They both assume that open source programmers write code for the benefit of others. While this may be the case for many pieces of software, most software is written for the author. If an author needs a feature he writes it.
If he's reasonably nice, but too lazy to arrange payment, he'll often share these changes. I'd wager almost all the device drivers for Linux were written by someone who owned a device that wasn't already supported in the OS.
Surely the bands have costs of their own. They have to spend money on marketing, recording, persuading radio stations to play the music. Stuff like that. A record contract bundles this al up into one packages (and then overcharges horrendously - that's monopolies for you), but if you don;t use a record comapny, how will people know to buy your music?
Normal copyright law is absolutely and fully efficient to get him by the balls.
Actually, it may not be. And neither may the DMCA. By advertising for sale, he is not making a copy of the item. Even by putting the contents on his page, he is only presenting a small part of the work which is useless by itself. This may well be a situation where "fair use" is valid defence.
If it is a case of fair use, then using the DMCA to get the guys details is totally unethical for the siple reason that this guy has done nothing legally wrong.
Fair enough. Still strikes me as an inappropriate law to use against him. A bit like charging someone for piracy on the high seas if they steal someone's surfboard.
Surely morst of those who benefitted from the information were not foreign.
Sure, what he did was criminally wrong, but charginf him with large scale industrial espionage seems like a fairly agressive penalty considering the actual harm done.
That's just pedantry. Clearly what he means is sell under an exclusive licence with terms preventing redistribution. i.e. they couldn't make it non-free which is what the intent of the original question was.
Not if it isn't designed specifically to do that. Maybe it's actually designed for licensed hunting, and will kill any animal it passes. The person who should go to jail is the person who uses it to kill humans.
The RIAA sued Napster. The court ruled in the RIAA's favour, and awarded damages.
Now, my understanding is that the damages should offset 100% of the losses made by the RIAA, so that the books are balanced, and the side on the right side of the law doesn't make a loss.
If this has already happened, why are they now suing another party? Did they make a further loss because these people invested in the company? Aren't they claiming twice for the same injury?
Sort of true as well. MS really could see this as an opportunity to control the existing protocols. They are very good at taking advantage of power vacuums caused by new standards. This is why they have the defacto word processor standard, and a monopoly on the "standard" (most common at least) GUI and API of desktop computers.
Criminals are made to spend time in prison to reform
Not strictly true. The purposes of criminal penalties are:
1. Reformation (as you said)
2. Prevention (i.e. Mitnick hacked zero computers while in prison)
3. Deterrent
4. Retribution.
It is perfectly rational to demand the maximum sentence if you believe in any one of these. Personally, I feel thar retribution has no place in civilised society, but other's disagree and even if they don't, the other two are valid.
By your definition if my product dies, gets lost, burned or whatever, if I still have proof of the service agreement and the company is still in business they would have to replace the product?
No. They just have to support it. Thjis does not mean they have to be sure the hardware works. Just the service.
Certainly an issue, but not an issue that hasn't been dealt with before in cases of mail fraud. As long as both countries have a low tolerance for the crime being committed, then the main problem is that it's an administrative hassle.
Of course, the level of hassle required may make this highy inconvenient to actually prosecute a spammer. While annoying, spam is really only a minor inconvenience. Hardly worth the effort of tracking the guy down, getting multiple police forces, and arranging witness statements, and prosecuting.
The other problem is many countries simply have more important problem to deal with. The Nigerian scam is already illegal in all countries, but I still get roughly one email a week from these guys. Someone who is simply trying to sell me cheap printer cartridges will probably get no interest even from stricter governments.
The law makes it illegal to hide the information from a service provider without the service provider's permission. In the case of caller ID, the service provider is the telephone company. You are not hiding the onformation from them, and even if you were, by using the service they provide, they are giving permission.
Slashdot Mirror
They both assume that open source programmers write code for the benefit of others. While this may be the case for many pieces of software, most software is written for the author. If an author needs a feature he writes it.
If he's reasonably nice, but too lazy to arrange payment, he'll often share these changes. I'd wager almost all the device drivers for Linux were written by someone who owned a device that wasn't already supported in the OS.
Surely the bands have costs of their own. They have to spend money on marketing, recording, persuading radio stations to play the music. Stuff like that. A record contract bundles this al up into one packages (and then overcharges horrendously - that's monopolies for you), but if you don;t use a record comapny, how will people know to buy your music?
Normal copyright law is absolutely and fully efficient to get him by the balls.
