Anyone who uses GPL code knows what they're getting into in advance.
I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into his business model or plans...perhaps he should have planned better. Its not our problem.
Our problem is that HE is violating the GPL, and that SOME in the OSS (Open Sourced Software) / FSS (Free Sourced Software) are ACCEPTING that.
The reasons for accepting this guys violationg of the GPL range from, "It's not even a beta release," to "Give him some time," to "All this bashing of Linux companies is what harms Linux". Sorry, none of those reasons cut it.
The GPL is a license, and he agreed to that license before using it. He agreed that in exchange for FREELY taking advantage of the HARD WORK of THOUSANDS of benevolent programmers, he would in return contribute his source modifications back to the community. By not doing that, he is taking advantage of thousands of programmers who generously GPL'ed their code.
Until he does release that code, he will and should be criticized. The FSF should contact him and try to get him to release the code; if that fails, a lawsuit is in order. In order for your contributions to the GPL to have any affect, the GPL must be obeyed.
When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product. We simply want our license -- the GPL -- to be treated with respect.
Its not an unreasonable license. It has very simple requirements, which are more than fair when you consider that you're getting all this stuff free as in freedom, and usually free as in beer too. Its not like the EULA, where you have no rights and violations will result in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Violations of the GPL don't cost companies any money -- not like the EULA does. Lawsuit's brought are only to force the company to release the source, not to punish the company, bankrupt them, or make an example out of them, as the BSA does. There is no GPL-BSA which goes around raiding companies to see if they're violationg the GPL.
But wait, this isn't an invitation for some people to hog all of the bandwidth, leaving other's with none. Read on a bit...
You would pay for levels of priority. Paying $60 would give you twice the priority of $30. At any given time, any user COULD have ALL of the bandwidth on the entire network to himself (if things were right); however, if everyone was using bandwidth for equally intensive tasks, individual's would get an amount of bandwidth proportional to the amount of money they pay to the ISP.
Lets say that road runner has 10 users total (yes, not realistic, but its simple math).
Lets also say that during a particular time, ALL of those 10 users are downloading infinitely large files, so all of the bandwidth of the ISP will be taken up.
Furthermore, lets say USERS 1-5 pay $60 a month, and users 6-10 pay $30 a month. This means that the road runner will be getting 60*5 + 30*5 = 450 dollars total from these users per month. Assuming maximal bandwidth usage, each user would get x/450 fraction of bandwidth of the net total bandwidth, where x the amount of money they pay the ISP. So users 1-5 should each get 6.7% of the net bandwidth, and users 6-10 should each get 13.3% of the bandwidth.
In other words, when there is competition between two users demanding bandwidth, the bandwidth is alotted in proportion to how much they pay.
Such a scheme could be scaled up.
But aside from that, other parameters should be considered. Minimizing the net wait-time should also be a concern. If your directing a shopping line, it would be most efficient to let the guy with 1 item through first, even if the guy with 1000 items got there first. The idea is to do the "fast step" first.
The idea is to minimize the net wait time all of the users experience as a total. As an example, lets say that there are two users on a network, and each has equal priority, and lets say there is 2MB/s of bandwidth available. Lets say user A wants to download a 200MB file, and user B wants to download a 2MB file. Lets take three cases: in the first case, we give user A All the bandwidth; in the second case, we divide the bandwidth between user A and B equally; in the third, we allow user B to download his file, then user A.
1. User A (the "greedy" user) gets all the bandwdith, then user B is allowed to d/l. If user A gets all the bandwidth at first, it takes him 200MB / 2MB/s = 100s to download his file. Then afterwards, it takes user B 1 second to download his file. Thus, user A has to wait 100s, user B 101s. Thus, there is a net wait-time of 201s..
2. Bandwidth is alotted equally between user A (200MB file) and user B (2MB file). This means that, while both users are still downloading, each uses 1MB/s of bandwidth. Thus, it takes user B 2s to download his complete file. Meanwhile, during those 2s, user A downloads 2MB of his file (198MB remaining). After user B no long requires bandwidth, user A will require another 99s to download the remaining 198MB of his file (99s * 2MB/s = 198MB). Thus, user B had to wait 2s for his file. User A had to wait 2s + 99s = 101s for his file. Thus, there is a net wait time of 103s. This clearly better than case 1.
3. Bandwidth is all initially alotted to user B. It will take user B 2Mb / 2MB/s = 1s to download his file. After that 1s, it will then take user A 200MB / 2MB/s = 100s to download his file. Thus, user A has a net wait time of 1s. User B has a net wait time of 100s. Thus, the net wait time is 101s. This is clearly better than case 1, and slightly better than case 2.
So, which of these is best? Obviously, the third case is the best. User A, the greedy user, hardly has to wait any extra time at all (user A's wait time only increases by a factor of 1.01); user B, however, sees enormous reductions in wiat time (user B's wait time is.5x of what it was in case 2, and 0.01x of what it was in case 1). In either case, User A will not notice a thing; he will not call the ISP complaining. However, user B will notice a 2-fold (over case 2) and 100-fold (over case 1) improvement.
Welp, I'm a long-time Road Runner user, 5 years and going. I've always been happy with them, but now it might be the time to switch over.
I have no loyalty based on past-performance of RR.
I might still stick with them; it depends on whether I think I'll be affected. I think I'm a pretty heavy downloader, but I'm not sure how they define that. I download lots of MP3's, WMA's, and OGG's, as well as programs and data.
So, I'll e-mail Time Warner and ask them for future specs.
Ultimately, I have no problem with this type of system. It makes sense that if you use excessive amounts of bandwidth's, you should pay more money. This isn't a way by Time Warner to screw over their customers. Rather, it puts customers into appropriate payment classes based on how much bandwidth they use.
Someone who has Road Runner simply because they want fast web-surfing shouldn't pay the same rate as someone who uses Road Runner to download gigabytes of movie, music, and data files each day.
But I'm not Road Runner, and I'm not other customers. I'm ME, the most important thing in the universe (don't you know, the sun revolves around me;-).
Anyways, if I'm one of the users who's using "excessive" bandwidth as defined by TW, I'll look for a better deal. If I'm one of the users who is being charged a higher bill for other users excessive bandwidth, I'll stick with TW.
"Asserting that you have a right but that you need to exercise that right in the closet is the same thing as asserting that you do not have taht right."
Really? I don't think so. Rights exist irrelevant of whether or not governments think they do or government's respect them. Rights are absolute throughout the world. No government recognizes all of our rights; some recognize none of them, some many.
But whether or not a government recognizes our rights is irrelevant to whether or not those rights exist.
If the government sides with MS on this license and says GPL developers don't have the right to release code under the GPL, then the government is choosing to ignore parts of free-speech rights. Those rights still exist, just the government isn't recognizing them, and is in fact punishing people for exercising them.
Thus, people who want to exercise them need to do so anonymously, so they aren't punished.
Please, that's the biggest load of BS. The license is completely invalid and unenforcible.
This is really an ANTI-GPL. Basically, it says you can't releasee any implementations under a GPL'ed license. Too bad for MS its totally unenforcible. GPL developers can release anonymously, and are all accross the world.
They could ignore this and MS wouldn't be able to do a thing.
Welp, I've liked KaZaA alot. Their interface is less bloat than Morpheus' and d/ls are fast. But these fucks just don't understand what the P2P revolution is all about. HINT: sneaking in extra unwanted software is not part of the revolution.
Time to switch over to Grokster, which doesn't -- yet -- have any of this bullshit.
On another vein, LimeWire is, as always, good. People complain about the slow speed of LimeWire...well, yes it downloads individual songs slowly. Did it ever occur to anyone to download many songs at once, thus to push your bandwidth to the max?
Also, though people complain about the ads and periphery bloatware software in LimeWire, you can remove any periphery software. Furthermore, you can always pay 8.50 and get just pure LimeWire. And if you don't want to do that, LimeWire IS Open-Sourced. Get the code and work with it to eliminate the shit you don't like.
If you really don't like the ads in Limewire, don't bitch about it. Get the source and change it.
That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.
Somehow, according to your spam-happy ass, its the CUSTOMERS who are making their costs higher, not the SPAMMERS? BULLSHIT. Even if it was the customers complaining that caused this, they wouldn't be complaining if not for the spammers.
By the way asshole, you conveniently left out any mention of FAX SPAM, which clearly DOES cost US money by using OUR INK and OUR PAPER.
Furthermore, you conveniently ignroed the fact about spammer's stealing MY allocated space on ISP's.
The company is based in Russia. The US has no jurisdiction over an entity in Russia, and trying to claim so is violating the sovereignty of the Russian people.
Trying to "fine" this Russia-based company is absolutely outside of US jurisdiction. Presumably, their funds are in Russia. That being so, the US cannot fine them. A US judge could not enforce a fine against a Russia-based company, because no US entity has any jurisdiction in Russia.
Now, if the court wants to require that Elcomsoft close down their US servers, or perhaps take actions specifically against parts of Elcomsoft within the US, that, they have jurisdiction to do. For example, they'd have jurisdiction to shut down Elcomsoft branches in the US, to shut down Elcomsoft servers in the US, etc.
Whether or not such is constitutional, is another question alltogether.
Preventing them from distributing that software IS a violation of THEIR free speech rights; not to mention a violation of consumer's rights to fair use. I feel strongly that eventually the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional, if not by this judge, then down the line by the Supreme Court. The DMCA is destined to fall before the Supreme Court. When it does, if the USSC has any worth and deserves any respect at all, the DMCA will be declared unconstitutional.
But constitutional issues aside, the current issue is a very troubling issue of sovereignty. What I fear is that this fuckwit of a judge is going to try to fine the company in Russia, which is beyond any US court's jurisdiction (because the company's funds/money are in Russia, no US court has the jurisdiction to demand anything be done with those funds).
If the ruling this fuck of a judge made is left untouched, it creates huge problems for us. It would, in effect, mean that if I made a website criticizing the Chinese government, China could bring charges against ME -- a US Citizen -- for violating China's laws. That's what this is really about. The US is trying to enforce ITS laws on foreign entities/citizens.
Doesn't matter how much of our bandwidth SPAM is stealing. Its stealing our bandwidth and what we pay for. Even if its only a nickel.
Furthermore, even if you disconsider the bandwidth, it DOES steal our storage space on servers. My Road Runner e-mail server stores 20MB of e-mail. When people SPAM me 4MB porno e-mails at a time, even if I have mechanisms not to download any of that and delete it from the server, its still using space that I PAID FOR. If I happen to usually leave mail on the server (so I can get it later if an accident happens), that's a major problem, because it could use up MY space.
Penalties. I'd suggest stricter fines than currently exist. $1,000 to $5,000 to be paid to the spamee's ISP, the spammer's ISP, the spamee, and the government.
Who's responsible for determining the policy is violated. Since the policy would allow for both lawsuit and legal criminal cases, judges would decide. A claims judge would decide the fine. A judge who deals with criminal matters would decide for the criminal side of the law.
Size of e-mail. I meant disconsidering the header. Perhaps 99% was too strict. The point is, people should know if they're getting into 1KB, 10KB, 100KB, 1MB, or 10MB SPAM.
Complexity. If you can find a way to simplify it, I'd be glad to hear it. The goal is to punish real spammers, but not punish someone on alt.abortion who e-mails a poster without solicitation (unless that poster then e-mails back requesting no further e-mails, and the initial e-mailer continues to e-mail).
Spam from individuals. I'd suggest that the judge also determine if the individual was acting in a private manner or a commercial/interest manner for an organization. The reason I excluded individuals is because I don't want a pro-choice person who e-mails a pro-life person on alt.abortion with an opinion to be hit with violating the SPAM law. You're welcome to make suggestions.
Finally, I've noticed you completely ignored the fact that I stated that FAX SPAM is also a problem. In fact, FAX SPAM is an even bigger problem than e-mail SPAM. Most people have slow fax machines, and it takes quite a while to process a SPAM fax; in the meanwhile, other useful or important faxes can't get through. Furthermore, even if it can process them and print them quickly, it doesn't matter. the fucks are still using MY INK and MY PAPER to do THEIR ADVERTISING, not to mention MY TIME.
Maybe it doesn't make you mad that unscrupulous advertisers transfer most of THEIR COST of ADVERTISING to YOU. But it does bother ME. Furthermore, all you people who yack about "private" solutions fail to note that many many FAX machines don't have options to filter out certain faxes.
This is a start. But it doesn't go far enough. The real problem with SPAM isn't that alot of it is scams or cheap porno get-your-dick-sucked come ons. The real problem with SPAM is that it STEALS OUR BANDWIDTH. By being responsible for 30% of the traffic on the internet, SPAM steals the true potential of the internet from us all. OUR Internet is slowed down 30% because of SPAM.
