I was asking a broader question. I can see where the U.S. courts would be involved where both parties are Americans, but what makes their decisions binding on the rest of the world? Why can't a citizen of Vanuatu register HarrisonFord.com and get away with it, presuming Vanuatu doesn't have anti-cybersquatting laws?
What I find really interesting is how U.S. law seems to be the driving force that's deciding so many of these issues. It's as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. How come I never hear of some Spainiard, for example, saying "Hey wait a minute! Our law says cybersquatting is perfectly reasonable!" Who's resolving this sort of thing, or is the U.S. just dragging the rest of the world along with it involuntarily?
Keep in mind that this is a government whose agents smash in unlocked doors when conducting a raid. Asking for and getting a tape with the stuff for free would be no fun whatsoever. It also doesn't employ the dozens or hundreds of people that doing it the hard way does.
AFAIK, that might be a violation of Interstate Commerce laws.
Although I'm prepared to believe almost any absurdity about U.S. laws, this would be a hard one for me to swallow. If some state passed a law that every spatula purchased must be accompanied by a pound of gold bullion, would all of the spatula manufacturers have to continue to sell there? I'm pretty sure that selling in one state doesn't obligate you to sell in all. If that weren't the case, I'd be able to buy any product in the U.S. here in my home state. Since I can't, I'm guessing you're incorrect (and thank God).
Think about it. You the manufacturer get a call from a customer whose computer is crashing continuously. The problem is that the customer has added 27 software packages and 3 add-on boards to the thing since receiving it. Now you have a couple of unpalatable choices: 1)spend endless hours of tech support trying to help them isolate the problem so that you can determine whether it's your machine or their additions. Or 2) tell them to restore the machine to its originally-shipped state and see if the problem persists. In 1) you've incurred tremendous costs for yourself. In 2) you've ticked off your customer (who may or may not even be technically capable of restoring the machine to its original state anyway, in which case you're back to 1). A reputable manufacturer who wants to keep customers happy will try to make things right, but the PA law puts too much power in the hands of the customer to penalize even those manufacturers who act in good faith.
If I was a system vendor, I'd probably stop selling computers in PA if the law went through.
Since the article says that even used computers under warranty are still covered, it looks like even that isn't an out. If a PA resident buys a used one from some other state and it craps out, looks like the manufacturer must fix it.
What wqould keep me up nights if I was a manufacturer is what constitutes a 'defect', and how to establish that it's the computer, and not, say, that piece of shareware crap that the user installed after s/he got the machine. The cost of tech support for resolving issues like that could potentially be horrendous.
So, what if a manufacturer decided, "screw this," and not to sell to residents of Pennsylvania, but some resident of another state sold a used one to a Pennsylvanian? As I read the story, the manufacturer is still on the hook. This seems unfair, since the manufacturer would be trying to avoid running afoul of an onerous law.
'm sure Norton/Symantec put pressure on Microsoft to not make windows too secure.
Norton/Symantec putting pressure on Microsoft??? What possible pressure could they exert that MSFT would care about? They wouldn't even make a good-sized stain on the sole of the boot with which MSFT crushed them.
One thing that's endeared Google to me is how they dress up the logo for occasions like St. Patricks's Day, Christmas, New Years, etc. (My favorite was the necktie on the logo, signifying Father's Day. I stole the idea for one of my sites. The customer loved it.) I always click on those dressed-up logos to see the message it leads to. Perhaps ads could be done the same way, and remain tasteful and non-obtrusive. Make the logo pour a glass of Coke, or whatever. If it were done right, it would be funny, get the message across, and lead the viewer to 'click-thru' on the logo.
I was at a presentation by a Qualcomm rep about a year ago. He showed us a phone that was about 1/2 inch thick and told us that QCOM was going to be getting multi-megabit speeds on that sort of device within 3 years or so. If they're on schedule (and I have reason to infer that they are), we're soon going to have cable modem speeds available to wireless devices. Man, I can't wait.
All of these are links, of a different sort - They all point you to products and/or services.
Even if these were actually made illegal, the big difference is that it would just be you trying to get it enforced and not powerful and wealthy interests like the RIAA, MPAA, etc. You could probably have the legal equivalent of a smoking gun, and the prosecutors wouldn't bat an eye, since you don't donate buckloads of political cash. If this action had been brought by Joe Nobody, you'd never have seen such an absurd ruling. I can only hope that it'll be overturned by a higher court. (Kudos to 2600 for publishing the 'links' as plain text. Let's see the judge try to suppress that.)
