>Most of these cases are being done by lawyers for free. If they lose, they pay a few hundred in court costs.
>If they win, they get thousands, sometimes over a million, in fees.
You're forgetting that lawyers have to earn a living too, whether you like it or not. A legitimate tort lawsuit is not something that a lawyer can prepare in an a day--the investigation and preparation can run up hundreds or thousands of hours, depending on the case. Not to mention expert witness fees and other expenses. You may not like lawyers, but you need to remember that most of them work very hard, whether they win the case or lose it.
"Likewise, in an increasingly literate and wealthy society, public libraries are less important. At one time they were the only way for most people to get books, now they are mostly just a (taxpayer-subsidized) cheaper alternative."
Uh, a cheaper-alternative for *rich* people, maybe. For those of us who don't have the leisure income that you apparently do, libraries are the *only* source of books. I'm glad you're so freaking bourgeois that you think public libraries have outlived their usefulness -- do you feel the same way about public schools, public transit, and public utilities?
>What happens when a CD is scratched or stolen? I >should be able to replace it (for cost of the CD >itself, not the music) so long as I have proof >of purchase, right?
Um, no. Suppose I had my vinyl record collection stolen--do you really believe that I should be able to replace it for the cost of the vinyl? Or my books -- the cost the of the paper? I'm glad you've found a way to self-justify your use of p2p to get music, but the fact that some asshole stole your CD collection doesn't make this a good argument.
When you buy a CD, you do purchase both the right to listen to the music and the medium upon which that music is carried, but whoever swiped your collection swiped both of 'em as well. That may sound silly, but isn't ownership of a "right to listen to music" silly in the first instance?
Property (including intellectual property) is like a bunch of sticks -- the law will enforce your ownership of some of those sticks, not others, but it is the *whole* bunch of sticks that make up the ownership. Here, if you could track down the guy who swiped your CD's, you would regain both the plastic *and* the right / ability to listen to the music thereon.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not thrilled about the use of copyright and licenses to restrict owner's rights ("taking away some of the sticks"). But you don't have an inalienable, a priori natural property right to do anything you want with the things you own--rather, you've got the *right* to whatever the law provides you have the right to do. This, of course, is why Lawrence Lessig is an important and insightful thinker.
It would appear that a.pdf of the enacted text of the Children's Internet Protection Act can be found here (check in the middle of the page, under "McCain Amendment No. 3610").
My question is this: would the icra voluntary content rating system qualify as a "technology" under the bill sufficient to comply with the statute and the regulation? If so, the thing to do is to head to your local library and get them to implement ICRA, a self-rating and filtering tool based on voluntary disclosure by the page author of web site content. A quick and dirty summary of ICRA can be found here. I'm interested to know what/.ers think about this possible compromise.
Well, actually during the November mess the station displayed a pretty solid pro-Bush slant. While I'll agree that MSNBC is not generally *conservative*, I think a review of the coverage (Chris Matthews, anyone?) would show that the business interests that MSNBC is attached to get favorable treatment, and Bush's stance on the MS antitrust mess gets him positive points on MSNBC he wouldn't have on CNN (or PBS, for that matter).
Once again, the spectre of silly cyberlibertarianism raises its wooly head. You know, you can't hide behind the word "opinion" and expect people to take you seriously. If you weren't interested in getting a response, why the hell did you post?
Anyway, you're not in the minority on/.--there are plenty of opinionated folks on here who voted for Harry Browne and can't explain why. Also - "a Left that has been in power and infiltrating media organizations" ? How can you even write that with a straight face?! Check the policy record, and you'll find that Bill Clinton's policies over the past eight years are more conservative than Richard Nixon's were!! Moreover, the television media organizations are owned by a few multinationals who have a much greater effect on editorial slant than the shmoe reporters who you see on CNN--witness the coverage of the Bush inauguration vs. the noncoverage of the huge inagural protests. And hey, if you don't like CNN, check out *MS*NBC (Microsoft owned and ergo slanted slightly pro-Bush) or Fox News Network (owned by RUPERT MURDOCH, noted rabid right-wing nut). If you can't stand Ted Turner's faux-left network, there are plenty of conservative voices for you to choose from.