I am a moderate Libertarian, but this is something where the market can't regulate itself. There are many such situations, where the market doesn't regulate itself on par with the ideal. M$ is one such example.
In this particular case, SPAM, it doesn't matter if everyone blocks it out using filtering that won't even d/l SPAM from the server. REGARDLESS of whether or not YOU block out SPAM, its still stealing from YOU. Because your ISP's have to devote huge amounts of their resources to sending SPAM around, they put the tab on your bill. Furthermore, its still slowing down the Net at large, and ultimately you, whether or not you download it. This is my proposal:
PREAMBLE: Any violations of these statutes can result in jail time and severe fines paid to the state, the individual harmed, and the individual's ISP. The following proposal applies, unless otherwise stated, to E-MAIL, FAX, and the TELEPHONE. SPAM in all of these areas SHIFTS almost ALL of the cost of advertising from the ADVERTISER, to US and OUR ISP.
(1) What's needed is an OPT IN ONLY system. ONLY people who OPT IN get sent stuff from organizations.
(2) Furthermore, the OPT IN should have to be exclusive; opting in to receive e-mail from IBM NEVER gives them the right to let their "partners" send you crap. If they want to let their partners send you crap, they should have to contact you, explaning which partners they want you to let send you stuff, and what those partners do. Misrepresentation of this information should be considered a violation.
(3) Unsolicited solicitations encouraging people to OPT IN are SPAM themselves. That is, if some organization (i.e., bigdicks.com) sends you an unsolicited "one time" request to "opt in" -- irrelevant whether that request is text-only or not -- its SPAM and a violation.
(4) That said, the only legal way to propose to someone that they opt-in would be if they went to your website (and you had an opt-in option on your site) or requested information from you on opting in and you sent it to them. BUT, such opt-in options MUST state how large the OPT-IN proposal is in KB or MB accurate to 99%.
(5) Any Opt-in proposals (either on the website or ones send by e-mail/fax/phone) must state the following about the commercial communication that consumers are opting into. (1) How frequently they send their communications, or on what bases [i.e., is it once every month? Or does it go by "whenver there's news"?] (2) How large is the average communication that is sent, plus or minus standard deviation? (3) Opt-in proposals must also state accurately what the communication sent is about. Intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of ANY of these pieces of information is a violation.
(6) Said information in (5) must be updated at every new communication, correcting for that communication.
(7) All such solicited communications are to include clear removal instructions. In ALL cases, the option to remove MUST be presented such that the individual need only respond with REMOVE in the subject field. The removal must be immediate, or quick enough such that the individual gets no more communications from that entity.
(8) All such communications are to include an appropriate 3 letter header: Adv, Upd, or Nws. Adv applies for any commercial entity trying to sell you something. Upd applies for an update on a situation or software (i.e., an available upgrade). Nws applies for news (i.e., the stuff slashdot sends my e-mail).
(9) This law is not intented to cover the communications of private INDIVIDUALS, but ONLY of organizations.
Firstly, you have to recognize that while closed-sourced software may be unethical and unfair to consumers, that's not a companies concern. A company's mandate is to do whatever they can that is within the law to maximize profit to the advantage of their shareholders. That's their legal obligation.
So, that said, you need an open-sourced strategy which will both adhere to some of the ideal behind the Open Sourced and Free Software movements, but also give the company a reasonable expectation to make money. So here's my proposal:
1. Companies should release all software under a modified version of the GNU GPL...call it the PGNU GPL license for Proprietary GNU GPL license. This license would be identical to the GNU GPL except it would state that redistribution may only occur to current owners of the software. That is, you could only redistribute the entire source to current owners of the software, who paid the company for it. A simple verification system could be used; i.e., requires you to enter a number to prove you actually own it, like your credit card numbr, w/c ppl wouldn't want to spread throughout the web to allow others to access it also.
2. Release some important critical parts under the pure GNU GPL.
3. Piecemeal, release the rest of the software under the GNU GPl.
"Yeah...harass a federal judge. You, my friend, are an idiot"
Actually, no. According to the asshole's own decision, there's nothing wrong with SPAM. According to this fuckwit, SPAM's not wrong, its not a problem, not a crime. According to him, its unconstitutional to create laws banning SPAM.
In other words, I could send him a thousand 1MB e-mails, he wouldn't be able to do shit. His own decision says its fine. According to his decision, its not a crime, so I couldn't be fined/prosecuting. And if the fuck decided to file a lawsuit against me, he'd never win because his own decision would be evidence against him.
The idiot here is clearly the "judge". And you for supporting that fuck.
"You hereby grant (Brilliant) the right to access and use the unused computing power and storage space on your computer/s and/or Internet access or bandwidth for the aggregation of content and use in distributed computing," the terms of service read. "The user acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation."
It doesn't. I've done a search, and those words aren't there. The word "Brilliant" isn't said once in the entire license.
I'm not saying this license is great, but its not all that bad either.
Most of it is unenforcible bullshit designed by KaZaA to cover their ass in terms of IP claims of violations.
They can terminate your account at the stop of a dime. But you can also easily create a new account at the stop of a dime.
They claim that any disputes must be resolved in their country. Unenforcible. US courts don't enforce decisions made by foreign courts, so foreign courts have no influence over US citizens.
And so on. Most "termination of license" crap is completely unfenforcible, neither legally nor practically.
This is the official Kazaa license from Kazaa.com as of 4/2/02, 0018 hours, Eastern time.
Welcome to KaZaA. It is important that you carefully read these terms before installing the KaZaA Media Desktop software.
These terms when accepted by you form a license ("License") agreement between Sharman Networks Limited ("KaZaA") and you ("You," "Your" Or "User") for the use of the KaZaA Media Desktop ("KaZaA Media Desktop").
In order to use KaZaA Media Desktop, you must first read and accept the terms of this Licence, and confirm your acceptance of the terms of this Licence by pressing the 'Yes' button on the KaZaA Media Desktop download screen. If you are a minor you will become eligible to use KaZaA Media Desktop upon your parent or guardian reading and accepting the terms of this Licence and confirming acceptance of the terms of this Licence by pressing the 'Yes' button on the KaZaA download screen.
IF YOU PRESS THE 'NO' BUTTON ON THE KAZAA DOWNLOAD SCREEN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO INSTALL THE SOFTWARE.
1. What you can do under this license 2. What you can't do under this license 3. More Do's and Don'ts 4. Things you need to know when using KaZaA 5. Things you need to do when using KaZaA 6. Payment and Fees 7. Copyright Infringement 8. KaZaA's right to run advertising without payment to users 9. Links to third party sites 10. Third party Software 11. Applicable Law 12. Points to consider for international use 13. Indemnification 14. Disclaimers of Warranties 15. Limitation of Liability 16. Changes to or suspension of use of software 17. Termination 18. Trade marks 19. Miscellaneous
1. What you can do under this license
1.1 Subject to all the terms of this Agreement, KaZaA grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-sublicensable, non-assignable license to install and use the KaZaA Media Desktop and any future fixes, updates and upgrades provided to you (collectively, the "Software") on a computer.
1.2 Use of the Software is subject to all of the terms of this Agreement.
1.3 Unless explicitly stated otherwise, any new features that augment or enhance the current Software, including the release of new KaZaA properties, shall be subject to terms of this License.
1.4 You own the media on which the Software is recorded but KaZaA retains title to the Software. The Software in this package, or that which you have downloaded, as applicable and any copies which this License authorizes you to make, are subject to this License.
2 What you can't do under this license
You may make copies of the Software only for your personal use and may not sell or transfer the Software or any copy of the Software to any party without our express written consent.
You agree not to use the Software to:
2.1 Transmit any Data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
2.2 Harm minors in any way;
2.3 Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
2.4 Forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any data transmitted to other users;
2.5 Transmit or access any data that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under non-disclosure agreements);
2.6 Transmit or access any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;
2.7 Transmit any data that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
2.8 Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll" faster than other users are able to type, or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges;
2.9 Interfere with or disrupt the Software or servers or networks connected to the Software, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Software;
2.10 Intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including securities exchange and any regulations having the force of law;
2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users.
2.12 "Stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
2.13 Collect or store personal data about other users. You acknowledge and agree that KaZaA may preserve data and may also disclose data if required to do so by law or if it in good faith believes that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to:
2.13.1 comply with legal process;
2.13.2 enforce this License;
2.13.3 respond to claims that any data violates the rights of third-parties; or
2.13.4 protect the rights, property, or personal safety of KaZaA, its users and the public.
3 More Do's and Don'ts
3.1 This License allows you to install and use the KaZaA Media Desktop on a single computer. This License does not permit you to install the Software on more than one computer at a time. You may make one copy of the Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only. The backup copy must include all copyright information contained on the original.
3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this License, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the KaZaA Media Desktop Software in whole or part or transmit the application over a network.
You may, however, transfer your rights under this License provided you transfer the related documentation, this License and a copy of the KaZaA software to a party who agrees to accept the terms of this License and destroy any other copies of the Software in your possession.
Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without prior notice from KaZaA if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License.
4. Things you need to know when using KaZaA
4.1 You are responsible for paying all applicable taxes and other costs you may incur in connection with your use of KaZaA including but not limited to all hardware and software and providing all equipment and software necessary to connect to our web site and to use KaZaA via the Internet and any royalties or other charges relating to the use of data owned by third parties.
4.2 We may add, delete or change some or all of the Software's functionality provided in connection with KaZaA at any time. This may include download of necessary software modules. Any new features that augment or enhance
4.3 By accepting the terms of this License you agree that KaZaA is permitted to limit, deny, create different priorities to different users, update or cancel some or all of the functionality of this application at any time, without prior notice.
4.4 KaZaA reserves the right to change or modify any of the terms and conditions of this licence and any of the policies governing the Software at any time in its sole discretion without direct notice to you. Your continued use of the Software following these changes will constitute your acceptance of such changes.
4.5 You acknowledge that KaZaA or parties appointed by KaZaA may from time to time provide programming fixes, updates and upgrades to you, including automatic updates to the KaZaA Media Desktop, through automatic electronic dissemination and other means. You consent to such automatic updates and agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement will apply to all such updates.
5 Things you need to do when using KaZaA
It is your responsibility to ensure that you obtain all consents, authorizations and clearances in any data owned or controlled by third parties that you transmit or access using KaZaZ Media Desktop. KaZaA does not control (and therefore has no knowledge of) any data accessed or transmitted through KaZaA Media Desktop.
5.1 KaZaA will not be liable in any way:
5.1.1 for any errors or omissions in any data, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of any data transmitted via the software; or
5.1.2 if you are exposed to data that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.
6 Payment and fees
6.1 Certain features of the KaZaA Media Desktop may require payment in the future including a prepaid fee ("Prepaid Fee").
The Prepaid Fee, and all taxes and other fees related thereto will be paid by you in advance.
You shall pay all fees and charges incurred through your account at the rates in effect for the billing period in which such fees and charges are incurred. All fees and charges shall be billed to you, and you shall be solely responsible for their payment.
You shall pay all applicable taxes relating to the use of the Software through your account.
If you do not pay the applicable fees, including Prepaid Fees, within the prescribed period of time your account will be terminated immediately, without limiting KaZaA's right to demand payment of fees and damages at a later time.
7 Copyright Infringement
KaZaA respects copyright and other laws. KaZaA requires all KaZaA Media Desktop users to comply with copyright and other laws.
As a condition to use KaZaA media desktop, you agree that you will not use KaZaA 's software to infringe the intellectual property or other rights of others, in any way. The unauthorized copy, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights.
7.1 Users should not use the KaZaA software to obtain any personal information about any KaZaA users or to modify, delete or damage any information contained on the personal computer of any KaZaA media desktop user.
7.2 Users are entirely responsible for their conduct and for ensuring that it comports with all applicable laws, including all copyright and data-protection laws. In the event a user fails to comply with laws regarding copyrights or other intellectual property rights and data-protection and privacy, such a user may be exposed to civil and criminal liability, including possible fines and jail time.
8 KaZaA's Right to Run Advertising without payment to Users
8.1 KaZaA reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions on the KaZaA Media Desktop.
8.2 By accepting the terms of this Licence, you agree that we have the right to run such advertisements and promotions without compensation to you.
8.3 The timing, frequency, placement and extent of advertising by us within the pages comprising your KaZaA account is subject to change and shall be determined by us at our sole discretion.
8.4 Your correspondence or business dealings with, or participation in promotions of, advertisers found on or through the KaZaA web sites or KaZaA Media Desktop, including payment and delivery of related goods or services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such dealings, are solely between you and such advertiser.
