Why do I get the feeling that I'll soon see one of those "get the facts" banners claiming that Gartner has determined installing Linux will cause your server to explode?
Obviously not -- the folks in Marketing know that "that number is meaningless" and "that number is not something we can use to stomp the competition" are completely unrelated concepts.
Hey, I'm not (very much) ashamed to admit that I write VBscript. But it's for white-hat purposes* and never leaves my place of business. Let's be careful not to cast the net too widely, please!
---------- * You know, set a new user's default printer automagically, scan for an outbreak of KaZaa, etc.
Uh, who is "them?" It's also OUR AIR FORCE. Some public land is made public land to keep people out. Maybe you'd like to see more SUVs and snowmobiles running wild in *public* nature preserves? Or unrestricted logging in *public* national parks? Maybe you and your neighbors should have the right to hold a picnic in the Mayor's office while he's trying to resolve a contract dispute with the policemen's union?
"Public land" doesn't necessarily mean "open to all comers"; it means "owned by the the people collectively". Sometimes the public need to agree to stay away and let our hirelings do what they were hired to do.
At least in the U.S. we can see the taxes. Many places they have VAT, which taxes every slightest movement or alteration of something from raw material to landing in your hot little hand, and you only see the final step.
Means of transportation which give you a choice of boarding at 01:00 AM or 04:00 AM no matter where you're bound are going to be unpopular. Got better service where you live? come to Indiana and discover the true meaning of transportation inconvenience.
But the Internet -- don't worry, the government didn't invent it. DARPA paid real network experts to do that and bought them lots of nifty gear to do it with, that's all.
And the USPS? Well, as a former employee I'm biased, but while we all like to kick our own Postal Service it seems that worse examples are available. I think they do alright. (Except for that E*COM thing, and at least it was entertaining.)
Property is whatever the prevailing law says it is. The prevailing law says that a recorded performance is property. For that matter, prevailing law says that an UNrecorded performance is property -- ever listened to the warning at the start of an NFL game?
No, pretending that the deal was different is not stealing; it's breaking your promise. I believe that in the case of licensed material it meets the standards for breach of contract, though I could be mistaken. The law gives the other party the power to punish you for breaking your promise.
I think you're confusing "natural law" with statute law.
Ah, yes, I had forgotten: if B is dishonest, that proves that A is not dishonest. What was I thinking?
Yes, if you go back to 1830 and take someone's slave away, even to set him free, that's stealing. Even though it's arguably the right thing to do. Stealing is defined by law. After the Emancipation Proclamation it would not have been stealing in the North (because it was no longer possible for a human to be property), but still stealing in the CSA (if you believe that the CSA had any legal validity). I'm sorry it's so complex, but the idea of law won't work if you oversimplify.
Law and justice are two different things. That's why we have two words. Law is supposed to represent an agreement on what is just. It's always an approximation, as any formal system will be when applied to the variety of human experience, and sometimes it comes close while other times the approximation is not good at all. But it's the only agreement we've got, and if you want change then you have to change the *agreement*. If you don't want to be a part of society then don't expect society to care too much about what you want.
Well, I hope you don't live in my neighborhood. I consider myself "caught" at the moment I realize that I was contemplating an illegal act, and the penalty is that I don't get to do whatever it was.
Yes, if something is illegal then it is incorrect. If the law is wrong, make it right. Breaking an unjust law gives its fans an excuse to ignore your arguments and encourage others to do the same. NEVER let yourself believe that laws can't be fixed -- that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well, see, that's part of the problem. Some people are talking about "everything", some are talking about very specific cases, and some are talking about specific cases in extremely general terms. That's one reason lawyers' writings are so wordy and abstruse: pinning down *exactly* what you're saying is not easy.
I like to get this really precise because there is a secondary effect of loose talk in this arena. If we let RIAA get away with *equating* music sharing to copyright violation, then they've cemented in our minds the notion that *all* recorded music is only offered on their clients' traditional terms. That's not true and I think it would be bad if it were true. I don't know if that is their intent and I really don't care so long as this notion is squashed. What is or is not a violation of the owner's copyright depends on what the owner says you can do. Some owners are more liberal and I applaud their superior customer service.
"You've been subjected to a frivolous suit and you can't afford a lawyer" was the hypothetical scenario proposed by the OP as what awaits at the bottom of the slippery slope, if actions like RIAA's continue.
Well, someone who puts up for "sharing" a performance he has no permission to share is (picky language alert) violating the license and should expect to be punished.
The other party to the transaction has a more uncertain status. Accepting goods you know are stolen is a crime, and I think that this same principle should apply even to nonphysical property. So if you accepted the "shared" material in good faith, believing that the sharer had the right to share, you should be held blameless and you even have a cause of action against the sharer; but if you had a reason to believe that the sharer should not be sharing then you are as guilty as he.
The "assumed guilt" built into CD-blank prices is just plain wrong. It's a stupid, lazy, backdoor approach to a problem that should be faced squarely. Some people are now facing it squarely, and if this spreads, maybe we can get the advance fines repealed.
