being forced to Ottawa should be punishment enough.
Actually, the summary is wrong (suprise!), he was visiting a fellow World of Warcraft player in Ottawa. I don't know why the submitter said the plane was diverted there, or why Taco let it pass (can't believe I just said that with a straight face).
My question is if you are going to preach on the evils of releasing the data then do you have the moral right to analyze it? I think not.
The "evil" was releasing the data in the first place. What others do with the data once it is in the wild is a different matter altogether. Whether it is moral or ethical to analyze it depends on the motive of the person doing the analysis, and needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. For example, if I were an AOL user, I would feel entitled to analyze the data to determine whether my search history was included in it. I understand others may feel that by doing so, I am invading their privacy, but I see that as an unfortunate consequence of the original wrong, which was AOL releasing it in the first place.
You are correct, I believe, regarding the current legality of files sharing in Canada, but I have a couple of issues with your stance.
The Canadian Copyright Board ruled in 2003 that Canadians were entitled to download files off p2p networks, but sharing files was illegal. The following year, Judge Konrad von Finckenstein denied the CRIA's request to force ISPs to provide the names of 29 customers accused of file sharing, and commented that putting files in a shared folder did not violate Canada's copyright laws either:
"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."
All well and good, but the recording industry continues to lobby the federal government to ratify the WIPO treaty of 2006, and the previous liberal government had proposed legislation to ammend Canada's copyright laws to bring them in line with WIPO. I guess I feel that this battle is not over yet.
Now, you say you are not bothered by a.25/disc levy provided it entitles you to download music and burn it to your hearts content, but the holders the copyrights to the music you are downloading don't believe you are entitled to do anything of the sort -- although they are happy to collect the levy "thank you very much" -- and continue to lobby hard to take away your right to do so and force your isp to turn your name over to them so they can sue you.
Also, I *don't* download mp3s off p2p networks and burn them to cds (not due to any moral objections, just not my thing), and I resent having to pay for a service I am not receiving (just as I resent having to pay the Microsoft tax when I buy a new computer that I plan on running linux on).
So I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I think the current system is. If sharing and downloading music files is legal, then the levy is just another tax. If the government wants to support Canadian artists, the money should come out of general revenue and appear in the budget, maybe as part of the Ministry of Herritage or something, I don't know. At least there would be (theoretically) some accountability then. God knows what happens to the.25/disc we're paying now. I'll bet the other guy who replied to my post will never see a penny of it.
like a % of blank CD sales in some countries, etc)
This really pisses me off. In Canada, we pay a levy on blank media regardless of what we are using it for. There are plenty of "legitimate" uses for blank cds, such as burning ISOs of Linux distros, sending digital photos to friends and family, backing up legally purchases music... but the assumption is that we *must* be using them to burn mp3s downloaded from p2p networks. What crap.
It's bad enough that I'm fined for the illegal behaviour my government -- and the cultural gatekeeers at the RIAA -- just know I must be engaged in, but I would *really* resent paying it if I were an independant artist producing my own cds to sell at gigs or on a web site. Imagine the struggling artist who, by choice or circumstance, decides to produce his own cds. He not only has to compete against the huge RIAA steam roller for the mindshare of his fan base, but he also pays them a percentage of every cd he produces, that they can then use to bribe radio stations and finance lawsuits against their customers.
I agree with the original poster. The only thing that is going to end this nonsense is to *stop* listening to music produced by RIAA member labels. Stop watching movies produced by MPAA member studios. No more commercial radio or television. Use the money you spend on cds and movie tickets to attend live performances of independant artists in local venues, and buy a t-shirt or a cd from them while you are at it.
They've turned art in to a commodity, like soap or toilet paper. It's time we tuned them out.
She said the data could end up in the hands of the myriad retailers that do business with the company, or with government officials or hackers.
Or dentists... or auto mechanics... or accountants...
The list is endless.
