I don't think they should make shows with taxpayer money and then charge the taxpayers again if the taxpayers want to watch those shows.
As a taxpayer, I'm funding the transit system they happen to be building outside my living room window right now. Despite this, I fully expect to be charged to use the system once it's up and running.
I agree with you, though, about the double-speak regarding sharing the "content" (I hate that word for some reason now). They should be up-front with their policies. But I don't have a problem with them attempting to generate revenue with the programmes they produce. Government-funded broadcasting companies are easy targets for budget cuts, especially in times of restraint or conservative governments who see such programs as "socialism" (that's they word they like to spit at you where I live). As long as they are not trying something stupid like preventing me from making private copies for my own personal use, I'm okay with them saying you don't get to compete with them by distributing the shows.
You can't exactly sue someone for braking encryption under the DMCA if you're not encrypting anything.
I could be wrong, but I believe all you need to do to violate the DMCA is circumvent any measure designed to control access to data, so bypassing the part where you are supposed to enter a password would qualify. I think that's the the point of the DMCA: no need to have good locks, just make it illegal to attempt to pick one.
And you don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit in to the wind...;^)
Hey, I'm sure you are well versed in the terminology, most people on Slashdot are. But that person who thinks the monitor is the computer isn't, and if people who know better fall in to the trap of mis-using that word, then we lose it to the uninformed. And that's a shame, cause there really isn't another word I can think of that we can use to describe those with an insatiable curiosity about how things work, and a willingness to share knowledge with others, but no desire to use their knowledge to lie, cheat, steal and exploit.
Let the corporate media come up with another word. Hacker is taken.
As far as I know, people take much better to being "accounted for" than they do being "hacked".
I don't know about being "hacked." Is that something you do with a machete? Or a scalpel? Or, maybe, a golf club?
I was talking about "hackers."
You must be one of those people who thinks the word "hacker" refers to someone who uses a computer to commit crimes. Actually, we have a word for that already: it's "criminal." Hacker already has a meaning, and that isn't it.
I don't presume to be an authority, and I would certainly never call myself one, but I know people who exhibit the hacker spirit in their work and their everyday lives, and they tend to be leaders in the companies they work for. Hackers are resourceful; they find innovative ways of using tools that get the job done more efficiently in less time. They see possibilities where others see obstacles. Remember that kid who took his toys apart (and probably yours, too) just to see how they worked, and even managed to put them back together - give or take a few pieces? He was a hacker. Or the one who found a new and novel use for something you thought was boring and mundane? Hacker.
Do you have a friend who can fix your car, or a leaky faucet, or get your printer working again? Even though he's never worked with your particular printer or car before? He's a hacker.
We used to celebrate free spirits who had an insatiable curiosity about how things worked, and who shared their knowledge freely with anyone who wanted to learn, and couldn't sleep until they found the solution to a problem they were stuck on. But the media has latched on to a buzz word, so hard working, honest, productive people get slandered by ignorant morons who want to feel superior, at least until they can't get their printer to work. Then they ask that guy in the office who is "good with computers" to help them, and they never see the irony in this.
Someone else in this thread pointed out that most people think their monitor is the "computer," and that box with the wires coming out of it is the "hard drive." These people don't know any better and don't care, until something stops working. Then they ask someone for help, and that person who solves their problem for them is usually someone who possesses at least some of the qualities associated with "hackers."
Yet these same people will hear about an intrusion, or a virus or a worm and say "those damn hackers" because, once again, they don't know any better, and they don't care. As long as their printer works.
And here you are, surfing the Internet and posting on Slashdot, oblivious to the efforts of all the "hackers" who wrote code, developed protocols and designed the computer hardware that would make it all possible.
Maybe, but what happens when your public relations go down the toilet because you have a bunch of "hackers" working for you ?
I dunno. Didn't Enron have a bunch of bean counters working for them who committed fraud? So, I guess by your reasoning, we shouldn't hire accountants cause our public relations might go down the toilet.
