The problem with MAD, though, is we've lost both the M and the A. Who else can match our arsenal?
If "we" have AD on "them," why do "we" care if "they" don't have AD on "us?" In other words, as long as "we" have second strike AD on "them," why do "we" care about M?
My question is not rhetorical. I know at least some of the proposed responses (e.g., the use it or lose it scenario), but it is a legitimate question. If "we" have second strike AD on "them," under what circumstances would "they" be better off launching a preemptive strike on "us?" The usual answer is when "they" are 100% convinced that "we" are going to launch a first strike at "them." But how realistic is that? Especially when the alternative of compromise -- perhaps on "our" terms, but certainly better than "their" assured destruction.
As for missle defense, one proposed model or doctrine of nuclear weapons theory (among others) I used to teach my tenth graders was as follows. One may want to be able to deter that which one cannot defend against, and defend against that which one cannot deter. One must also realistically ask whether the ability to defend adversely impacts the ability to deter.
I think the Bush administration has adopted the above doctrine -- whether it knows it or not. The administration's concern is that certain actors cannot be deterred. Critics of the doctrine believe that any ability to defend underminds deterrence, or at least the mutualness of deterrence, which they believes endangers us all.
The crucial difference is that you cannot prosecute a conspiracy until the attempt takes place. Even if it fails, the attempt must be made before a crime has been committed.
Placing a copyrighted file in a shared folder with the intent to distribute it to someone who was not authorized to receive it would meet the "overt act" requirement for a conspiracy conviction.
However, criminal conspiracy law is probably not the best model here. All that is required is to apply the basic theory of "attempted crimes" criminal law.
There are many criminal laws against attempted acts and conspiracies to commit certain acts
Yes, and copyright infringement is not one of them.
Not until now, assuming you're correct.:) The point is that criminalizing attempted wrongful acts, and conspiracies to commit wrongful acts, is not uncommon.
Also, those laws require overt intentional acts to break the law. The example you are responding to, of accidently having it shared, would not apply even if there was a such thing as "attempted copyright infringement".
I agree. That was my second point. As I stated above:
I would be shocked if the proposed statute created a strict liability crime that did not require mens rea. In other words, I'd be shocked if the proposed statute created a crime that did not have as an element of the offense (i.e., require for criminal liability) that the alleged perpetrator placed the file in his shared folder with the intent to have it copied by someone not authorized by copyright law to do so.
Your observations did help me recall a third comment I wanted to make. The law may also provide for a rebuttable presumption that a person who placed copyrighted material in a publicly shared folder did so with the intent to to have it copied by someone not authorized by copyright law to do so. I'm not sure such a presumption would be unreasonable. That would provide for situations where there truly was an innocent mistake, but place the burden of proving the innocent mistake on the defendant.
Let's assume you have the right to have a copy of the pre-release movie for yourself (it could happen, you're friends with George Lucas and he wants your opinion on Episode 3). You put it in your DVD drive, which you happened to "share" earlier so a friend on your network could copy some pictures from a CD. Even if no one copies the DVD contents from your computer, you've broken this law, and there wasn't a copyright violation.
Two comments.
First, technically you may be right. There may not have been a copyright violation. However, that my itself does not necessarily mean the law is morally wrong or unjust. Even if there wasn't a copyright violation, there may well have been either an attempted copyright violation or a conspiracy to violate copyright that had not yet reached fruition. There are many criminal laws against attempted acts (e.g., attempted robbery, burlary, murder) and conspiracies to commit certain acts (e.g., conpiracy to commit robbery, burglary, murder). A criminal does not have to be succesful in order to be prosecuted.
Secondly, it is dangerous to judge proposed legislation based on a news report. Such reports are notoriously inaccurate. I would be shocked if the proposed statute created a strict liability crime that did not require mens rea. In other words, I'd be shocked if the proposed statute created a crime that did not have as an element of the offense (i.e., require for criminal liability) that the alleged perpetrator placed the file in his shared folder with the intent to have it copied by someone not authorized by copyright law to do so.
iTunes is DEAD simple to use.... Did I mention it is DEAD simple to use?
Sorry, but "DEAD simple to use" is not a Linux value. If anything, it is a Linux anti-value. "DEAD simple to use" does not confer status.
