.. to explore various ideas.
A flight simulator does not perfectly simulate flight, but it does let you see what effect different changes have based on your mathematical models. Same idea here..
With criminal cases yes, however, in a civil case, can I convince someone to do something and then sue them for doing it? That would seem a bit odd...
That's a really good question, actually.. I've heard lots of comments, but never seen a real solid legal comment on that.
If someone reaches into your pocket and steals your drugs, you are not likely guitly of distribution. Mere possession was illegal, though.
If we are talking legally prescribed pharmaceuticals, then someone stole them from you, you didn't distribute.
I would suspect that mere posession of copyrighted works is not illegal by itself. Copyright law covers the act of copying, not posession.
I suspect you are not.
You are attempting to sell drugs, which is illegal.
If you happen to be offering it to a cop, who busts you and searches you and find drugs, then it's possession with intent to sell.
TO actually get you for distributing it, they need actual proof that you sold drugs. Video evidence, undercover buy by law officers, eyewitness testimony, etc.
At any rate, that's a whole different ball game in this legal climate, drugs are a criminal issue, this is civil.
Define "post on the net"
What if I left it shared accidentally?
What if I left the file up on my webserver in a private location for only me, but someone found it by chance? Should I be guilty of distribution because it was potentially available to a billion people?
What if I leave my mac unlocked while I have guests over, and they could potentially go in and copy one of my CDs... should I be fined for not being responsible enough?
To fairly judge this, we need to know if a) distribution actually took place and b) If the distributor new about it, or was merely negligent. (not that negligence absolves you, but it changes things somewhat)
Without this requirement, a lot of bad things happen.
Distribution, yes, but just because ti was copied doens't make you guilty fo distribution. THere are still fair-use cases... hence the reason they want these guys to show evidence that actual distribution took place, not just an offer of a file. Otherwise a bad precedent is set, and you can never, ever leave any kind of copyrighted material where someone might get ahold of it, or you would be guilty of distribution.
Don't read too much in to this ruling. All it says is you can't prosecute for distribution if your only evidence is "we connected to X, and it said the files were available, and we tried it, and it worked".
They have to gather some evidence that shows the files were actually transferred. That doens't mean they have to have eyewitness evidence of every singe instance, just that they have to have some way to convince the court you really DID distribute the file to other people, and on what scale... they can't say "Well he had it shared, so OBVIOUSLY people grabbed it"
Similarly, if I put a vending machine full of copies in my front yard, but nobody uses it, have I actually distributed?
Regardless of this, you don't have a license to distribute it, and should not be offering it.
Entrapment only goes so far.. entrapment is when you are encouraged by law officers to commit a crime you would otherwise not have done.
Undercover cops buying drugs from a drug dealer (who also sells to many others) is not entrapment.
Likewise, downloading a file that is also being simultaneously offered to others is unlikely to be entrapment.
Entrapment would be if the RIAA guy, undercover, convinced you to set up a tracker and start seeding your mp3 collection.
The courts aren't saying sharing is okay, or allowed, they are just saying you can't prove distribution by simply showing the files were offered.. you have evidence to show that the content was actually distributed. In no way is this saying sharing is okay, or legal.. just setting the amount of evidence required to successfully prosecute.
Wrong.
The person who let you copy super mario did not have distribution rights, regardless of your own personal rights to own it. Though morally we could both agree that nobody has been deprived of anything, the law would disagree.
It means nothing.
We need to get over the idea that someone is exempt from responsibility just because there is some technical obfuscation.
What this ruling is about is simply this:
You can't be charged with infringement just because you OFFERED some files.. they have to actually prove you distributed them, as well.
In the case of a bittorrent tracker, they may not be offering the files, but then, neither was napster... they were only facilitating the transaction (Contributory infringement).
On a more realistic note, legal wranglings aside:
If you run a tracker, and that tracker's primary purpose is to traffick in copyrighted material, and you damn well know it, it's absurd for you to pretend you did nothing wrong. In a lawful society responsible behavior is expected.
Simple answer: the same way traditional organized crime moves money around.
It's not like these guys are all on their own, two kids who think they can make money. Often these groups are backed by, or associate with, traditional organized crime. That's what organized crime means... criminals helping criminals. You want to do something and get away with it? You pay your bit and get some help from others who already know how to do this.