It shouldn't surprise me, but sure bugs me that everytime some big corporation decides they need to patent a new way of tracking and selling (or "accidentally" releasing to the world at large) information most (?) would prefer to keep private, the corporate media finds a way to make it sound like it's all the fault of "hackers."
I did pretty well, in the 80% range. I'd seen a few before, like the plane and tourist on the top of the World Trade center. Most were new to me, but I could usually guess right, especially the ones that would be very easy to produce in the gimp or photo shop (flipping the cover of the book Bush was reading upside down, for example, or reversing the image of the guy who seemed to have his left hand over his right breast during a pledge).
I'm not sure I would have done as well if one of these fakes were in a publication, or on a site, that I trust and represented as real, however. That's the scary part.
Don't you kids remember that what is "illegal" is the voice recording?
What the gp was getting at was the police were justifying the arrest of Gannon by saying they were not aware they were being recorded.
From the article:
Police had charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch.
It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved.
Gannon had posted a warning that recording equipment was being used. If you willingly take part in a conversation that you know is being recorded, you can't say afterward that you did not consent. That's why the gp included the quote from the police chief claiming the "obscure little sticker" was not sufficient warning.
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.
watch how much the attendance goes up for the next con due to the added publicity
Offset by the number of potential speakers/attendees who choose to give it a pass in light of incidents like this, and the Dmitri Sklyarov one from a few years ago. The alleged obstruction of justice took place in April, but the feds waited until he was about to conduct a panel at a high profile hacker con to nab him.
No. 8 is Open Internet access, where Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service, Smith said.
I don't know who the humour-impaired twit was that moderated you "troll" but I'll watch for it when I metamod. Off-topic maybe, but what the hell else is new around here?
Go to a library or internet cafe. View the video from a computer there.
This reminds me of the judge's response in the MPAA vs 2600 case to the defence's argument that the DMCA violates the US constitution because copy protections like css prevent people from making fair use of the material, and prevent it from ever entering the public domain even after copyright has expired. The jugde dismissed the argument by saying people could alway use versions of the material stored on other media, such as video tape, to make fair use, as if there would alway be choices like that available.
I suppose one could argue that NASA or whomever are under no obligation to make this material available, and we should just be happy with whatever they give us but I think that is very short-sited. If we don't demand and defend open standards at every instance, we will loose the ability to choose what media player, or word processor, or whatever, we use.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the summary is wrong (suprise!), he was visiting a fellow World of Warcraft player in Ottawa. I don't know why the submitter said the plane was diverted there, or why Taco let it pass (can't believe I just said that with a straight face).
The "evil" was releasing the data in the first place. What others do with the data once it is in the wild is a different matter altogether. Whether it is moral or ethical to analyze it depends on the motive of the person doing the analysis, and needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. For example, if I were an AOL user, I would feel entitled to analyze the data to determine whether my search history was included in it. I understand others may feel that by doing so, I am invading their privacy, but I see that as an unfortunate consequence of the original wrong, which was AOL releasing it in the first place.
you forgot to redact your sig
Jon Katz, is that you?
plane full of snakes?
Or her husband outed as a CIA agent
Indeed
The Canadian Copyright Board ruled in 2003 that Canadians were entitled to download files off p2p networks, but sharing files was illegal. The following year, Judge Konrad von Finckenstein denied the CRIA's request to force ISPs to provide the names of 29 customers accused of file sharing, and commented that putting files in a shared folder did not violate Canada's copyright laws either:
All well and good, but the recording industry continues to lobby the federal government to ratify the WIPO treaty of 2006, and the previous liberal government had proposed legislation to ammend Canada's copyright laws to bring them in line with WIPO. I guess I feel that this battle is not over yet.
Now, you say you are not bothered by a
Also, I *don't* download mp3s off p2p networks and burn them to cds (not due to any moral objections, just not my thing), and I resent having to pay for a service I am not receiving (just as I resent having to pay the Microsoft tax when I buy a new computer that I plan on running linux on).