Now, the Linux version of iTunes would be infinately customizable, with no possible standard interface. Of course, why the average consumer would need or want anything beyond a L-Pod (Linux-Pod) command line is beyond comprehension.
When our kids went to school september 1st, I volounteered as computer fixer. First thing I did was throw off ALL (I'll repeat : ALL) office suites of all computers. That included MS Office, Open Office and Appleworks. I replaced them with Wordpad and similar "silly" editors.
We're september 19, and NOBODY noticed. I got 1 remark from a teacher telling me that this year, the kids seemed to get along better with the computers compared to last year.
Boy, that will be great when the kids or teachers have to make a powerpoint (because it WILL require PowerPoint) presentation or do a spreadsheet.
Why should even high school teachers or students be required to make Powerpoint presentations? They need to learn this in high school? Or is it just a waste of time better spent on other things -- e.g, like learning how to write?
Similarly, why should high school students be required to use a spreadsheet? So they can continue to avoid learning basic math?
If they file "John Doe" they don't know who they're actually suing until they've already won (if they lose, end of story).
This is incorrect. The RIAA can obtain a subpoena to the relevant ISP immediately after it files the "John Doe" lawsuit against the unknown defendant. The purpose of the subpoena would be to identify the defendant. After the defendant was identified, the complaint would be amended to add or substitute the defendant, and the legal action would proceed. The court would not allow the action to proceed to judgment against an unidentified defendant who never received notice of the action or an opportunity to respond.
Maybe so, but the burden of identifying the users gets much more complicated under that scenario. By going after the ISP's like they have been, they can scoop up name, address & phone number all in one place.
Forcing the RIAA to first file "John Doe lawsuits" does not make the burden of identifying users "much more complicated." It may, however, make it initially more expensive.
As stated in the linked article, the RIAA contends that the DMCA allows "copyright holders to glean the identity of alleged infringers without filing a lawsuit first." As also stated in the article, Judge John Roberts, one of the judges of the three judge appellate panel, questioned that interpretation.
If the RIAA is incorrect, and it is forced to first file "John Doe" lawsuits, it will initially be more expensive in that they may have to pay a filing fee for each lawsuit. (It may be possible for them to file a single lawsuit in each jurisdiction where each such suit names numerous "John Doe" defendants. However, in some jurisdictions they may have to pay more for a large, multi-defendant suit.) Once the "John Doe" lawsuits are filed, the RIAA can subpoena the relevant ISPs to identify the "John Doe" defendants. It is, for an entity as well-funded as the RIAA, at most a relatively minor procedure hurdle.
The reason why I say forcing the RIAA to first file "John Doe" lawsuits may only be "initially" more expensive is that in many cases the RIAA would have to file a lawsuit anyway -- i.e., in every case where pre-lawsuit subpoena to idenfity the downloader did not lead to a pre-lawsuit settlement.
Honestly, I can live without most things. Sure, I listen to music, and I watch DVDs, and I play video games, but only while they're free. (I mooch from my friends) Were these friends to suddenly become unavailable, I would do without.
Same goes for web content. I enjoy slashdot, but I'd give it up in a second before I'd spend one red cent.
If with respect to DVDs, CDs and video games everyone adopted your attitude, you would have to do without them because they would not be available.
Hacking an XBox should be legal, and perfectly so.
It should be, as long as it is not used to run, say, copied games.
Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy (pdf) (html) -- i.e., in this case, selling the XBox at a loss and making its profit on the sale of MS XBox games. This strategy is thwarted if Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, only to have people use it to run Sony games or Linux.
If one insists that one has a "right" to hack the XBox and run Sony games or Linux on it, Microsoft's response may be to raise the price of the XBox to at least the level of its marginal cost. Thus, consumers will wind up paying more for the same product. As a result, demand will go down, and this may result in unemployment and/or reduced wages.
More philosophically, your post appears to represent an attitude of many people on Slashdot that I don't understand. The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all. If a producer does offer a good or service on terms one deems to be unsatisfactory, one is perfectly free not to purchase it. Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact.
It's not against the law to fool people. The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges. Ommision of information isn't a crime.
Omission of information may or may not be a "crime" (which is not the issue here, but may be an issue for another day). However, ommission of information (i.e., the willful suppression or failure to disclose a relevant fact) can give rise to civil action for fraud or willful misrepresentation.
California Civil Code sec. 1709 provides:
1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.
