A) You did not state how it is a loophole. All you have done is once again state that it is a loophole. Please explain HOW it is a loophole.
B) Um, no. If they had hacked into her machine, they would have broken the laws of the United States and of the state in which they reside. But, they did not hack into her machine, therefore they did not break any laws. In no way does looking at information provided by another party about said party equate to hacking into said party's computer and looking at information that was not provided by said party. Your failure is in trying to equate receiving information willingly provided with information obtained through illegal means.
As the evidence was not illegally obtained, the rest of your argument is moot.
Now, you have stated as that as fact, not opinion.
Regarding Daubert, reading an IP address off of a screen and tracing it back is to it's source computer is not peer reviewed, standard practice in the field of IT? Interesting.
I am just as partisan as you are. I don't care if she had the money to settle or not. She could have agreed to make payments if she didn't have the money. I believe she did, in fact, violate the copyright of others. It was her decision to use Kazaa and to make songs available over Kazaa. If she didn't do that, she would not have been sued.
Well, let's see, so far she has not provided a reasonable explanation. She has tried to provide a series of unreasonable ones, such as that someone used a non-existent wireless access point to frame her. How is it you believe she didn't do it? Remember, this is a civil case and there is not presumption of innocence.
I stated he should read the decision, then I summarized the decision. I guess you, being a lawyer, have no experience with summarizing thing, rights?
By the way, how is it MediaSentry conducted an investigation in Minnesota when they never entered Minnesota and have no agents in Minnesota? Under you theory, you are practicing law in every state because you are posting legal opinion on slashdot.
Please show where it is required to be subject to peer review, where it has not been subject to peer review, and what, exactly is "the standard" is that it does not meet. And, when I say show, I mean show under the requirements of civil court, as this case is a civil matter.
While her defense is that she didn't do it, the claimant is doing a pretty good job of proving she did. In fact, her defense of "I didn't do it" looks quite a bit like someone saying "That is not mine and I have no idea how it got there." when a bag of marijuana is found in said someone's car while he is the sole occupant.
If you want to dabble in bad analogies I will. Her claiming she didn't do it is just like the guy here who took is girlfriend's baby boy, smashed him to the ground, beat the crap out of her, took the baby and drove off then tossed the baby out the window of the car while driving down the interstate and then saying that it was all a dirty game and he didn't do it.
This sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
That makes no sense. How is it a loophole, exactly? Would you prefer to have to comply with the laws of all 50 states even though you are only in one? They were not in the state, so the state law does not apply.
I mean what if MediaSentry had actually hacked into her machine?
That is irrelevant because they didn't hack into her machine. The software she chose to use provided the data in the course of normal operation. They didn't even ask for the data provided. They asked for copyrighted data which she was offering via a the software and the software, which she chose to use, provided the information.
What you keep failing to see is that it also matters where the data was collected. It was not collected in Minnesota, therefore Minnesota law does not apply.
MediaSentry was not in Minnesota, did not enter Minnesota, and has no agents in Minnesota. Minnesota law does not cover people and/or companies that are not in Minnesota. The respondent knowingly used a freely available program that reported all the information that MediaSentry collected. All MediaSentry did was take her up on her offer to download the data via Kazaa, at which time she, via Kazaa, provided the information now being used against her. MediaSentry didn't even ask for the data that was provided.
If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN, and they were in MN when they were being investigated, why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from?
Did you bother to read the decision? Apparently not, because if you did, you would have your answer.
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?
Red herring. MediaSentry didn't hack into her computer. MediaSentry used the capablities of a stock verison of the P2P software, Kazaa, to get the information. Said information is provided by the software by design. She voluntarily provided the information by using Kazaa.
Also, are the U.S. laws concerning your actions extra-territorial? Minnesota's laws are not.
If I am in a state where I hold, or do not need to hold, a PI license and you are in, say Minnesota, and you call me and tell me you some information that incriminates you in a crime against my client, is it your contention that I have committed a crime in Minnesota? Are you saying that I can not testify against you in Minnesota because I am not a licensed PI in Minnesota even though I am complying with the laws where I live, have my business, and work and the information came to me in my home location and was willingly provided by you?
