IANAL, but I would assume that downloading something that is freely available on the internet is within my rights, as long as I don't violate a disclaimer or TOS on a website. p2p shouldn't be different.
If the law says otherwise, then you would have to investigate every website you visit to see if that site has copyrighted material available without the copyright owner's permission, without actually downloading anything from the site.
The responsibility should be that of the webmaster, or, in the case of p2p, the person uploading the file.
It's also illegal for a store to sell cigarettes to a minor, but it's not illegal for a minor to smoke cigarettes.
It depends on where you live. In my home city, it is indeed illegal for minors to smoke cigarettes. It's only a ticketable offense, of course... but still illegal.
Only if you incurred any costs in showing them your legally owned copy of the media (although you may also be required to prove that you hadn't purchased it *since* the suit, which may require a proof of purchase receipt). If you can't prove this, then you're screwed.
IANAL, but couldn't you counter-sue them for libel/slander (them saying you did something illegal when you did not)?
VA believes they own your comments, too. However, mine belong to me and I don't grant a license to VA to do anything but display them on Slashdot.
Too late. You've already posted the above comment, and by doing so, you are using the site slashdot.org, thus implying that you have read and agree to the slashdot.org terms of service, which contain the same provisions I've mentioned above.
6. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CODE AND OTHER CONTENT POSTED ON SOURCEFORGE.NET:... With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as message boards and bug trackers ("SourceForge.net Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge.net Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display project activity, such content is owned by SourceForge.net. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge.net the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable approved license.
So they still have to stick with an OSI-approved license, but there's a world of difference between licenses such as MIT and BSD compared to the GPL.
But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public.
If you want a different spin on this (though not a neutral one), see here. I mention this only to dilute the somewhat opinionated point of view of the poster.
Why not get an ISP to bundle Safari? Then in addition to "Free browser! Blocks popups dead!! Tab support!! Better online bank support!!" you can put "One month trial!".
And while we're at it, put in Gaim, the Gimp and VLC as well.
I'm at the point now where I am starting up my own web venture, so I am actually going to have to test for cross browser look and feel, as well as functionality.
I recommend looking at this. The stuff I saw on it was the main reason I started using Mozilla to work on web development.
Should we also be sure that the traffic is routed away from ISP's that have broken laws?
No. I don't have to pay those ISPs for the traffic that is routed through them--I can always choose which ISP I want, and only that ISP gets money from me. What I don't like is that the government is mandating that to vote online, I must give Microsoft money.
Correct, there is not. However, the government should not require usage of software produced by a criminal company found guilty of antitrust violations by both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals.
For all of the attention Gov. Dean seems to be putting into the internet, the lack of anything related to technology on the issues page on his website seems odd. How does he feel about the DMCA? Requiring the government to release papers in open data formats? The positions taken by the EFF?
Also, I can't seem to find anywhere on Gov. Dean's site who his campaign staff is, and if I could find that his campaign manager was a Joe Trippi, I still wouldn't know that you were him. I mean no disrespect, but there's no proof that you are or are not Gov. Dean's campaign manager.
Well, there are many other jobs that make people be targetted like cops, such as DAs (a moot point if you read the website), PIs, nearly all public officials, and, to some extent, journalists. Also, if I'm arrested the police get my fingerprints and DNA on record, even if it's later found that I had nothing to do with the crime in question.
Now, if the cops have me in a database, and have no justification for putting me in it, why do I not have the same rights to put cops in a database?
That said, I do not promote putting anyone in a public database. I do not mind what cops do with fingerprints and DNA, because it does help catch criminals, and the database is private.
What happened when the movie rating system came out, and was this treated the same way as the video game rating system is now at first, then becoming law?
When did the movie rating system become law? Movies are submitted to the ratings board voluntarily and theaters voluntarily enforce them. However, everybody "volunteers" in this manner. The government sees that the movie industry is regulating itself well, and sees no need to interfere.
Re:Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers t
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Just another reason why we don't need states, and they sure as hell shouldn't have any rights.
Again, I never said anything a state does is per se bad.
Make up your mind.
Re:Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers t
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Also, when a law needs to be passed quickly due to a local crisis, Congress doesn't (and shouldn't) care.
Re:Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers t
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Then what about states working against the PATRIOT Act? I can't see anything wrong with that--in fact, that is a case in which the federal government needs to be checked on.
Re:Section 105 of the 1976 Copyright acts covers t
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
When has "state's rights" ever been used as an argument for anything worthy and moral?