Most importantly, section 1710 of the California Civil Code provides:
1710. A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.
Finally, section 1711 of the California Civil Code provides:
1711. One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public, or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the deceit.
Without reading the compalint (which to my knowledge is not yet available), my guess is the plaintiff alleges that the RIAA amnesty program amounts to a deceptive and fraudulent business practice because it suppresses or fails to disclose certain relevant facts (e.g., that the person seeking amnesty can still be sued by others and is still subject to criminal prosecution) while giving "information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact." See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710(3). The complaint may cite more specific unfair business practices statutes, which are found in the Business and Professions Code, but the basic principal is the same.
I know the popular thing to do is bash psuedo-sciences, and cold fusion because of its shaky introduction into popular thought quickly falls into this quagmire. But, let the human race dream before summarily dismissing the entire concept.
It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you're in deep trouble.
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.
On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.
I don't think many people will sign up for this at all.
I think this is aimed at parents. I also think that many of them may fall into the trap for two reasons.
First, to avoid being sued themselves. I can see the questioning now. Who owned the computer? Who paid for the computer? Did you know that junior was downloading our copyrighted songs without permission? Really? Where did you think he got the 10,000 songs on his hard drive? Do you want to pay the $50,000 now, or in easy monthly installments secured by a trust deed on your home? Faced with that, parents may tell junior to say he is sorry, sign the damn release, and promise to never, never do it again.
Secondly, I think parents may pressure Missey to do this "because your whole life is ahead of you, and you don't want to ruin your future." This can be viewed as a "youthful indiscretion" that is best resolved quickly, quietly, painlessly, and then forgotten. Missy is 17 years old. Her parents want her (and themselves) to spend years in litigation? Blow the college fund? I don't think so.
It will never be technically impossible. Content has to be converted to analog to be consumable by humans. As long as there are electrical engineers and programmers, digital content will be copyable, legally or not.
Yes, but at what cost?
At a certain point, the costs associated with copying DRM encrypted media (e.g., time, money, effort, technical expertise, the threat of civil litigation, DMCA "enabled" criminal incarceration or fines) will become large enough that the vast majority of people will find it less costly to purchase CDs and DVDs.
You are right, it will never be technically impossible to copy DRM encrypted media. However, that is not what is required. All the media companies have to do to protect their current way of doing business is to create an enviroment -- a combination of technology (e.g., DRM) and law (e.g., DMCA) -- where the cost of copying digital media without permission is perceived as greater than the cost of purchasing said media.
The opinion is neatly summarized in its first paragraph:
"Today we resolve an apparent conflict between California's trade secret law (Civ. Code, [sec.] 3426 et seq.) and the free speech clauses of the United States and
California Constitutions. In this case, a Web site operator posted trade secrets owned by another on his Internet Web site despite knowing or having reason to know that the secrets were acquired by improper means. The trial court found that the operator misappropriated these trade secrets in violation of section 3426.1 and issued a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 3426.2, subdivision (a), prohibiting the operator from disclosing these secrets. Accepting as true the trial court's findings, we now consider whether this preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. We conclude it does not."
IE before the GPL can come to play the code in question has to be put under GPL by the copyright holder.
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
I believe the argument people are tryng to make is as follows. Assume that IBM did not have the right to put certain code in Linux, but nonetheless did so. Thereafter Caldera (now SCO Group) distributed Linux containing said code. People are arguing that Caldera thereby licensed the code under the GPL. That is, while IBM may have (wrongfully) inserted the code into Linux (and that, by itself, was not sufficient to license the code under the GPL), Caldera thereafter did license the code under the GPL by distributing Linux containing that code (in effect ratifying IBM's conduct).
I believe SCO Group's counter-argument is (or should be) that it did not knowningly license the code under the GPL; that they did not intend to enter into any form of license agreement with respect to the code, much less the GPL. I think SCO will argue that when the first distributed Linux containing the code at issue, they didn't know the code was contained in Linux. They will probably also argue that they couldn't reasonably be expected to know that their code had wrongfully been inserted into Linux. That is, that they couldn't reasonably be expected to inspect all of the source code for every kernal for material copyrighted by SCO (or Caldera), but wrongfully inserted into the Linux kernal by another.