The "stable" in this case has nothing to do with uptime, and software not crashing. It's not like someone spend years making it not crash. The stability is package stability, and config file stability.. you know that when you add/remove a pcakge, you won't get broken dependencies on any support platform, and you know that when you apply updates, configuration file formats won't change, so your software will still work without reconfiguration. That's it.
In the case of Sarge, there are too many packages on too many platforms, that's why it's taking so long.
The previous Stable was good and stable also, but it didn't take 3 years to update. No matter how you slice it, and wahtever the reason, 3 years is too long in the linux world to go between stable releases.
As long as the source is open, I don't really care who is writing it or what their motivations are.
Companies "take without giving back?".. as long as they follow the license, that's fine.
Companies encouraging open source developers to write stuff because it's cheaper for them? Again, as long as everyone involved agrees to and abides by the licenses, who cares.
He's got a good, valid point. A simple "Hey, do you think you could leave your cellphone turned off please, and keep your phone turned down if you aren't here? It's very annoying trying to work with your phones ringing all day long.
As for people calling asking to leave messages for stuff you aren't involved in.. "No he's not here, let me transfer you to reception"
I think you missed my point. NEver did I say anything was infallable, infact I think I went out of my way to make sure I didn't say that.
An OSX user has all the access they need to trash their system, absolutely, I don't debate that.
What's interesting is that they very rarely end up actually trashing it; something that is quite common among windows users. The average OSX user I've seen has a cleaner, better functioning system than the average windows user. I'm not saying this is due to some technical reason, only that there is SOME combination of factors that leads to them keeping their systems cleaner.
Regarding the password prompting: Mandrake also had this years and years ago... but we aren't talking about linux here. There isn't a large enough desktop userbase using the same desktop setup to say "Yes it's better".
Yeah.. except
you DO have access to your user files, and tons of application settings, and just about every computer resource needed to mess things up for you.
Sure, you can't erase the system files, perhaps, or some key software, but you can still mess up your own desktop environment completely.
Most mac users do have the admin password to their mac, and yet they still manage to not screw it up.
My theory on this is twofold:
1) The way admin passwords are asked for and handled is more sane. It will prompt you for it when needed, as opposed to asking you to sign out and log in and do things again (windows). I am not convinced this is that important.. but it plays a role.
2) More importnatly, the UI is more consistant, and users are generally fairly confident about how their computer should look, feel, and behave. Anything that changes that is instantly noticed.. In windows, people tend to accept change as a part of life; people EXPECT their computer to degrade in performance over time, eventually requiring a re-install or upgrade. My OS operates at precisely (as far as I can tell) the same speed as wehn I installed it, a couple years ago, and that's after two full OS version upgrades (not re-installs), and moving the drive between 3 different macs. By same speed, I mean adjusted for faster processors; The OS on the G4 1.4Ghz runs faster than the G3 800, by the expected amount.
We don't need to legitimize it... we NEED to stop giving so much press time to copyright issues.
There are far more important issues surrounding efficient use of the internet than the challenges it presents to copyright.
Err, right, but isn't matlab for trying out ideas and prototyping?
It's not for producing finished computing products.. it's for exploring math.....
The same reason I'll do up a diagrom for some new code on the whiteboard, instead of in C....
When you use bittorrent, you aren't quoting or using a small piece.. you are knowingly and complicity participating in mass distribution of the work. The fact that you personally may have only transferred a few blocks is irrelevant.
The technical details are not as important as the end result. You WERE helping people copy that new starwars rip, and it's not your place to do so.
It's not a win for "file sharers". It's a win for everyone, as the court demonstrated and understanding of overall privacy issues in the internet age, and didn't allow one little thing to stomp all over that.
File sharers will still be prosecutable, those doing the prosecuting will simply have to do a bit more work in order to find out who they are, and this is GOOD.
Clueless they may be, they still know when something fucks up their mac.
Interesting how on a 1920x1200 display, you have just enough room for full-res HDTV, with 180 pixels left for an editing pallette/toolbar.
However in this case, the evil dictator is correct, this isn't a kernel issue.
Actually, shouldn't it be 1920x1200?