Well, it's looking like the Freenet model (the information can be obtained, but it's not possible to determine where it really resides) is going to end up the only way to distribute some of this stuff without drawing a lawsuit or the FBI. Another method I thought of was to tell people to encrypt requests and post them to alt.secret.messages, and then have an autoresponder email the desired material to the requester via mixmaster or equivalent. The more of this crap I read about, the madder I get, and the more I'm enclined to join the Rebels against the Empire.
Check with the Smithsonian (and perhaps even some European museums such as the British Museum) and see if they have positions for computer historians. I have to think that they would. If you can find such a person, ask what the qualifications are for the post, so that you can effectively direct your studies. Also ask about any associations devoted to the field and join them; getting a job like that is going to require some networking.
I'm guilty of sequestering my files to keep them away from others when I'm using Gnutella, but there's a reason. As soon as some idiot finds, for example, my complete collection of Barry Manilow songs (not really), he starts downloading the entire collection all at once. My cable modem uplink is capped at 256k, and he's just saturated it. If people weren't such hogs, I'd be more willing to make stuff available. Maybe I'll relent when I see a Gnutella client that can be configured to limit the number of uploads a single user can have running at one time. One can do this with Napster, so I have no problem there.
Hearing that even the DeCSS t-shirt is 'illegal' really stunned me. But it brought this to mind: what if you inserted one deliberate 'error' in the code? Like omitting an obvious semicolon, for example. Any competent programmer could find and fix it, but the code would be rendered uncompilable and unrunnable. Are you now in violation? How about a voice recording where you read the code? This whole issue just leads to more and more absurdity.
Showing my age here, but I remember a television series from the '60s, Fractured Flickers, in which old movies (typically silents) were given zany voice by a cast of veteran cartoon voiceovers. Similar to what Woody Allen later did to a Japanese spy movie (his title: "What's Up Tiger Lily"). Anyone who's a fan of MST3K would probably also enjoy FF (or "What's Up Tiger Lily" for that matter), so if you ever see it replayed somewhere, don't miss it.
Get used to this. I've had friends present me with an NDA just so they could talk to me about their work. In fact, there was an article a few months ago (sorry, I don't recall where I saw it. Perhaps the NY Times Technology section) that said NDAs are becoming so ubiquitous that there have been people on first dates and at cocktail parties that whip them out as soon as they're asked, "So, what do you do?". (I don't know about you, but if someone hands me an NDA on a first date, the date's ending real fast).
What kind of office architechture (and environment) do you
think sponsors a constructive work environment?
That's easy. Individual offices with doors. I spent the first 15 years of my career that way, and it was perfect - total control over my environment, no noise or distractions. I later went to the cubicle plan, and it sucked big time. Now I'm back to an individual office. In my home. Now this is perfection.
Well I live in the Good Ol US of A and I connect every day at 26400 with my 56k modem... I
would give my left arm to connect at 49333....
This is beginning to sound like one of those comic routines:
Man 1: We had it tough when I was a kid. We lived in a cardboard box behind a Chinese restaurant. Our only source of food was the dumpster where the restaurant threw its moldy discards.
Man 2: Luxury! We aspired to a cardboard box. By the time my childhood was over, we had sold every vital organ in our bodies for food.
etc.
You sound technically astute enough to know this, but I'll state it for anyone else who might be reading. Even if the Terms of Service for RoadRunner say you can't run multiple computers, there's really no way they can stop you. Install a LinkSys router (there's a review here) between your computers and cable modem, and it will act as a proxy. RR will perceive the router as a single machine. Short of coming out and inspecting, RR isn't going to be able to tell how many real computers are on it. And if they give you any static, tell them it's a hardware firewall to protect you from the hordes of crackers who are trying to penetrate your system (a true claim by the way; the router can be configured to refuse all incoming connection attempts, which is a good idea). I have Cox @Home and this is exactly what I've done.
for those that continue to use the software after the Usage portion of the DMCA goes into effect be liable for arrest and prosecution?
Even if the answer is 'yes' it isn't going to happen. No government agency is going to attempt to prosecute millions of Napster users. The resources involved would be too great. If they really wanted to punish Napster users, they'd create a tax in the law, then turn collection over to the IRS.
Slashdot Mirror
I was asking a broader question. I can see where the U.S. courts would be involved where both parties are Americans, but what makes their decisions binding on the rest of the world? Why can't a citizen of Vanuatu register HarrisonFord.com and get away with it, presuming Vanuatu doesn't have anti-cybersquatting laws?