8.5 You agree that KaZaA will not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the KaZaA Media Desktop.
9 Links to Third-Party Sites
9.1 The KaZaA Media Desktop may provide, or third parties may provide, links to World Wide Web sites or other Internet resources. Any third-party sites to which the KaZaA Media Desktop may link are not under control of KaZaA. KaZaA does not have any responsibility or liability for any information, data, communications or materials available on such third-party sites.
10 Third Party Software
10.1 During the process of installing KaZaA, you may be offered the possibility to download or install software from third party software vendors pursuant to licenses or other arrangements between such vendors and yourself ("Third Party Software"). In the event you do not wish to download this THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE you should uncheck the appropriate boxes. Please note that the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE is subject to different licenses or other arrangements, which you should read carefully, compared to the Terms of Use and License of KaZaA. By downloading and using this THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE you accept these THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE licenses or other arrangements and acknowledge that you have read them and understand them. KaZaA does not sell, resell, or license any of this THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, and KaZaA disclaims to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, any responsibility for or liability related to the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. Any questions, complaints or claims related to the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE should be directed to the appropriate vendor.
10.2 The third party software is provided by KaZaA "as is" and "with all faults". KaZaA makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the quality, safety or suitability of this software, either express or implied, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event will KaZaA be liable for any indirect, punitive, special, incidental or consequential damages however they may arise and even if KaZaA has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages.
10.3 There are inherent dangers in the use of any software available for downloading on the Internet, and KaZaA cautions you to make sure that you completely understand the potential risks before downloading any of the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. You are solely responsible for adequate protection and backup of the data and equipment used in connection with any of the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, and KaZaA will not be liable for any damages that you may suffer in connection with using, modifying or distributing any of the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE.
11 Applicable Law
11.1 This License as well as all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the New South Wales, without regard to or application of choice of law rules or principles.
11.2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this License, or in future agreements resulting there from, shall be exclusively resolved before the competent court in New South Wales
12 Points to consider for International Use
12.1 Recognising the global nature of the Internet, you agree to comply with all local rules regarding on-line conduct and acceptable data. Specifically, you agree to comply with all applicable laws regarding copyright and the transmission of technical data exported from the country in which you reside.
13 Indemnification
13.1 YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND KAZAA, AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, CO-BRANDERS OR OTHER PARTNERS, AND EMPLOYEES, AT YOUR EXPENSE, AGAINST ANY AND ALL THIRD PARTY CLAIMS OR DEMANDS, ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND SUITS AND ALL RELATED LIABILITIES, DAMAGES, SETTLEMENTS, PENALTIES, FINES COSTS AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER DISPUTE RESOLUTION EXPENSES) INCURRED BY KAZAA, DUE TO OR ARISING OUT OF DATA YOU SUBMIT, POST TO OR TRANSMIT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE, YOUR USE OR MISUSE OF THE SOFTWARE, YOUR CONNECTION TO OTHER USERS, YOUR VIOLATION OF THE LICENSE, OR YOUR VIOLATION OF ANY RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.
14 Disclaimers of Warranties
14.1 THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND ON AN "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS OR UNDER THE SPECIFIC PROVIDERS OWN TERMS AND THERE ARE NO CLAIMS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES MADE BY KAZAA, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY (TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW), WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NOR ARE THERE ANY WARRANTIES CREATED BY COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OR TRADE USAGE.
14.2 ANY DATA DOWNLOADED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS DONE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OR USE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.
15 Limitation of Liability
15.1 YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL KAZAA BE LIABLE WHETHER IN CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE WHETHER ACTIVE, PASSIVE OR IMPUTED), PRODUCT LIABILITY OR STRICT LIABILITY, EVEN IF KAZAA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES, RESULTING FROM:
15.1.1 THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE;
15.1.2 THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED OR MESSAGES RECEIVED OR TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO THROUGH OR FROM THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE;
15.1.3 UNAUTHORISED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
15.1.4 STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY USING THE SOFTWARE; OR
15.1.5 ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
IN NO EVENT SHALL KAZAA'S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY DOLLARS ($50).
15.2 WHERE THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 (CTH) OR SIMILAR STATE AND TERRITORY LEGISLATION IMPLIES INTO THIS AGREEMENT ANY CONDITION OR WARRANTY, AND THOSE LAWS AVOID OR PROHIBIT CONDITIONS IN A CONTRACT EXCLUDING OR MODIFYING THEM, THEN THE TERM, CONDITION OR WARRANTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE LIABILITY OF KAZAA FOR A BREACH OF ANY SUCH CONDITION OR WARRANTY, INCLUDING AND ECONOMIC OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS, SHALL BE LIMITED AT THE OPTION OF KAZAA TO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
15.2.1 IF THE BREACH RELATED TO GOODS: > (A) THE REPLACEMENT OF THE GOODS OR THE SUPPLY OF EQUIVALENT GOODS; (B) THE REPAIR OF GOODS; (C) THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF REPLACING THE GOODS OR OBTAINING EQUIVALENT GOODS; (D) THE PAYMENT OF HAVING THE GOODS REPAIRED;
OR
15.2.2 IF THE BREACH RELATES TO SERVICES: > (A) THE SUPPLY OF THE SERVICE AGAIN; OR (B) THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF HAVING THE SERVICE SUPPLIED AGAIN.
16 Changes to or Suspension of use of Software
16.1 KaZaA reserves the right to modify or discontinue use of the Software temporarily or permanently, at any time, with or without notice. KaZaA will attempt to provide reasonable notice of such changes.
17 Termination
17.1 KaZaA reserves the right to terminate this License immediately and without prior notice for any or no cause, at any time. Without limiting the preceding sentence, KaZaA may terminate your use of the Software or access to the site immediately and without notice if:
17.1.1 you violate any term of this License, or
17.1.2 we are notified that data transmitted by you violates any applicable laws or rights of any third party including the intellectual property rights of any such third party..
18 Trade marks
18.1 The KaZaA name, the KaZaA logo, and other KaZaA related properties are trademarks of KaZaA. All other trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners.
19 Miscellaneous
19.1 This License constitutes the entire understanding of you and the KaZaA Media Desktop application with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, conditions or representations, oral or written, express or implied, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein, expressly referenced herein, or superseded hereby.
19.2 You also may be subject to additional terms and conditions that may apply when you use affiliate services, third-party data or third-party software.
19.3 The failure or delay of KaZaA to exercise or enforce any rights or provision of the License does not constitute a waiver of such right or provision.
19.4 All provisions which must survive in order to give effect to their meaning, shall survive any expiration or termination of this License, including without limitation all of your representations, warranties and indemnification obligations.
19.5 Should any part of this License be held invalid by any court or tribunal, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any remaining part, which will remain in full force and effect as if this License had been executed without that part having been held to be invalid.
Yes, it was a LEXIS/NEXIS search, not "Lexus/nexus", from http://www.lib.rochester.edu/database/htop.htm#L The actually site is http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
Hint:
When someone goes out of there way to provide the community with a little bit of information about the fuck who's saying SPAM's OK, it doesn't hurt to be a little bit polite and perhaps even courteous.
Look, I know its April Fools, but that's no excuse to fill/. with useless stories that have no useful information. Sorry if I sound like -- take your pick -- the grinch, scrooge, ahab, whatever. Enough is enough. None of these things are even that funny anyways.
If this wasn't an April Fool's day joke, and was for real, I'd say it should be run by a committee, not any single Individual. Perhaps 3 people. My choices would be:
Richard Stallman -- need someone to keep you true to your ideals Eric Raymond -- need someone to keep it real, focus on selling business' on it Alan Cox -- need someone with a proven record
More people voted for Napster than voted for Gore and Bush together. So Napsters our fucking President.
Our nation, supposed to be rule by the people for the people, right?
Well then that means file-sharing is fine and dandy. More people think its fine than bad.
My study of Google, AllTheWeb, Teoma, and WiseNut
on
Teoma Aims To Kill Google
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here's my simple study. I type in words at each search engine, and look at how many results I get. I rank them in order of most to least results, and I've put my (sometimes comical) comments below the results from each query.
Congrats to the pervs at AltaVista for having nearly 30 million results on "lesbian"! The jack-offs at Google come in a distant second at nearly 12 million results on Lesbians. Nice job to the occasional wankers at WiseNut on their 8-million results. AllTheWeb? Only 1 million results? Don't you guys jack off at all? What right does a search engine have to call itself AllTheWeb if they only get 1 million results on a query for "lesbian"? Teoma gets the "nice try" pat on the back. Grow some nuts, Teoma, then come back and play with the big boys.
Again, AltaVista comes out on top at 28 million. This is questionable, but probably accurate. AltaVista has really indiscriminate searching technology, and doesn't try to eliminate redundant or very similar pages (or subpages) like Google does. But, strictly by the numbers, again, Google comes in a distant second at 1.3 million. Teoma actually comes in somewhat respectibally this time at 2.5 hundred thousand; still, its not in the same league as Google or AltaVista. AllTheWeb again comes up short and dissapointing, especially given its name. Guys, don't call your engine AllTheWeb if it only returns 1/4 as many results as does Google! WiseNut apparently isn't too wise at only 72 thousand results for MJ. Come on guys, get with it. MJ's may have been retired for 2 years, but he's still big news.
On to something a bit more obscure:
QUERY 3: Leilani Rios
For those of you who don't know, Leilani Rios is a stripper who was kicked off her run team for stripping to pay her way through college. What BS. This is a recent development; so this query sort of tests for how updated the search engines are.
Well, I can hardly say this is surprising. AltaVista (~600) is finally dethroned, Google revealed as king (~2k). While I'm here, I should eat some crow for earlier criticisms of AllTheWeb (~700). Perhaps they don't deserve the title AllTheWeb, but 723 results on this query isn't bad. Still, not even half of what Google returned. WiseNut again occupies the low mediocrity position with 426 results. Teoma...Teoma Teoma Teoma, coming in with a sorry 74 results. Come on guys, this is recent news, but its also big news. The girl was in PlayBoy magazine for christ sake! Again, Teoma, spend some time growing up, grow some balls. Then come back and play with the big boys.
In the interests of fairness, I'll do another query for a person who recently became news.
Welp, AltaVista's back on top again at 68k, though I doubt the validity of it. Remember, AV doesn't sort out very similar pages, as does Google. Google comes in second at 37k. AllTheWeb, again, not bad, though certainly not "all the web" at 25k. WiseNut again comes in on the short side of mediocracy. Teoma...welp, you're beginning to see the pattern. Come on guys, this is sorry. I might find more results than that for Katie Sierra by just searching slashdot! (;-).
Next is a personal query for a website of mine that's minor and unfinished:
QUERY 5: "Here is a listing of links to several sites that either argue against"
I used quotes this time because I'm specifically seeing if these search engines will produce a result for my web page (or one with those exact words, if any other has those exact words).
Google: 1 AllTheWeb: 1 Others: 0
Welp, what can I say? Google/AllTheWeb apparently appreciates even my trivial, marginal, unfinished thoughts. How dare AltaVista, WiseNut, and Teoma not have my trivial unfinished web page catalogued! No, just joking. I didn't really expect any search engine to have my page in it. But Google/AllTheWeb gave me a pleasant, ego-stroking surprise. This was what really impressed me with Google/AllTheWeb. What actually happened is I forgot about my web site (that is, its address) and typed in "pessimistic views" at Google(then today at AllTheWeb)...the first web page listed looked familiar and I wondered why until I realized it was a page I created years ago. Kudos to Google and AllTheWeb for including the "little guy".
Well, that's it. You guys get the picture. Google is still king. AltaVista does a good job at faking it, but we all know that AV doesn't distinguish well between duplicate or very similar pages. AllTheWeb, impressive, but certainly not all of the web. WiseNut, I've never heard of before, but you did half-ass. Teoma...you came in 2nd in ONE category. Not even 1st. But, not being on the bottom rung just didn't feel right to you. Feel good to be back home? Here's my preferences for search engines and why:
1. Google. Provides a lotta search results, well organized, and many great features.
2. AllTheWeb. Before I discovered Google, you were my girl, but now your just my whore;-). No, really, AllTheWeb has its uses. Its a techie search engine with lots of neat advanced features, and I love the FTP / MP3 search options.
3. AltaVista. AV, though I'm sure you have (metaphorically speaking) fake breasts and a pushup braw, I still have a fond spot for you. Before I discovered AllTheWeb and Google, you were my girl. But now your more like the ex-wife who keeps on nagging me. AltaVista's kinda the thing I goto when I'm feeling nostalgic for my first car. Not really much use, but still got a little soft spot for ya.
