Keep in mind.. Linus did not prevent them from selling the domains, and did not prevent anyone from using them, and did not even TRY to prevent them from using them. What he did was prevent them from AUCTIONING THEM OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, as if they were a 'product', as this would be a fairly clear trademark violation. The only thing giving these domains value IS LINUS' TRADEMARK 'LINUX', as an operating system, under the terms it was marked under.
So.. don't think of it as a domain problem... the problem was a company was selling something based SOLELY ON HIS TRADEMARK.
Well.. IANAL, of course.. but here goes. This might sound wordy.. but.... One of the purposes of trademark is to prevent one company from using anothers trade-marked name to make money OFF THE WORK OF THE MARK HOLDER.
To demonstrate... If someone opened 'Disney tattoos', it might be possible that a great many customers would go there mainly because they thought the artist was IN THE EMPLOY OF Disney corporation. In this case, the tattoo parlour would be unfairly using the Disney name. Remember, it's not about whether or not Disney ever plans to get into the tattoo business, but it's about perceptions of the customer.
In the case of these domain extortionists (speculators, whatever you want to call the sleazeballs), the sole reason they were going to make money off the so-called 'product' they were selling (linux domains) was because of the linux mark and what it represents.
Moreover, I think the main focus is that Linus did not *stop* them from using it, he simply had his lawyers write them a latter explaining things. THey CHOSE to stop it. And it would be best to remember that there is a big difference (even when the tables are turned) between the lawyer sending a letter, and actual court decisions.
The difference is that Etoy.com had their domain for years, and were using it in a generally accepted 'appropriate' manner, and etoys fucked them over.
IN this case, a domain speculator registered a bunch of linux domains in order to make a profit from selling them later, which is a filthy practice, and linus *already* has the trademark...
Look. I bet it wouldn't hold up in court.. but what domain speculator would go to court over it? They don't care...
I must say, I find this funny. I'm not going to delcare this as a one sided thing... a black and white thing... but can admire this.
1) Linus isnt' trying to profit or protect his interests, he's just putting the brakes on a business that most of us would agree is sleazy. Domain speculating is SLEAZY. If he sent them a letter informing them that Linux(tm) is a trademark, and that he is willing to fight it.. the speculators won't be willing to fight it, it's not worth their time. So good for linus. He's *not* trying to keep people from using linux in domain names.. he was just using his trademark to stop some domain speculation. GOOD FOR HIM.
Umm.. what else *could* he have done? He can't steal or otherwise mess with it, or he'd be a meatwaffle in court. He could just do nothing.. and. well.. do nothing.. or he can pay it, and get is 10 minutes of fame.
Re:What's the difference between this and radio?
on
MP3.com's Beam-It
·
· Score: 2
Umm... because the radio station must pay royalties every time it plays a song, and mp3.com does not?
As I've said before, the fact that you personally own a cd, and can make personal copies of it, does not mean that anyone else has the right to distribute that music to you.
Okay. Nothing is wrong with 'storing' it at a remote site. THe problem is.. and this is where the dynamic interpretive nature of law will come in to play, is that mp3.com is not offering to 'store' your music for you.. they already *have* the music, and simply let you listen to it if you can show you already have the cd. The problem? Although you personally have the right to make copies of your music, that does not necessarily give mp3.com the right to broadcast/distribute that same music to you.
Nope. I disagree. Yes.. I want to pay the artists that make the music I enjoy, and I want them to keep making that good music.. definately! The problem is, it's not worth $20/album to me to get music. It's not.. and the artist sees pennies of that anyway.. So.. if the artist gives me a way to pay them directly for the music I listen to, at a fair price, then I will gladly pay, but I will not inconvenience myself in order to do so.
I care not about labels, or about CDs. Musicians have made money for THOUSANDS of years, and record companies are only a very recent development.. so....
Well.. either way, right? 1) Unless the code you receive actually *HAS* the GPL included, and clearly states that it *IS* under GPL, then you have to assume that you do NOT have any license to it, period. You cannot simply say 'well, it's based on GPL code, therefore I have the right to use it.'
2) As for the company situation.. it would come down to what 'distribution' is. If the company is selling you the software, one could say they were distributing it. I would imagine that in most courts, it would be fair to say that if it is only handed out to a defined class of people, say, those in the employ of the company, then it is not 'distribution'.
Okay... But did you call the card issuer instead? If bogus charges appear on your card (which, I believe, includes any incorrect charges) the issuer will immediately revoke them and put the onus on the merchant to sort it out. It is the merchant that should be put out by this.. not you.
