Despite the fact that this ruling is completely contrary to the Constitution's exclusion of interstate powers from the states, this is going to be tough to fight.
Judges by and large are VERY egotistical creatures, and they are not very likely to ever, even in a clear cut case, to ever ask the plantiff "why are we here, what gives this court jurisdiction?". This precedent, had it been ruled on properly, would have limited the power of the state judiciary.
"Don't try to make this out to be more than it really is. This is just a bunch of co-workers using their own smarts to get around the IT department"
Everywhere I've worked, I've BEEN in the IT department, and we are the first ones to by-pass any blocks/filters for ourselves. After all, we're responsible for maintaining them...
This also as DMCA implications. The DMCA would seem to create an open season on placing bugs in software that monitors browsing, collects information, etc, and "phones home", yet disabling this or even breaking into the code to find out WHAT it's doing would be a DMCA violation.
I guarantee soon monitoring software will be appearing in closed-source programs, like games, etc before long, when the Doubleclicks of the world start spreading the $$$ around. And it'd be nice to have judges who are aware of the implications.
The Catholic school I was taught me libertarian values. For instance, the DMCA is invalid because it's immoral. For instance, the persecution of Dimitry Sklyarov is proof positive of that.
I'm not promoting superiority of my religion, only thanking my parents that I was taught that way, instead of in a public school where I'd have learned how to be a good DMCA fearin, obedient sheepizen.
"Hey, I've got $10 right here with Dmitry's name on it. Not for his legal defence, because his detention on political/economic grounds is farcial, but $10 that he can put towards recouping his bail, buying a fake passport (illegal, but, hey, pile it on) and skipping this fucked up excuse for a free country and getting back to momma Russia where he can continue pointing out the folly of criminalising the very act of questioning the right of a few CEO's, major shareholders and their Washington lobbyist bitches to make profit from We, the People."
I'd contribute too. I wish (for the first time) I lived in CA instead of NC... I'd drive him across the border in my beat up old `93 Escort.
"Gawd damn but this makes me sick."
Me too. Which is why I'd LOVE to see him leave for Russia, if for no other reason than to say FUCK YOU to the DMCA and it's pupetters in the DOJ.
" Big deal. Take a greyhound down to San Diego, take the trolley to the border, walk over to Tijuana, go to the next Russian consulate, get yourself a temporary passport and fly home."
I'd not blame him for doing this. In fact, I'd HELP him do it. After all, the USA is breaking it's own law (Constitution), and certainly moral law by even prosecuting him. However, I don't think there is much chance that Adobe will prevail, even WITH the flawed DMCA on their side, in a trial, that is, unless the "judge" is one Lewis Kaplan, who authored the modern equivalent of the "Dred Scott Decision" with his indefensible ruling in favor of the MPAA.
You make EXCELLENT points. Whether it's the law or not, holding Sklyarov is an extremely IMMORAL act. And, as I've said before, my teachers at my Catholic School taught me that an immoral or unjust law is NO LAW AT ALL.
It's unfortunate that more people aren't educated by Jesuits, who teach you to THINK.
The fact that he, as a foreign national, and a HUGE flight risk, was released on bail at all, is an excellent sign that the court sees the chances of Adobe prevailing as slim. I see NO reason why he'd have been allowed to post bail otherwise.
Thank GOD that he's free. Not that he IS free, he's in the USA, particularly California. The Sklyarov case, I'm sad to say, makes me ashamed of my country. He puts a HUMAN face on the DMCA.
All I can say, is WOE to Adobe, for imprisoning an innocent man, and even more WOE to the Congress and President who broke their oaths to "protect and defend" The Constitution by enacting the DMCA.
"And I won't even make a snide comment about how I haven't run Red Hat in 2 years!"
I agree, this IS horriblly elitist. Yes, Debian is the most "ideologically pure" Linux distro (which I admire), but it's the HARDEST for any non-expert to get any use out of. As a systems engineer, my job is not to impose ideology, but to impliment the best solution, which in the Linux world is Red Hat.
Red Hat is in my experience the best distro for a server, which is what I use 7.1 for. However, I do use Mandrake on my desktop machine, but then that is what Mandrake is INTENDED for.
The press release was REALLY cool, and the name "Roswell" is way cool. Too bad they didn't save that for the final...
