Those sites are not the first to report. The first places I saw it were SCOTUSBlog and CNN. After seeing the idiots responding to the Pledge posting here, not having any idea what the legal issues really are, I figured it wasn't worth my time to submit this SCOTUS news.
Slashdot is great for geek news, but please don't pretend you're lawyers.
This was my first time at oral arguments, so I have to admit I don't have anything to compare them to. For example, I felt that the Justices were harder on Theodore Olson (Solicitor General, argued the case for the Government) than they were on Larry Lessig (lawyer for the petitioners). This may just be because the justices know him better, though. To make my life even more difficult, the seat I was assigned had a nice fat column between me and everybody of significance. I could see the back of Justice Ginsburg's chair before she sat down. I was able to identify some of the Justices from their voices, but it was difficult. Oh, Declan McCullagh was there in a leather jacket. Didn't wear it to the courtroom, though. He'll probably have pictures up on his site later today, and I've got a couple I'll put up here.
On to the case: the first question came from Justice O'Connor, asking about the previous copyright extensions, which had not been challenged. Prof. Lessig pointed out that the 1790 Copyright law established a copyright for works already existing, but that was the first time such a law had been passed here -- before that existing works had no Federal copyright protection. That made the protection different from the extensions passed in the following years. Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist proceeded to press him on the significance that even the following extensions were unchallenged, and during Olson's time he pointed this out, saying that the petitioners therefore had a heavy burden challenging a law that had essentially stood for centuries. Prof. Lessig's response was that there has been a fundamental change, even since the copyright term changes made in 1976. In 1976, the copyright affected mainly commercial copyright producers and distributors, and they were the ones who benefitted from the laws. Now, however, the popularization of the Internet has made copyright an issue for many people. As an example, the primary petitioner in this case, Mr. Eldred, publishes public domain books on his web site, and he does it for free. Such a thing was unheard of in 1976. Mr. Eldred is only hurt by this copyright extension: he sees no benefit. The 1976 law would be unconstitutional if challenged now, but no one was seriously injured by it when it was passed, so it went unchallenged.
A sense I got from several justices was that they didn't approve of the copyright terms, but didn't see a Constitutional argument against them. Justice O'Connor came right out and said, "I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did here," and Justice Breyer, when questioning Olson, cited some numbers showing how much money copyright owners gained from the extended terms, compared to the losses to the public due to copyright restrictions. The counter argument was that copyright terms provide an incentive for distributors to preserve their works. While it was conceded by Lessig that Congress could not grant a copyright on a work currently in the public domain, Congress could grant an extended term conditioned on a promise to preserve and actively distribute a work. This would allow works for which the copyright owner could not be identified (such as many of those sought by Mr. Eldred) to pass into the public domain.
While I generally felt that the Justices were harder on Olson, they didn't seem to be too happy with the Consitutional arguments given by the petitioners. One point they did seem to like, and pressed Olson repeatedly with, was that, if the preambular part of the Copyright Clause is not read to be a limitation on copyright terms, and if the word "limited" does not mean "fixed" or "immutable," is there any limit on Congress's power to extend copyright terms? Olson's reponse was to point out that that is not the issue before this court, and I have to agree. While the Court is certainly free to say that the Congress's extensions are subject to judicial review on the grounds that "limited" need be reasonable or something like that, and establish some guidelines for that review, it has not been asked to do that in this case. More importantly, despite the Justices' feelings that there should be judicial review, lack of an explicit Constitutional limit on Congress's interpretation of "limited" does not create that power for the Court. It simply may be the case that Congress has the power to extend it however long it wants, as long as it is not "unlimited." The recourse for that, of course, is elections. Olson pointed out that the Framers had the power to put a specific length of time in the Constitution, and Jefferson actually encouraged it, but they eventually chose not to; they chose to give that power to Congress.