1) You get your money back instantly.. or rahter, if you actually READ your bill before paying, you never even pay anything.
Yes.. a clerk could do it, and a kiddie could do thousands... but so what? This doesn't hurt the consumer, it hurts the card issuer, and by contract, the merchant.
Also.. they don't 'withdraw' money from your account.. they 'charge' $5 in credit.. which you can just refuse to pay.
Yes.. you are correct. They were, of course, covering their own asses. And I bet you are right about the merchant agreements forbidding things too.
After some thought, the consumer doesn't have a lot to worry about, really... it's the credit card companies that will bear the burden.. and they will just hand it off to the merchant.
Actually, many already do.. the problem is, they are too easy to circumvent. ie: if you already have a storefront, and a merchant account, and then decide to do things online.. you don't need to tell visa. That, or some third party farms out transactions.. making it so you don't have to deal directly with visa.
And all that aside.. VISA is not responsible... they clearly state that they do not have to honor any statement unless the MERCHANT can prove that the customer used the card legitimately (signature, basically). If a cardholder says 'I didn't do this' and visa says to the merchant' can you prove they DID?' and the merchant says 'no' then the merchant doesnt' get paid.period.
Why? It's not the consumer's problem. The whole reason for using a credit card is BECAUSE Of fraud protection.
The merchant is held responsible. The consumer does not have to pay unless the merchant can PROVE that it was them who initiated the transaction. If the consumer says 'I didn't do this' and the merchatn can't prove it, VISA doesnt' pay the merchant... So.. VISA is protected.. and the consumer is protected. And it's up to the merchants to protect themeselves.
So if someone steals the AOL customer databse.. who gives a hoot? It won't put any customers out any..
The thing is... who cares? Is the merchant responsible for the frauds? I mean, are they held financially liable (by visa) if the numbers get stolen and used? If so..that is their incentive. If they aren't.. that's VISA's problem. In any rate, it is not the consumer's problem..
Not to cloud the issue.. but I think there is a simple cause and effect here that we need to remember.
1) You are not responsible for fraudulent use of your credit card. Technically, and I forget the exact terms, you can be held liable for up to $50 of debt.. but this is never enforced. It may only apply if you know about the theft but do not inform the card issuer immediately (kind of makes it your fault then anyway..)
2) The Credit card companies are the ones who bear the brunt of the financial burden for fraudulent use of cards. If their merchants are irresponsible, and cause them to lose money, it is up to them to deal with it. They are fairly lax about it, though, as if it was difficult to get a merchant account, then nobody would accept credit cards, and they would be out of business.
3) It is between the Credit issuer and the authorized Merchants to deal with this issue, it is not up to the consumer/cardholder. Yes, the cardholder should behave responsibly, but at the same time, who tells us this? The CARD COMPANIES tell us this.. why? Because it lessens the burden on them.
Remember.. one of the things card issuers use to get you to use their card instead of good old cash is FRAUD PROTECTION.. and that is the very beauty of credit (if there is such a thing..). You can buy online, and not get ripped off. If you buy with cash... ha.. you have no recourse.
Yes. My primary complaint is that there is no other easy way for me to buy stuff online...
And.. as for merchants earning my trust.. I firmly feel it is the responsiblity of the CARD ISSUER to trust the merchant, and is not my problem. If someone tells me I can pay with my card, and we agree on a transaction, then that is the only transaction I am responsible for. If the merchant steals my number and uses it fraudulently, it's not my problem whatsoever, it's Visa's.
Yes.. and the CC companies have standards of conduct for merchants. What to do with receipts, etc.... There is a code of conduct with regards to dealing with plastic.
On the online front, at one point, Visa said 'We will not give you a merchant account for online work unless you meet certain requirements.' These requirements included providing information about your firewall, your security policies, who has the passwords, etc... which made perfect sense. They were protecting the consumer.
The problem is.. this gets abstracted. ONe company gets a merchant accounts, and then sells transaction 'services' to others, and at that point, security is questionable.
1) good point on the CD thing..... though it doesn't mean they are 'admitting' anything. They just 'permit' it (or rather, choose not to fight it.. permission isn't up to them)
2) No. CSS doesn't inhibit your rights. There is nothing saying they have to make it POSSIBLE for you to make an archival copy, they simply cannot prosecute you for doing so.
I don't know if you are right or wrong. The analogy doesn't hold up completely.. and can't be taken at face value. Whereas the key to a department store is a very tangible, physical thing, encryption keys are intangible.
Decryption is not a criminal act.
Now.. as for the keys, I can relate a similar story, though I don't know how it bears on this one.