"That would be because giving a talk at a conference explaining how to circumvent E-book encryption is not a criminal offense, and I challenge you to show me where in the U.S. Code it says it is."
The DMCA says it's so. And it's confirmed in the DeCSS case, where "judge" Kaplan even outlawed links to a circumvention device. And SDMI sure thought giving such a speech was illegal under the DMCA, as they sent legal threats to Professor Felten who had broken SDMI, though they, like Adobe, backpedaled publically after getting what they wanted. In fact, Felten's talk that he wanted to give and Sklyarov's were VERY similar in what they were, public demonstrations of the uselessness of a consumer-level copy protected device.
" That's one of the two good reasons why Dmitry isn't a good test case. The other is that as a Russian national, he will most likely be denied bail as a flight risk. No American would be jailed over such a thing. If this were an American, he would have been bailed out the afternoon of the arrest, and if found guilty would have been given a small fine on a first offence."
The fact that we are even able to talk about ARRESTING someone for the "crime" of proving the defect of a corporate product, much less that a "first offense" would get a "small fine" is cause to throw up and weep for what we've become.
"Even if you think Dmitry broke the law and deserves some kind of punishment, jail time, even awaiting trial, is way out of proportion to the "offence"
Dimitry did nothing on US soil to violate any law, and the charges against him are completely misplaced, he's not even the person responsible for any possible US violation of the DMCA, the CEO of his company (who was there and wasn't arrested) is.
He did no wrong, and all those responsible for his incarceration bear the weight of what is being done.
"Unfortunately, the warrant for his arrest came out before he even gave the talk. The warrant was for importation and distribution of (blah blah blah). It seems the company he worked for sold and distributed the product to Americans through an American company."
Doesn't matter, the only reason why there ever was a warrant in the first place was the talk. It was giving the talk that got the fascist bastards Adobe worked up enough to have him arrested under the DMCA. The fact that Dimitry Sklyarov was the target, and not the CEO (who was there at the conference) and other officers at the company is proof positive of that.
Sklyarov was only A programmer who worked on the software, in Russia, under Russian law. He never broke a single American law in American jurisdiction.
The fact that the charges are about anything BUT the talk he gave is proof of what they really are about, and proof of just how vulnerable the DMCA really is to challenge.
BTW, I'm not one who is willing to forgive Adobe just because they now say they won't support the prosecution. They are still SOLELY to blame for this travesty, and the soul of whomever is responsible WILL bear this. It's important to boycott Adobe (I converted every PDF I use to another format and uninstalled every PDF reader on my PC's). I'm not willing to ever buy or recommend buying or USING ANY Adobe product for any reason until they publically apologize, AND start spending $millions on lawyers to defend Sklyarov. Until then they've done NOTHING to make good on what they did, that is even if they DO realize what they did was wrong.
We sysadmins, techs, engineers all are those trusted within our companies for advice on products. We ALL need to actively recommend agaist Adobe. Even a MS solution is preferable, as even they haven't stooped to the level of having someone imprisoned.
I'm sure the Feds have handpicked the judge in question to do this hearing, and it will just be a whitewash hearing to "justify" his incarceration.
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic, but that's the likely truth. They will never let him out on bail because he's a foreign citizen. Remember, the so-called US "justice" system is all about the byzantine SYSTEM, not in meting out justice, else this case would never have MADE it to a court. In fact, the prosecutor should be the one in trouble for even BRINGING this case, and for lying to the court.
The charges are disproven by these facts:
1. Skylarov never wrote, or sold the program in any place where the DMCA is law.
2. Sklyarov never SOLD the program to anyone, he did it as a work for hire for his company. If they used a US company for billing and distribution, that was the actions of the CEO (who was there and wasn't arrested) and others, NOT Sklyarov.
3. Sklyarov never broke any US law on US soil.
They have not charged him with the only thing that he DID do on US soil that was a violation of the DMCA: giving his talk at the conference where he explained how to circumvent E-book encryption. The prosecutors are lying to the court because they will not admit that THIS is the actual basis for the case, yet isn't a charge. It isn't a charge because as a charge it would immediately flunk the 1st Amendment test (statutory law ala DMCA cannot override or abridge Constitutional Law, such as the 1st Amendment free speech guarantee).