Actually, it may not be. And neither may the DMCA. By advertising for sale, he is not making a copy of the item. Even by putting the contents on his page, he is only presenting a small part of the work which is useless by itself. This may well be a situation where "fair use" is valid defence.
If it is a case of fair use, then using the DMCA to get the guys details is totally unethical for the siple reason that this guy has done nothing legally wrong.
Fair enough. Still strikes me as an inappropriate law to use against him. A bit like charging someone for piracy on the high seas if they steal someone's surfboard.
Apart from the fact that most people are considered innocent until found guilty. Silly troll.
Yep. He gets books written about him and then Errol Flynn plays him in a movie.
Surely morst of those who benefitted from the information were not foreign.
Sure, what he did was criminally wrong, but charginf him with large scale industrial espionage seems like a fairly agressive penalty considering the actual harm done.
Quite.
The only issue I have is that it seems a little extreme a law to prosecute under when surely the traditional trade secret laws are more than adequate.
That's just pedantry. Clearly what he means is sell under an exclusive licence with terms preventing redistribution. i.e. they couldn't make it non-free which is what the intent of the original question was.
Is it possible that a person with a moron to human language translation book inform me of what the above poster has stated?
Thanks. Far too many people seem to completely fail to spot it, and still bite.
Oil? No, there's no oil in Wales. Just lots of coal.
What was it doing up there? Shouldn't it be in the arctic headbutting clubs or something like that?
Surely they're both valid answers. The interviewer just wants a sensible answer backed up by logic.
Not if it isn't designed specifically to do that. Maybe it's actually designed for licensed hunting, and will kill any animal it passes. The person who should go to jail is the person who uses it to kill humans.
The RIAA sued Napster. The court ruled in the RIAA's favour, and awarded damages.
Now, my understanding is that the damages should offset 100% of the losses made by the RIAA, so that the books are balanced, and the side on the right side of the law doesn't make a loss.
If this has already happened, why are they now suing another party? Did they make a further loss because these people invested in the company? Aren't they claiming twice for the same injury?
'70 million people have bad credit. Guess what? Now I can't get mail through to them to help them.'
Lucky them. 99% of "help" available will cause more problems than it solves in the long term.
Sort of true as well. MS really could see this as an opportunity to control the existing protocols. They are very good at taking advantage of power vacuums caused by new standards. This is why they have the defacto word processor standard, and a monopoly on the "standard" (most common at least) GUI and API of desktop computers.
Surely not. We all know there are only a few types of government - Anarchy, Despotism, Monarch, communism, Republic, democracy, and fanaticism.
Criminals are made to spend time in prison to reform
Not strictly true. The purposes of criminal penalties are:
1. Reformation (as you said)
2. Prevention (i.e. Mitnick hacked zero computers while in prison)
3. Deterrent
4. Retribution.
It is perfectly rational to demand the maximum sentence if you believe in any one of these. Personally, I feel thar retribution has no place in civilised society, but other's disagree and even if they don't, the other two are valid.
Surely if you show a picture of an item you're selling in order to sell it, this is an example of fair use.
It's not like GW is being harmed (one of the typical fair use tests). This actually is advertising.
By your definition if my product dies, gets lost, burned or whatever, if I still have proof of the service agreement and the company is still in business they would have to replace the product?
No. They just have to support it. Thjis does not mean they have to be sure the hardware works. Just the service.
Certainly an issue, but not an issue that hasn't been dealt with before in cases of mail fraud. As long as both countries have a low tolerance for the crime being committed, then the main problem is that it's an administrative hassle.
Of course, the level of hassle required may make this highy inconvenient to actually prosecute a spammer. While annoying, spam is really only a minor inconvenience. Hardly worth the effort of tracking the guy down, getting multiple police forces, and arranging witness statements, and prosecuting.
The other problem is many countries simply have more important problem to deal with. The Nigerian scam is already illegal in all countries, but I still get roughly one email a week from these guys. Someone who is simply trying to sell me cheap printer cartridges will probably get no interest even from stricter governments.
Is the caller ID blocked by my service provider, or the callers service provider?
Yours
Does the callers cell phone company, or mine, or the long distance provider in between block the caller ID?
Yours
What if I run a company switchboard, I am routing calls for them, I am their service provider, the phone company is hiding the origin of the call.
You may be right. Sue the telephone company.
The law makes it illegal to hide the information from a service provider without the service provider's permission. In the case of caller ID, the service provider is the telephone company. You are not hiding the onformation from them, and even if you were, by using the service they provide, they are giving permission.