Lessig cited a figure he claimed a group of economists calculated: the current copyright terms give copyright owners 99.8% of the benefits they would get under a perpetual term. I would guess that assumes the benefits converge, although I'm no economist. I'm also no Supreme Court scholar, but my gut feeling right now is that the Court is going to strike down CTEA and establish some guidelines for what is an acceptable copyright term. I personally don't agree from a Constitutional standpoint. We'll find out in a couple of months, I suppose.
He spoke at UIUC's Reflections/Projections conference last year, and he showed us a bit of the Crunchbox. As far as we could tell, it was essentially a box with snort running to drop packets from anyone who tried an attack. Secure, yes, but also overly paranoid for most systems. Also, it pulls the CVS snort rules daily, so that's a potential weakness. It looked like it allowed you to view changes to the rules, but you didn't have to approve them in any way. I wasn't impressed.
On the group's page they don't offer any code, but there's a screen shot, some research papers and links to other articles, and a link to Andrej Bauer's (of Forum 2000 fame) Gallery of Random Art.
This is another technique businesses can use now that they couldn't use before the Internet. They can optimize profits by not only figuring out what is the most a person in general will pay, but what different kinds of people can pay. At the same time, we're still free to find whatever store offers the best price/service value. Capitalism at its finest.
It's probably for statistical purposes, but how it copes with cache's I'm not sure (and I don't care enough to look at the HTTP header for a Pragma: no-cache statment).
Actually, cache may be the reason they do it. If a cache caches the main page, there's no way for/. to track hits. The JavaScript generates a unique (time-based) request for the user, so there's no way it can be cached. The cache thinks it's a new URL.
Unless you live outside the US, and the person you are talking to lives outside the US, keeping all communications outside the US would be very difficult. I've heard that some communications between cities in Australia go through the US.
Oh, but it did accomplish something. Why wasn't piracy as rampant before Napster? Because IRC and usenet aren't as user-friendly. If my idiot roommate can't get a song by openning a program and typing in the name, he's not going to bother trying to figure out IRC. So this won't stop piracy, but if the RIAA can make piracy more difficult, they can stop a large part of the problem.
Look, people, it's a simple system. If something has value (be it economic or emotional), you arrange a contract to obtain it if you want it. If you want someone's music, you enter into a contract to pay a certain amount of money to a record store, who has a contract with the record companies, who have contracts with the artists. That's the only way to preserve order. We have explicit terms of contract, and if you violate those terms, then you upset the system. The system is there to insure that if you receive something of value, you give something of value in return, like paying money for music you enjoy.
There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Re:Public Announcement and no frigin rpm's availab
on
Evolution 0.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
As they say on their page, it's dependant upon several changing and unreleased libraries, and it is changing and unstable itself. They probably figure that if you can't at least compile the code yourself, you probably shouldn't be messing with it.
I like this: "Please be aware that Evolution 0.3 depends on a large number of unreleased and rapidly-changing libraries." "If you happen to have Helix GNOME installed, then most of these packages are already installed for you." Ooh, that sounds stable.
The way I'm reading this, BXXP is a framework, or a layer, on top of which it's very easy to implement other protocols. Sounds great for ease-of-use and prototyping, but like most things that make work easier, it adds overhead. If you've got things prewritten, it's not possible to completely optimize it.
I'm certainly not in a position of power; I'm just a student right now, and I agree that information should not be sanitized or only allowed if it is approved. On the other hand, I want people to realize the consequences of their actions. By linking to these MP3's, they are aiding people in finding them, and if you get music for free and don't reciprocate the artist, you are getting something that for them has value (they put work into producing it), you are receiving the benefits of that work without any return of value or "capital" to the artist.
Now, I'm not sure the courts are the best way to settle this because I'll admit that I occasionally download music, and if I like it I buy the CD. If I don't like it I delete it. I think the best solution would be if people would just sit down and think about the consequences of their actions, and if more artists would speak out against piracy. They realize that something that they worked for is being traded as if it has no value.