"I want to KNOW what internet traffic is coming IN and OUT of my system. ZoneAlarm fulfills that need, for $0, and deserves praise."
Microsoft has a history of creating deliberate incompatibilities for competition, and it's no coincidence that ZoneAlarm and others find their software broken for no good reason in XP. It's happened before and it will happen again, and KEEP happening until developers learn that when they are playing M$'s game, the only winning move is NOT TO PLAY.
In the case of a firewall, or any other kind of security software, I have a LOT more faith in a third party than I do in MS's "security bug a week" laughable record.
I have no doubt that MS's so-called "firewall" in XP with Active Swiss Cheese (tm) technology will prove just as sucessful as their foray into bundling anti-virus software with DOS 6.x (horrible failure).
Bundling a swiss-cheese firewall with the OS is a BAD idea, as it will, like the MS Anti-Virus debacle, it will give a LOT of people a false sense of security, and cause the demise of third party security apps for `Doze (who will cease development because their air supply is cut off). Which will do NOTHING for MS's reputation as the least secure, MOST dangerous OS to let loose on the `net there is.
"No, a "rights model" is not an appropriate framework for IP. What fundamental human right (i.e. life, property, religion, speech, etc.) does this have to do with?
Talking about rights in this context, or so-called "animal rights" or a "patients' bill of rights" cheapens the very foundational concept of rights."
I do agree with your main points here... All too often, lobbyists, such as the trial lawyers who are trying to get what is really a "lawyers enrichment bill of rights" passed but are calling it a "patients bill of rights, completely perverting the term.
However, when it comes to copyright and patents, I do think there IS a rights issue.
Why? Because patent and copyright law more or less is an EXEMPTION given to IP holders to the Bill of Rights.
IE, freedom of the press can't allow you to publish an entire copyrighted work, the Constitution's provision for copyrights grants you a limited duration monopoly, and thus, abridges the 1st and 2nd amendments, which is why, it MUST be Constitutional, not statutory (made by Congress) law. In exchange for a limited duration monopoly (at least, it USED to be limited), there are certain rights of "fair use" that are given, and this right is derived from the Constitution. The intent is to both allow creaive, inventive people to both profit from their creations, AND to allow others to build on those ideas to create better ones. That is really the ONLY interest any government has in even recognizing copyrights and patents, to encourage invention.
Again, because copyrights and patents in some ways abridge the Bill of Rights, is the reason why the framework is actually included in the Constitution, and MUST be Constitutional, rather than statutory law. Which is the main flaw of the DMCA. Also, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act would seem to stretch "limited duration" to 2 seconds less than forever.
"ACtually, in a lot of places, telemarketers are forbidden from cold calling cellphones, as the recipient pays for the call."
But not in all places... I hadnt had my cell phone for a full day before getting one. I've yet to talk to a marketer who didn't think their product was the golden shit either....
Looks like marketers are determined to replace lawyers as the most despised profession in American... It's apparent that there is NO lowball, invasive, offensive tactic beneath them.
Marketers have no qualms about calling you during dinner, calling you on your cell phone, stuffing your e-mail inbox with SPAM, wasting your fax machine paper with ads, etc, etc. This is one reason why I dumped my land-line phone, 90% of the calls I got were marketers. And most marketers will NOT allow you to be polite and get rid of them, they FORCE you to be rude.
On the positive side, my eye-hand coordination has improved drastically since I've been forced to learn how to rapidly close pop-up windows that spawn more pop ups when closed, etc.
I know some will say that such adware is the price you pay for those services (like Kazaa), but I do not think this is an ethical way to support a product. Quit giving away the service and start charging a reasonable fee instead.
The more invasive and offensive marketing becomes, the more rapid the resistance to it will increase...
A reporter, Vanessa Leggett is being held without hearing, in contempt of court, at the FBI's behest, in Texas. The specifics of the charge and even the name of the JUDGE who issued the order is being kept secret, and her attorney was threatened with jail even for speaking out about it.
If we aren't over the line of federal tyrrany already, we are getting damn close.
"These so-called "losses" are themselves fraudulent. First of all, they don't know how much piracy has gone on, they estimate"
They are even more fradulent than that... I wish the SEC would start busting companies for making up loss numbers like that. According to the law, these losses HAVE to be part of a public corporations mandatory reports. And, they never are. Why? because they can't be proven. Either these corps are comitting felonies by submitting fradulent earnings reports, or else they are comitting libel with their public statements. Either way they are breaking the law.