That's kind of funny. I'm going to assume you haven't had a government class yet. Here's a rough list:
antebellum northern states outlawing slavery
California allowing medical marijuana (ok, maybe this is questionable)
Michigan requiring driver's ed before a minor can get a license (as far as I know, this applies to all to every state, but Michigan was the first)
New York requiring seatbelts to be worn in cars (applies to every state but NH, but NY was the first)
There's thousands more reasons, but I don't feel like looking them up for some idiot.
Ask it the other way around. I hate product X. I write a program that replaces all adds for product X because I don't want to see them. How is it legal for you to force me to display stuff on my computer that I don't want to see?
Nothing wrong with that. I frequently use Mozilla's "Block Images From Server" option. I don't target specific products, but ads that disrupt the rest of the page instead.
It's replacing that ad with another ad that I have a problem with. If your program notifies you when an advertisement for product X is replaced with product Y, I have no problem. However, if it is done transparently, you don't know if your program replaced the ad for product X with the ad for product Y, or if my website had an ad for product Y to begin with. You may be led to believe my site endorses product Y.
Also, there is a difference between you writing a program and you being misled into installing a program that does something other than it is advertised as doing.
And, quite frankly, product X beats the hell out of product Y.
Users should have the right to replace ANYTHING they see while browsing using 3rd party tools, unless they specifically enter into an agreement with the content owners.
If I run a website that advertises for product X, it can be inferred that I support product X. Gator replaces my ad for product X with product Y, which I do not support. How is that legal?
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I would assume that downloading something that is freely available on the internet is within my rights, as long as I don't violate a disclaimer or TOS on a website. p2p shouldn't be different.
If the law says otherwise, then you would have to investigate every website you visit to see if that site has copyrighted material available without the copyright owner's permission, without actually downloading anything from the site.
The responsibility should be that of the webmaster, or, in the case of p2p, the person uploading the file.
Well, I don't like the game, so I've never looked into it. I just remember seeing that Gentoo made a booting version of it.
Well, there's a Linux version of America's Army, so why not a Mac version? Ok, you have to boot from the CD for it, but it still runs off of Linux.
I'll admit that many things about Gecko-based browsers are similar. I can't speak for the KHTML browsers, but I'd assume the same.
Why not get an ISP to bundle Safari? Then in addition to "Free browser! Blocks popups dead!! Tab support!! Better online bank support!!" you can put "One month trial!".
And while we're at it, put in Gaim, the Gimp and VLC as well.
Mozilla Tech Evangelism
So by your logic, there is also no way to compare desktop environments:
KDE, GNOME, fvwm, Enlightenment, blackbox, CDE, etc. would just be
X, X, X, X, X, X, etc.
You don't seem to understand that having a different interface makes a browser unique.
For all of the attention Gov. Dean seems to be putting into the internet, the lack of anything related to technology on the issues page on his website seems odd. How does he feel about the DMCA? Requiring the government to release papers in open data formats? The positions taken by the EFF?
Also, I can't seem to find anywhere on Gov. Dean's site who his campaign staff is, and if I could find that his campaign manager was a Joe Trippi, I still wouldn't know that you were him. I mean no disrespect, but there's no proof that you are or are not Gov. Dean's campaign manager.
Well, there are many other jobs that make people be targetted like cops, such as DAs (a moot point if you read the website), PIs, nearly all public officials, and, to some extent, journalists. Also, if I'm arrested the police get my fingerprints and DNA on record, even if it's later found that I had nothing to do with the crime in question.
Now, if the cops have me in a database, and have no justification for putting me in it, why do I not have the same rights to put cops in a database?
That said, I do not promote putting anyone in a public database. I do not mind what cops do with fingerprints and DNA, because it does help catch criminals, and the database is private.
Also, when a law needs to be passed quickly due to a local crisis, Congress doesn't (and shouldn't) care.
Then what about states working against the PATRIOT Act? I can't see anything wrong with that--in fact, that is a case in which the federal government needs to be checked on.
- antebellum northern states outlawing slavery
- California allowing medical marijuana (ok, maybe this is questionable)
- Michigan requiring driver's ed before a minor can get a license (as far as I know, this applies to all to every state, but Michigan was the first)
- New York requiring seatbelts to be worn in cars (applies to every state but NH, but NY was the first)
There's thousands more reasons, but I don't feel like looking them up for some idiot.It's replacing that ad with another ad that I have a problem with. If your program notifies you when an advertisement for product X is replaced with product Y, I have no problem. However, if it is done transparently, you don't know if your program replaced the ad for product X with the ad for product Y, or if my website had an ad for product Y to begin with. You may be led to believe my site endorses product Y.
Also, there is a difference between you writing a program and you being misled into installing a program that does something other than it is advertised as doing.
And, quite frankly, product X beats the hell out of product Y.