This show's they are after money, and not information.
Of course they're after money! What do you think they're filing a lawsuit for--IBM to use their time-mahcine to go back and undo the exposure?
Nearly every lawsuit filed in the US is a damaged party seeking monies in compenstion for their damage. Many times this is just "to pay the bills".
Re:I'm still waiting for you to give it up
on
What's Always Next?
·
· Score: 1
I am waiting for people to give up on the ridiculous notion of a paperless office. We aren't there yet with technology, we aren't even close. Stop trying to force it.
We're darn close to it--heck, we've been close to it ever since the darn Newton came out. All we need are an assignment of portable, easy-to-read interfaces (PDAs or Tablet PCs), and a printer lockdown, and presto--paperless office.
No one who cares as a good enough reason to move, though. Supporting older staff is just too important--but if you're under 30, you had better develop your skills for paperless, because by the time you're 60 you might not be allowed paper at all.
Question for you, What artist do I send it to? Do I send it to the person performing the song or the real artist, the one who writes and composes the music?
You send it to whomever is marketed as having the song--usually the performer.
The performer, then, hands the check to their agent, who then sends money to the songwriter, the promo-house, their own pocket, and then back to the artist.
Or not... but if 'or not", it's the artist's call, not yours.
Pretty gray area, but I've seen it used for ROM downloads and whatnot.
ROM downloads, btw, are just as illegal as any other sharing. "I have a right to it" doesn't allow me to send you a copy; it means that you can make your own backup copy. You could even, theoretically, hire me to make that copy for you--but I couldn't just send you a copy.
P2P sharers can cover their butts by not sharing any media to which they are not certain is either Public Domain or explicity permitted to be shared. Or just not being sharers.
You might as well ask "how do loan sharks cover their butts?"
But in either case there is no way for me to tell which it is.
Wrong.
It's copyright--a concept that's been in the constitution longer than free speach. (Not more important, but copyright was in the original, while freedom of expression was an amendment.) It's not your work, you don't have proof of public domain or explicit permission to distribute, you're violating copyright.
(Note, of course, that in ambiguous cases, the law should [and probably does] require the copyright holder to inform and give chance to cease and desist their infringement--and even if the law doesn't, practicallity does.)
Congress has seen fit to do away with copyright notices, so there is no notice of any kind that the music is intended only for sale.
The courts, IIRC, were the ones who decided that--and regardless of the source, the decision came down as "assume that it's copywritten until proven otherwise." Just like "assume that the house belongs to someone until proven otherwise."
I would be perfectly pleased if the only music being shared was at the artists' pleasure. Aside from clearing up this legal quandary, I suspect more of the music would be things I'd want to hear. Unfortunately, the music being shared is a mixture of IP and free speech.
I think you can agree then, that the best course of action for RIAA to take is to pursue individuals who are continuing to 'share' copywritten intended-for-sale works despite numerous warnings and chances to stop doing what they're doing.
I demand my free speech rights to be heard and to hear what others have to say. If copyright gets screwed in the process it isn't my problem. The copyright holders are not asserting any fundamental rights, and I guess they'll just have to find some way of solving their problem which doesn't interfere with my fundamental rights.
Free speach is not the most fundamental right. Property rights--a right that didn't even have to be enumerated in the bill of rights--are more fundamental. For better or worse, we as a society have given the limited-time monopoly of copyright the status of property--and, as such, it has the same basic status as the money from my paycheck and the clothes on my back.
Your "free speech rights" are all well and good--and, really, copyright simply doesn't affect them. If what you or someone else is saying is really speech, then it's not someone else's copyright, and you're totally in the clear.
You might be getting confused with the laws enacted by the DMCA, which curtail free speech just a bit to protect copyright. But basic copyright only infringes on your "free speech" if you are copying what someone else has already "said."
If you don't allow anonymous FTP access to your MP3s, the RIAA shouldn't be able to touch you. (They might be able to, but I think it's a silly thing for them to do when there's P2P programs rampant everywhere.)
From a security standpoint, anyway, you'd bee foolish to run an anonyous FTP server of any kind, on any IP, regardless of what your ISP says--unless you really want to share your files with everyone.
It's easy enough to turn off anonyous FTP and require a login--I knew a friend who did it with Windows 98, actually.
Like I said, this is why we have juries. "No, officer, I was just holding these drugs." "No, sir, I wasn't fornicating with the woman who slept naked next to me and is currently busily in the shower"
It's simply implausible that you have a file-sharing system set-up and running, and that no one ever downloaded anything from you.