I think it's the exact opposite: the more hackers you have working for you, the less you'll have to worry about a "Superhacker" (or a "Superdentist," or a "Superhairdresser," or a "Superanything") threatening your security.
Boy, some moderator apparently decided to spray his mod points all over this thread, modding everyone Off Topic. What exactly is the "topic?" Jokes about BSODs in the ISS and 640K being enough to run the Soyuz?
Maybe you should have begun with "I'll probably get modded Off Topic for this but..." That's usually enough to warrant an Insightful mod.
Your link didn't work for me, for some reason. It 404'd, but I'm familiar with the article. I find it here. It's headlined "Canada deems P2P downloading legal." Check the date: December 12, 2003. In the article I linked to - dated March 31, 2004 - I quoted the following: "With respect to downloading, the judge accepted the Copyright Board's early decision almost without comment." The "Copyright Board's early decision" they are referring to is the one in the article you just linked to. Yes, the judge agreed with the Copyright Board that downloading is legal, then he contradicted them by saying sharing a folder on a P2P network appeared to be legal as well. Then he denied the record companies the names of the customers of the ISPs they were suing for. None of this does much to make your case that downloading isn't really "legal" in Canada because of the blank media levy.
That seems to be the point you're making. I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see if someone from the recording industry would agree with that sentiment. I suspect they would prefer a system where people paid the levy but were not entitled to "do the crime."
I guess my point is the Copyright Board, like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. They are a regulatory body, not a legislative one. I think the Copyright Act of Canada addresses Fair Dealing, without regard to the levy. The levy, as far as I'm concerned, is no different that Canadian Content requirements that Canadian television and radio broadcasters have had to adhere to for the past - I dunno - 30 or 40 years. They are an artificial - some would say necessary - advantage given to an industry in an attempt to make it competitive. The goal is to ensure Canadians have their own culture, but it's no different than a tax on cigarettes or booze or a lottery. Canadian governments know people will continue to buy these things despite the tax, and the Heritage Minister gets to boast about funding struggling Canadian artists.
I also believe there are a great number of nations that have laws similar to those in Canada, and I wonder if you would say they don't count either.
Anyway... it's been a fun discussion. Here's a gem I found while googling around (oops, just violated Trademark law): "'User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.'"
Well, if you want to call it "getting a free pass" that's your prerogative. You are assuming a cause and effect relationship between the levy applied to blank media (which I recall paying on blank cassette tapes twenty-five years ago) and the judge's interpretation of Canadian Copyright Act that I don't think is accurate or - frankly - relevant. Downloading songs off P2P networks is legal in Canada. This is not some loop-hole or a concession made to justify the (in my opinion deplorable) tax on blank media. It is Canadian law. (From one of those Wikipedia articles everyone loves so much: "Contrary to popular belief, the private use grant can be implemented independent of the levy system, since the rights granted by private use clause is already covered by fair dealing." If you don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source, you are welcome to read the Canadian Copyright Act yourself).
The act of putting a file in a directory(or uploading to a shred server) where others can get at it is not a crime
In the opinion of Judge Finckenstein, this is true.
The act of downloading it is a different matter entirely.
You are correct, downloading a file is a different thing than putting it in a shared folder. That does not change the fact that it is legal in Canada.
Again, Canadian rules specifically allow that, on the assumption that people will be pirates, so they've been charged in advance for it. How many other countries have rules like this?
Read the article you cite carefully, it doesn't mean what you think it means
Ok, I've re-read an article I have read on numerous other occasions. I don't know what your point is.
My first comment was a response to you assertion that "if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download." I pointed out - correctly - that this is not necessarily the case in places outside the United States, using Canada as an example of a place where it is currently legal to not only download music files off P2P networks, but - in the opinion of Judge Konrad von Finckenstein - to put files in a shared folder accessible on P2P networks as well.