What I find really interesting is how U.S. law seems to be the driving force that's deciding so many of these issues. It's as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. How come I never hear of some Spainiard, for example, saying "Hey wait a minute! Our law says cybersquatting is perfectly reasonable!" Who's resolving this sort of thing, or is the U.S. just dragging the rest of the world along with it involuntarily?
Yes, they could have just asked for it. :-P
Keep in mind that this is a government whose agents smash in unlocked doors when conducting a raid. Asking for and getting a tape with the stuff for free would be no fun whatsoever. It also doesn't employ the dozens or hundreds of people that doing it the hard way does.
AFAIK, that might be a violation of Interstate Commerce laws.
Although I'm prepared to believe almost any absurdity about U.S. laws, this would be a hard one for me to swallow. If some state passed a law that every spatula purchased must be accompanied by a pound of gold bullion, would all of the spatula manufacturers have to continue to sell there? I'm pretty sure that selling in one state doesn't obligate you to sell in all. If that weren't the case, I'd be able to buy any product in the U.S. here in my home state. Since I can't, I'm guessing you're incorrect (and thank God).
how is this law onerous?
Think about it. You the manufacturer get a call from a customer whose computer is crashing continuously. The problem is that the customer has added 27 software packages and 3 add-on boards to the thing since receiving it. Now you have a couple of unpalatable choices: 1)spend endless hours of tech support trying to help them isolate the problem so that you can determine whether it's your machine or their additions. Or 2) tell them to restore the machine to its originally-shipped state and see if the problem persists. In 1) you've incurred tremendous costs for yourself. In 2) you've ticked off your customer (who may or may not even be technically capable of restoring the machine to its original state anyway, in which case you're back to 1). A reputable manufacturer who wants to keep customers happy will try to make things right, but the PA law puts too much power in the hands of the customer to penalize even those manufacturers who act in good faith.
If I was a system vendor, I'd probably stop selling computers in PA if the law went through.
Since the article says that even used computers under warranty are still covered, it looks like even that isn't an out. If a PA resident buys a used one from some other state and it craps out, looks like the manufacturer must fix it.
What wqould keep me up nights if I was a manufacturer is what constitutes a 'defect', and how to establish that it's the computer, and not, say, that piece of shareware crap that the user installed after s/he got the machine. The cost of tech support for resolving issues like that could potentially be horrendous.
So, what if a manufacturer decided, "screw this," and not to sell to residents of Pennsylvania, but some resident of another state sold a used one to a Pennsylvanian? As I read the story, the manufacturer is still on the hook. This seems unfair, since the manufacturer would be trying to avoid running afoul of an onerous law.
'm sure Norton/Symantec put pressure on Microsoft to not make windows too secure.
Norton/Symantec putting pressure on Microsoft??? What possible pressure could they exert that MSFT would care about? They wouldn't even make a good-sized stain on the sole of the boot with which MSFT crushed them.
Hi, I'm a .sign Virus, put me in yours :-)
.sign supposed to be .sig, or am I not getting the joke?
Is
One thing that's endeared Google to me is how they dress up the logo for occasions like St. Patricks's Day, Christmas, New Years, etc. (My favorite was the necktie on the logo, signifying Father's Day. I stole the idea for one of my sites. The customer loved it.) I always click on those dressed-up logos to see the message it leads to. Perhaps ads could be done the same way, and remain tasteful and non-obtrusive. Make the logo pour a glass of Coke, or whatever. If it were done right, it would be funny, get the message across, and lead the viewer to 'click-thru' on the logo.
I was at a presentation by a Qualcomm rep about a year ago. He showed us a phone that was about 1/2 inch thick and told us that QCOM was going to be getting multi-megabit speeds on that sort of device within 3 years or so. If they're on schedule (and I have reason to infer that they are), we're soon going to have cable modem speeds available to wireless devices. Man, I can't wait.
How about a map tracing the derivations of internet file sharing software and the resulting lawsuits?
All of these are links, of a different sort - They all point you to products and/or services.
Even if these were actually made illegal, the big difference is that it would just be you trying to get it enforced and not powerful and wealthy interests like the RIAA, MPAA, etc. You could probably have the legal equivalent of a smoking gun, and the prosecutors wouldn't bat an eye, since you don't donate buckloads of political cash. If this action had been brought by Joe Nobody, you'd never have seen such an absurd ruling. I can only hope that it'll be overturned by a higher court. (Kudos to 2600 for publishing the 'links' as plain text. Let's see the judge try to suppress that.)