4. WiseNut. Never heard of this search engine before and there's obviously a reason for that. WiseNut seems to be, to me, the very definition of mediocracy. I'll keep an eye on you and see if anything good comes of you, but I'm about as hopeful for that as I am that Enron execs will be found "innocent".
5. Teoma. Well, you did pretty shitty in every category. But you've got an excuse -- your the new kid on the block. The 16-year old girl who's mouth is so small you can't quite take in a whole . No, seriously. Teoma has some potential. I like the way I get fast results, and I like the no-nonsense interface. I think the more advanced way in which you organize things. I'll put you on my list of possibly up-and-coming search engines. But don't kid yourself yet. You're nowhere near the league of Google.
Despite my harsh, sometimes funny, tone in this post, all these engines are good. But "good" (i.e., AltaVista, Teoma, WiseNut), just doesn't cut it when you have GREAT engines like AllTheWeb, and when you have THE ENGINE, aka Google.
Copyright 2002 NLP IP Company - American Lawyer Media All Rights Reserved. Pennsylvania Law Weekly
March 25, 2002
SECTION: NEWS; Vol. 25; No. 12; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 1801 words
HEADLINE: Phila. Lawyers Persuade District Court to Overturn 'Junk Fax' Ban Decision may affect cases brought into state courts as well
BYLINE: By Shannon P. Duffy of the Law Weekly
BODY: In a victory for a team of Philadelphia lawyers, a federal judge in St. Louis has struck down as unconstitutional a federal law that bans unsolicited advertisements sent by fax, but says nothing about unwanted faxes that don't meet the law's definition of "advertisement."
"There is no rationality behind the government's distinction between unsolicited advertisements and other unsolicited faxes. The recipient still must bear the cost, and the fax can still interfere with the recipient's use of his or her facsimile machine for business purposes," U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh wrote in State of Missouri v. American Blast Fax Inc., PICS Case No. 02-0352 (E.D. Miss. March 13, 2002) Limbaugh, J. (25 pages).
The ruling is a victory for a team of lawyers from Cozen O'Connor - Arthur W. Lefco, Michael P. Broadhurst and Julie G. DiSalvio - who represented Fax.com Inc. and challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Limbaugh's ruling may have a ripple effect in Pennsylvania.
Last year, Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. decided that private causes of action for violations of the TCPA may be brought in state courts.
Wettick's decision. Aronson v. Fax.com, PICS Case No. 01-0441 (C.P. Allegheny Feb. 28, 2001) Wettick, J. (17 pages), allowed a plaintiff who was at the receiving end of several unsolicited "junk faxes" to sue under the federal statute in state court.
The TCPA, Wettick said, gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought by state attorneys general. Jurisdiction over suits brought by private parties is given to the state courts, the Pittsburgh judge said.
Limbaugh's ruling, if upheld by appeals courts, may invalid claims brought under the TCPA in state courts, including Pennsylvania's.
The Missouri case began when Fax.com and American Blast Fax were sued by the Missouri Attorney General's Office for alleged violations of both the TCPA and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by allegedly misrepresenting to Missouri consumers that the fax messages were sent in accordance with federal law.
The Cozen team argued that Section 227 of the TCPA violated Fax.com's First Amendment right of freedom of speech. And since the MPA claim was based primarily on the assumption that the conduct violated the TCPA, the team argued that the entire case should be dismissed.
At Limbaugh's invitation, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the suit on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission to defend the constitutionality of the TCPA.
The TCPA was enacted in late 1991 as an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.
The provision prohibiting unsolicited faxes was enacted as part of a larger amendment which included restrictions on telephone solicitations and automatic dialing systems.
Limbaugh found that the proper test for the constitutionality of a statute that limits advertising speech is the one announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 2351 (1980).
Under Central Hudson, the court must first determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
The court's next task is to decide whether the asserted governmental interest is "substantial."
If both of the first two inquiries yield positive answers, the court must then decide whether the regulation "directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."
Limbaugh found it was "undisputed" that the unsolicited fax advertisements sent by Fax.com and American Blast Fax are entitled to "a level of protection under the First Amendment."
The key question in the case, Limbaugh found, was whether the government had shown that it has a substantial interest in prohibiting unsolicited fax advertisements.
"A governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real. This burden cannot be satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture," Limbaugh wrote.
"The government has the obligation to demonstrate that it is regulating speech in order to address what is in fact a serious problem."
Limbaugh found that Congress identified two interests in seeking to ban unsolicited fax advertisements - that unsolicited junk faxing shifts advertising costs from the advertiser to the recipient and that unsolicited fax advertising occupies a recipient's facsimile machine so that the recipient cannot use it for his or her desired business purposes.
But Limbaugh found that a review of the law's legislative history showed there was "very little discussion" on the specific provision banning unsolicited fax advertisements.
"It is obvious from the legislative history that Congress did not consider any studies or empirical data estimating the cost of receiving a fax or the number of unsolicited fax advertisements an average business receives in a day before enacting the TCPA," Limbaugh wrote.
Witnesses presented by the government at a hearing before Limbaugh provided estimates for the cost of receiving one fax, and how many faxes their particular business received on average.
But Limbaugh said, "There was no evidence as to the actual cost to a particular business over a month or a year. There were only many long hypothetical examples of how much it could cost a business."
Limbaugh also found that advances in fax technology had significantly ameliorated the effects of unwanted faxes.
"The evidence presented at the hearing showed that it no longer takes several minutes to process a single page fax. The evidence indicated that it could take as much time as 30 seconds, but more often, it takes 3 to 6 seconds to process. The 'sophisticated and expensive' facsimile machines are more common now as compared to 1991, and even a lower-end fax machine can hold in its memory 60 to 80 pages," Limbaugh wrote.
Government lawyers argued that several courts had already found that Congress had a substantial interest in enacting the law.
But Limbaugh found that case law on the issue was "limited."
In 1994, an Oregon federal district judge held in Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 844 F. Supp. 632 637 (D. Or. 1994), that despite the "absence of statistical data or national surveys addressing this interest," Congress had "legitimately relied upon the testimony from authorities, as well as contemporaneous state laws and media reports."
Limbaugh noted that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Oregon ruling but "did not address the question of whether the government has a substantial interest."
A federal judge in the Western District of Texas recently looked at the constitutionality of prohibiting unsolicited fax advertisements in Texas v. American Blastfax, 121 F. Supp. 1162, 1167 (S.D. Ind. 1997), but Limbaugh found that "the court simply quoted the holding of the district court in Destination Ventures" before holding that Blastfax's argument that Congress' hearings were not based on sufficient statistical evidence was unpersuasive.
Limbaugh found that the only other federal court to address the question was the Southern District of Indiana, which upheld the law in Kenro Inc. v. Fax Daily Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162, 1167 (S.D. Ind. 1997), but never addressed whether or not the government's interest was substantial.
Limbaugh said he agreed that there is "a potential for a serious problem to arise without legislative restrictions on unsolicited faxes."
But beyond that speculation, Limbaugh said, he "questions whether the government has met its burden in showing that there was a substantial interest at the time of enacting the TCPA, and whether there is a substantial interest at the present time."
And even if the government could meet its burden of showing a substantial interest, Limbaugh found that "it cannot satisfy the other parts of the Central Hudson test."
Since the regulation must "directly advance" the governmental interest asserted, Limbaugh found that the government "must demonstrate that its restrictions will in fact alleviate the harm to a material degree."
The TCPA, he found, "does not ban all unsolicited faxes, but rather only advertisements."
As a result, Limbaugh said, fax recipients "can still bear the costs of printing others' messages, even if they strongly oppose the messages' content. The costs of printing political messages, jokes and even some advertisements which are not included within the TCPA's definition, still fall upon the recipient."
And since there was "no evidence" about what type of unsolicited faxes are causing the harm which the government is trying to alleviate, Limbaugh found that it was impossible for the court to assess whether the regulation directly advances the government's interest.
Both the Washington and Florida Attorney General's offices testified that after TCPA was enacted, there was an increase in complaints regarding unsolicited faxes.
That fact, Limbaugh said, calls the law's effectiveness into question because "the court would assume that the complaints would decrease rather than increase."
Limbaugh found that the law also failed to satisfy the last prong of the Central Hudson test.
"The regulation cannot be more extensive than necessary. The law requires there to be a 'fit' between the legislature's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends - a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the interest served," Limbaugh wrote.
"The availability of other options which can advance the government's asserted interest in a manner less intrusive to First Amendment rights indicates that the regulation is more extensive than necessary."
The Cozen team offered the judge a variety of alternatives, including a national "no-fax" database similar to those being utilized for telephone solicitations.
Limbaugh agreed that the defense's proposed alternative would be less restrictive of the protected speech.
"This alternative would promote the government's interest, and yet be less intrusive to First Amendment rights. Many states have looked at this problem and found less restrictive means than a complete ban on unsolicited fax advertisements," Limbaugh wrote.
I did a Lexus-Nexus search. Its Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh. It is telling of this slime and our legal system in general that information on who made this decision, and the exact nature of the decision, is ONLY available for lawyers or ppl who have access to Lexus-Nexus (via a University), and is completely NOT available by Google (If you Google for "Stephen Limbaugh fax.com" you get a big fat 0 results). Here's his website:
I suggest we give fucks who support spam or against it (like this judge, and anthony dipierro, a/. poster [his comments are below]) a taste of their own medicine.
SPAM the FUCK out of them.
Send them hundreds of 1MB porno files; cheap scam advertisements; get rich quick schemes; penis enlargement plans; etc.
Send them this crap in e-mail and in fax. Send them so much spam in fax and e-mail. Organize a DoS SPAM attack against them.
Here's Dipierro's e-mail and the e-mails of those fucks at FAX.com to SPAM:
b8us93kks@inbox.org sales@Fax.com techsupport@ Fax.com faxcaster@Fax.com consulting@Fax.com bi lling@Fax.com graphics@Fax.com info@Fax.com bus inessopp@Fax.com
As for that fucking judge, he's apparantly too much of a coward to let his e-mail be known. I'll be looking for it. When I find it, I'll post it on/.
Junk fuckin-mailers and their supporters are the slime of the community. They're even lower down than the virus-spreaders. Virus', though dangerous, are not nearly as common and costly as junk mail, which is estimated to account for 30% of all internet trafic. That means that these fucks slow down the internet by 30%.
They're stealing 30% of YOUR money.
Stealing 30% of ISP's bandwidth.
Stealing MORE than 50% of YOUR bandwidth.
Causing YOUR ISP prices to rise.
These fucks need to be dealt with. Its amazing to me that the fuckholes in Congress somehow think that free speech doesn't cover p2p/code (i.e., DeCSS or Advanced e-Book Reader), but DOES cover e-mail or fax spamming. When in reality, it should be EXACTLY the reverse.
The way to deal with spam is through extreme means. My ULTIMATE strategy is NOT to accept any e-mail (delete it automatically from the server) from anyone not in your address book. But you can only implement this when you have a thorough address book.
If you can't do that, you have your e-mail prog delete from the server and not download any of the following:
(1) Messages with inflamatory comments in the subject, anything relating to sex, anything relating to good deals, etc.
(2) Block the addresses of all spammers. Whenever possible, also block out the DOMAIN NAME. Sorry, but an iron fist strategy has to be taken whenver possible. If you can afford to block a domain name out (i.e., anything other than @msn, @yahoo, @hotmail, @home, @rr, @linux, etc), you do. But don't just block the domain name out. You also should send a message to the ISP telling them that you're blocking out their ISP and why. They just might fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who uses GPL code knows what they're getting into in advance.
I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into his business model or plans...perhaps he should have planned better. Its not our problem.
Our problem is that HE is violating the GPL, and that SOME in the OSS (Open Sourced Software) / FSS (Free Sourced Software) are ACCEPTING that.
The reasons for accepting this guys violationg of the GPL range from, "It's not even a beta release," to "Give him some time," to "All this bashing of Linux companies is what harms Linux". Sorry, none of those reasons cut it.
The GPL is a license, and he agreed to that license before using it. He agreed that in exchange for FREELY taking advantage of the HARD WORK of THOUSANDS of benevolent programmers, he would in return contribute his source modifications back to the community. By not doing that, he is taking advantage of thousands of programmers who generously GPL'ed their code.
Until he does release that code, he will and should be criticized. The FSF should contact him and try to get him to release the code; if that fails, a lawsuit is in order. In order for your contributions to the GPL to have any affect, the GPL must be obeyed.