Basically, it says that it's ok to download music if you're legally entitled to
No, it doesn't. From the article you asked me to re-read:
Canada's debate over file swapping flared last December, when the country's Copyright Board, which regulates intellectual property issues, ruled that downloading songs from a peer-to-peer network for personal use--but not necessarily uploading--appeared to be legal.
Then, a bit further down:
With respect to downloading, the judge accepted the Copyright Board's early decision almost without comment. But he went further, citing a recent Supreme Court decision to say that making music available online also appeared to be legal.
In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.
Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.
"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."
This is not saying it's "ok to download if you are legally entitled to" - that goes without saying. The ruling (which denied representatives from the record labels access to the names of 29 people they wanted to sue for infringing copyright) stated in clear and unambiguous language that downloading songs off P2P networks is legal in Canada.
I don't know about Lisbon, Barcelona or Manchester - the cities the USB keys were left in - and I don't know where the "excited fans" who were sharing the files were located, but your statement reflects a very insulated worldview. Just because it's illegal in the US of A, doesn't make it so in the rest of the world - eh?
I hate them too, but if you just ran your registry changes on my machine because they annoyed you, I'd be pissed.
If you were knowledgeable enough about computers to know there is something called the registry and what it might be useful for, I wouldn't make changes to it without your permission. Then again, if you were that knowledgeable, chances are you would have made the change yourself by now, anyway.
I carry it on a USB stick, so I can run it whenever I use someone else's machine. I don't know how people use Windows with all those pop-ups (kind of like browsing the web with IE6, I suppose).
Same here. And the very next thing I do is change Explorer to not hide file extensions and display hidden/system files and - most importantly - I run a registry hack that turns off all those annoying pop-ups Windows likes to throw at users every few seconds.
someone either supporting, or associated with the opposition Liberal Party
The story you linked to didn't give the identity of Youtube user "liberalvideo." Unless you have additional information, you have no way of knowing that to be true.
I haven't read the book, but this is from its wiki page:
The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the butchered or the "slaughtered and dressed" weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members, and also closer than any of the separate estimates made by cattle experts).
So it's not really "luck," as was suggested by the poster above you.
I don't spend much time on youtube, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. You're point about the bit-for-bit copy kind of troubles me. I've clicked Submit twice on Slashdot and gotten the message about the message being identical to one that was already posted. So, sure, technically it's doable. But I don't think it checks everything ever posted (there was the "I know you hate the RIAA" troll about the supposed Christian record store owner for example, recently re-posted here, not to mention making numerous appearances at K5 & who-knows-where else). So, okay, every time you receive a takedown notice you remove the alleged infringing content, advise the person who posted it so they have the opportunity to file a counter-claim, and make a checksum on the file to compare against everything someone submits after that. So you will prevent someone else from uploading the exact same file.
But if I upload last night's Survivor episode made by my myth box an hour after Youtube takes down the one you uploaded, made by your myth box, we're back to the same infringing content being uploaded multiple times. Except now, youtube has taken steps to vet the content their users upload, and I think once you let that genie out of the bottle there is no turning back. Isn't that the reason for Safe Harbour laws in the first place: to protect common carriers from the potentially illegal actions of their users?
Also, it may be within the means of a big company like Google to maintain such a system, but what about the small start-up youtube once was? Can they afford to not only maintain the database, but also to assume liability and eat the legal costs for their mitakes?
I'm the "service provider," and the service I am providing is space. Say it's a rooming house, for example.
I am providing space to you. In that space that I provide, you receive guests, and when they say "hello" to you, you slap them.
Now, what exactly does you slapping people have to do with me, other than the fact that you did it in a space that I provided to you?
To paraphrase a comment I read somewhere else in this thread, is it Slashdot's fault if I libel you in a comment I make here? Is it Verizon's fault if I slander you in a phone call I make to a third party? If I assault you in a McDonald's parking lot, should you be successful in your lawsuit against the restaurant?