In the late 80's (or was it early 90's? I dunno.. I think it was late 80's..) a similar thing happened in the satellite decoding business. This was very grey-area in Canada, I don't know about the US of A. At any rate, what it consisted of were two steps.
1) the modification of the standard satellite decoder board.. this involved basically new proms, and a new software load that allowed the manual (or later automatic, via modem) entry of decryption keys for the various audio streams (only audio used encryption, though video was scrambled in ways similar to TV, ie: by moving the sync pulse around...) 2) Black market for valid keys. Keys were obtained by an assortment of methods, one being the acquisition (usually illicit purchase from a legal owner for a fairly nice sum of money) of master chips, containing master codes, and then custom software to scan the satellite channels and discover the acutal decryption codes (I may not have this exactly right.. I never got that involved, but it was roughly like this).
In order to combat this, and I wish I could site the case, but I don't know it, the industry tried to claim copyright on their keys (these were rougly 32 byte keys... I think...), so they could prosecute anyone shipping them around for copyright infringement. Didn't work. Judge said no way, you can't just blanked copyright 32 byte hexadecimal strings. Period.
Overclocking is great. Heck, any hardware hack is great. And it's not about 'sticking it to the man' either.. it's simply about knowing how to *use* technology instead of being enslaved by it. When I buy a PIII, I'm not paying intel for the right to use it at a certain frequency, I'm paying intel for a chip that *they* have guaranteed will run up to a certain speed. Over that speed, and you are on your own.
Now.. when the Celeron 300A was out, and you could easily clock it to 150%, heck, that's fantastic. A real money saver... spend $30 on extra gear to cool it, and you were set. Now.... do I spend $75 on extra fans/heat sinks, when I could buy a chip that's rated at a a similar higher speed for about the same added cost? Sure.. it might cost me a few dollars more.. but then I *know* it will work too.
Like.. Kryotech.. now, those Cool athlon 1Ghz jobs have major geek cool factor, I'll admit, and I'd love to have one.. but realistically, I could be 2 other full machines for the price of just their base model, each machine being around 600Mhz anyway.... so why would I bother? What good would it do?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a link to anything about the order being lifted, or are we just taking your word for it?
Keep in mind.. Linus did not prevent them from selling the domains, and did not prevent anyone from using them, and did not even TRY to prevent them from using them.
What he did was prevent them from AUCTIONING THEM OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, as if they were a 'product', as this would be a fairly clear trademark violation. The only thing giving these domains value IS LINUS' TRADEMARK 'LINUX', as an operating system, under the terms it was marked under.
So.. don't think of it as a domain problem... the problem was a company was selling something based SOLELY ON HIS TRADEMARK.
I wasn't aware of that. If that is true, then etoy *did* kind of ask for the trouble they got.
I still maintain it's not the same thing, at any rate.
Well.. IANAL, of course.. but here goes.
This might sound wordy.. but....
One of the purposes of trademark is to prevent one company from using anothers trade-marked name to make money OFF THE WORK OF THE MARK HOLDER.
To demonstrate... If someone opened 'Disney tattoos', it might be possible that a great many customers would go there mainly because they thought the artist was IN THE EMPLOY OF Disney corporation. In this case, the tattoo parlour would be unfairly using the Disney name. Remember, it's not about whether or not Disney ever plans to get into the tattoo business, but it's about perceptions of the customer.
In the case of these domain extortionists (speculators, whatever you want to call the sleazeballs), the sole reason they were going to make money off the so-called 'product' they were selling (linux domains) was because of the linux mark and what it represents.
Moreover, I think the main focus is that Linus did not *stop* them from using it, he simply had his lawyers write them a latter explaining things. THey CHOSE to stop it. And it would be best to remember that there is a big difference (even when the tables are turned) between the lawyer sending a letter, and actual court decisions.
The difference is that Etoy.com had their domain for years, and were using it in a generally accepted 'appropriate' manner, and etoys fucked them over.
IN this case, a domain speculator registered a bunch of linux domains in order to make a profit from selling them later, which is a filthy practice, and linus *already* has the trademark...
Look. I bet it wouldn't hold up in court.. but what domain speculator would go to court over it? They don't care...
I must say, I find this funny. I'm not going to delcare this as a one sided thing... a black and white thing... but can admire this.
1) Linus isnt' trying to profit or protect his interests, he's just putting the brakes on a business that most of us would agree is sleazy. Domain speculating is SLEAZY. If he sent them a letter informing them that Linux(tm) is a trademark, and that he is willing to fight it.. the speculators won't be willing to fight it, it's not worth their time. So good for linus.