Now, the counter-counter-argument is simply that SCO Group continued to distribute Linux containing the (allegedly) copyrighted code even after they knew the code had wrongfully been inserted into Linux. Thus, this argument goes, SCO Group then knowingly licensed the code under the GPL by knowingly distributing Linux containing the code.
Now, what SCO Group's counter-counter-counter-argument will be, I don't know. Perhaps, that knowingly distributing Linux with the allegedly Caldera copyrighted code is not by itself sufficient to license the code under the GPL.
Students therefore should not assume that their college or university will accept liability for them or provide them with legal representation.
This is particularly true at a state funded college or university. Why should tax-payers bear the burden to defend or indemnify students who are accused of copyright infringement?
Most people that make any significant contributions to their field do so before they're 30.
I think that depends on the field. I've read that has been true in math and science (particularly in physics). I don't think it is true in every field.
My impression is that some disciplines (such as math and physics) are more purely theoretical and thus more quickly mastered (assuming one is smart enough) whereas others (perhaps biology, the social scienes, and liberal arts) are more "messy" and require more time. I may be wrong, but I predict that if there is a "cure" for cancer, the breakthrough will be made by a scientist who was over 30.
I don't think the "under 30" rule (or presumption) applies to my area, law. People under 30 may write brilliant articles. They may write their first book or treatise. They simply have not had time to master the area. They haven't written their multi-volumne treatise on the subject. I suspect the same is true in history, philosophy, etc.
I'm sure it is going to continue to be true in physics. Damn, I can't recall the article or the area, but I recently read that one of the most promising attempts at some sort of unified field theory was being develped by older scientists (well, older as in their 30s, 40s and young 50s). Supposedly, the new theory required mastery of several different discliplines in physics that required years of study. Sorry I can't remember the article. Hopefully, somebody else will.
Once again you've been fooled by causation. Take crime and war for example, life expectancy is reduced because of it, not that people engage in these activities because they have a low live expectancy.
The causation can work both ways. Indeed, it may create a self-reinforcing loop.
Crime and war probably reduce life expectancy. (I say "probably" because there may be times where the refusal to engage in crime or to wage war reduce one's life expectancy. There are times when those who do not steal food starve to death. There may have been people who died in the Holocaust who would have survived had they fought, or fought sooner.)
However, the perception or belief that one is going to "die young" or "die soon" anyway can cause someone to engage behavior. I've listened to interviews with young gang-bangers who were convinced that they were going to die before they were 30, so they might as well go out having "fun" -- even if that "fun" involved stealing a car, ripping off a liquor store, etc.
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. The firm belief that one is destined to die before age thirty causes a person to engage in behavior that both reinforces that belief and greatly increases the probability that one will in fact die before age thirty.
Enaging in risky behavior when one believes one has relatively little time left can be perceived to be rational. Today, if somebody is 50 years old, and decides to go sky-diving for the first time, he is probably risking only 20 years of life and future enjoyment. However, if in the future the average life expectancy is 250 years, a 50 year old who decides to go sky diving for the first time is risking much, much more. The cost-benefit analysis is completely altered.
I wish I could remember the episode, but I seem to recall a Twilight Zone episode where the main character either was immune to death from natural causes, or was just days away from achieving immortality. As a result, he wouldn't leave his room. He was terrified by the thought that he would die in a stupid accident.
"Luckily, Chilliware imploded, thanks to the CEO's wandering eye and hands."
Perhaps the alleged victim of the "wandering eye and hands" wound up owning all of the IP (and other corporate assets) because of a sexual harrasment judgment or settlement? I'm not asserting anything; I have no idea what happened to the company. Just asking based on your prior comment.
Slashdot Mirror
If "we" have AD on "them," why do "we" care if "they" don't have AD on "us?" In other words, as long as "we" have second strike AD on "them," why do "we" care about M?
My question is not rhetorical. I know at least some of the proposed responses (e.g., the use it or lose it scenario), but it is a legitimate question. If "we" have second strike AD on "them," under what circumstances would "they" be better off launching a preemptive strike on "us?" The usual answer is when "they" are 100% convinced that "we" are going to launch a first strike at "them." But how realistic is that? Especially when the alternative of compromise -- perhaps on "our" terms, but certainly better than "their" assured destruction.
As for missle defense, one proposed model or doctrine of nuclear weapons theory (among others) I used to teach my tenth graders was as follows. One may want to be able to deter that which one cannot defend against, and defend against that which one cannot deter. One must also realistically ask whether the ability to defend adversely impacts the ability to deter.