The point of the "Safe Harbour" aspect of the DMCA is that service providers cannot reasonably be expected to monitor all of the actions of all of their users, and their users would not (should not) stand for the invasion of privacy if they did.
If you are a copyright holder and feel your copyright has been violated by something one of my users has posted, you can notify me of the alleged infringement and I am compelled to take it down, notify the user and let them file a counterclaim if they feel the take-down notice was illegitimate. This places the burden of proof where it should be: on the party alleging infringement. The notion that "everybody knows youtube is full of infringing content, so let's just shut down youtube" is a bit of a slippery slope. If we are going to deny ourselves anything that could be abused by someone motivated to do so, we are going to end up giving up a lot more than content hosting services.
I'm glad to hear that these musicians will no longer charge more for better seats at their concerts...
Bad analogy, Mr. Coward. (And on Slashdot, no less).
What the telcos want is more along the lines of the musicians offering you the chance to pay to move up ahead of me in the ticket line, despite the fact that I got there first.
Slashdot Mirror
As a taxpayer, I'm funding the transit system they happen to be building outside my living room window right now. Despite this, I fully expect to be charged to use the system once it's up and running.
I agree with you, though, about the double-speak regarding sharing the "content" (I hate that word for some reason now). They should be up-front with their policies. But I don't have a problem with them attempting to generate revenue with the programmes they produce. Government-funded broadcasting companies are easy targets for budget cuts, especially in times of restraint or conservative governments who see such programs as "socialism" (that's they word they like to spit at you where I live). As long as they are not trying something stupid like preventing me from making private copies for my own personal use, I'm okay with them saying you don't get to compete with them by distributing the shows.
But then, IANAA (I am not an Australian).
Gosh darn it, I wish I had mod points. Next time, try posting when I still have them, m'kay???
Oh! I know! Call the ISPs pretending to be the testers and ask "did I post a CTP of Windows Home Server to The Hotfix.net blog?"
I could be wrong, but I believe all you need to do to violate the DMCA is circumvent any measure designed to control access to data, so bypassing the part where you are supposed to enter a password would qualify. I think that's the the point of the DMCA: no need to have good locks, just make it illegal to attempt to pick one.
And you don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit in to the wind ... ;^)
Hey, I'm sure you are well versed in the terminology, most people on Slashdot are. But that person who thinks the monitor is the computer isn't, and if people who know better fall in to the trap of mis-using that word, then we lose it to the uninformed. And that's a shame, cause there really isn't another word I can think of that we can use to describe those with an insatiable curiosity about how things work, and a willingness to share knowledge with others, but no desire to use their knowledge to lie, cheat, steal and exploit.
Let the corporate media come up with another word. Hacker is taken.
I don't know about being "hacked." Is that something you do with a machete? Or a scalpel? Or, maybe, a golf club?
I was talking about "hackers."
You must be one of those people who thinks the word "hacker" refers to someone who uses a computer to commit crimes. Actually, we have a word for that already: it's "criminal." Hacker already has a meaning, and that isn't it.
I don't presume to be an authority, and I would certainly never call myself one, but I know people who exhibit the hacker spirit in their work and their everyday lives, and they tend to be leaders in the companies they work for. Hackers are resourceful; they find innovative ways of using tools that get the job done more efficiently in less time. They see possibilities where others see obstacles. Remember that kid who took his toys apart (and probably yours, too) just to see how they worked, and even managed to put them back together - give or take a few pieces? He was a hacker. Or the one who found a new and novel use for something you thought was boring and mundane? Hacker.
Do you have a friend who can fix your car, or a leaky faucet, or get your printer working again? Even though he's never worked with your particular printer or car before? He's a hacker.
