Generally, they have to be able to argue that you broke a copy protection system, even lame copy-protection systems (Adobe's ROT13 for EBooks), or copy-protection systems that do little to prevent copying (DVD-CSS), but rather limit playback and conversion to other formats.
I can understand why one would think the DMCA's anti-circumvention section applies too all forms of circumvention giving the way the law has been abused (Threatening Academics with Lawsuits), but it really only applies to copy protection systems.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be dispensing legal advice with WAY to much confidence. Not to mention the advice you're dispensing (It's no big deal if you sign it or not, the courts are reasonable) go against the rediculous reality in many other states, as demonstated by this and many other stories.
You better be careful with your complicent, "it's probably not that bad" thinking and do a little more investigating before you tell everybody to dismiss the warnings.
Secondly, while your state may have fair employment IP laws now, don't expect the trend to continue, especially when your state starts trying to lure high tech companies to your neck of the woods and when people are to ignorant to care and too complicent to even voice dissent.
Scrutiny DOES mean allowing any Joe Employee to say whatever he wants (minus libel) about the organization without having it going through channels who's sole purpose is to censor and omit corruption and incompetence.
Doing otherwise only makes it more difficult for the rest of us to detect corruption, incompetence in a public institution whose purpose is to promote the advancement of technology by providing an incentive, not act as the corrupt wing of government who lines the pockets of IP attorneys and other patent cartels.
I don't know about you, but I don't trust corrupt beaurcrats as much as I trust as WorldCom/Enron executive.
I understand the risks that some sources make pickup statements as an authority. My concern is: Why should the patent office, a PUBLIC institution that grants lucritive temporary monopolies on IDEAS, not be subjected to public scrutany???
What are the REAL risks? What's the worse that could happen if our friend was allowed to talk freely? Maybe people would lose confidence with current policy!!! Oh no!!!
The people who silenced this guy should be held liable. He has every right to talk about his experience and role in public policy, without fearing losing his job. This isn't a corporation, and it isn't the military. It's a PUBLIC institution.
Congratulations, not only was that a good save, but we all learned something. You came through despite my insulting and meaningless verbal assult and ended up taking the high road. I bet you'll be taking the high road more often.
While you do that, I'll continue taking the low road so others can take the high road.
Takes a big man to call someone a twit over the net. Congrats. Hey, if you're ever in Chicago, let me know. See if you want to call me a twit in person. Bet you don't. Thanks again, Fucko.
Oh Jesus, you really are dumb. Really, you should avoid using the "I may be stupid, but I can kick you ass!" line for future reference. You see, this sort of talk only suggests that you're too impotent to muster up a half-wit comeback or even a 10 cent quip. It vindicates people's suspicians that you're stupid.
I've obviously been an asshole (my original objective), but I see you're not up to it, making it as sporting as being cruel to small animals and tricking retards. I may be an asshole (at times), but I'm not cruel. I have too much empathy to be cruel.
Because I want to leave you with some dignity, you can call me a pussy as much as you want and I won't dispute it.
Earth and Justice to you, Fucko!
(That's my, you've been flamed signature) It has a how-do-you-say, a goofy adolencent appeal, n'est pas? DIRECTOR'S NOTE: I was trying to project a silly irony of being childishly anticlimactic after a poignant 'your mamma' joke.
If anything, an altered-redistribution ruling would affect copyprotected content that does not include a license, thereby being subjected to the default copyright/fair use rules.
Licenses exist to change these rules, overriding the default copyright/fair use rules, hence why software companies are able to insert all of those restrictions which take away fair use.
In other words, the GPL is like a contract. (I'm not sure of the effective differences between liceneses and contracts)
Only lawyers can truely understand the law. You lesser life forms only have a superficial understanding and marginal charisma to argue your position.
While you're being stupid, why don't you lecture us on how not all black people like rap, or you don't have to be an auto mechanic to have in-depth knowledge on auto repair! Stop! You're blinding me with insight! Ahh!!!
[begin shrill] ...and people are so stupid they probably won't even notice!!!
In the future, Television will subconsciously dictate how we will dress, how we will react in different circumstances, and paint perfect lives so people will be obsessed emulating everything they see on TV!!!
TV will be the way companies will create demand where there was none, and add value to things that are meaningless!!! All to the highest bidder!!!
Your Coca-Cola dystopia is NOTHING compared to the dystopia that TV will sell to the highest bidder!!! [end shrill]
[narrirator]...and life will continue to be as meaningless as it ever was...
You remind me of Kevin Cline's character in "A Fish Called Wanda"
How do you go about agreeing with the guy, and then berate him for correcting someone else??? It's obvious to you and me, but it wasn't to the original poster, HENCE the need to correct him with OBVIOUS information. Pretty fucking novel idea, huh?