When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product. We simply want our license -- the GPL -- to be treated with respect.
Its not an unreasonable license. It has very simple requirements, which are more than fair when you consider that you're getting all this stuff free as in freedom, and usually free as in beer too. Its not like the EULA, where you have no rights and violations will result in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Violations of the GPL don't cost companies any money -- not like the EULA does. Lawsuit's brought are only to force the company to release the source, not to punish the company, bankrupt them, or make an example out of them, as the BSA does. There is no GPL-BSA which goes around raiding companies to see if they're violationg the GPL.
A better plan would be to have no bandwidth cap.
.5x of what it was in case 2, and 0.01x of what it was in case 1). In either case, User A will not notice a thing; he will not call the ISP complaining. However, user B will notice a 2-fold (over case 2) and 100-fold (over case 1) improvement.
But wait, this isn't an invitation for some people to hog all of the bandwidth, leaving other's with none. Read on a bit...
You would pay for levels of priority. Paying $60 would give you twice the priority of $30. At any given time, any user COULD have ALL of the bandwidth on the entire network to himself (if things were right); however, if everyone was using bandwidth for equally intensive tasks, individual's would get an amount of bandwidth proportional to the amount of money they pay to the ISP.
Lets say that road runner has 10 users total (yes, not realistic, but its simple math).
Lets also say that during a particular time, ALL of those 10 users are downloading infinitely large files, so all of the bandwidth of the ISP will be taken up.
Furthermore, lets say USERS 1-5 pay $60 a month, and users 6-10 pay $30 a month. This means that the road runner will be getting 60*5 + 30*5 = 450 dollars total from these users per month. Assuming maximal bandwidth usage, each user would get x/450 fraction of bandwidth of the net total bandwidth, where x the amount of money they pay the ISP. So users 1-5 should each get 6.7% of the net bandwidth, and users 6-10 should each get 13.3% of the bandwidth.
In other words, when there is competition between two users demanding bandwidth, the bandwidth is alotted in proportion to how much they pay.
Such a scheme could be scaled up.
But aside from that, other parameters should be considered. Minimizing the net wait-time should also be a concern. If your directing a shopping line, it would be most efficient to let the guy with 1 item through first, even if the guy with 1000 items got there first. The idea is to do the "fast step" first.
The idea is to minimize the net wait time all of the users experience as a total. As an example, lets say that there are two users on a network, and each has equal priority, and lets say there is 2MB/s of bandwidth available. Lets say user A wants to download a 200MB file, and user B wants to download a 2MB file. Lets take three cases: in the first case, we give user A All the bandwidth; in the second case, we divide the bandwidth between user A and B equally; in the third, we allow user B to download his file, then user A.
1. User A (the "greedy" user) gets all the bandwdith, then user B is allowed to d/l. If user A gets all the bandwidth at first, it takes him 200MB / 2MB/s = 100s to download his file. Then afterwards, it takes user B 1 second to download his file. Thus, user A has to wait 100s, user B 101s. Thus, there is a net wait-time of 201s..
2. Bandwidth is alotted equally between user A (200MB file) and user B (2MB file). This means that, while both users are still downloading, each uses 1MB/s of bandwidth. Thus, it takes user B 2s to download his complete file. Meanwhile, during those 2s, user A downloads 2MB of his file (198MB remaining). After user B no long requires bandwidth, user A will require another 99s to download the remaining 198MB of his file (99s * 2MB/s = 198MB). Thus, user B had to wait 2s for his file. User A had to wait 2s + 99s = 101s for his file. Thus, there is a net wait time of 103s. This clearly better than case 1.
3. Bandwidth is all initially alotted to user B. It will take user B 2Mb / 2MB/s = 1s to download his file. After that 1s, it will then take user A 200MB / 2MB/s = 100s to download his file. Thus, user A has a net wait time of 1s. User B has a net wait time of 100s. Thus, the net wait time is 101s. This is clearly better than case 1, and slightly better than case 2.
So, which of these is best? Obviously, the third case is the best. User A, the greedy user, hardly has to wait any extra time at all (user A's wait time only increases by a factor of 1.01); user B, however, sees enormous reductions in wiat time (user B's wait time is
Hope this was helpful.
Welp, I'm a long-time Road Runner user, 5 years and going. I've always been happy with them, but now it might be the time to switch over.
;-).
I have no loyalty based on past-performance of RR.
I might still stick with them; it depends on whether I think I'll be affected. I think I'm a pretty heavy downloader, but I'm not sure how they define that. I download lots of MP3's, WMA's, and OGG's, as well as programs and data.
So, I'll e-mail Time Warner and ask them for future specs.
Ultimately, I have no problem with this type of system. It makes sense that if you use excessive amounts of bandwidth's, you should pay more money. This isn't a way by Time Warner to screw over their customers. Rather, it puts customers into appropriate payment classes based on how much bandwidth they use.
Someone who has Road Runner simply because they want fast web-surfing shouldn't pay the same rate as someone who uses Road Runner to download gigabytes of movie, music, and data files each day.
But I'm not Road Runner, and I'm not other customers. I'm ME, the most important thing in the universe (don't you know, the sun revolves around me
Anyways, if I'm one of the users who's using "excessive" bandwidth as defined by TW, I'll look for a better deal. If I'm one of the users who is being charged a higher bill for other users excessive bandwidth, I'll stick with TW.
"Asserting that you have a right but that you need to exercise that right in the closet is the same thing as asserting that you do not have taht right."
Really? I don't think so. Rights exist irrelevant of whether or not governments think they do or government's respect them. Rights are absolute throughout the world. No government recognizes all of our rights; some recognize none of them, some many.
But whether or not a government recognizes our rights is irrelevant to whether or not those rights exist.
If the government sides with MS on this license and says GPL developers don't have the right to release code under the GPL, then the government is choosing to ignore parts of free-speech rights. Those rights still exist, just the government isn't recognizing them, and is in fact punishing people for exercising them.
Thus, people who want to exercise them need to do so anonymously, so they aren't punished.
Please, that's the biggest load of BS. The license is completely invalid and unenforcible.
This is really an ANTI-GPL. Basically, it says you can't releasee any implementations under a GPL'ed license. Too bad for MS its totally unenforcible. GPL developers can release anonymously, and are all accross the world.
They could ignore this and MS wouldn't be able to do a thing.
Welp, I've liked KaZaA alot. Their interface is less bloat than Morpheus' and d/ls are fast. But these fucks just don't understand what the P2P revolution is all about. HINT: sneaking in extra unwanted software is not part of the revolution.
Time to switch over to Grokster, which doesn't -- yet -- have any of this bullshit.
On another vein, LimeWire is, as always, good. People complain about the slow speed of LimeWire...well, yes it downloads individual songs slowly. Did it ever occur to anyone to download many songs at once, thus to push your bandwidth to the max?
Also, though people complain about the ads and periphery bloatware software in LimeWire, you can remove any periphery software. Furthermore, you can always pay 8.50 and get just pure LimeWire. And if you don't want to do that, LimeWire IS Open-Sourced. Get the code and work with it to eliminate the shit you don't like.
If you really don't like the ads in Limewire, don't bitch about it. Get the source and change it.
That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.
Somehow, according to your spam-happy ass, its the CUSTOMERS who are making their costs higher, not the SPAMMERS? BULLSHIT. Even if it was the customers complaining that caused this, they wouldn't be complaining if not for the spammers.
By the way asshole, you conveniently left out any mention of FAX SPAM, which clearly DOES cost US money by using OUR INK and OUR PAPER.
Furthermore, you conveniently ignroed the fact about spammer's stealing MY allocated space on ISP's.
Please, this is bull-fucking-shit.
The company is based in Russia. The US has no jurisdiction over an entity in Russia, and trying to claim so is violating the sovereignty of the Russian people.
Trying to "fine" this Russia-based company is absolutely outside of US jurisdiction. Presumably, their funds are in Russia. That being so, the US cannot fine them. A US judge could not enforce a fine against a Russia-based company, because no US entity has any jurisdiction in Russia.
Now, if the court wants to require that Elcomsoft close down their US servers, or perhaps take actions specifically against parts of Elcomsoft within the US, that, they have jurisdiction to do. For example, they'd have jurisdiction to shut down Elcomsoft branches in the US, to shut down Elcomsoft servers in the US, etc.
Whether or not such is constitutional, is another question alltogether.
Preventing them from distributing that software IS a violation of THEIR free speech rights; not to mention a violation of consumer's rights to fair use. I feel strongly that eventually the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional, if not by this judge, then down the line by the Supreme Court. The DMCA is destined to fall before the Supreme Court. When it does, if the USSC has any worth and deserves any respect at all, the DMCA will be declared unconstitutional.
But constitutional issues aside, the current issue is a very troubling issue of sovereignty. What I fear is that this fuckwit of a judge is going to try to fine the company in Russia, which is beyond any US court's jurisdiction (because the company's funds/money are in Russia, no US court has the jurisdiction to demand anything be done with those funds).
If the ruling this fuck of a judge made is left untouched, it creates huge problems for us. It would, in effect, mean that if I made a website criticizing the Chinese government, China could bring charges against ME -- a US Citizen -- for violating China's laws. That's what this is really about. The US is trying to enforce ITS laws on foreign entities/citizens.
What fucking bullshit.
Doesn't matter how much of our bandwidth SPAM is stealing. Its stealing our bandwidth and what we pay for. Even if its only a nickel.
Furthermore, even if you disconsider the bandwidth, it DOES steal our storage space on servers. My Road Runner e-mail server stores 20MB of e-mail. When people SPAM me 4MB porno e-mails at a time, even if I have mechanisms not to download any of that and delete it from the server, its still using space that I PAID FOR. If I happen to usually leave mail on the server (so I can get it later if an accident happens), that's a major problem, because it could use up MY space.
Penalties. I'd suggest stricter fines than currently exist. $1,000 to $5,000 to be paid to the spamee's ISP, the spammer's ISP, the spamee, and the government.
Who's responsible for determining the policy is violated. Since the policy would allow for both lawsuit and legal criminal cases, judges would decide. A claims judge would decide the fine. A judge who deals with criminal matters would decide for the criminal side of the law.
Size of e-mail. I meant disconsidering the header. Perhaps 99% was too strict. The point is, people should know if they're getting into 1KB, 10KB, 100KB, 1MB, or 10MB SPAM.
Complexity. If you can find a way to simplify it, I'd be glad to hear it. The goal is to punish real spammers, but not punish someone on alt.abortion who e-mails a poster without solicitation (unless that poster then e-mails back requesting no further e-mails, and the initial e-mailer continues to e-mail).
Spam from individuals. I'd suggest that the judge also determine if the individual was acting in a private manner or a commercial/interest manner for an organization. The reason I excluded individuals is because I don't want a pro-choice person who e-mails a pro-life person on alt.abortion with an opinion to be hit with violating the SPAM law. You're welcome to make suggestions.
Finally, I've noticed you completely ignored the fact that I stated that FAX SPAM is also a problem. In fact, FAX SPAM is an even bigger problem than e-mail SPAM. Most people have slow fax machines, and it takes quite a while to process a SPAM fax; in the meanwhile, other useful or important faxes can't get through. Furthermore, even if it can process them and print them quickly, it doesn't matter. the fucks are still using MY INK and MY PAPER to do THEIR ADVERTISING, not to mention MY TIME.
Maybe it doesn't make you mad that unscrupulous advertisers transfer most of THEIR COST of ADVERTISING to YOU. But it does bother ME. Furthermore, all you people who yack about "private" solutions fail to note that many many FAX machines don't have options to filter out certain faxes.
This is a start. But it doesn't go far enough. The real problem with SPAM isn't that alot of it is scams or cheap porno get-your-dick-sucked come ons. The real problem with SPAM is that it STEALS OUR BANDWIDTH. By being responsible for 30% of the traffic on the internet, SPAM steals the true potential of the internet from us all. OUR Internet is slowed down 30% because of SPAM.
I am a moderate Libertarian, but this is something where the market can't regulate itself. There are many such situations, where the market doesn't regulate itself on par with the ideal. M$ is one such example.
In this particular case, SPAM, it doesn't matter if everyone blocks it out using filtering that won't even d/l SPAM from the server. REGARDLESS of whether or not YOU block out SPAM, its still stealing from YOU. Because your ISP's have to devote huge amounts of their resources to sending SPAM around, they put the tab on your bill. Furthermore, its still slowing down the Net at large, and ultimately you, whether or not you download it. This is my proposal:
PREAMBLE: Any violations of these statutes can result in jail time and severe fines paid to the state, the individual harmed, and the individual's ISP. The following proposal applies, unless otherwise stated, to E-MAIL, FAX, and the TELEPHONE. SPAM in all of these areas SHIFTS almost ALL of the cost of advertising from the ADVERTISER, to US and OUR ISP.
