I think even this is open to interpretation... What ISP's generally mean by this language is they don't want you setting up a TUCOWS like download site, or a library of music files to download.
A few MP3 samples of a DJ's performances does not make the site a "download site".
Still, the best advice is get a better ISP. There are many you can get that will host pages/domain name for $10/month and under that doesn't do this kind of thing. Take your money elsewhere and this policy of theirs will fail.
I can see where a free ISP (Yahoo, Tripod, Xoom) can and probably should do what these people are doing, but not pay service. When you PAY for service you expect a lot more lattitude in what you can do with your site, after all, you are paying for the bandwidth they are promising you.
And no pay ISP should ever delete things from their customer's directory without at least communicating with the person beforehand.
If the TOS says you can't have ANY files in the.mp3 format at all on your site, they have the right to do what they are doing.
However, I kind of doubt this, they probably have in their TOS that you can't have any illegal COPYRIGHTED audio/video files. They are simply ASSUMING (and you know what that means) that all.MP3 files are illegal. This is not the case... The gentleman in question had a very legitimate reason to have.MP3 files of his on-air work, and.MP3 is the most bandwidth efficient high quality audio format there is.
Can you do anything about it? Yes, you could if their TOS didn't specifically prohibit MP3 files at all, as this is breach of contract (they are denying you service they promised to give in exchange for what you agreed to). But that means getting a lawyer and suing, and with today's generation of clueless corporate-party hand in their pocket judges, you still may not get what you want even IF the TOS is on your side.
Better to switch to a more reputable ISP that doesn't use bots to delete stuff from user accounts. Any ISP that does that automatically without actually determining if the files are infringing don't give a shit about it's customers. You should take your buisness elsewhere, and encourage others to do so. Let the market put them out of business like they should be.
Carnivore was "reviewed" by a bunch of yes persons handpicked. Not one of the groups critical of Carnivore got to examine the system.
So naturally the government got exactly the verdict they wanted: Carnivore is OK.
The last two weeks should prove to everyone that government is NOT to be trusted, especially this bunch that runs it now. And it looks like they are going to get to stay, unfortunately.
The government has no right to be snooping ANYONES personal communications or information without a warrant. It's right there in the Constitution. They are supposed to have "probable cause" and show it to a judge. Though the quality of judges (Kaplan, the Florida Supremes) certainly has diminished in the last 30 years or so.
Unfortunately, not enough Americans have had a good enough Civics education (ie, from a non-Marxist professor). Ignorance isn't bliss, it's how the government gets away with breaking the law. Carnivore is illegal. But because of mass ignorance, AND a corrupt administration, nothing will be done about it.
The 80286 was the first "protected mode" processor Intel produced that would allow multitasking. From what I recall, the `286 didn't do this particularly well, and caused IBM/MS fits when they designed the first version of OS/2. The `286 became popular, mostly because it was a lot faster than the 8086/8088 even in "real" mode.
The `286's problems weren't fixed until the 386, which ushered in 32-bit pre-emptive multitaksing for the PC platform.
The 8088 was a crippled 8086, kind of the "celeron" of it's day. It was limited to 8-bits externally, though it is 16-bits internally. Because of the 8088, early PC's were limited to being able to address 1MB of RAM. This is probably one reason the 640K DOS limit hung around for so long (still a factor in the early-mid 90's).
The United States does not OWN your body. And I don't agree with the "drug war" either.
If you are an American citizen, you are free to emigrate to any country you want to, and renounce your citizenship if you want to. True, the last 20 years or so has seen an alarming erosion of the classical concept of "citizen" and replace it with "consumer". Not just corporations, but the government itself is turning citizens into "consumers" of ever encroaching government services.
I'd hope that any attempt by the US government to sell the rights to American's genetic code would be met with riots and the storming of Washington DC. The pessimist in me thinks that there are too few who understand the Declaration of Independance and it's implications.
Abstract: A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.
"The difference is, in a democracy, people have *elected*, have chosen, to sell these rights. "
Elected "democracies" have the RIGHT to sell exclusive access to the source code to it's citizens? I don't think so. No government that presumes to own it's people is a free country. Can't be. The principle of self-ownership is of first and foremost of all human rights. To deny self-ownership is to allow slavery. I'm no bigger a fan of state slavery than I am some plantation master owning other humans.
If I as an individual CHOOSE to sell research rights to my genetic code to a company, then it's my choice, and it will be ME who is paid. To do this any other way is coercion.
Any government which peddles in human flesh or human genes is already, or is about to be tyrannical. If the government set this up as an "opt-in" voluntary program where the individual CHOOSES to co-operate or not, and gets compensated, that's different. But these are cases of governments coercing participation (by granting exclusivity an individual cannot himself sell his own code to the highest bidder) for it's OWN enrichment. This is wrong in any moral sense. The governments are selling rights to things it DOES NOT OWN.
Nice to see that not all governments are entirely brain dead or totally owned by corporations.
There are too many stupid patents being granted. There's even a patent for using a flashlight/laser pointer to play with a cat! I kid you not.
Now the EC needs to strike down the horribly Tony Blair RIP bill that not only allows police to raid your computer for data, but makes it a crime not to hand over your encryption keys on request.
Slashdot Mirror
I think even this is open to interpretation... What ISP's generally mean by this language is they don't want you setting up a TUCOWS like download site, or a library of music files to download.