Secondly, you didn't bother to ask him under what circumstances he thought 2% was reachable. Maybe he was talking theory, or in times of war.
Point is: How the fuck would you know if don't bother asking for people's insight, and instead default to berating anyone who didn't make thier conclusions the same way you did?
If capacity has grown 500x in the last 5 years, and if demand has only quadrupled (4x), then webhosting should be dirt cheap, right???
After all, all of this overbuilding was for backbones and not the last mile, right?
So why are webhosting companies still charging $20 for 20 GB/month transfer rate, which is a little more monthly transfer rate than that of a 56K modem?
Does anybody have an real insight into the problem, and how I might go about exploiting it? After all, How can we help the telecom industry if they can't give us discounts to access these overbuilt networks?
CDT (Cambridge Display Technology) was touting LEPs as the next LED that is capable of high refresh rates and the ability to see from angles, all because the technology doesn't use a backlight but instead the plastic itself emits light.
Among some of the other advantages I remember highlighted was the ability to create strange pixel configurations, low power usage, and a relatively inexpensive manufacturing process.
We'll have to see what promises it will live up to...
Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.
Point 1: You can't have it both ways
You can't have it both ways... My negative impact on individual telemarketers is small and negligible too. Relatively, it's higher, but it's still very negligible.
Point 2: Every vote counts
The impact I make when I vote is small and negligible, should I stop voting? Should we all stop dissenting if our dissent is small and neglible?
Point 3: You can't start big to get big
Most dissent starts small and neglible, dissent doesn't occur in rapid consent, so it's up to assholes like me to start small and negligible dissent in hopes the dissent will spread.
The Point: My small and negligible dissent is nessecary to inspire others to waste telemarketers time.
Personally, I love waisting thier time by letting them talk for 15 seconds and asking them to hold on. I put the phone down, watch 2 minutes of TV and pick it back up again. I tell them I am interested, let them talk for another 15 seconds, ask a dumb question and then ask them to hold again, where I watch another 2 minutes of TV.
You'd be surprised how long they stay on hold...
If there were more assholes like me who wasted thier time, Telemarketing would never be profitable. You're making it easier to skip people who aren't interested...
The other thing you can do is act like you're really interested, but NEVER actually ACCEPT what they are offering. You can haggle, ask stupid questions, conjure stupid reasons, or interrupt your purchase with the sudden decapitation of your family pet. OMG!!!
Talking with Telemarketers is a great opportunity to hone in on a number of communication skills.
Microsoft is donating something to somebody! Must be an evil conspiracy! Quick, let's make up some theories about how this will oppress people for years to come somewhere.
Naive - Unsuspecting or credulous Obtuse - The inability to distinguish jack shit
If Microsoft is just being generous, why should they single out Peru??? See how easy that is??? Just a little skepticism goes a long way...
Imagine what a lot of skepticism will do!!!
You need to learn to distinguish between crack pot conspiracy thoeries and basic run-of-the-mill corruption and business tactics. Giving away freebies to hook in a customer is about as run-of-the-mill as they come...
One of the current problems with the media that it's turned into one big oligopoly and it's sleeping with the FCC so it can retain its status.
All media companies need a conduit to deliver thier content to viewers/users, whether it's the airwaves (TV/Radio), Cable, and now Internet (via Telephone for most users).
The FCC controls ALL of these conduits (With the exception of some private networks).
One Solution
1. Regulate/deregulate the FCC's control so that the costs of running a TV channel, radio station is virtually nothing, thus introducing competition.
2. Regulate/deregulate the Baby Bell's exclusive control over the telephone infrastructure to facilitate the deployment of broadband technologies. Maybe seperate service from infrastructure.
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
Sounds like the Cable companies have it made.
1. Not require to provide open access to infrastructure. 2. TOS contract enforcable by federal law, subjecting violaters to criminal charges.
Talk about having an ISP with special government privledges...
Technically, these guys may be charged with Cable theft as the definition is vague enough.
It's right here... I'm looking for something in the wording, which may exclude our friends, but I can't find it...
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
Sounds like the Cable companies have it made.
1. Don't have to provide open access 2. TOS is enforced by federal law, subjecting violaters to criminal charges.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL - UORAL
Which are used to protect copyrighted content.
Generally, they have to be able to argue that you broke a copy protection system, even lame copy-protection systems (Adobe's ROT13 for EBooks), or copy-protection systems that do little to prevent copying (DVD-CSS), but rather limit playback and conversion to other formats.
I can understand why one would think the DMCA's anti-circumvention section applies too all forms of circumvention giving the way the law has been abused (Threatening Academics with Lawsuits), but it really only applies to copy protection systems.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be dispensing legal advice with WAY to much confidence. Not to mention the advice you're dispensing (It's no big deal if you sign it or not, the courts are reasonable) go against the rediculous reality in many other states, as demonstated by this and many other stories.