Re:BFD, another @hotmail address I'll give out.
on
Pretty Poor Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Using counterfeit bills is illegal (against the law) because it is an offense against the government. Criminal law covers that. On the other hand, if you lie to a private citizen on a contract, they can take you to court and charge you under civil law. I intended it the way I said it.
I've read a lot of comments either saying this isn't News for Nerds, defending the post because it's their web site and they can do what they want (and we can criticize: don't forget they're making money off us), and saying that activism->evironmentalism. Personally, I would have posted this story, too, but I would have posted it as "Funny." Look, they post anything that vaguely has to do with Linux (like Transmeta news), and this has to do with the Linux mascot. I really don't give a rat's ass about the penguins, but It's the Linux Mascot, Damnit!
Re:BFD, another @hotmail address I'll give out.
on
Pretty Poor Privacy
·
· Score: 1
who have been led to believe (for many years) that in order to receive good things we must first reveal all sorts of information, and trust that it won't be abused.
I'm well aware of potential consequences (I read privacy policies), and I still fill them out. Here's why: they are providing content to you, and although they may even say that it is provided free of charge, it is not free. In return, they are asking for your information. The personal information is a form of payment, and it is often worth money to them. If you give false information, that is the same as buying something with counterfeit bills.
This is really starting to piss me off. Whether you believe music should be free or not, the fact is that that decision should be up to the artist and the owner of the music. If they tell you you can freely copy the music, then you can. If they don't, and you obtain a copy of the music without obtaining a license, you are stealing. You are hurting the artist. You are telling the artist, that, while you think he/she makes good music, he/she is not competant enough to decide what to do with it. Worse, you are telling him/her that you don't think the music is worth anything.
That's true that they probably wouldn't have had a problem if they had gotten agreements before, but really they shouldn't have needed to. They weren't giving music to people who hadn't bought it already, so what did they do that was so wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Those sites are not the first to report. The first places I saw it were SCOTUSBlog and CNN. After seeing the idiots responding to the Pledge posting here, not having any idea what the legal issues really are, I figured it wasn't worth my time to submit this SCOTUS news.
Slashdot is great for geek news, but please don't pretend you're lawyers.
My comments, also posted on my web site:
This was my first time at oral arguments, so I have to admit I don't have anything to compare them to. For example, I felt that the Justices were harder on Theodore Olson (Solicitor General, argued the case for the Government) than they were on Larry Lessig (lawyer for the petitioners). This may just be because the justices know him better, though. To make my life even more difficult, the seat I was assigned had a nice fat column between me and everybody of significance. I could see the back of Justice Ginsburg's chair before she sat down. I was able to identify some of the Justices from their voices, but it was difficult. Oh, Declan McCullagh was there in a leather jacket. Didn't wear it to the courtroom, though. He'll probably have pictures up on his site later today, and I've got a couple I'll put up here.
On to the case: the first question came from Justice O'Connor, asking about the previous copyright extensions, which had not been challenged. Prof. Lessig pointed out that the 1790 Copyright law established a copyright for works already existing, but that was the first time such a law had been passed here -- before that existing works had no Federal copyright protection. That made the protection different from the extensions passed in the following years. Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist proceeded to press him on the significance that even the following extensions were unchallenged, and during Olson's time he pointed this out, saying that the petitioners therefore had a heavy burden challenging a law that had essentially stood for centuries. Prof. Lessig's response was that there has been a fundamental change, even since the copyright term changes made in 1976. In 1976, the copyright affected mainly commercial copyright producers and distributors, and they were the ones who benefitted from the laws. Now, however, the popularization of the Internet has made copyright an issue for many people. As an example, the primary petitioner in this case, Mr. Eldred, publishes public domain books on his web site, and he does it for free. Such a thing was unheard of in 1976. Mr. Eldred is only hurt by this copyright extension: he sees no benefit. The 1976 law would be unconstitutional if challenged now, but no one was seriously injured by it when it was passed, so it went unchallenged.