He's *not* trying to keep people from using linux in domain names.. he was just using his trademark to stop some domain speculation. GOOD FOR HIM.
Umm.. what else *could* he have done?
He can't steal or otherwise mess with it, or he'd be a meatwaffle in court.
He could just do nothing.. and. well.. do nothing..
or he can pay it, and get is 10 minutes of fame.
Umm...
because the radio station must pay royalties every time it plays a song, and mp3.com does not?
As I've said before, the fact that you personally own a cd, and can make personal copies of it, does not mean that anyone else has the right to distribute that music to you.
Okay. Nothing is wrong with 'storing' it at a remote site. THe problem is.. and this is where the dynamic interpretive nature of law will come in to play, is that mp3.com is not offering to 'store' your music for you.. they already *have* the music, and simply let you listen to it if you can show you already have the cd.
The problem? Although you personally have the right to make copies of your music, that does not necessarily give mp3.com the right to broadcast/distribute that same music to you.
Nope. I disagree.
Yes.. I want to pay the artists that make the music I enjoy, and I want them to keep making that good music.. definately!
The problem is, it's not worth $20/album to me to get music. It's not.. and the artist sees pennies of that anyway..
So.. if the artist gives me a way to pay them directly for the music I listen to, at a fair price, then I will gladly pay, but I will not inconvenience myself in order to do so.
I care not about labels, or about CDs. Musicians have made money for THOUSANDS of years, and record companies are only a very recent development.. so....
Well.. either way, right?
1) Unless the code you receive actually *HAS* the GPL included, and clearly states that it *IS* under GPL, then you have to assume that you do NOT have any license to it, period. You cannot simply say 'well, it's based on GPL code, therefore I have the right to use it.'
2) As for the company situation.. it would come down to what 'distribution' is. If the company is selling you the software, one could say they were distributing it. I would imagine that in most courts, it would be fair to say that if it is only handed out to a defined class of people, say, those in the employ of the company, then it is not 'distribution'.
Okay...
But did you call the card issuer instead? If bogus charges appear on your card (which, I believe, includes any incorrect charges) the issuer will immediately revoke them and put the onus on the merchant to sort it out. It is the merchant that should be put out by this.. not you.
1) You get your money back instantly.. or rahter, if you actually READ your bill before paying, you never even pay anything.
Yes.. a clerk could do it, and a kiddie could do thousands... but so what? This doesn't hurt the consumer, it hurts the card issuer, and by contract, the merchant.
Also.. they don't 'withdraw' money from your account.. they 'charge' $5 in credit.. which you can just refuse to pay.
Yes.. you are correct. They were, of course, covering their own asses.
And I bet you are right about the merchant agreements forbidding things too.
After some thought, the consumer doesn't have a lot to worry about, really... it's the credit card companies that will bear the burden.. and they will just hand it off to the merchant.
Can I get my own personal skins for her? Can I model her myself? Can I give her some modifications?
Actually, many already do.. the problem is, they are too easy to circumvent.
ie: if you already have a storefront, and a merchant account, and then decide to do things online.. you don't need to tell visa.
That, or some third party farms out transactions.. making it so you don't have to deal directly with visa.
And all that aside.. VISA is not responsible... they clearly state that they do not have to honor any statement unless the MERCHANT can prove that the customer used the card legitimately (signature, basically). If a cardholder says 'I didn't do this' and visa says to the merchant' can you prove they DID?' and the merchant says 'no' then the merchant doesnt' get paid.period.
Why?
It's not the consumer's problem. The whole reason for using a credit card is BECAUSE Of fraud protection.
The merchant is held responsible. The consumer does not have to pay unless the merchant can PROVE that it was them who initiated the transaction. If the consumer says 'I didn't do this' and the merchatn can't prove it, VISA doesnt' pay the merchant...
So.. VISA is protected.. and the consumer is protected.
And it's up to the merchants to protect themeselves.
So if someone steals the AOL customer databse.. who gives a hoot? It won't put any customers out any..
The thing is... who cares? Is the merchant responsible for the frauds? I mean, are they held financially liable (by visa) if the numbers get stolen and used? If so. .that is their incentive.
If they aren't.. that's VISA's problem.
In any rate, it is not the consumer's problem..
Not to cloud the issue.. but I think there is a simple cause and effect here that we need to remember.
1) You are not responsible for fraudulent use of your credit card. Technically, and I forget the exact terms, you can be held liable for up to $50 of debt.. but this is never enforced. It may only apply if you know about the theft but do not inform the card issuer immediately (kind of makes it your fault then anyway..)