We used to celebrate free spirits who had an insatiable curiosity about how things worked, and who shared their knowledge freely with anyone who wanted to learn, and couldn't sleep until they found the solution to a problem they were stuck on. But the media has latched on to a buzz word, so hard working, honest, productive people get slandered by ignorant morons who want to feel superior, at least until they can't get their printer to work. Then they ask that guy in the office who is "good with computers" to help them, and they never see the irony in this.
Someone else in this thread pointed out that most people think their monitor is the "computer," and that box with the wires coming out of it is the "hard drive." These people don't know any better and don't care, until something stops working. Then they ask someone for help, and that person who solves their problem for them is usually someone who possesses at least some of the qualities associated with "hackers."
Yet these same people will hear about an intrusion, or a virus or a worm and say "those damn hackers" because, once again, they don't know any better, and they don't care. As long as their printer works.
And here you are, surfing the Internet and posting on Slashdot, oblivious to the efforts of all the "hackers" who wrote code, developed protocols and designed the computer hardware that would make it all possible.
I dunno. Didn't Enron have a bunch of bean counters working for them who committed fraud? So, I guess by your reasoning, we shouldn't hire accountants cause our public relations might go down the toilet.
Which "stuff" was that? A list of credit card numbers everyone on Usenet had? Some source code Sun gave away for free to academic institutions?
You know, he could also whistle the launch codes in to a telephone to start a nuke-you-ler war.
I think it's the exact opposite: the more hackers you have working for you, the less you'll have to worry about a "Superhacker" (or a "Superdentist," or a "Superhairdresser," or a "Superanything") threatening your security.
Oh, that's easy to avoid: just begin your posts with "I'll probably get modded down for this but
Boy, some moderator apparently decided to spray his mod points all over this thread, modding everyone Off Topic. What exactly is the "topic?" Jokes about BSODs in the ISS and 640K being enough to run the Soyuz?
..." That's usually enough to warrant an Insightful mod.
Maybe you should have begun with "I'll probably get modded Off Topic for this but
That seems to be the point you're making. I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see if someone from the recording industry would agree with that sentiment. I suspect they would prefer a system where people paid the levy but were not entitled to "do the crime."
I guess my point is the Copyright Board, like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. They are a regulatory body, not a legislative one. I think the Copyright Act of Canada addresses Fair Dealing, without regard to the levy. The levy, as far as I'm concerned, is no different that Canadian Content requirements that Canadian television and radio broadcasters have had to adhere to for the past - I dunno - 30 or 40 years. They are an artificial - some would say necessary - advantage given to an industry in an attempt to make it competitive. The goal is to ensure Canadians have their own culture, but it's no different than a tax on cigarettes or booze or a lottery. Canadian governments know people will continue to buy these things despite the tax, and the Heritage Minister gets to boast about funding struggling Canadian artists.
I also believe there are a great number of nations that have laws similar to those in Canada, and I wonder if you would say they don't count either.
Anyway
That's from the ruling in this case.
Hey, there you go. We agree on something 8^D
In the opinion of Judge Finckenstein, this is true.
You are correct, downloading a file is a different thing than putting it in a shared folder. That does not change the fact that it is legal in Canada.
Quite a few, apparently.
Ok, I've re-read an article I have read on numerous other occasions. I don't know what your point is.
My first comment was a response to you assertion that "if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download." I pointed out - correctly - that this is not necessarily the case in places outside the United States, using Canada as an example of a place where it is currently legal to not only download music files off P2P networks, but - in the opinion of Judge Konrad von Finckenstein - to put files in a shared folder accessible on P2P networks as well.
No, it doesn't. From the article you asked me to re-read:
Then, a bit further down:
This is not saying it's "ok to download if you are legally entitled to" - that goes without saying. The ruling (which denied representatives from the record labels access to the names of 29 people they wanted to sue for infringing copyright) stated in clear and unambiguous language that downloading songs off P2P networks is legal in Canada.
True enough. The US Ambassador to Canada - among others - sure seems to think it's his job to rewrite our laws for us.
They are in Canada.