The damages clamed against Kevin Mitnick were these same unsubstantiated "loss" numbers.
" live in the US. The BSA shows up at my door. Why do I have to let them in said door? Why can't I just tell them to piss up a rope? I was under the impression that in the US the only people you have to let inside are police officers with a proper warrent. And if the BullShitters of America show up with cops with a warrent, why can't I just say "cops enter, BSA go screw yourselves?"
Yep. Anyone not a government agent with a warrant you do not have to allow in your door.
"Uau! They don't really give a fig about the Goverment suit. Next you know they will change their mind again and reclaim the desktop as Microsoft-only, and the hell with all."
Yep. It doesn't speak well of them either way... Either they made the change naievely thinking everyone would march in jackboot lines with MSN, or else they never intended to allow anyone (but them) to profit from the desktop.
IMO, them restricting what the OEM does to the desktop seems to me to be a violation of the "first sale" doctrine. But it's just another example of why it benefits both customer and OEM to use a free OS (free as in speech). There is no "iron fist" around your business telling you what you can and cannot do to the PC you are selling.
"I sure wish I could use the same attitude in my dealings with the Goverment."
Don't you wish? Microsoft seems to have "fuck you" money. They have enough to say "fuck you" to anything the feds say or do. Microsoft, as IBM put it, is arrogant. It remains to be seen as to whether the government or the consumer will make them pay for their overbearing arrogance.
Personally, I think XP is going to be the first major setback for M$, as I don't see ANYONE lining up in droves to buy what is essentially a very minor upgrade to Windows 2000, that removes features and freedom from Windows 2000. As a matter of fact, the MORE XP sells, the more enemits MS will make of customers when they run up against the artificial "`Doze has decided not to let you upgrade this" wall.
"But I have to give this a chance. We all bitch and complain about the amount of ads that are on the net. Do you people realize that the net is one of the mediums that have the least amount of advertising? (w/ exception of Top100 sites / hardcore porn, which seem to be all advertising, and exactly the same - but I digress)"
Not anymore. Almost any commerical site anymore starts throwing pop-ups at you as soon as you go there, and chunks even more windows at you when you try to close the window. I'm also highly pissed at the new, obstructive kinds of ads as well, particularly the flash ones. I wish there was more control of the Mozilla flash plugin that'd let you deactivate any flash display. But then, Macromedia is making money right now with marketers using their software. The crap that used to be resricted to pr0n sites now is mainstream.
While a lot of the web is ad free, this is mostly the non-commercial, hobbyist web, which predated the dotcom companies and will still be there when the last dotcom has gone titsup.com.
In many ways, the ad-and popup encrusted commerical sites is an opportuity for the hobbyists to regain control of the web.
" I uninstalled the software but this still didn't solve the problem. So I called the company and they said this is all in the license agreement. Well, I sent their product back and got my refund and used a registry editor to painfully remove all of the X10 brandings and subliminal messages."
Good fucking lord. What COMPLETE assholes! This is an example of what happens when marketers are allowed to run things.
So you can't buy and use their product without agreeing to an EULA that lets them turn your PC into a billboard for them? Do these idiots REALLY think that these kind of fascist marketing techniques work?
I hope not... I was actually thinking about buying a couple of their products, as they DO sell some cool gadgets, but not now. No way.
"There was a "good faith" exception to the Exclusionary Rule that sprang out of a court case in 1983. If the cops belive that they are conducting a legal search (eg, they get a warrant, but the judge inserts a typo and the warrant is for the wrong apt), the evidence is not excluded. It does fit well with the 4th Amendment. "
Something like that I can live with, as the "spirit" of the law was indeed followed (ie, probable cause WAS shown, etc), however, it is still dangerous to allow. The 4th Amendment is very specific that the PERSON and/or PROPERTY to be searched/seized must be enumerated.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the fact that this ruling is completely contrary to the Constitution's exclusion of interstate powers from the states, this is going to be tough to fight.
Judges by and large are VERY egotistical creatures, and they are not very likely to ever, even in a clear cut case, to ever ask the plantiff "why are we here, what gives this court jurisdiction?". This precedent, had it been ruled on properly, would have limited the power of the state judiciary.