A sense I got from several justices was that they didn't approve of the copyright terms, but didn't see a Constitutional argument against them. Justice O'Connor came right out and said, "I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did here," and Justice Breyer, when questioning Olson, cited some numbers showing how much money copyright owners gained from the extended terms, compared to the losses to the public due to copyright restrictions. The counter argument was that copyright terms provide an incentive for distributors to preserve their works. While it was conceded by Lessig that Congress could not grant a copyright on a work currently in the public domain, Congress could grant an extended term conditioned on a promise to preserve and actively distribute a work. This would allow works for which the copyright owner could not be identified (such as many of those sought by Mr. Eldred) to pass into the public domain.
While I generally felt that the Justices were harder on Olson, they didn't seem to be too happy with the Consitutional arguments given by the petitioners. One point they did seem to like, and pressed Olson repeatedly with, was that, if the preambular part of the Copyright Clause is not read to be a limitation on copyright terms, and if the word "limited" does not mean "fixed" or "immutable," is there any limit on Congress's power to extend copyright terms? Olson's reponse was to point out that that is not the issue before this court, and I have to agree. While the Court is certainly free to say that the Congress's extensions are subject to judicial review on the grounds that "limited" need be reasonable or something like that, and establish some guidelines for that review, it has not been asked to do that in this case. More importantly, despite the Justices' feelings that there should be judicial review, lack of an explicit Constitutional limit on Congress's interpretation of "limited" does not create that power for the Court. It simply may be the case that Congress has the power to extend it however long it wants, as long as it is not "unlimited." The recourse for that, of course, is elections. Olson pointed out that the Framers had the power to put a specific length of time in the Constitution, and Jefferson actually encouraged it, but they eventually chose not to; they chose to give that power to Congress.
Lessig cited a figure he claimed a group of economists calculated: the current copyright terms give copyright owners 99.8% of the benefits they would get under a perpetual term. I would guess that assumes the benefits converge, although I'm no economist. I'm also no Supreme Court scholar, but my gut feeling right now is that the Court is going to strike down CTEA and establish some guidelines for what is an acceptable copyright term. I personally don't agree from a Constitutional standpoint. We'll find out in a couple of months, I suppose.
He spoke at UIUC's Reflections/Projections conference last year, and he showed us a bit of the Crunchbox. As far as we could tell, it was essentially a box with snort running to drop packets from anyone who tried an attack. Secure, yes, but also overly paranoid for most systems. Also, it pulls the CVS snort rules daily, so that's a potential weakness. It looked like it allowed you to view changes to the rules, but you didn't have to approve them in any way. I wasn't impressed.
The second article mentions the Department of Defense guidelines for passwords. They're an interesting read.
On the group's page they don't offer any code, but there's a screen shot, some research papers and links to other articles, and a link to Andrej Bauer's (of Forum 2000 fame) Gallery of Random Art.
2.4.10, clearly.
For some reason the links on www.ag.state.mi.us just use the IP. http://www.ag.state.m i.us/AGWebSite/press_release/pr10189.htm takes you to the same place.
This is another technique businesses can use now that they couldn't use before the Internet. They can optimize profits by not only figuring out what is the most a person in general will pay, but what different kinds of people can pay. At the same time, we're still free to find whatever store offers the best price/service value. Capitalism at its finest.
It's probably for statistical purposes, but how it copes with cache's I'm not sure (and I don't care enough to look at the HTTP header for a Pragma: no-cache statment).
/. to track hits. The JavaScript generates a unique (time-based) request for the user, so there's no way it can be cached. The cache thinks it's a new URL.
Actually, cache may be the reason they do it. If a cache caches the main page, there's no way for
Comment tags keep browsers from displaying JavaScript code. The code still runs.
The problem is that with web bugs and your IP address, it's just as easy to track you. They've got the pages you go to with times and your IP.
Unless you live outside the US, and the person you are talking to lives outside the US, keeping all communications outside the US would be very difficult. I've heard that some communications between cities in Australia go through the US.