You better be careful with your complicent, "it's probably not that bad" thinking and do a little more investigating before you tell everybody to dismiss the warnings.
Secondly, while your state may have fair employment IP laws now, don't expect the trend to continue, especially when your state starts trying to lure high tech companies to your neck of the woods and when people are to ignorant to care and too complicent to even voice dissent.
Scrutiny DOES mean allowing any Joe Employee to say whatever he wants (minus libel) about the organization without having it going through channels who's sole purpose is to censor and omit corruption and incompetence.
Doing otherwise only makes it more difficult for the rest of us to detect corruption, incompetence in a public institution whose purpose is to promote the advancement of technology by providing an incentive, not act as the corrupt wing of government who lines the pockets of IP attorneys and other patent cartels.
I don't know about you, but I don't trust corrupt beaurcrats as much as I trust as WorldCom/Enron executive.
I understand the risks that some sources make pickup statements as an authority. My concern is: Why should the patent office, a PUBLIC institution that grants lucritive temporary monopolies on IDEAS, not be subjected to public scrutany???
What are the REAL risks? What's the worse that could happen if our friend was allowed to talk freely? Maybe people would lose confidence with current policy!!! Oh no!!!
The people who silenced this guy should be held liable. He has every right to talk about his experience and role in public policy, without fearing losing his job. This isn't a corporation, and it isn't the military. It's a PUBLIC institution.
Congratulations, not only was that a good save, but we all learned something. You came through despite my insulting and meaningless verbal assult and ended up taking the high road. I bet you'll be taking the high road more often.
While you do that, I'll continue taking the low road so others can take the high road.
I have conceeded...
Why is it terrorists rarely attack the cartels?
Takes a big man to call someone a twit over the net. Congrats. Hey, if you're ever in Chicago, let me know. See if you want to call me a twit in person. Bet you don't. Thanks again, Fucko.
Oh Jesus, you really are dumb. Really, you should avoid using the "I may be stupid, but I can kick you ass!" line for future reference. You see, this sort of talk only suggests that you're too impotent to muster up a half-wit comeback or even a 10 cent quip. It vindicates people's suspicians that you're stupid.
I've obviously been an asshole (my original objective), but I see you're not up to it, making it as sporting as being cruel to small animals and tricking retards. I may be an asshole (at times), but I'm not cruel. I have too much empathy to be cruel.
Because I want to leave you with some dignity, you can call me a pussy as much as you want and I won't dispute it.
Earth and Justice to you, Fucko!
(That's my, you've been flamed signature) It has a how-do-you-say, a goofy adolencent appeal, n'est pas?
DIRECTOR'S NOTE: I was trying to project a silly irony of being childishly anticlimactic after a poignant 'your mamma' joke.
It's twits like you who ruin a perfectly funny bit (Not because you got it wrong, because you run it into the fucking ground...)
Earth and Justice to you, Fucko!
That joke keeps getting funnier the more people misadapt it!!!
Earth and Justice to You, Fucko!
IANAL
If anything, an altered-redistribution ruling would affect copyprotected content that does not include a license, thereby being subjected to the default copyright/fair use rules.
Licenses exist to change these rules, overriding the default copyright/fair use rules, hence why software companies are able to insert all of those restrictions which take away fair use.
In other words, the GPL is like a contract. (I'm not sure of the effective differences between liceneses and contracts)
All spam and list emails are required to add either, ADV: or LIST: as the first characters in the subject line.
Failure to do so makes them liable for up to $200 per email.
It's that simple...
He's no lawyer yet, but he responds quite well to several objections to the case.
It's a meaningless comment who's sole purpose is to credit the kid. You're hunt for hidden assertions and stigma is meaningless and stupid.
So quit interrupting with your pedantic tangents, it's not only annoying, it's an impotent attempt to make a point out of the pointless.
EARTH AND JUSTICE TO YOU FUCKO!!!
People can handle being insulted by the intelligent, it's when the stupid take shots at them, it really hurts.
Hey wait a minute...
Only lawyers can truely understand the law. You lesser life forms only have a superficial understanding and marginal charisma to argue your position.
While you're being stupid, why don't you lecture us on how not all black people like rap, or you don't have to be an auto mechanic to have in-depth knowledge on auto repair! Stop! You're blinding me with insight! Ahh!!!
[begin shrill]
...and people are so stupid they probably won't even notice!!!
...and life will continue to be as meaningless as it ever was...
In the future, Television will subconsciously dictate how we will dress, how we will react in different circumstances, and paint perfect lives so people will be obsessed emulating everything they see on TV!!!
TV will be the way companies will create demand where there was none, and add value to things that are meaningless!!! All to the highest bidder!!!