2) The Credit card companies are the ones who bear the brunt of the financial burden for fraudulent use of cards. If their merchants are irresponsible, and cause them to lose money, it is up to them to deal with it. They are fairly lax about it, though, as if it was difficult to get a merchant account, then nobody would accept credit cards, and they would be out of business.
3) It is between the Credit issuer and the authorized Merchants to deal with this issue, it is not up to the consumer/cardholder. Yes, the cardholder should behave responsibly, but at the same time, who tells us this? The CARD COMPANIES tell us this.. why? Because it lessens the burden on them.
Remember.. one of the things card issuers use to get you to use their card instead of good old cash is FRAUD PROTECTION.. and that is the very beauty of credit (if there is such a thing..). You can buy online, and not get ripped off. If you buy with cash... ha.. you have no recourse.
Yes.
My primary complaint is that there is no other easy way for me to buy stuff online...
And.. as for merchants earning my trust.. I firmly feel it is the responsiblity of the CARD ISSUER to trust the merchant, and is not my problem. If someone tells me I can pay with my card, and we agree on a transaction, then that is the only transaction I am responsible for. If the merchant steals my number and uses it fraudulently, it's not my problem whatsoever, it's Visa's.
Yes.. and the CC companies have standards of conduct for merchants. What to do with receipts, etc.... There is a code of conduct with regards to dealing with plastic.
On the online front, at one point, Visa said 'We will not give you a merchant account for online work unless you meet certain requirements.'
These requirements included providing information about your firewall, your security policies, who has the passwords, etc... which made perfect sense. They were protecting the consumer.
The problem is.. this gets abstracted. ONe company gets a merchant accounts, and then sells transaction 'services' to others, and at that point, security is questionable.
I find this strange, as from what I know of Mir.. it is now a) Abandoned b) Never to be used again c) Going to crash and burn later this year?
1) good point on the CD thing..... though it doesn't mean they are 'admitting' anything. They just 'permit' it (or rather, choose not to fight it.. permission isn't up to them)
2) No. CSS doesn't inhibit your rights. There is nothing saying they have to make it POSSIBLE for you to make an archival copy, they simply cannot prosecute you for doing so.
I don't know if you are right or wrong.
The analogy doesn't hold up completely.. and can't be taken at face value. Whereas the key to a department store is a very tangible, physical thing, encryption keys are intangible.
Decryption is not a criminal act.
Now.. as for the keys, I can relate a similar story, though I don't know how it bears on this one.
In the late 80's (or was it early 90's? I dunno.. I think it was late 80's..) a similar thing happened in the satellite decoding business. This was very grey-area in Canada, I don't know about the US of A. At any rate, what it consisted of were two steps.
1) the modification of the standard satellite decoder board.. this involved basically new proms, and a new software load that allowed the manual (or later automatic, via modem) entry of decryption keys for the various audio streams (only audio used encryption, though video was scrambled in ways similar to TV, ie: by moving the sync pulse around...)
2) Black market for valid keys. Keys were obtained by an assortment of methods, one being the acquisition (usually illicit purchase from a legal owner for a fairly nice sum of money) of master chips, containing master codes, and then custom software to scan the satellite channels and discover the acutal decryption codes (I may not have this exactly right.. I never got that involved, but it was roughly like this).
In order to combat this, and I wish I could site the case, but I don't know it, the industry tried to claim copyright on their keys (these were rougly 32 byte keys... I think...), so they could prosecute anyone shipping them around for copyright infringement. Didn't work. Judge said no way, you can't just blanked copyright 32 byte hexadecimal strings. Period.
Overclocking is great. Heck, any hardware hack is great. And it's not about 'sticking it to the man' either.. it's simply about knowing how to *use* technology instead of being enslaved by it.
When I buy a PIII, I'm not paying intel for the right to use it at a certain frequency, I'm paying intel for a chip that *they* have guaranteed will run up to a certain speed. Over that speed, and you are on your own.
Now.. when the Celeron 300A was out, and you could easily clock it to 150%, heck, that's fantastic. A real money saver... spend $30 on extra gear to cool it, and you were set.
Now.... do I spend $75 on extra fans/heat sinks, when I could buy a chip that's rated at a a similar higher speed for about the same added cost? Sure.. it might cost me a few dollars more.. but then I *know* it will work too.
Like.. Kryotech.. now, those Cool athlon 1Ghz jobs have major geek cool factor, I'll admit, and I'd love to have one.. but realistically, I could be 2 other full machines for the price of just their base model, each machine being around 600Mhz anyway.... so why would I bother? What good would it do?