If it could be proven that an American citizen was harmed due to Mr. Young's posting of the unedited document
I have to take issue with this. Whether or not the targets of this are Americans or not should have no influence on decisions. Though on second reading I realise you're not actually inferring this as such (unless from a legal POV), it is quite easy to draw the inference.
But were the NYT to argue (and this is getting really hypothetical) that they were immune from this as the Constitution only covers citizens, I should hope that they were very wrong, and receive a sound legal bitchslapping (since that seems to be a favourite word here these days).
The document was classified. The NYT has a vested interest in documents that the government has control of. I think an issue being debated is that the government is using CLASSIFIED as an excuse to hide material damaging to them - something that was happening here under the previous government - favourable contracts being exempted from FoI as 'commercially sensitive'. That's a valid issue, but using a document with real sensitivity is rather, how shall we say, counterproductive to 'the cause'.
The purported danger was to their children and families. Family is very strong in a lot of cultures, and "Your father was a traitor" can carry a lot of 'weight'...
It's quite okay to say 'fuck' on the radio or TV here (free-to-air or cable). I wasn't quite sure that was the case in the States (for free-to-air, anyway).
The other also deals with death, since parking in the Doctor's Only spot at a hospital slows down the doctor trying to save a near death patients life.
If it were that urgent, I'm sure he could park on the sidewalk.
I do see, however, how reverse-engineering could _save_ a life in when the supporter of a proprietary heart monitor is out of business.
If the company is out of business, there's no-one to pay the lawyers to sue you.
Any that don't can download one for free. If M$ truly gave a *&^% about open standards, they would include one by default, but even lacking that it is easy and free to correct their mistake.
An observation, not a troll or a flame, but why is downloading components evil in browsers and plug-ins, but not for things like this?
First of all, intellectual property laws do not guarantee that because you put time and effort into something that you will therefore have property rights to the result. I can spend years painstakingly hand copying a book but copyright will not protect the result of my effort. In fact it labels me a criminal.
Okay, this was ambiguous on my part... I presumed 'write' would be taken to be synonymous with 'create'.
Frankly I don't see how your wanting anything is an argument for what ought to be legal. I want to be Prime Minister of Canada, so I ought to be Prime Minister of Canada. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Any more than your wanting IP to be rescinded?
By dissemination, I meant more in terms of distribution, rather than trade-secret legislation... i.e., a licence like GPL/BSD/etc/et al which allows copying etc... i.e. in agreement with your Anti IP stance. Also note that I live in Australia, with slightly different laws to the US (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse).
In summary (because although I think our points of view are opposed, we can probably come to some agreement!), I think something needs to be done about IP, particularly patenting (though I'm still sick of/. posting ad nauseaum stories on it!), but I'm pretty sure IP rescindment is not the answer.:)
No. They're not the originators of the material. But they paid for the material. Whether or not the person at the other end gets a fair deal or not is not the issue here. "No-one is" the right owner? Excuse me? I write a song, music, spend time and effort, and it's not mine? It's yours for the downloading? Looting: theft from a third party, causing loss. It's not an invalid analogy, especially in response to the statement I replied to, in that "well, everyone's doing it now, so bad luck".
IP laws have to be dismantled? Why? Sorry. I invent something, I want control of it. If I choose to diseminate it I will. And I can do so, by explicitly allowing it. Removing IP protection forces my hand to do what you want.
Your use of the 'arguably' in parentheses is the kicker here. Yup. It's illegal. And don't tell me the vast majority of those on Napster who have thousands of mp3's, (only a portion of which are entire cds), own them all. It's called snowballing, or the slippery slope. Looters out in the streets thought they would take advantage of the uncertainty, and what everyone else was doing...
The overwhelming masses of Napster users and the likes are now the dominating force. A cancer too large to suppress. They are not the ones who need to change....
Right... so why is the URL (or a portion of it) "...Graphics/Theft"?
If someone sends you a picture that is their property, you have the rights to only do what they say with it... If they put it in a (custom) browser with no way to save, and you take a screenshot... then at least it's licence violation (though yes, I know, you don't sign licences to download websites, I was just expanding on this idea).
The way things are these day here. "How to defeat watermarking". Why? So you can remove the attribution of someone else's work. Describe to me a legitimate need to strip watermarking. If you need a watermark removed, contact the artist and pay the fee.
Or else it's theft. Simple. Just because you can right-click Save Picture... doesn't give you the right.