I wish I had more schooling the law, so I could speculate on if the jury or the judge will set the award... I hope it's the jury.
Even walking down a crowded street I have a certain degree of privacy. My actions in that public place are not private, however many aspects of my identity, including my name, are private unless I choose to make them public in that venue.
Or if someone sees you and either recognizes you, or decides to track you down. There are so many valid reasons for tracking someone down once you 'meet' them, it's hard to squalk when someone does it for no reason at all...
and, of coure, if you were to, oh, mug me or steal my watch, or take a picture of me and sell it for mucho dollars, I'd have all the reason I need to track you down and haul you into court.
Sure. Scan the RIAA's computers for publicly avaliable information, such as what's on their FTP server, and build whatever case you want to about it. Or, if you think it'll help your case, counter-sue them for "hacking" your computer by logging onto KaZaa and tracking your IP address.
Just because I download a song does NOT make me a pirate.
Sure it does. Or, rather, it makes you a party to an instance of copyright infringement. (Though, if you have the songs already on CD, it's not "for financial gain", and so you need to trade a lot to be guilty of the crime and the tort, instead of just the tort.)
Just because I share a file doesn't mean I'm a pirate
You better believe it does. You're a party to every instance of copyright infringement for the files you share--and, since it's a lot easier to track what you're sharing that what you're downloading, and you probably have a significant volume shared, the RIAA will come after you for this.
Copyright infringement IS against the law. For a big enough volume, or done for your own gain, it's criminal--but even if it's not at the level of a crime, it is a tort, and that means that the RIAA can come after you, and unless you pull some amazing legal vodoo, you'll suddenly have a debt to RIAA that's a lot more massive than the cost of just buying your songs in the first place.
It IS black and white, really. Regardless of how ammoral RIAA may be, they do have the legal standing to go after the rampant copyright infringement that happens on the 'net.
for all they know the files might be available, but you cancel the download as soon as it's started..
Behold the reason we have juries.
When the RIAA takes you to court, and you try that story as your defense, you'll have to convince those 12 ordinary people that you had those files there and, for some odd reason, cancelled all of those downloads.
>o?You don't really have a justifiable reason to download if you own the music, on CD or otherwise, because you can simply rip it and encode it yourself. Therefore, P2P networks are for nothing but pirates and theives, because the only people sharing are illegally distributing something they don't have the right to, and the people downloading can't possibly own the music since if they did they could encode it themselves. This is the logic that the RIAA is using. Whether you are sharing or downloading, you are assumed a pirate because there are other ways for you to enjoy the music in a digital format.
Exactly. Absent a specific contract (or clear Public Domain) to share the files, uploading or downloading them is illegal and should be punnished accordingly.
It's not your station wagon--it's your company's station wagon, that you left on the side of the road, unlocked, with the keys in, and a sign saying "please drive."
How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...
They don't care. Unless I missed something big, they still aren't suing you for DOWNLOADING anything--I don't even think that they can track what you download. AFAIK, they're going after folk who SHARE the files--i.e., what they've got for upload.
You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.
In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.
Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
And according to Word we have THE EXACT SAME VERSION, down to the minor version numbers, and as far as I know nothing changed in my configuration overnight.
Do you use the same default printer? Word pulls a lot of functions from there.
In any case...
If you want to replicate a printed document, you should use word to make PDFs. (There are free PDF makers that are almost-but-not-quite as good as Acrobat.) Word is a word-processing program, to be used for writing and "I don't really care about the specifics" document layout. If precise formatting is important, then _don't use word._ It wasn't designed to do more than "good enough" in that job.
Not really. He just esposed an idea that was, if a bit radical, fairly logical for his time.
The blame for Communisms sins falls squarely on Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and other despots who took what might have been a more moral economic system and turned it into the atheistc totalitarian monster that we all know and hate.
Marx (or his contemporaries) can as easily get credit for the betterment of workers everywhere as the sins of communist nations. I suspect that "kill everyone who disagrees with you" and "win by arms, not by out-performance" weren't central tennets of Marxism.
Speaking of which, with an actual physical contract I could cross out paragraphs and modify the contract before it's agreed to -- and as long as it's the modified version that's signed that's the legally binding text.
If you do that, you've (legally) created a counter-offer; the other guy now has the chance to decline.
