For the love of god people, why not just sue the recording industry for piracy? Why? Because they are the ones who make the stuff that make us all want to pirate! "It's not my fault officer, the recording company made me do it! I had to have the CD so bad, I didn't have time to give them my money!"
The difference here is intent. Very few companies intentionally provide a means for you to commit such crimes. Such means are intended for other, legitimate uses, and if a user crosses the line, the provider is generally not the one to blame (provided their intent was legal). Remember the recent SCOTUS decision on Grokster? Same thing! Just a different country.
There is a slight difference between this case and Google.
In this case, the person knowingly and willingly put a link up and made them a willing accessory to a crime.
In the case of Google, they are unknowingly doing so, and if you point out their mistake, will quickly remove such offending links from their database to avoid getting sued.
Thank you! I was just about to post a similar thing!
Last I checked, a verdict was a finding of facts on the case, ie 'The facts indicate that the accused did what they were accused of'.
It's no longer a matter of it being alleged, it has been proven and the accused convicted. Next you (the poster of the article) are going to tell me that some convicted murderer or child molester allegedly killed or molested someone.
Out of curiosity... what do you do in the off chance that a user complains that the internet isn't working right... like a website requiring ActiveX or claiming that their browser is not compatible?
don't really think there'll be a lot of intrest in trading that online.
Many said the same thing with regards to the motion picture association many years ago during the good ole days of Napster. "Downloading movies online? Are you insane? It would take hours to download and no one has enough storage for more than a couple movies"... then technology improved as it always does. More people had larger hard drives, DVD burners and even faster internet connections.
Give it enough time and plenty will be trading such high quality music, in fact, I bet some already do. Take HDTV for example, an full bitrate ATSC stream OTA comes in at 19.392658 megabits per second... with a little mat we find that that is roughly 8.7 gigs an hour for this pristine digital content, content that the newsgroups are full of at such high bitrates.
And Verizon locks out your memory card (ala V710), preventing you from transferring custom ringtones from your PC to encourage you to send them via their network as an attachment... gaining them 25 cents a pop.
I think you have confused a law with a mandate from the FCC. Just because there is law authorizing them to act in certain ways does not mean that their decrees are inherently law.
Anyway, this mandate, you are of course referring to: FCC 03-225 around page 50. There is something not specified here though, the cable box is not required to give you over firewire the high-def stream that you are viewing, it just has to supply a stream, and it doesn't take much for such a unit to take a pristine 1080i (or better yet, 1080p) video and dither it down to a nice low bitrate 480i, exactly what many boxes are known to do at the mandate of the cable operator.
Recording the output of your cable box is not so easy, if you are having it modulate the video on to channel 3 or 4, you are stuck at nice low res. If you are going to capture some of the higher quality outs... be ready to pay up the rear.
I hate to be the barer of bad news... however more and more cable companies, at least here in the US are moving towards having most, if not all of their digital offerings encrypted.
Buying a QAM demodulator is easy, getting it to decode an encrypted cable network is not, and such cards that are capable of this sort of work on cable are... really non existent.
While such a PVR is nice, if you want HD programming, you are effectively limiting yourself to OTA ATSC stuff, which as we know is pretty feeble and will remain that way, just as OTA analog tv was feeble, as an encouragement to have you spend a few bucks a month for more channels through your local cable company.
Don't even get me started on the subject of QPSK (the modulation method used for digital satellite television).
For twelve years you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing--you who dread knowledge--I am the man who will now tell you.
As a South Dakotan I am offended by the above statements, I will have you know that we recently upgraded from a single ISDN line to a single whopping T3 for the entire state you insensitive clod.
Granted we are talking two different countries here, the MPAA had success against 2600 who in the end simply had links on their webpage to DeCSS source code, despite no longer having it hosted on their servers (as per the MPAA's demands). The only difference is that it's occurring in Australia and the suit is being brought by an organization related to the RIAA, who like the MPAA likes to hire the best lawyers they can.
You must not live in the US, because if you did, the DMCA would compel you to act and judge, even if you did not want to. Not doing so opens up an ISP for liability for the copyright infringement, and so it can for you.
In many jurisdictions, including the US and Australia, common carrier status is not free and can be lost pretty easily if you do not remain neutral. Part of that often times involves taking action on reports of copyright infringement that occur on their network. That is side effect of the DMCA in the US, it has forced ISP's into the role of enforcement in order to remain neutral and show the copyright holders that they are against piracy in the hopes that they will not be sued for contributory infringement.
Have you forgotten already that 2600 magazine was successfully sued for having links to the DeCSS source code on their web page? Same concept. Even if they aren't hosting, they are still knowingly and willingly get something that is according to the law, illicit.
Consider the following conversation:
Person 1: "Hey man, you wanna buy some drugs?" Person 2: "You selling?" Person 1: "No, but I can tell ya who is"
Should Person 1 not be accountable for their actions as a facilitator?
I'm getting my facts from an interview video on Channel 9 where they sit down and talk with the team who built this system, as well as a demonstration of the system.
You are right though, the Creative Commons is not a software license, it is a license for documents, including specifications. The original RSS specs were published under the CC, and in keeping in line with that because of their talks with the original developers of RSS.
To quote one member of the team: "RSS is too good to just be in browsers and news aggregators" and he is exactly right. Why have multiple applications reinventing the wheel to do the same thing when different applications can do their own thing with the data, but leave many aspects of it up to the main system.
Slashdot Mirror
For the love of god people, why not just sue the recording industry for piracy? Why? Because they are the ones who make the stuff that make us all want to pirate! "It's not my fault officer, the recording company made me do it! I had to have the CD so bad, I didn't have time to give them my money!"