I think the Bush administration has adopted the above doctrine -- whether it knows it or not. The administration's concern is that certain actors cannot be deterred. Critics of the doctrine believe that any ability to defend underminds deterrence, or at least the mutualness of deterrence, which they believes endangers us all.
First they came for the Linux users and I did not speak out because I was not a Linux user.
Then they came for the *BSD users and I did not speak out because I was not a *BSD user.
Then they came for the Apple users and I did not speak out because I was not an Apple user.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
With respect to PastorMartin Niemoller.
Also:
Benjamin Franklin's.
Placing a copyrighted file in a shared folder with the intent to distribute it to someone who was not authorized to receive it would meet the "overt act" requirement for a conspiracy conviction.
However, criminal conspiracy law is probably not the best model here. All that is required is to apply the basic theory of "attempted crimes" criminal law.
Not until now, assuming you're correct.
I agree. That was my second point. As I stated above:
Your observations did help me recall a third comment I wanted to make. The law may also provide for a rebuttable presumption that a person who placed copyrighted material in a publicly shared folder did so with the intent to to have it copied by someone not authorized by copyright law to do so. I'm not sure such a presumption would be unreasonable. That would provide for situations where there truly was an innocent mistake, but place the burden of proving the innocent mistake on the defendant.
Two comments.
First, technically you may be right. There may not have been a copyright violation. However, that my itself does not necessarily mean the law is morally wrong or unjust. Even if there wasn't a copyright violation, there may well have been either an attempted copyright violation or a conspiracy to violate copyright that had not yet reached fruition. There are many criminal laws against attempted acts (e.g., attempted robbery, burlary, murder) and conspiracies to commit certain acts (e.g., conpiracy to commit robbery, burglary, murder). A criminal does not have to be succesful in order to be prosecuted.
Secondly, it is dangerous to judge proposed legislation based on a news report. Such reports are notoriously inaccurate. I would be shocked if the proposed statute created a strict liability crime that did not require mens rea . In other words, I'd be shocked if the proposed statute created a crime that did not have as an element of the offense (i.e., require for criminal liability) that the alleged perpetrator placed the file in his shared folder with the intent to have it copied by someone not authorized by copyright law to do so.
Yes, I'd rather "have" Britney than Yanni. As to whose music I'd rather listen to, I'm still thinking.....
Sorry, but "DEAD simple to use" is not a Linux value. If anything, it is a Linux anti-value. "DEAD simple to use" does not confer status.
Now, the Linux version of iTunes would be infinately customizable, with no possible standard interface. Of course, why the average consumer would need or want anything beyond a L-Pod (Linux-Pod) command line is beyond comprehension.
You might want to check out WordPerfect for DOS Updated (also found at http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/).
Why should even high school teachers or students be required to make Powerpoint presentations? They need to learn this in high school? Or is it just a waste of time better spent on other things -- e.g, like learning how to write?
Similarly, why should high school students be required to use a spreadsheet? So they can continue to avoid learning basic math?
This is incorrect. The RIAA can obtain a subpoena to the relevant ISP immediately after it files the "John Doe" lawsuit against the unknown defendant. The purpose of the subpoena would be to identify the defendant. After the defendant was identified, the complaint would be amended to add or substitute the defendant, and the legal action would proceed. The court would not allow the action to proceed to judgment against an unidentified defendant who never received notice of the action or an opportunity to respond.
Forcing the RIAA to first file "John Doe lawsuits" does not make the burden of identifying users "much more complicated." It may, however, make it initially more expensive.
As stated in the linked article, the RIAA contends that the DMCA allows "copyright holders to glean the identity of alleged infringers without filing a lawsuit first." As also stated in the article, Judge John Roberts, one of the judges of the three judge appellate panel, questioned that interpretation.
If the RIAA is incorrect, and it is forced to first file "John Doe" lawsuits, it will initially be more expensive in that they may have to pay a filing fee for each lawsuit. (It may be possible for them to file a single lawsuit in each jurisdiction where each such suit names numerous "John Doe" defendants. However, in some jurisdictions they may have to pay more for a large, multi-defendant suit.) Once the "John Doe" lawsuits are filed, the RIAA can subpoena the relevant ISPs to identify the "John Doe" defendants. It is, for an entity as well-funded as the RIAA, at most a relatively minor procedure hurdle.