Re:Directing a musical group.
on
Pilot Synthesis
·
· Score: 1
Everyone thinks of MIDI as a music protocol, but it's not - it's just a protocol for controlling hardware that's usually used for instruments or internal music synth. However, you could just as easily define the note "middle C" as "the red light above the stage." I've been to concerts where everything from the lights to the smoke machine was MIDI.
True, but MIDI does stand for Music Instrument Digital Interface;p
Slashdot Mirror
I have to take issue with this. Whether or not the targets of this are Americans or not should have no influence on decisions. Though on second reading I realise you're not actually inferring this as such (unless from a legal POV), it is quite easy to draw the inference.
But were the NYT to argue (and this is getting really hypothetical) that they were immune from this as the Constitution only covers citizens, I should hope that they were very wrong, and receive a sound legal bitchslapping (since that seems to be a favourite word here these days).
But anyway :)
The document was classified. The NYT has a vested interest in documents that the government has control of. I think an issue being debated is that the government is using CLASSIFIED as an excuse to hide material damaging to them - something that was happening here under the previous government - favourable contracts being exempted from FoI as 'commercially sensitive'. That's a valid issue, but using a document with real sensitivity is rather, how shall we say, counterproductive to 'the cause'.
The purported danger was to their children and families. Family is very strong in a lot of cultures, and "Your father was a traitor" can carry a lot of 'weight'...
It's quite okay to say 'fuck' on the radio or TV here (free-to-air or cable). I wasn't quite sure that was the case in the States (for free-to-air, anyway).
The courtyard, then. That's what I meant, not the street ;)
If it were that urgent, I'm sure he could park on the sidewalk.
I do see, however, how reverse-engineering could _save_ a life in when the supporter of a proprietary heart monitor is out of business.
If the company is out of business, there's no-one to pay the lawyers to sue you.
"The OS movement"? Never heard of it. Maybe a Free OS Movement, but Be never claimed to be free.
Scunthorpe :)
I think heat would be another factor. I know my bedroom is a few degrees warmer than the rest of the house, attributable to the PCs...
documentation: the act or an instance of furnishing or authenticating with documents.
The product is not its documentation.
An observation, not a troll or a flame, but why is downloading components evil in browsers and plug-ins, but not for things like this?
Okay, this was ambiguous on my part... I presumed 'write' would be taken to be synonymous with 'create'.
Frankly I don't see how your wanting anything is an argument for what ought to be legal. I want to be Prime Minister of Canada, so I ought to be Prime Minister of Canada. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Any more than your wanting IP to be rescinded?
By dissemination, I meant more in terms of distribution, rather than trade-secret legislation... i.e., a licence like GPL/BSD/etc/et al which allows copying etc... i.e. in agreement with your Anti IP stance. Also note that I live in Australia, with slightly different laws to the US (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse).
In summary (because although I think our points of view are opposed, we can probably come to some agreement!), I think something needs to be done about IP, particularly patenting (though I'm still sick of /. posting ad nauseaum stories on it!), but I'm pretty sure IP rescindment is not the answer. :)
Of course... if you wanna be a karma whore (or prude), post early, or reply to something near the top, even if there's only a passing resemblance... :)
Go on, enlighten us.
IP laws have to be dismantled? Why? Sorry. I invent something, I want control of it. If I choose to diseminate it I will. And I can do so, by explicitly allowing it. Removing IP protection forces my hand to do what you want.
Your use of the 'arguably' in parentheses is the kicker here. Yup. It's illegal. And don't tell me the vast majority of those on Napster who have thousands of mp3's, (only a portion of which are entire cds), own them all. It's called snowballing, or the slippery slope. Looters out in the streets thought they would take advantage of the uncertainty, and what everyone else was doing...
And yet this is not a troll/flame. *sigh*
Clue: read a magazine. I see no JPGs and GIFs.
Yes. I know you're a troll.
www.britz.com - somehow down atm - uses animated gifs in its online booking system tutorial to show requirements and so on.
Just like the post-Rodney King rampagers/looters?
If someone sends you a picture that is their property, you have the rights to only do what they say with it... If they put it in a (custom) browser with no way to save, and you take a screenshot... then at least it's licence violation (though yes, I know, you don't sign licences to download websites, I was just expanding on this idea).
Or else it's theft. Simple. Just because you can right-click Save Picture... doesn't give you the right.
True, but MIDI does stand for Music Instrument Digital Interface ;p
I spent some time in France recently... Paris and Marseilles. I still suck at Francais tho :)
Nullification of said entities is much better from all perspectives. Make authors, etc, deal with the problem, rather than leaving ambiguity.