The difference here is intent. Very few companies intentionally provide a means for you to commit such crimes. Such means are intended for other, legitimate uses, and if a user crosses the line, the provider is generally not the one to blame (provided their intent was legal). Remember the recent SCOTUS decision on Grokster? Same thing! Just a different country.
There is a slight difference between this case and Google.
In this case, the person knowingly and willingly put a link up and made them a willing accessory to a crime.
In the case of Google, they are unknowingly doing so, and if you point out their mistake, will quickly remove such offending links from their database to avoid getting sued.
Thank you! I was just about to post a similar thing!
Last I checked, a verdict was a finding of facts on the case, ie 'The facts indicate that the accused did what they were accused of'.
It's no longer a matter of it being alleged, it has been proven and the accused convicted. Next you (the poster of the article) are going to tell me that some convicted murderer or child molester allegedly killed or molested someone.
Out of curiosity... what do you do in the off chance that a user complains that the internet isn't working right... like a website requiring ActiveX or claiming that their browser is not compatible?
and this on a day when news(.com*) has a peice titled: A safe browser? No longer in the lexicon.
don't really think there'll be a lot of intrest in trading that online.
Many said the same thing with regards to the motion picture association many years ago during the good ole days of Napster. "Downloading movies online? Are you insane? It would take hours to download and no one has enough storage for more than a couple movies"... then technology improved as it always does. More people had larger hard drives, DVD burners and even faster internet connections.
Give it enough time and plenty will be trading such high quality music, in fact, I bet some already do. Take HDTV for example, an full bitrate ATSC stream OTA comes in at 19.392658 megabits per second... with a little mat we find that that is roughly 8.7 gigs an hour for this pristine digital content, content that the newsgroups are full of at such high bitrates.
McafNotFree? Their true name and pronunciation isn't good enough for you? you know, MacAfee... Mc-aaa-fee... miss that fee in there did ya?
And Verizon locks out your memory card (ala V710), preventing you from transferring custom ringtones from your PC to encourage you to send them via their network as an attachment... gaining them 25 cents a pop.
I think you have confused a law with a mandate from the FCC. Just because there is law authorizing them to act in certain ways does not mean that their decrees are inherently law.
Anyway, this mandate, you are of course referring to: FCC 03-225 around page 50. There is something not specified here though, the cable box is not required to give you over firewire the high-def stream that you are viewing, it just has to supply a stream, and it doesn't take much for such a unit to take a pristine 1080i (or better yet, 1080p) video and dither it down to a nice low bitrate 480i, exactly what many boxes are known to do at the mandate of the cable operator.
Recording the output of your cable box is not so easy, if you are having it modulate the video on to channel 3 or 4, you are stuck at nice low res. If you are going to capture some of the higher quality outs... be ready to pay up the rear.
I hate to be the barer of bad news... however more and more cable companies, at least here in the US are moving towards having most, if not all of their digital offerings encrypted.
Buying a QAM demodulator is easy, getting it to decode an encrypted cable network is not, and such cards that are capable of this sort of work on cable are... really non existent.
While such a PVR is nice, if you want HD programming, you are effectively limiting yourself to OTA ATSC stuff, which as we know is pretty feeble and will remain that way, just as OTA analog tv was feeble, as an encouragement to have you spend a few bucks a month for more channels through your local cable company.
Don't even get me started on the subject of QPSK (the modulation method used for digital satellite television).
For twelve years you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing--you who dread knowledge--I am the man who will now tell you.
As a South Dakotan I am offended by the above statements, I will have you know that we recently upgraded from a single ISDN line to a single whopping T3 for the entire state you insensitive clod.
Granted we are talking two different countries here, the MPAA had success against 2600 who in the end simply had links on their webpage to DeCSS source code, despite no longer having it hosted on their servers (as per the MPAA's demands). The only difference is that it's occurring in Australia and the suit is being brought by an organization related to the RIAA, who like the MPAA likes to hire the best lawyers they can.
You must not live in the US, because if you did, the DMCA would compel you to act and judge, even if you did not want to. Not doing so opens up an ISP for liability for the copyright infringement, and so it can for you.
In many jurisdictions, including the US and Australia, common carrier status is not free and can be lost pretty easily if you do not remain neutral. Part of that often times involves taking action on reports of copyright infringement that occur on their network. That is side effect of the DMCA in the US, it has forced ISP's into the role of enforcement in order to remain neutral and show the copyright holders that they are against piracy in the hopes that they will not be sued for contributory infringement.
Have you forgotten already that 2600 magazine was successfully sued for having links to the DeCSS source code on their web page? Same concept. Even if they aren't hosting, they are still knowingly and willingly get something that is according to the law, illicit.
Consider the following conversation:
Person 1: "Hey man, you wanna buy some drugs?"
Person 2: "You selling?"
Person 1: "No, but I can tell ya who is"
Should Person 1 not be accountable for their actions as a facilitator?
I'm getting my facts from an interview video on Channel 9 where they sit down and talk with the team who built this system, as well as a demonstration of the system.
You are right though, the Creative Commons is not a software license, it is a license for documents, including specifications. The original RSS specs were published under the CC, and in keeping in line with that because of their talks with the original developers of RSS.
Their extensions will be released under the Creative Commons License, how about you get some facts before you gripe.
To quote one member of the team: "RSS is too good to just be in browsers and news aggregators" and he is exactly right. Why have multiple applications reinventing the wheel to do the same thing when different applications can do their own thing with the data, but leave many aspects of it up to the main system.
Their extensions to it will be released under the Creative Commons License.
The SCO organization is illegal? I seem to have missed that law. Oh wait... you mean they are acting illegally, ok.
Wikipedia and others claim June 1997 as the time when Winamp was first released.
You forget the fact that the patent application predates Winamp.
May I suggest the spammer known as Javier Luna for this job? Take a look at the link in my sig for some info on him.