Finally, I'm glad you think your "freedom to encrypt" is safer now that "the Left" is out of "power" -- you should probably note, though, that the export controls on PGP were lifted *well before* Bush was handed the election by the Supreme Court.
I, for one, have had enough of Reality Master's half-truths based on ideology rather than facts. Here's a fact: there is no actual power *shortage* in California right now. What there *is* is an economic crisis caused in large part by deregulation legislation that the POWER COMPANIES THEMSELVES HELPED TO WRITE!!! Sure, perhaps there should have been more power plants brought on-line prior to deregulation--but shouldn't the fact that they were not have been taken into account when deregulation was implemented? Sheesh.
Well, not to be pedantic, but at the time I wrote my response the change hadn't occurred yet. The original text was only about two sentences long, and this new text is longer and attributes the submitter. I stand by my original response, although I can't prove I was right either!
Well, I will note that Hemos's text is an accurate description of the post -- it's only the HEADLINE that's misleading. Perhaps what/. really needs is a good copy editor!
J
First of all, this is *nothing* like a coup. The State of Florida Electoral College Representatives are free under Florida law to vote for *anyone they wish*, including Bush, Gore, Reagan, or Bart Simpson. THAT'S HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS. So-called "faithless electors," who abandon their party's wishes are uncommon but not unknown. In 1976, a state elector assigned to vote for Ford instead chose to vote for Reagan, who had run in the Republican primary. No constitutional problem here, folks.
Second, in discussing the Palm Beach Ballots, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ballots did not comply with Florida state law, which suggests that you are to mark "at the RIGHT of the name of the candidate for whom you desire to vote." Fla.Rev.Stat. 101.191(1). That's clearly *not* what happened here. However, this type of irregularity occurs in EVERY ELECTION -- the only reason it's getting so much play is that the vote is so incredibly close.
Moreover, I find it incredibly diffcult to believe that if the shoe were on the other foot that Karl Rove and Karen Hughes wouldn't be screaming about how Gore had stolen the election. Policiticans are politicians, folks -- that's what they *do*!
Finally, while I agree that a "re-vote" *may* be a bad idea, I suggest you all remember that this is about *the will of the people*, and whether that will was thwarted. Do you really believe that if Bush wins the election on this basis that he will be accepted by the country? One thing is for certain, no matter what you believe about this -- the next President of the United States, be it Bush or Gore, is going to be viewed as illegitimate by a large group of the citizens he is ostensibly supposed to govern.
This situation, while fascinating, is not good for the country. I suggest all of you who make partisan arguments would do well to remember *that* is what we're supposed to be deciding.
It's humorous how many slashdotters think they have a clue about the law just because they read the articles about Napster. I'm going to say this once:
1) THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAYPERSON AND A JOURNALIST.
The First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of the press" has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean exactly the same thing as the Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of speech." Don't believe me? Check out New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), among other prominent cases on the issue. Therefore, our good Wesley, if protected at all, is protected whether or not he's a "journalist."
2) THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT A TRADE SECRETS
A typical definition of a trade secret can be found under Arizona law:
"Trade secret" means information * * * that both: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use [and] (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
The reason that these documents are not trade secrets should be obvious -- they have no independent economic value. Rather, they are just a set of (rather draconian) policies that have value only within the context of the company.
3) WHILE THIS MATERIAL IS IP SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAW, WESLEY CLEARLY HAS A VALID "FAIR USE" DEFENSE
Four factors govern fair use: The nature and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or if it is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for and value of the copyrighted work. This work has no market value and was being used for nonprofit educational and informative purposes.
I swear, you libertarian-types give me the creeps. You scream bloody murder when the government violates your rights, but if it's a corporation misusing the law to do it, you bend over and pull down your pants. Sheesh.