No. The respondent was making the data available via Kazaa. They used a Kazaa client to connect and download the data. The standard client makes all the data they collected available. By using Kazaa, the respondent voluntarily provided the data to MediaSentry through normal operation of the software.
Nope. Read the judge's decision, complete with case law. If the data collection did not occur in , the company has no agents in, and the investigators never entered Minnesota, why should Minnesota have any say, especially when Minnesota law does not apply outside of Minnesota?
Under your theory, you don't need to move to, live in, or even be in, Minnesota to fall under Minnesota law.
Nope. Because of the joys of the internet, they never had to physically go into Minnesota. They didn't even have to access the computer in Minnesota because Kazaa provides identifying information about the source of the files, including the IP address.
Here is the judges determination:
The Court concludes that MediaSentry is not subject to the MPDA. Based on the language of the MPDA, the Act does not apply to persons or companies operating outside of the state of Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. 326.3381, subd. 5 (providing procedures for licensing outofstate applications for those who "establish a Minnesota office"). Additionally, there is a general presumption that Minnesota statutes do not apply extraterritorially. See In re Pratt, 18 N.W.2d 147, 153 (Minn. 1945), cited in Harrington v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. A03192, 2003 WL 22016032, at *2 n.1 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2003) (unpublished) (noting that Minnesota courts employ "the presumption against a state statute having extraterritorial application"). MediaSentry does not operate within Minnesota. (Connelly Decl. 3.) It has no employees in Minnesota and does not conduct any activities in Minnesota. (Id.) It pays no taxes in the state and has no agent for service of process here. (Id.) MediaSentry conducted no activity in Minnesota relating to this case, and all of the information it received was sent by Defendant from her computer to MediaSentry's computer in a state other than Minnesota. (Id.) Merely 7 monitoring incoming internet traffic sent from a computer in another state is insufficient to constitute engaging in the business of private detective within the state of Minnesota.
Apparently, you have no clue as to the law. Licensing of Private Investigators takes place on the state, and some times even lower, level. The judge ruled that MediaSentry did not break the Minnesota law because they never entered the state, have no employees in the state, never engaged in PI behavior in the state, etc.
In other words, Minnesota law does not apply to people OUTSIDE of Minnesota.
Also, MediaSentry argued that the data they did gather was provided by the respondent's computer during the normal course of downloading the data. In other words, they looked at the IP address of requesting computer. Or, do you contend that Slashdot is being a private investigator by logging the IP address your post from?
The biggest problem I see is that IE was non-removable, which does present an issue. Amost all OS packages include a browser these days (FF/Iceweasel in *nix, Safari on Mac, IE on Windows), but the difference is that IE was unremovable.
Please give detailed instructions on uninstalling the latest version of Safari from a Mac.
The author thinks FORTRAN is a great tool for engineering and science.
The author and some of his friends had a hard time learning FORTRAN.
The author thinks FORTRAN should be dropped in favor of something else, like Python
The most telling points in the article are:
Did you learn FORTRAN at University? Are you still using it? If you answer yes to both of those questions then there is a high probability that you are still involved in research or that advanced numerical analysis is the mainstay of your job. I know a lot of people in the (non-academic) IT industry - many of them were undergraduates in Physics or Chemistry and so they learned FORTRAN. They don't use it anymore.
In other, he knows a lot of people who are now working out of their degree field and aren't using the programming language they learned specifically for said degree field. Apparently, this is his justification for suggesting the removal of FORTRAN programming from undergraduate science and engineering courses.
Here is a neat idea: If you are going to work in IT, get an IT degree so you will know IT things. Don't get a physics or chemistry degree where you will learn things specific to physics or chemistry then complain that those degrees didn't prepare you for your career.
I will give him one point. It may be worth while to have an intro to programming course that uses something a bit simpler than FORTRAN, but if one is going to be doing serious science and engineering (you know, what the degree is about) one should be required to learn FORTRAN.
scumbag organizations trying to destroy people's lives using illegal and unethical tactics in the name of copyright enforcement,
Hmmm... do you have a link showing where illegal and unethical tactics were used? How about proof that the violations of copyright weren't illegal and unethical?