I don't know about Lisbon, Barcelona or Manchester - the cities the USB keys were left in - and I don't know where the "excited fans" who were sharing the files were located, but your statement reflects a very insulated worldview. Just because it's illegal in the US of A, doesn't make it so in the rest of the world - eh?
If you were knowledgeable enough about computers to know there is something called the registry and what it might be useful for, I wouldn't make changes to it without your permission. Then again, if you were that knowledgeable, chances are you would have made the change yourself by now, anyway.
hmmm ... looks like /. put a space in "Current." It shouldn't be there.
This isn't mine, just something I found with a Google search:
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cur
"EnableBalloonTips"=dword:00000000
I carry it on a USB stick, so I can run it whenever I use someone else's machine. I don't know how people use Windows with all those pop-ups (kind of like browsing the web with IE6, I suppose).
Same here. And the very next thing I do is change Explorer to not hide file extensions and display hidden/system files and - most importantly - I run a registry hack that turns off all those annoying pop-ups Windows likes to throw at users every few seconds.
The story you linked to didn't give the identity of Youtube user "liberalvideo." Unless you have additional information, you have no way of knowing that to be true.
So it's not really "luck," as was suggested by the poster above you.
I don't spend much time on youtube, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. You're point about the bit-for-bit copy kind of troubles me. I've clicked Submit twice on Slashdot and gotten the message about the message being identical to one that was already posted. So, sure, technically it's doable. But I don't think it checks everything ever posted (there was the "I know you hate the RIAA" troll about the supposed Christian record store owner for example, recently re-posted here, not to mention making numerous appearances at K5 & who-knows-where else). So, okay, every time you receive a takedown notice you remove the alleged infringing content, advise the person who posted it so they have the opportunity to file a counter-claim, and make a checksum on the file to compare against everything someone submits after that. So you will prevent someone else from uploading the exact same file.
But if I upload last night's Survivor episode made by my myth box an hour after Youtube takes down the one you uploaded, made by your myth box, we're back to the same infringing content being uploaded multiple times. Except now, youtube has taken steps to vet the content their users upload, and I think once you let that genie out of the bottle there is no turning back. Isn't that the reason for Safe Harbour laws in the first place: to protect common carriers from the potentially illegal actions of their users?
Also, it may be within the means of a big company like Google to maintain such a system, but what about the small start-up youtube once was? Can they afford to not only maintain the database, but also to assume liability and eat the legal costs for their mitakes?
Let's see if we can fix this analogy up for you.
I'm the "service provider," and the service I am providing is space. Say it's a rooming house, for example.
I am providing space to you. In that space that I provide, you receive guests, and when they say "hello" to you, you slap them.
Now, what exactly does you slapping people have to do with me, other than the fact that you did it in a space that I provided to you?
To paraphrase a comment I read somewhere else in this thread, is it Slashdot's fault if I libel you in a comment I make here? Is it Verizon's fault if I slander you in a phone call I make to a third party? If I assault you in a McDonald's parking lot, should you be successful in your lawsuit against the restaurant?
The point of the "Safe Harbour" aspect of the DMCA is that service providers cannot reasonably be expected to monitor all of the actions of all of their users, and their users would not (should not) stand for the invasion of privacy if they did.
If you are a copyright holder and feel your copyright has been violated by something one of my users has posted, you can notify me of the alleged infringement and I am compelled to take it down, notify the user and let them file a counterclaim if they feel the take-down notice was illegitimate. This places the burden of proof where it should be: on the party alleging infringement. The notion that "everybody knows youtube is full of infringing content, so let's just shut down youtube" is a bit of a slippery slope. If we are going to deny ourselves anything that could be abused by someone motivated to do so, we are going to end up giving up a lot more than content hosting services.
Bad analogy, Mr. Coward. (And on Slashdot, no less).
What the telcos want is more along the lines of the musicians offering you the chance to pay to move up ahead of me in the ticket line, despite the fact that I got there first.