Really, how hard would it be to include a copy of ZoneAlarm for your Windoze customers? While it's not the greatest security in the world, it is free (beer) and preconfigured--it runs in the system tray and the newbie user never even has to look at the damn thing. And let me tell you, it would be very easy for you to duck responsibility if it's compromised -- the ISP can provide it as a service, not a guarantee. Just make it clear in your quick install info. Sheesh.
I've never been able to figure this one out . . . it seems that everything Nullsoft produces is directly counter to AOL's business interests. So why did AOL buy it? Why does AOL continue to allow Nullsoft to have a separate existence?
Well, reading this discussion, a new theory dawned upon me. Perhaps AOL's interests aren't exactly what all of us think that they are. Perhaps (and this is *just* a theory) AOL believes (correctly, IMHO) that it is better positioned than most record labels to weather the mp3 wars. Perhaps AOL believes that IT can supercede Napster, Mp3.com and the traditional record companies to become the major distribution source for digital music, presumably following a subscription model a la its own user fees and the proposed Napster settlement. Has AOL made any movement to acquire Aimster?
Jay
Listen, don't any of you people understand *strategy*? If someone sues Echelon for patent infringement, they have a good chance of forcing disclosure of how Echelon works . . . thereby allowing programmers to route around it . . . thereby making it useless.
Mikpos's reading is correct. However, there does appear to be some wiggle room in the language:
[Tthe] customer agrees not to use the service . . . in conjunction with a vpn (virtual private network) or a vpn tunneling protocol[.]
The problem is the language "in conjunction with." I suspect that what's going on here is that Comcast@home is trying to avoid people using VPN to avoid the general prohibition on servers. For example, I could set up several VPN tunnels from my cable account and allow people to grab mp3 or whatever off my harddrive, as opposed to setting up an ftp server. However, that doesn't help people who are trying to use their Comcast@home accounts to connect to other VPN's --say, the office network for example. Arguably, the "in conjunction with" language forbids them as well. I doubt that this was the intention of the Comcast@home attorneys--this is a great example what we used to call "bad contract drafting" when I was in law school.
J
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, it *is* off-topic.
>Most of these cases are being done by lawyers for free. If they lose, they pay a few hundred in court costs.
>If they win, they get thousands, sometimes over a million, in fees.
You're forgetting that lawyers have to earn a living too, whether you like it or not. A legitimate tort lawsuit is not something that a lawyer can prepare in an a day--the investigation and preparation can run up hundreds or thousands of hours, depending on the case. Not to mention expert witness fees and other expenses. You may not like lawyers, but you need to remember that most of them work very hard, whether they win the case or lose it.
--J
"Likewise, in an increasingly literate and wealthy society, public libraries are less important. At one time they were the only way for most people to get books, now they are mostly just a (taxpayer-subsidized) cheaper alternative."
Uh, a cheaper-alternative for *rich* people, maybe. For those of us who don't have the leisure income that you apparently do, libraries are the *only* source of books. I'm glad you're so freaking bourgeois that you think public libraries have outlived their usefulness -- do you feel the same way about public schools, public transit, and public utilities?
--J
>What happens when a CD is scratched or stolen? I >should be able to replace it (for cost of the CD >itself, not the music) so long as I have proof >of purchase, right?
Um, no. Suppose I had my vinyl record collection stolen--do you really believe that I should be able to replace it for the cost of the vinyl? Or my books -- the cost the of the paper? I'm glad you've found a way to self-justify your use of p2p to get music, but the fact that some asshole stole your CD collection doesn't make this a good argument.
When you buy a CD, you do purchase both the right to listen to the music and the medium upon which that music is carried, but whoever swiped your collection swiped both of 'em as well. That may sound silly, but isn't ownership of a "right to listen to music" silly in the first instance?