I have plenty of links to posts here on slashdot where the poster states (s)he does not care if it is illegal or unethical to violate copyright, so isn't it pretty much hypocritical to claim it wrong for "scumbag organizations" to use "illegal and unethical tactics" yet say nothing, support, or even commit "illegal and unethical tactics" to advance your cause?
What does it matter what his motivations are, so long as it results in a loss for the RIAA?
It matters because if the lawyer is trying to make a name for himself on this case and over-reaches, this will not result in a loss for the RIAA. It will result in a win for the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
The claimant is doing a good job of proving their case. That is what everyone is up in arms over.
Not according to the judge and the case the judge referenced in his opinion.
A) You did not state how it is a loophole. All you have done is once again state that it is a loophole. Please explain HOW it is a loophole.
B) Um, no. If they had hacked into her machine, they would have broken the laws of the United States and of the state in which they reside. But, they did not hack into her machine, therefore they did not break any laws. In no way does looking at information provided by another party about said party equate to hacking into said party's computer and looking at information that was not provided by said party. Your failure is in trying to equate receiving information willingly provided with information obtained through illegal means.
As the evidence was not illegally obtained, the rest of your argument is moot.
Prove that statement.
Then why haven't they done so?
So, downloading a song from Kazaa is investigative activity?
Do you remember this statement you made:
Now, you have stated as that as fact, not opinion.
Regarding Daubert, reading an IP address off of a screen and tracing it back is to it's source computer is not peer reviewed, standard practice in the field of IT? Interesting.
I am just as partisan as you are. I don't care if she had the money to settle or not. She could have agreed to make payments if she didn't have the money. I believe she did, in fact, violate the copyright of others. It was her decision to use Kazaa and to make songs available over Kazaa. If she didn't do that, she would not have been sued.
Well, let's see, so far she has not provided a reasonable explanation. She has tried to provide a series of unreasonable ones, such as that someone used a non-existent wireless access point to frame her. How is it you believe she didn't do it? Remember, this is a civil case and there is not presumption of innocence.
I stated he should read the decision, then I summarized the decision. I guess you, being a lawyer, have no experience with summarizing thing, rights?
By the way, how is it MediaSentry conducted an investigation in Minnesota when they never entered Minnesota and have no agents in Minnesota? Under you theory, you are practicing law in every state because you are posting legal opinion on slashdot.
Please show where it is required to be subject to peer review, where it has not been subject to peer review, and what, exactly is "the standard" is that it does not meet. And, when I say show, I mean show under the requirements of civil court, as this case is a civil matter.
While her defense is that she didn't do it, the claimant is doing a pretty good job of proving she did. In fact, her defense of "I didn't do it" looks quite a bit like someone saying "That is not mine and I have no idea how it got there." when a bag of marijuana is found in said someone's car while he is the sole occupant.
If you want to dabble in bad analogies I will.
Her claiming she didn't do it is just like the guy here who took is girlfriend's baby boy, smashed him to the ground, beat the crap out of her, took the baby and drove off then tossed the baby out the window of the car while driving down the interstate and then saying that it was all a dirty game and he didn't do it.
That makes no sense. How is it a loophole, exactly? Would you prefer to have to comply with the laws of all 50 states even though you are only in one? They were not in the state, so the state law does not apply.
That is irrelevant because they didn't hack into her machine. The software she chose to use provided the data in the course of normal operation. They didn't even ask for the data provided. They asked for copyrighted data which she was offering via a the software and the software, which she chose to use, provided the information.
What you keep failing to see is that it also matters where the data was collected. It was not collected in Minnesota, therefore Minnesota law does not apply.
MediaSentry was not in Minnesota, did not enter Minnesota, and has no agents in Minnesota. Minnesota law does not cover people and/or companies that are not in Minnesota. The respondent knowingly used a freely available program that reported all the information that MediaSentry collected. All MediaSentry did was take her up on her offer to download the data via Kazaa, at which time she, via Kazaa, provided the information now being used against her. MediaSentry didn't even ask for the data that was provided.