Microsoft says that I implicitly agree to their contract by clicking and using the software (even though they are not present to witness or sign it). By that logic, they implicitly agree to my modified version due to the fact that they wrote the software that accepted the modified version without complaint.
How do you prove that MS agreed to your counter-offer? MS proves that you agreed to their EULA because _they never agree to let someone copy their software without a license_.
Games where you run around with a gun, and a lot of ammo. Asteroids, Gladius (sic), et al. It's a class genre.
I'm new to the gaming... I thought there was only 'games' and that they were all the same. A bit like wallpaper really!
Games, like movies or music or novels, are easily divied up into "genres" for the sake of marketing. I.e., if you like a movie of a particular genre, you might like other movies in that genre.
Wallpaper probably goes into broad catagories, too--stripes, patterns, solids, etc.
I once heard the term 'FPS' but somebody explained to me it was 'Frames Per Second' simply used out of context
The "FPS" genre means "First Person Shooter." Like Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein.
Software developers have learned that the Waterfall model *doesn't work* because it's too slow, expensive, and inflexible. Sound like any space programs you know?
Odd, I thought that they just realized that it was faster to do it the wrong way, because computing power has increased so dramatically.
Boy, was I wrong. I guess processor speed and zero-loss failure has had no impact at all on the techniques programmers use. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
This show's they are after money, and not information.
Of course they're after money! What do you think they're filing a lawsuit for--IBM to use their time-mahcine to go back and undo the exposure?
Nearly every lawsuit filed in the US is a damaged party seeking monies in compenstion for their damage. Many times this is just "to pay the bills".
I am waiting for people to give up on the ridiculous notion of a paperless office. We aren't there yet with technology, we aren't even close. Stop trying to force it.
We're darn close to it--heck, we've been close to it ever since the darn Newton came out. All we need are an assignment of portable, easy-to-read interfaces (PDAs or Tablet PCs), and a printer lockdown, and presto--paperless office.
No one who cares as a good enough reason to move, though. Supporting older staff is just too important--but if you're under 30, you had better develop your skills for paperless, because by the time you're 60 you might not be allowed paper at all.
Question for you, What artist do I send it to? Do I send it to the person performing the song or the real artist, the one who writes and composes the music?
You send it to whomever is marketed as having the song--usually the performer.
The performer, then, hands the check to their agent, who then sends money to the songwriter, the promo-house, their own pocket, and then back to the artist.
Or not... but if 'or not", it's the artist's call, not yours.
Pretty gray area, but I've seen it used for ROM downloads and whatnot.
ROM downloads, btw, are just as illegal as any other sharing. "I have a right to it" doesn't allow me to send you a copy; it means that you can make your own backup copy. You could even, theoretically, hire me to make that copy for you--but I couldn't just send you a copy.
P2P sharers can cover their butts by not sharing any media to which they are not certain is either Public Domain or explicity permitted to be shared. Or just not being sharers.
You might as well ask "how do loan sharks cover their butts?"
But in either case there is no way for me to tell which it is.
Wrong.
It's copyright--a concept that's been in the constitution longer than free speach. (Not more important, but copyright was in the original, while freedom of expression was an amendment.) It's not your work, you don't have proof of public domain or explicit permission to distribute, you're violating copyright.
(Note, of course, that in ambiguous cases, the law should [and probably does] require the copyright holder to inform and give chance to cease and desist their infringement--and even if the law doesn't, practicallity does.)
Congress has seen fit to do away with copyright notices, so there is no notice of any kind that the music is intended only for sale.
The courts, IIRC, were the ones who decided that--and regardless of the source, the decision came down as "assume that it's copywritten until proven otherwise." Just like "assume that the house belongs to someone until proven otherwise."
I would be perfectly pleased if the only music being shared was at the artists' pleasure. Aside from clearing up this legal quandary, I suspect more of the music would be things I'd want to hear. Unfortunately, the music being shared is a mixture of IP and free speech.
I think you can agree then, that the best course of action for RIAA to take is to pursue individuals who are continuing to 'share' copywritten intended-for-sale works despite numerous warnings and chances to stop doing what they're doing.
I demand my free speech rights to be heard and to hear what others have to say. If copyright gets screwed in the process it isn't my problem. The copyright holders are not asserting any fundamental rights, and I guess they'll just have to find some way of solving their problem which doesn't interfere with my fundamental rights.