Property (including intellectual property) is like a bunch of sticks -- the law will enforce your ownership of some of those sticks, not others, but it is the *whole* bunch of sticks that make up the ownership. Here, if you could track down the guy who swiped your CD's, you would regain both the plastic *and* the right / ability to listen to the music thereon.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not thrilled about the use of copyright and licenses to restrict owner's rights ("taking away some of the sticks"). But you don't have an inalienable, a priori natural property right to do anything you want with the things you own--rather, you've got the *right* to whatever the law provides you have the right to do. This, of course, is why Lawrence Lessig is an important and insightful thinker.
--J
It would appear that a .pdf of the enacted text of the Children's Internet Protection Act can be found here (check in the middle of the page, under "McCain Amendment No. 3610").
/.ers think about this possible compromise.
My question is this: would the icra voluntary content rating system qualify as a "technology" under the bill sufficient to comply with the statute and the regulation? If so, the thing to do is to head to your local library and get them to implement ICRA, a self-rating and filtering tool based on voluntary disclosure by the page author of web site content. A quick and dirty summary of ICRA can be found here. I'm interested to know what
--J
Well, actually during the November mess the station displayed a pretty solid pro-Bush slant. While I'll agree that MSNBC is not generally *conservative*, I think a review of the coverage (Chris Matthews, anyone?) would show that the business interests that MSNBC is attached to get favorable treatment, and Bush's stance on the MS antitrust mess gets him positive points on MSNBC he wouldn't have on CNN (or PBS, for that matter).
Once again, the spectre of silly cyberlibertarianism raises its wooly head. You know, you can't hide behind the word "opinion" and expect people to take you seriously. If you weren't interested in getting a response, why the hell did you post?
/.--there are plenty of opinionated folks on here who voted for Harry Browne and can't explain why. Also - "a Left that has been in power and infiltrating media organizations" ? How can you even write that with a straight face?! Check the policy record, and you'll find that Bill Clinton's policies over the past eight years are more conservative than Richard Nixon's were!! Moreover, the television media organizations are owned by a few multinationals who have a much greater effect on editorial slant than the shmoe reporters who you see on CNN--witness the coverage of the Bush inauguration vs. the noncoverage of the huge inagural protests. And hey, if you don't like CNN, check out *MS*NBC (Microsoft owned and ergo slanted slightly pro-Bush) or Fox News Network (owned by RUPERT MURDOCH, noted rabid right-wing nut). If you can't stand Ted Turner's faux-left network, there are plenty of conservative voices for you to choose from.
Anyway, you're not in the minority on
Finally, I'm glad you think your "freedom to encrypt" is safer now that "the Left" is out of "power" -- you should probably note, though, that the export controls on PGP were lifted *well before* Bush was handed the election by the Supreme Court.
--J
I, for one, have had enough of Reality Master's half-truths based on ideology rather than facts. Here's a fact: there is no actual power *shortage* in California right now. What there *is* is an economic crisis caused in large part by deregulation legislation that the POWER COMPANIES THEMSELVES HELPED TO WRITE!!! Sure, perhaps there should have been more power plants brought on-line prior to deregulation--but shouldn't the fact that they were not have been taken into account when deregulation was implemented? Sheesh.
--J
No offense taken, luge! I guess we're both just trying to be right! :)
--J
Well, not to be pedantic, but at the time I wrote my response the change hadn't occurred yet. The original text was only about two sentences long, and this new text is longer and attributes the submitter. I stand by my original response, although I can't prove I was right either!
-J
Well, I will note that Hemos's text is an accurate description of the post -- it's only the HEADLINE that's misleading. Perhaps what /. really needs is a good copy editor!
J
I can't believe any of this.
First of all, this is *nothing* like a coup. The State of Florida Electoral College Representatives are free under Florida law to vote for *anyone they wish*, including Bush, Gore, Reagan, or Bart Simpson. THAT'S HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS. So-called "faithless electors," who abandon their party's wishes are uncommon but not unknown. In 1976, a state elector assigned to vote for Ford instead chose to vote for Reagan, who had run in the Republican primary. No constitutional problem here, folks.