Well, notice the "pool your chips" part. One person with almost no money may not be able to afford a lawyer; 20,000 * "almost no money" could amount to a very respectable warchest. From the plaintiffs' perspective a class action is the formation of a cooperative to spread the cost of a single (larger) action across many payers with essentially the same complaint. So yeah, you *do* need to talk to a lawyer, but you may not have to go it alone.
The OP was talking essentially about a company that goes bonkers and starts suing everyone in sight, evidence or no evidence. I think that would be a pretty good candidate for a class countersuit. But you'll have to pay a lawyer to get a trustworthy opinion, and lay it before a judge to find out for sure.
Sharing per se is not illegal either. Violating the terms of the agreement under which you received the right to possess the thing you are sharing is (since we are getting picky here) tortious.
There's nothing wrong with uploading, downloading, sharing, copying, etc. anything that you own or anything whose owner grants you permission to upload/download/share/copy. Typically (but not necessarily) when you buy a recording the only thing you own is a piece of plastic, and the people who *still own* the performance don't grant you the right to upload, share, or copy except to the extent that existing laws override the license.
I do not choose to ignore the fact that I am applying my values to the discussion. I believe in the principle of private property and will defend it. I prefer the way the system works when creative works can be defended as property to any system I can imagine in which this is not possible. I see little difference between someone giving away (say) Madonna's recorded music without her permission, and someone giving away her car without her permission, *because* I accept that a reproducible performance can be property.
Exchanging information non-commercially is not *in itself* thieving. Exchanging information you have not got the legal right to exchange is, whether you do it for money or love or to stick it to the greedheads. The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
What he said. IOS is too nice to give up on. It's powerful and doesn't get in my way. I spent a few hours wrapping my head around the way ACLs work, but now I'm set because they all work the same way.
Forget "simple"; I'll take expressive power anyday.
Why am I thinking of the urban legend about the guy who acquired a JATO motor and thought it would be cool to strap it onto his car and go really, really fast?
I have trouble figuring out what I could do with 54mb/s wireless that isn't already overkilled at 11mb/s. What would I do with 92tb/s? Build a modest telephone exchange I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait to see what my SSH client makes of being redirected to a web page.
Why do I get the feeling that I'll soon see one of those "get the facts" banners claiming that Gartner has determined installing Linux will cause your server to explode?
Obviously not -- the folks in Marketing know that "that number is meaningless" and "that number is not something we can use to stomp the competition" are completely unrelated concepts.
Oh my dear lord, they're going to figure out that I buy computer books AND read _College Roomies from Hell_. And you know what that means!
/. Yeah.
Or maybe they'll be convinced I'm a terrorist because I read CNN *and*
Hey, I'm not (very much) ashamed to admit that I write VBscript. But it's for white-hat purposes* and never leaves my place of business. Let's be careful not to cast the net too widely, please!
----------
* You know, set a new user's default printer automagically, scan for an outbreak of KaZaa, etc.
Meanwhile, in SOVIET RUSSIA, your list thinks *I* am incomplete.
It could've been SNA.
No, that'd be Mr. Drucker. Mr. Haney was the guy who sold the Douglases their farm...one piece at a time.
Uh, who is "them?" It's also OUR AIR FORCE. Some public land is made public land to keep people out. Maybe you'd like to see more SUVs and snowmobiles running wild in *public* nature preserves? Or unrestricted logging in *public* national parks? Maybe you and your neighbors should have the right to hold a picnic in the Mayor's office while he's trying to resolve a contract dispute with the policemen's union?
"Public land" doesn't necessarily mean "open to all comers"; it means "owned by the the people collectively". Sometimes the public need to agree to stay away and let our hirelings do what they were hired to do.
At least in the U.S. we can see the taxes. Many places they have VAT, which taxes every slightest movement or alteration of something from raw material to landing in your hot little hand, and you only see the final step.
Means of transportation which give you a choice of boarding at 01:00 AM or 04:00 AM no matter where you're bound are going to be unpopular. Got better service where you live? come to Indiana and discover the true meaning of transportation inconvenience.
But the Internet -- don't worry, the government didn't invent it. DARPA paid real network experts to do that and bought them lots of nifty gear to do it with, that's all.
And the USPS? Well, as a former employee I'm biased, but while we all like to kick our own Postal Service it seems that worse examples are available. I think they do alright. (Except for that E*COM thing, and at least it was entertaining.)
Property is whatever the prevailing law says it is. The prevailing law says that a recorded performance is property. For that matter, prevailing law says that an UNrecorded performance is property -- ever listened to the warning at the start of an NFL game?
No, pretending that the deal was different is not stealing; it's breaking your promise. I believe that in the case of licensed material it meets the standards for breach of contract, though I could be mistaken. The law gives the other party the power to punish you for breaking your promise.
I think you're confusing "natural law" with statute law.
Ah, yes, I had forgotten: if B is dishonest, that proves that A is not dishonest. What was I thinking?