The "eevil hacker" talk is only cover.
"Don't try to make this out to be more than it really is. This is just a bunch of co-workers using their own smarts to get around the IT department"
Everywhere I've worked, I've BEEN in the IT department, and we are the first ones to by-pass any blocks/filters for ourselves. After all, we're responsible for maintaining them...
This also as DMCA implications. The DMCA would seem to create an open season on placing bugs in software that monitors browsing, collects information, etc, and "phones home", yet disabling this or even breaking into the code to find out WHAT it's doing would be a DMCA violation.
I guarantee soon monitoring software will be appearing in closed-source programs, like games, etc before long, when the Doubleclicks of the world start spreading the $$$ around. And it'd be nice to have judges who are aware of the implications.
If stupid laws and practices affected judges more often, I think we'd get better outcomes of cases.
It's obvious a lot of this monitoring goes over the line.
Too bad "judge" Kaplan didn't have a kid who downloaded Metallica and was one of the 300,000 kicked off, etc, or liked to buy out of region DVD's.
The more pissed off judges get the better.
The Catholic school I was taught me libertarian values. For instance, the DMCA is invalid because it's immoral. For instance, the persecution of Dimitry Sklyarov is proof positive of that.
I'm not promoting superiority of my religion, only thanking my parents that I was taught that way, instead of in a public school where I'd have learned how to be a good DMCA fearin, obedient sheepizen.
"Hey, I've got $10 right here with Dmitry's name on it. Not for his legal defence, because his detention on political/economic grounds is farcial, but $10 that he can put towards recouping his bail, buying a fake passport (illegal, but, hey, pile it on) and skipping this fucked up excuse for a free country and getting back to momma Russia where he can continue pointing out the folly of criminalising the very act of questioning the right of a few CEO's, major shareholders and their Washington lobbyist bitches to make profit from We, the People."
I'd contribute too. I wish (for the first time) I lived in CA instead of NC... I'd drive him across the border in my beat up old `93 Escort.
"Gawd damn but this makes me sick."
Me too. Which is why I'd LOVE to see him leave for Russia, if for no other reason than to say FUCK YOU to the DMCA and it's pupetters in the DOJ.
" Big deal. Take a greyhound down to San Diego, take the trolley to the border, walk over to Tijuana, go to the next Russian consulate, get yourself a temporary passport and fly home."
I'd not blame him for doing this. In fact, I'd HELP him do it. After all, the USA is breaking it's own law (Constitution), and certainly moral law by even prosecuting him. However, I don't think there is much chance that Adobe will prevail, even WITH the flawed DMCA on their side, in a trial, that is, unless the "judge" is one Lewis Kaplan, who authored the modern equivalent of the "Dred Scott Decision" with his indefensible ruling in favor of the MPAA.
You make EXCELLENT points. Whether it's the law or not, holding Sklyarov is an extremely IMMORAL act. And, as I've said before, my teachers at my Catholic School taught me that an immoral or unjust law is NO LAW AT ALL.
It's unfortunate that more people aren't educated by Jesuits, who teach you to THINK.
The fact that he, as a foreign national, and a HUGE flight risk, was released on bail at all, is an excellent sign that the court sees the chances of Adobe prevailing as slim. I see NO reason why he'd have been allowed to post bail otherwise.
Thank GOD that he's free. Not that he IS free, he's in the USA, particularly California. The Sklyarov case, I'm sad to say, makes me ashamed of my country. He puts a HUMAN face on the DMCA.
All I can say, is WOE to Adobe, for imprisoning an innocent man, and even more WOE to the Congress and President who broke their oaths to "protect and defend" The Constitution by enacting the DMCA.
"And I won't even make a snide comment about how I haven't run Red Hat in 2 years!"
I agree, this IS horriblly elitist. Yes, Debian is the most "ideologically pure" Linux distro (which I admire), but it's the HARDEST for any non-expert to get any use out of. As a systems engineer, my job is not to impose ideology, but to impliment the best solution, which in the Linux world is Red Hat.
Red Hat is in my experience the best distro for a server, which is what I use 7.1 for. However, I do use Mandrake on my desktop machine, but then that is what Mandrake is INTENDED for.