So I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I think the current system is. If sharing and downloading music files is legal, then the levy is just another tax. If the government wants to support Canadian artists, the money should come out of general revenue and appear in the budget, maybe as part of the Ministry of Herritage or something, I don't know. At least there would be (theoretically) some accountability then. God knows what happens to the
This really pisses me off. In Canada, we pay a levy on blank media regardless of what we are using it for. There are plenty of "legitimate" uses for blank cds, such as burning ISOs of Linux distros, sending digital photos to friends and family, backing up legally purchases music
It's bad enough that I'm fined for the illegal behaviour my government -- and the cultural gatekeeers at the RIAA -- just know I must be engaged in, but I would *really* resent paying it if I were an independant artist producing my own cds to sell at gigs or on a web site. Imagine the struggling artist who, by choice or circumstance, decides to produce his own cds. He not only has to compete against the huge RIAA steam roller for the mindshare of his fan base, but he also pays them a percentage of every cd he produces, that they can then use to bribe radio stations and finance lawsuits against their customers.
I agree with the original poster. The only thing that is going to end this nonsense is to *stop* listening to music produced by RIAA member labels. Stop watching movies produced by MPAA member studios. No more commercial radio or television. Use the money you spend on cds and movie tickets to attend live performances of independant artists in local venues, and buy a t-shirt or a cd from them while you are at it.
They've turned art in to a commodity, like soap or toilet paper. It's time we tuned them out.
Or dentists
The list is endless.
It shouldn't surprise me, but sure bugs me that everytime some big corporation decides they need to patent a new way of tracking and selling (or "accidentally" releasing to the world at large) information most (?) would prefer to keep private, the corporate media finds a way to make it sound like it's all the fault of "hackers."
You were moderated "funny," but this is one of the most "insightful" comments I've read in a long time. You hit the nail right on the fricken head.
I did pretty well, in the 80% range. I'd seen a few before, like the plane and tourist on the top of the World Trade center. Most were new to me, but I could usually guess right, especially the ones that would be very easy to produce in the gimp or photo shop (flipping the cover of the book Bush was reading upside down, for example, or reversing the image of the guy who seemed to have his left hand over his right breast during a pledge).
I'm not sure I would have done as well if one of these fakes were in a publication, or on a site, that I trust and represented as real, however. That's the scary part.
What the gp was getting at was the police were justifying the arrest of Gannon by saying they were not aware they were being recorded.
From the article:
Gannon had posted a warning that recording equipment was being used. If you willingly take part in a conversation that you know is being recorded, you can't say afterward that you did not consent. That's why the gp included the quote from the police chief claiming the "obscure little sticker" was not sufficient warning.
That's unpossible.
Sounds like the DMCA
Perhaps they might want to run updates?
I think he directed Dawn of the Dead
I thought you were going to say "just for fun, here's David Brin's address and home phone number."
Offset by the number of potential speakers/attendees who choose to give it a pass in light of incidents like this, and the Dmitri Sklyarov one from a few years ago. The alleged obstruction of justice took place in April, but the feds waited until he was about to conduct a panel at a high profile hacker con to nab him.
Actually, the mod unlocked content that was already in the game but inaccessable.
Actually, his site is great. Thanks for commenting on it, I probably wouldn't have bothered to check it out otherwise.
I don't know who the humour-impaired twit was that moderated you "troll" but I'll watch for it when I metamod. Off-topic maybe, but what the hell else is new around here?
Shouldn't that be:
"Teaches me to preview my messages"?
This reminds me of the judge's response in the MPAA vs 2600 case to the defence's argument that the DMCA violates the US constitution because copy protections like css prevent people from making fair use of the material, and prevent it from ever entering the public domain even after copyright has expired. The jugde dismissed the argument by saying people could alway use versions of the material stored on other media, such as video tape, to make fair use, as if there would alway be choices like that available.
I suppose one could argue that NASA or whomever are under no obligation to make this material available, and we should just be happy with whatever they give us but I think that is very short-sited. If we don't demand and defend open standards at every instance, we will loose the ability to choose what media player, or word processor, or whatever, we use.