Free speach is not the most fundamental right. Property rights--a right that didn't even have to be enumerated in the bill of rights--are more fundamental. For better or worse, we as a society have given the limited-time monopoly of copyright the status of property--and, as such, it has the same basic status as the money from my paycheck and the clothes on my back.
Your "free speech rights" are all well and good--and, really, copyright simply doesn't affect them. If what you or someone else is saying is really speech, then it's not someone else's copyright, and you're totally in the clear.
You might be getting confused with the laws enacted by the DMCA, which curtail free speech just a bit to protect copyright. But basic copyright only infringes on your "free speech" if you are copying what someone else has already "said."
Is this wrong?
IANAL (duh.)
If you don't allow anonymous FTP access to your MP3s, the RIAA shouldn't be able to touch you. (They might be able to, but I think it's a silly thing for them to do when there's P2P programs rampant everywhere.)
From a security standpoint, anyway, you'd bee foolish to run an anonyous FTP server of any kind, on any IP, regardless of what your ISP says--unless you really want to share your files with everyone.
It's easy enough to turn off anonyous FTP and require a login--I knew a friend who did it with Windows 98, actually.
Common sense.
Like I said, this is why we have juries. "No, officer, I was just holding these drugs." "No, sir, I wasn't fornicating with the woman who slept naked next to me and is currently busily in the shower"
It's simply implausible that you have a file-sharing system set-up and running, and that no one ever downloaded anything from you.
I wish I had more schooling the law, so I could speculate on if the jury or the judge will set the award... I hope it's the jury.
Even walking down a crowded street I have a certain degree of privacy. My actions in that public place are not private, however many aspects of my identity, including my name, are private unless I choose to make them public in that venue.
Or if someone sees you and either recognizes you, or decides to track you down. There are so many valid reasons for tracking someone down once you 'meet' them, it's hard to squalk when someone does it for no reason at all...
and, of coure, if you were to, oh, mug me or steal my watch, or take a picture of me and sell it for mucho dollars, I'd have all the reason I need to track you down and haul you into court.
The rules need to go both ways.
Sure. Scan the RIAA's computers for publicly avaliable information, such as what's on their FTP server, and build whatever case you want to about it. Or, if you think it'll help your case, counter-sue them for "hacking" your computer by logging onto KaZaa and tracking your IP address.
Just because I download a song does NOT make me a pirate.
Sure it does. Or, rather, it makes you a party to an instance of copyright infringement. (Though, if you have the songs already on CD, it's not "for financial gain", and so you need to trade a lot to be guilty of the crime and the tort, instead of just the tort.)
Just because I share a file doesn't mean I'm a pirate
You better believe it does. You're a party to every instance of copyright infringement for the files you share--and, since it's a lot easier to track what you're sharing that what you're downloading, and you probably have a significant volume shared, the RIAA will come after you for this.
Copyright infringement IS against the law. For a big enough volume, or done for your own gain, it's criminal--but even if it's not at the level of a crime, it is a tort, and that means that the RIAA can come after you, and unless you pull some amazing legal vodoo, you'll suddenly have a debt to RIAA that's a lot more massive than the cost of just buying your songs in the first place.
It IS black and white, really. Regardless of how ammoral RIAA may be, they do have the legal standing to go after the rampant copyright infringement that happens on the 'net.
for all they know the files might be available, but you cancel the download as soon as it's started..
Behold the reason we have juries.
When the RIAA takes you to court, and you try that story as your defense, you'll have to convince those 12 ordinary people that you had those files there and, for some odd reason, cancelled all of those downloads.
Good luck.
>o?You don't really have a justifiable reason to download if you own the music, on CD or otherwise, because you can simply rip it and encode it yourself. Therefore, P2P networks are for nothing but pirates and theives, because the only people sharing are illegally distributing something they don't have the right to, and the people downloading can't possibly own the music since if they did they could encode it themselves. This is the logic that the RIAA is using. Whether you are sharing or downloading, you are assumed a pirate because there are other ways for you to enjoy the music in a digital format.
Exactly. Absent a specific contract (or clear Public Domain) to share the files, uploading or downloading them is illegal and should be punnished accordingly.
It's not your station wagon--it's your company's station wagon, that you left on the side of the road, unlocked, with the keys in, and a sign saying "please drive."
You're thinking of criminal law. When the government is brining a case against you, there are far stricter rules.
When it's a private party, the rules aren't _quite_ as tight.
How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...