The press release was REALLY cool, and the name "Roswell" is way cool. Too bad they didn't save that for the final...
"That would be because giving a talk at a conference explaining how to circumvent E-book encryption is not a criminal offense, and I challenge you to show me where in the U.S. Code it says it is."
The DMCA says it's so. And it's confirmed in the DeCSS case, where "judge" Kaplan even outlawed links to a circumvention device. And SDMI sure thought giving such a speech was illegal under the DMCA, as they sent legal threats to Professor Felten who had broken SDMI, though they, like Adobe, backpedaled publically after getting what they wanted. In fact, Felten's talk that he wanted to give and Sklyarov's were VERY similar in what they were, public demonstrations of the uselessness of a consumer-level copy protected device.
" That's one of the two good reasons why Dmitry isn't a good test case. The other is that as a Russian national, he will most likely be denied bail as a flight risk. No American would be jailed over such a thing. If this were an American, he would have been bailed out the afternoon of the arrest, and if found guilty would have been given a small fine on a first offence."
The fact that we are even able to talk about ARRESTING someone for the "crime" of proving the defect of a corporate product, much less that a "first offense" would get a "small fine" is cause to throw up and weep for what we've become.
"Even if you think Dmitry broke the law and deserves some kind of punishment, jail time, even awaiting trial, is way out of proportion to the "offence"
Dimitry did nothing on US soil to violate any law, and the charges against him are completely misplaced, he's not even the person responsible for any possible US violation of the DMCA, the CEO of his company (who was there and wasn't arrested) is.
He did no wrong, and all those responsible for his incarceration bear the weight of what is being done.
"Unfortunately, the warrant for his arrest came out before he even gave the talk. The warrant was for importation and distribution of (blah blah blah). It seems the company he worked for sold and distributed the product to Americans through an American company."
Doesn't matter, the only reason why there ever was a warrant in the first place was the talk. It was giving the talk that got the fascist bastards Adobe worked up enough to have him arrested under the DMCA. The fact that Dimitry Sklyarov was the target, and not the CEO (who was there at the conference) and other officers at the company is proof positive of that.
Sklyarov was only A programmer who worked on the software, in Russia, under Russian law. He never broke a single American law in American jurisdiction.
The fact that the charges are about anything BUT the talk he gave is proof of what they really are about, and proof of just how vulnerable the DMCA really is to challenge.
BTW, I'm not one who is willing to forgive Adobe just because they now say they won't support the prosecution. They are still SOLELY to blame for this travesty, and the soul of whomever is responsible WILL bear this. It's important to boycott Adobe (I converted every PDF I use to another format and uninstalled every PDF reader on my PC's). I'm not willing to ever buy or recommend buying or USING ANY Adobe product for any reason until they publically apologize, AND start spending $millions on lawyers to defend Sklyarov. Until then they've done NOTHING to make good on what they did, that is even if they DO realize what they did was wrong.
We sysadmins, techs, engineers all are those trusted within our companies for advice on products. We ALL need to actively recommend agaist Adobe. Even a MS solution is preferable, as even they haven't stooped to the level of having someone imprisoned.
I'm sure the Feds have handpicked the judge in question to do this hearing, and it will just be a whitewash hearing to "justify" his incarceration.
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic, but that's the likely truth. They will never let him out on bail because he's a foreign citizen. Remember, the so-called US "justice" system is all about the byzantine SYSTEM, not in meting out justice, else this case would never have MADE it to a court. In fact, the prosecutor should be the one in trouble for even BRINGING this case, and for lying to the court.
The charges are disproven by these facts:
1. Skylarov never wrote, or sold the program in any place where the DMCA is law.
2. Sklyarov never SOLD the program to anyone, he did it as a work for hire for his company. If they used a US company for billing and distribution, that was the actions of the CEO (who was there and wasn't arrested) and others, NOT Sklyarov.
3. Sklyarov never broke any US law on US soil.
They have not charged him with the only thing that he DID do on US soil that was a violation of the DMCA: giving his talk at the conference where he explained how to circumvent E-book encryption. The prosecutors are lying to the court because they will not admit that THIS is the actual basis for the case, yet isn't a charge. It isn't a charge because as a charge it would immediately flunk the 1st Amendment test (statutory law ala DMCA cannot override or abridge Constitutional Law, such as the 1st Amendment free speech guarantee).