That is the second time you have said that. Provide proof of that statement or admit you are just making it up.
Did you bother to read the decision? Apparently not, because if you did, you would have your answer.
Red herring. MediaSentry didn't hack into her computer. MediaSentry used the capablities of a stock verison of the P2P software, Kazaa, to get the information. Said information is provided by the software by design. She voluntarily provided the information by using Kazaa.
Also, are the U.S. laws concerning your actions extra-territorial? Minnesota's laws are not.
If I am in a state where I hold, or do not need to hold, a PI license and you are in, say Minnesota, and you call me and tell me you some information that incriminates you in a crime against my client, is it your contention that I have committed a crime in Minnesota? Are you saying that I can not testify against you in Minnesota because I am not a licensed PI in Minnesota even though I am complying with the laws where I live, have my business, and work and the information came to me in my home location and was willingly provided by you?
She does not have to go through any of it. She didn't have to violate their copyright. She could have settled.
Instead, she decided to fight it out and it was that decision that let to years of court cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, etc.
You are blaming those whose rights were violated for protecting those rights while absolving her of all responsibility for the position she is in.
No. The respondent was making the data available via Kazaa. They used a Kazaa client to connect and download the data. The standard client makes all the data they collected available. By using Kazaa, the respondent voluntarily provided the data to MediaSentry through normal operation of the software.
Nope. Read the judge's decision, complete with case law. If the data collection did not occur in , the company has no agents in, and the investigators never entered Minnesota, why should Minnesota have any say, especially when Minnesota law does not apply outside of Minnesota?
Under your theory, you don't need to move to, live in, or even be in, Minnesota to fall under Minnesota law.
Nope. Because of the joys of the internet, they never had to physically go into Minnesota. They didn't even have to access the computer in Minnesota because Kazaa provides identifying information about the source of the files, including the IP address.
Here is the judges determination:
Please provide, in detail, proof of your statement above as it pertains to this case, complete with references.
Apparently, you have no clue as to the law. Licensing of Private Investigators takes place on the state, and some times even lower, level. The judge ruled that MediaSentry did not break the Minnesota law because they never entered the state, have no employees in the state, never engaged in PI behavior in the state, etc.
In other words, Minnesota law does not apply to people OUTSIDE of Minnesota.
Also, MediaSentry argued that the data they did gather was provided by the respondent's computer during the normal course of downloading the data. In other words, they looked at the IP address of requesting computer. Or, do you contend that Slashdot is being a private investigator by logging the IP address your post from?
Please give detailed instructions on uninstalling the latest version of Safari from a Mac.
Except the article is not about computer science programs, it is about physics, chemistry, and engineering programs.
What I got from the article is:
The most telling points in the article are:
In other, he knows a lot of people who are now working out of their degree field and aren't using the programming language they learned specifically for said degree field. Apparently, this is his justification for suggesting the removal of FORTRAN programming from undergraduate science and engineering courses.
Here is a neat idea: If you are going to work in IT, get an IT degree so you will know IT things. Don't get a physics or chemistry degree where you will learn things specific to physics or chemistry then complain that those degrees didn't prepare you for your career.
I will give him one point. It may be worth while to have an intro to programming course that uses something a bit simpler than FORTRAN, but if one is going to be doing serious science and engineering (you know, what the degree is about) one should be required to learn FORTRAN.
Hmmm... do you have a link showing where illegal and unethical tactics were used? How about proof that the violations of copyright weren't illegal and unethical?
I have plenty of links to posts here on slashdot where the poster states (s)he does not care if it is illegal or unethical to violate copyright, so isn't it pretty much hypocritical to claim it wrong for "scumbag organizations" to use "illegal and unethical tactics" yet say nothing, support, or even commit "illegal and unethical tactics" to advance your cause?
It matters because if the lawyer is trying to make a name for himself on this case and over-reaches, this will not result in a loss for the RIAA. It will result in a win for the RIAA.