The reason why I say forcing the RIAA to first file "John Doe" lawsuits may only be "initially" more expensive is that in many cases the RIAA would have to file a lawsuit anyway -- i.e., in every case where pre-lawsuit subpoena to idenfity the downloader did not lead to a pre-lawsuit settlement.
If with respect to DVDs, CDs and video games everyone adopted your attitude, you would have to do without them because they would not be available.
This is the classic free rider problem (see also Wikipedia).
Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy (pdf) (html) -- i.e., in this case, selling the XBox at a loss and making its profit on the sale of MS XBox games. This strategy is thwarted if Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, only to have people use it to run Sony games or Linux.
If one insists that one has a "right" to hack the XBox and run Sony games or Linux on it, Microsoft's response may be to raise the price of the XBox to at least the level of its marginal cost. Thus, consumers will wind up paying more for the same product. As a result, demand will go down, and this may result in unemployment and/or reduced wages.
More philosophically, your post appears to represent an attitude of many people on Slashdot that I don't understand. The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all. If a producer does offer a good or service on terms one deems to be unsatisfactory, one is perfectly free not to purchase it. Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact.
Omission of information may or may not be a "crime" (which is not the issue here, but may be an issue for another day). However, ommission of information (i.e., the willful suppression or failure to disclose a relevant fact) can give rise to civil action for fraud or willful misrepresentation.
California Civil Code sec. 1709 provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1709.
Most importantly, section 1710 of the California Civil Code provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710. (emphasis added)
Finally, section 1711 of the California Civil Code provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1711
Without reading the compalint (which to my knowledge is not yet available), my guess is the plaintiff alleges that the RIAA amnesty program amounts to a deceptive and fraudulent business practice because it suppresses or fails to disclose certain relevant facts (e.g., that the person seeking amnesty can still be sued by others and is still subject to criminal prosecution) while giving "information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact." See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710(3). The complaint may cite more specific unfair business practices statutes, which are found in the Business and Professions Code, but the basic principal is the same.
Carl Sagan addressed this issue in his essay, "The Burden of Skepticism." (See also lecture version).
Sagan explained:
You can find the PDF version of the GAO report at the following link: "File Sharing Programs: Child Pornography is Readily Accesible Over Peer-to-Peer Networks."
I think this is aimed at parents. I also think that many of them may fall into the trap for two reasons.
First, to avoid being sued themselves. I can see the questioning now. Who owned the computer? Who paid for the computer? Did you know that junior was downloading our copyrighted songs without permission? Really? Where did you think he got the 10,000 songs on his hard drive? Do you want to pay the $50,000 now, or in easy monthly installments secured by a trust deed on your home? Faced with that, parents may tell junior to say he is sorry, sign the damn release, and promise to never, never do it again.
Secondly, I think parents may pressure Missey to do this "because your whole life is ahead of you, and you don't want to ruin your future." This can be viewed as a "youthful indiscretion" that is best resolved quickly, quietly, painlessly, and then forgotten. Missy is 17 years old. Her parents want her (and themselves) to spend years in litigation? Blow the college fund? I don't think so.
Yes, but at what cost?
At a certain point, the costs associated with copying DRM encrypted media (e.g., time, money, effort, technical expertise, the threat of civil litigation, DMCA "enabled" criminal incarceration or fines) will become large enough that the vast majority of people will find it less costly to purchase CDs and DVDs.
You are right, it will never be technically impossible to copy DRM encrypted media. However, that is not what is required. All the media companies have to do to protect their current way of doing business is to create an enviroment -- a combination of technology (e.g., DRM) and law (e.g., DMCA) -- where the cost of copying digital media without permission is perceived as greater than the cost of purchasing said media.
The Los Angeles Times has a good article on the moral issues involved, and the RIAA's recent efforts to effect perception of those issues: "Tone deaf to a moral dilemma?"
Note: I linked to the article on Sunspot.net in order to avoid the necessity of registration at the LA Times website.
You can read the PDF version of the California Supreme Court decision at: DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Andrew Bunner.
The opinion is neatly summarized in its first paragraph:
Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law Schooland the Volokh Conspiracy has some comments.