Oh, but it did accomplish something. Why wasn't piracy as rampant before Napster? Because IRC and usenet aren't as user-friendly. If my idiot roommate can't get a song by openning a program and typing in the name, he's not going to bother trying to figure out IRC. So this won't stop piracy, but if the RIAA can make piracy more difficult, they can stop a large part of the problem.
Look, people, it's a simple system. If something has value (be it economic or emotional), you arrange a contract to obtain it if you want it. If you want someone's music, you enter into a contract to pay a certain amount of money to a record store, who has a contract with the record companies, who have contracts with the artists. That's the only way to preserve order. We have explicit terms of contract, and if you violate those terms, then you upset the system. The system is there to insure that if you receive something of value, you give something of value in return, like paying money for music you enjoy.
There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
As they say on their page, it's dependant upon several changing and unreleased libraries, and it is changing and unstable itself. They probably figure that if you can't at least compile the code yourself, you probably shouldn't be messing with it.
I like this: "Please be aware that Evolution 0.3 depends on a large number of unreleased and rapidly-changing libraries." "If you happen to have Helix GNOME installed, then most of these packages are already installed for you." Ooh, that sounds stable.
The way I'm reading this, BXXP is a framework, or a layer, on top of which it's very easy to implement other protocols. Sounds great for ease-of-use and prototyping, but like most things that make work easier, it adds overhead. If you've got things prewritten, it's not possible to completely optimize it.
I'm certainly not in a position of power; I'm just a student right now, and I agree that information should not be sanitized or only allowed if it is approved. On the other hand, I want people to realize the consequences of their actions. By linking to these MP3's, they are aiding people in finding them, and if you get music for free and don't reciprocate the artist, you are getting something that for them has value (they put work into producing it), you are receiving the benefits of that work without any return of value or "capital" to the artist.
Now, I'm not sure the courts are the best way to settle this because I'll admit that I occasionally download music, and if I like it I buy the CD. If I don't like it I delete it. I think the best solution would be if people would just sit down and think about the consequences of their actions, and if more artists would speak out against piracy. They realize that something that they worked for is being traded as if it has no value.
Using counterfeit bills is illegal (against the law) because it is an offense against the government. Criminal law covers that. On the other hand, if you lie to a private citizen on a contract, they can take you to court and charge you under civil law. I intended it the way I said it.
I've read a lot of comments either saying this isn't News for Nerds, defending the post because it's their web site and they can do what they want (and we can criticize: don't forget they're making money off us), and saying that activism->evironmentalism. Personally, I would have posted this story, too, but I would have posted it as "Funny." Look, they post anything that vaguely has to do with Linux (like Transmeta news), and this has to do with the Linux mascot. I really don't give a rat's ass about the penguins, but It's the Linux Mascot, Damnit!
who have been led to believe (for many years) that in order to receive good things we must first reveal all sorts of information, and trust that it won't be abused.
I'm well aware of potential consequences (I read privacy policies), and I still fill them out. Here's why: they are providing content to you, and although they may even say that it is provided free of charge, it is not free. In return, they are asking for your information. The personal information is a form of payment, and it is often worth money to them. If you give false information, that is the same as buying something with counterfeit bills.
This is really starting to piss me off. Whether you believe music should be free or not, the fact is that that decision should be up to the artist and the owner of the music. If they tell you you can freely copy the music, then you can. If they don't, and you obtain a copy of the music without obtaining a license, you are stealing. You are hurting the artist. You are telling the artist, that, while you think he/she makes good music, he/she is not competant enough to decide what to do with it. Worse, you are telling him/her that you don't think the music is worth anything.
Here is a link to the story from The Crimson, Harvard's newspaper.
That's true that they probably wouldn't have had a problem if they had gotten agreements before, but really they shouldn't have needed to. They weren't giving music to people who hadn't bought it already, so what did they do that was so wrong?
Interesting idea, but it couldn't spread. Like the Ebola virus, it kills the host too quickly to spread effectively.