(1) What's needed is an OPT IN ONLY system. ONLY people who OPT IN get sent stuff from organizations.
(2) Furthermore, the OPT IN should have to be exclusive; opting in to receive e-mail from IBM NEVER gives them the right to let their "partners" send you crap. If they want to let their partners send you crap, they should have to contact you, explaning which partners they want you to let send you stuff, and what those partners do. Misrepresentation of this information should be considered a violation.
(3) Unsolicited solicitations encouraging people to OPT IN are SPAM themselves. That is, if some organization (i.e., bigdicks.com) sends you an unsolicited "one time" request to "opt in" -- irrelevant whether that request is text-only or not -- its SPAM and a violation.
(4) That said, the only legal way to propose to someone that they opt-in would be if they went to your website (and you had an opt-in option on your site) or requested information from you on opting in and you sent it to them. BUT, such opt-in options MUST state how large the OPT-IN proposal is in KB or MB accurate to 99%.
(5) Any Opt-in proposals (either on the website or ones send by e-mail/fax/phone) must state the following about the commercial communication that consumers are opting into. (1) How frequently they send their communications, or on what bases [i.e., is it once every month? Or does it go by "whenver there's news"?] (2) How large is the average communication that is sent, plus or minus standard deviation? (3) Opt-in proposals must also state accurately what the communication sent is about. Intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of ANY of these pieces of information is a violation.
(6) Said information in (5) must be updated at every new communication, correcting for that communication.
(7) All such solicited communications are to include clear removal instructions. In ALL cases, the option to remove MUST be presented such that the individual need only respond with REMOVE in the subject field. The removal must be immediate, or quick enough such that the individual gets no more communications from that entity.
(8) All such communications are to include an appropriate 3 letter header: Adv, Upd, or Nws. Adv applies for any commercial entity trying to sell you something. Upd applies for an update on a situation or software (i.e., an available upgrade). Nws applies for news (i.e., the stuff slashdot sends my e-mail).
(9) This law is not intented to cover the communications of private INDIVIDUALS, but ONLY of organizations.
Firstly, you have to recognize that while closed-sourced software may be unethical and unfair to consumers, that's not a companies concern. A company's mandate is to do whatever they can that is within the law to maximize profit to the advantage of their shareholders. That's their legal obligation.
So, that said, you need an open-sourced strategy which will both adhere to some of the ideal behind the Open Sourced and Free Software movements, but also give the company a reasonable expectation to make money. So here's my proposal:
1. Companies should release all software under a modified version of the GNU GPL...call it the PGNU GPL license for Proprietary GNU GPL license. This license would be identical to the GNU GPL except it would state that redistribution may only occur to current owners of the software. That is, you could only redistribute the entire source to current owners of the software, who paid the company for it. A simple verification system could be used; i.e., requires you to enter a number to prove you actually own it, like your credit card numbr, w/c ppl wouldn't want to spread throughout the web to allow others to access it also.
2. Release some important critical parts under the pure GNU GPL.
3. Piecemeal, release the rest of the software under the GNU GPl.
"Yeah...harass a federal judge. You, my friend, are an idiot"
Actually, no. According to the asshole's own decision, there's nothing wrong with SPAM. According to this fuckwit, SPAM's not wrong, its not a problem, not a crime. According to him, its unconstitutional to create laws banning SPAM.
In other words, I could send him a thousand 1MB e-mails, he wouldn't be able to do shit. His own decision says its fine. According to his decision, its not a crime, so I couldn't be fined/prosecuting. And if the fuck decided to file a lawsuit against me, he'd never win because his own decision would be evidence against him.
The idiot here is clearly the "judge". And you for supporting that fuck.
Fuck you and your inferior 20th century thought.
EOM.
Where in this license does it say,
"You hereby grant (Brilliant) the right to access and use the unused computing power and storage space on your computer/s and/or Internet access or bandwidth for the aggregation of content and use in distributed computing," the terms of service read. "The user acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation."
It doesn't. I've done a search, and those words aren't there. The word "Brilliant" isn't said once in the entire license.
I'm not saying this license is great, but its not all that bad either.
Most of it is unenforcible bullshit designed by KaZaA to cover their ass in terms of IP claims of violations.
They can terminate your account at the stop of a dime. But you can also easily create a new account at the stop of a dime.
They claim that any disputes must be resolved in their country. Unenforcible. US courts don't enforce decisions made by foreign courts, so foreign courts have no influence over US citizens.
And so on. Most "termination of license" crap is completely unfenforcible, neither legally nor practically.
This is the official Kazaa license from Kazaa.com as of 4/2/02, 0018 hours, Eastern time.
Welcome to KaZaA. It is important that you carefully read these terms before installing the KaZaA Media Desktop software.
These terms when accepted by you form a license ("License") agreement between Sharman Networks Limited ("KaZaA") and you ("You," "Your" Or "User") for the use of the KaZaA Media Desktop ("KaZaA Media Desktop").
In order to use KaZaA Media Desktop, you must first read and accept the terms of this Licence, and confirm your acceptance of the terms of this Licence by pressing the 'Yes' button on the KaZaA Media Desktop download screen. If you are a minor you will become eligible to use KaZaA Media Desktop upon your parent or guardian reading and accepting the terms of this Licence and confirming acceptance of the terms of this Licence by pressing the 'Yes' button on the KaZaA download screen.
IF YOU PRESS THE 'NO' BUTTON ON THE KAZAA DOWNLOAD SCREEN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO INSTALL THE SOFTWARE.
1. What you can do under this license
2. What you can't do under this license
3. More Do's and Don'ts
4. Things you need to know when using KaZaA
5. Things you need to do when using KaZaA
6. Payment and Fees
7. Copyright Infringement
8. KaZaA's right to run advertising without payment to users
9. Links to third party sites
10. Third party Software
11. Applicable Law
12. Points to consider for international use
13. Indemnification
14. Disclaimers of Warranties
15. Limitation of Liability
16. Changes to or suspension of use of software
17. Termination
18. Trade marks
19. Miscellaneous
1. What you can do under this license
1.1 Subject to all the terms of this Agreement, KaZaA grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-sublicensable, non-assignable license to install and use the KaZaA Media Desktop and any future fixes, updates and upgrades provided to you (collectively, the "Software") on a computer.
1.2 Use of the Software is subject to all of the terms of this Agreement.
1.3 Unless explicitly stated otherwise, any new features that augment or enhance the current Software, including the release of new KaZaA properties, shall be subject to terms of this License.
1.4 You own the media on which the Software is recorded but KaZaA retains title to the Software. The Software in this package, or that which you have downloaded, as applicable and any copies which this License authorizes you to make, are subject to this License.
2 What you can't do under this license
You may make copies of the Software only for your personal use and may not sell or transfer the Software or any copy of the Software to any party without our express written consent.
You agree not to use the Software to:
2.1 Transmit any Data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
2.2 Harm minors in any way;
2.3 Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
2.4 Forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any data transmitted to other users;
2.5 Transmit or access any data that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under non-disclosure agreements);
2.6 Transmit or access any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;
2.7 Transmit any data that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
2.8 Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll" faster than other users are able to type, or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges;
2.9 Interfere with or disrupt the Software or servers or networks connected to the Software, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Software;
2.10 Intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including securities exchange and any regulations having the force of law;
2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users.
2.12 "Stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
2.13 Collect or store personal data about other users. You acknowledge and agree that KaZaA may preserve data and may also disclose data if required to do so by law or if it in good faith believes that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to:
2.13.1 comply with legal process;
2.13.2 enforce this License;
2.13.3 respond to claims that any data violates the rights of third-parties; or
2.13.4 protect the rights, property, or personal safety of KaZaA, its users and the public.
3 More Do's and Don'ts
3.1 This License allows you to install and use the KaZaA Media Desktop on a single computer. This License does not permit you to install the Software on more than one computer at a time. You may make one copy of the Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only. The backup copy must include all copyright information contained on the original.
3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this License, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the KaZaA Media Desktop Software in whole or part or transmit the application over a network.
You may, however, transfer your rights under this License provided you transfer the related documentation, this License and a copy of the KaZaA software to a party who agrees to accept the terms of this License and destroy any other copies of the Software in your possession.
Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without prior notice from KaZaA if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License.
4. Things you need to know when using KaZaA
4.1 You are responsible for paying all applicable taxes and other costs you may incur in connection with your use of KaZaA including but not limited to all hardware and software and providing all equipment and software necessary to connect to our web site and to use KaZaA via the Internet and any royalties or other charges relating to the use of data owned by third parties.
4.2 We may add, delete or change some or all of the Software's functionality provided in connection with KaZaA at any time. This may include download of necessary software modules. Any new features that augment or enhance
4.3 By accepting the terms of this License you agree that KaZaA is permitted to limit, deny, create different priorities to different users, update or cancel some or all of the functionality of this application at any time, without prior notice.
4.4 KaZaA reserves the right to change or modify any of the terms and conditions of this licence and any of the policies governing the Software at any time in its sole discretion without direct notice to you. Your continued use of the Software following these changes will constitute your acceptance of such changes.
4.5 You acknowledge that KaZaA or parties appointed by KaZaA may from time to time provide programming fixes, updates and upgrades to you, including automatic updates to the KaZaA Media Desktop, through automatic electronic dissemination and other means. You consent to such automatic updates and agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement will apply to all such updates.
5 Things you need to do when using KaZaA
It is your responsibility to ensure that you obtain all consents, authorizations and clearances in any data owned or controlled by third parties that you transmit or access using KaZaZ Media Desktop. KaZaA does not control (and therefore has no knowledge of) any data accessed or transmitted through KaZaA Media Desktop.
5.1 KaZaA will not be liable in any way:
5.1.1 for any errors or omissions in any data, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of any data transmitted via the software; or
5.1.2 if you are exposed to data that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.
6 Payment and fees
6.1 Certain features of the KaZaA Media Desktop may require payment in the future including a prepaid fee ("Prepaid Fee").
The Prepaid Fee, and all taxes and other fees related thereto will be paid by you in advance.
You shall pay all fees and charges incurred through your account at the rates in effect for the billing period in which such fees and charges are incurred. All fees and charges shall be billed to you, and you shall be solely responsible for their payment.
You shall pay all applicable taxes relating to the use of the Software through your account.
If you do not pay the applicable fees, including Prepaid Fees, within the prescribed period of time your account will be terminated immediately, without limiting KaZaA's right to demand payment of fees and damages at a later time.
7 Copyright Infringement
KaZaA respects copyright and other laws. KaZaA requires all KaZaA Media Desktop users to comply with copyright and other laws.
As a condition to use KaZaA media desktop, you agree that you will not use KaZaA 's software to infringe the intellectual property or other rights of others, in any way. The unauthorized copy, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights.
7.1 Users should not use the KaZaA software to obtain any personal information about any KaZaA users or to modify, delete or damage any information contained on the personal computer of any KaZaA media desktop user.
7.2 Users are entirely responsible for their conduct and for ensuring that it comports with all applicable laws, including all copyright and data-protection laws. In the event a user fails to comply with laws regarding copyrights or other intellectual property rights and data-protection and privacy, such a user may be exposed to civil and criminal liability, including possible fines and jail time.
8 KaZaA's Right to Run Advertising without payment to Users
8.1 KaZaA reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions on the KaZaA Media Desktop.
8.2 By accepting the terms of this Licence, you agree that we have the right to run such advertisements and promotions without compensation to you.
8.3 The timing, frequency, placement and extent of advertising by us within the pages comprising your KaZaA account is subject to change and shall be determined by us at our sole discretion.
8.4 Your correspondence or business dealings with, or participation in promotions of, advertisers found on or through the KaZaA web sites or KaZaA Media Desktop, including payment and delivery of related goods or services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such dealings, are solely between you and such advertiser.
8.5 You agree that KaZaA will not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the KaZaA Media Desktop.
9 Links to Third-Party Sites
9.1 The KaZaA Media Desktop may provide, or third parties may provide, links to World Wide Web sites or other Internet resources. Any third-party sites to which the KaZaA Media Desktop may link are not under control of KaZaA. KaZaA does not have any responsibility or liability for any information, data, communications or materials available on such third-party sites.