They don't care. Unless I missed something big, they still aren't suing you for DOWNLOADING anything--I don't even think that they can track what you download. AFAIK, they're going after folk who SHARE the files--i.e., what they've got for upload.
You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.
In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.
Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
*sigh*
And according to Word we have THE EXACT SAME VERSION, down to the minor version numbers, and as far as I know nothing changed in my configuration overnight.
Do you use the same default printer? Word pulls a lot of functions from there.
In any case...
If you want to replicate a printed document, you should use word to make PDFs. (There are free PDF makers that are almost-but-not-quite as good as Acrobat.) Word is a word-processing program, to be used for writing and "I don't really care about the specifics" document layout. If precise formatting is important, then _don't use word._ It wasn't designed to do more than "good enough" in that job.
That defense hasn't worked for DeCSS.
That's probably because DeCSS was:
1: A Windows app!
2: A publicly-traded crack for the CSS encryption.
3: Not part of a final product.
If DeCSS had been a no-code library, or a final app, or even just written by a Linux coder, it probably would have passed muster.
*sigh* insert "code is action, not speech" rant here.
Yes, he [Karl Marx] does.
Not really. He just esposed an idea that was, if a bit radical, fairly logical for his time.
The blame for Communisms sins falls squarely on Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and other despots who took what might have been a more moral economic system and turned it into the atheistc totalitarian monster that we all know and hate.
Marx (or his contemporaries) can as easily get credit for the betterment of workers everywhere as the sins of communist nations. I suspect that "kill everyone who disagrees with you" and "win by arms, not by out-performance" weren't central tennets of Marxism.
Speaking of which, with an actual physical contract I could cross out paragraphs and modify the contract before it's agreed to -- and as long as it's the modified version that's signed that's the legally binding text.
If you do that, you've (legally) created a counter-offer; the other guy now has the chance to decline.
Microsoft says that I implicitly agree to their contract by clicking and using the software (even though they are not present to witness or sign it). By that logic, they implicitly agree to my modified version due to the fact that they wrote the software that accepted the modified version without complaint.
How do you prove that MS agreed to your counter-offer? MS proves that you agreed to their EULA because _they never agree to let someone copy their software without a license_.
a) There's no opportunity for argeement with an EULA, which is a commonly accepted characteristic of a contract
/. reader...
Nope. "I Agree" is agreement. Maybe you're thinking of Counter-Offer?\
b) There is no consideration involved in an EULA, and consideration is a defining attribute of a contract.
Plenty of consideration. It's part of the sale. If not for the EULA, theoretically, software would be more expensive.
c) Software purchases are presented as sales and have all the characteristics of a sale, thus they cannot be contractual obligations.
Here, I agree completely.
IANAL(RU?), but I am an opinionated
"Shoot 'em Up Games"? What are they?
Games where you run around with a gun, and a lot of ammo. Asteroids, Gladius (sic), et al. It's a class genre.
I'm new to the gaming... I thought there was only 'games' and that they were all the same. A bit like wallpaper really!
Games, like movies or music or novels, are easily divied up into "genres" for the sake of marketing. I.e., if you like a movie of a particular genre, you might like other movies in that genre.
Wallpaper probably goes into broad catagories, too--stripes, patterns, solids, etc.
I once heard the term 'FPS' but somebody explained to me it was 'Frames Per Second' simply used out of context
The "FPS" genre means "First Person Shooter." Like Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein.
Software developers have learned that the Waterfall model *doesn't work* because it's too slow, expensive, and inflexible. Sound like any space programs you know?
Odd, I thought that they just realized that it was faster to do it the wrong way, because computing power has increased so dramatically.
Boy, was I wrong. I guess processor speed and zero-loss failure has had no impact at all on the techniques programmers use. Go figure.
Since OS X.x has BSD underpinnings, why not just compile it on x86?
Because you don't have the source for Aqua. You can no more run OS X on an x86 than you could run an Office X (Apple version) on Windows.
Running OS X.x with MS Orifice seems like the sweet spot for stable OS/file format compatibility in the proprietary world...
Actually, Win2000 / WinXP is just fine for most uses. Especially if you're behind a corporate firewall.
Any good proofreader already knows the words s/he commonly misspells, right?
Yes. And if they're that common, they'll set the misspellings to "autocorrect" to save their time--or they'll just do a find/replace.
But what about the words the proofreader doesn't misspell commonly? Or when they check someone _else_'s work?