Yes, if you go back to 1830 and take someone's slave away, even to set him free, that's stealing. Even though it's arguably the right thing to do. Stealing is defined by law. After the Emancipation Proclamation it would not have been stealing in the North (because it was no longer possible for a human to be property), but still stealing in the CSA (if you believe that the CSA had any legal validity). I'm sorry it's so complex, but the idea of law won't work if you oversimplify.
Law and justice are two different things. That's why we have two words. Law is supposed to represent an agreement on what is just. It's always an approximation, as any formal system will be when applied to the variety of human experience, and sometimes it comes close while other times the approximation is not good at all. But it's the only agreement we've got, and if you want change then you have to change the *agreement*. If you don't want to be a part of society then don't expect society to care too much about what you want.
Well, I hope you don't live in my neighborhood. I consider myself "caught" at the moment I realize that I was contemplating an illegal act, and the penalty is that I don't get to do whatever it was.
Yes, if something is illegal then it is incorrect. If the law is wrong, make it right. Breaking an unjust law gives its fans an excuse to ignore your arguments and encourage others to do the same. NEVER let yourself believe that laws can't be fixed -- that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well, see, that's part of the problem. Some people are talking about "everything", some are talking about very specific cases, and some are talking about specific cases in extremely general terms. That's one reason lawyers' writings are so wordy and abstruse: pinning down *exactly* what you're saying is not easy.
I like to get this really precise because there is a secondary effect of loose talk in this arena. If we let RIAA get away with *equating* music sharing to copyright violation, then they've cemented in our minds the notion that *all* recorded music is only offered on their clients' traditional terms. That's not true and I think it would be bad if it were true. I don't know if that is their intent and I really don't care so long as this notion is squashed. What is or is not a violation of the owner's copyright depends on what the owner says you can do. Some owners are more liberal and I applaud their superior customer service.
"You've been subjected to a frivolous suit and you can't afford a lawyer" was the hypothetical scenario proposed by the OP as what awaits at the bottom of the slippery slope, if actions like RIAA's continue.
Well, someone who puts up for "sharing" a performance he has no permission to share is (picky language alert) violating the license and should expect to be punished.
The other party to the transaction has a more uncertain status. Accepting goods you know are stolen is a crime, and I think that this same principle should apply even to nonphysical property. So if you accepted the "shared" material in good faith, believing that the sharer had the right to share, you should be held blameless and you even have a cause of action against the sharer; but if you had a reason to believe that the sharer should not be sharing then you are as guilty as he.
The "assumed guilt" built into CD-blank prices is just plain wrong. It's a stupid, lazy, backdoor approach to a problem that should be faced squarely. Some people are now facing it squarely, and if this spreads, maybe we can get the advance fines repealed.
Well, notice the "pool your chips" part. One person with almost no money may not be able to afford a lawyer; 20,000 * "almost no money" could amount to a very respectable warchest. From the plaintiffs' perspective a class action is the formation of a cooperative to spread the cost of a single (larger) action across many payers with essentially the same complaint. So yeah, you *do* need to talk to a lawyer, but you may not have to go it alone.
The OP was talking essentially about a company that goes bonkers and starts suing everyone in sight, evidence or no evidence. I think that would be a pretty good candidate for a class countersuit. But you'll have to pay a lawyer to get a trustworthy opinion, and lay it before a judge to find out for sure.
Sharing per se is not illegal either. Violating the terms of the agreement under which you received the right to possess the thing you are sharing is (since we are getting picky here) tortious.
There's nothing wrong with uploading, downloading, sharing, copying, etc. anything that you own or anything whose owner grants you permission to upload/download/share/copy. Typically (but not necessarily) when you buy a recording the only thing you own is a piece of plastic, and the people who *still own* the performance don't grant you the right to upload, share, or copy except to the extent that existing laws override the license.
I do not choose to ignore the fact that I am applying my values to the discussion. I believe in the principle of private property and will defend it. I prefer the way the system works when creative works can be defended as property to any system I can imagine in which this is not possible. I see little difference between someone giving away (say) Madonna's recorded music without her permission, and someone giving away her car without her permission, *because* I accept that a reproducible performance can be property.
Exchanging information non-commercially is not *in itself* thieving. Exchanging information you have not got the legal right to exchange is, whether you do it for money or love or to stick it to the greedheads. The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
Punish the guilty instead of just whacking everybody? Genius, sheer genius!
CHAOS? Really? Wouldn't MIT sue?
Maybe you're thinking of KAOS, CONTROL's opposite number.
What he said. IOS is too nice to give up on. It's powerful and doesn't get in my way. I spent a few hours wrapping my head around the way ACLs work, but now I'm set because they all work the same way.
Forget "simple"; I'll take expressive power anyday.
Why am I thinking of the urban legend about the guy who acquired a JATO motor and thought it would be cool to strap it onto his car and go really, really fast?
I have trouble figuring out what I could do with 54mb/s wireless that isn't already overkilled at 11mb/s. What would I do with 92tb/s? Build a modest telephone exchange I guess.
Did it find Ockham as well? :-}