10 Third Party Software
10.1 During the process of installing KaZaA, you may be offered the possibility to download or install software from third party software vendors pursuant to licenses or other arrangements between such vendors and yourself ("Third Party Software"). In the event you do not wish to download this THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE you should uncheck the appropriate boxes. Please note that the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE is subject to different licenses or other arrangements, which you should read carefully, compared to the Terms of Use and License of KaZaA. By downloading and using this THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE you accept these THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE licenses or other arrangements and acknowledge that you have read them and understand them. KaZaA does not sell, resell, or license any of this THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, and KaZaA disclaims to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, any responsibility for or liability related to the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. Any questions, complaints or claims related to the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE should be directed to the appropriate vendor.
10.2 The third party software is provided by KaZaA "as is" and "with all faults". KaZaA makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the quality, safety or suitability of this software, either express or implied, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event will KaZaA be liable for any indirect, punitive, special, incidental or consequential damages however they may arise and even if KaZaA has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages.
10.3 There are inherent dangers in the use of any software available for downloading on the Internet, and KaZaA cautions you to make sure that you completely understand the potential risks before downloading any of the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. You are solely responsible for adequate protection and backup of the data and equipment used in connection with any of the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, and KaZaA will not be liable for any damages that you may suffer in connection with using, modifying or distributing any of the THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE.
11 Applicable Law
11.1 This License as well as all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the New South Wales, without regard to or application of choice of law rules or principles.
11.2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this License, or in future agreements resulting there from, shall be exclusively resolved before the competent court in New South Wales
12 Points to consider for International Use
12.1 Recognising the global nature of the Internet, you agree to comply with all local rules regarding on-line conduct and acceptable data. Specifically, you agree to comply with all applicable laws regarding copyright and the transmission of technical data exported from the country in which you reside.
13 Indemnification
13.1 YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND KAZAA, AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, CO-BRANDERS OR OTHER PARTNERS, AND EMPLOYEES, AT YOUR EXPENSE, AGAINST ANY AND ALL THIRD PARTY CLAIMS OR DEMANDS, ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND SUITS AND ALL RELATED LIABILITIES, DAMAGES, SETTLEMENTS, PENALTIES, FINES COSTS AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER DISPUTE RESOLUTION EXPENSES) INCURRED BY KAZAA, DUE TO OR ARISING OUT OF DATA YOU SUBMIT, POST TO OR TRANSMIT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE, YOUR USE OR MISUSE OF THE SOFTWARE, YOUR CONNECTION TO OTHER USERS, YOUR VIOLATION OF THE LICENSE, OR YOUR VIOLATION OF ANY RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.
14 Disclaimers of Warranties
14.1 THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND ON AN "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS OR UNDER THE SPECIFIC PROVIDERS OWN TERMS AND THERE ARE NO CLAIMS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES MADE BY KAZAA, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY (TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW), WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NOR ARE THERE ANY WARRANTIES CREATED BY COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OR TRADE USAGE.
14.2 ANY DATA DOWNLOADED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS DONE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OR USE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.
15 Limitation of Liability
15.1 YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL KAZAA BE LIABLE WHETHER IN CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE WHETHER ACTIVE, PASSIVE OR IMPUTED), PRODUCT LIABILITY OR STRICT LIABILITY, EVEN IF KAZAA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES, RESULTING FROM:
15.1.1 THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE;
15.1.2 THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED OR MESSAGES RECEIVED OR TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO THROUGH OR FROM THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE;
15.1.3 UNAUTHORISED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
15.1.4 STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY USING THE SOFTWARE; OR
15.1.5 ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
IN NO EVENT SHALL KAZAA'S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY DOLLARS ($50).
15.2 WHERE THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 (CTH) OR SIMILAR STATE AND TERRITORY LEGISLATION IMPLIES INTO THIS AGREEMENT ANY CONDITION OR WARRANTY, AND THOSE LAWS AVOID OR PROHIBIT CONDITIONS IN A CONTRACT EXCLUDING OR MODIFYING THEM, THEN THE TERM, CONDITION OR WARRANTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE LIABILITY OF KAZAA FOR A BREACH OF ANY SUCH CONDITION OR WARRANTY, INCLUDING AND ECONOMIC OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS, SHALL BE LIMITED AT THE OPTION OF KAZAA TO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
15.2.1 IF THE BREACH RELATED TO GOODS:
> (A) THE REPLACEMENT OF THE GOODS OR THE SUPPLY OF EQUIVALENT GOODS;
(B) THE REPAIR OF GOODS;
(C) THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF REPLACING THE GOODS OR OBTAINING EQUIVALENT GOODS;
(D) THE PAYMENT OF HAVING THE GOODS REPAIRED;
OR
15.2.2 IF THE BREACH RELATES TO SERVICES:
> (A) THE SUPPLY OF THE SERVICE AGAIN; OR
(B) THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF HAVING THE SERVICE SUPPLIED AGAIN.
16 Changes to or Suspension of use of Software
16.1 KaZaA reserves the right to modify or discontinue use of the Software temporarily or permanently, at any time, with or without notice. KaZaA will attempt to provide reasonable notice of such changes.
17 Termination
17.1 KaZaA reserves the right to terminate this License immediately and without prior notice for any or no cause, at any time. Without limiting the preceding sentence, KaZaA may terminate your use of the Software or access to the site immediately and without notice if:
17.1.1 you violate any term of this License, or
17.1.2 we are notified that data transmitted by you violates any applicable laws or rights of any third party including the intellectual property rights of any such third party..
18 Trade marks
18.1 The KaZaA name, the KaZaA logo, and other KaZaA related properties are trademarks of KaZaA. All other trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners.
19 Miscellaneous
19.1 This License constitutes the entire understanding of you and the KaZaA Media Desktop application with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, conditions or representations, oral or written, express or implied, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein, expressly referenced herein, or superseded hereby.
19.2 You also may be subject to additional terms and conditions that may apply when you use affiliate services, third-party data or third-party software.
19.3 The failure or delay of KaZaA to exercise or enforce any rights or provision of the License does not constitute a waiver of such right or provision.
19.4 All provisions which must survive in order to give effect to their meaning, shall survive any expiration or termination of this License, including without limitation all of your representations, warranties and indemnification obligations.
19.5 Should any part of this License be held invalid by any court or tribunal, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any remaining part, which will remain in full force and effect as if this License had been executed without that part having been held to be invalid.
Yes, it was a LEXIS/NEXIS search, not "Lexus/nexus", from http://www.lib.rochester.edu/database/htop.htm#L
The actually site is http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
Hint:
When someone goes out of there way to provide the community with a little bit of information about the fuck who's saying SPAM's OK, it doesn't hurt to be a little bit polite and perhaps even courteous.
Look, I know its April Fools, but that's no excuse to fill /. with useless stories that have no useful information. Sorry if I sound like -- take your pick -- the grinch, scrooge, ahab, whatever. Enough is enough. None of these things are even that funny anyways.
There's actually real news going on out there.
If this wasn't an April Fool's day joke, and was for real, I'd say it should be run by a committee, not any single Individual. Perhaps 3 people. My choices would be:
Richard Stallman -- need someone to keep you true to your ideals
Eric Raymond -- need someone to keep it real, focus on selling business' on it
Alan Cox -- need someone with a proven record
More people voted for Napster than voted for Gore and Bush together. So Napsters our fucking President.
Our nation, supposed to be rule by the people for the people, right?
Well then that means file-sharing is fine and dandy. More people think its fine than bad.
Here's my simple study. I type in words at each search engine, and look at how many results I get. I rank them in order of most to least results, and I've put my (sometimes comical) comments below the results from each query.
;-). No, really, AllTheWeb has its uses. Its a techie search engine with lots of neat advanced features, and I love the FTP / MP3 search options.
QUERY 1: LESBIAN
AltaVista: 29,176,797
Google: 11,600,000
WiseNut: 8,282,738
AllTheWeb: 1,166,487
Teoma: 442,000
Congrats to the pervs at AltaVista for having nearly 30 million results on "lesbian"! The jack-offs at Google come in a distant second at nearly 12 million results on Lesbians. Nice job to the occasional wankers at WiseNut on their 8-million results. AllTheWeb? Only 1 million results? Don't you guys jack off at all? What right does a search engine have to call itself AllTheWeb if they only get 1 million results on a query for "lesbian"? Teoma gets the "nice try" pat on the back. Grow some nuts, Teoma, then come back and play with the big boys.
Now, lets try something a little bit more sparse.
QUERY 2: Michael Jordan.
AltaVista: 27,980,822
Google: 1,320,000
Teoma: 245,000
AllTheWeb: 205,054
WiseNut: 72,998
Again, AltaVista comes out on top at 28 million. This is questionable, but probably accurate. AltaVista has really indiscriminate searching technology, and doesn't try to eliminate redundant or very similar pages (or subpages) like Google does. But, strictly by the numbers, again, Google comes in a distant second at 1.3 million. Teoma actually comes in somewhat respectibally this time at 2.5 hundred thousand; still, its not in the same league as Google or AltaVista. AllTheWeb again comes up short and dissapointing, especially given its name. Guys, don't call your engine AllTheWeb if it only returns 1/4 as many results as does Google! WiseNut apparently isn't too wise at only 72 thousand results for MJ. Come on guys, get with it. MJ's may have been retired for 2 years, but he's still big news.
On to something a bit more obscure:
QUERY 3: Leilani Rios
For those of you who don't know, Leilani Rios is a stripper who was kicked off her run team for stripping to pay her way through college. What BS. This is a recent development; so this query sort of tests for how updated the search engines are.
Google: 1,870
AllTheWeb: 723
AltaVista: 567
WiseNut: 426
Teoma: 74
Well, I can hardly say this is surprising. AltaVista (~600) is finally dethroned, Google revealed as king (~2k). While I'm here, I should eat some crow for earlier criticisms of AllTheWeb (~700). Perhaps they don't deserve the title AllTheWeb, but 723 results on this query isn't bad. Still, not even half of what Google returned. WiseNut again occupies the low mediocrity position with 426 results. Teoma...Teoma Teoma Teoma, coming in with a sorry 74 results. Come on guys, this is recent news, but its also big news. The girl was in PlayBoy magazine for christ sake! Again, Teoma, spend some time growing up, grow some balls. Then come back and play with the big boys.
In the interests of fairness, I'll do another query for a person who recently became news.
QUERY 4: Katie Sierra
AltaVista: 68,416
Google: 37,200
AllTheWeb: 25,447
WiseNut: 21,184
Teoma: 4,740
Welp, AltaVista's back on top again at 68k, though I doubt the validity of it. Remember, AV doesn't sort out very similar pages, as does Google. Google comes in second at 37k. AllTheWeb, again, not bad, though certainly not "all the web" at 25k. WiseNut again comes in on the short side of mediocracy. Teoma...welp, you're beginning to see the pattern. Come on guys, this is sorry. I might find more results than that for Katie Sierra by just searching slashdot! (;-).
Next is a personal query for a website of mine that's minor and unfinished:
QUERY 5: "Here is a listing of links to several sites that either argue against"
I used quotes this time because I'm specifically seeing if these search engines will produce a result for my web page (or one with those exact words, if any other has those exact words).
Google: 1
AllTheWeb: 1
Others: 0
Welp, what can I say? Google/AllTheWeb apparently appreciates even my trivial, marginal, unfinished thoughts. How dare AltaVista, WiseNut, and Teoma not have my trivial unfinished web page catalogued! No, just joking. I didn't really expect any search engine to have my page in it. But Google/AllTheWeb gave me a pleasant, ego-stroking surprise. This was what really impressed me with Google/AllTheWeb. What actually happened is I forgot about my web site (that is, its address) and typed in "pessimistic views" at Google(then today at AllTheWeb)...the first web page listed looked familiar and I wondered why until I realized it was a page I created years ago. Kudos to Google and AllTheWeb for including the "little guy".
Well, that's it. You guys get the picture. Google is still king. AltaVista does a good job at faking it, but we all know that AV doesn't distinguish well between duplicate or very similar pages. AllTheWeb, impressive, but certainly not all of the web. WiseNut, I've never heard of before, but you did half-ass. Teoma...you came in 2nd in ONE category. Not even 1st. But, not being on the bottom rung just didn't feel right to you. Feel good to be back home? Here's my preferences for search engines and why:
1. Google. Provides a lotta search results, well organized, and many great features.
2. AllTheWeb. Before I discovered Google, you were my girl, but now your just my whore
3. AltaVista. AV, though I'm sure you have (metaphorically speaking) fake breasts and a pushup braw, I still have a fond spot for you. Before I discovered AllTheWeb and Google, you were my girl. But now your more like the ex-wife who keeps on nagging me. AltaVista's kinda the thing I goto when I'm feeling nostalgic for my first car. Not really much use, but still got a little soft spot for ya.