"I want to KNOW what internet traffic is coming IN and OUT of my system. ZoneAlarm fulfills that need, for $0, and deserves praise."
Microsoft has a history of creating deliberate incompatibilities for competition, and it's no coincidence that ZoneAlarm and others find their software broken for no good reason in XP. It's happened before and it will happen again, and KEEP happening until developers learn that when they are playing M$'s game, the only winning move is NOT TO PLAY.
In the case of a firewall, or any other kind of security software, I have a LOT more faith in a third party than I do in MS's "security bug a week" laughable record.
I have no doubt that MS's so-called "firewall" in XP with Active Swiss Cheese (tm) technology will prove just as sucessful as their foray into bundling anti-virus software with DOS 6.x (horrible failure).
Bundling a swiss-cheese firewall with the OS is a BAD idea, as it will, like the MS Anti-Virus debacle, it will give a LOT of people a false sense of security, and cause the demise of third party security apps for `Doze (who will cease development because their air supply is cut off). Which will do NOTHING for MS's reputation as the least secure, MOST dangerous OS to let loose on the `net there is.
Aim down, FIRE, where did my foot go today?
"No, a "rights model" is not an appropriate framework for IP. What fundamental human right (i.e. life, property, religion, speech, etc.) does this have to do with?
Talking about rights in this context, or so-called "animal rights" or a "patients' bill of rights" cheapens the very foundational concept of rights."
I do agree with your main points here... All too often, lobbyists, such as the trial lawyers who are trying to get what is really a "lawyers enrichment bill of rights" passed but are calling it a "patients bill of rights, completely perverting the term.
However, when it comes to copyright and patents, I do think there IS a rights issue.
Why? Because patent and copyright law more or less is an EXEMPTION given to IP holders to the Bill of Rights.
IE, freedom of the press can't allow you to publish an entire copyrighted work, the Constitution's provision for copyrights grants you a limited duration monopoly, and thus, abridges the 1st and 2nd amendments, which is why, it MUST be Constitutional, not statutory (made by Congress) law. In exchange for a limited duration monopoly (at least, it USED to be limited), there are certain rights of "fair use" that are given, and this right is derived from the Constitution. The intent is to both allow creaive, inventive people to both profit from their creations, AND to allow others to build on those ideas to create better ones. That is really the ONLY interest any government has in even recognizing copyrights and patents, to encourage invention.
Again, because copyrights and patents in some ways abridge the Bill of Rights, is the reason why the framework is actually included in the Constitution, and MUST be Constitutional, rather than statutory law. Which is the main flaw of the DMCA. Also, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act would seem to stretch "limited duration" to 2 seconds less than forever.
"ACtually, in a lot of places, telemarketers are forbidden from cold calling cellphones, as the recipient pays for the call."
But not in all places... I hadnt had my cell phone for a full day before getting one. I've yet to talk to a marketer who didn't think their product was the golden shit either....
Looks like marketers are determined to replace lawyers as the most despised profession in American... It's apparent that there is NO lowball, invasive, offensive tactic beneath them.
Marketers have no qualms about calling you during dinner, calling you on your cell phone, stuffing your e-mail inbox with SPAM, wasting your fax machine paper with ads, etc, etc. This is one reason why I dumped my land-line phone, 90% of the calls I got were marketers. And most marketers will NOT allow you to be polite and get rid of them, they FORCE you to be rude.
On the positive side, my eye-hand coordination has improved drastically since I've been forced to learn how to rapidly close pop-up windows that spawn more pop ups when closed, etc.
I know some will say that such adware is the price you pay for those services (like Kazaa), but I do not think this is an ethical way to support a product. Quit giving away the service and start charging a reasonable fee instead.
The more invasive and offensive marketing becomes, the more rapid the resistance to it will increase...
Actually, for no good reason (other than that M$ wanted to force upgrades), Office XP will NOT run on `95, only 98, ME, 2000/NT, and XP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/2001 0730/aponline173608_000.htm
A reporter, Vanessa Leggett is being held without hearing, in contempt of court, at the FBI's behest, in Texas. The specifics of the charge and even the name of the JUDGE who issued the order is being kept secret, and her attorney was threatened with jail even for speaking out about it.
If we aren't over the line of federal tyrrany already, we are getting damn close.