A few MP3 samples of a DJ's performances does not make the site a "download site".
Still, the best advice is get a better ISP. There are many you can get that will host pages/domain name for $10/month and under that doesn't do this kind of thing. Take your money elsewhere and this policy of theirs will fail.
I can see where a free ISP (Yahoo, Tripod, Xoom) can and probably should do what these people are doing, but not pay service. When you PAY for service you expect a lot more lattitude in what you can do with your site, after all, you are paying for the bandwidth they are promising you.
And no pay ISP should ever delete things from their customer's directory without at least communicating with the person beforehand.
If the TOS says you can't have ANY files in the .mp3 format at all on your site, they have the right to do what they are doing.
.MP3 files are illegal. This is not the case... The gentleman in question had a very legitimate reason to have .MP3 files of his on-air work, and .MP3 is the most bandwidth efficient high quality audio format there is.
However, I kind of doubt this, they probably have in their TOS that you can't have any illegal COPYRIGHTED audio/video files. They are simply ASSUMING (and you know what that means) that all
Can you do anything about it? Yes, you could if their TOS didn't specifically prohibit MP3 files at all, as this is breach of contract (they are denying you service they promised to give in exchange for what you agreed to). But that means getting a lawyer and suing, and with today's generation of clueless corporate-party hand in their pocket judges, you still may not get what you want even IF the TOS is on your side.
Better to switch to a more reputable ISP that doesn't use bots to delete stuff from user accounts. Any ISP that does that automatically without actually determining if the files are infringing don't give a shit about it's customers. You should take your buisness elsewhere, and encourage others to do so. Let the market put them out of business like they should be.
Carnivore was "reviewed" by a bunch of yes persons handpicked. Not one of the groups critical of Carnivore got to examine the system.
So naturally the government got exactly the verdict they wanted: Carnivore is OK.
The last two weeks should prove to everyone that government is NOT to be trusted, especially this bunch that runs it now. And it looks like they are going to get to stay, unfortunately.
The government has no right to be snooping ANYONES personal communications or information without a warrant. It's right there in the Constitution. They are supposed to have "probable cause" and show it to a judge. Though the quality of judges (Kaplan, the Florida Supremes) certainly has diminished in the last 30 years or so.
Unfortunately, not enough Americans have had a good enough Civics education (ie, from a non-Marxist professor). Ignorance isn't bliss, it's how the government gets away with breaking the law. Carnivore is illegal. But because of mass ignorance, AND a corrupt administration, nothing will be done about it.
The 80286 was the first "protected mode" processor Intel produced that would allow multitasking. From what I recall, the `286 didn't do this particularly well, and caused IBM/MS fits when they designed the first version of OS/2. The `286 became popular, mostly because it was a lot faster than the 8086/8088 even in "real" mode.
The `286's problems weren't fixed until the 386, which ushered in 32-bit pre-emptive multitaksing for the PC platform.
The 8088 was a crippled 8086, kind of the "celeron" of it's day. It was limited to 8-bits externally, though it is 16-bits internally. Because of the 8088, early PC's were limited to being able to address 1MB of RAM. This is probably one reason the 640K DOS limit hung around for so long (still a factor in the early-mid 90's).
The United States does not OWN your body. And I don't agree with the "drug war" either.
If you are an American citizen, you are free to emigrate to any country you want to, and renounce your citizenship if you want to. True, the last 20 years or so has seen an alarming erosion of the classical concept of "citizen" and replace it with "consumer". Not just corporations, but the government itself is turning citizens into "consumers" of ever encroaching government services.
I'd hope that any attempt by the US government to sell the rights to American's genetic code would be met with riots and the storming of Washington DC. The pessimist in me thinks that there are too few who understand the Declaration of Independance and it's implications.
Here you go, the most STUPID patent I've ever seen...
from: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__
Issued/Filed Dates: Aug. 22, 1995 / Nov. 2, 1993
Application Number: US1993000144473
Abstract: A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.
Primary/Assistant Examiners: Manahan; Todd E.;
"The difference is, in a democracy, people have *elected*, have chosen, to sell these rights. "
Elected "democracies" have the RIGHT to sell exclusive access to the source code to it's citizens? I don't think so. No government that presumes to own it's people is a free country. Can't be. The principle of self-ownership is of first and foremost of all human rights. To deny self-ownership is to allow slavery. I'm no bigger a fan of state slavery than I am some plantation master owning other humans.
If I as an individual CHOOSE to sell research rights to my genetic code to a company, then it's my choice, and it will be ME who is paid. To do this any other way is coercion.
Any government which peddles in human flesh or human genes is already, or is about to be tyrannical. If the government set this up as an "opt-in" voluntary program where the individual CHOOSES to co-operate or not, and gets compensated, that's different. But these are cases of governments coercing participation (by granting exclusivity an individual cannot himself sell his own code to the highest bidder) for it's OWN enrichment. This is wrong in any moral sense. The governments are selling rights to things it DOES NOT OWN.
Nice to see that not all governments are entirely brain dead or totally owned by corporations.
There are too many stupid patents being granted. There's even a patent for using a flashlight/laser pointer to play with a cat! I kid you not.
Now the EC needs to strike down the horribly Tony Blair RIP bill that not only allows police to raid your computer for data, but makes it a crime not to hand over your encryption keys on request.