Second, in discussing the Palm Beach Ballots, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ballots did not comply with Florida state law, which suggests that you are to mark "at the RIGHT of the name of the candidate for whom you desire to vote." Fla.Rev.Stat. 101.191(1). That's clearly *not* what happened here. However, this type of irregularity occurs in EVERY ELECTION -- the only reason it's getting so much play is that the vote is so incredibly close.
Moreover, I find it incredibly diffcult to believe that if the shoe were on the other foot that Karl Rove and Karen Hughes wouldn't be screaming about how Gore had stolen the election. Policiticans are politicians, folks -- that's what they *do*!
Finally, while I agree that a "re-vote" *may* be a bad idea, I suggest you all remember that this is about *the will of the people*, and whether that will was thwarted. Do you really believe that if Bush wins the election on this basis that he will be accepted by the country? One thing is for certain, no matter what you believe about this -- the next President of the United States, be it Bush or Gore, is going to be viewed as illegitimate by a large group of the citizens he is ostensibly supposed to govern.
This situation, while fascinating, is not good for the country. I suggest all of you who make partisan arguments would do well to remember *that* is what we're supposed to be deciding.
--J
It's humorous how many slashdotters think they have a clue about the law just because they read the articles about Napster. I'm going to say this once:
1) THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAYPERSON AND A JOURNALIST.
The First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of the press" has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean exactly the same thing as the Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of speech." Don't believe me? Check out New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), among other prominent cases on the issue. Therefore, our good Wesley, if protected at all, is protected whether or not he's a "journalist."
2) THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT A TRADE SECRETS
A typical definition of a trade secret can be found under Arizona law:
"Trade secret" means information * * * that both: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use [and] (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
The reason that these documents are not trade secrets should be obvious -- they have no independent economic value. Rather, they are just a set of (rather draconian) policies that have value only within the context of the company.
3) WHILE THIS MATERIAL IS IP SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAW, WESLEY CLEARLY HAS A VALID "FAIR USE" DEFENSE
Four factors govern fair use: The nature and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or if it is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for and value of the copyrighted work. This work has no market value and was being used for nonprofit educational and informative purposes.
I swear, you libertarian-types give me the creeps. You scream bloody murder when the government violates your rights, but if it's a corporation misusing the law to do it, you bend over and pull down your pants. Sheesh.
--J (yes, IAL)
Jay
I've never been able to figure this one out . . . it seems that everything Nullsoft produces is directly counter to AOL's business interests. So why did AOL buy it? Why does AOL continue to allow Nullsoft to have a separate existence? Well, reading this discussion, a new theory dawned upon me. Perhaps AOL's interests aren't exactly what all of us think that they are. Perhaps (and this is *just* a theory) AOL believes (correctly, IMHO) that it is better positioned than most record labels to weather the mp3 wars. Perhaps AOL believes that IT can supercede Napster, Mp3.com and the traditional record companies to become the major distribution source for digital music, presumably following a subscription model a la its own user fees and the proposed Napster settlement. Has AOL made any movement to acquire Aimster? Jay
Listen, don't any of you people understand *strategy*? If someone sues Echelon for patent infringement, they have a good chance of forcing disclosure of how Echelon works . . . thereby allowing programmers to route around it . . . thereby making it useless.
--J
Mikpos's reading is correct. However, there does appear to be some wiggle room in the language: [Tthe] customer agrees not to use the service . . . in conjunction with a vpn (virtual private network) or a vpn tunneling protocol[.] The problem is the language "in conjunction with." I suspect that what's going on here is that Comcast@home is trying to avoid people using VPN to avoid the general prohibition on servers. For example, I could set up several VPN tunnels from my cable account and allow people to grab mp3 or whatever off my harddrive, as opposed to setting up an ftp server. However, that doesn't help people who are trying to use their Comcast@home accounts to connect to other VPN's --say, the office network for example. Arguably, the "in conjunction with" language forbids them as well. I doubt that this was the intention of the Comcast@home attorneys--this is a great example what we used to call "bad contract drafting" when I was in law school. J