Well, it's looking like the Freenet model (the information can be obtained, but it's not possible to determine where it really resides) is going to end up the only way to distribute some of this stuff without drawing a lawsuit or the FBI. Another method I thought of was to tell people to encrypt requests and post them to alt.secret.messages, and then have an autoresponder email the desired material to the requester via mixmaster or equivalent. The more of this crap I read about, the madder I get, and the more I'm enclined to join the Rebels against the Empire.
Check with the Smithsonian (and perhaps even some European museums such as the British Museum) and see if they have positions for computer historians. I have to think that they would. If you can find such a person, ask what the qualifications are for the post, so that you can effectively direct your studies. Also ask about any associations devoted to the field and join them; getting a job like that is going to require some networking.
Ah. You're right, I am running .56. I'll check out the ones you mention. Many thanks.
I'm guilty of sequestering my files to keep them away from others when I'm using Gnutella, but there's a reason. As soon as some idiot finds, for example, my complete collection of Barry Manilow songs (not really), he starts downloading the entire collection all at once. My cable modem uplink is capped at 256k, and he's just saturated it. If people weren't such hogs, I'd be more willing to make stuff available. Maybe I'll relent when I see a Gnutella client that can be configured to limit the number of uploads a single user can have running at one time. One can do this with Napster, so I have no problem there.
Hearing that even the DeCSS t-shirt is 'illegal' really stunned me. But it brought this to mind: what if you inserted one deliberate 'error' in the code? Like omitting an obvious semicolon, for example. Any competent programmer could find and fix it, but the code would be rendered uncompilable and unrunnable. Are you now in violation? How about a voice recording where you read the code? This whole issue just leads to more and more absurdity.
Showing my age here, but I remember a television series from the '60s, Fractured Flickers, in which old movies (typically silents) were given zany voice by a cast of veteran cartoon voiceovers. Similar to what Woody Allen later did to a Japanese spy movie (his title: "What's Up Tiger Lily"). Anyone who's a fan of MST3K would probably also enjoy FF (or "What's Up Tiger Lily" for that matter), so if you ever see it replayed somewhere, don't miss it.
Get used to this. I've had friends present me with an NDA just so they could talk to me about their work. In fact, there was an article a few months ago (sorry, I don't recall where I saw it. Perhaps the NY Times Technology section) that said NDAs are becoming so ubiquitous that there have been people on first dates and at cocktail parties that whip them out as soon as they're asked, "So, what do you do?". (I don't know about you, but if someone hands me an NDA on a first date, the date's ending real fast).
What kind of office architechture (and environment) do you think sponsors a constructive work environment?
That's easy. Individual offices with doors. I spent the first 15 years of my career that way, and it was perfect - total control over my environment, no noise or distractions. I later went to the cubicle plan, and it sucked big time. Now I'm back to an individual office. In my home. Now this is perfection.
Well I live in the Good Ol US of A and I connect every day at 26400 with my 56k modem... I would give my left arm to connect at 49333....
This is beginning to sound like one of those comic routines:
Man 1: We had it tough when I was a kid. We lived in a cardboard box behind a Chinese restaurant. Our only source of food was the dumpster where the restaurant threw its moldy discards.
Man 2: Luxury! We aspired to a cardboard box. By the time my childhood was over, we had sold every vital organ in our bodies for food.
etc.
You sound technically astute enough to know this, but I'll state it for anyone else who might be reading. Even if the Terms of Service for RoadRunner say you can't run multiple computers, there's really no way they can stop you. Install a LinkSys router (there's a review here) between your computers and cable modem, and it will act as a proxy. RR will perceive the router as a single machine. Short of coming out and inspecting, RR isn't going to be able to tell how many real computers are on it. And if they give you any static, tell them it's a hardware firewall to protect you from the hordes of crackers who are trying to penetrate your system (a true claim by the way; the router can be configured to refuse all incoming connection attempts, which is a good idea). I have Cox @Home and this is exactly what I've done.
for those that continue to use the software after the Usage portion of the DMCA goes into effect be liable for arrest and prosecution?
Even if the answer is 'yes' it isn't going to happen. No government agency is going to attempt to prosecute millions of Napster users. The resources involved would be too great. If they really wanted to punish Napster users, they'd create a tax in the law, then turn collection over to the IRS.
I know. I was too lazy to look up the incumbent. Besides, if *I* don't know, who else is going to recognize his name? :-)