I believe the argument people are tryng to make is as follows. Assume that IBM did not have the right to put certain code in Linux, but nonetheless did so. Thereafter Caldera (now SCO Group) distributed Linux containing said code. People are arguing that Caldera thereby licensed the code under the GPL. That is, while IBM may have (wrongfully) inserted the code into Linux (and that, by itself, was not sufficient to license the code under the GPL), Caldera thereafter did license the code under the GPL by distributing Linux containing that code (in effect ratifying IBM's conduct).
I believe SCO Group's counter-argument is (or should be) that it did not knowningly license the code under the GPL; that they did not intend to enter into any form of license agreement with respect to the code, much less the GPL. I think SCO will argue that when the first distributed Linux containing the code at issue, they didn't know the code was contained in Linux. They will probably also argue that they couldn't reasonably be expected to know that their code had wrongfully been inserted into Linux. That is, that they couldn't reasonably be expected to inspect all of the source code for every kernal for material copyrighted by SCO (or Caldera), but wrongfully inserted into the Linux kernal by another.
Now, the counter-counter-argument is simply that SCO Group continued to distribute Linux containing the (allegedly) copyrighted code even after they knew the code had wrongfully been inserted into Linux. Thus, this argument goes, SCO Group then knowingly licensed the code under the GPL by knowingly distributing Linux containing the code.
Now, what SCO Group's counter-counter-counter-argument will be, I don't know. Perhaps, that knowingly distributing Linux with the allegedly Caldera copyrighted code is not by itself sufficient to license the code under the GPL.
This is particularly true at a state funded college or university. Why should tax-payers bear the burden to defend or indemnify students who are accused of copyright infringement?
I think that depends on the field. I've read that has been true in math and science (particularly in physics). I don't think it is true in every field.
My impression is that some disciplines (such as math and physics) are more purely theoretical and thus more quickly mastered (assuming one is smart enough) whereas others (perhaps biology, the social scienes, and liberal arts) are more "messy" and require more time. I may be wrong, but I predict that if there is a "cure" for cancer, the breakthrough will be made by a scientist who was over 30.
I don't think the "under 30" rule (or presumption) applies to my area, law. People under 30 may write brilliant articles. They may write their first book or treatise. They simply have not had time to master the area. They haven't written their multi-volumne treatise on the subject. I suspect the same is true in history, philosophy, etc.
I'm sure it is going to continue to be true in physics. Damn, I can't recall the article or the area, but I recently read that one of the most promising attempts at some sort of unified field theory was being develped by older scientists (well, older as in their 30s, 40s and young 50s). Supposedly, the new theory required mastery of several different discliplines in physics that required years of study. Sorry I can't remember the article. Hopefully, somebody else will.
The causation can work both ways. Indeed, it may create a self-reinforcing loop.
Crime and war probably reduce life expectancy. (I say "probably" because there may be times where the refusal to engage in crime or to wage war reduce one's life expectancy. There are times when those who do not steal food starve to death. There may have been people who died in the Holocaust who would have survived had they fought, or fought sooner.)
However, the perception or belief that one is going to "die young" or "die soon" anyway can cause someone to engage behavior. I've listened to interviews with young gang-bangers who were convinced that they were going to die before they were 30, so they might as well go out having "fun" -- even if that "fun" involved stealing a car, ripping off a liquor store, etc.
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. The firm belief that one is destined to die before age thirty causes a person to engage in behavior that both reinforces that belief and greatly increases the probability that one will in fact die before age thirty.
Enaging in risky behavior when one believes one has relatively little time left can be perceived to be rational. Today, if somebody is 50 years old, and decides to go sky-diving for the first time, he is probably risking only 20 years of life and future enjoyment. However, if in the future the average life expectancy is 250 years, a 50 year old who decides to go sky diving for the first time is risking much, much more. The cost-benefit analysis is completely altered.
I wish I could remember the episode, but I seem to recall a Twilight Zone episode where the main character either was immune to death from natural causes, or was just days away from achieving immortality. As a result, he wouldn't leave his room. He was terrified by the thought that he would die in a stupid accident.
In this post you [i.e., pipeb0mb (60758)] stated:
Perhaps the alleged victim of the "wandering eye and hands" wound up owning all of the IP (and other corporate assets) because of a sexual harrasment judgment or settlement? I'm not asserting anything; I have no idea what happened to the company. Just asking based on your prior comment.