"These so-called "losses" are themselves fraudulent. First of all, they don't know how much piracy has gone on, they estimate"
They are even more fradulent than that... I wish the SEC would start busting companies for making up loss numbers like that. According to the law, these losses HAVE to be part of a public corporations mandatory reports. And, they never are. Why? because they can't be proven. Either these corps are comitting felonies by submitting fradulent earnings reports, or else they are comitting libel with their public statements. Either way they are breaking the law.
The damages clamed against Kevin Mitnick were these same unsubstantiated "loss" numbers.
" live in the US. The BSA shows up at my door. Why do I have to let them in said door? Why can't I just tell them to piss up a rope? I was under the impression that in the US the only people you have to let inside are police officers with a proper warrent. And if the BullShitters of America show up with cops with a warrent, why can't I just say "cops enter, BSA go screw yourselves?"
Yep. Anyone not a government agent with a warrant you do not have to allow in your door.
"Uau! They don't really give a fig about the Goverment suit. Next you know they will change their mind again and reclaim the desktop as Microsoft-only, and the hell with all."
Yep. It doesn't speak well of them either way... Either they made the change naievely thinking everyone would march in jackboot lines with MSN, or else they never intended to allow anyone (but them) to profit from the desktop.
IMO, them restricting what the OEM does to the desktop seems to me to be a violation of the "first sale" doctrine. But it's just another example of why it benefits both customer and OEM to use a free OS (free as in speech). There is no "iron fist" around your business telling you what you can and cannot do to the PC you are selling.
"I sure wish I could use the same attitude in my dealings with the Goverment."
Don't you wish? Microsoft seems to have "fuck you" money. They have enough to say "fuck you" to anything the feds say or do. Microsoft, as IBM put it, is arrogant. It remains to be seen as to whether the government or the consumer will make them pay for their overbearing arrogance.
Personally, I think XP is going to be the first major setback for M$, as I don't see ANYONE lining up in droves to buy what is essentially a very minor upgrade to Windows 2000, that removes features and freedom from Windows 2000. As a matter of fact, the MORE XP sells, the more enemits MS will make of customers when they run up against the artificial "`Doze has decided not to let you upgrade this" wall.
"But I have to give this a chance. We all bitch and complain about the amount of ads that are on the net. Do you people realize that the net is one of the mediums that have the least amount of advertising? (w/ exception of Top100 sites / hardcore porn, which seem to be all advertising, and exactly the same - but I digress)"
Not anymore. Almost any commerical site anymore starts throwing pop-ups at you as soon as you go there, and chunks even more windows at you when you try to close the window. I'm also highly pissed at the new, obstructive kinds of ads as well, particularly the flash ones. I wish there was more control of the Mozilla flash plugin that'd let you deactivate any flash display. But then, Macromedia is making money right now with marketers using their software. The crap that used to be resricted to pr0n sites now is mainstream.
While a lot of the web is ad free, this is mostly the non-commercial, hobbyist web, which predated the dotcom companies and will still be there when the last dotcom has gone titsup.com.
In many ways, the ad-and popup encrusted commerical sites is an opportuity for the hobbyists to regain control of the web.
" I uninstalled the software but this still didn't solve the problem. So I called the company and they said this is all in the license agreement. Well, I sent their product back and got my refund and used a registry editor to painfully remove all of the X10 brandings and subliminal messages."
Good fucking lord. What COMPLETE assholes! This is an example of what happens when marketers are allowed to run things.
So you can't buy and use their product without agreeing to an EULA that lets them turn your PC into a billboard for them? Do these idiots REALLY think that these kind of fascist marketing techniques work?
I hope not... I was actually thinking about buying a couple of their products, as they DO sell some cool gadgets, but not now. No way.
"There was a "good faith" exception to the Exclusionary Rule that sprang out of a court case in 1983. If the cops belive that they are conducting a legal search (eg, they get a warrant, but the judge inserts a typo and the warrant is for the wrong apt), the evidence is not excluded. It does fit well with the 4th Amendment. "
Something like that I can live with, as the "spirit" of the law was indeed followed (ie, probable cause WAS shown, etc), however, it is still dangerous to allow. The 4th Amendment is very specific that the PERSON and/or PROPERTY to be searched/seized must be enumerated.