Your Coca-Cola dystopia is NOTHING compared to the dystopia that TV will sell to the highest bidder!!!
[end shrill]
[narrirator]
You remind me of Kevin Cline's character in "A Fish Called Wanda"
How do you go about agreeing with the guy, and then berate him for correcting someone else??? It's obvious to you and me, but it wasn't to the original poster, HENCE the need to correct him with OBVIOUS information. Pretty fucking novel idea, huh?
Secondly, you didn't bother to ask him under what circumstances he thought 2% was reachable. Maybe he was talking theory, or in times of war.
Point is: How the fuck would you know if don't bother asking for people's insight, and instead default to berating anyone who didn't make thier conclusions the same way you did?
If capacity has grown 500x in the last 5 years, and if demand has only quadrupled (4x), then webhosting should be dirt cheap, right???
After all, all of this overbuilding was for backbones and not the last mile, right?
So why are webhosting companies still charging $20 for 20 GB/month transfer rate, which is a little more monthly transfer rate than that of a 56K modem?
Does anybody have an real insight into the problem, and how I might go about exploiting it?
After all, How can we help the telecom industry if they can't give us discounts to access these overbuilt networks?
CDT (Cambridge Display Technology) was touting LEPs as the next LED that is capable of high refresh rates and the ability to see from angles, all because the technology doesn't use a backlight but instead the plastic itself emits light.
Among some of the other advantages I remember highlighted was the ability to create strange pixel configurations, low power usage, and a relatively inexpensive manufacturing process.
We'll have to see what promises it will live up to...
Semiconducting Polymers on Display
Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.
Point 1: You can't have it both ways
You can't have it both ways... My negative impact on individual telemarketers is small and negligible too. Relatively, it's higher, but it's still very negligible.
Point 2: Every vote counts
The impact I make when I vote is small and negligible, should I stop voting? Should we all stop dissenting if our dissent is small and neglible?
Point 3: You can't start big to get big
Most dissent starts small and neglible, dissent doesn't occur in rapid consent, so it's up to assholes like me to start small and negligible dissent in hopes the dissent will spread.
The Point: My small and negligible dissent is nessecary to inspire others to waste telemarketers time.
Personally, I love waisting thier time by letting them talk for 15 seconds and asking them to hold on. I put the phone down, watch 2 minutes of TV and pick it back up again. I tell them I am interested, let them talk for another 15 seconds, ask a dumb question and then ask them to hold again, where I watch another 2 minutes of TV.
You'd be surprised how long they stay on hold...
If there were more assholes like me who wasted thier time, Telemarketing would never be profitable. You're making it easier to skip people who aren't interested...
The other thing you can do is act like you're really interested, but NEVER actually ACCEPT what they are offering. You can haggle, ask stupid questions, conjure stupid reasons, or interrupt your purchase with the sudden decapitation of your family pet. OMG!!!
Talking with Telemarketers is a great opportunity to hone in on a number of communication skills.
Microsoft is donating something to somebody! Must be an evil conspiracy! Quick, let's make up some theories about how this will oppress people for years to come somewhere.
Naive - Unsuspecting or credulous
Obtuse - The inability to distinguish jack shit
If Microsoft is just being generous, why should they single out Peru??? See how easy that is??? Just a little skepticism goes a long way...
Imagine what a lot of skepticism will do!!!
You need to learn to distinguish between crack pot conspiracy thoeries and basic run-of-the-mill corruption and business tactics. Giving away freebies to hook in a customer is about as run-of-the-mill as they come...
Just one of the Problems
One of the current problems with the media that it's turned into one big oligopoly and it's sleeping with the FCC so it can retain its status.
All media companies need a conduit to deliver thier content to viewers/users, whether it's the airwaves (TV/Radio), Cable, and now Internet (via Telephone for most users).
The FCC controls ALL of these conduits (With the exception of some private networks).
One Solution
1. Regulate/deregulate the FCC's control so that the costs of running a TV channel, radio station is virtually nothing, thus introducing competition.
2. Regulate/deregulate the Baby Bell's exclusive control over the telephone infrastructure to facilitate the deployment of broadband technologies. Maybe seperate service from infrastructure.
Does cable theft laws apply to cable modems???
Apparently so...
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
Sounds like the Cable companies have it made.
1. Not require to provide open access to infrastructure.
2. TOS contract enforcable by federal law, subjecting violaters to criminal charges.
Talk about having an ISP with special government privledges...
Thanks for the info...
Technically, these guys may be charged with Cable theft as the definition is vague enough.
It's right here... I'm looking for something in the wording, which may exclude our friends, but I can't find it...
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
Sounds like the Cable companies have it made.
1. Don't have to provide open access
2. TOS is enforced by federal law, subjecting violaters to criminal charges.