4. WiseNut. Never heard of this search engine before and there's obviously a reason for that. WiseNut seems to be, to me, the very definition of mediocracy. I'll keep an eye on you and see if anything good comes of you, but I'm about as hopeful for that as I am that Enron execs will be found "innocent".
5. Teoma. Well, you did pretty shitty in every category. But you've got an excuse -- your the new kid on the block. The 16-year old girl who's mouth is so small you can't quite take in a whole . No, seriously. Teoma has some potential. I like the way I get fast results, and I like the no-nonsense interface. I think the more advanced way in which you organize things. I'll put you on my list of possibly up-and-coming search engines. But don't kid yourself yet. You're nowhere near the league of Google.
Despite my harsh, sometimes funny, tone in this post, all these engines are good. But "good" (i.e., AltaVista, Teoma, WiseNut), just doesn't cut it when you have GREAT engines like AllTheWeb, and when you have THE ENGINE, aka Google.
Copyright 2002 NLP IP Company - American Lawyer Media
All Rights Reserved.
Pennsylvania Law Weekly
March 25, 2002
SECTION: NEWS; Vol. 25; No. 12; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 1801 words
HEADLINE: Phila. Lawyers Persuade District Court to Overturn 'Junk Fax' Ban
Decision may affect cases brought into state courts as well
BYLINE: By Shannon P. Duffy
of the Law Weekly
BODY:
In a victory for a team of Philadelphia lawyers, a federal judge in St. Louis has struck down as unconstitutional a federal law that bans unsolicited advertisements sent by fax, but says nothing about unwanted faxes that don't meet the law's definition of "advertisement."
"There is no rationality behind the government's distinction between unsolicited advertisements and other unsolicited faxes. The recipient still must bear the cost, and the fax can still interfere with the recipient's use of his or her facsimile machine for business purposes," U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh wrote in State of Missouri v. American Blast Fax Inc., PICS Case No. 02-0352 (E.D. Miss. March 13, 2002) Limbaugh, J. (25 pages).
The ruling is a victory for a team of lawyers from Cozen O'Connor - Arthur W. Lefco, Michael P. Broadhurst and Julie G. DiSalvio - who represented Fax.com Inc. and challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Limbaugh's ruling may have a ripple effect in Pennsylvania.
Last year, Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. decided that private causes of action for violations of the TCPA may be brought in state courts.
Wettick's decision. Aronson v. Fax.com, PICS Case No. 01-0441 (C.P. Allegheny Feb. 28, 2001) Wettick, J. (17 pages), allowed a plaintiff who was at the receiving end of several unsolicited "junk faxes" to sue under the federal statute in state court.
The TCPA, Wettick said, gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought by state attorneys general. Jurisdiction over suits brought by private parties is given to the state courts, the Pittsburgh judge said.
Limbaugh's ruling, if upheld by appeals courts, may invalid claims brought under the TCPA in state courts, including Pennsylvania's.
The Missouri case began when Fax.com and American Blast Fax were sued by the Missouri Attorney General's Office for alleged violations of both the TCPA and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by allegedly misrepresenting to Missouri consumers that the fax messages were sent in accordance with federal law.
The Cozen team argued that Section 227 of the TCPA violated Fax.com's First Amendment right of freedom of speech. And since the MPA claim was based primarily on the assumption that the conduct violated the TCPA, the team argued that the entire case should be dismissed.
At Limbaugh's invitation, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the suit on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission to defend the constitutionality of the TCPA.
The TCPA was enacted in late 1991 as an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.
The provision prohibiting unsolicited faxes was enacted as part of a larger amendment which included restrictions on telephone solicitations and automatic dialing systems.
Limbaugh found that the proper test for the constitutionality of a statute that limits advertising speech is the one announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 2351 (1980).
Under Central Hudson, the court must first determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
The court's next task is to decide whether the asserted governmental interest is "substantial."
If both of the first two inquiries yield positive answers, the court must then decide whether the regulation "directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."
Limbaugh found it was "undisputed" that the unsolicited fax advertisements sent by Fax.com and American Blast Fax are entitled to "a level of protection under the First Amendment."
The key question in the case, Limbaugh found, was whether the government had shown that it has a substantial interest in prohibiting unsolicited fax advertisements.
"A governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real. This burden cannot be satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture," Limbaugh wrote.
"The government has the obligation to demonstrate that it is regulating speech in order to address what is in fact a serious problem."
Limbaugh found that Congress identified two interests in seeking to ban unsolicited fax advertisements - that unsolicited junk faxing shifts advertising costs from the advertiser to the recipient and that unsolicited fax advertising occupies a recipient's facsimile machine so that the recipient cannot use it for his or her desired business purposes.
But Limbaugh found that a review of the law's legislative history showed there was "very little discussion" on the specific provision banning unsolicited fax advertisements.
"It is obvious from the legislative history that Congress did not consider any studies or empirical data estimating the cost of receiving a fax or the number of unsolicited fax advertisements an average business receives in a day before enacting the TCPA," Limbaugh wrote.
Witnesses presented by the government at a hearing before Limbaugh provided estimates for the cost of receiving one fax, and how many faxes their particular business received on average.
But Limbaugh said, "There was no evidence as to the actual cost to a particular business over a month or a year. There were only many long hypothetical examples of how much it could cost a business."
Limbaugh also found that advances in fax technology had significantly ameliorated the effects of unwanted faxes.
"The evidence presented at the hearing showed that it no longer takes several minutes to process a single page fax. The evidence indicated that it could take as much time as 30 seconds, but more often, it takes 3 to 6 seconds to process. The 'sophisticated and expensive' facsimile machines are more common now as compared to 1991, and even a lower-end fax machine can hold in its memory 60 to 80 pages," Limbaugh wrote.
Government lawyers argued that several courts had already found that Congress had a substantial interest in enacting the law.
But Limbaugh found that case law on the issue was "limited."
In 1994, an Oregon federal district judge held in Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 844 F. Supp. 632 637 (D. Or. 1994), that despite the "absence of statistical data or national surveys addressing this interest," Congress had "legitimately relied upon the testimony from authorities, as well as contemporaneous state laws and media reports."
Limbaugh noted that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Oregon ruling but "did not address the question of whether the government has a substantial interest."
A federal judge in the Western District of Texas recently looked at the constitutionality of prohibiting unsolicited fax advertisements in Texas v. American Blastfax, 121 F. Supp. 1162, 1167 (S.D. Ind. 1997), but Limbaugh found that "the court simply quoted the holding of the district court in Destination Ventures" before holding that Blastfax's argument that Congress' hearings were not based on sufficient statistical evidence was unpersuasive.
Limbaugh found that the only other federal court to address the question was the Southern District of Indiana, which upheld the law in Kenro Inc. v. Fax Daily Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162, 1167 (S.D. Ind. 1997), but never addressed whether or not the government's interest was substantial.
Limbaugh said he agreed that there is "a potential for a serious problem to arise without legislative restrictions on unsolicited faxes."
But beyond that speculation, Limbaugh said, he "questions whether the government has met its burden in showing that there was a substantial interest at the time of enacting the TCPA, and whether there is a substantial interest at the present time."
And even if the government could meet its burden of showing a substantial interest, Limbaugh found that "it cannot satisfy the other parts of the Central Hudson test."
Since the regulation must "directly advance" the governmental interest asserted, Limbaugh found that the government "must demonstrate that its restrictions will in fact alleviate the harm to a material degree."
The TCPA, he found, "does not ban all unsolicited faxes, but rather only advertisements."
As a result, Limbaugh said, fax recipients "can still bear the costs of printing others' messages, even if they strongly oppose the messages' content. The costs of printing political messages, jokes and even some advertisements which are not included within the TCPA's definition, still fall upon the recipient."
And since there was "no evidence" about what type of unsolicited faxes are causing the harm which the government is trying to alleviate, Limbaugh found that it was impossible for the court to assess whether the regulation directly advances the government's interest.
Both the Washington and Florida Attorney General's offices testified that after TCPA was enacted, there was an increase in complaints regarding unsolicited faxes.
That fact, Limbaugh said, calls the law's effectiveness into question because "the court would assume that the complaints would decrease rather than increase."
Limbaugh found that the law also failed to satisfy the last prong of the Central Hudson test.
"The regulation cannot be more extensive than necessary. The law requires there to be a 'fit' between the legislature's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends - a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the interest served," Limbaugh wrote.
"The availability of other options which can advance the government's asserted interest in a manner less intrusive to First Amendment rights indicates that the regulation is more extensive than necessary."
The Cozen team offered the judge a variety of alternatives, including a national "no-fax" database similar to those being utilized for telephone solicitations.
Limbaugh agreed that the defense's proposed alternative would be less restrictive of the protected speech.
"This alternative would promote the government's interest, and yet be less intrusive to First Amendment rights. Many states have looked at this problem and found less restrictive means than a complete ban on unsolicited fax advertisements," Limbaugh wrote.
I did a Lexus-Nexus search. Its Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh. It is telling of this slime and our legal system in general that information on who made this decision, and the exact nature of the decision, is ONLY available for lawyers or ppl who have access to Lexus-Nexus (via a University), and is completely NOT available by Google (If you Google for "Stephen Limbaugh fax.com" you get a big fat 0 results). Here's his website:
1 7b 7d18a11f862567c30077d74f/93b339e2082695a8862565ed0 04a20ed?OpenDocument
http://www.osca.state.mo.us/SUP/index.nsf/fd9c1
So that all of you can, if you wish, fax-spam this fuck, here's the fax numbers of the Judge and others in his court:
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Chief Justice (Chair): (573) 751-7362
Reverend Earl Abel: (816) 921-6078
Mr. Gerard T. Carmody: (314) 259-2020
Mr. Steve Garner: (417) 887-4385
Dr. Peggy Tuter Pearl: (417) 836-7649
Mr. Fred Wilkins: (816) 472-6009
Ms. Mildred Cohn: (314) 367-8195
To promote a just society where we all know how evil our judicial system is, I'll post the Lexus-Nexus TEXT in my next post.
I suggest we give fucks who support spam or against it (like this judge, and anthony dipierro, a /. poster [his comments are below]) a taste of their own medicine.
@ Fax.comi lling@Fax.coms inessopp@Fax.com
/.
SPAM the FUCK out of them.
Send them hundreds of 1MB porno files; cheap scam advertisements; get rich quick schemes; penis enlargement plans; etc.
Send them this crap in e-mail and in fax. Send them so much spam in fax and e-mail. Organize a DoS SPAM attack against them.
Here's Dipierro's e-mail and the e-mails of those fucks at FAX.com to SPAM:
b8us93kks@inbox.org
sales@Fax.com
techsupport
faxcaster@Fax.com
consulting@Fax.com
b
graphics@Fax.com
info@Fax.com
bu
As for that fucking judge, he's apparantly too much of a coward to let his e-mail be known. I'll be looking for it. When I find it, I'll post it on
Junk fuckin-mailers and their supporters are the slime of the community. They're even lower down than the virus-spreaders. Virus', though dangerous, are not nearly as common and costly as junk mail, which is estimated to account for 30% of all internet trafic. That means that these fucks slow down the internet by 30%.
They're stealing 30% of YOUR money.
Stealing 30% of ISP's bandwidth.
Stealing MORE than 50% of YOUR bandwidth.
Causing YOUR ISP prices to rise.
These fucks need to be dealt with. Its amazing to me that the fuckholes in Congress somehow think that free speech doesn't cover p2p/code (i.e., DeCSS or Advanced e-Book Reader), but DOES cover e-mail or fax spamming. When in reality, it should be EXACTLY the reverse.
The way to deal with spam is through extreme means. My ULTIMATE strategy is NOT to accept any e-mail (delete it automatically from the server) from anyone not in your address book. But you can only implement this when you have a thorough address book.
If you can't do that, you have your e-mail prog delete from the server and not download any of the following:
(1) Messages with inflamatory comments in the subject, anything relating to sex, anything relating to good deals, etc.
(2) Block the addresses of all spammers. Whenever possible, also block out the DOMAIN NAME. Sorry, but an iron fist strategy has to be taken whenver possible. If you can afford to block a domain name out (i.e., anything other than @msn, @yahoo, @hotmail, @home, @rr, @linux, etc), you do. But don't just block the domain name out. You also should send a message to the ISP telling them that you're blocking out their ISP and why. They just might fix it.
By your own argument, the circled e was NOT clever, since everyone can tell that IBM got the idea from standard e-mail addresses.
Come on. Taking something from the public domain (i.e., the @ symbol) and changing the a in the middle to an e is NOT clever.